"The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time"

[Fleet 500]

Explain why the Muscle Car genre must exclusively belong to "Mid sized, 1964-'72 American car"

Because the what is usually accepted as the first muscle car, the 1964 Pontiac GTO, was a mid-sized, 1964-'72 American car with a big V-8.

Justify to us why is this original-type vehicle (below) should not be considered a Muscle Car?

YouTube

Don't be silly. The original muscle cars were mid-sized American cars of which there were different variations later on from Canada and Australia.

[nota]

Because the what is usually accepted as the first muscle car, the 1964 Pontiac GTO, was a mid-sized, 1964-'72 American car with a big V-8.

Strange logic

What is usually accepted as the first car (and patented) was the 1986 Benz. Therefore, according to your rationale, only Benz vehicles should be considered as being cars

Btw what about the 1957 Rambler Rebel? Why isn't that a MC?

Don't be silly. The original muscle cars were mid-sized American cars of which there were different variations later on from Canada and Australia.

I'm not being silly. I'm not the one who made the silly claim - with emphasis - that they MUST BE American only

Nevertheless you now seem to be backtracking on your own statement ..

[Fleet 500]

Strange logic

What is usually accepted as the first car (and patented) was the 1986 Benz. Therefore, according to your rationale, only Benz vehicles should be considered as being cars

Btw what about the 1957 Rambler Rebel? Why isn't that a MC?

I'm not being silly. I'm not the one who made the silly claim - with emphasis - that they MUST BE American only

Nevertheless you now seem to be backtracking on your own statement ..

See what I mean, Kitdy, about everything I post being nitpicked to death?

[nota]

See what I mean, Kitdy, about everything I post being nitpicked to death?

If these random statements and claims of yours were accurate and/or defendable they would stand up to scrutiny

[Fleet 500]

Because they are the holy grail of naive fools who are living in a bygone era and who choose to substitute myth and legend for objective fact and who often times run down modern performance cars through sheer ignorance (e.g. thinking the old "gross" HP ratings had any real meaning and were somehow comparable to today's net figures).

You should have respect for muscle cars.
Start here:

YouTube - 1970 Plymouth Barracuda Hemi 426 Takeoff
YouTube - Chevelle Burnout

And get more educated about how capable classic muscle cars are:
The Beast-vs-2007 Mustang Shelby 500
poor poor ricers
Cuda verses BMW
Tailgating Mustang GT
May be old but ain't slow
Chally vs Honda

In other words, any car that has REAL BRAKES, sound structural rigidity, modern suspension geometry, tight, accurate steering, a modern engine with state-of-the-art cylinder heads and an over-drive transmission can't be a "muscle car."

When modern cars have a proven record (like 35-40 years), then we'll talk.

What about an old car (say, a Chevelle SS 350) that runs 15.6 - 15.7. Is that a muscle car? It must not be, since your cut-off point is 15.5

Don't be ridiculous.. the cutoff is generally regarded as around 15.5 seconds. And you know that perfectly well.

But we are getting way off topic, so if you want to discuss (and laugh about) the mid-'70s to early-'80s "muscle cars," go right ahead.

[Falcon500]

So possibly fake storys about a heavily modifed A body against a current cobra GT500 with quote "either white or gold stripes" end quote prove that they infact preformed well....

[kingofthering]

But we are getting way off topic, so if you want to discuss (and laugh about) the mid-'70s to early-'80s "muscle cars," go right ahead.

Fleet, any car sold in America at the time sucked.

(few notable exceptions, though.

[Falcon500]

Fleet, any car sold in America at the time sucked.

(few notable exceptions, though.

Its a crying shame to say your not far wrong

But still america having fairly loosly regualted vehicle registrations make modifications to fix the factorys stuff ups much easier

[IBrake4Rainbows]

When modern cars have a proven record (like 35-40 years), then we'll talk.

I Didn't really want to get involved in another Fleet Red-Herring fish but this point just made me laugh and cry at the same time.

Modern cars have benefitted from the 30 years since these original muscle cars came out. whether it be in efficiency, packaging, design, manufacture methods and safety.

Your blind desire to back up vehicles which had their heyday over 30 years ago is at best misguided.

If the best cars were designed and manufactured 30 years ago why have car companies been wasting there time improving. especially when, in many cases, they've succeeded.

You need to have respect for the Modern Era. Because everything is always better when seen with the benefit of a fading memory and rose-tinted glasses

[Fleet 500]

So possibly fake storys about a heavily modifed A body against a current cobra GT500 with quote "either white or gold stripes" end quote prove that they infact preformed well....

Of course, they must all be "fake" stories when the classic car wins! Afterall, NO classic car has ever won a race against a modern car!

[Fleet 500]

Modern cars have benefitted from the 30 years since these original muscle cars came out. whether it be in efficiency, packaging, design, manufacture methods and safety.

Of course they have. But it doesn't mean that classic cars are as terrible as harddrivin is claiming.

Your blind desire to back up vehicles which had their heyday over 30 years ago is at best misguided.

It's not a "blind" desire. And there are a huge number of '60s muscle car fans, including many under 30 years old.

If the best cars were designed and manufactured 30 years ago why have car companies been wasting there time improving. especially when, in many cases, they've succeeded.

I didn't say the cars designed and manufactured 30 years ago were the "best." I'm saying that they had some desirable things and are fun to own and drive. That is why classic car shows are so popular.

You need to have respect for the Modern Era.

And harddrivin needs to have respect for the Classic Era.

Because everything is always better when seen with the benefit of a fading memory and rose-tinted glasses.

Don't have to go by memory when discussing '60s cars. They can still be bought and driven.

[Fleet 500]

Fleet, any car sold in America at the time sucked.

(few notable exceptions, though.

I agree. That was the point of the article. I think (for some reason) harddrivin took the article too seriously.

[nota]

Of course, they must all be "fake" stories

Speaking about "fake" ..

The 6.3 Merc, though, was slower than many of the muscle cars Mercedes claimed it would "put a hurt on."

Let me guess - that's a completely UN-attributable quote isn't it? Those "_" words are not from Mercedes are they? In other words Fleet you simply made it all up to suit your (inaccurate) agenda .. didn't you? It's not 'nitpicking' Fleet, but being obliged to chase accuracy & integrity from someone noted for 'exaggeration'

In any case no less an authority than world-famous Don Garlits, along with Brock Yates, had a different view
Superman Meets Supermachine

So did R&T
Road & Track - November 1968

The 6.3 was faster but it was also about 3 feet shorter, weighed about 1,000 lbs less and had a super-low 3.98:1 1st gear ratio (compared to the 2.48:1 for the '69 Cad).

More than once you've mentioned this "super-low" 1st gear of the 6.3. So what? If anything it describes a valid criticism of GM autos. The Benz transmission certainly delivered better performance from its wider ratio-spread, when compared to the 2-speed and 3-speed GM autos found in many slower so-called muscle cars - not to mention those lower performing barges like '69 Cadillacs

I doubt you're even aware the Merc has a 4-speed!
YouTube - Mercedes-Benz 300SEL 6.3

[henk4]

In any case no less an authority than world-famous Don Garlits, along with Brock Yates, had a different view

I think it is unfair to compare an allround performer with the one dimensional cars of which the quickest are referred to as "muscle-cars".....

[Fleet 500]

Let me guess - that's a completely UN-attributable quote isn't it? Those "_" words are not from Mercedes are they? In other words Fleet you simply made it all up to suit your (inaccurate) agenda .. didn't you? It's not 'nitpicking' Fleet, but being obliged to chase accuracy & integrity from someone noted for 'exaggeration'

You are wrong. Those words are from Mercedes. As printed in Car Life magazine, Nov., 1968...
"National pride made the challenge mandatory. A European manufacturer has gone into the Supercar business, with the huge engine from the limousine installed in an intermediate-sized sedan. When only Americans did this, the Europeans denounced the practice as vulgar. Now it is proclaimed as advanced engineering, and the factory claims its new creation would put the hurt on America's finest.

Another magazine, the name of which we forgot, brought one of these SuperGermans to the track on the day Car Life was there with Plymouth's pocket Road Runner, the 'Cuda 340. In the style of a Western shoot-em-up, we ambled over, and allowed as how the Barracuda isn't the fastest thing in Mopar's line-up, and the 340 engine isn't the biggest engine available in the Barracuda, but would they care to step over to the starting line, just to find out if...?

They would. It was a tough fight, but the 'Cuda won, there out of three. It gained a few feet off the line, and stayed there until both cars were in high gear. Then the 'Cuda pulled away, and kept pulling past the 1/4 mile and until both cars ran out of track."

Sportsmanship requires us to say here that the import was geared for cruising, not accelerating, and that is was loaded with air conditioning and all manner of luxury equipment. But it cost something like $10,000 more than the 'Cuda and that's the point. The 'Cuda 340 is a Ponycar in the Road Runner manner."

Note- the Mercedes ran a 15.1 sec @ 90 mph 1/4 mile and the 'Cuda 340 ran a 14.93 @ 96.63.
The 60-100 mph time was 11.5 for the Merc and 8.5 for the 'Cuda 340.

More than once you've mentioned this "super-low" 1st gear of the 6.3. So what?

It means it helps coming off the line.

If anything it describes a valid criticism of GM autos. The Benz transmission certainly delivered better performance from its wider ratio-spread, when compared to the 2-speed and 3-speed GM autos found in many slower so-called muscle cars - not to mention those lower performing barges like '69 Cadillacs.

Well, come on... the 6.3 was about 1,000 lbs lighter than a Cadillac.
However, in the six luxury car test in Car & Driver (July, 1965), the tested '65 Cadillac Fleetwood accelerated slightly better than the tested Mercedes:

------------------ Cadillac Fleetwood---- Mercedes 600
0-60 mph--------- 9.2 seconds---------- 9.4 seconds
0-80 mph--------- 15.5----------------- 16.5

I doubt you're even aware the Merc has a 4-speed!
YouTube - Mercedes-Benz 300SEL 6.3

That didn't seem to help lowering the cruising revs much. Let's compare:

---------------------- '69 Mercedes 6.3----- '69 Cadillac Coupe de Ville
Wheelbase------------ 112.2"--------------- 129.5"
Overall length--------- 196.9"--------------- 225.0"
Curb weight----------- 4,010 lbs------------ 4,780 lbs
Axle ratio-------------- 2.85:1-------------- 2.94:1
Transmission----------- 4-speed auto-------- 3-speed auto

Mph @ rpm (top gear)-- 75 mph @ 3000 rpm-- 98 mph @ 3500 rpm
----------------------- 103 mph @ 4100 rpm-- - - - - - - - -
(Source: Car & Driver, Nov., 1968 and Motor Trend, April, 1969)

One would think that the Mercedes, with a 4-speed trans and a higher axle ratio than the Cadillac would have lower crusing rpm. On the other hand, this just shows how well-engineered Cadillacs were!