1970 Hemi ’Cuda Vs. 1970 Chevelle SS454

What do you think? Clash of the Titans?

Is this for any particular endevour? Like a 1/4 mile race? Or is this just about which one we prefer?

What's the difference? Honestly.

^ yea theyre both just big cars with big engines, look basically the same. not much diffrence between the two. im not sure which one is faster.

What's the difference? Honestly.

Well, one's a Mopar and the other is a Chevy. So, Mopar guys are going to say Cuda and Chevy guys are going to say Chevelle....then Ford guys will chime in about how they both suck. :icon16:


I go Cuda all the way. Better looking, more rare, Hemi......and it's a Mopar. :thumbsup:

Well, one's a Mopar and the other is a Chevy. So, Mopar guys are going to say Cuda and Chevy guys are going to say Chevelle....then Ford guys will chime in about how they both suck. :icon16:


I go Cuda all the way. Better looking, more rare, Hemi......and it's a Mopar. :thumbsup:

Go Ford Torino Cobra!:p

Actually, I'm more of an AMC guy myself so both can just suck it to the 69 Hurst SC Rambler or Scrambler. I know the 1970 Javelin SST or "Rebel" Machine would be more appropriate in this comparison.:lol:

Cuda for me...!!!

Get a Holden bro eheheaauauuuuu!

^ yea theyre both just big cars with big engines, look basically the same. not much diffrence between the two. im not sure which one is faster.

You can't be serious. I guess if you've never been around musclecars then they could look the same, but it's just hard for me to believe. The Cuda was the same size as a 1st Gen Camaro, how is that like a Chevelle?

The Hemi Cuda is faster, hands down. We'll assume you're talking about the LS6 454 with 450hp rather than the LS5 with 360hp, but the Cuda will still beat the LS6 in the quarter by about 1.5 sec. The Cuda is listed from the factory as doing a 12.2 and the LS6 does a 13.7. Also, the Cuda is much more valuable.

I'd always been a chevy guy, and I think the Chevelle looks better, but the Hemi Cuda is faster and more desirable.

Yeah, the Cuda for sure. Because Mopar is mo-better (that was terrible...)

You can't be serious. I guess if you've never been around musclecars then they could look the same, but it's just hard for me to believe. The Cuda was the same size as a 1st Gen Camaro, how is that like a Chevelle?

The Hemi Cuda is faster, hands down. We'll assume you're talking about the LS6 454 with 450hp rather than the LS5 with 360hp, but the Cuda will still beat the LS6 in the quarter by about 1.5 sec. The Cuda is listed from the factory as doing a 12.2 and the LS6 does a 13.7. Also, the Cuda is much more valuable.

I'd always been a chevy guy, and I think the Chevelle looks better, but the Hemi Cuda is faster and more desirable.

honestly, all muscle cars look the same.

Muscle cars seem to have the same premise, take a family car, stuff in a big engine, put lots of chrome on it and send it out.


Then again, I've had little exposure to muscle cars, hence not really seeing the difference.

if i had a choice to own either (price, rareness and all that aside) i would go with the ls6. that is a badassssss mother effer if you ask me.

honestly, all muscle cars look the same.

So you are seriously saying that this:

http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/mmagistr/70%20cuda%202.jpg

looks the same as this:

http://www.noneckschevelle.com/images/carpics/ChrisWilliman69%20chevelle.jpg

:rolleyes:

So you are seriously saying that this:

http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/mmagistr/70%20cuda%202.jpg

looks the same as this:

http://www.noneckschevelle.com/images/carpics/ChrisWilliman69%20chevelle.jpg

:rolleyes:

pretty much, the front end is a little diffrent but for the most part, looks the same.

'cuda, no hesitation.

Do these look the same?

http://www.1motormart.com/gallery/71ford01.jpg

http://www.gtoheaven.com/images/GT0/71gto.gif

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/dodge-daytona/images/dodge-daytona-1a.jpg

Saying all muscle cars look the same as in being sedan based bodies with big motors dropped as well as the occassional outragiously large grill and chrome is like stating all rally cars look alike because they are econo boxes that have upgraded suspension, exhaust, are turbocharged along with hoodscoop plus spoiler galor, oh wait.:eek:

Also on the subject of comparing today's rally homogenizations to muscle one author did. (http://www.autoweb.com/content/research/index.cfm/action/showArticle/aid/139226)

http://www.noneckschevelle.com/images/carpics/ChrisWilliman69%20chevelle.jpg

:rolleyes:

Well for one, that's not a 1970 Chevelle. It's a 68/69.

This is a '70 Chevelle:

http://trombinoscar.ifrance.com/chevrolet/cv700102.jpg

In 1971 they just changed to a single head light instead of dual.

As for performance...since it was a 1970 Hemi it would take it, today's Hemi's suck. But I'm a Chevy guy and the Camaro's and Chevelle's are my favorite muscle cars, so you know which one I'd want.

Just think to the movie Dazed and Confused.

The Superbird is the exception to the rule, otherwise, yeah I do think those look the same and Rally cars ARE fast econoboxes. (Exception obviously being Group B Cars)

so you are saying these cars look the same?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y137/blakscorpion21/o007.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y137/blakscorpion21/frc05r3_5143_ampuja.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y137/blakscorpion21/frc05r3_5041_ketomaki.jpg

Do these look the same?

http://www.1motormart.com/gallery/71ford01.jpg

http://www.gtoheaven.com/images/GT0/71gto.gif

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/dodge-daytona/images/dodge-daytona-1a.jpg

Saying all muscle cars look the same as in being sedan based bodies with big motors dropped as well as the occassional outragiously large grill and chrome is like stating all rally cars look alike because they are econo boxes that have upgraded suspension, exhaust, are turbocharged along with hoodscoop plus spoiler galor, oh wait.:eek:

Also on the subject of comparing today's rally homogenizations to muscle one author did. (http://www.autoweb.com/content/research/index.cfm/action/showArticle/aid/139226)


well the gto looks diffrent because it is a convertible of course, and if you took the front piece and enormous spoiler off those daytonas they would look pretty much the same. almost all muscle cars have the same lines and general shape, they just have a little diffrent looking grill.

not entirely fair on both sides of the discussion.
for the most part "muscle cars" were designed to have a certain look and as such, certain design features are going to be common.

Rally cars on the other hand are based on a particular sector of cars where (absolute) individuality is a key part of their marketing. Even though, because of the nature of the sport, the Rally versions too will have a similar appearance to each other due to common use of the same tools.

Ok I couldn't help myself. I thought I'd help fuel the fire and let people look at different muscle cars.

Yes, I can see where some parts do look the same. I can also look and see differences between them. Some of them have a smoother shape while others look a little more boxier.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/pontiac-gto/images/pontiac-gto-judge-1969a.jpg

1969 GTO

http://www.kenston.k12.oh.us/khs/motocross/69-road-runner-front576.jpg

1969 Road Runner

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/dodge-superbee/images/dodge-superbee-1969a.jpg

1969 Super Bee

http://charger.faithweb.com/images/69_charger.jpg

1969 Charger

http://www.dakotastreetrods.com/shownshine/images/BC1969Camaro.jpg

1969 Camaro

http://www.mustangreview.com/images/1969Boss302_lf_01.jpg

1969 Mustang

http://www.dreams-cars.net/images/Fiches_Techniques/Dodge/Dodge_Challenger_1969/001.jpg

1969 Challenger

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/dodge-dart/images/dodge-dart-1969c.jpg

1969 Dart

Oh that's a nice Mustang ^^^

Well, if you want to get technical the Mustang, Camaro , Pontiac Trans Am, Dodge Challenger and AMC Javelin, later AMX, are known as pony cars since they came after and intended to compete with the Mustang who started this class of car.

A "pony car" is an American made or at least American car company designed car that is a RWD sports that comes with a V6 or V8, RWD, rear seating but barely at times as well as being amply sized and thus practical but still not as big in body plus usually engine size, with some exceptions, as its sedan based muscle car counterparts. However some may say that muscle cars are any RWD non-luxury based car that was modified by the manufactuer to accomodate a large V8 among other things, or else the smaller Dodge Dart and AMC Rambler would not qualify.

Yeah, thats a SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET Mustang. Anyways, The whole rally cars looking alike argument is kinda stupid.

1) Rally cars arent street cars, and Muscle cars are.
2) And, like Drunken Monkey said, Rally cars are based on cars in a segment where you need to come to the game with somthing that looks like none of its competitors. Or in otherwords, function follows form.
3) Muscle cars were made to perform, not stand out too much. Or form followed function. Thats why muscle cars do look similar to the untrained eye. You need to know what your looking for to distinguish a 69 Challenger and a 69 Super Bee. But all you need is eyes to distinguish a WRX STi and a Focus. But, no, muscle cars dont look the same.

On the "Muscle car" or "Pony car" thing, a pony car was made to compete with the Mustang. The Mustang was never meant to be a muscle car, more of a "sporty car". It was designed to be a fun, affordable car for "the young people". If it were meant to be a powerful car, then Ford would have never needed the Thunderbird. Cars in the Thunderbirds class were also reffered to as "2 door sedans" (at least thats what Ive heard).

well the gto looks diffrent because it is a convertible of course, and if you took the front piece and enormous spoiler off those daytonas they would look pretty much the same. almost all muscle cars have the same lines and general shape, they just have a little diffrent looking grill.

If you did that you would be left with a Dodge Charger and a Plymouth Road Runner. They put those on for a reason.

Anyhow, you know what I'm going to pick, but I'd rather have a 1971 Hemi Cuda. Much cooler grill and much more desirable.

All these new sedans look alike execpt the grill is different...

<img src="http://www.japancar.ru/data/images/_catcolor/2003/0001.jpg">;

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/07/imprezawrxsti06_10.jpg">;


<br><br>

All the hatchbacks look alike

<img src="http://www.dieselstation.com/wallpapers/FocusRS/Ford-Focus-RS-031.jpg";

<br><br>

<imb src="http://www.womanmotorist.com/images/articles/reviews/honda/2005_Honda_CivicSi_01.jpg">;

<br><br>

You can say that all modern cars look alike too. It was the body style of the time execpt they only had coupes back then so the selection was thinner.

To me, the biggest point here is one's personal experiences. I grew up helping my dad restore late 60's Chevy musclecars. By the time I was 10yrs old I could tell the subtle differences between a 67 and 68 Camaro from a mile away. So to me, it seems rediculous for someone to think musclecars all look alike, with the exception of cars that were built on the same platform.

However, for someone who doesn't have any experience with a certain genre of cars, I can understand how they could look alike. To my dad, for instance, all Japanese tuner cars look alike. I think it's crazy being that I lived in Japan, had a fairly modified R32 Skyline, showed him tons of different cool cars, but to him they're just all the same because he has no knowledge and experience with them.

I think its kinda dumb that people cant tell different cars made by different companies apart. Maybe that's because i grew up around them but, it just seems like you would have to be really stupid or a girl to not see the differences, even if they are slight.

No offence to girls i just said that because most girls aren't into cars accept for ricers.

I think its kinda dumb that people cant tell different cars made by different companies apart. Maybe that's because i grew up around them but, it just seems like you would have to be really stupid or a girl to not see the differences, even if they are slight.

No offence to girls i just said that because most girls aren't into cars accept for ricers.


Errrrmmmm...... Not everyone grew up around them, in fact American cars were never even seen outside of the Americas (For the most part) until the mid 90's... Hence I've had no exposure to them.