74 chevelle

i have a 74 chevelle malibu with a 350. just some questions, its an auto trans and when i put it in drive it shifts kinda hard and the whole car jerks up is that just how it is or what? And most people dont like to consider the 73s on a muscle car, but i like to think so. mine has glassbacks and 305 race headers and sounds awesome. plus it can get and go. what do yall think of the 73s and on chevelles? are they considered muscle cars or not? thanks

Any car can have muscle with the proper modifications. The '73 to '77s were still a fairly large vehicle before being downsized due to mpg concerns among others.The true "Muscle car" era ended around 1972 when changes took place within the industry that made the newer models perform less than their earlier counterparts. People can have their own definition of what a muscle car is. You can put a 1970 SB Chevy that has had performance mods done to it and put it in a '78 Monte Carlo as I have done in the past and have a very powerful, fast car. To many that may not be a "true" muscle car but to some, with the engine's horsepower and torque along with it's performance, it could be considered a muscle car.

Does the car jerk up everytime the car is put in drive or only when cold?

You mean glasspack mufflers, what do you mean "305 race headers"?

A lot of people don't consider anything past '72 a muscle car. Some people don't consider anything past '70 to be a muscle car.

I recently read (to my surprize) that there are people who say if it didn't leave the factory with "SS" badges before '70 then its not a muscle car. To me that is just way too picky....

The "last" Chevy that is considered a "true" muscle car is the '73 SS454 Chevelle. Among most, for a Chevelle to be a "muscle car", it must have a big block, at least 396 CID. The term "muscle car" is more of a class than a reference to performance. A '74 455 SD TransAm (LAST of the GM HOT cars of the muscle car era) certainly had PLENTY of "muscle", but is a "pony car" among purists (of which I'm one, I guess...). I HAVE seen a couple Lagunas with 454s in them, but never gave them much thought. It was beyond the "magic date" (1970).

With the small block, as many mods as you can do to enhance low-speed and mid-range performance (read: Torque) will make that Chevelle the most fun it can be. Don't worry about revving it to the moon. A good combination that makes power from 1,500 to about 5,500 will suffice.

Jim

i have a 74 chevelle malibu with a 350. just some questions, its an auto trans and when i put it in drive it shifts kinda hard and the whole car jerks up is that just how it is or what?
Re-read your post and forgot to answer the first part:uhoh: . I remember a vehicle came into the shop about 15 years ago with a similar problem. ( It was a mid size GM RWD.) The problem at that time was found to be a cracked transmission mount and it would flex a little bit when the transmission would be shifted into drive causing the car to "jerk" up a little bit. If you can't find the problem, that might be something to inspect to see the condition of the mount. IIRC those vehicles used a rubber insert mount and the rubber could have deteriorated causing the problem.
Here's a pic of a typical tranny mount for GM intermediates.
http://i30.tinypic.com/28is3sl.jpg

I feel the "muscle car" phrase changes as the years roll by.
In high school I had a '76 396 chevelle it was one of the faster cars I had in those days. I fixed it up and sold it for major profits, it was do that or crash it into something when I was being foolish. :disappoin

Good Call Tom !!
That's what I was goin to say the trans mount, right on top of the trans tail. Typical wear and tear from all those burnouts! :lol:

According to Joe Oldham (look him up if you aren't familiar) he considers a 1973 Camaro Z28 with the L-82 (350) engine, as a muscle car. Also the 1976 455 HO Pontiac Trans Am one as well.
He kinda knows what he talking about...........spent his life around muscle cars.

If the mount isn't the problem, then you might want to take a look at the transmission vacuum modulator to see if the rubber hose is cracked, loose or something. that could cause hard shifts too. Or the modulator or more could be shot from too many burnouts. :grinyes:

Yeah like 72ChevelleOhio asked - what are 305 race headers anyway?

Never heard of him, BUT... If he thinks a '76 Firebird OF ANY DESCRIPTION, in "stock" form, is a "muscle car", he's not accustom to REAL muscle. That he considers a 3,600 lb. car with a small block in it "muscle" illustrates the point further. I'm not exactly "chopped liver" when it comes to experience with muscle cars, you know. And no 302 or 350 Z/28 of ANY year beat my '70 GTO when I was driving it. It took a BIG BLOCK to catch that car. I only raced a few... dozen...

A '76 455 is a mere shadow of the previous versions. The car would barely turn the tires over. It was dubbed "HO" to sell it. There are zero performance parts in it that were also in the true "HO" ("High Output") 455s of '71 and '72.

This is not to tell you you're "wrong". This is to clear the air about the "changes as the years roll by" and give a realistic look at olden times from someone that doesn't read about it, but was actually THERE. In Southern California in 1972, we were knee-deep in muscle cars and pony cars, all street racing and drag racing. One could go out on a Friday night in any town in the area and get 20 races if they were so inclined. The pollution of the muscle car "gene pool" is adequately demonstrated by the statements about small block pony cars and smoggers that wouldn't get out of their own way. As much as I love the Pontiac, the '76 "455HO" was a complete embarassment to us all! NOTE: Don't measure that car by the modern builds we have. It's no problem to get that car to make 500 HP today, but in 1976, it was a pipe-dream. In truth, a '79 T/A with the WS-6 package would run away and hide from a '76 455 car. There weren't very many of them, but the ability to make usable power with a smogger was gaining ground at GM by '79. It is generally accepted that the '79 T/A WS-6 was the "last gasp" of the "big motor" cars. '79 was the most prolific T/A ever (just over 100,000 units, not including "base" Firebirds), and the best performing car in the GM line that year. Yes, even over the Corvette.

FWIW

Jim

All i know is the guy that had it before me put 305 headers on it and said that it gives it less compression. he rebuilt the engine 5 years ago and the motor is still strong.

A '76 455 is a mere shadow of the previous versions. The car would barely turn the tires over. It was dubbed "HO" to sell it. There are zero performance parts in it that were also in the true "HO" ("High Output") 455s of '71 and '72.

This is not to tell you you're "wrong"..... .

FWIW

Jim

I hear what you're saying Jim. That car weighed two tons and was only rated at 200 horsepower. The earlier cars had a much better advantage in several ways.
My point was that muscle cars don't have a single agreed upon definition, and by some viewpoints they didn't go extinct at an exact date. Remember the original question that 74Malibu asked. Did muscle cars exist after 1972?

Some will say yes, some will say no. By the broadest definition, it's a relatively lightweight car with a disproportionally large engine as original equipment.

I'd like to believe there is a simple mathematical ratio to use, such as X/Y = Z, with X being the car's HP, and Y being the curb weight, and Z being a number in which many hold to be a minimum certain value in order to be considered a muscle car.

Maybe that is unrealistic, but I'd like to hear opinions on that too.

Where it would be fun is to hear all the 'but a muscle car HAS to have a shaker hood' or 'a muscle car has to have a compression ratio of at least 10.5', or 'Gotta have more than 350 cubes', or 'gotta do less than 14 in the quarter and be heard in the next town over' 'can't have smog apparatus', etc.

Having said all that, it sure isn't easy coming up with many post-'72 cars that are generally accepted into the ring.
Tom

Tom,

Good approach!

According to Jim Wangers in his book "Glory Days", the term "muscle car" was first used when he and John Z. DeLorean "pitched" the idea for GTO to GM upper management. Jim was the marketing genius that made GTO a household name.

Anyway, their "definition" was pretty straight-forward, and used by other divisions and the competition. Intermediate body with a "big car" engine. As Mustang spawned the "pony car" class, it is not a muscle car, it is a pony car. Same is true of Firebird/Camaro, 'Cuda/Challenger, Javelin... It isn't necessarily a measure of performance. The Rebel "Machine" is recognized as a muscle car, but a good running 289 Mustang could handle it. On it's best day, that same Mustang wouldn't TOUCH a GTO or Chevelle SS396. Other cars specifically recognized as "muscle cars" would be Torino or Fairlane GTs (with the 390 or bigger engine), Road Runner/GTX, Charger (with at least the 383), Super Bee, Cyclone GT, Buick Grand Sport, Olds 442, etc. LeMans, Sattelite, small-engined Charger, etc., are not considered muscle cars.

In every "history" book about cars I've read in the last ten years, the '64 GTO is aknowledged as the "first" muscle car. This is not to confuse them with "Super Cars" (full-size hot cars like Chrysler 300s and Pontiac SD Catalinas) OR the aforementioned pony cars. I suppose it could be up to the individual, as there are no "legal" categories. I just say what I know...

Jim