To bad this guy never heard of a SRT6, then he could have made it an even dozen.

Muscle Cars: 11 Great Muscle Cars

 

Yes you have a point Mike, some very nice cars and interesting selections. I was surprised to see so many new cars on the list, but then again I guess it's his list.

 

I would have thought that the earlier Challenger would have been there instead of the newer as most of the list is the muscle era.

Anyway its


The weekend again and date nite #1..........

W DY

 

Give me 68 Chevelle or give me death.

 

I think the 1968-69 AMX is nicer than the 1970. I have a 1969 and a friend of mine has a 1970. Just don't like the hood and grill on on 70. But I still wouldn't trade my 69 for any mustang or camaro. You can go to about any junk yard or used car lot in America and find a mustang or camaro. Try to find an AMX and you will discover how rare they actually are.

 

I like that it started with AM AMX/Javelin. This was American Motors equilevent to the other car company's muscle cars of that era, and how many do you see of these any more? as where you can find a Chevelle, Cuda, Mustang, Firebird, etc all day long. I my self like unique vehicles as like in the Crossfire, I like a vehicle that not everybody else has. Not saying that I don't like any of those other models, because there was a lot of cool muscle cars from that era.

 

Not so sure I'd classify the 2010 ZR1 Corvette as a muscle car - it's far too refined and track capable to be merely a muscle car. Yes, the interior materials may be cheap compared to Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini offerings, but bang for the buck there isn't much of anything that can touch it. Besides, if you're going to include the ZR1 in this list then the Viper ACR must be included as well. But really, neither truly fits the category.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not a Corvettefan in the least.

 

I have to agree Mike, I'd love to hear what this guys definition of a "Sports Car" is.lol
Funny, I never even gave the Viper a thought. I guess that would have made it a "Bakers Dozen".
Being a child of the "Muscle Car era, I still think Muscle Car means an Intermediate bodied (2 dr.) car with a big motor/big H.P.. Mustangs/Camaros/Challengers are still "Pony Cars", and it takes 2 seats to be a Sports Car.......in most cases.

 

he missed an awful lot of cars Mike. Sounds like he's a Chevy guy and he threw in a few Mustangs and Mopars for credibility sake.

 

Patpur; could not agree more, everyone is entitled to their own list, and we would all have a different top 11,12, whatever, I am always curious when you see list like this how many seem to have been out of the country or just slept through the late 80's with no mention of the Buick GN T-Type, GNX Regals. You Don't have to be a Buick fan (as I am) to realize how impresive the performance was from these cars and a V-6 no less. not to mention a great looking car, in black..

 

VERY subjective topic but having come of driving age in the 70's (yes, I realize how much I just dated myself) I really don't think of any of the newer versions as true muscle cars. And nothing that is a two-seater falls in the category for me either.

One thing about the real muscle cars of the mid to late 60s into the 70's (and possibly a few early 80s models) beyond the outrageous engines being crammed into what essentially started out as family sedans was their awesome size yet sleek styling. As you perhaps guess, I am way more about the hopped up, old school Impalas, Monte Carlos, Chevelles, GTOs, 442s, etc. etc. types of cars. Never cared for the somewhat squat look of the 'tangs and such. Nor even the later Camaros, Trans-Ams, et al.

Which is why I'm not very impressed with the "new" muscle cars. For one thing, the three (arguably 4) main ones out today are nearly interchangeable looks wise (with surprisingly the new Mustang having the edge in my book) but they are fat and squat and just don't have that same feel about them. They don't make my heart race like the cars I grew up with did. In fact, the new Challenger that we test drove not long ago left me feeling, gulp, bored. Not to mention a lil sick from the decidedly chemical (not new car-ish but more like is there an exhaust leak in here?) smell. They may handle better (? perhaps), have bigger engines (? perhaps) and not be able to completely roll over, and still be drivable (like my Mom's Monte - her driving not me) but really, they just feel a little lifeless to me. Maybe too safe, maybe too generic? Dunno - just not the same for someone who was there the first time around.

 

Bat, I pretty much agree with all of your comments, except this one:

The new breed of "muscle cars" are "perhaps" better handling cars than those of the '60s and '70s? Uh, no - in terms of handling the new stuff destroys the old stuff. Heck, one of the domestic car shows did a little comparison to show just how bad the handling of the old cars really was. They put a Plymouth Superbird through an autocross course - something it obviously was never meant for. And it was very handily beaten by a new car, one that also was never intended for autocross use.

A Honda Odyssey minivan.

No, the new breed of Mustang/Challenger/Camaro will easily out handle and out brake their '60s and '70s counterparts. But will they stir the soul in the same way? For anyone over the age of 25, never. Not even close.

 

What are you talkin about Mike? Those old muscle cars handled GREAT!
Here's proof.
YouTube - 1969 AMX - vintage road test
Those Car and Track Road tests with "Bud Lindemann" with his colorful metaphors, and his "Jack Webb" delivery always cracked me up.
The praise of the (fantastic) Good Year Polyglass tires was of course premature. While being worlds better than the skinny tires they replaced, they never could hold a candle to the Radial.
I replaced the Polyglass tires just one month after purchasing my AMX back in 1970 for F70-14" BFG Radial tires. Then when the BFG Radial TA's came out, I installed F60-15" and it was a whole new ball game. Certainly didn't handle as good as a Crossfire, but a whole lot better than the rock hard Pglass tires that it came with from the factory.
Braking on the AMX from 60 mph was only 1' longer than the Crossfire according to a 1970 Road Test by Motor Trend magazine.
Check out some of the other Car and Track Road Tests on the You Tube Thread, they are pretty corny, but in a "period correct" kind of way.

 

Oh man, you've got me hooked on those old road tests!! Those are awesome.

But I think you misunderstood something here:
In the review they said the AMX stopped from 60 in 134'. The Crossfire does it in 113' according to Road & Track. Big difference there.

 

Hey Mike....I don't make em up....I just report em. Remember, I did say Motor Trend "Magazine". But you were right, I did make a mistake. Motor Trends Dec. 1969 issue reported it took 115' to stop from 60 mph. not 114'....my bad. That was on E-70-14" Good Year Polyglass tires. With Disc/Drum brakes.
Actually, I remember reading only the BOSS 302 Mustang did better, but the Magazine attributed it to the wider F-60-15" tires on the BOSS.
Living in Orange County (as you do) I may be able to hook you up with some guys near by who own AMX's and they might be up for a few hot laps at a track (or maybe just a canyon run) with ya. Just for a handling comparison.