Topic: "Muscle car" name is just an excuse

[Giant Dwarf]

I'm starting to see it happen more and more on the forum lately and I think it's a cop-out.   When so-called "muscle cars" (or "pony cars") are being compared to viable competitors (in terms of performance, price, practicality, etc.) such as the Genesis Coupe, the term "muscle car" is often thrown out almost as a defence against the car's shortcomings. In the recent thread comparing the Genesis to the Stang, Challenger and Camaro, a few people responded to the GC winning the comparo by saying "well sure, it's three muscle cars against a sports car."  That's crap I say. 

Muscle cars were always intended to be performance machines and the manufacturers are putting enough marketing and engineering weight behind the performance numbers that we're led to believe the modern versions of these cars are still performance cars.  So, if it's a 2-door coupe with sporting pretences and a 'performance' V6 engine and stick-shift, why the hell isn't it a sports coupe the same as a Genesis Coupe?  Because it's a domestic car?  Because it's styling is 'retro'?  Bah.

"Wow, the ergonomics on this car are horrible!"  or "This machine is a massive, bloated pig!" or "The steering lacks feeling" are all supposed to be excusable because it's a "muscle car"?  Please.  If these are strictly supposed to be throw-back nostalgia machines, why not use a lump of a truck engine with some throaty pipes and call it a day?

For 2010 and further in 2011, Ford has done an awesome job staying true to classic 'muscle car' positives like aggressive styling and big engine / big noise while still making a genuinely great sports car too if the performance numbers are to be believed.  So, I guess I'm calling out Chevy and Dodge to stop hiding behind the styling and the muscle car excuse and make performance cars appropriate for today -- not simply big-engined retro-throwbacks to appease some dinosaurs too old to drive a "sports car" now anyway.

[wing]

Here here!

Oh and the 2010 Mustang was outstanding the 2011 will blow my mind I am sure of it!

[DrJay]

  problem for both dodge and chev however is the lack of a big engine to go with the retro "throwback" styling big on looks small on power for the size. The stang found the balance and the Gen Coupe wasn't trying to be "retro" but had everything else.

[Vmango]

Lack of a big engine? The 'Maro has a 6.2 litre LS3 V8!

[Juke1]

problem for both dodge and chev however is the lack of a big engine to go with the retro "throwback" styling big on looks small on power for the size. The stang found the balance and the Gen Coupe wasn't trying to be "retro" but had everything else.

really! I like these numbers - 426 hp High Output 6.2L V8 engine for the Camaro and these for the Challenger 6.1-litre SRT HEMI® engine with 425 horsepower and 420 lb.-ft. of torque

[evil_twin]

problem for both dodge and chev however is the lack of a big engine to go with the retro "throwback" styling big on looks small on power for the size. The stang found the balance and the Gen Coupe wasn't trying to be "retro" but had everything else.

The problem is most certainly that these cars weigh approx. 4000 lbs.  As others have pointed out, Horsepower is the last thing these cars lack.

The 2011 Mustang GT is certainly a sportscar.  The Camaro (more so) and Challenger (less so) are as well.  They just suffer from massive weight.   

Would someone looking for a sporty coupe, test drive the Gen Coupe and then say, "You know this thing was great, but I'm really looking for 1000 more lbs of metal...a muscle car, ya know?"

I doubt it.

[safristi]

quoth Giant Dweeb!!"Dinosaurs too olde to drive real sports cars"...why U spotty faced lil yooth..........i'd gobble up yer parkin' privileges and "spit" out a Toyoda TURDRA with squishy pedals and roll-Ov'r BARS that close @ 7pm....................

[Mitlov]

I agree (with the original post; haven't read the other responses yet).  The Mustang and the Genesis are "sports coupes" in my mind and should be judged against other sport coupes, whereas the Challenger is firmly in grand-tourer territory (like a non-luxury Merc CL).  I'm not sure what the Camaro is.

Would someone looking for a sporty coupe, test drive the Gen Coupe and then say, "You know this thing was great, but I'm really looking for 1000 more lbs of metal...a muscle car, ya know?"

I doubt it.

But they might ask for a big trunk, a usable back seat, big soft seats, and a comfortable ride, keeping the big power but losing some handling in the process.  This is a grand tourer, and the Challenger delivers on that front.  It'll always lose every test where someone expects a sports coupe, but it actually gets good reviews in long-term tests as people get used to what it is (and what it isn't).

[mrthompson]

I'm not sure what the Camaro is.

A muscle car? 

[Juke1]

I'm not sure what the Camaro is.

A muscle car? 

Actually I don't care what they call it, they could invent any dam name.  But I know a bright red Camaro would looks so good in my driveway, I've always wanted one of those chick taxi back in the 70's

[Mitlov]

The Camaro is a great-looking car (particularly in person) that unfortunately combines the practicality of a sports coupe with the handling of a grand tourer.  The Mustang and the Challenger both have found their place in the market; the Camaro is a little lost.

[DrJay]

problem for both dodge and chev however is the lack of a big engine to go with the retro "throwback" styling big on looks small on power for the size. The stang found the balance and the Gen Coupe wasn't trying to be "retro" but had everything else.

really! I like these numbers - 426 hp High Output 6.2L V8 engine for the Camaro and these for the Challenger 6.1-litre SRT HEMI® engine with 425 horsepower and 420 lb.-ft. of torque

Sorry ...was making reference to the cars that were being compared all had V6 engines

[Mitlov]

problem for both dodge and chev however is the lack of a big engine to go with the retro "throwback" styling big on looks small on power for the size. The stang found the balance and the Gen Coupe wasn't trying to be "retro" but had everything else.

really! I like these numbers - 426 hp High Output 6.2L V8 engine for the Camaro and these for the Challenger 6.1-litre SRT HEMI® engine with 425 horsepower and 420 lb.-ft. of torque

Sorry ...was making reference to the cars that were being compared all had V6 engines

The Challenger's V6 is epic failsauce.  But both V8s do exactly what a grand-tourer's powertrain should do: sound great and give effortless, torquey acceleration.

[evil_twin]

I agree (with the original post; haven't read the other responses yet).  The Mustang and the Genesis are "sports coupes" in my mind and should be judged against other sport coupes, whereas the Challenger is firmly in grand-tourer territory (like a non-luxury Merc CL).  I'm not sure what the Camaro is.

Would someone looking for a sporty coupe, test drive the Gen Coupe and then say, "You know this thing was great, but I'm really looking for 1000 more lbs of metal...a muscle car, ya know?"

I doubt it.

But they might ask for a big trunk, a usable back seat, big soft seats, and a comfortable ride, keeping the big power but losing some handling in the process.  This is a grand tourer, and the Challenger delivers on that front.  It'll always lose every test where someone expects a sports coupe, but it actually gets good reviews in long-term tests as people get used to what it is (and what it isn't).

A fair point regarding the Challenger.  One could certainly consider it a GT as its weight, performance, and door count certainly put it in that category.  But the styling and general packaging/marketing certainly imply 'sportscar'.  It's only after driving one and reading the curb weight figure, that people would consider it a GT. 

[ovr50]

The name "muscle car" comes from the 60s when this type of car really was a "muscle" car - in that the NA makers took an inexpensive basic mid-size car, cut out any frills, and stuffed the biggest V8 they had into the engine compartment. Some of those cars didn't have radios, heaters, a/c, or electric anything. I seem to recall one of them didn't even have a rear seat (all to reduce weight). They are brutal cars, no refinement, and did not handle in a corner nor stop very well. But they did go like stink in a straight line either for 0-60 or drag racing purposes.

None of today's so-called "muscle cars" are really that at all. The NA makers have made the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger all look like the old ones for sales to mid-aged (mainly) guys who are getting old and are on a nostalgia kick. The name today is really a mis-nomer as today's car are loaded up with all the luxuries and toys available today. They do handle somewhat better than their 60s ancestors, but today's car is not really a muscle car at all. In fact, any 6 cylinder version is not by engine definition, a Hyundai (as good as it is) is not a muscle car either. The V8 versions of the Must/Cam/Chall are the closest you get today to a real muscle car, but are still not really it.

What are they today then? Well, I would suggest they are some cross between a sports car and a GT car. They are definitely "sporty" but maybe not a true sports car either. Additionally, there are some sedans today that can beat these modern muscle cars in a drag race, or on a road track. I have one of those animals, and one "could" argue that an M3 is a "muscle car" in that a big power engine is stuffed into a smaller sedan body (albeit that the suspension, chassis construction, braking systems, etc are far from straight 3 Series stock).

Not sure this proves anything, other than maybe the name "muscle car" should really only apply to the 60s/70s NA V8 powered true muscle cars.

Just thoughts.  

[Mitlov]

A fair point regarding the Challenger.  One could certainly consider it a GT as its weight, performance, and door count certainly put it in that category.  But the styling and general packaging/marketing certainly imply 'sportscar'.  It's only after driving one and reading the curb weight figure, that people would consider it a GT. 

I've never seen any Challenger ads that suggest it can carve canyons.  Or really do anything besides go fast in a straight line while looking and sounding awesome.

As for its looks conveying "sports car," I couldn't disagree more.  I think it's looks convey speed but not agility, which is exactly what it delivers.

[safristi]

..we need a name fer" TODAYS"....uber Kars.......................may i nominate PUSSYCARS........

[EV Dan]

The name "muscle car" comes from the 60s when this type of car really was a "muscle" car - in that the NA makers took an inexpensive basic mid-size car, cut out any frills, and stuffed the biggest V8 they had into the engine compartment. Some of those cars didn't have radios, heaters, a/c, or electric anything. I seem to recall one of them didn't even have a rear seat (all to reduce weight). They are brutal cars, no refinement, and did not handle in a corner nor stop very well. But they did go like stink in a straight line either for 0-60 or drag racing purposes.

None of today's so-called "muscle cars" are really that at all. The NA makers have made the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger all look like the old ones for sales to mid-aged (mainly) guys who are getting old and are on a nostalgia kick. The name today is really a mis-nomer as today's car are loaded up with all the luxuries and toys available today. They do handle somewhat better than their 60s ancestors, but today's car is not really a muscle car at all. In fact, any 6 cylinder version is not by engine definition, a Hyundai (as good as it is) is not a muscle car either. The V8 versions of the Must/Cam/Chall are the closest you get today to a real muscle car, but are still not really it.

What are they today then? Well, I would suggest they are some cross between a sports car and a GT car. They are definitely "sporty" but maybe not a true sports car either. Additionally, there are some sedans today that can beat these modern muscle cars in a drag race, or on a road track. I have one of those animals, and one "could" argue that an M3 is a "muscle car" in that a big power engine is stuffed into a smaller sedan body (albeit that the suspension, chassis construction, braking systems, etc are far from straight 3 Series stock).

Not sure this proves anything, other than maybe the name "muscle car" should really only apply to the 60s/70s NA V8 powered true muscle cars.

Just thoughts.  

Well said, Ovr!

From myself I would only add a RWD to this classic definition.
It is sad to see the price of the today's wannabe muscle cars being inflated with unnecessary packages and other junk such as on-star, various electronic pilots and controls, premium interiors, power buttons and so forth. Give me the base RWD V8 for the base price and I will decide how many airbags and other things I want to add on top of it. My Grand Am had 1 airbag, it probably didn't work anyway but it was the least of my worries. I drove it the way I wouldn't need it and the car was great. I don't suggest we stop inventing crumple zones in the body design, but how many airbags and how many speakers will be in a muscle car 50 years from now?

[The Mighty Duck]

What a silly thread.

"Sports car" does not have a specific definition. Some will argue that only a light, RWD roadster is a true "sports car". By that definition, any non-convertible need not apply. Others will accept anything as a "sports car", as long as it has sporting pretentions.

The point is, there is no accepted definition of "sports car". Are the Challenger, Mustang, and Camaro sports car? That depends entirely on which definition you use and how closely you adhere to it.

To Ovr's point, I agree: none of the modern "muscle" cars fulfill the original definition. But they are, imo, the modern incarnation of the muscle car. The definition has simply changed between then and now.

[Railton]

Do you guys actualy work? Where do you find the tine to write essays?!
Come to think of it, don't answer that.
Railton