The Definition of "MuscleCar"

rumblefish360 said
LOL, that last line, I'll have to say no.
On the flip side, like you were saying, does it have to built in a bracketed set of years. That I say no as well.
I have a '73 Cuda, 4spd. It was a 340 car. While the comp ratio dropped and valves got smaller, it was still a good running engine/car set up. Everyone is quick to point to the HP lose even though they know but don't acknowledge the fact that the way the rated the power changed in a big way from naked engine to full systems installed.

True, it took a hit in power, but since the entire car didn't change a bit except the way the power was rated and a hit in compression and valve size change it only alittle, it was enuff to get snubbed at in a big way at every place it went.

And you hit the nail on the head...my Sport Satellite doesn't fall into the "muscle car" category because of the extra two doors, even though the 383 was rated at 330hp, the rear is a 3.55 8 3/4 Sure Grip, it's got the six full leafs on one side with the five full and two half leafs on the other, the big brakes all the way around, etc. Who wants to look at a car that decodes as a "towing package" as a muscle car? None of the purists want to look at the mid-70s cars like your E-body or the lower rated 440 or 400 B-bodies with the net rating as a musclecar because of the smog era, either. Which brings us into the debate of different eras, altogether!
Folks want things to fall into nice, neat little categories. Otherwise it brings us back into our real lives of chaos where organization and categories doesn't necessarily fit. Personally, I'll take the term "hot rod" as a blanket cover for what I own, factory built or otherwise. The Sport Satellite might not fit the term muscle car, but for all those who saw it's taillights I don't think they'll argue with the term "hot rod." :-D