wookie (04/15/83)
The question of what is meant by the muscle cars came up. The first muscle car was unquestionably the Pontiac GTO which came about as a result of John DeLorean et al at Pontiac. In the early 60's GM had a rule which did not permit engines larger than 330 CID in mid sized cars (Tempest, LeMans, Cutlass, etc). The Pontiac engineers for want of a 326 V8 installed a 389 V8 in the Tempest/LeMans for some testing. Everone liked the power and so it was decided to market the car in 1964 as the GTO against upper management. Thus the muscle car was born and really refers to the mid- sized cars of the 60's with full size car engines. The Mustang started with a High Performance 289 V8 and didn't go to the 428 until 1968 I believe. The Firebird came out in 67 and was available with the 400CID V8 (upgraded from the previous 389). The Camaro started offering the 396 at some point early in its history. In the early 70's GM pushed all their big V8s to 455 CID and so these started showing up in the small cars with the exception of the Camaro. I suppose the highest rated engine could possibly be the 73-74 Super Duty 455 Firebirds which were rated at 310 SAE NET horsepower. (Remember the change in rating systems previously discussed in this news group????)Certainly the plymouth roadrunner with the 426 Hemi and dual quads was a real muscle car with incredible power. I suppose then that the initial meaning of the muscle cars is something with at least the high 300's in CID. However there was another type of performance vehicle available using small displacement engines which were really intended for racing. Various racing rules require that for a supposedly stock car to run as a race car so many units must be available for the public. The Camaro Z28 and the Mustang BOSS 302 fall into this category and while both had displacements of only (get this) 302 CID (5.0 liters) they were true race engines. A lot of the parts that would up on the cars were there just so the racers could use them on the track. The Firebird was that type of car. The Pontiac engineers wanted to race on the side and so by designing the parts into the public cars they could win races. Thus the big air scoops on the hood of the Firebird. Most are just for looks on the street but will add 20 Horsepower on the track when the speeds go up and force all that cold air down the carburetor! Enough for now. Keith Bauer White Tiger Racing Bell Labs Murray Hill
emma (04/15/83)
Ahem. It is difficult to take seriously the claim that the GTO was the first muscle car, when you consider earlier efforts like the Duesenberg SJ, with its supercharged Lycoming aircraft engine, or the Hemi-head Chrysler 300 (so named because it produced 300 hp from the factory). Then we have the Max-wedge project in early '60s Dodges and Plymouths, or even the early '50s Cadillacs. I will accept that the GTO was the first one aimed at "youth". -Joe P.
jlw (04/15/83)
I can't agree with wookie's definition of a muscle car. Back when we lived in south Bama in the '50's my dad bought a '57 Chrysler New Yorker 4Dr HT with the 392cube, 325HP (old style) Hemi. I learned to drive on that car. I have to put it in the muscle car class. I also have to disagree about the start of the era. Chrysler was running Hemis in the stock car races all during the 50's. Also two of the first of the factory muscle cars were the 1960 360 Ford and the 1959 409 Chevy of "She's real fine my 409" Beach Boy fame. Those early cars had mean engines; the Ford was only 352 cubes and 360 pretty honest HP. The 409 was the champ of the Super Stock for quite a while. While the engines were good the trannys and real ends were not. A high school friend of mine, he had rich and indulgent grandparents, gave him a 1960 360 Ford Sunliner in bright purple. I don't think I've ever seen an uglier car. In the year he had it until Ford finally recalled it at the end warranty period he went through 14 rear ends and 4 transmissions. In these days of the Muncies you just forget how fragile some of the other parts were. I also knew this guy's Ford mechanic. One time in order to keep him from dropping another rear, they put in about a 2.79 ratio from an autotrans. The old three speed, I guess I didn't mention that it was only a three speed, would do 90 in first gear at 6000rpm. Enough ranting for now. No, wait there's more. Between the time we bought the Chrysler in '57 and when we moved north in '62 my older sister dropped 4 transmissions herself. I think she was racing some of the moonshiners. We kept the car for 13 years. A Chrysler collecter in Connecticut has it now. Once when it was sitting out in the drive in the early sixties we heard a sharp twang. Half an hour later we heard another. Opon going out in the morning we discovered that both front torsion bars had broken. Thank God it happened in the driveway and not on the Beltway. Joe (good ol' boy) Wood ariel!jlw ABI - HO
wookie (04/15/83)
I agree with Joe Wood that there were certainly very powerfull cars
available starting in the 50's but I think you will note that the
big powerful engines came in the big cars. When one reads about
Muscle cars the articles are usually referring to the items I had
previously mentioned starting in the mid 60's. I will have to pay
particular attention to this and do a little digging through the
archives. It may also be that authors only talk about the Muscle
Cars of the 60's in particular since they seem to bunch together and
disappeared at the same time due to the gas crunch etc. There are
many books out entitled Muscle Cars of the 60's but I don't recall
one talkiong about "Muscle Cars of the 50's". I shall dig around and
report.
Anyway, I think we all agree that all of those cars were at least
very powerful although the head designs appearing in the late 60's
and early 70's were certainly better in the flow department than
the earlier versions.
By the way does anyone want an Offenhauer dual quad aluminum intake
for the 61-64 Pontiac 389/421 ? If so I have one for sale>
Keith Bauer
White Tiger Racing
Bell Labs Murray Hill