Well you have a point, certainly cars of today can’t be unsafe… but one way it can be a musclecar for example, is to have a solid, reliable live rear axle that can take tons of power, instead of a fragile IRS. That’s NOT to say a modern musclecar can’t have IRS, but it’s one example of how you’d trade ride quality and responsiveness for better straightline performance. It’s not so much that the car is unsafe, it’s that handling and responsiveness take a back seat to the first goal–quarter mile.

“No.”

“4. Designed primarily for straightline performance, with other features secondary.”

Not likely to happen in this day. The reason that cars back then didn’t “handle” is because they didn’t know how to design cars that handled well and were still big and roomy and powerful. It wasn’t a conscious decision to make them handle poorly. These days they can make a 3 ton crew cab truck handle like a race car from the 60s.
The American RWD V8 part is easy.

Yes, I do consider them musclecars. That as my point, sorry, I should’ve added that at the end of that comment. If they’re big blocks, they become musclecars because of what they are able to do.

And I suppose yes, 6 cylinder pony cars are still pony cars… sort of the economy/base version… kinda slow, but still sporty and stylish?

The base model pony cars typically came with grocery-getter 6-cylinder engines, but are still considered pony cars. Smallblock V8s were optional. Big block V8s became available later, as they couldn’t easily be shoe-horned into the engine compartments of the earliest examples.

If, as you say, the big block powered versions are no longer pony cars, aren’t they then muscle cars? The fact that many 440 and Hemi ‘Cudas, 427 Mustangs, and 396 Camaros became drag cars, as you suggest, supports my thinking that they were muscle cars.

Another important thing that differentiates “pony cars” is the long hood, short tail styling. Mechanically, there was nothing different between the first Ford Mustang and the Ford Falcon, or the first Barracuda and the Plymouth Valiant.

The Nova, and Duster don’t really have the right look. (FYI, the Duster was a rebodied Dodge Dart, so mechanically identical.) As for the Dodge Dart, Ford Falcon and their corporate siblings, I’d say it was a matter of marketing. These were offered as 4-door sedans as well as 2-doors, while the cars accepted to be “pony cars” were only available as two-door hardtops and some as convertibles. I don’t know why you’d say that these were “basically straightline cars” though. With the right options, I’m sure any of them could have been made to fare well against the pony cars of their time. In the Mopar lineup in particular, given that the Plymouth Barracuda and then-new Dodge Challenger were on the wider E-body platform from 1970 onward, the smaller A-body Dodge Dart and Plymouth valiant were really closer to the original “pony car” concept.

That’s why I think that the term “pony car” primarily denotes a particular bodystyle, while the term “muscle car” denotes an excess of horsepower. Some cars can be considered both, and some 4-door cars and wagons can also be muscle cars.

Camaro
Mustang
‘Cuda
Challenger
AMC Javalin
AMC AMX
Mercury Cougar (before it went fat)

And, personally, I believe the versions of these cars with BIG BLOCKS no longer qualify as pony cars, because they all become drag cars at that point. A ZL-1 Camaro, a Hemi ‘Cuda, or a 428 Cougar is no longer a balanced, handling machine.

And to elaborate–the smallblock Novas and Falcons, the 340 Dusters and Darts, etc… Don’t qualify as pony cars… they may be light and have V8s, but they’re still basically straightline cars.

Muscle cars are:

1. RWD
2. American
3. Powerful V8s (one exception is given here, for the GNX)
4. Designed primarily for straightline performance, with other features secondary.

A Mercedes E55 AMG is a performance sedan, not a musclecar. It’s German, it handles and is luxurious.

A Toyota Supra is a sports or GT car, not a musclecar. It has a twin turbo inline-6, it’s made in Japan and it handles relatively well.

Neither a Dodge Viper or Corvette is not a musclecar. They’re 2 seats, built with exotic speed and handling in mind, with acceleration also a factor. They’re sports cars.

So yes, the Charger is a musclecar. I don’t like that it’s a 4-door either personally–they could’ve called it a Fury or a Belvedere and not “insulted” the Charger. But oh well.

The criteria I listed, you’ll notice, also doesn’t argue against muscle existing in the future.

While a “real” Charger should only have two doors by definition, the current incarnation, particularly the R/T, SRT8 and Super Bee variants, is definitely targetting the muscle car market. If the Charger doesn’t count as a muscle car because it has 4 doors, then neither did the 1994-96 Chevy Impala SS and 2003-04 Mercury Marauder, which were also targetted at that market.

As the 3rd place winner of a previous TTAC contest on muscle cars, I tried to do this. But I failed. I got 170 words into it and realized that it was not about Muscle Cars, but about something much different. So I can’t finish. But I would like to share my draft, and share my thoughts:

I saw the most amazing display on vacation this summer, strolling down Pearl Street in downtown Boulder, CO. It was an outdoor rock concert. People dancing. Music blaring. The occasional whiff of something not-quite-legal in the air. The amazing part? Not one person was under 50 years old. Not even the musicians. But this was no easy listening troupe of mandolin players, no, this was a classic rock band playing classic rock music. These were the sounds of youth. But the youth were elsewhere.

Now, go buy a copy of Spores and start creating creatures for battle. And prove you are a man.

After realizing that I am not sleep deprived today, and that I’ve already had my coffee, it occurred to me that I would surely lose the contest, because I simply do not care about the subject anymore.

Even in the automotive industry, there are so many questions that are much more important than anything having to do with “muscle cars.”

Before I doze off, I will say that I think I can blame the makers of my old Trans Am and Corvette for this. If it weren’t for the Trans Am, I would have been happy, and I would never have driven a Miata. If it weren’t for the Corvette, I would have been happy and I would never have driven a Z3.

The Miata opened my eyes, ears, and other senses to new possibilities. The Z3 sealed the deal; over and done.

If they get smaller engines, better interiors and better suspensions, and more expensive, they will just be RWD coupes with bad aerodynamics

I will take a 350Z or say a Genesis coupe instead

Come on Folks, cant we in American please find something that is NOT 40 years old or older to lust after and/or feel a great deal of pride over?

I really cant believe that Folk still care about Muscle cars today. It is freakin 2008 already! It is time to move on. Why not take it back to the 1920 and 1930 and start building retro Dussies with wooden frame bodies, American cars were really great then too!

All this talk about cars from 40 years ago is so sad because the popularity of these cars is directly related to the fact that the US auto industry has NOTHING to show for itself for the forty years in between that era and today.

Trust me if GM, Ford, and Chysler had been SUCCESSFUL with such tech as smaller multi-valve alloy engines, turbochargers, IRS, or even good competent FWD pocket rockets, and had built up a legacy for this stuff folk in the USA folks would be happy to let the 1960s concept of Muscle pass into history.

In the day and age were a bread and butter FWD compact or mid-sized sedan can equal or surpase the strait line and skidpad perfromance of any EQUALLY PRICED RWD coupe WTF is the point of a so-called Muscle car? There will never be any real performance advantage again but the compromises will remain. Today a Camry v6 will give a Automatic equiped Mustang GT a serious “run for it money”. Laugh at the Camry all you want but when you cant outrun it in a stang something is wrong with the whole idea of the stang a performance car!

Yes, the Stang can pull ahead but it can’t pull away!

Devices that allow direct connection and real-time sharing of information between human brain and computers are evolving fast. Once they allow someone to get _exactly_ the same sensations of driving a muscle car from a computers’ virtual simulation, it’s all over.

It’s an interesting writing exercise, but I must admit I’ve never understood the 800-words-fits-all format. It’s not like you are constrained by printing costs.

Your rule reminds me of my first journalism professor, a crusty old school type we endearingly referred to as “Sid Vicious.” He insisted that we keep all of our stories to 500 words or less. His basic argument: If the Bible could tell the entire story of creation in that amount of space, why would our prosaic news require more words?

Working with the 500-word limit did enforce useful discipline, particularly when learning journalistic-style writing. However, I think Sid took it too far. A publication he edited also conformed to that standard. I found the format rather boring because even some excellent long-form writers were required to fit all of their stories into that box.

Eight-hundred words seems like a reasonable length for TTAC’s subject matter. But not one word more or less for a muscle car essay? Maybe some other time.

I thought I was joking, but, actually, I’m pretty serious. I predict that in 10-20 years my (now-toddler) kids won’t give a hoot about cars…they’ll be using automated Segways to get around and devoting their attention to virtual worlds. To them, (muscle) cars will be sorry remnants of the 20th century.

This is more of an article about the the convergence of technologies and the incredible social shift which our society is experiencing. Pretty lofty stuff.

I can’t stretch that to 800 words, so I’m out, but that’s my opinion. Ford without a Mustang is like Chevy without a Corvette- think about that before replying.

I think the real question is whether or not the manufacturers will TAKE the steps necessary to ensure the survival of the musclecar–let’s face it, muscle cars are about three things in general:

1. Fast in a straight line
2. The feel and sound of a rumbling V8 in a muscular body
3. The ability to wrench on it without SERIOUS complications

Everything else in this equation is secondary. Everyone here seems to be talking about small displacement v6s and 4cylinders… But why not a small displacement V8? You all know as well as I do that manufacturers put tons of effort into making an engine sound and feel “just right.” So there’s no reason they couldn’t do it with a 3.5 or 4.0 litre, direction-injection, variable-valve-timing, variable-intake-runner V8? Something that could knock down 30+ mpg on the highway with a significant overdrive like the T-56… But still run 13s or 12s in the 1/4 mile.

The current crop of muscle cars are wretched excess based on direct competition between the Big 3. It’s the same for BMW/Mercedes/Audi horsepower battle. That will eventually taper off as the industry focuses more on effeciency. That doesn’t mean we can’t have an effecient muscle car.

Variety is another strong piece of the muscle car puzzle–having a bazillion options to build your own at a dealer… Offer more performance options, handling options, and luxury options at affordable prices to make buying the car unique and fun.

I would totally buy, say, a new Chevy Nova SS with a 4.0 litre DOHC, all-aluminum, direct-injected, Variable Valve Timing V8. Make it 3000-3100 lbs, 300-320 horsepower @ 7000 rpm or so, and with a T-56 it’d still get 30 mpg. Why the hell not?