This post no longer reflects my views. Mostly.
Hello, CT. My name is Flux, and welcome to another one of my blogs. This time, it’s not gonna be about GBU, or a list or whatever. This is gonna be a rant, a rant I’ve been working on for weeks on an issue that refuses to die. And I’M going to put it to rest, for good.
Hello, CT. My name is Flux, and welcome to another one of my blogs. This time, it’s not gonna be about GBU, or a list or whatever. This is gonna be a rant, a rant I’ve been working on for weeks on an issue that refuses to die. And I’M going to put it to rest, for good.
"That's not a muscle car!"
I am absolutely SICK AND TIRED of hearing this bullsh*t everywhere. People are under the assumption that the newer muscle cars, the Camaro and Mustang, aren’t muscle cars, mostly due to their nimble aspects. Alternatively, people belive that f!cking European cars like the Mercedes Benz C63 AMG (great car though, my favorite German car, actually) are muscle cars.
Really?
First off, the Mustang a Camaro, whether you like them or not, ARE muscle cars. All muscle cars share the same general description:
-2 doors (except the Charger)
-4 seats
-V8 (except the GNX)
-RWD
-American-manufacturer (or Australian, in some cases).
What, you think that’s just my opinion? Read these:
Merriam-Webster states that a muscle car is “any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving”. Although a broad definition, it still stands.
The American Muscle Car Club says “A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price. Most of these models were based on “regular” production vehicles. These vehicles are generally not considered muscle cars, even when equipped with large V8s. If there was a high performance version available, it gets the credit, and not the vehicle that it was based on” and “In addition to fullsize and intermediate muscle cars, a number of smaller vehicles started appearing on the automotive performance scene. These new ‘pony cars’ and compact cars are generally considered muscle cars only if they have the top of the line performance engines and options.”
The Mustang and Camaro fit in these descriptions perfectly.
"Hurr durr, handling."
Here’s a fun fact for you: You know the original Camaro Z28, the Camaro which everyone calls a muscle car, or has at some point? It had a revised suspension system and disc brakes STRICTLY for the purpose of handling. Not unlike the newer Z28 and ZL1, which everyone tends to call “non-muscle cars”.
Similarly, the original GT350s and GT500s came with bigger brakes, power steering, and upgraded suspension systems.
Fact is that muscle cars are meant to have a ton of performance at a decent price. And what does performance include? HANDLING. This means that the ones that can handle live up to the name perfectly, even if there wasn’t a set definition.
Need another example? Sure.
Another example? Sure.
Let’s say you run track, as with everyone in your family. You can take the straights pretty well, but you can’t go around the turns as quick as you’d like to. Your entire family is renowned for it, except for your brother, who is slightly better at it. You eventually have a son, who is a BOSS at taking the turns. Is he not your son because of the fact that he can around bends nicely? Hell no. This applies to muscle cars as well.
However, the “non-muscle car” term isn’t too wrong, I’ll admit.
Remember, muscle cars are still sports cars, because a sports car, as defined by good ol’ Wikipedia, is “A sports car is a small, usually two seater, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling”. And modern muscle cars are what? That’s right; designed for spirited performance and nimble handling.
Too long, didn’t read? I’ll sum this up.
A muscle car is not a car that is only meant to drive straight really fast. A muscle car is not a really powerful non-turning vehicle. A muscle car is any car that is American (or Australian), V8, RWD, 2 doors, and 4 seats, meant for performance. Compared to other performance cars, a muscle car is comparatively cheaper. Handling does not factor in.
What, you thought I was done, here? Nope.
This doesn’t just apply to muscle cars.
Many, MANY cars throughout modern times have constantly been misclassified simply because they are lacking or winning in one area. Take, for instance, the MX-5.
Older.
Older.
OLDER.
That’s the one. The MX-5 NA, which people rag on about it having “not enough power”, therefore making them say it isn’t a sports car.
Lemme repeat what has already been said.
“A sports car is a small, usually two seater, two door automobile designed for spirited performance and nimble handling.”
No one mentioned power, here. Power has nothing to do with it. Besides, there have been many cars preceding the MX-5, and what do people call those vehicles?
SPORTS CARS.
Plus, people always say that the BRZ/GT86/FR-S are sports cars, yet only have a little extra power! Really? That is absolutely ridiculous.
“It’s a rally car, bro!”
Another one which pisses me off to the millionth power is when people call WRX STis, Evos, and cars like them “Rally cars”, especially when people lower and stance them.
The amount of sense this makes is literally non-existent.
First, the definition of rallying breaks this logic.
According to Wikipedia, “Rallying is a form of motorsport that takes place on public or private roads with modified production or specially built road-legal cars.” The key words here are “specially built road-legal cars”. From the factory, STis and Evos are NOT able to compete in rally, because they are bone stock, and not specially built. There are regulations and requirements needed to compete in rally, and the latter cars wouldn’t be allowed to compete.
Even if they were allowed to compete in their stock states, they would not be able to keep up with the actual rally cars. The suspension systems on these cars are much too low, and would not be suitable for bumpy tracks. They’re meant for tarmac roads, not dirt roads.
Second, they’re not safe.
Your car has to have a safety/roll cage installed. If you were to roll over after a jump (due to your illegal suspension, probably), you’d smash your head.
Third, they can’t compete.
They’re much too heavy to keep up with the lightweight rally cars, and the gears are too long, as well. The acceleration would be abysmal in comparison. Plus, like I said before, their suspension systems are too short.
Simply put, they aren’t rally cars, so stancing them is fine (in some cases, dumb, but fine).
Before you enter the comment section and make some long-winded comment about how I’m wrong (like I probably would, not gonna deny it), just know that you shouldn’t go throwing around random terms of cars without knowing the full definition behind them. STis are not rally cars, Miatas are sports cars, and ZL1s/GT350rs + the like are muscle cars. I guess you also now know the full logic behind my comments.
I guess that’ll wrap things up, here. Tis’ been Flux of CarThrottle. Peace. :D
P.S. THE ZL1 IS A MUSCLE CAR
Comments
“No it isn’t, you uncultured, unlearned, and unobservant swine.” Something tells me you like stances STIs and Lancers
No, actually lol
Like I said before, I wasn’t too happy writing this.
Or you could just not be a tw*t, and let people call their car whatever they want. Why make a big deal out of something so pointless?
Just becuse a stanced out STi owner calls it a rally car doesn’t mean that suddenly it tarnishes the name of a True rally spec Lancia Stratos.
Sometimes people just want to feel like they’re part of something bigger. We’re all Gearheads/Petrolheads. Let it slide.
Uhhhhh…that isn’t what I said. Like, at all. People can call whatever car they want, but sometimes, it’s factually incorrect. It’s just how it is. Also, I didn’t say that stanced STi owners call their cars “rally cars”, at all. I never said stanced cars were bad, either.
Please, before you rant in my comments ever again, make sure you’ve at least read what I typed.
Great explanation! I for one fully agree with all your definitions and explanations, except about how all muscle cars must have a V8 and have to be American (or Australian). That should be updated a bit IMO.
Is it really a blasphamy to have a vehicle that only has a V6 and is non-American be called a muscle car?
What if there’s a car that has a V6 engine that can make more power than a similar size V8? Just putting that out there.
Also, why does it have to be American and nothing else? That’s almost like saying, Germans make the best engines because they invented them. That may not always be true…
I think I should’ve been a bit more descriptive haha
But anyway, the term “muscle car” originated from America, and was applied to American and Australian cars. It is factually wrong to call a car like the RS4 a “muscle car”. However, you can call them what I like to call “honorary muscle cars”; cars that meet all requirements, but aren’t from the former countries. It isn’t like saying “Germans make the best engines because they invented them” as that is a subjective statement, not objective.
Also, power hasn’t a thing to do with it, m89
Great article! I enjoyed it a lot!
Thanks!
Can I ask Flux, why are people getting so triggered at you using Wikipedia as a source?
I’ve used it for years and things some things that Viper owners say is right on the Wikipedia page.
I haven’t the slightest idea. But with every blog I post, oddly, there’s always someone (or some people) to pick at something haha
I once read in a book that the AMC Rebel Machine is a real muscle car (and Challenger, Charger, Torino, Chevelle and Barracuda), and that the Mustang/Camaro are “pony cars”.
That book was wrong lmao
Camaros and Mustangs are muscle cars.
For me muscle car is huge engined, too big for the body in this case, coupe (or hardly ever, Saloon) with RWD so in my opinion SL65 AMG Black Series is a Muscle car. Same goes with C63 Black Series (the old one with 6,2 V8) and W124 500E. Maybe, just maybe E9x M3 can be considered as muscle car.
Alright, but factually, that isn’t correct.
just saying pls no kill me
In my eyes, one big factor about muscle cars is affordability and a C63 Coupé isn’t exactly affordable…
What about pony cars ?
Just like muscle cars, but don’t require a V8 or RWD, like the (albeit all around sh*t) I4 3rd Gen Camaro.
TL;DR - because the dictionary and Wikipedia say so.
I knew you’d be here.
And for the record, that ain’t what I said. It’s much more than the dictionary definitions people criticize me for.
Spot on explanation. Though I think people often make the mistake of trying to lump cars like the mustang into a single category like “pony car” or “muscle car”. The beauty of Mustangs, Camaros, and the like is that they can be whatever you want. The earliest Mustangs had a variety of options to do just that. Want a fun economic car? get a 6 cylinder or base 289. Sports car? hi-po 289 k code. Muscle car? big block 390 or others as years went on. Today’s cars are no different. Plus in many cases these categories are not exclusive.
Also always hated when people say that muscle cars cant turn….. american muscle cars have a long history of being competitive road racers.
Exactly! SOME PEOPLE fail to see that.