Muscle Cars shall live on

You know what I am tired of ? Muscle Car enthusast, thinking that the next generation of Hot Rodding and street power is rice burning Honda junk! I am aware that there are few true young Muscle car enthusist out here but there are some and as long as there at least one of us Muscle will live to eat rice.

I fet it totally neccessary to write a thread about this only because I am tired of the guy that stands over my car and asks me where my dad is and y I am driving his car, or asks who built this ride, or where my Honda is. I dont own a honda, I built that car, and my dad is driving his car. Those should answer ur questions.

Just to name a few real Highschool kids that drive real cars not ones loaded with fart boxes:

myself : 67 Gasser Chevelle 70 Hemi Challenger
Adam (cousin): 65 Hemi dart
Danny (bestfriend): 62 Chevy stepside 454
Eric (friend): 69 Charger 440 shaker
Joe (brother): 40 Willys bb chevy

we all built our cars as a group and got A+ in metal shop for taking on the body work in as a project. But I wish to hear from some of my peers on their cars to show the old guys that we are still out there.

Way to go man. You seem like your heads on straight. Nice line up of cars all your buddies have too !!!

Sweet! I love when younger people such as ourselves have muscle cars. I dont have a "REAL" muscle car, but at least its noy a stupid rice burner. Its a 1997 Mercury Cougar, w/ a 4.6L V8.

I may be a little older than you fellas at 30, but I've got a bad-azz 72 malibu, all gone through, new fresh-built 355, TH350, Holley/Alum. Intake, Headers, Cam, HEI, Cragar SS mags, Black leather buckets, and the sickest, slickest red paint with white SS stripes you've probably ever seen.

I get a kick out of the little prettyboys and their ricers. My grandma's sewing machine sounded more scary than a civic with a coffee can muffler, and might have had more torque, too.

They try to get me to drag them, I just laugh.

Just so you know, Im one of those young guns. Im 22 and i have always had a thing for muscle cars... especially the Chevelle. 454 BB

Muscle cars shall live on. Even with the new age of them, the mustang, the new camaro and the vette, and so on.....

I can't wait until i have my big bad old chevelle, and i pull up to a light next to some little rice burner, who thinks he can take on a 1970 Chevelle SS. Heck he might not even know what the mr. gasket flippy intake is for... but its for a blower....to blow them away! haha

Man I agree with all you guys! I hate jap crap cars. Im 21 got a 72 chevelle and have done everything to it my self. Its got a 355 and about 450 hp and I love to devestate the imports. Just the other day I raced this guy in a doge neon srt-4 turbo. He thought he was so badd ass in his car, well we met at the redlight I reved it up to 3500 it turned green and I got him on the luanch and smoked him by like 5 car lengths. He was so pissed at the next red and I said thats why you go with the muscle bro!

Way to go! Keep the old cars alive. I think my Pic speaks for itself.

Guys,

As an official "old fart", I like what I read here. My oldest daughter is 27 and "into" V8s and American muscle. She can rebuild a Q-Jet and time an HEI...

I must point out, though, all this talk of muscle cars, and then the number "355" comes in, it's time for a classroom "session" on what constitutes a REAL muscle car. Anything with a small block simply doesn't "qualify". This is not to say it isn't a quick car. It certainly CAN be. Don't get defensive until you "hear" (read) me out.

In the Summer of 1963, GM pulled the money out of factory-backed racing. This was mainly due to the tragic deaths of Fireball Roberts and Joe Weatherly, both Pontiac drivers in what is known as "Cup" racing today (Grand National back then). AAA dropped ALL racing activities and put pressure on the "big three" to do the same. GM did, Ford and Chrysler did not. This is why Hemi and the tunnel port Ford were so dominant in the late '60s and early '70s. GM wasn't pouring millions into developement like they were.

Well, Pontiac's sales started to "lag". "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday!" was apparently fairly accurate. John Z. DeLorean had become chief engineer at Pontiac, creating the single most dominant single-year (professional) racing program in history with the '62 Catalina. He had a new idea. He and Jim Wangers got together with Malcom "Mac" McKellar (chief engineer in the Pontiac engine lab) and came up with a "new" package. They pulled a 389 4-bbl. from the production line of the full-size Pontiacs and stuck it into a Tempest (the new A-Body platform was just beginning production for the '64 model year). They called Ferrari and asked if there was a "copyright" on the term "GTO". There was not. Enzo even wished them "luck"! When they "pitched" the idea to GM upper management, they asked for permission to build a "pilot" car. Mr. DeLorean said: "It's like a Tempest with more muslcle!" Viola! The "muscle car" was born! NOTE: The "pilot car" was already built, and they (Wangers and DeLorean) were VERY relieved when they got the approval. Basically, the correct and true definition of the name is an intermdiate production body with a "full size" car engine in it. This is where it gets "sticky" Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Challenger, 'Cuda, Javelin, are NOT muscle cars, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MUSCLE THEY HAVE! They are "pony cars", named for the Mustang. Even that isn't QUITE accurate, as 'Cuda came first, but "fishy car" just doesn't have the same "ring" to it... Most cars only fit into ONE class. So, the small-block powered Chevelle isn't really a muscle car, anymore than a 350 LeMans is. SS396 was Chevy's first "entry" to the muscle car class in 1966. The few '65s that were sold with the big block are just that, FEW. Another part of the term "muscle car" includes cars mass-produced. "One-offs", while EXTREMELY "muscley" (I just invented that word), shouldn't be considered in discussions of muscle cars. Muscle cars were for the MASSES, not the rich.

I realize many people have "their own definition" of what is or is not a muscle car. Now you have some facts and history with which to formulate that opinion. Beware your ego, as it WILL make you say things that may or may not make "sense". Most importantly, understand the term is defining a very specific "class" of car, and NOT a generalization as many "outside" the arena have pushed it to be. You can love your small block Malibu and be proud of it. You can even make it genuinely "fast". But unless it has a 396 or bigger, and NOT based on a small block, it's not really what we oldsters call a muscle car.

All this comes from a man that is currently in the business of building high performance engines for most cars, especially muscle cars. I street-raced when young, as much or more than ANY of you guys can today. The political environement wasn't as close-minded to higher level performance cars in those days. My GTO s and I "danced" with nearly every conceivable combination in SoCal in the arly 1970s. On a given Friday night, it wasn't unusual to get into 10-15 races. Some nights, three times that. Gas guages and tire tread were pretty much the main limiting factors.

I make no claim to "know everything". Those of you that have been around here a while KNOW I only post accurate information unless fully "qualified" as an opinion.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy my outlook, and I'm proud to know the pushrod V8 will "live on". You youngsters are important to both street and racing in the future, as you are the ones that will be "doing it". And also note, this "discussion" is NOT "brand loyal", it is simply about the era and what is and is not accurate about that era. I DO prefer the Pontiac, but I'm not "stupid" about Chevy Dodge and Ford...(:-

Jim

As usual, nicely done MrP!!

Thanks for the lesson MrPbody. It is always great to here from guys that really know thier stuff. It is a shame that so much literature is presented with wrong or unreal information that gives the different preceptions.
By the way....I consider my car as a "sleeper". 2600lbs. around 500Hp.
Thanks,
Todd

Todd,

If that duece in your avatar is your "sleeper", A) It sure is purdy! I like the 66-'67 Nova... B) If it sounded like it "had a motor in it", I sure wouldn't be "fooled"! I've seen some SCARY Novas over the years. In 1977, we (myself and a couple other Pontiac guys) "pooled" our parts for a '67 Firebird. It ran mid 11s (back then!). Vern Shafer had a '64 "box" Nova called "The Mouse Factory" in Redlands, CA. He had one of the first 383s we saw in a street car. We beat him, but used EVERY BIT of that 421 Pontiac to do it! I know I was impressed... And Chevys never really impressed me much... Too many saw the tail lights of my GTO... (with "bigger" engines)

Keep it up guys!

Jim

Thanks Jim,

Yes this is my sleeper and you're right the exhaust gives it a way with 3's all the way to the rear. Scary? unbelievable...Everytime I yank a gear the front end washes out, but the adrenaline rush is incredible.

No sub for cubes though!

Life is good.