Duster 340 not a muscle car...

-
69 Cuda 440 said:
"1970 Model Year Musclecars"

'Big Blocks Only'

* Plymouth Road Runner
* Plymouth GTX

* Dodge Coronet R/T
* Dodge Super Bee
* Dodge Charger R/T

* Chevrolet Chevelle SS 396
* Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454

* Oldsmobile 4-4-2

* Pontiac GTO

* Buick GS

* Ford Fairlane 'Cobra Jet'

* Mercury Cyclone GT

* American Motors 'Rebel Machine'
Click to expand...

The term is subjective. In my opinion musclecar means any sedan or coupe with a factory built high performance drivetrain and marketed as a performance car.
 
340wedge said:
Show him the Rapid Transit System Brochure.
Click to expand...

I agree, yes it's an advertisement but it's all facts.

The little car that could.

And so it came to pass, from the System that generated Road Runner, the country's first low-cost Supercar- a new scheme, another mind-blowing plan. Plymouth would introduce Duster 340, the industry's first real Super Compact.
As such, it would have to be more than just a package of add-ons. It would have to be a separate model unto itself, with its own distinct identity, name, bag, schtick-call it what you like.
And aside from that it would have to meet a stiff list of prerequisites.
First, it would have to move, really move- cut a 13/14-second quarter, pure-stock. Yet, it would have to be powered by a relatively small displacement engine (compacts aren't supposed to be gas hogs, you know). Our light, high-winding 340 cubic-incher would go in as standard equipment.
Second, it would have to handle. Complete heavy-duty underpinings would be standard, as would slotted road wheels and fat E70 X 14 fiberglass-belted tires.
Third, it would have to stop. Disc brakes would be standard in front.
Above all, it would have to be simple in design and very low in price. The body shell of the new Valiant Coupe would serve admirably. And inside, we'd line it with 4-place bench seating, full instrumentation and a floor-mounted shifter.
At that point, all that remained was to put one together and see if it could meet all those prerequisites.
So we did. And you know what?
It could.
 

Attachments

  • WP_20150117_004.jpg
    23.1 KB · Views: 258
Bill Dedman said:
No V8 in the Datsun...
Click to expand...

I would normally agree on V8 being a requirement, but then where does the Buick GN fit? Or the Aussie cars with the Hemi 6? Both very much marketed as muscle cars.

Maybe a better way to describe them would be "Any factory built performance car that can't be considered a sports car"
 
Bill Dedman said:
69 Cuda 440 said:
"1970 Model Year Musclecars"

'Big Blocks Only'

* Plymouth Road Runner
* Plymouth GTX

The GTX is a full-size car... too big to be a "muscle car" if you go by their definition of "a big block engine in an intermediate chassis."

Just sayin'...:banghead:
Click to expand...

Bill,

The Road Runner and GTX were built off the same platform.
Click to expand...
 
to 65 cuda360. Is a 57 Chrysler 300 with a 392 and a cross ram with 2 4bls a muscle car?... NO. number 1. the 57,392 chrysler did NOT have cross rams. it had 2 X 4 bbl in line. AND chrysler called ALL of real lettered 300s "a gentleman's luxury performance car" it was NOT ment to be the fastest car. it was to be 15 to 17 sec 1/4 mile car. they allready knew how to build the fastest cars.
 
Dustert73 said:
American made v8 rear wheel drive car is what I think a muscle car is, and a 340 duster is all of those lol sounds like he's trying to get on your nerves.
Click to expand...

but we have the same car minus 2 cylinders is mine not muscle? :(
 
at op, maaan that is way more than enough muscle, well you can never have more than enough but you know what i mean. my dad says the same about my 73 but he owns a 68 firebird and were splitting a 65 goat but its just him messing around with me cue we both drool equally over any good looking car. don't trip on it ;)
post a pic of the 340
 
WoW that's pretty damn stupid to say!!! People seem to think a muscle car has to be a Chevy or Mustang. I grew up as a gear head and know damn well a Duster 340 is a true iconic muscle car hands down. My dad raised me working on engines, motorcycles and his iconic 72' Duster 340 4spd. If you ask me, and most here I would think agree that your so called friend needs some muscle car schooling. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth.
 
abodyjoe said:
its right to a point.. a 318 barracuda isn't a muscle car. a 273 or 318 anything isn't a muscle car. guess you could argue the formula s 273 commando barracudas may be a muscle car but i don't know... a 383 2bbl isn't a muscle car..

i don't know how any convertible can be considered a muscle car either...
Click to expand...

So...a Hemi Cuda convertible isn't a muscle car? An LS6 454 Chevelle ragtop? Are you on crack?!
 
ir3333 said:
Bill Dedman is the only one that is correct.
..by definition,a musclecar was an intermediate with a large engine
Pony cars were small sports coupes like camaro and mustang and challenger
the nova maverick duster size models were actually economy cars that
the manufacturers' eventually stuffed more powerful engines in during those sales competitive years
Click to expand...

So...by that "logic", a 421 Super Duty Catalina, a 409/409 Impala SS, a 427 Galaxie, or even a 390HP Chrysler 300 Letter Series aren't muscle cars? SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!
 
Coronet 500 said:
After years of hearing this debate, I came up with my own Muscle Car Qualifiers that I told my teen aged boys.

#1- Fast.

#2- 5 passenger minimum.

#3- Trunk, minimum 1 case of beer per occupant.
Click to expand...

I think you just excluded a 1966 Charger! :protest:
 
Jarlaxle said:
So...by that "logic", a 421 Super Duty Catalina, a 409/409 Impala SS, a 427 Galaxie, or even a 390HP Chrysler 300 Letter Series aren't muscle cars? SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!
Click to expand...


No, the cars you mentioned are faster, quicker and not even in the same league with the fourteen-second "muscle cars" that were big block intermediates... The popular "musclecars" just weren't that fast,...

But, the press had named them and described their makeup, and the really FAST cars (built for Super Stock, mainly) didn't qualify...

Stupid, but true.
 
do reread my #109 post. a true 300 is a 'gentleman's luxury performance car'. to quote Chrysler.
 
yeah subjective term for sure. Performance car? Musclecar? Or just a car from the musclecar era?

318/350/289 etc were standard motors

To me "musclecar" is the car with the most powerful motor available at the time for the body style.

So a 340 A-body would qualify. A 350 Chevelle would not be, as a 396 or 454 was available.

but whatever they're all cool....
 
I guess it comes down to the interpretation of the person that made the statement. If he meant to 'slam' 340 Dusters when he said it, then he was implying that the 340 Duster wasn't much in the way of performance. If he was going off of some of the definitions stated in this thread he may not have been besmirching the Duster's reputation.

These days most people I know use the term 'musclecar' when they're talking about any car from the mid-60s through the mid-70s that had a high horsepower to weight ratio. - Regardless of any official definitions used in the past.

Most likely a Chevy boy making that statement meant to imply the 340 Duster didn't rank in horsepower or prestige with Camaros or Chevelles.
 
It didn't matter what rating chevys had. They were all talk, no walk. I saw them get run down all the time. 396 chevelle's especially. Dogs, 350 chevy 350HP? 340 Dusters chewed them up all the time. 340's In reality were much higher in the HP than 275. Chevys were hoity toity guy cars, driven by guys that had no idea how cars worked.
This of course is the opinion of an old 60's Mopar guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top