Looks like Farago and I inadvertently kicked open a can of worms yesterday when discussing the new/maybe one day Camaro. Robert maintained that Bob Lutz is an "Idiot" for even suggesting a 4-banger muscle car. For my part I defended Lutz (dirty, i feel so dirty), because I happen to love the engine he's talking about. See, the 2.0-liter turbocharged and intercooled EcoTec I4 puts out a robust 260 horsepower and a rotund 260 lb-ft of torque. And that's currently. Rumor has it that Chevy will be boring the EcoTec out to 2.5-liters, which could easily net the engine 50 more hp, meaning that the base Camaro would have more juice than the 4th gen V8 F-body. Of course, if you need more, get the LS3-powered range topper. Point is, does cylinder count matter? Really?
94 Comments on “Question of the Day: Do Muscle Cars Need a V8?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
As far as I can tell, today’s prototypical muscle car is Godzilla. How many cylinders does it have?
I suppose it has a lot to do with how far interested parties are willing to blur the categories. Sports car fans would be more willing to put up with a high-revving cammer like the forthcoming 2.5 EcoTec (which will have to rev high because the Camaro is supposed to be in the 3800-4000 lb range). Muscle car fans? Who knows.
The muscle car market is a backward looking, nostalgia market.
The answer? Yes. Sadly.
IMHO,
Bunter
One quick point. The EcoTec would shave off a bunch of weight. Putting the Camaro at around 3,600 pounds.
I don’t see why having the base engine a turbocharged 4-cylinder would be any worse then a V6 as long as the range toping Camaro has a V8.
Jonny Lieberman
Camaro @ 3600lb? What next? You’re going to tell me that they did a rear independant suspension?
If the Camaro was 3600lb with fully independant suspension, they may have a real sports car on their hands, V8 or I4.
Does a muscle car have to have ancient muscle car technology (’60s) to qualify? What exactly IS the definition of a muscle car? Could an electric or a hybrid be a muscle car? My impulse would be to define the muscle car based on performance, not technology, but I’m not a muscle car afficionado, and so I leave the defining to those who are.
I define a muscle car as a rwd, v8 powered AMERICAN car designed primarily for straightline performance. As such, a PONY CAR, like a Camaro Z/28, Mustang Boss 302, etc etc which competed in Trans-Am, is not a muscle car. On the other hand, one could argue the ZL-1 Camaro was definitely a muscle car, as it was definitely a drag racer.
As such, I have NO problem with a Turbo 4cyl Camaro… I just have a problem calling it a muscle car. The V8 versions would be. Call the 4cyl version a sport coupe, or something.
Eitan: The new Camaro has fully independent suspension at all 4-corners.
I think you are thinking of Mustangs…
Jonny Lieberman:
I’m thinking of the OLD Camaro, I honestly don’t know much about the new one.
But with that being said, Turbo 4? 275-300HP from that would be a modder’s dream. You could up the boost easily for massive hoonage.
Turbo 4 Vs V8? Isn’t a muscle car about HP and 0-60? If the Turbo 4 goes fast, isn’t that enough?
Looking at V8 vs. 4cyl turbo:
#1 reason to get the V8: the sound.
#2 reason to get the V8: low-end power.
Neither can be replicated by a 2.5L 4-cylinder turbo, which, btw, I’m a fan of, just not in muscle cars.
As for I4T vs. V6, it really doesn’t matter. Neither are genuine anyway.
I don’t see a problem with having base models with less than a V-8. As far as Dinosaur, please tell me how a naturally aspirated V-8 cranking out 380 horses and getting 23MPG is a “Dinosaur.”
That “Dinosaur,” the new 5.7 Hemi, will be standard on the 2009 Challenger R/T. So is the fully independent suspension.
V8s are great, but I would consider this a muscle car:
http://www.jaj.com/space/efrazier/images/gnx.jpg
Same with this:
http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/images/SVOmustang.jpg
And, at the risk of drawing the banhammer, this:
http://www.soulserpentmedia.com/DodgeShelby/Images/86GLHS284.jpg
As long as something has an impressive power/weight ratio and at least four seats, I’d consider it a muscle car. Not a traditional muscle car, but a muscle car nonetheless.
Eitan:
see my post above–a muscle car is NOT all about HP and 0-60, it’s about the look and feel of a muscle car. Otherwise, virtually every performance car on the planet could be called a “muscle car.” The definition of a muscle car includes a V8 because of the sound and the torque it provides.
I tend to take a utilitarian view of engines – a vehicle should have as much engine as it needs. That’s why I joined in Lutz’ defense: to me it’s about the power numbers, not the cylinder count. Or, put another way, under the hood I prefer function to form.
As was pointed out by others, a big, rumbling V8 is part of a muscle car’s character. You’ve got to have one in the lineup. But I don’t see any reason why a turbo four couldn’t replace a V6 in the base models. The buyer passing up the V8 probably won’t care whether he gets six cylinders or four, and the turbo motor might – might – attract a younger demographic.
Of course, if you don’t believe anybody under 50 is going to buy a retro-Camaro anyway, there isn’t much point to offering anything but the V8.
This is largely anecdotal and refreshed in my mind through the magic that is Wikipedia, but didn’t Ford already go down this path and fail with the Ford Probe (1st Generation).
I’m not saying that the Probe was a bad car but as a then possible Mustang replacement it was a complete failure; primarily due to the fact that the Probe was not small car with a big engine, it was a small car with a small turbo-charged engine.
I think V-8’s are part of what makes a muscle car. It’s not a handling car, it’s simply meant to go quickly in a straight line and (very importantly) sound good doing it. The turbo four in question may be an excellent mill and a good application for the car, but the sound would be all wrong and that’s not what baby boomers and high-school football stars want.
I would say yes, a muscle car must have a V8, but then I thought about the Buick GNX…that might be the sole exception.
The GNX was definitely the sole exception, but it has the torque and, to a lesser extent, the sound of a V8 anyway.
1989 SHO!!!!
Who needs a V-8
Muscle cars need V8 engines; the throaty rumble and rich torque laydown are what makes a muscle car a muscle car. I think a more pertinent question would be “Do gearheads/car lovers need muscle cars?”
The age of the muscle car is over, just as the age of the steam tractor is over. Big thirsty V8s are an antiquated motive force; the future is light, powerful and efficient. I’d look at a turbo-4 Camaro if it was a good handler. Maybe my 50 year old father wouldn’t, but people my age are going to have money within the next 10 years and carmakers are going to have to stop catering exclusively to reminiscing boomers.
A definition of terms is needed here to continue…
A musclecar is a heavy, ill-handling passenger vehicle whose bloated weight is offset by a massive iron V8 engine producing oodles of hosepower and more importantly, torque.
A sportscar is a light, nimble 2-seat or 2+2 coupe which relies on a high-revving engine that provides enough horsepower at speed to bring the vehicle’s handling to life.
Now, what’s a Camaro?
Historically?
Well, kinda sorta a musclecar (Yenko, SS), and kinda sorta a sportscar (Z28).
Dang it. I’ve gotten nowhere. Already. Again.
Wait, that’s not Lieberman’s question. He asks, does a MUSCLECAR need a V8?
And by the definitions provided above: Yes, it does.
Otherwise, it’s a sportscar.
And they’re not the same thing. At all.
I hate the term “muscle car”. It’s only used by pimply teenagers and rotund old men with skullets. These fine folks only care about solid rears, V8’s, drum brakes, and Chargers with two doors. The answer is therefore yes, otherwise we would never get these guys to shut-up. Nothing wrong though with a T4 in a touring model, though.
As long as it can spin the tires. And chirp going into second and hopefully 3rd as well. You need some torque at 3000rpm. But that engine may have it. The v8 burble is nice though. All things considered I think I would prefer a Camaro with an NA v8 over a turboed up 4 cylinder. The weight loss is nice though. I can’t decide!
I think it’s the wrong Question of the Day. A more sensible one would be “Does anyone need a muscle car?”
Yes it has to have a v8. Not that it wouldn’t be nice as well with a turbo 4 or 6 but i wouldn’t call it a muscle car, and the few people in this country willing to buy something like a camaro, mustang, challenger wouldn’t accept less for the most part. Though i also agree with the trans am cars not being muscle cars either, but these new “pony” cars really are the full size cars of todays market so they fit the bill if you ask me.
Define “muscle car”.
Is it an outrageously overpowered “mortal” car like the Neon SRT-4, Evo or STI? Or is it the direct heirs to the lineage of the heavy, over-engined fullsizers from the 1960s, in which case the relatively svelte Mustang (!!!!) ponycar wouldn’t count, but the >4000lb Charallengers do and the Camaro would walk the line. I’ll call the former the “modern” and the latter the “classic”
musclecar for the purpose of this post.
In either case, no, it doesn’t need one unless you’re really hung up on the sound.
If your definition is the latter one, I don’t know if a turbo four is a good replacement, though, as driven like a musclecar would be, it’ll get the same awful mileage. And while you definitely will have issues shoehorning a big V8 into the engine compartment of an Impreza, the classic musclecar doesn’t need the packaging advantages and only mildly benefits from the mass reduction. A better choice for a classic, in my opinion, would be an unblown four that serves as the “Secretary’s Car” edition. Since it’s being bought for image anyway, who cares if it’s 0-60 in 11?
hmmm, how’s that old saying go again?
There’s no replacement for displacement.
A muscle car without a V8? what’s next, a 4 door coupe? A porsche SUV?
oh wait…nevermind
OHhh god.
The whole idea of a muscle car is taking a small(er) car, and stuffing a cheap giant V8 in it, to come up with the fastest 0-60 in its (affordable)price bracket.
Lest you forget, some of the fastest Mustangs in the 80’s were turbo 4’s.
Jonny Lieberman: One quick point. The EcoTec would shave off a bunch of weight. Putting the Camaro at around 3,600 pounds.
3,600lbs may be be fair by Chrysler LX platform standards, but that’s a land yacht by a Camaro’s definition. A four banger will be revving and sucking gas just to preserve momentum in that tank.
And a Muscle car without a V8 isn’t one. The sound alone is the price of admission. Pontiac I-6s, Buick and Ford turbos are just stopgap measures for the real thing.
Just look how well the Mustang SVO sold compared to its 5.0 brother.
I don’t see any issue with it…it’s a niche market with only certain consumers. They want a muscle car because it has a V8. These cars could return even better performance if they weren’t so heavy or inefficiently designed. And then you can use a the smaller V8s and do just fine. A high-torque V8 with tall highway gears does very well in terms of fuel mileage…look at the Vette.
If a muscle car is responding to “nostalgia” it should have a V8 for the sake of nostalgia.
If a muscle car is responding to the “future” it should be light, and embody modern high performance components.
I think the Camaro would be great with a 2.4L V8. You’d satisfy the guys who want a V8 but don’t really care how much power they have as long as it’s ‘adequate’ while offering the LSx to the die-hards. It’d make CAFE happy too.
It seems to me that a turbo 4 in the base model, and a V8 in the top model, would nicely broaden the Camaro’s potential market. You’ve got a good throaty V8 sound for those who are looking for a nostalgic muscle car, and yet a highly tunable modern approach for younger buyers who don’t have that same nostalgia. Win-win.
Yes, a muscle car must have a V8.
And they don’t have to be american. I define the category to include the european/japanse muscle as well, like the V8 powered Mercs and BMW:s, like BMW M5 and MB CLS 500. Or the Lexus IS-F for that matter. A Camaro with a four is not a muscle car, however potent it is.
I think to be called a muscle car, it would have to have a V8, however, the base models of the Camaro (and other “pony” cars) are not muscle cars.
I tend to think of “muscle cars” as a normal car with a big engine. As far as I know (and I may not, since it was technically before my time), muscle cars were created when American car makers took otherwise normal cars and fitted them with huge engines. Later on they developed into independent models, but they typically didn’t handle much better then the normal cars.
Of course, most normal cars of today handle as well as older sports cars (though the tactile experience is very different). So today’s muscle cars can handle impressively, but their emphasis is still on big engines and straight line performance.
A muscle car is not a sports car. A muscle car is pretty much what Domestic Hearse described it as.
A Camaro is a specific type of a muscle car: 2 door coupe, rear drive, and eight cylinders, but for the six-cylinder secretary’s version.
If GM wants to develop a rear drive sporty coupe with a turbo 4, that’s fine if they can sell it. But the Camaro has a specific legacy, and that ain’t it. A four-cylinder Camaro would be Brand Suicide 101.
The Probe analogy is a good one. It’s fortunate that Ford didn’t call it a Mustang, or label it as a muscle car. If you’re going to sell heritage, then sell heritage.
Gotta be a v8. I will buy a muscle car later this year, but not new. When a 69 coronet on CARS ON LINE comes from $35,000 to $20,000 then I will have my muscle car like the one i had in my early 20’s. And boy, are the prices really starting to tumble!
Sajeev: 3,600lbs may be be fair by Chrysler LX platform standards, but that’s a land yacht by a Camaro’s definition. A four banger will be revving and sucking gas just to preserve momentum in that tank.
Not if it has the kind of torque and hp that we’re talking about 260/260 (or more). And turbo engines intrinsically rev lower than a normaly-aspirated engine, due to the enhance torque curve. They’re rarely “revvers”.
Sajeev:Just look how well the Mustang SVO sold compared to its 5.0 brother.
Not a fair comparison. The SVO was positioned well above the 5.0, and was a pricey piece. The 4 cyl. Camaro would be the base engine.
I think the blown four would do surprisingly well in the Camaro. Everyone has memories of the weak, turbo-lagging engines of the eighties in mind. The SVO started out with 170hp, almost 100 less than this engine. These modern high-torque low-lag turbo fours ARE the future; get used to them, and don’t make assumptions about them that are out of date.
If a “muscle car” has to have an 8 in it, then it’s time to put that horse out to pasture. There are plenty of sports cars with less cylinders that are faster stock than a lot of the old “muscle cars”.
Legacy and heritage only go so far in the market these days. The Thunderbird, Prowler, and SSR all flopped tremendously. The saving grace for the Mustang was that it was never taken out of production and has remained relatively cheap.
I think that the Probe’s main problem was that it was front-wheel drive. The Probe may have been slated to replace the Mustang as Ford’s performance car, I don’t think it was ever meant to be a muscle car. I doubt that they would have ever called it a Mustang.
alex_rashev
Absolutely, the SVO Mustang was quick as hell. And still not a muscle car. As you may recall, it also had a “european-inspired” suspension and “european styling.” It’s a sports car, or sports coupe, NOT a muscle car.
Toyota Supra? Turbo 6 cylinder, Japanese, handles well. SPORTS CAR, not a muscle car.
Porsche 911? 6 cylinder, German, handles great. GT Car, NOT a muscle car.
Dodge Viper? V10, American, handles well, 2 seats. SPORTS CAR, not a muscle car.
Corvette? V8, American, handles well, 2 seats. SPORTS CAR, not a muscle car.
‘69 Z/28, AAR ‘Cuda, Boss 302 Mustang? Small displacement high-revving V8, American, built for handling and road racing. PONY CAR, not a muscle car.
‘69 ZL-1 Camaro, Hemi ‘Cuda? Big block V8s, heavy as hell, don’t handle at all, drag racers. MUSCLE CARS.
‘70 Chevelle, ‘86 Monte Carlo (slow, but still), ‘96 Impala SS, ‘69 Super Bee, ‘69 Fairlane? Muscle cars.
A “muscle car” must have a V8. A big part of the fun is the sound and torque curve of a V8. There are other kinds of fun cars, and that’s great, but if it’s not a V8 it’s not a “muscle car”.
Maybe the age of muscle cars is over and GM is being forced to convert the Camaro into a different kind of enthusiast vehicle. If that’s the case, it’s a sad day for people that like muscle cars; people that don’t shouldn’t really care.
From the 80s on muscle cars were on dedicated platforms and needed non-performance trims (aka “secretary models”) to be viable. These have always had utilitarian engines, and really all that matters is “adequate” acceleration and economy. The 2.0T would provide this, as would many other options.
i would call it the Hyundai Coupe Killer. if its fast who cares…99.9% of the buyers are buying it because of the looks anyway.
no, a muscle car just has to have a lot of power. That’s the concept here. Is there anyone out there going to tell me the Buick Grand National/T-Type/GNX wasn’t a muslce car just because it had a 231ci V6? Or the 20th Anniversary Trans Am? Or the GMC Syclone/Typhoon?
No, it’s about power – specifically low-end power. While a Mustang Cobra and an NSX are about equally fast, the Mustang’s the muscle car – it’s the rambunctious inefficient but fun one – loads of power down low.
Case in point: currently, Australia’s most bad-ass muscle car has a six cylinder. HPV’s Typhoon uses a variation of the Ford Barra 4.0L I6, and it has the highest torque output of any Australian vehicle.
So who cares about cylinder count? it’s how much power, and where it’s made.
When my youthful auto enthusiasm was just getting started in the 60’s, to my mind the term muscle car was given to those models that had (with few exceptions) an oversized motor installed with trim and model designations to set them apart from their sedan/coupe bothers
In all of my reading car mags, and the performance numbers, pretty much any car that could go 0-60 in 7 seconds or less, and the 1/4 mile in 15 seconds or less was such a car.
That is still my benchmark, any car with, or exceeding those stats are muscle cars, and today the number and variety of different models that meet or exceed this is amazing.
Bottom line to the question of this article? No, a “muscle car” does not need a V-8 unless nostalgic motives are in play. In the 60’s low specific output motors meant that only large V-8s had the kind of power to achieve that kind of acceleration. The real measure of a “muscle car” today should be its power to weight ratio, not a stereotyped cylinder count/configuration in a boutique body style.
it’s how much power, and where it’s made.
No, it’s more than that. The core of the muscle car genre is the engine rumble and the low-end torque. You can’t get that from a four-cylinder engine.
A muscle car also have to have rear-wheel drive, and it can’t have interior packaging too far removed from that of a normal passenger car.
(Yes, I think that the last Camaro lost the spirit of the muscle car concept. The interior was too cramped and the platform slung too low to be true to the legacy. The seating height should be comparable to that of a sedan.)
Most American consumers don’t know what “forced induction” is, but they can count, and they know that 8 > 4. So if you actually know something about cars, you probably know that a 2.0L engine + boost can result in completely insane power (witness Group B). However, if you are just a dude who knows nothing but hopes that a fast car will make him look younger, relive his youth, etc., i.e. the majority of buyers in almost all market segments including performance cars, then all you know is bigger is better. So you’ve gotta have that V8.
That state of affairs ain’t gonna change without a massive marketing/education effort.
For its core market, it is more important that it have a V8 (and RWD) than it is for it to be fast, safe, or reliable.
While they may sell a lot of V6s or even turbo 4s, the core market would pick a 190 hp V8 over a 350 hp twin turbo V6.
A muscle car without a V8 is not a muscle car, plain and simple. The public won’t accept it. I’d rather have Chevrolet cancel the development of the Camaro than see it become some CAFE-castrated abomination, no matter how much horsepower you can squeeze out of the Ecotec.