Dan Wirth

Anyone know which car was considered the first "Muscle Car"?

Affinity

Pontiac GTO

HolidayCoupe

1964 GTO is the grand daddy

OLDSRALLYE350

Early muscle


1949 Rocket 88 engine


Opinions on the origin of the muscle car vary, but the 1949 Oldsmobile Rocket 88, created in response to public interest in speed and power, is often cited as the first of the breed. It featured an innovative and powerful new engine—America's first high- compression overhead valve V-8—in the lighter Oldsmobile body.
Musclecars magazine wrote: "[t]he idea of putting a full-size V8 under the hood of an intermediate body and making it run like Jesse Owens in Berlin belongs to none other than Oldsmobile... [The] all-new ohv V8...Rocket engine quickly found its way into the lighter 76 series body, and in February 1949, the new 88 series was born."
The article continued: "Walt Woron of Motor Trend enjoyed the 'quick-flowing power...that pins you to your seat and keeps you there until you release your foot from the throttle [...] Olds dominated the performance landscape in 1950, including wins in the NASCAR Grand National division, Daytona Speed Weeks, and the 2100-plus-mile Carrera Panamericana. In France, an 88 won a production car race at Spa-Francorchamps... A husky V8 in a cleanly styled, lightweight coupe body, the original musclecar truly was the '49 Olds 88."

Hudson Hornet: Rocket 88's only competitor


Jack Nerad wrote in Driving Today: "the Rocket V-8 set the standard for every American V-8 engine that would follow it for at least three decades [...] With a displacement of 303 cubic inches and topped by a two-barrel carburetor, the first Rocket V-8 churned out 135 horsepower (101 kW) at 3,600 rpm and 263 pound-feet of torque at a lazy 1800 rpm [and] no mid-range car in the world, save the Hudson Hornet, came close to the Rocket Olds performance potential..."
Nerad added that the Rocket 88 was "the hit of NASCAR’s 1950 season, winning eight of the 10 races. Given its lightning-like success, one could clearly make the case that the Olds 88 with its 135 horsepower (101 kW) V-8 was the first 'musclecar'..."

1. ^ Nerad, Jack. "Oldsmobile Rocket 88", Driving Today.
2. ^ Dulcich, Steve: "Rocket Man" article in Popular Hot Rodding. Retrieved on June 07, 2008.

rocketraider

You punks need to learn your Oldsmobile history.

It was the 1949 Oldsmobile Rocket 88. GTO was actually late to the game of stuffing the hottest engine into the light/midsize body. Even AMC/Rambler beat them to it in 1957.

Some hardcore Buick guys insist it was actually the 1936 Buick Century, but it was the big-body Buick. It could easily break 100 mph hence its name, but wasn't as quick as the Olds, Pontiac or Rambler.

But, none of these cars had the advertising and marketing push the GTO did, nor did they hit the market at an opportune time like the Goat did. I mean, there was even GTO cologne. The Rocket came close, but GTO established the musclecar market.

And I used to love GTO's until the ****-retentive investor types took them over. The vast majority of "musclecar" people now do not have a clue what those cars were really about. They'd have a coronary if someone burned the tires till they popped like so often happened in the true musclecar days.

Bluevista

x3 for The Legend, the Humbler, The Great One, The Tiger, huzzahs for the GTO!
Same old argument, I would give credit where credit is due rocketraider, at least it's not a furd.

I love my GTO and I've had a few.
And I'm not an **** retentive investor type by any means.
I would say most of the GTO guys I know couldn't afford to buy their own cars now unless they sold them to get the money, including me.

I can't help if it's nearly quadrupled in value since I bought it, and I didn't buy it new.

agtw31

you could also say the 55-57 Chrysler 300's were musclecars,but they aren't

when talking musclecars,you are talking red light to red light acceleration,not to whatever top speed.
if youre talking about the studebakers,they were hot cars back then,but i dont think the concept was there that the GTO started.

but,at the pure stock drags,they will take any car from 1955 to 1974,and those supercharged Larks haul ***.

BOOWAH

Here it is!

http://blog.cardomain.com/2009/02/13...rambler-rebel/

Read it and weep! My first car was a 59 Rambler Ambassador with the same setup...327 with a huge Holley 4 Barrel. Had the speedo pegged at 120 out on the highway until the brushes ripped out of the generator! I'm now an Oldsmobile man but little American Motors was the first!

380 Racer

Sorry guys, but I grew up in the 60s and being a car freak from the word go........I never even heard of most of those cars. The GTO was the grand daddy of Muscle cars.......period!! Big cube......high Horse power. medium size body with a cheap price tag. All were sucking hind tit to the "Goat". Plain and simple .

mugzilla

Big block in a stiff light 3000 lb. body = early 60's mopars ...

The GTO could be "Well" optioned and had good marketing ...

daves62

It seams like its a matter of perception.What is your opinion of a muscle car as opposed to a pony car. Mine would be a high hp/trq motor in a light(for the time ) body,IMHO after saying that its all just a matter of opinion. what do you consider light and what was high HP/trq in the fifty's wasn't that impressive in the sixty's and was huge in the 80's/90s so there is no true answer to this ? just opinions

MN71W30

How about a real fine 409? Or a 421 Catalina?

380 Racer

They went in tanks.

Dan Wirth

So is it correct for me to assume that a muscle car is one that has a mid-size lighter body with a big block V8 and lots of horses? And if this is true, then would the older cars, say from the late 40's or 50's really qualify??

grandma'sH/O

Those are my two picks also. The 1962 Catalina Super Duty is the definition of what a muscle car is...

rcorrigan5

I'd say the term "muscle car" belongs to the smaller cars with performance engines. One might say that muscle cars came with big block engines, but that wasn't true in the beginning. Only the GTO came with the big block from its beginning in '64; Chevy's Chevelle SS, the Olds 4-4-2, and the Buick Gran-Sport all came with high performance small blocks in '64 - the latter bunch didn't catch up with the big blocks until their '65 models came out. A great book to read is "Glory Days", written by Jim Wangers, who many say started the muscle car image with Pontiac, Pontiac performance upgrades, and eventually the GTO in 1964. He was largely responsible for promoting and marketing the GTO, alongside a host of other big names (John DeLorean for one) at Pontiac at that time. I got to meet Mr. Wangers in person last June and, if you are partial to GM products, he's a great guy to listen to. He's got some stories that will just make you smile! Great book, even for us Oldsmobile people! Randy C.

MN71W30

I think the idea was out there long before the 64 GTO made it's mark in history, it's just that they capitalized on it, and defined it. A 62 SS impala is no tank. It probably weighs the same as a 68 Cutlass. My Dad went to the Oldsmobile dealership in 1961 and as he has told me the story over the years, he said he wanted a 2dr hardtop 88 with the 98 engine and ordered a 3 speed stick. He said it was very easy and much cheaper for the engine upgrade at the Olds dealership than at the Chevy dealership.

wmachine

I thought at first you were just stirring the pot here Dan. but I guess you're serious.
Back to your first question first:
In order to even begin to answer that question, the term "musclecar" needs to be defined. And as it should be coming to light, there is *no* universal/accepted/etc. definition of what a musclecar is, just *lots* of opinions. Everybody has their idea of what it is, there there is no defined criteria. A bunch of generalities, and no specifics.
What is a "high performance car"? Same basic situation. A general question with no specific answer. "considered to be" by who?
Personally, I'm just amused by all of the "classification" stuff. The cars are what they are and terms like "musclecar" and what people think they are doesn't change a thing.

72 cutlass455

Where are the early chrysler 300 and the early hemi powered MOPAR's. Competition to build the fastest lightest cars drove the muscle car era. Muscle cars were originaly mid size cars with big block engines. Mustangs, Camero's, Cuda's, and especialy Corvettes are not muscle cars no matter how large a engine they have. The muscle car age was created by Pontiac but was already there they just tagged a name to it.

rcorrigan5

I believe 72Cutlass455 hit the nail on the head. There are lots of cars out there (pre-64) that would definitely be considered muscle cars now but I don't ever recall hearing the term "muscle car" until the advent of the GTO. As well, 1964 was the first year you could get a big block engine in an intermediate size car. However, having said that, there are some amazingly interesting bigger cars out there (pre-64) of which it is hard to believe they built 'em that way - big blocks, multiple carburetors, high compression ratios, manual transmissions, bucket seats, consoles, gauges, performance rear ends, and so forth - but they did and they are neat, very collectible, and very worthy!

mugzilla

61 to 63 Polaras weighed in at 3500 lbs with a V8 ...

I always liked the cross ram manifolds ...

jaunty75

This is the "correct" answer if there is one. Cars like the '49 Olds and hemi Chryslers and Ramblers from the 50s don't count because they were large cars with powerful engines. The concept of putting a powerful engine in a smaller car is what defines a muscle car. Pontiac did it first, and John DeLorean, who was the chief engineer of Pontiac at the time and who thought up the idea of putting a large engine in a Pontiac Tempest, gets the credit. Like the 442, the first GTO was an option package on the Tempest, not its own model line.

wmachine

It still looks pretty much like I said, the only definitions I can find are opinions.
If the only answers are opinions, then all the answers are all "correct". Or all not.
I would still challenge anyone to come up with the true origin of the term "musclecar".

joe_padavano

There is no "legal" definition of muscle car. In the 1960s, the big-engine-in-the-midsize- body GTO was considered the first muscle car. It has only been later that others have tried to claim that the 49 Olds 88 or some of the other full size cars were muscle cars. Sorry, but anythign that turns 16 sec or worse in the quarter is NOT a muscle car.

jaunty75

Another question to ask might be, when did the term "muscle car" first come into common use? Was it in the '60s with the GTO and others? That would be my guess.

Looking back, we call it the "muscle car era." Was it called that when we were in the midst of it?

WhatIf

The term "muscle car" was first used in 1966 by a magazine writer to describe the GTO. The term wasn't necessarily meant for the GTO, it was to define the whole genre of high performance cars that had invaded the roads of America. The GTO option was the first to include all high performance options in one package. Checking that box on the order form meant you got the big 389, hd cooling, hd suspension, hd battery, dual exhaust, bucket seats, special badging, 3-speed manual trans with a floor mounted Hurst shifter, etc. Of course you could add a tri-power, 4-speed, and other things on top of that, but the base GTO was a total performance car. You didn't need to have a salesmen tell you what to order, and you didn't need to understand that you needed hd cooling for a 389, or a hd battery, or know to order bucket seats instead of a bench seat, or that you had to have dual exhaust for a big 389....it was all included in one option.

So yes, the 1964 GTO was the first to be called a "Musclecar", and it started the era. Some will argue that other cars were faster, or that the concept of "big engine small car" came earlier, but it's accepted that the 1964 GTO started it all.

1964f-85

I would say 1964 GTO.
1st modern performance car, 1st mass produced performance car, emulated by all other car manufactures for the next 10 years.

FYI all 1964 GM intermediates, including the GTO came with small blocks. Pontiac only has one size engine and the 389 is the same as the 326.

mugzilla

I must confess that I used to think of myself as Mr.GTO ...

So I will vote GTO ...

But I am very happy with my 442 ...

GTOs did not come with rear swaybars , so as it is THE muscle car, we can conclude that straight line performance is more important than cornering ...

WhatIf

Very true! The GTO did not have a sway bar until 1970. It was John DeLorean that did not believe in rear sway bars. He thought they would affect the ride.

wolfman98

1963 Ford galaxie convertible 500XL equipped with a 427 high performance dual carb 425 hsp 4 speed manual floor shift. The GTO I think was refered to as the first muscle car because of production #s and I guess they had to start somewhere though did they not have 12 cylinder monsters back on the 30's that would do 120 plus? probably not fast in the 1/4 though but pretty cool cars that movie stars used to drive. can't remember if they were American built cars.Leno probably has one

jaunty75

You're missing the main argument here. A "muscle car" was a MID-SIZED car into which a powerful engine from a larger car was inserted. The Ford Galaxie was a full-size car. If that's the definition, then you can go back to the '49 Olds and the first Rocket engine or even before that as the first muscle car, as others have pointed out.

wmachine

Good question.

Okay, what magazine writer and where exactly was it used?

That's *your* point at this time. Granted, the *most* agreed upon example of what hasn't be tractably defined is the '64 GTO.
I'd like to get to as definitive an answer as possible without any interjection of opinion. Maybe that's not possible. What is the origin of the term? Since the term is *far* from self explanatory, and the perceived definitions vary so much, it would seem to me that wherever the term was first used can lay claim to having the "right" definition.
It may just be one of those terms that just doesn't have an exact definition. So why try to nail it down?
To this point, I have only heard answers to the question "What do you think is a 'Musclcar'".

jaunty75

So we can have a little fun having a debate. I think everyone recognizes that there will likely never be an exact answer, but that doesn't mean that we can't have some fun batting it around.


A muscle car is a smaller car with a large-car engine in it. Period. Who exactly did this first might be open to debate, but sometimes it's not the person who did something first who gets all the credit, but rather it's the person who popularized it. Pontiac has generally gotten the credit because they're the ones that came out with the GTO in 1964 and got the "muscle car" or whatever one might want to call it race started. Olds jumped in mid-way through the model year by hopping up a Cutlass with a 4-barrel carb, a 4-speed, and dual exhaust. But there was no engine change.

By this rather strict definition, then, the first 442 was not a muscle car because the 330 was the standard V-8 engine for the '64 Cutlass, and that was the engine you got in a '64 442 as well.

I don't know that it became a muscle car when the 400 was available in the Cutlass, either, because, while that's a big-block engine, it wasn't the standard engine for a larger car that was taken and shoved into the Cutlass. Beginning in '65, the standard large-car engine was the 425 (I believe?), and then it became the 455 in, I think, '68 or '69. I don't know my full history on when the various engines were available in what, but I would argue that the 442 became a muscle car by this definition the first year you could get a 455 in it.

As I vaguely recall some history on this, one battle that the various GM divisions fought with upper management was a strict rule that no less-than-full-size car could have an engine larger than 400 cubic inches in it. It wasn't until well into the muscle car "era" that management finally relented and allowed the bigger engines in, and the you could finally order a 442 with a 455.

wolfman98

I guess you are right cause the galaxie was 400 lbs. heavier and 6 inches longer. Plus the wheelbase was 119 for the ford and 115 for the goat.
So how much over did the galaxie exceed the MID SIZE car by?

wmachine

There was no "period' to it for Oldsmobile. Olds made handling a priority for their "musclecars". FWIW, the term "supercars" was also used, obviously to a much lesser degree.
I think in all reality that "musclecar" is not, and was not a term, but rather a concept. And the concept is certainly open to interpretation. The concept was affordable factory performance. Not *just* big engines in small cars, and sometimes not even either! Silly not to consider a W31 a "musclecar".

jaunty75

You're missing the forest for the trees, too, here. It's not the specific dimensions that mattered, it's the way the cars were classified back in the day. The Galaxie was a "full-sized" Ford. Doesn't matter how big it actually was.

I don't have the exact dimensions in front of me, but how big was the '61 Olds 98 compared to the '67 98? Both were "full-sized" Oldsmobiles. I'll bet the '67 Cutlass was larger than the '61 98. But the 98 is "full-size", regardless of how small it actually was, and the Cutlass was always an "intermediate," or, as the class it's in at car shows is often labeled, "other than full-size," regardless of how large it actually was.

jaunty75

I couldn't agree more. I think the notion of "muscle car" quickly changed from the idea of a large-car engine in a small car to simply being a small-ish but powerful car to perhaps just a powerful car. I doubt anybody now wouldn't consider the '64 442 a muscle car. I doubt anybody back in late 1964 didn't consider the 442 a muscle car.

wmachine

I don't think he's missing the point at all. The reason for the musclecar was to "go fast", not to be categorically defined 40 years later. Quickness depended on weight. A "full size" and "midsize" that weigh the same (and equipped the same) are equally fast. And that situation was not as far fetched as it may seem. As the horsepower increased through the '60s, so did the weights.

bpwordman

I enjoy this type of thread, as long as it stays pleasant and respectful. This topic obviously means a lot to most of us. Musclecar is one of those terms, like 'antique' and 'classic', that is woefully overused. Some (I'm sure not all) of the working points of what makes a musclecar a musclecar are: 1)The largest engine in the lightest body; 2) Performance greater than the norm; 3) A styling package, either subdued or outrageous, that marks the vehicle as different; 4) Marketing tie-ins (NHRA, advertising, aftermarket promotions) that catch the public imagination. I believe that the term gained prominence during the 1960's, which gives substantial credence to the GTO's claim to the title. But ,food for thought, consider all these 'firsts': A) 1932 Ford V8- Clyde Barrow (Bonnie and Clyde) voted for this one- V8 power in a small, light, inexpensive car; B)The aformentioned 1936 Buick Century- a special series that laid the groundwork- lightest chassis, largest motor; C) Our beloved 1949 88- a car that, initially wasn't even supposed to happen- again a full model line with lightest chassis/biggest motor; D) 1955 Chrysler 300- now we're starting to narrow the focus- a single specialty model, lightest chassis in the line/ motor hopped up beyond highline specs, especially trimmed to set it apart from the rest of the marque (a nod here to the 1957 Rambler Rebel and many others about this same time); E) 1964 GTO- already well described in this thread- same formula, appearing at just the right time, with the added plus of lower cost to the customer. All special in there own right, but- the first musclecar?

stlbluesbrother

I think the 1964 VW Bug was the 1st muscle car