A while ago I made a thread about your favourite supercar, I think it went fine so I thought to do a muscle car thread.

So, which one is your favourite muscle car from the 50s 60s and 70s

Please, don't argue about someone else's choise and post pics

#1st#



Mine's the 1967 Shelby Mustang GT500 (Elenor)

my favourite is this baby here
1970 plymouth cuda (rad rides)
http://www.coches-es.com/noticias/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/1970_plymouth_hemi_cuda-02.jpeg

i like all of them or most of them and cant choose the best.

^same, I like most of them, well almost all.

I like the previous gen Camaro's.

others I like are Mustang (of course), Challenger.

those are the ones I like the 'most'

Mine's the 1967 Shelby Mustang GT500 (Elenor)

That's a pony car, not a muscle car.

And it isn't even a real car, damnit.

my favourite is this baby here
1970 plymouth cuda (rad rides)
http://www.coches-es.com/noticias/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/1970_plymouth_hemi_cuda-02.jpeg

Now that's a man's car right there.


I like the previous gen Camaro's.

others I like are Mustang (of course), Challenger.

those are the ones I like the 'most'

Camaros are pony cars too.




Muscle car:

http://www.everythingmuscle.com/Service_Work_Mechanical/70%20chevelle%20SS%20Start%20up%20&%20Buff.JPG


That's 454 cubic feet of balls, ladies.

I've always thought the wheels look too small but if you widen up the arches (slightly) and give it some massive shoes, you can make one seriously angry looking machine out of these.

For me, it was always the '69 Dodge Charger :

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8546/mopp07121969dodgechargept2.jpg

#1st#



Mine's the 1967 Shelby Mustang GT500 (Elenor)

There was NO eleanor in 1967.....that was a creation for the movie "Gone In 60 Seconds)
and Rav is also right. Mustangs are technically pony cars

That's a pony car, not a muscle car.

And it isn't even a real car, damnit.



Now that's a man's car right there.



Camaros are pony cars too.




Muscle car:

http://www.everythingmuscle.com/Service_Work_Mechanical/70%20chevelle%20SS%20Start%20up%20&%20Buff.JPG


That's 454 cubic feet of balls, ladies.

I've always thought the wheels look too small but if you widen up the arches (slightly) and give it some massive shoes, you can make one seriously angry looking machine out of these.

My 70 SS only had the 396, but it is still a car I miss

1970 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda

I really don't see the point in breaking up Pony cars and muscle cars. It seems like the pony cars would be a subset of muscle cars in general. I mean, how many pony cars were there? Mustang, Javelin, Camaro... wasn't the 'Cuda/Charger supposed to compete with them? would that make them pony cars?

Well i would say a yenko camaro but as rav has ruined the fun by making it so specific i guess i would say it has to be a hemi cuda.

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1970-1979/1970-Plymouth-Hemi-Cuda-Orange-Front-Angle-sy.jpg

For me, it was always the '69 Dodge Charger :



I had a 69 RT/SC too. I bought it in the late 80s with a blown tranny for $100.......Then an uncle, who owned a mechanic shop, gave me a replacement tranny.......I was less than $300 into that car when I did my first burn out in it:cool:

your mean :(

your mean :(

Not yet.....you can call me mean when I post pics of the mustangs, the vette, or even the AMX......
Or maybe you would prefer pics of my cousin's 68 mustang GT/CS (california Special) or maybe my other cousin's 68 camaro convertible


BTW....I have news that seems fitting for this thread
I HAVE LOCATED THE 66 GTO THAT I OWNED IN HIGH SCHOOL. I have been looking for this thing for years, and finally found it. Now I just have to get the goy to sell it

your a willy :(

your a willy :(
Probably......but I am one with really nice old toys....:D

heretic stop the critics and showoffs and say whats ur favourite muscle car. stick to the thread topic MOD!

I HAVE LOCATED THE 66 GTO THAT I OWNED IN HIGH SCHOOL. I have been looking for this thing for years, and finally found it. Now I just have to get the goy to sell itCongratulations! :D

I HAVE LOCATED THE 66 GTO THAT I OWNED IN HIGH SCHOOL. I have been looking for this thing for years, and finally found it. Now I just have to get the goy to sell it

Threat him that you'll :smt021 :smt062 :smt075 him
Congratz BTW

Fav muscle car of yesteryear? I'd say a javelin or an amx... I lke amc... ;)....

As far as new age.... Termin8r stang please.. Kennebell 2.2 equipped

heretic stop the critics and showoffs and say whats ur favourite muscle car. stick to the thread topic MOD!

that is really hard for me to say. I have had so many, and there was things I liked about each. Right now my fav would probably be the 68 AMX, but really that is because it is my current project. (I recently found a 390 "GO PACK" model.) But technically that is a sports car, not a muscle car

I will have to think about this a little longer

#1st#



Mine's the 1967 Shelby Mustang GT500 (Elenor)

missed an A pal, Eleanor.

the plymouth is the most non fuel efficient car ever, 4mpg... i know muscle cars where not made for that..just as an interesting fact...

And for me, 1969 Dodge Charger.

This is a really hard one but it has to be the 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T, I don't know why but I think those things are awesome.

My favourite is also Dodge Challenger R/T

http://www.usageorge.com/Wallpapers/Automobile/wallpaper/1970-TA-Challenger.jpg

For me the 1970 Plymouth Cuda. If you want to see the Cuda in action
check out the movie "Vanishing Point"

well mine as you can see is a 1969 chevy camaro yenko

Guys.......the Mustang, Camaro, Javelin, Cuda, and Challenger were ALL Pony Cars. They are differentiated from Muscle Cars because of their smaller size, firstly. They are based on compact chassis, whereas Muscel cars are full-sized coupes, typically.

And Ty, the AMX was a two-seat sports car. Unless you mean the package for the later Javelin. Which was a Pony car.

Favorite Muscle car for me has to be the Chevelle. I prefer the 70-72 model, but the previous generation was sweet ass, too.

I know those are pony cars, but I consider them as muscle cars also

So, if no one has a problem with it, let's consider:
Mustang, Camaro, Javelin, Cuda and Challenger as muscle cars for this thread

I'd say the Buick GSX Stage 1. 455ci of pure balls. It was only avaliable in two colors Apollo White or the more popular Saturn Yellow. I perfer it in the Saturn Yellow. Manufactuer claims of 360 HP (More than 400) and 510 lb./tq
Earth mover I know.
http://www.buickstreet.com/images/rays70gsx-main.jpg

I think I am going to go with the 69 GTO judge. I had one at the same time I had my 68 olds 442. I could turn faster times in the olds, but that was because it would hook up, while the goat would smoke the tires. I had more fun driving my 66 GTO, but the judge really was the nicer car

1970 Chevelle SS 454.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d41/A_Diabetic/CIMG0193.jpg

I'll take mine in orange and black please.

All this Stangs, Camros, Chevelles, Chargers, Cudas, Challengers and GTOs are small fries near this Maverick, Yeah a Maverick!
http://www.obvio.ind.br/Maverick-Hollywood--Berta.jpg
http://www.webmotors.com.br/webmotors/ssRevista/_fotos/1_Ford_Maverick_Berta_Hollywood_abre_200 7124171311.jpg
http://www2.uol.com.br/bestcars/carros/outros/maverick-berta-compet.jpg
The racing Maverick Hollywood-Berta from the powerful Hollywood team, it used to race in the 500 km of Interlagos and it have every thing that a racing car needs but my favorites are the giant rear tires, the spoiler and the 500hp naturaly aspirated racing engine. Oh and it was build, raced and restored in Brazil what makes the car even better.

I don't know. The obvious answer from me would be a Mustang of some sort, but that's a pony car. As is Camaro's, Cuda's, Challengers and Fireburds

So I'm going with something like a '70-72 GTO, 70-72 Oldsmobile 442, and the Buick GSX that SRT expert posted.

All this Stangs, Camros, Chevelles, Chargers, Cudas, Challengers and GTOs are small fries near this Maverick, Yeah a Maverick!
http://www.obvio.ind.br/Maverick-Hollywood--Berta.jpg
http://www.webmotors.com.br/webmotors/ssRevista/_fotos/1_Ford_Maverick_Berta_Hollywood_abre_200 7124171311.jpg
http://www2.uol.com.br/bestcars/carros/outros/maverick-berta-compet.jpg
The racing Maverick Hollywood-Berta from the powerful Hollywood team, it used to race in the 500 km of Interlagos and it have every thing that a racing car needs but my favorites are the giant rear tires, the spoiler and the 500hp naturaly aspirated racing engine. Oh and it was build, raced and restored in Brazil what makes the car even better.

Once again....NOT A MUSCLE CAR. The grabber mavericks were pony cars, but really were under powered.
My dad used to own a grabber maverick. he didn't really like it, so when the engine got tired, he took it to the junk yard, and even got load it on the crusher

The Maverick can even be underpowered but they are awesome cars, and the one that I posted isn`t underpowered in any ways.

Look at all the pony cars, lol...

OK, pony cars are simply a branch of muscle cars, but, they're not "true" muscle cars...

Does a Dodge Charger Daytona count? I don't know why, that spoiler makes me like it. But I don't really have a favorite muscle car, just some muscle cars I like.

(please correct me if the pics are wrong)
http://www.musclecardrive.com/images/specs_pics/69_Charger_Daytona.jpg
http://www.autogaleria.pl/tapety/img/dodge/dodge_charger_daytona_1969_01_m.jpg

For me, it's a toss between these two:

http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/67-68/68/68GT500KR-5.jpg

http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/67-68/68/1968CJRed-2.jpg
^ Looks 95758232938423 times better in person.

I'd also like to go on record and say that I think seriously adhering to the definition of pony car and forcing it to stand independant from a muscle car is complete and utter BS.

The definition of a Pony car is... what?

It's not size, because, Camaros aren't really far from Chevelles, and Some Mustangs are bigger than Fairlanes/Torinos. And Challengers/Cudas are bigger than all of those (Challengers/Cudas are "Pony" cars, guys)...

It can't be engine size, because, you could get pretty much the same roster of engines in Mustangs/Torinos, Camaros/Chevelles, Challengers/Chargers...

It can't be weight, because Challengers are the same weight as Chevelles (and all of it's partners)...

So... what is it?

It's just a subjective designation based on it's position in the model range.

Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers, were all the bottom of their manufacturers (performance) line. They all had a "higher up" counterpart within the same manufacturer (ie. Camaro - Chevelle). They were all made to compete specifically with each other.

It's just a subjective designation, not anything that can be objectively rated. Therefore, Pony Cars = Muscle cars. And on that basis, the 1968 Mustang is my favorite muscle car.

I hate people bickering over what a car is. It's the most completely pointless stupid and annoying discussion anyone can have on this forum! Honestly, what does it matter if someone thinks car x is a supercar or that car y is a sports car? The only reason the designations even exist is to make separating cars a little easier - NOT TO BICKER OVER FOR WAAAAAY TOOOO LOOOONG AND WAAAAY TOOOOO OFTEN.

Guys, if you really, strictly follow the traditional technical classifications of cars, the Porsche 911 isn't a sports car. And that's Bullsh1t.

If you follow the strict definition, GT cars and Supercars technically are the same thing, since their definitions are based on subjective things, and therefore are variable.

I could go on with other examples, but I'm tired from not doing anything all day and I can't think.

Either way, the bickering over what class cars fit into is retarded. Let it go guys.

Please?

Doesn't it also depend on the price tag whether it's a muscle or a pony car? Pony cars are cheaper. They were also more performance oriented. Hell some muscle cars were hardly performance oriented. They were just full-size family cars with a gaint V8 under the hood.

Anyway... I also hate the whole thing about putting cars into categories. Because really, if a GT500 is pony car, then I'm Chuck Norris. A pony is something little, cute and girly. When I think "pony" I think of my little pony: Colorful toy ponies marketed primarily for little girls. Optional Accessories include golden glitter brushes, a ballet skirt, and pink heart shaped stickers with glitter full of chemicals.

Plymouth Cudas and Shelby Mustangs are pretty much the polar opposite of that.

Yeah, Mustangs got to be huge boats by the early 70's, but every single Pony car was based on a compact chassis when it was developed. They may seem huge now, but they werent back then.

And it doesn't matter that you "Consider Pony cars to be Muscle cars," because at the end of the day, they aren't. It'd be like me voting for a Honda Civic in a Full-sized sedan thread.

The Mav still kicking asses. Serious it not only good looking and light but you also can out a huge engine on it and crush almost any other muscle/pony cars.

BTW: How about we starting using donkey power instead of horse power?

The Mav still kicking asses. Serious it not only good looking and light but you also can out a huge engine on it and crush almost any other muscle/pony cars.

BTW: How about we starting using donkey power instead of horse power?

It is a nice thought, but it is WRONG!
Lust like the 65 and 66 mustangs the shock towers are too narrow to allow the use of a "huge" engine. It is limited to small blocks. It is also very weak do to a light/weak unibody construction that twists at the first sigh of serious torque. . Subframe connectors and a new K member do help this, but that also adds a lot of weight.
The weak leaf springs on even weaker perches do not make for a good handling car either
My dad called his "the poor man's mustang"

I almost picked up a Maverick with a 302 for like 3200 dollars. Then I remembered that I'm too poor for even that. ;)

It's a neat little car, but it's not a desirable model for a GOOD reason.

It is a nice thought, but it is WRONG!
Lust like the 65 and 66 mustangs the shock towers are too narrow to allow the use of a "huge" engine. It is limited to small blocks. It is also very weak do to a light/weak unibody construction that twists at the first sigh of serious torque. . Subframe connectors and a new K member do help this, but that also adds a lot of weight.
The weak leaf springs on even weaker perches do not make for a good handling car either
My dad called his "the poor man's mustang"
http://www.obvio.ind.br/Maverick-Hollywood--Berta.jpg
500 HP, Interlagos champion.

For more that you dislike this car you will have to adimit that with the correct modifications it can become a monster in drag and track. And that other peoples like it.

For more that you dislike this car you will have to adimit that with the correct modifications it can become a monster in drag and track. And that other peoples like it.

If by a few modifications, you mean building a complete tube frame, and leaving nothing of the original chassis or drive train, then yes, they can make a good 1/4 mile car.
back in the 80s these were dirt cheap. every ford fan with wild dreams of fast 1/4 mile times had one. The V8 ones ran pretty consistant 13-14 second times with a few mods. I have built a few engines for them, but never liked them enough to own one myself

If by a few modifications, you mean building a complete tube frame, and leaving nothing of the original chassis or drive train, then yes, they can make a good 1/4 mile car.
back in the 80s these were dirt cheap. every ford fan with wild dreams of fast 1/4 mile times had one. The V8 ones ran pretty consistant 13-14 second times with a few mods. I have built a few engines for them, but never liked them enough to own one myself
My father used to have a beaver brown Maverick and he quite moded the car, removed almost all the interior behind the front seats, body panles in the trunk, put a better intake and exhaust, four Webers 48, put better tires, a lighter wheels and he even removed the engine fan what really bosted the engine but it was a quite stupid idea at the same time because he couldn`t drive in the city or car would catch fire. He had no idea of how many hp or nm he was making because it was complety home-made and it was during the late 70 when we did not had any dynos in Brazil.

For more that you dislike this car you will have to adimit that with the correct modifications it can become a monster in drag and track. And that other peoples like it.

So can a Pinto, but how many of those do you see selling for 80,000+ dollars? Exactly.

So can a Pinto, but how many of those do you see selling for 80,000+ dollars? Exactly.
Well the Maverickn`t catches fire when it crashes... But yeah you can pretty much make a drag monster and MAYBEa track monster with a Pinto or even a Gremilin and Pacer. But come on a Maverick looks away better than a Pinto...

Heretic; did you ever think AMX's would have looked much better with plain Javelin hoods w/o the fake "power bulges"?

Well the Maverickn`t catches fire when it crashes... But yeah you can pretty much make a drag monster and MAYBEa track monster with a Pinto or even a Gremilin and Pacer. But come on a Maverick looks away better than a Pinto...

Oh, I definitely like the way the car looks. Like I said, I almost bought a 71 Grabber. But it's not a desirable car from the era, and it isn't a muscle car, no matter how you stack it.

Well with a 500hp NA racing engine with 4 Webers 48, uber wide rear axel, giant functional spoiler and rollcage it doesn`t need to be a muscle car to be pretty awesomelly badass.

Heretic; did you ever think AMX's would have looked much better with plain Javelin hoods w/o the fake "power bulges"?
mine has the go pack....that means it has the buldges,,,,,,
I have wanted an AMX for 20 years, and now that I own one, it is beautiful;).....the 70 model hood IS nicer looking though. It had a nice looking scoop

Well with a 500hp NA racing engine with 4 Webers 48, uber wide rear axel, giant functional spoiler and rollcage it doesn`t need to be a muscle car to be pretty awesomelly badass.

the webbers are really too much carb for an old 302 with the cast iron heads. It should have been running a 650 CFM max. I know that massive carburation was the thing to run in the 70s, but it lost low end torque, do to decreased intake velocity

Well with a 500hp NA racing engine with 4 Webers 48, uber wide rear axel, giant functional spoiler and rollcage it doesn`t need to be a muscle car to be pretty awesomelly badass.

You're just being pissy at this point, man. This is a thread about Muscle cars. You posted a Maverick, we said it wasn't a Muscle car; you disagreed, and you were still wrong. It's not a big deal, let it go and post a Muscle car.

That way, we ALL have a good time. :)

You're just being pissy at this point, man. This is a thread about Muscle cars. You posted a Maverick, we said it wasn't a Muscle car; you disagreed, and you were still wrong. It's not a big deal, let it go and post a Muscle car.

That way, we ALL have a good time. :)
Define muscle car, them compare this definition with the pony car defition. And tell WHY it isn`t a muscle car? I mean read what CV said, all this classification is plain and simple annoying plus the definition of pony and muscle car is so widelly open that I can say that a SL or CL65 are muscle cars.

And the whole mavpoint was if the Maverick was a good car and if could be great with the proper modifications. Not if it`s a muscle car or not.

Ok a muscle car that I`m pretty sure that is a muscle car and everybody loves...
http://www.firstgencamaro.com/yenkopics/yenkocamaro.jpg
Super Camaro yenko, probably one of the most awesome cars ever made that can still kick major asses even today.

Define muscle car, them compare this definition with the pony car defition. And tell WHY it isn`t a muscle car? I mean read what CV said, all this classification is plain and simple annoying plus the definition of pony and muscle car is so widelly open that I can say that a SL or CL65 are muscle cars.

And the whole mavpoint was if the Maverick was a good car and if could be great with the proper modifications. Not if it`s a muscle car or not.

Ok a muscle car that I`m pretty sure that is a muscle car and everybody loves...
http://www.firstgencamaro.com/yenkopics/yenkocamaro.jpg
Super Camaro yenko, probably one of the most awesome cars ever made that can still kick major asses even today.

Sorry....that is a pony car as well

EDIT....by definition a muscle car is a mid sized passenger car (4 or 5 passengers), with a minimum of 300 hp stock, and a full frame.......The maverick had neither a full frame or 300 hp. they are also built to preform in the 1/4 mile......(this completely excludes anything by mercedes or BMW!!!!!!!)

Well define what a muscle car is in details... PLEEEEAAASSSEEEE!

Adn your muscle car definition is cutting out some great and unique cars...

"My " muscle car definition is not mine at all. it is a shortened and paraphrased version of the3 definition given by 'Muscle Car Magazine"

"My " muscle car definition is not mine at all. it is a shortened and paraphrased version of the3 definition given by 'Muscle Car Magazine"
And... what that would be?

....by definition a muscle car is a mid sized passenger car (4 or 5 passengers), with a minimum of 300 hp stock, and a full frame.......The maverick had neither a full frame or 300 hp. they are also built to preform in the 1/4 mile......(this completely excludes anything by mercedes or BMW!!!!!!!)

And... what that would be?

Which part do you not understand?

"My " muscle car definition is not mine at all. it is a shortened and paraphrased version of the3 definition given by 'Muscle Car Magazine"
This part.
Which part do you not understand?
I mean you said that your definition is the ]"My " muscle car definition is not mine at all. it is a shortened and paraphrased version of the3 definition given by 'Muscle Car Magazine" and I get it, I get that your definition is the same as the one of the magazine, but I don`t know what that definition includes and i really would like to you explain it to me. I`m just trying to get some knowlegde about muscle cars and that 'explanation" doens`t explain nothing.

Eh, spotting a Muscle car is probably just an instinct bred into us Americans, Lee. I say we drop it.

Swedish, I know you're trying to learn, but you're being frustratingly difficult and dense about it. This should help you out (and it should have been your first place to look. Try doing your own research from now on):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

Dificult to teach?! You isn`t even trying, you both didn`t came with a decent explanation so far, I ask you both politelly and you tell me to go look for my self and don`t even tryed to answer my questions... serious.
I`m trying to talk with people that seen to understand the subject to give me a more clear and direct explanation. And so far I got nothing.
Yeah I did that research before, but it still too unclear to me. For what I understood (Again, I not sure so please give YOUR definition), muscle car generally have bigger bodies like the GTO, Charger and Cuda; pony car have a more compact and sporty body like the Mustang, Camaro, Challenger and... Cuda again. But since the Cuda and Challenger have giant bodies I can`t define what they are. And if the definition is just based on the car`s size, it`s in my opinion pretty irrelevant to discuss if a car is a pony or muscle car.

EDIT....by definition a muscle car is a mid sized passenger car (4 or 5 passengers), with a minimum of 300 hp stock, and a full frame.......The maverick had neither a full frame or 300 hp. they are also built to preform in the 1/4 mile......(this completely excludes anything by mercedes or BMW!!!!!!!)


maybe you just did not read my posts well swedish......the wiki link that Aaron posted gives an even better definition

EDIT....by definition a muscle car is a mid sized passenger car (4 or 5 passengers), with a minimum of 300 hp stock, and a full frame.......The maverick had neither a full frame or 300 hp. they are also built to preform in the 1/4 mile......(this completely excludes anything by mercedes or BMW!!!!!!!)

BMW hater ...
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/lsixer/emoticons/lmao.gif

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/lsixer/emoticons/alrightbmw.gif

Which part do you not understand?

Apparently none of it ..........
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/lsixer/emoticons/beatdeadhorse5.gif

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/lsixer/emoticons/banghead.gif

"My " muscle car definition is not mine at all. it is a shortened and paraphrased version of the3 definition given by 'Muscle Car Magazine"
Your original post is quite different from what you posted now, so since I can`t hack your pc and read what you was writting there was no way to read that.
maybe you just did not read my posts well swedish......the wiki link that Aaron posted gives an even better definition
Thanks for a more clear definition of a muscle car, but I need to say that you`re being quite disrespectful with your tentative of making me look like a fool, by reediting your posts and saying that I did not read them.
And any ways acording with your and wiki`s definitions, i`m much more for Pony car because they are better looking, more compact (some) and performe as good as amuscle car.

Your original post is quite different from what you posted now, so since I can`t hack your pc and read what you was writting there was no way to read that.

Thanks for a more clear definition of a muscle car, but I need to say that you`re being quite disrespectful with your tentative of making me look like a fool, by reediting your posts and saying that I did not read them.
And any ways acording with your and wiki`s definitions, i`m much more for Pony car because they are better looking, more compact (some) and performe as good as amuscle car.


Sweedish.....go back and look at the date and time of the edit......I did it to avoid a double post. You did slip a post in before my edit, but only by a couple minutes....the rest of this has been all you. My quotes have not been edited for content at all. You simply did not read what i wrote, so if you feel you appear the fool, you have only one person to blame

You still being quite rude. And it has being quite frustrating to ask a question and recieve no answer and have to pussh the smae button over and over to get one.
Now I have a baiscally idea of what a muscle car is in more especiffic details, so any ways thanks.

So lets start again. What do you prefer muscle or pony cars?

I have no clear preference towards either muscle or pony cars. I suppose I have owned more pony cars (5 camaros, 1 firebird, 2 trans ams, and a couple first generation mustangs), but that was based on availability. Each style, and even each model car had things that I liked and disliked about it.

I prefer the more sporty looks of Pony cars like Camaro (first the gen, all the other were... ugly at best) and Mustang.

The Challenger is SLIGHTLY proportionally larger than the Cuda (which was designed first), but they are both still smaller than the Charger.

You're comparing the size of todays compacts (which are sub-compacts), to the compacts of the era. Full sized sedans in those years were monstrous. Cars like the Charger, Chevelle (and the rest of the variants on that body), etc. were only MID SIZED cars. By todays standards, they're gigantic.

Pony cars were even smaller, being based on compact versions of existing frames (as the case with the Mustang, not sure about the others). The Mustang was based off the Falcon and Fairlane.

Muscle cars are the mid sized two-door cars produced in the 60's and early 70's that were geared towards acceleration in a straight line. They were cars that, from the factory, were built for the drag strip.

And I am offended that you say we "haven't tried" to teach you anything, when nearly all of our posts have contained a definition of a Muscle Car, and I even took the time to link you to an ENTIRE ARTICLE on the definition and purpose of them. It is not our fault that you are too dense to understand what we're saying. And instead of blaming us, you could possibly thank us for putting in our time and effort to try and give you a clue as to what a Muscle Car is.

To think, we could have simply laughed at you for your ignorance. Now, I'm simply upset with your inconsiderate nature. Grow up. I mean, you refuse to do your own research for Christ's sake. It's not our job to educate you. If you want to learn, make an initiative on YOUR PART before demanding it of other people.


EDIT: I did not see this last page. My bad, this post was addressing Swedish BR's post on the last page. It still fully applies to his attitude thus far into the thread.

Well I had researched about the subject but it was still unclear to me so I tryed to go stright to the source, guys with some knowledge in muscle/pony cars. And I don`t know if to you your explanations were clear but to me they weren`t almost like a kind of joke. And telling me do my own research after ask for help is quite offensive for me and don`t show much consideration, but after your complain and that link I have changed my mind. And you say that is pointless and childish to me being upset with you but I say that is more childidh and pointless to be upset with somebody trying to learn something new.
And now if you mind in droping it, we can start having a nice and usefull conversation without nobody trying to riped off the other`s head.

So according to what I could understand muscle car have a bigger bodies than pony cars, generally are 2+2, their purpose was stright line performance and were affordable; pony cars were compacts, they could be 2+2, they had a better overall performance and were also affordable. that`s right?

So a Plymouth Road Runner would be a muscle car and an AMC Javellin a Pony car. i hope that this time I`m right.

So according to what I could understand muscle car have a bigger bodies than pony cars, generally are 2+2, their purpose was stright line performance and were affordable; pony cars were compacts, they could be 2+2, they had a better overall performance and were also affordable. that`s right?

So a Plymouth Road Runner would be a muscle car and an AMC Javellin a Pony car. i hope that this time I`m right.

You are getting close and aside from a bad choise of examples, I think you have the idea. The pony cars were unibody construction, which alllowed them to be smaller and lighter. The javelin seems to sit right on the line, so may be a pore example. Even though it is often catagorized as a pony car, it really was too large during part of it's production. I think I would call the pre 71 javelins pony cars, but the 71 and later models, I would call muscle cars

the drawback to the smaller/lighter pony cars was body flex. because of the unibody construction, it was hard to keep the body rigid. This made them handle poorly. This also caused problems with the fit of the body panels. The passenger door did not close well on a couple of my camaros, and ripples developed in the roofs. Understand that this was after extensive engine modifications, but when I did the same things to the GTOs, the 442s, and my old chevelle, this did not happen

Well sorry for the crap examples but I tried to go for something less usual and that to me would have a bigger degree of dificult in trying to identifing them. I`mena it`s too easie to say that a Charger is a muscle car and a Mustang is a Pony car.

Well sorry for the crap examples but I tried to go for something less usual and that to me would have a bigger degree of dificult in trying to identifing them. I`mena it`s too easie to say that a Charger is a muscle car and a Mustang is a Pony car.

I completely understand that. in fact I think it would take a real AMC fan to know the difference in size between the early and late javelins

I do like your choices in this post though. I used to own a '69 RT/SC charger, and currently own a 65 mustang GT convertible

Around here we didn`t had/have so much variety in terms of performance car. For example in the golden age of the muscle cars we just had the first gen Charger with the weakst engine, the Mustang also in the weakst form and all the Mavericks and Opalas. We never had Pontiac, Plymouth, Oldsmobille or Buick. This were our "muscle cars". And that is why I like the Maverick because it wasn`t just a good car but was one of our few performance cars.
My favorite among Muscles is probably the first gen Chevelle SS, and my favorite Pony is the Super Camaro Yenko. I also like the smooth and classic style of the Hudson Hornet.

BTW: Even not being a muscle or pony the Shellby Cobra (all of them) is probably my favorite American car of all times, even more than the Ford GT.