Search

cars that were built in america by american companies from the late 50’s until 1972 during the oil crisis where they all sucked, they in the 80’s they began to pick up again with the fox body mustang, mercury capri, iroc camaro, monte carlo ss, and buick grand national. they are popularly mistaken as having. common misconceptions of muscle cars are as follows, poor handling, poor fuel effeciency, poor suspension, and ch-ssis. but take a step back 30 years and compare them to other cars of the time. you may notice that they are some of the fastest best handling cars of there time. and yes they are heavy, but so were most cars of the time, no matter who manufactured them. today muscle cars basically destroy any other cars on the track, take le manns for example where the corvette wins basically every race. again they are becoming popular for racing, with turns, as pointed out in the past few issues of hot rod magazine which featured a camaro and a chevelle, both from the 60’s, which destroy european cars on the track.

poor handling is often attributed to muslce cars which is usually true since most muscle cars are set up by their owners for the drag strip, where of course, they also dominate. seriously, do you expect a car with 20 inch wide tires in the back and 3 inch wide tires in the front, and a big block v8 engines in between the front wheels to beat anyone in a turn?

i drive a volkswagen, and i am deeply into european cars, but seriously if you don’t know anything about american muscle cars, keep your mouth shut. if you weren’t so biased and you knew what you were talking about maybe you would seem a tad more intellegent
camaro, chevelle, vega, charger, fire bird, gt, gran torina, skylark, cutl-ss, 442, mustang, gto, corvette, roadrunner, baracuda, grand national, monte carlo, nova
overpriced? in 1969, your average 17 year-old american kid who just finished high-school and works full-time at a hamburger stand could afford a plymouth road runner. even with insurance, gas, and tires, he could afford. this is an actual fact, btw. a ’69 383-powered rr, with cold-air induction, a 4-speed, and good weather could do 0-60 in 6 seconds a pull all the way to 130mph on 60’s tech bias-ply tires. complete with an unsilenced air cleaner and low-restriction dual exhaust, a special performance cam and high-flow cylinder heads.for an extra $714 he could get his/herself a 426 hemi, with state-of-the-art (at least, at the time)techonology. starting with dual quads flowing about 1300cfm total, mounted on an aluminum intake manifold, with a cast-iron block and cast-iron cylinder heads. everything was shot-peened and magnafluxed, and when the whole thing was hand–ssembled by expert mechanics, it was also fully balanced-and-blueprinted. header-like exhaust manifolds were used, with 2.5″ tubing. mandrel bends? sorry, the technology for that didn’t exist in the late ’60s, whether it was a cheap economical ford, or a $20k ferrari. btw, race hemi’s had single 4-bbl. carbs mounted on magnesium intakes, with aluminum heads and 12.5:1 (vs. 10.25:1) compression pistons. it is estimated that an a-990 426c.i. race hemi produced about 600hp & 550ft-lbs of torque at the crank. this is gross, however since there was no emmissions equipment, no a/c, power steering, and 95% of the time, a 4-speed stick, net ratings wouldn’t be much different from the gross ones. maybe -5% or something. -10%, tops. anyway, old-school muscle cars were not ugly (that is a matter of opinion), are cheap (worth $10’s to $100k’s now), and were very durable and reliable. fuel-efficient? no. enviroment-friendly? no. but neither were euro sports cars of the day, either, so you can’t complain. there suspensions, well, i can’t say they were great, but they certainly weren’t bad. you try taking any ’60s-engineered car with a purposely stiff suspension (designed for minimal body roll and maximum traction) off-road for 10 minutes. no matter what it is, your back will be hurting. maybe mure in a compet-tion-spec ’65 cobra 427 then in a luxury lincoln sedan, but still. if real race cars were fuel-efficient and softly-suspended like you wanted them to be, they’d still be pushing along at 100mph and leaning side-to-side every time you turned the wheel. polyurethane bushings didn’t exhist in the ’60s. btw, most old road runner’s or gto’s woudl smoke a ferrari 365gtb/4 daytona at the drag strip, or even a nascar superspeedway for that matter. not on a road course, no, but fyi most ’60s nascar musclecars could do 190mph. some, like the ’70 plymouth superbird could do 220mph. not bad for the day. anyway, the point is, you;re a jerk, gumba gumba, and doesn’t know anything about ’60s cars, whether performance or luxury-oriented, whether domestic or imported.
american muscle vs. euro road racers
1970 plymouth duster 340
a/c, am/fm radio, vinyl buckets, auto tranny
0-60 in 6 seconds, 130mph top speed

1970 dodge charger r/t
heater, am radio, vinyl buckets, 4-speed stick
0-60 in under 6.5 seconds, ~140mph top speed

1970 ferrari 365gtb/4 daytona
dunno what options, probably leather and cr-p
0-60 in 6 seconds, 170mph top speed

so basically, $20k ferrari daytona has acceleration equal to that of a $2.5k duster 340. the dusters 5.6l v8 makes about 310hp, whereas the ferrari makes 352. nevermind that the ferrari has 4 more cylinders, 4 cams, 6 carbs, and all that. it has 1.2-liters less displacemen. the only reason it can do 170 is ’cause of the 5-speed and really steep gears. give it 3.91 gears like a duster, and voila! the top speed goes down by 10mph. 0-60 acceleration would go down by about 3/10th’s of a second. git rid of the 5th gear, and in combination with the 3.91 gears, you get the same acceleratio and top speed as a duster, only for $17k more, and with less stash sp-ce and worse fuel-economy. all for 4-wheel disc brakes. whoop-dee do.
the definition of what cars were and always will be in that era…and what cars should be today.

all hail the 1969 dodge charger r/t
dude, did you see that ’69 charger r/t with that big–ss 426 hemi? that sh-t puts out 425 horsepower
american muscle cars were known for their m-ssive v8’s, powerful engine roar, and for destroying their compet-tion on the drag strip. these cars were very popular during the 60’s and 70’s, especially in america. many people have their opinions and likes/dislikes about certain cars, but everyone can agree that the 60’s and 70’s were owned by the muscle car. these v8 monsters were the best performing cars in the world, and their foreign compet-tion, including the european exotics, couldn’t match the performance of the american muscle. not only were they powerful, but they were loud – you could hear them coming from miles away. muscle cars were built with p-ssion to outperform its compet-tors, and it was successful at doing so. they were known as king of the road, and it was this that made muscles such a popular american icon.

but as the muscle car era neared the 80’s and 90’s, something changed. there was something different about how american manufacturers were making their vehicles. their cars didn’t perform or look half as good as their earlier models, and they became more…..sloppy. not only did they go down in performance and looks, american companies became greedy and started selling muscle cars in m-ss production, not giving a care if the car looked or performed well. the countless victories and success of the muscle car seemed to have made america c-cky and greedy, and they were building cars only to make money. take the dodge charger, for example. in the 60’s-70’s, these cars were one of the biggest, baddest muscle cars you could buy. their incredible performance made them popular, and as american companies took notice of the rapid increase in sales, they became greedy. as the years p-ssed, they became more sloppy, making careless mistakes. dodge was producing chargers in m-ss production, not thinking about how they were ruining the car. soon the charger went from an awesome performance monster to a cr-ppy way for dodge to make money. this caused a rapid decrease in sales, and in 1978, it was discontinued. america’s overconfidence and want for money was killing the muscle car, and this continued through the 90’s and into the 21st century. nowadays, muscle cars are cr-p. they don’t perform or look half as good as they did 40 years ago. current models like the gto and charger are examples of some of the worst muscle cars ever built. it wasn’t that america could no longer build cars like they did in the past – they could still do it. but as time p-ssed, technology advanced, and as foreign companies were keeping up with this advanced tech, americans stuck to their original muscle car “recipe”. it’s all because american companies lost their p-ssion for building the high-performance muscle car, and it was replaced with the p-ssion for money.

muscle car enthusiasts, however, refuse to believe this. their pride and love for the american icon is glued to their hearts. they collect and treasure muscles from years past, and continue to rebuild them and increase their performance. if only it was these people who would run american manufacturers such as dodge, ford, pontiac….. . sadly, they don’t, and the people that do run these companies just want the money. america still tries to make performance cars, however – the corvette and viper, especially the corvette, have been able to compete with the new king of the road – the europeans. euros these days are built with the p-ssion to perform that america once had. many are hand built to perfection using high-quality materials and performance parts. now, europe makes some of the fastest cars in the world, and lap records to almost every major track are set by euros. the corvette, although not a muscle car, is as fast as many euros and costs about half the price. this american sports car is the one of very few decent american cars that is made today. muscle cars from the 60’s and 70’s remain as the most decent muscle cars ever built, and there are still some around today. but with global warming and demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, these american icons, with their loud v8’s and m-ssive power, will soon be gone forever.
dodge charger, ford mustang, chevy camaro, and plymouth ‘cuda are examples of american muscle
truly the cars of the gods, more based on torque than hp, more on performance than looks, car that every true auto fan should have. they are loud but that shows how strong it is. cons are it a gas chugger.
“all j-panese cars and euro’s don’t stand a chance against american muscle”
i beg to difer that american muscle is rubbish…..yes they would be beaten but that is duw to the fact that the 69 mustang corvette etc are 35 years old.

a muscle car…if tuned correctly can sometmes excede 2000 bhp at the crank.

if you have ever seen a proo street muscle car you would understand that it is not driven to beat civics….the car of ricers but to destroy everything on the street
that muscle car is truly sweet
cars designed (usually) with big or small-block v8s. today, mostly small-block. american muscle cars are commonly found to have high amounts of torque, and moderate to high horsepower without tuning. oftentimes, they aren’t quite as expensive as their well-known nemesis, the import tuner (or rice rocket), which commonly features a four-cylinder engine, built up with all kinds of “technology” (i.e. turbo chargers, nitrous, etc.) to make up for its shortcomings to any american muscle car.

american muscle is sometimes found equipped with a “supercharger,” which can give them far more horsepower and torque than their counterpart, the turbocharger, commonly used by imports, which can cost even more than a supercharger, and is also known to be nowhere nearly as reliable.

it should also be noted: american muscle is very easy to spot (and hear) on the highway. it is often -ssociated with a deep, rumbling exhaust sound, as opposed to the annoying, high-pitched wail commonly produced by the imports’ four-bangers. american muscle is also noted for not needing any sort of body modifications (i.e. tail lights, body kits, huge aluminum spoilers, etc.) to make it look fast and aggressive.

when properly modified and built, an american muscle car will easily match or outperform any tuned import. it’s also worth noting that bone stock american muscle cars can often outrun highly modified import cars, and have even been known to ruin highly sought-after imports such as lancer evo9s and subaru wrx-stis.

many myths surround american muscle cars, which can commonly be dismissed. one example is the theory that american muscle is a poor-handling vehicle. while this may have been true in the early years of muscle, this is a common misconception now, as many of the modern american muscle cars, such as the late pontiac trans am have a wide stance, and a stiff, sport-tuned suspension, which stops excessive roll, allowing for a well-balanced turn when driven properly.

another common misconception is that american muscle is the only gas-guzzling vehicle around. this is to the contrary, as a twin turboed four-banger import will do just as badly on gas mileage due to the excess draw on gas to pull more power from the weak four cylinder engine.

also to note is gear ratios: many imports have very small gear ratios, which allow for high acceleration, but no top-end speed. many american muscle cars on the other hand, have large gear ratios, which allow for decent acceleration, and a very high top-end speed.

these large gear ratios are possible due to the high amounts of horsepower and torque produced by an american muscle car’s engine. on the contrary, many imports have small gear ratios in order to accelerate without any torque or horsepower to boot.

finally, to drive an american muscle car, one must be truly experienced at driving. any scrawny, acne-ridden teenage kid can jump behind the wheel of his eclipse and pretend he can drive. however, with some talent and driving practice, any american muscle car can be taken to the next level, and prove for good which car is truly the top choice.
true american muscle:
chevelle ss, mustang, saleen, camaro (iroc-z, z28, ss), firebird (formula, trans am), corvette, gto, charger, shelby, etc.

←