Three parts so far.

 

Still not a "musclecar"

 

Don’t cut the original battery cables to accommodate a wrong battery!

 

Love the bumper sticker, my girlfriend in college taught Jazzercise!

 

I get a kick out of people that call a Cutlass a muscle car.

 

I think any old car thats not 4 doors or a boat is generally refered to as a muscle car by most ofthe population!

thats fine w me!

several years ago i took my cutlass to work. The topic of conversation turned to my car, a co worker questioned which one was mine, i described it as a musclecar! Later on after viewing said musclecar, she commented thats not a musclecar! Dang ive been found out ithought, but then she continued on “its baby blue”!!! Technically its nordic blue....but the point is the color determines wether its a muscle car or not!

 

Who really cares if it or is not a muscle car. In the end, it was an enjoyable series to watch, the grassroots level of getting an elderly car to run, with no fancy dream car garage available. Some folks need to use what is at their disposal, and it is another Oldsmobile back in the sunlight. What does make it great no matter what the title was, it was an Oldsmobile! You should see Vice Grip Garage's latest one on getting a very derelict Fiero running!

 

My Cutlass is definitely a Muscle Car

 

A 1972 Cutlass with a 160 HP net 2bbl 350 or 180 HP 4bbl motor and 2.73 open rear is not a musclecar.

 

I dont disagree with you, but there are Cutlii that came with 455/T400 from the factory

 

The whole point is that Gen X seems to think that every American car with a V8 built from 1964-1972 is a "musclecar", then proceeds to point out how any new Civic can blow it away. Real musclecars are a very small subset of that population.

 

Who cares if someone called it a muscle car? The fact that the younger generation shows interest in old cutlasses is great. I’m not going to **** in his wheaties.

 

Exactly. Who cares if it is a muscle car or not? Here is a link to some interesting reading about muscle cars. Lots of contradictions in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

 

Sure, everyone gets a participation trophy.

 

News flash: not everything on the web is true. Do you even know who wrote that Wiki entry? Is there any reason why someone should believe it? Go through his footnotes - most of his "proof" comes from other websites.
A lie told twice is corroborated.

 

Totally missed my point , but whatever.

 

Who really gives a rat's *** Joe. I never said it was true and just posted it for the hell of it. But being your usual self you go out of your way to try and insult other people on here.

 

A 442 with bench seats, column shift, drum brakes, and a 2.78 open rear is a "real muscle car" and a Cutlass with buckets, console, front discs, a transplanted 455, and 3.90 posi rear is not a muscle car, but would kick the 442's butt. So what about that muscle car is so desirable compared to the Cutlass? Status symbol?

 

I was going the other way. A 1972 442 with a VIN H 350 2bbl single exhaust motor isn't a musclecar either.

 

I wouldn’t consider a 72 chevelle SS 350 with 175 hp a muscle car either , but a lot of people would just because of the badging.

 

But if the lie is told four times it becomes truth. A modified family car with a transplanted engine is not a muscle car, its a hot rod.

 

I think the issue at hand is the new generations does not understand that the muscle cars were souped up intermediates, not all the intermediates, and then they talk trash to the base model.

 

I don't think anybody will ever fine a real definition of a muscle car. However there are lots of opinions as to what they are. Some people claim the 49 Olds 88 was the first muscle car. I hardly believe that. For me the first one was the 64 GTO but that is just my opinion. Here is Webster's definition.

Definition of muscle car

: any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving

Pretty vague. What about the convertibles, 4 door 442's and 4 door Hemi's? This debate will go on forever and never be solved.

 

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/art...5-cutlass-w-31

i would think this Cutlass qualifies as a muscle car.

 

Focus, people. The issue isn't the nameplate, the issue is power to weight. NO car with 180 HP and 3700 lb curb weight is a musclecar.

 

Muscle is defined as the contractile tissue of the body and is derived from the mesodermal layer of embryonic germ cells. It’s function is to produce force and cause motion, either locomotion or movement within internal organs. How does this fit in with the automobile? How about if we just use the term “Very Fast Car”

 

Enjoyable article, albeit from popular mechanics, not necessarily a recognized authority in muscle car automotive circles. Certainly superficial but still a worthy read.

Many of our favorite cars may look like muscle cars, but power to weight ratio makes the difference.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/car...n-muscle-cars/

 

I call mine a Gentleman's Hot Rod.
Its classy, Sounds close to a 442, It may be a single peeler but it goes fast and make me feel young again and don't care what anyone else thinks.
I brought back my High School Sweetheart. After driving mine for a day, it takes two days to get the smile off of my face.
This is why we do this!

Muscle cars to me start at 300Hp

 

I'd argue that the more important metric is about 10 lb/HP.

 

Fixed it for you, Joe.

*sorry, I couldn't resist*

 

 

You seem to always beat me to it.

 

Yes power to weight ratio is the defining factor.... So is a go-cart a Muscle Cart ...Just being a Smart ***

Bottom line is that another olds beats the crusher.

 

Anybody else laugh their *** off at that video?

 

Absolutely, best laugh I’ve had all week, classic MPFC. Great timing Joe

 

Yep, I laughed all the way through it. Wasn't ever a big fan of Monty Python, but that was really good.