NationStates Jolt Archive

Pick the best, based on performance, handling, and looks. Its hard.

Some facts to think about:

'69 COPO Nova: 0-60 in 4.7 seconds on street tires
'70 Plymouth Superbird NASCAR: 220mph
'70 Olds 442 W-30: 0.83g (remember, this is 1970, you'd be lucky to hit that in a 911)
Most musclecars, at least, when equipped with power front disc brakes, could stop from 60 in about 125-130ft. That's in the '60s. Not bad, even now.

No Jaguar E Type? I'm told that the Ford Mustang was a copy of that.

No Corvette? No Chevelle?

And how does the Camaro and the Nova go as one vote? :confused:

Oh yeah, one more thing:

NO FLAMING
NO ARGUING
NO INSULTS
And play nice, please!

I don't want to hear anyone go on about why their $50k BMW M3 is infinitely superior to an old GM F-body or why Hondas are better than Chargers because they get better gas mileage.

I want a friendly discussion. Also, fans of old Australian muscle/sports cars are welcomed. Holdens, Fords, Valiants, etc. are all okay.

No Jaguar E Type? I'm told that the Ford Mustang was a copy of that.
Too much money. Muscle cars had to be affordable, i.e. under $5,000 total. E-type Jags started at like $7,000. Those old Jags are really cool, though. My grandpa had a '67 E-type fastback.

No Corvette? No Chevelle?

And how does the Camaro and the Nova go as one vote? :confused:
The 1st-gen Camaro was on the Nova platform. Corvettes were too much, and also were too "exotic". Ha, never thought I'd say that about a '60s Vette...

I would have picked the Chevrolet Chevelle if it was on the list.

I would have picked the Chevrolet Chevelle if it was on the list.
I was gonna put other, but I accidently hit the post button first.

I want a friendly discussion. Also, fans of old Australian muscle/sports cars are welcomed. Holdens, Fords, Valiants, etc. are all okay.
Then put them on the list!!!

http://www.tinseltown.com.au/images/pmgtp.jpg

44,647.84 US Dollars buy you this car, which has a Boss 290 5.7l V8 (normally aspirated) with 403 American HP.

Then put them on the list!!!

http://www.tinseltown.com.au/images/pmgtp.jpg

44,647.84 US Dollars buy you this car, which has a Boss 290 5.7l V8 (normally aspirated) with 403 American HP.
I think that's only you guys, just like you still get the Falcon...dammit.

I'm gonna have to go with results- the Superbird was a speciality car and while you allowed it I'm going to disqualify it. But the Javelin's success in the Trans-Am series, with muscle cars on road courses-and the cool/odd shape-I have to go with that.

EDIT: No, no you didn't include the Superbird, I dreamed that or something...move along...

Once again, I give you:

http://www.musclegarage.com/1972-Camaro-Z-28-RS-cover-(.jpg

The 1972 Chevy Camaro Z-28 RS.

If it were legal, I'd marry that car.

Shelby gt (circa 1967) 500...fits in ......ford mustang....?

Once again, I give you:

http://www.musclegarage.com/1972-Camaro-Z-28-RS-cover-(.jpg

The 1972 Chevy Camaro Z-28 RS.

If it were legal, I'd marry that car.
You rule! (passing reference to American Beauty)

If I where to buy a muscle car right now it'd either be the Javelin I already mentioned or-
65 Barracuda (http://info.detnews.com/dn/joyrides/2004/cousino04/65cudabudlavi.jpg). Not the desirable Cuda, so to speak, but the one my dad had when I was a kid.

or

67 Cougar (http://www.centerlinewheels.com/images/gallery/cougar_autodrag_500x280.jpg) Something about that car...

Though this just has that unique appeal (http://www.dreams-cars.net/images/Galerie/AMC/AMC_Javelin_AMX_1972/AMC_Javelin_AMX_1972-01.jpg)

Though all in all, muscle cars are low on my list.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/HURST_442.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/HURST_442_1964.jpg

Then put them on the list!!!

http://www.tinseltown.com.au/images/pmgtp.jpg

44,647.84 US Dollars buy you this car, which has a Boss 290 5.7l V8 (normally aspirated) with 403 American HP.
WAY to expensive to be a musclecar. The limit is $35k in modern US currency. Also, dithc the rear doors. Also, where'd the 290 in Boss 290 come from? If it's 5.7l then thats 345-351cid, and if it has 403hp, then were'd the 290 come from?

EDIT: It's 5.4l, not 5.7. Also, I see that the 290 is from kW output. Why can't Ford leave the Boss label to NASCAR and Trans-Am Mustangs?

WAY to expensive to be a musclecar. The limit is $35k in modern US currency. Also, dithc the rear doors. Also, where'd the 290 in Boss 290 come from? If it's 5.7l then thats 345-351cid, and if it has 403hp, then were'd the 290 come from?

EDIT: It's 5.4l, not 5.7. Also, I see that the 290 is from kW output. Why can't Ford leave the Boss label to NASCAR and Trans-Am Mustangs?
Well, I suppose you're right. I have to say that I'm not a fan of muscle cars in general, and not of Ford and Holden in particular.
I suppose the engine was engineered by someone named Boss, so they get the label - but I don't know what exactly the name stands for anyways. I'm sorry though if I quoted the wrong figures.
Here's the official FPV site:
http://www.fpv.com.au/index.asp?target=index.asp&link_id=2.161&type_id=61

Well, I suppose you're right. I have to say that I'm not a fan of muscle cars in general, and not of Ford and Holden in particular.
I suppose the engine was engineered by someone named Boss, so they get the label - but I don't know what exactly the name stands for anyways. I'm sorry though if I quoted the wrong figures.
Here's the official FPV site:
http://www.fpv.com.au/index.asp?target=index.asp&link_id=2.161&type_id=61
Yes, the engine was named after a "boss." Semon "Bunkie" Knudsen, Ford's president in the late '60s. The engine was named by Boss Mustang designer Larry Shinoda, who also designed the split-window '63 Vette, in honor of Mr. Knudsen. There were originally two engines, the 4.9l high-revving Boss 302 Trans-Am engine, and the ~7.0l hemi-headed Boss 429 NASCAR engine.

the rating of 290 is kilowatts it works out at about 390 hp. and it is a 5.4l dual overhead cam engine. i thought the dodge challenger should have been in the poll as well. the dodge coronet is certainly one nice looking automobile as well. being an aussie the valiant charger should have been on there, as a 6 cylinder that could pull 14.3 second quarter miles, it certainly deserves some recognition.

i have only 2 things to say: Holden HK Monaro, and Valiant Charger

Why you didnt have Corvettes, particularly the Stingray variety on this poll, I cant fathom.


I prefer a '63 split-window coupe, myself.


Or, I would if I had about 25,000 dollars.

1970 Pontiac GTO is my personal favorite. I'd love to have one in all black.

1970 Pontiac GTO is my personal favorite. I'd love to have one in all black.
I've always dug the earlier body style on that, purely asthetics though. I think the grill and the stacked headlights is a good look for that car. And the trunk looks like you could stuff the bodies of a barbershop quartet in there...

I voted for all of them.

1)Because i don't know of them al.
2)Because i can.

I've always dug the earlier body style on that, purely asthetics though. I think the grill and the stacked headlights is a good look for that car. And the trunk looks like you could stuff the bodies of a barbershop quartet in there...

I like the '70 one because it looks the meanest, and though the earlier stacked headlights were cool, I personally like the side by side ones a little better. Plus, muscle cars generally aren't judged on the practicality of their trunks or their back seats (in fact, if the back seat actually is comfortable, then doubts may arise as to whether the auto is in fact a muscle car).

Why do they have to be American to be "muscle cars"? I agree with whoever said about the Jag E Type, I own one and I wouldn't swap it for any other car on the planet. Having said that I have a rather larger vehicle which would probably not win in a race but would crush any opposition; Series 2a long wheel base Land Rover, with a few modifications courtesy of the British Army.

Anyway, Jag's are the best. Although some of the old Triumphs come remarkably close. I do also believe that the Marcos line has come back, blooming good cars they were. Oh and some of the Italian cars are fairly good; Maserati, Lamborghini and, of course, Ferrari's, all scorchers of the road.

I like the '70 one because it looks the meanest, and though the earlier stacked headlights were cool, I personally like the side by side ones a little better. Plus, muscle cars generally aren't judged on the practicality of their trunks or their back seats (in fact, if the back seat actually is comfortable, then doubts may arise as to whether the auto is in fact a muscle car).
Like I said, it's an asthetic choice for me. And the 400ci Tri-Power, but I imagine that lasts through the whole model line. I actually think the earlier grille is more agressive looking, but that's me. I was joking about the trunk, someone had one of those when I was in Community College and the trunk struck me as enormous.

Why do they have to be American to be "muscle cars"? I agree with whoever said about the Jag E Type, I own one and I wouldn't swap it for any other car on the planet. Having said that I have a rather larger vehicle which would probably not win in a race but would crush any opposition; Series 2a long wheel base Land Rover, with a few modifications courtesy of the British Army.

Anyway, Jag's are the best. Although some of the old Triumphs come remarkably close. I do also believe that the Marcos line has come back, blooming good cars they were. Oh and some of the Italian cars are fairly good; Maserati, Lamborghini and, of course, Ferrari's, all scorchers of the road.
Because the E-Type isn't a muscle car, it's a sports coupe. This is also why the 'Vette wouldn't be up there, really-though it's a fine line at that point.

A muscle car is a three-box car that is propelled by an excessive V-8. It's a car that is all power, or 'muscle' and little else. Big torquey bastards that lay fat strips of rubber and haul monkey down straight lines. The E-Type is too refined for this crowd, it's a tea sipper in a crowd of straight black coffee drinkers.

How about the old Roadrunners?

Because the E-Type isn't a muscle car, it's a sports coupe. This is also why the 'Vette wouldn't be up there, really-though it's a fine line at that point.

A muscle car is a three-box car that is propelled by an excessive V-8. It's a car that is all power, or 'muscle' and little else. Big torquey bastards that lay fat strips of rubber and haul monkey down straight lines. The E-Type is too refined for this crowd, it's a tea sipper in a crowd of straight black coffee drinkers.

Well ok them... But there isn't any milk in the tea.

Well ok them... But there isn't any milk in the tea.
Don't get me wrong. I'll take an E-Type over just about any car, I'm with you on that. It's just different philosophies.

How about the old Roadrunners?
I think he sort of side covered it with the Super Bee.

(in fact, if the back seat actually is comfortable, then doubts may arise as to whether the auto is in fact a muscle car).

WTF? Musclecars were suppossed to be big family cars turned factory hot-rods. Having a big back seat was a staple of true musclecars. Pony cars, like the Mustang and 'Cuda and Trans-Am, etc. were the ones with the small back seats. They were aimed more at "sports car" type buyers.

How about the old Roadrunners?
Belvedere or Super Bee.

I don't know how the RR didn't wind up in there, though. Its my fave car of all time. Shoula put Road Runner/GTX.

EDIT: In fact, in case anyone is wondering what to vote for, here's a list

AMC Javelin/AMX: Covers both the Javelin and AMX models from all years.
Buick GS: Covers all Buick models that feature the GS designation from all years.
Chevy Camaro/Nova: Covers Camaros and Firebirds from 1967-81, and all Novas/Chevy-IIs up to 1973.
Dodge Charger/Super Bee: Covers all Dodge B-body models from 1964-1972.
Ford Fairlane: Covers all '60s and '70s Fairlane and Torino models.
Ford Mustang: Covers all V8-equipped Mustangs from 1964.5-1973.
Olds 442: Covers all Cutlass models from 1964-72.
Pontiac GTOl Covers all Pontiac Tempest models from 1964-72.
Plymouth Belvedere/GTX: Covers all Plymouth B-body models from 1964-72.

WTF? Musclecars were suppossed to be big family cars turned factory hot-rods. Having a big back seat was a staple of true musclecars. Pony cars, like the Mustang and 'Cuda and Trans-Am, etc. were the ones with the small back seats. They were aimed more at "sports car" type buyers.

Muscle cars, such as the Pontiac GTO are not "big family cars." They are small family cars. And their back seats are quite snug. A muscle car is a medium to small car with a huge engine and a back seat, that a regular person could afford to buy. Sports cars were generally smaller cars that could not really function that well as family cars, and were a bit more on the pricey side.

Muscle cars, such as the Pontiac GTO are not "big family cars." They are small family cars. And their back seats are quite snug. A muscle car is a medium to small car with a huge engine and a back seat, that a regular person could afford to buy. Sports cars were generally smaller cars that could not really function that well as family cars, and were a bit more on the pricey side.

actually a true muscle car is a mid size with a big motor based on the gto, basically a lemans with a 389 tripower for a motor... my personal choice would be a 63 dodge lightweight with a 426 max wedge, but i don't consider that a true muscle car, but more of a factory made race car... of the choices i'll take a gtx with a 440 six pack if someone else is going to tune the bastard... if i have to adjust the carb i'll take an aftermarket 4 barrel thank you very much, i've heard three duces are a bitch to get to run right.

Gotta go with the GTO out of the choices I was given. It was the original and probably one of the best looking. If I could have a write in I would go with the 1970 Chevelle SS 454 LS6.

The Overlord of Tuberosity