So what IS a muscle car?

I think it’s a little bit of a straw man to point at the cost of the car and say it isn’t a muscle car. It’s not like a base 1970 Hemi Cuda cost the same as base 1970 Barracuda. Performance cost then just like it does now.

And a base Challenger today is a 300 hp V6, not what I would call a muscle car by any stretch of the imagination. Great car, probably faster than my Duster right now, but not a muscle car. But if you want to get into something that you can at least talk about the idea with, you have to buy at least an R/T (which some would argue still doesn’t hit the performance threshold for a muscle car), or a Scat Pack. And the Scat Pack really doesn’t come with a huge list of luxury items. Still has cloth seats, but upgraded radio to the 8.4 (required for Performance Pages), no heated/cooled seats, adaptive cruise, blind spot monitoring, etc. Really the big differences between a base R/T and a Scat Pack is the bigger motor, brakes, wheels and better bolstered seats. In my mind, all performance adds.

BTW, if I remember the convo from the other thread correctly, the Scat Pack doesn’t have 707 hp, “only” 485. Have to get the Hellcat to get 707 hp.



fair enough lets look at the 1970 base cuda...MSRP was $3164
the hemi engine was an upcharge of $871.45...that is 27.5 % increase (compared to the 40% i believe the scatpack was)

so i guess going fast always costs money