T1B

Not me, but I wonder if any of you Vin Diesel wannabes ever piloted one of these bitch magnets.

Has a 73 Pontiac Grand Prix with a hopped up 455HO.

Was a screamer. Even got a triple-digit speeding ticket in it.

Bought a Ford Mustang Cobra after college. Had it for about a year and then bought a jet ski. Bye bye Cobra. Hello F150. Didn't really do any mods to the Cobra other than removing the exhaust silencer. Fun car, but much prefer the truck.

One day...soon...



~sigh~

I had some muscle car wannabes.

1966 Mustang with a 289
1966 Chevelle with a 283
1968 Camaro with an inline six

In high school, my friend's mom had this exact car, powder blue convertible.
His dad was in the car biz, so he had dibs on nice sleds, but it sat rusting in the driveway because she was always "in the bag" and too fucked up to drive.

Shame (about the car).

Cool 70 Mach 1. In 70, most of the 351C's were stillcosed-chamber heads, which was a much faster setup than the later versions.

Automatics are faster-btw.

Not really a muscle car but the first car I ever owned was a 1967 Chevy Impala SS. Bought it for $200 off some old farmer who had it sitting out in a field. It was rusted out pretty bad, the interior was torn up, but the body was straight and that 327 ran like a scalded dog.

Busted many a knuckle working on that POS, but I learned how to fix cars.

Nope. Never needed one. My cock is sufficiently huge.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Nope. Never could afford one.

FTFY@NC

Had one of these, 91 LX 5.0 coupe. With SVO heads, cam, Saleen upper and lower intake, pulleys, gears, headers, off road exhaust, etc. Would run mid to low 13's on street tires which was damn fast in it's day. Had no trouble running away from anything less than 60K with the exception of another moded Mustang or Gran National. It was much faster than this>>



Which is what my dad has and had at the time. All original numbers matching. Wish I still had that mustang. Now and then I look for them on ebay and craigslist but they are all severely abused. The few that I find that are not go for 10-15K. I paid 11K for that car back in 1990.

Any ricer cars that you guys would consider muscle cars?

Papa Willie wrote:Had a '65 Belvedere with a very happy 383 in it. Would do about 108-110 in the 1/4.

Also had a '69 SS Camaro with a pretty happy 350 in it. Wish to fuck I would have kept that one just so I could sell it now!

I learned to drive in my mom's '65 Belvedere. I think it had a 318 but still would burn lots of rubber no problem. Looked pretty tame, like an old lady's car.

Had a black '69 Marquis hardtop with the standard 429 2bbl. Bought it in 1985 with 50K miles on it and replaced the big old bias ply tires with some white wall radials, which made it look much cooler. Not a "muscle car" per se but definitely had some muscle. I always wanted to say "book 'em Dano" when I got out.

Courted my wife in that car before I sold it about 10 years later.

Martyred wrote:Any ricer cars that you guys would consider muscle cars?

]]

Japanese muscle?

IN!!!!

Sin,
TokyoScott



OK, that was a stretch

Dinsdale wrote: TokyoScott



OK, that was a stretch

Double entendre?

When I was 19 I got into the family business of keeping this load on the road.



The 302 was pretty lively.

Martyred wrote:Any ricer cars that you guys would consider muscle cars?

Maybe. Scorched a few doucenozzles in tricked out Civics in my stock Rx7 way back when.
I sure some gearhead here will be able to explain to me why rotary engines are not used more.

I don't know if I would call it a muscle car as much as a touring car, but switch out the stock sequential turbo for a single larger turbo and these things would run 12-11 sec in the 1/4. Stock they went mid 13 in the 1/4 and sub 5 seconds to 60, that was screaming for mid 90's. The inline 6 was indestructible so you could turbo and NOS the shit out of it. Also really pricey if you find one not abused today. New they were high about 40K if I recall correctly.

R-Jack wrote:When I was 19 I got into the family business of keeping this load on the road.



The 302 was pretty lively.

Martyred wrote:Any ricer cars that you guys would consider muscle cars?

Maybe. Scorched a few doucenozzles in tricked out Civics in my stock Rx7 way back when.
I sure some gearhead here will be able to explain to me why rotary engines are not used more.

Current RX8 still uses the rotary motor.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Nope. Never needed one.

True. The car that can elevate the status of a jizz mopper hasn't been invented.

R-Jack wrote:I sure some gearhead here will be able to explain to me why rotary engines are not used more.

Physics.

Extremely inefficient, high emissions, and just by the design, the rotor seals have little chance of lasting very long. That was tolerable in the RX3/RX4 days, when they were single-rotor with little stuff hung on the motor. With multiple rotors and accessories up the wazoo, replacing rotor seals isn't the 2-3 hour, $20 job it used to be.

Martyred wrote:Any ricer cars that you guys would consider muscle cars?

The Datsun 280Z and the Toyota Supra were OK in the early 80s.

Carson wrote:The Datsun 280Z

Not really.

There was, however, a limited edition 240Z in 70 (70's were rare in the USA) and 71 with the "track model" engine, or whatever it was called.

My best friend had one -- very high RPM motor, much faster than a 2.4L should have been.

txangler74 wrote:

Had one of these, 91 LX 5.0 coupe. With SVO heads, cam, Saleen upper and lower intake, pulleys, gears, headers, off road exhaust, etc. Would run mid to low 13's on street tires which was damn fast in it's day. Had no trouble running away from anything less than 60K with the exception of another moded Mustang or Gran National. It was much faster than this>>



Which is what my dad has and had at the time. All original numbers matching. Wish I still had that mustang. Now and then I look for them on ebay and craigslist but they are all severely abused. The few that I find that are not go for 10-15K. I paid 11K for that car back in 1990.

That 'stang might've had some quicks, but does NOT belong in the same discussion with a '65 goat...one of the all time classics...

The Seer wrote:That 'stang might've had some quicks, but does NOT belong in the same discussion with a '65 goat...one of the all time classics...

I was just answering the man's post. I do agree that the GTO is one of the all time classic muscle cars. But looking at the definition of muscle car: a smaller framed car with a big engine that was priced for the masses. Looking back at the 80's early 90's the Fox platform Mustang was one of only a few muscle cars available then. Call it a sports car if you want but they didn't handle for shit. But it had a big motor for it's time and it was cheap and fast. Gm offered the Buick Grand National but it was pricey, the Camaro was slow and pricey, Pontiac had that Turbo TA that was fast but was a collectors edition/pricey, Chrysler had the Shelby GLHS that was quick but most of them blew up. I definitely think the Mustang takes the crown for that era.

txangler74 wrote: I definitely think the Mustang takes the crown for that era.

Plus, mvscal rappers weren't talking about Cameros in their one hit wonders.

I had a 1970 Pontiac LeMans once I got my drivers license. I had the same paint but had BF Goodrich tires with polished slotted-disk rims. 0-60 in 5.3secs with many modifications. Family owned a 1970 Pontiac GTO with a 455 but was sold when I was very young.

Next door neighbor had a 1968 Camaro SS and he had a guy that had a 1970 Pontiac GTO "The Judge" modify his Chevy. He kept spending money on his car to beat another high school buddy's 1969 Z-28 and lost every single race to him.

The one guy that never lost had a 1970 Chevelle with NoS. I remember spending all of my $$$ on car parts, and high-end stereo equipment. Back then most of us did our own maintenance, installations and modifications. The rich boys paid others to fix theirs up so they never knew how to do anything for themselves.

In the Fresno area back in the 80's, almost everyone had a seriously modified muscle car. No Mexi-Hmong primered "drift" cars with big mufflers, composite parts that will never get painted, and loud nogger-shit pumping speakers to pollute the area with rap were around back then. Fuck them and G0d bless the local PD for pulling those tattooed losers over for minor violations.

I was expecting Scotty to run breathlessly to this thread with the word muscle in the subject line. He musta been helping blow-dry some dude's junk at the gym or something.

closest thing to a muscle car i have ever owned is a 93 SHO. fun car. fantastic yamaha engine. unfortunately surrounded by not so fantastic ford bits. the biggest problem was that they all came fully loaded. and all those fancy options are what caused trouble. i'd get another if i could get one without all these issues. after it failed an emissions test, i decided to cut my loses and sell it.

smackaholic wrote:closest thing to a muscle car i have ever owned is a 93 SHO. fun car. fantastic yamaha engine. unfortunately surrounded by not so fantastic ford bits. the biggest problem was that they all came fully loaded. and all those fancy options are what caused trouble. i'd get another if i could get one without all these issues. after it failed an emissions test, i decided to cut my loses and sell it.

A SHO is the cliTaurus....yes?

The Seer wrote:

smackaholic wrote:closest thing to a muscle car i have ever owned is a 93 SHO. fun car. fantastic yamaha engine. unfortunately surrounded by not so fantastic ford bits. the biggest problem was that they all came fully loaded. and all those fancy options are what caused trouble. i'd get another if i could get one without all these issues. after it failed an emissions test, i decided to cut my loses and sell it.

A SHO is the cliTaurus....yes?

si.

and notice i said "closest thing to a muscle car". at no time did i make any claim that it in fact, was one.

Martyred wrote:One day...soon...



~sigh~

That's a...

'Cuda

I thought the Plymouth Barracuda and the Dodge Challenger were two separate cars...

They are the same, in that they will garner the same inordinate ammount of trips to the repair shop.

R-Jack wrote:They are the same, in that they will garner the same inordinate ammount of trips to the repair shop.

Shut your FILTHY MOUTH!

Just to finish up this 'Cuda thread....

The '70 Hemi Cuda (426) was the 2nd quickest vehicle to leave the assembly line - stock. It was only behind the '67 Corvette (427) due to the fiberglass chassis.

The Seer wrote:Just to finish up this 'Cuda thread....

The '70 Hemi Cuda (426) was the 2nd quickest vehicle to leave the assembly line - stock. It was only behind the '67 Corvette (427) due to the fiberglass chassis.

If you consider the shelby cobras to be production cars, they are the quickest. It's not even close. They blow vettes and everything else out of the water.

The Seer wrote:Just to finish up this 'Cuda thread....

The '70 Hemi Cuda (426) was the 2nd quickest vehicle to leave the assembly line - stock. It was only behind the '67 Corvette (427) due to the fiberglass chassis.

Uhm... a big block Cuda weighed less than a big block Corvette. Vettes were known for being heavy for their size... full frame vs. unibody.

And there's been so many cars built since then that blow either into the weeds, it's not even worth trying to list them.

The standard 2011 Mustang GT likks them down te quarter.