Muscle car definitions?

-
J

Justcruisin'

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Location
Near Fresno, Calif
I'm confused. I was looking at the Muscle Car Club definition of muscle cars page where it lists what cars are muscle & what cars are not. When I got down to the Barracuda section I got confused. Is there a difference between a Barracuda and a 'cuda? Then it says that Barracudas with a 340 are not considered muscle cars but Dusters with 340s are. Here's the link:

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-definition.shtml

My '65 Barracuda has the 273 Commando with a 4bbl. I assume that this little car is NOT a muscle car so I enter it in the Mopar or Original Car or A Body categories at the shows. I'm pretty clear on most of the muscle cars but I get a little fuzzy on the pony cars.
 
Ok, here is the definiton of a Barracuda and 'Cuda. It isnt actually kinda simple but very few people have heard the story about it.

In 1970, Plymouth wanted to get even more into the teenager market with the "Outta this World" colors and major changes in the body styles and new cars introduced. So with the totally new things introduced Plymouth decided to bring out the 'Cuda. The same exact thing as a Barracuda but they changed it because of the teenagers and racers saying 'Cuda and only 'Cuda. It was just a shortened term for Barracuda and The Mopar groups tried everything the could to get ALL of the market and in my mind they did.

So, Plymouth was just trying to get into the teenagers market more and they changed it to fit in more and they did it!

I have no idea why they do not consider the 340 'Cuda a muscle car. My best guess is that the 'Cuda is a heavy car actually. Weighting in at around 3400-3600 pounds and with only a "200-some" horsepower engine which was complete BULL**** that was a "slow" car in their mind. I seriously doubt they even drove a 340 AAR 'Cuda!

The 340 Duster is a muscle car but it only weighs 3200-3300 pounds. So I think they just dont know what a true muscle car is! They think the GTO was a muscle car they didnt know crap. Check out the max wedges! WOOOOHOOO!

Remember MOPAR OR NOCAR PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
 
Justcruisin' said:
I'm confused. I was looking at the Muscle Car Club definition of muscle cars page where it lists what cars are muscle & what cars are not. When I got down to the Barracuda section I got confused. Is there a difference between a Barracuda and a 'cuda? Then it says that Barracudas with a 340 are not considered muscle cars but Dusters with 340s are. Here's the link:

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-definition.shtml

My '65 Barracuda has the 273 Commando with a 4bbl. I assume that this little car is NOT a muscle car so I enter it in the Mopar or Original Car or A Body categories at the shows. I'm pretty clear on most of the muscle cars but I get a little fuzzy on the pony cars.
Click to expand...

Who cares what the musclecarclub thinks or says, we know what a muscle car is and that's all that matters. :evil2:
 
Those guys are COMPLETE IDIOTS. Certain similar cars with similar engines get dissimilar treatment. Duster 340 is, Dart GTS 340 is not...... MORONS.

Classes at shows are often poorly put together, especially all-make shows where they try to class different makes together. Pick what class seems to best fit your car.
 
In the "Strict Definition" at the bottom of the page it says "only...equipped with a large V8", yet they consider the Z-28 Camaro a muscle car. The original Z-28 was a 302 and the later models were 350's.

From their list, the basic definition seems to be 'if it came with a badge package'... :-k

They say they classify the AMX as one because it's based on the Javelin (which they spelled wrong - lol), *then* turn around (on the next line!) and say the Javelin ISN'T one...

Jay
 
Jim Lusk said:
Those guys are COMPLETE IDIOTS. Certain similar cars with similar engines get dissimilar treatment. Duster 340 is, Dart GTS 340 is not...... MORONS.
Click to expand...

Ageed!!
Must be chevy boys!
 
Rumblefish's words on what is and is not or what makes one a muscle car.

IMHO, it kind of goes on what engine package it was given along with suspension. Theres alot of gray area here on this subject. But basicly, taking the manufacture out of the picture, it is a car given a large powering engine. Later years it also included the suspension.

Some cars were given the Pa-zaz treatment while others were given the plain jane treatment. In example, the dressed up '74 flaming bird on the hood Firebird vs a 68 Charger with the only hint your gonna get stomped was a tiny little badge that said HEMI on the door.

Muscle cars are a ave. car with mostly a different trim level, however minor, and a engine beefed up from the factory.
Lets face it. Most were not 1/4 mile tire friers. But 3.23 or 3.55 equiped Hwy. runners.

Cars that are NOT;

Volore's, K - car , Vega, Those tiny ugle Mustangs of the mid 70's thogh that 302 Corba was quick for what it was, LTD and Crown Vic, Post early 70's Implala, Catalinas, Buick 225, Chrysler N.Y.er's and Imperials. Fast, not muscule cars.

Quick story;
I had a guy (clown) pull up next to me at the light and start revin the engine and verbally bother me. He says, "Well, aint that a muscule car!?!?!" I said, "Hey look guy (Clown), just because you see an old car dosen't make it a muscle car." (Clown says) "But weren't Dusters mu." I interupt with the story. Lets face it, there like the Hyundia excels, everywhere, cheap. Dime a dozen. It's just that a few of these came equiped with some decent power. (Imagine a Excell with 240 HP instead of the big 110 in came with.)

ON THE CUDA vs Barracuda. I matched my ("technically?") Barracuda up to a "CUDA" because Mr. Stuff shirt said his was the performance model and mine was nothing.
Sorry blow hard, the olny difference we both could find was the word "Barracuda" on the tail panel. Exact same cars. I Mean it. Exact except for that 1 little item.
So Mr. stuff shirt and brother blow hard, I say this to you;
I don't give a rats butt what it is and isn't. It's mine and when I'm done with the engine, it'll stomp your sorry butt yet again even worse.
 
If it raced in Trans Am it is a pony car. So the Cuda/Barracuda, Camaro, Mustang, and so on are Pony cars, not Muscle cars. IMHO.....
 
That list that is mentioned in the topic had to be written by a GM guy, for sure.It states that a Barracuda is not a muslce car but a pony car.So when the 69 440 4 speed Barracuda is in the other lane at the stop light,wants to race and gives you 10 car lengths to start with and then beats your *** silly,its not really a fast car,and not worthy of a muslce car name.What ever they are smokin over their,they should start selling that crap,Mrmopartech
 
Ok i know my "Spare change" dont really count considering i'm a newb to the forums an all, but personally the Muscle car definition is completely screwd up. Any thing with more than 350 HP an 4 wheels should be considerd a "hot rod" i mean honestly, i dont see any "muscle truck's or Suv's" it's just wrong, the muscle car end is so closed off to any other type of bodystyle that it's honestly just sad..
 
I thought the Cuda name started in 1969 with the 440 powered car. To me a muscle car it is a big block HP car build with performance in mind and the small block HP cars are pony cars like "1968FormulaS340" said. This is just what I go by.
 
I always thought and heard for many years that ANY car produced from the 60's and 70's were muscles cars that was V8 equipped, regardless of what was original equipment by the factory.
 
BTW I just looked over the list and it looks like a bunch of BULLSHIT to me!!!

One thing I would like to know is why a Muscle Car Club and "World Wide Muscle Car Registry" would have a section for import cars?
 
Ok my Dart isnt one but my Cougar is!!!

'Mercury Cougar=Yes , Pony Car / Only GTs, Eliminators, and Boss engine models are considered muscle cars'

Does that include my custom BOSS 351 powered Eliminator!! LOL

Sorry ill stop talking Fords now. LOLOLOL
 
Like some others here, I am relatively new to this board, BUT I also think the musclecar definitions are whacked! :wack: I don't know if there is a horsepower requirement, minimum weight requirement, top speed requirement, or a minimum E.T. requirement to label a car a musclecar. Having been around in the musclecar heyday, I learned from experience which ones had the muscle. Some folks have selective memories regarding musclecar performance. That said--here is a unbiased list of the fastest musclecars ever produced. The list runs from 1964 to present. Check it out:

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

Kinda shows who had the muscle and who didn't..... Oldschool

69ply22394-B.jpg


1stdone2.jpg
 
Oldschool said:
Like some others here, I am relatively new to this board, BUT I also think the musclecar definitions are whacked! :wack: I don't know if there is a horsepower requirement, minimum weight requirement, top speed requirement, or a minimum E.T. requirement to label a car a musclecar. Having been around in the musclecar heyday, I learned from experience which ones had the muscle. Some folks have selective memories regarding musclecar performance. That said--here is a unbiased list of the fastest musclecars ever produced. The list runs from 1964 to present. Check it out:

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

Kinda shows who had the muscle and who didn't..... Oldschool
Click to expand...
very nice car, is that true the ss/a 68 cudas ran 10's :silent: and rated at over 525 hp, if it is thats freakin sweet :thumblef:
 
Mopar, when it came to doing any type of HP rating of a HEMI or 440 wedge,would have to be the biggest BS artist in the world,in a good way.The Hemi in stock forum,would taken to the track,and run and would beat just about any thing in a heads up race.Now every one here can swap a intake and carb ,install headers,and change a cam and put some slicks on the car,no big deal right.DO it to a hemi and have it make a 700-750HP streetable car,and unleash it on the track.Don,t worry about the cost of the parts,worry about the cost of changing your shorts every run,Mrmopartech
 
My definition of a Muscle Car is real simple, you listening Old Vart. If looking at it or driveing it gives me a WOODY then it's a musclecar. If it doesn't its a Mustang. There, how much simpler can it be. :burnout:
 
My Valiant with a 273 from the Factory is Not a Muscle car,

My 1967 Camaro, RS, 4 speed with a 427 engine swap Is.

I sold the Camaro 2 years ago, a month After I bought my Valiant.

Yes the Camaro was a neat car, turned heads, would smoke the tires,
etc.

I had looked for nearly 30 years, for a 64-65 2 door Factory V8 Valiant.

The Valiant is much more comfortable to ride in, and I am
Very happy with the car.Especially with the minor mods I have done to it, like adding dual exhaust. 14 inch tires, etc. {205/70r14 to replace the hard to find 7.00x13 that the V8 Valiants, Darts etc came with.}

It helps, that I found a former California car, that wasn't rotted. :)

2549june_30th_headliner_hemmings_071-med.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top