Ok, since people are stupid enough to believe a Mercedes CL 65 AMG is a muscle car, i'm here to make a poll to clear this arguement.

Here's how to vote, just to keep away from guests.

Voting goes like this:
Example:
YES:1
No:0

YES:2
No :0

Yes:2
No:1

Give one point to Yes or No, to the following question: Do you think Mercedes ever made a Muscle car?

To start off, i'd say no.

Yes:0
No:1

Don't you think that you really push it?Never mind...

Yes:0
No:2

To me it is a 2 door limo.

no, it's a GT...

yes-0
no-3

EDIT: why didn't you just make a poll....

no:3

uhh...it's common sense that it's not a muscle car...i mean you can prefer it's a european muscle, but mainly muscle car views American style of performance along wit American looks.

I think special R you did a mistake...
It's
yes:0
no:4
Don't do mistakes because mclaren will be angry...LOL:D

I would vote no, because it's not a true ''muscle-car'', but it's nearly as close as a muscle car in todays day and age.

Yes: 0
No: 5

doesn't have the aggressive look of the Muscle so

Yes: 0
No :6

why not just poll it

It is not a traditional muscle-car in the normal sense of the word, but I think it is a modern version of a muscle-car. It has a superb engine and I would love to have the chance to drive one.

Yes: 1, No: 6

Ok, we have polls and we are doing this???

Muscle car to me is really an older car from America that sounds amazing, has alot of torque to spin its wheels, has a 4 speed, smells like gas, and looks amazing....blah blah blah we all know the deal.

Now when you look at lets say, an CL65, its more luxury and its styling doesnt really put it in the "muscle car" category.

BUT

Forget the fact that it doesnt fit into this "Muscle Car" mold. This mercedes, and others have toooo much power. We are talking 612 horses and 738 ft/lbs or torque. Thats mind blowing. You cant look at everything from one side, to me MB are muscle cars when you drop the image of the camaro in your head. It has alot of muscle, much more than most of the muscle cars you are thinking about (Before mods.)


And how could you say no the muscle from a bi-turbo V-12....thats just retarted.



Ok, since people are stupid enough to believe a Mercedes CL 65 AMG is a muscle car, i'm here to make a poll to clear this arguement.

Who are you to call anyone stupid? Your the one who didnt even make a poll so we dont have to do this stupid yes and no stuff. Whats your reasoning behind the fact that its NOT a muscle car. I stated mine, you stated that people are stupid, ironic.


So for me I must say

Yes:2
No: 6

this is tricky. and it depends:

if you take the strict concept of "muscle car" the Mercedes doesn't fit. but then again, what modern cars does ? not even the new concepts of GM or Ford don't have the true muscle spirit anymore. this means that the muscle car is.. dead nowdays.

in a wider way, I think the CL would fit. mostly because of the engine. big car, big motor. that's the basic philosophy of the muscle car. lots of horses and torques. it doesn't matter if it has bavarian leather and GPS on board or not.

so, it really depends on how much of a purist you are. personaly, I think the label (in today's terms) could be associated with this car. so, there you go:

Yes: 3
No: 6

yes:3
no: 7
its just not!

no:8

jeez..it's European...even if they attempt to make it muscle...it'll turn out worse.

Yes:3
No:9

I've said this before, but for me if it doesn't have a carb, and can even attempt corners it's not a Muscle car.

^ haha.

so it has to have an old-school carburettor, no injection like all new cars have nowadays, and handle like sh*t? i'm sure i could find a car that's nowhere near muscle which has both of those attributes...

Yes:4
No:9

A CLS-class has 4 doors yet it's still called a coupe, so why cant we have a luxury muscle car?

^ haha.

so it has to have an old-school carburettor, no injection like all new cars have nowadays, and handle like sh*t? i'm sure i could find a car that's nowhere near muscle which has both of those attributes...
Those aren't the only requirements, those are just the two that take out the CL65. I think they stopped making Muscle cars after '73. After that even American cars became sports cars. Take the '04-'06 Pontiac GTO. Great car, 400hp, but it can corner. Muscle cars handle like full size trucks, have absoulutly horrible breaking, and jusk look out of place on a road course. They are strait line machines, that's it. If you're telling me the CL65 is designed for the drag strip go slap yourself. If you want to comment on the new GTOs breaking, take a car with four wheel drum breaks for a spin then come talk to me.

^^^NASCar? lol

People need to realis that muscle cars have elolved. The new breed of muscle cars can handle, but that's not their forte. Their strength is acceleration down at the strip. if that is not the cars, then the car is not a muscle car. The CL65 has more muscle than any stock muscle car, but where it belongs is the autobahn, and is therefore a GT car.

A CLS-class has 4 doors yet it's still called a coupe, so why cant we have a luxury muscle car?

Mercedes-Benz also calls the R-Class a 'grand tourer' but we all know its really a luxury mini van.

as much as i live mercedes-benz you can't have a 4 door coupe, but its brilliant marketing imo.

^^^Why not? it looks like a coupe, smells like a coupe, and has the same rear headroom as a coupe. If you welded the back doors shut, you'd be an idiot, but then it'd be a proper coupe. Think of the rear doors as an easy way into the TWO back seats.
And my Mcquarrie dictionary says "coupes usually have two doors".

Yes:4
No:10

Nah, I dont really know what to call it but its definatly not a muscle car.

^^^Why not? it looks like a coupe, smells like a coupe, and has the same rear headroom as a coupe. If you welded the back doors shut, you'd be an idiot, but then it'd be a proper coupe. Think of the rear doors as an easy way into the TWO back seats.
And my Mcquarrie dictionary says "coupes usually have two doors".

Coupe = 2 Doors
Sedan = 4 Doors

imo, it doesn't look like all that much like a coupe, its sexy, its sleek, but a coupe is 2 doors or less

As far as I'm concerned, muscle cars are American or, to a lesser extent, Australian, built between the early 60's and early 70's, shaped like sheds, 2 doors, and with enormous V8s up front (except for the few 6 cyl black sheep).

This is a muscle car:

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/plymouth-roadrunner/images/plymouth-roadrunner-1969b.jpg

This is a european sports/luxury coupe:

http://www.chrisabraham.com/mercedes-benz-cl-coupe-2007.jpg

Are you saying the dictionary is wrong?!?!?! look, for all intents and purposes, it's a coupe, but with ligitimate rear seat access.

Everyone here has a seemingly different opinion of what a muscle car, a GT, a supercar, a coupe, and a sportscar is. That, F1, is the only thing that this thread has proven.

The origional muscle car era died in the '70s, due to the rise of gas prices. Now just chew on that for a minute. I found a simple definition on a few different sites of what a muscle car is.

muscle car n.

A high performance automobile, often with flashy, sporty styling.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/muscle+car
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0491500.html

I also found opinions of what a modern muscle car may be.


http://cars.about.com/od/helpforcarbuyers/tp/top_muscle.htm

Also, check this. I found a link of a site that discusses a Jensen Interceptor. This is a British car with a 7.2L V8. Their argument is "If it walks like a duck..."http://www.modernmuscle.net/

Anyway, my reasoning is based on the same principals of the past... and most likely the same principals that will kill the modern muscle car.

AMG today is what SS was in the '60's and '70's. You can't argue that.

In my opinion, the CL55, CL65, CL63, E, CLS, C are modern day muscle cars... as well as the CTS-V, Holden HSV, etc.

I don't even take offense to you calling me stupid for having an opinion that's different from your own. I know for a fact that I'm smarter than you...

... based on this. You've jumped around three different threads to get the support of others, when you have yet to provide a compelling argument of you own. Chew on that for a minute.

I've provided more actual facts than the bullshit you (or anyone else) have provided to change my opinion.

But again, it's my opinion.

CL65= modern day muscle car.

Your rationale is sound, but I refuse to call anything modern "muscle".

Nooooooo!!!!!! - 11

it is a muscle car? i dont care if it has an american engine, whatever big block, blah blah blah, it isnt a muscle car to me, Mercedes never intended to build muscle cars id say, but well, they could do it, but i have never found a muscle car with wood trims and leather everywhere, and all those digital stuff in the car, its mainly the power...

argh, i suck at these stuff..

so,

Yes:4
No:12

no ,, i just think of it as a powerfull and luxury GT

Yes:4
No:13

Yes:4
No:14

Mercedes are very well known for making excellent luxury cars. Why would they all of a sudden make a muscle car? Also, the CL 65 AMG doesn't classify as a muscle car, it's a luxury Grand tourer, It's doesn't look like a muscle car too.

Oh, and the CL 65 AMGs interior looks very comfortable, a muscle car shouldn't have much or at all any creature comforts.

4:yes
15:no

The CL65 is nothing more than a large luxury coupe. It doesn't have the raw appeal of a true muscle car. The interior looks too comfortable to be in a muscle car. AMG rules but the CL65 is not a muscle car.

4:yes
16:no
I agree with most people that the CL65 is not a modern muscle car; and Mercedes doesn't want it to be too. It is a big heavy luxury GT, lots of gadget and wood, leather inside the car.... a lot of electronics... and corner quite well. It doesn't lose anything not to be called a muscle car right?

Yes:4
No:14

Mercedes are very well known for making excellent luxury cars. Why would they all of a sudden make a muscle car? Also, the CL 65 AMG doesn't classify as a muscle car, it's a luxury Grand tourer, It's doesn't look like a muscle car too.

Oh, and the CL 65 AMGs interior looks very comfortable, a muscle car shouldn't have much or at all any creature comforts.What do you mean all of a sudden? Are you hip to the 300SEL 6.3 from '68-72? Muscle car.http://www.fantasycars.com/sedans/column/sedans4_merc300sel.html Are you familiar with AMG?

4:yes
16:no
I agree with most people that the CL65 is not a modern muscle car; and Mercedes doesn't want it to be too. It is a big heavy luxury GT, lots of gadget and wood, leather inside the car.... a lot of electronics... and corner quite well. It doesn't lose anything not to be called a muscle car right?When did Mercedes (or anyone) ever classify the CL as a GT? It's most definetly not a GT.

yes: 5
no: 16

I'm going with the "its a muscle car" thing. It definetly is a modern day muscle car, with no doubt about it. If we're talking about the look and exterior of the CL65, yeah it looks like a regular Euro sportscar that goes like stink. But if you only thought of the engine, it sure as hell has some characteristics of a muscle car, excluding the two turboes. Its got a sh*t load of torque, and sh*t load of HP, and sure as hell can handle pretty damn well for such a heavy car. Edit: and more on that, the engine itself produces more torque than its little tires handle. Imagine that thing with no torque limiter. (Actually, it wouldnt really go anywhere, the tires would just spin until they burst and you'd really be riding rims.) And that sure as hell is one characteristic of a muscle car.

The only thing thats not really Muscle about the CL65 is its slushbox auto. What a piece of sh*t.

You guys sometimes judge cars in totally irrelevant areas, such as the interior. So what if it has a Navi, supple wood, tons of electronics, and LEATHER? It doesnt automatically make it not a muscle car. Think of it this way, if you took a Pontiac GTO from the 70s or somewhere around there, and loaded it with electronics, from sat nav, to wood grain, to leather seats, would it void its status as a muscle car? Hell no. Its still the same, fast as hell in a straight line, muscle car just with more.

yes: 5
no: 16
You guys sometimes judge cars in totally irrelevant areas, such as the interior. So what if it has a Navi, supple wood, tons of electronics, and LEATHER? It doesnt automatically make it not a muscle car. Think of it this way, if you took a Pontiac GTO from the 70s or somewhere around there, and loaded it with electronics, from sat nav, to wood grain, to leather seats, would it void its status as a muscle car? Hell no. Its still the same, fast as hell in a straight line, muscle car just with more.
Yes you're right..Many are judging cars from what they look like,or from the interior or something else..This is wrong..It isn't a muscle car because it seems like a muscle car..You must search it first..
I haven't so much experience about muscle cars and i knew one definition about when a car is muscle..Then you confused me because of these many definitions you had given..So i don't take part in this voting..

6 yes
16 no

As far as I'm concerned, muscle cars are American or, to a lesser extent, Australian, built between the early 60's and early 70's, shaped like sheds, 2 doors, and with enormous V8s up front (except for the few 6 cyl black sheep).

This is a muscle car:

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/plymouth-roadrunner/images/plymouth-roadrunner-1969b.jpg

This is a european sports/luxury coupe:

http://www.chrisabraham.com/mercedes-benz-cl-coupe-2007.jpg


Your rationale is sound, but I refuse to call anything modern "muscle".

Hmmmmm, I don't see why not. We have constant rows on this site bout how it doesn't matter where a car comes from, it's about what it does, what it is. Just because it's from america doesn't mean it can't handle. Just because it's from Korea means it has bad build quality. Just because it's from Europe, doesn't mean it is automatically a luxury car.

However, I''ll agree that the CL isn't muscle. I've changed my mind from the previous thread, but what was said made sense. A muscle car was always just your average car, with a stonking great engine in it. That's the muscles. However, a CL never started life, and never intended to be, an average car. It's an S-class coupe in essence, so, no, it isn't Muscle.

6 yes
17 no



However, this whole idea nothing modern can be muscle confuses me. Why can't they be ? To me, an RS4 could be a muscle car in some definition. It's your average A4, just with a 414bhp V8 at the front. But then again, it isn't your average A4 at all. It has big bucket seats, new wheels, more kit inside, etc. I can see that point of your arguement, as with muscle crs of old, you could sorta walk into the dealer, and ask for the bog standard car, but with the 7 litre V8 at the front. Now a days, you go into a dealer, and ask for the big engine out front, he then says, well, that's only available with the prestige pack, full leather, tinted windows, blah blah blah. It's a package now. Not just an engine.

I still think there are modern day muscle cars though. I'll just be damned if I can put my finger on them though. :p

Ok, we have polls and we are doing this???

Muscle car to me is really an older car from America that sounds amazing, has alot of torque to spin its wheels, has a 4 speed, smells like gas, and looks amazing....blah blah blah we all know the deal.

Now when you look at lets say, an CL65, its more luxury and its styling doesnt really put it in the "muscle car" category.

BUT

Forget the fact that it doesnt fit into this "Muscle Car" mold. This mercedes, and others have toooo much power. We are talking 612 horses and 738 ft/lbs or torque. Thats mind blowing. You cant look at everything from one side, to me MB are muscle cars when you drop the image of the camaro in your head. It has alot of muscle, much more than most of the muscle cars you are thinking about (Before mods.)


And how could you say no the muscle from a bi-turbo V-12....thats just retarted.





Who are you to call anyone stupid? Your the one who didnt even make a poll so we dont have to do this stupid yes and no stuff. Whats your reasoning behind the fact that its NOT a muscle car. I stated mine, you stated that people are stupid, ironic.


So for me I must say

Yes:2
No: 6
You're stupid enough to not know that i'm doing this to keep away guests from voting or spammers that use anonymous surfing to screw up this vote.

Not a good voting question! Muscle cars are first of all American trends as they have small trunk and very large hood having an old model looks comparing it with Mercedes theme isn't a right deal as Mercedes provides a luxury look even in the sports car tradition..!
IN MY VIEW !! NO

You're stupid enough to not know that i'm doing this to keep away guests from voting or spammers that use anonymous surfing to screw up this vote.
Or you could just allow people to view the results and count the people from the forum who voted.

Yes:4
No:10

Nah, I dont really know what to call it but its definatly not a muscle car.

wow, dude, I'm not replying to your quote, but.. what's that picture you have there ?:smt005
is that really a Phantom on big wheels ? because it looks like a BMW tractor form the 1910's...
no offence if you like it, it just shocked me and made me laugh :D

Are you saying the dictionary is wrong?!?!?! look, for all intents and purposes, it's a coupe, but with ligitimate rear seat access.

Enthusiasts don't take the dictionary word for word, i learned that the same way you did and are. Bottom line if it has 4 doors, its a Sedan. The 4 door coupe was a great marketing technique though.