Oh, boy, this is deep.

Actually, the Power Pack 283 was available in any 57--the fastest werern't the Bel Air hardtops, but the lighter, stiffer One Fifty post cars. NASCAR ran 150's.

The 57's had 3-speed manuals...just like many muscle cars, including the GTO, and the early Max Wedge cars. By that "logic", a GTO with a 4-speed is a muscle car but one with a 3-speed isn't.

You could get wider tires on the 57. IIRC, you could even get Goodyear Blue Streaks as a dealer option.

Many ratios were available, as usual for the era. No idea on limited slip.

Yep.

Why not? For that matter, why isn't a Caprice 9C1 a muscle car? The running gear is identical to the Impala SS, it had the same chassis setup (it was the source for the Impala chassis parts), and had different (wider) wheels, better speed-rated tires, and unique trim.

Certainly.

No comment, link wouldn't load for me.

So, a car that agressively advertised due to its position as king of the HP wars is a muscle car then, right? Thank you for agreeing with me! That's how the Chrysler 300 was acvertised for a while.

FALSE! The RB-motored Mopars beat them to the market by several years. The 413 Darts, Savoys, and Polaras were B-bodies, just like the Road Runner, GTX, and Charger.

__________________
Jarlaxle Baenre
----------------------------------------------------
RIP E. Gary Gygax 1938-2008

Looks like a no-win situation here. I certainly agree that those cars back in the late 50's early 60's were the fore runners of the mid-60's, early 70's hi-performance era. Without those types of cars most likely there never would have been a GTO to begin with. All the max-wedge cars were street legal, per NHRA rules for super stock classes. A guy down the road from me has an all original 63 AL. front end polara, rode in it several times and it's fast for what it is. These were limited production cars, Chevy, Pontiac, Ford, all had cars like this, they were hard to get but the general public could buy them. The real bad boys came out in 64, Hemi Belvedere's and Thunderbolts, street legal stuff that would run into the 10's with some tweaking straight from the factory. Most all the factories rolled out a handful of f/x cars that wasn't available to the general public, those were not street legal. When the 64 GTO came out it was a mass produced car that any Joe Blow could walk into a Pontiac dealer, sign on the line, and burn rubber in every gear leaving the dealership. People loved it and all the manufactures jumped in with this type of setup. I don't know who came up with the term muscle car and deemed the GTO as the first one, to me it really don't matter whats considered a muscle car. Anything hi-performance off the beaten path of a standard production car or truck (how about the hi-po trucks) should be considered as one. Here's one for ya, off the top of my head i can't remember but there was a car someone deemed as the last muscle car. Anybody know that one?

1987 Buick Grand National, maybe? Possibly the Ford Thunderbird SC?

__________________
Jarlaxle Baenre
----------------------------------------------------
RIP E. Gary Gygax 1938-2008

The 87 GNX was a bada$$ ride, limited production though less than 600 built.The GN's were plentiful, still one bad Buick, seen them run low 10's with minor tweaking and they rode and handled like a dream. Probably the best all around "muscle car" ever built. I don't count Corvettes, i consider them in another class.

I just found this thread so I'm coming in late but here goes.
Those 50's cars he was talking about were not considered musclecars. I'm an old gearhead growing up in the 50's, interested in cars since the mid 50's. The muscle car era started in late 1961 when Chevy stuffed a 409 into a few Biscaynes and Bel Airs. Mopar followed up with the Maxi Wedge and Hemi's, Ford with their 406 and 427 in 62. Then in 64 Pontiac with the GTO and Chevy with the 327 Malibu. That was when all the automakers got really serious about selling race cars disguised as everyday cars. The ponycars came along{Mustangs, Camaro's}. All the auto makers had some version of a musclecar. Buick GS, Olds 442, Ford Fairlane, Dodge Dart, Super Bee, Challenger, R/T, Plymouth Duster, Roadrunner, Barracuda, GTX, AMC Javelin, Chevy Malibu SS, Mercury Comet, Cougar. Youi could order a musclecar engine in virtually any model. Then in the early 70's we got unleaded gas, mandatory pollution controls, and the insurance nazi's made muscle cars a thing of the past. I had a 64 GTO and a 66 Chevelle SS 396. Those truly were the good old days.

Ok, I'm going to hold my comments to the GTO, regardless of how much misinformation I see in this thread. First, the 64 GTO was basically a Tempest fitted with a 389 and four speed. By 1966, the Tri-Power 3x2 carb option was available. In 1967, the engine grew to 400. The first major restyle came in 1968, and the 3x2 option was dropped, but "the Judge" didn't come along until 1969. There were two different 400s available at that point, the Ram Air 3 at 366 horses, and the Ram Air 4 at 370. In 1970, the 455 became available, but was not the top dog engine. 1971, the judge was dropped as separate car, but you could still get the judge styling package through 1972, by which time the 400 RA's were gone, replaced by the 455 HO. 1973 GTO was the first year of the updated A body with a 230 horse 400 standard and the 455 HO available. The 1974 GTO was a restyled Ventura with T/A style shaker hood and the 350 Poncho. That was the last GTO until Holden started shipping their cars to the US.

I don't claim to know EVERYTHING about the GTO, but that's what I do know in a nutshell.

__________________
I suppose I should think of something to put here, huh?

Well, the GM Fbodies (Camaros and Firebirds) and Mustangs are considered Pony cars. If you consider those muscle, then the era never died, and it has just become a shrinking niche in the market that had a little growth in the last 2 years. Also, fullsized vehicles like the impala and t-bird don't count as "muscle" either though their predecessors were the only muscle around in the 50s. Finally, Darts and Novas and Falcons are too small to fall into the category though there's a huge following out there.

In 1973, under GM, every major manufacturer went with sudden design changes to the "muscle cars", and then a continuous decline from the embargo onwards in every year after that. No one knows why cars went "ugly" with perfect alignment to the desire for emission standards in California and the need for the conservation of gasoline everywhere else. Companies like Dodge, kept the bodies similar for a while but drastically changed the powerplants and interiors to keep them affordable. A 1973 Cuda 380 for example can sell for $30K. A 1970 440 in the same condition will sell over $100K! Look at Chevelle SS's. A 1972 454 will sell for $50K at best, a 70 with the same magical powerplant can sell for double.

The idea seems that the last muscle cars are from 1970, with that year also being the beginning of a new era for coupes as the Pony cars were introduced to compete with a 5 year old Mustang, and foreign competition such as the Z car made an entrance as well.

As far as today, the return of the HEMI products with the SRT-8's is something that is worthy of note, but is the new Charger or a Magnum a Muscle Car? If not either one of them, will the new Challenger really be a Muscle Car when it comes out? Or is it to compete with a modern day Cobra and is a car that is too expensive to allow Joe Blow to go and buy one?

The last muscle car...hmmm.

The GNX was the only sign of a revival of GM's quality in an era of a bunch of unreliable front wheel drive, 6 bangers with numerous electrical problems that came to disappoint a market in that era (no offence to 2nd generation RWD Fbody lovers either). There's no doubt the GNX is an undenyable classic. Nevertheless, the car was not a Muscle Car. It costed 25 grand in the mid 80s, 10 grand on top of a regular Regal. Most people could go buy a Taurus for under 10 grand in total in 1986 from a dealership at that time for perspective.

So, I think I agree with the little group of speculators and car show patrons who have come to this conclusion in hindsight that the era lasted a short span of 5 years. Anything that falls into that gap is what is truly collectable and is considered a Muscle Car. I will agree with this post that the GTO, first a special edition Tempest in 64, and then a different model was the beginning of the niche market of Muscle Cars. So...

1964-1970

6 years in the middle of modern American history that is reminiscent of a time of cheap gas and big, well-built Eisenhower roads. God Bless America (and Canada).

There is no such thing as a 68 gto judge. I had a 69 gto through high school, kept that car for 10 years but sold it when money got real tight.

Okay, they didn't handle too bad ... so long as you didn't try and turn a corner.

Typical of all N.A. "luxury coupes" of the day (the Regal/Monte Carlo/Cutlass/Grand Prix were never considered as "muscle cars" using the commonly accepted definition), they were great for eating up highway miles and provided a ride that was acceptable to a hot rodder and his grandma. (C'mon, it was a Buick)

I had two '85 GNs. Their handling was better than the stock Regal by virtue of their slightly stiffer suspension and tires, but they were still a big, heavy luxury coupe. Thanks to that lovely motor though, they were virtually unbeatable by any contemporary, regular production vehicle in a straight line. I did have the opportunity to test this many times, without fail, against various Camaros, Firebirds, Corvettes, Mustangs, Turbo T-Birds, Porsches, etc. I even handed a few old-school muscle cars (454 SS Chevelle, etc.) a spanking.

The GNX ('87 only) had further upgrades to both engine and suspension.

IIRC, I paid about $12,500 for my first GN in '85 (3 month old lease return). In fact, the dealer had a hard time unloading it. I drove it for two years and sold it for $16,000. I wanted a GNX in the worst way, but I wasn't willing to pay that much of a premium.

Although not a muscle car (in the strictest sense) the Taurus SHO was no slouch ... what a beautiful engine by Yamaha. I was always amazed Ford never capitalized on that engine by using it in something else.

Yeah, I've never driven an SHO, but I've seen the engine. I remember I was in the market for something cheap and fast a while back and looked at the 96s and 97s. They have a problem with the cams...have to be welded. Other than that, I've only heard good things about their performance. Lots of electrical problems on the body and interior on those also.