This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I was under the impression that the introduction of smog emissions standards had more to do with reducing performance than requiring lower compression due to lower-octane unleaded fuel. In the 1970s catalytic converters were incredibly inefficient and lots of mostly-unchanged engines were massively de-rated with the introduction of early emissions equipment. The decline section should probably mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.242.154 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the AC Cobra a muscle car? // Liftarn

Not really, though it shares some aspects of that. The traditional American muscle car definition was a cheapish midsize passenger car uprated to high performance by adding an outsize engine and other performance parts. In many respects, a counterpart to the 'hot hatch' thing in Britain/Europe later.

The Cobra is something else entirely; a British sportscar given a huge American V8. Not cheap even when new (though comparitively so compared to its cost now), and certainly not a modification from a regular passenger car.

British sportscars fitted with American V8s actually have quite a long tradition, going back to things like Allards and including the Sunbeam Tiger (with a shoehorned-in small-block Ford V8) as well as the cars fitted with American engines from the outset (e.g. Jensen Interceptor, and most Bristols). And that's not counting the cars that carry an American V8 less obviously, in the form of the Rover 3.5 litre V8 that was an American design (Buick).

The British do share an appreciation of big engined, front engine/rear drive sportscars with the Americans that doesn't seem to be shared with most of Europe. For example, Aston Martins are somewhat American in form, really (Classic & Sportscar magazine did an interesting comparison recently pointing out that the almost exact similarity between a '69 Chevrolet Camaro and a slightly later Aston; they look uncannily similar, are not too far off in every major dimension, and are similarly engineered). --Morven 20:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Many people use the term muscle car to describe newer cars which also provide good "bang for your buck" in performance. Yes, muscle cars declined as described a bit here, but many would say they've come back. Thoughts? Friday 7 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)

Such as? --Robert Merkel 7 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)

Well, some of the old marques still exist, or did until recently. If acceleration is the hallmark of the muscle car, some of the new versions of old marques would qualify. Good examples include GTO, Camaro, Mustang. If you want a modern-day equivalent of a pony car (which I'd consider a subset of muscle car), look in the pocket rocket/hot hatch segment (Cobalt SS, Neon/SRT-4, etc). I've given "American" cars as examples because I think that's what most people think of as muscle cars, but other good examples exist. These cars are muscle-car quick, so aren't they muscle cars? Friday 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not an American, so I'm not sure if they're described "muscle cars" or not. Amongst a certain segment of the population the desire for high performance at a relatively low price has never gone away; in Australia that crowd generally drives (or wants to drive) a Subaru Impreza WRX. The article already mentions the new-generation GTO; sales, however, have been very small. Maybe an extra sentence or two on modern equivalents wouldn't go astray.--Robert Merkel 8 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)

I am an American, and I have not seen the new cars called just "muscle cars". That term seems to only apply to the classics from 1964 through 1971. I have seen the GTO and Hemi Chryslers called "modern muscle cars", however. I would support the addition of a separate section calling out these cars, but clearly the plain "muscle car" term applies only to the classics. --SFoskett July 8, 2005 12:49 (UTC)

I grew up working on classic muscle cars and I tend to subscribe to this definition, a Muscle car is
American
2 Door
Rear Wheel Drive
V-8
--FLJuJitsu 14:19 15 Sept 07 (UTC)

it is common knowledge that a wrx is classed as a tuner not my favourite sort of car but it is a good car 0-60 in 5-6 sec now that is fast but it is 4wd sports car with great handling and loads of grip but what i see as an aussie modern muscle isn't a japanese tuner but it is something like a ba fpv gtp or hsv club sport they are practically a new model of the old xy gtho and holdens equivellant hq/hr prem opinions of this comment can be sent to grim69@live.com.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.52.130.179 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the 1955-1957 Ford Thunderbird with the optional supercharger and the1962-1964 Studebaker Avanti also be considered muscle cars? Particularly the supercharged Avanti? While the stock original T-Bird would not be a muscle car (although it was a direct ancestor of the pony cars), with the supercharger it would qualify as one in my opinion. User:4.231.180.13

The Tbird was in the "personal luxury car" category which I think most people will consider a different segment than the muscle cars, acceleration notwithstanding. The Avanti was considered a sports car, which is definitely a very different thing than a muscle car in those days. You're going to find all sorts of people willing to give a detailed description of what makes a "real" muscle car, but this isn't overly helpful. The only source I can find in the article was supposedly Road and Track's list of "muscle cars" from 1965. In my opinion the question remains open as to how narrow a definition of "muscle car" is desirable for this article. Friday (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2005

Ever heard of the Mach 1, Shelby GT350/500, Boss 302, Boss 351, Boss 429?, J-code Mustang GT? These are some of the most important cars of the era, and they are not even mentioned. Also, the mustangs around after 2002 (excepting the GT and V6), are not "semi-muscle" pony cars: Mach 1, Cobra with 300-400hp. -CW 192.197.71.189 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

I understand that you probably own a 2000 V6 Mustang, but Mustangs were never muscle cars. 302 and 351 were not muscle engines especially back in its day. The 429 had horrible dyno ratings and the 427 Cobra Jet only came with special edition mustangs. Mustangs were never muscle cars, and they were always the slowest cars on the drag strip.

You're funny. You HAVE to be a GM guy with talk like that. You can't even name the engines properly, lol. Not even worth talking since you "probably" have never seen any classic mustang muscle at the track. By the way dude, I have seen modded 2005+ mustang GTs beat C5 Vettes at the track. CJ DUB 00:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't some Mustangs - admittedly for the strip only - come with the 427 SOHC engine? 616 bhp with one carb, 657 with twoMr Larrington (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some cars that could be on it are 2004-present Pontiac GTO 2005-Present Dodge Charger 2003-? Mercury Murauder. 2004-present New Mustang Saleen Mustang.

Not positive if these should be on it. Holdon Morano, commadore, Chrysler 300C, cadilac CTS-V. and others I can't think of right now.

impala SS. it is FWD but it does have a V8

You for got the Dodge Magnum70.106.36.130 20:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

I don't know who put Ford Mustang Cobra as the last surviving muscle car, but whoever did knows nothing about the meaning of muscle car. The only true car to have survived the new emmissions era, was the Chevrolet Corvette which even today comes with a 7.0 liter engine.

This page is about muscle cars. You yourself don't define muscle cars, without references. The Terminator Cobras are muscle cars. You obviously have never seen/raced one. Woooo, 7.0L, who cares? CJ DUB 23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impala SS (new one) should be removed. Sorry GM lovers, that is not a muscle car. CJ DUB 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit complicated for an European guy like me. "GTs, Mach 1's and Boss Mustangs are considered muscle cars" - this is what they say in Musclecarclub page. Now your're saying Mustangs were never Muscle Cars. So none of the Mustangs were Muscle Cars or they were not TRUE muscle cars?

The simple definition of a Muscle Car is a high-performance 2-door model of a midsize car. The Mustang was based on the compact Falcon, so it is not a musclecar but a "pony car." The term ponycar came about because of the Mustang.

As for the list of modern muscle cars above, I'm not really sure. The '94-'96 Impala was a fullsize, the Marauder was a fullsize, the 300 and the Charger are fullsize, not to mention four-doors (if that makes a difference, I don't know). I would consider the Thunderbird Super Coupes to be musclecars, but I don't know if that would be a popular idea. --Sable232 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where have they all gone? I'm sure I've seen this article before with lot's of images on it. Troubleshooter 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history page and in my brief perusal didn't find any with images. Probably some of the articles on particular cars have some suitable images we can add. --Robert Merkel 02:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Brief perusal" haha I love it! Hmm I must be crazy then... It was probably an individual car or something... It should have a few images on the page anyway, being such a beautiful car type and all. Whoever decides to put one one... make it a good one :) Troubleshooter 02:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the Wildcat or Grand National/Regal T-type? Why not? --Pauljs75 07:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The muscle car generally describes a rear wheel drive mid-size car with a large engine. The first application of this idea after World War II was with the 1957 Rambler Rebel. However, there were other large-sized cars with powerful engines, such as the 1955 Chrysler 300. Nevertheless, I don't think they should all of them be mentioned in this article. If all of them were to be included, then this should be changed to "List of cars with large and powerful engines" ... Just my $0.02 - CZmarlin 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this got tagged for original research. I've tried to include in the article the web address for the base price info (it all appears to be reliable info) as well as the value converter address at measuringworth.com. My point in all this is to show that musclecars weren't necesarily "cheap" vehicles when seen in modern price values; that seems to be a bit of a misconception in American popular culture. OCDPard 1834, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am all for the inclusion of a section on the prices of muscle cars, but it needs to be sourced. As it stands the section is complete original research even if you explain what sources you used in you research it still remains original. This is not to say that this section could not be sourced, I'm am sure some one has made these kind of comparisons in some magazine or book, lets find it and put it in. For now I am going to move the section to the talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For comparative purposes, the following information (culled from the measuringworth.com website calculator for determing comparative values across time) shows what a typical muscle car price range would be equivalent to in modern (as of 2006) prices.

1965: $2500=$15,969.58; $3000=$19,153.60; $3500=$22,357.41; $4000=$25,551.33;

1967: $2500=$15,089.82; $3000=$18,107.78; $3500=$21,125.75; $4000=$24,143.71;

1970: $2500=$12,976.31; $3000=$15,571.58; $3500=$18,166.84; $4000=$20,762.10;

1972: $2500=$12,041.04; $3000=$14,451.61; $3500=$16,860.22; $4000=$19,268.82.

Using the figures, typical base prices for musclecars, if they were available for the same proportionate amount as of 2006, would look like this:

• 1964 Pontiac GTO 389 base price $2,852 would equal $18,529 in 2006
• 1967 Oldsmobile 4-4-2 W-30 base price $4,100 would equal $24,747 in 2006
• 1968 Dodge Charger R/T 426 base price $4,800 would equal $27,806 in 2006
• 1968 Plymouth Roadrunner 383 base price $2,896 would equal $16,776 in 2006
• 1969 Ford Talladega 428 base price $3,570 would equal $19,626 in 2006
• 1970 AMC Rebel "The Machine" base price $3,475 would equal $18,037 in 2006
• 1970 Buick GSX 455 base price $4,880 would equal $25,329 in 2006
• 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS454 base price $3,800 would equal $19,724 in 2006

If examined as modern prices, it becomes apparent that many muscle cars, while marketed towards younger buyers, would be fairly high-priced vehicles. The base prices cited are taken from the musclecar database maintained at http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-models-channel.htm

Re this section I removed, the only people who think the Impala/Monte Carlo with the V6 FWD is a muscle car don't know what a muscle car is. This point is not very debatable. They must be deluded GM fans. LOL. Also the V8 fwd version can not be considered a muscle car simply cause its GM's only full size V8 car; and I think this is at the heart of the debate. They lack a true muscle car so a rehashed design with a 5.3L engine must logically be one then. Of course. LOL. CJ DUB 18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Impala SS nameplate was resurrected again in 2000 as a high-performance version of the standard Impala with larger and/or supercharged engines (whether the 21st century Impalas, which are front-wheel drive and have had variously V6s and V8s, can be considered muscle cars in the same vein as their earlier namesakes is debatable). GM discontinued its F-body pony-car models, the Chevrolet Camaro and Firebird after 2002, but

Question is the Chevrolet Impala/Chevrolet Monte Carlo 2000+ (V6/V8) a muscle car?

CJDUB=NO

I don't think these cars are muscle cars at least in the traditional since either, the thing is they are marketed as such and some people consider them muscle cars. The paragraph in question make it quite clear that there status is debatable (the whole term muscle car is). These cars carry a lineage with classic muscle cars and should be included. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only lineage they carry is the name. There is no relationship with the old Impala/Monte. At least the GTO is a proper performance car. The Impala is a still that old W-body, a mid-size fwd family car design platform that hasn't changed in 20 years. Not much of a lineage. CJ DUB 22:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that you are letting your opinions get in the way of encyclopedic content. Yes the newer Impalas are lame cars (opinion), that doesn't mean that they are not marketed as modern muscle cars (fact) and that doesn't mean that they don't have heritage with older vehicles. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read anything that says the 2000+ Impala's were marketed as muscle cars. Yes...the SS version was marketed as a higher performance model than the standard Impala with a more powerful engine (via Supercharger pre-2006 model year and via a small block V8 2006 onward), but that doesn't classify it as a muscle car. Do you have a reliable source stating that the 2000+ Impala SS's were considered muscle cars by GM? Even GM has admitted that they threw the SS nameplate around too much these last few years, which is why they've chosen to re-think their naming system (i.e. the new Equinox Sport which gained 40% more horsepower than the standard model did not receive the SS badge because Chevrolet thought it was ruining the name of Super Sport) Source. Just a thought. Now, the 2009 redesign of the Impala SS may be a different story (since it is sharing the same platform as the new Camaro) and it is possible (although not confirmed) it could be getting the same engines (LS2, etc) as the Camaro Concept. -HumanZoom 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my opinions get in the way. Lots of muscle cars look lame, or boring but that's not the point. This is design scheme is a lame duck. The Impala 2000+ is not even a performance car, never mind a muscle car, as it has no upgrades other than the bigger engine, and yes this goes for V8s too. They have nicer interiors. So what? How about weight saving, LSD, suspension or other muscle car features. They have nicer rims, nicer interior and a bigger engine. Oh and cylinder deactivation. That does not a muscle car make. As for the lineage, the car has to be more than the mythical name to be a muscle car, notwithstanding this car's lineage is in reality the Chev Lumina. CJ DUB 13:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three sources that mention muscle car lineage and and the 2006 SS. Seeing as it only took me 2 minutes to find these I am sure there are more.

• [[1]]
• [[2]]
• [[3]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Man why do I bother. IT HAS NO MUSCLE CAR LINEAGE. Its just a name, it means ZERO. I don't care what those reference (which don't work) say. They are in fact wrong. The FACT is that this is a W-body and has no relation to the original Impala up to 1999 even. THAT is its lineage. CJ DUB 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look your own references dispute you: Back in the 60s, having a SS model meant you had the tools to do battle at stoplights and at the drag strip. These were true performance machines, with packages available that could push ratings up to 425 horsepower. Special springs, shocks and brakes, and unique styling cues rounded out the enhancements on these popular models.

The SS is just a name these days. It is not a performance machine any more than a Caddy Escalade is. There are no special features. CJ DUB 00:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not arguing about whether or not the 06 SS is a muscle car or not. We both agree it is not. What I am saying is that some people associate it with muscle cars of the 1960s as demonstrated very clearly in the Washington Times article (2nd link). It doesn't matter if you think it is wrong or not. It is a reliable and citeable source therefore we can have a mention that some people consider the 06 SS a spiritual successor to the muscle cars of the 60s. This is not a discussion forum where we get to argue about the merits of various cars, sources are all that matters.--Daniel J. Leivick 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, while I agree with your opinion CJ, Daniel is right. You ARE letting your opinions get in the way of this article. Despite what we believe on a personal level has no bearing in an Wikipedia article. None of us are experts in this field and even if we were, we wouldn't be able to input our original research. Now...onto the references you provided Daniel. Source 1 and 2 I believe are the same article so I'll tackle that first. The way I interpret it: the new Impalas are not muscle cars, but the modern day replacement for the powerful cars that shared the name from the 60s (with a little extra performance under the hood). So let's stop right there. Since we both agree that is the point, why are we arguing? I see nothing in the article anymore that is objectional.

(whether the 21st century Impalas, which are front-wheel drive and have had variously V6s and V8s, can be considered muscle cars in the same vein as their earlier namesakes is debatable).

My original arguement was that GM was NOT marketing these cars as muscle cars. I think the sources you provided have helped strengthed that point and there is nothing in the article that makes you think that the 2000+ Impala SS is a clear cut muscle cars as defined by the 60s. Can't we just all be friends now? :) HumanZoom 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are to include this car as being a "muscle car" (V6, front wheel drive), then I think you'll also need to include the Plymouth Duster from the 80's, with the 140hp engine and front wheel drive, as well as the Dodge Charger with a 70hp inline 4 cylinder engine and front wheel drive. The name has nothing to do with it, these companies have virtually destroyed the reputation of classics with cheap underpowered cars bearing the same names and sharing absolutely no similarities. It was a marketing ploy to make people associate the classics with these "new" cars, and obviously the Impala follows this same trend. If you're going to consider it a muscle car, wouldn't every V6 front wheel drive car produced bearing the same name as a former muscle car need to be added? I vote to remove this line from the article, since it should, if anything, be considered the "end" of the Impala being a muscle car - as I stated, it shares no similarities at all between any cars classified as "muscle". Zchris87v 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro it says (currently) that the American Muscle period is primarily 1964-1973. How can it be right to exclude the 1963 Corvette Stingrays, some of which would blow most of the cars of the road that are discussed in the remainder of this article? TMusgrove

Because the classic "muscle car" is a mid-size car capable of hauling four-passengers (and luggage) that has a large, powerful V8 engine and special trim. It is distinguished from the typically smaller sports cars intended for high-speed touring or road racing. Moreover, classic muscle cars were built from high volume models and thus priced to be much more affordable than sports cars, such as the Corvette. Furthermore, there is no point in comparing classic muscle cars to anything modern with refined road holding, as well as with the advantages of all the new technology, engineering, and designs. — CZmarlin 04:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the new Impala has 303bhp in it's new models, but it's not like the old days. the '65 Impala had 450bhp in it's shell. I would like to say one thing: the days that an Impala are gone.

The focus of this article is about about classic muscle cars. It should not a discussion of all their problems or a listing to sports cars, super cars, touring cars, as well as modern vehicles. — CZmarlin 14:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The weight comparison to SUVs in general pegged SUV weight at 4,000lb - 8,500lb. 8,500lb happens to be an important GVWR break level, but GVWR does not equal the actual curb weight of a vehicle. The heaviest SUV I've been able to find the proper numbers on so far is the 7190lb Excursion, and I don't think anything else even eclipses the 7000lb mark. Even the enormous Suburban is under 6000lb curb weight. If there's an actual SUV that has a curb weight of 8,500lb, please note it here and fix the weight in the article again. Ayocee 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat surprised that the article does not mention cars such as the Chevy Monte Carlo SS and the Buick Grand National. These cars were very much in the muscle car tradition, and many contemporary publications noted that. 64.171.162.77 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's silly to think the Polara 500 and Sport Fury influenced the GTO. Those Mopars were the most deluxe versions of their respective full-size lines, much like Chevrolet's Impala SS.

The GTO was the first car to package performance with an identity all its own. This article overlooks this (regardless whether performance cars existed before the GTO). yippie68@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.22.64 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sales were dropping in 1961 for the Dodge Dart, sales again in 1962 dropped in for the 1962 Dodge Dart. In 1962 Dodge darts came with 6 cylinder slant six, 318 v-8,361 v-8, 383 V-8, or 413 (Ramcharger Engine) strictly made for professioal racing V-8 Racing Engine. The 1962 Dodge Dart dropped in some weight compared to 1961, but was still considered a full sized car by Dodge. The 413 Dodge Dart engines came with 11;1 or 13;1 compression ratios. They were rare and needed extra care in maintaining them. The 413 required regular oil changes every 1000 miles. The carburators were factory set so a racer could add two electric fuel pumps without adjustments. Engine idle was set @ 1,000 RPM, full open throttle was limited to 15 second bursts to ensure longer engine life. The 413 required constant automatic transmission band adjustments, more than normal ignition contact servicing and spark plug service. Dodge Darts came as 4 doors, station wagons, or two door models. These 1962 413 Dodge Darts needed high octane fuel, and had poor gas miledge. Heavy duty dual springs were used, so oil seals would not fit in these 413 engines, oil seals not used also aided in lubricating the engine bettar. 413 engines also used low friction piston rings for bettar performance. Since oil seals were non existant, and low friction rings were used this 413 also consumed more than normal engine oil. The 1962 413 Dodge Dart was rare, and designed for Racing Professionals, it was not your daily driver type car. This car, the "413 Dodge Dart" was more of a Professional Race Car to a limited few buyers.

The 1964 Pontiac GTO , 389 V-8, was a daily driver around 10;1 compression ratio. These 389's required normal maintenance schedules like any other normal production car. The 1964 Pontiac GTO came standard with a 389 high performance engine, was a two door, had a heavy duty suspension, trim package , catchy name, could be taken to a drag strip and be a daily driver. Pontiac designed the 1964 Pontiac GTO for the general public. Pontiac expected sales of around 5,000 units sold, yet over 32,000 1964 Pontiac GTO's with 389's were sold to the general public. 1964 Pontiacs GTO's were so amazingly successfull, that many manufacturers started building their own muscle cars for this new market. The Muscle Car Era of 1964 - 1972 was and still is because of the 1964 Pontiac GTO. In 1972 insurance companies and fuel regulations put a stop to the Muscle Car. In 1961 Pontiac developed a 421 cid engine strictly for Nascar and NHRA Racing, (421 with one four barrel Nascar),(421 with two four barrel NHRA), in 1962 NHRA new rules required Pontiac to put some 421's in their vehicles. Were these 421 Pontiacs the first Muscle Cars? No, they were a few and strictly for Professional Racing. If it were not for the 1964 Pontiac GTO The Muscle Car Era, I believe would have not have been. Ford,(Mopar) Dodge, Plymouth, Chevy, GM,and AMX all got into the action because of the excitement.The many great cars such as the 1970 Buick GSX 455, Olds 442, Chevelle 427,454, and all the other Great Muscle Cars of this Era would they have evolved and been made readily accessible to the general public if the 1964 Pontiac GTO was not made? The 1964 Pontiac GTO was without a doubt the first Muscle Car. Sure their were great cars here or there before 1964, but have some respect for the car that gave the true meaning to the term Muscle Car. Nothing made the world notice the Muscle Car like the 1964 Pontiac GTO. I have my personnal favorite cars too, the first time I heard the 1964 Pontiac muscle car was the First True Muscle car, I had to think about it, you know if it weren't for this car would the Muscle Car ever have been so successful? Yes the 1964 Pontiac GTO was a daily driver, a high performance all around car, the perfect combination of a First True Muscle Car. It was the first true Muscle car in the 1960's, 1970's,1980's, why would anyone try to rewrite it now. Sincerely, Peter Goessler. The 1964 Pontiac GTO was the First True Muscle Car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.248.149 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Camaro or the Firebird not on this list? The Mustang is under the "Pony Car Muscle" section of the article, but one of the essential pony cars is not? Just look at the section of the Camaro article on the first gens and look how many 350+hp engines were produced. Is that not enough to be considered muscle? And is the 1973 455 Trans Am not a muscle car? Zchris87v 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CZMarlin expressed concern over my changes to the lead sentences on my talk page so I thought I would elucidate my thinking. The term muscle car actually gets thrown around quite a bit and applied to a wide variety of vehicles by different sources. While it does have a more specific definition referring to classic muscle cars the exact application is clearly disputed. Most highly reliable sources like dictionaries define it in very general terms do to its capricious application and that is why I feel we should do the same here. I have no problem with discussing the more specific definition later in the article, but it would violate NPOV to state that there is some exact definition in the lead sentence. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about cpyed Daniel J. Leivick's nicely flowing "Muscle cars were built for street use and in some cases racing" to "While muscle cars were sold as street-legal vehicles, a few were designed primarily for competition"? To convey that they were all street-legal from the factory but some were really built for the strip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from persuaded that these unreferenced additions by an anonymous contributor qualify as "muscle cars", at least not in the spirit of the other examples in the article, particularly in light of the German and Japanese products' technical complexity and cost. But I'm open to persuasion, given appropriate references. Thoughts? Writegeist (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they do not qualify as muscle cars. However the automotive press does ocasionally refer to them as muscle cars. I am going to remove the additions for now. If someone wants to restore and rewrite them with references it would be fine by me. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. The historical meaning of the term "muscle car" refers to an affordable car which achieves high performance objectives in limited areas (mainly speed and acceleration but not too much in the handling department) through brute force engine displacement. If we start adding expensive cars with sophisticated computer aided engine management and handling characteristics then this is game over for this article and its purpose. Maybe we can make a distinction between the historical muscle car of the 50s-70s and then add a section on the evolution of the muscle car to the present day. This way we can accomodate the more complex and expensive modern muscle cars such as the European, Japanese and even modern day American muscle cars. Dr.K. (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we already have a modern muscle car section, which discusses the terms modern use. It could stand to be expanded with references discussing modern European and Japanese vehicles that are often labeled muscle cars. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do these fall into the category of Q-car? If so, perhaps a brief section explaining this and linking to the relevant article? — Writegeist (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the modern muscle car section, as Daniel suggests above, to include the modern Japanese and European muscle cars is a good idea. Maybe we can also include the updated "modern muscle car" definition in the expanded section if one can be found. This way we can compare the muscle car concept as it was historically defined in America to the modern interpretation given to it by the Germans and the Japanese. The only problem I see however in this kind of endeavour is why exclude the British Aston Martins etc. or the Italian Maseratis and similar. I think these cars are as muscle bound as any German or Japanese car. It would be interesting to see the development of this section. Dr.K. (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some Euro muscle cars, its a term used in Europe as well, but normally for big powerfull BMW, Mercedes, etc. Obvious cars are the BMW M5, Mercedes 600 and from the UK the Jaguar XJS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.146.180 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is production run?. --Mac (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP's drive-by tag noted on article page:This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (May 2010)

True, the article is far from perfect. But it would be so much more helpful if drive-by taggers did some of the requisite heavy lifting themselves instead of merely driving by, posting a tag, tossing in a sniffy edit summary and leaving the real work to others. Writegeist (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CZmarlin just because the USA has muscle cars such rules, not ques say that in Brazil the same rules of Muscle Cars!

Thank you for your explanation. However, the article starts with a discussion of the history of "muscle cars" and then goes into the individual national markets. All of this should be referenced. Simply putting up a list of cars with their engines is not encyclopedic. Who developed this list? Please introduce the Brazilian muscle cars with appropriate citations. Because you have the source material available to you, I have brought back your contribution and added a section for Brazil. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia are appreciated! CZmarlin (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canadian, I take offense at how the fact that the 21st century Impalas are built in Canada disqualifies them as muscle cars. I wouldn't consider them muscle cars myself, but the 2010+ Camaro is mentionned, and also built in Canada, as an example.

"(...whether the 21st century Impalas, which are front-wheel drive, Canadian-built, and have had variously V6s and V8s, can be considered muscle cars in the same vein as their earlier namesakes is debatable)"

I understand that "American" is one of the requirements, but the fact that it was built for an American market by an American company should be enough to fulfil that requirement, no? I am about to remove this from the article. Should someone object to this, it's a simple fix, but I'd appreciate discussion first. 173.32.219.250 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section is unsourced and I think the Canadian bit has been added fairly recently. I for one wouldn't be opposed to you removing it. Cars built all over the world have been called Muscle cars and American built really isn't a requirement by most standards. --Leivick (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Caravan '77.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Caravan '77.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You people lose track of what a muscle car is in its purest definition. A Muscle Car is, and always has been, an american made, intermediate sized, two door vehicle, produced between 1964 and 1972 with the largest v8 engine allowed by its manufacturer. Does this mean that other makes and models are not muscular? NO, however these other vehicles do not meet all five of these characteristics.

I tried to edit the 'definition' 3 times to add a more comprehensive definition of a muscle car and it was deleted 3 times, saying the additions were 'Spammy, unreliable source, redundant content' and a 'redundant (already properly defined), poorly written, and using a mostly spam EL as a reference.'

The reason for editing the definition in the first place was that the definition of a muscle car is not set in stone, is hearsay, thus needs more clarification and backup sources when that is the case as in any topic area. The link it went to - http://fastmusclecar.com/best-muscle-cars/definition-muscle-car highlights several more dictionary definitions for starters. It also outlines some of the possible origins of the term. Muscle Cars, a book written by Peter Henshaw, is not the defacto. definition of what is a muscle car and the definition on the page is too vague. Thus the edit and addition.

The cited link also refers to other dictionary definitions and the Chicago Tribune archive as a possible first source and how the word 'muscle' was such a commonly used word. Your present definition does not give any of that information, but you still deleted the edit. So, i feel the editors who took down the edits didn't read through the additions thoroughly and also decided to say it was spammy, when it is clearly not. I will try once more with more text from the cited source, but if the edit is deleted this time, i guess you are fine with saying a muscle car only needs one source to define what is actually hard to define and is essentially a hearsay term with no definite origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davea123456456 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grilk (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe using Motor Trend and Road & Track circa 1965 to identify a vehicle that has not yet been produced (ex.1966–1970 Dodge Coronet/Plymouth Belvedere 426-S) as a muscle car is, well, impossible. Unless of course, these magazines had the ability to travel into the future and choose only to view these specific vehicles and report back on them. This whole muscle car page needs a revamp.

Grilk (talk)

I have once again removed the content based on fastmusclecars.com from the article. Firstly, that's not a reliable source, soliciting contributions from just about anybody with no indication of meaningful editorial oversight. Secondly, the content is redundant to what we already had, based on more reliable sources. Huon (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As added to my talk page, i totally disagree. Why is the source not reliable? The source talks about cited references from dictionary definitions, the Chicago Tribune and other resources online. I think you are mixing up the website and what the further resources are on and the sources. 'soliciting contributions from just about anybody' - as above, the further reading cites dictionaries, so how can dictionary sources be anybody? 'no indication of meaningful editorial oversight' - that is subjective. Follow the links. Also, 'anybody' - the editors of the page are arguable 'anybody' unless you can cite muscle car publications of your own. Wikipedia is about 'anybody' adding to the information if they can back it up, which has been done in this case with references. 'the content is redundant to what we already had' - the present content does not say the term has no one original source, does not expand and is only 2 sentences. If you quote one book, why not others? That's a lack of research. At least the further reading quotes other sources, not just one. A 2 sentence explanation of a term that has no one point of origin is not a thorough explanation. The bottom line is, you object to the additions and further reading as it is on a little known website and not a book resource, but if you followed the further reading it gives links to defined resources, as above. The additions add to the information and give people further information on the term, more than there is already. That is the bottom line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davea123456456 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The personal essay from fastmusclecar.com that is being cited not only contains errors, but misses the history of early "muscle car" terminology. For example, these type of cars were not called muscle cars. Rather than doing a useless analysis of the word muscle in newspaper articles, the author should research the term super car. That is what the first models were described, such as here, with this description: "this potent mill turned the lightweight Rambler into a veritable supercar." Another respected source also describes the terminology here. as "From the mid-sixties to the mid-seventies, what we now think of as muscle cars were more commonly called “Supercars,” often (though not always) spelled with a capital S." These are additional reasons why the mostly spam-type fastmusclecar.com essay should not be included in this encyclopedia article. Thanks - CZmarlin (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with CZmarlin's line of argument. This article is about the cars, not the term. A reliable source stating that such cars originally were named "supercars" (or "Supercars") is highly relevant to this article, and CZmarlin's sources, unlike fastmusclecar.com, meet Wikipedia's standards or reliability. Besides, there are copyright issues here. Huon (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange as that is what you did to the edits I did. Now the definition refers to 'supercars' as an origin of the term 'muscle cars' and is allowed to stay. The definition is 'muscle cars' and where that term originated, not which words it morphed from. 'Supercars' is a completely different term and is obviously a different term around the world. If you are to state in definitions where words or terms morphed from, please update every definition on Wikipedia to say where each word morphed from across each language as all language morphs from one word to another, a definition is of that word. Therefore, there has to be some definition of just the word or term itself, not the words it morphed from. I have now had to write more words to backup why I added the text in the first place, than the original text itself. I also see you added to the comment on the last change, 'Changed the description for this section from "definition" to "etymology" as the form and meaning of "muscle car" changed over time' which you took from the text I added. 'doing a useless analysis' above is basically just an attack. You state '"this potent mill turned the lightweight Rambler into a veritable supercar." that is a magazine quote and supercar is like saying a car with muscle. A passing description not a definition. You also say, 'spam-type' Please say why it is spam. If you are to stick with your version about super cars, you might as well put in the definition of the car as the motorized horse and cart as the definition of the term car, not where the word car came from. Basically, you originally saw an addition to a page which referenced a small website with cited good reference to the original definition, but only took it on face value, now you cite another website about 'super cars!!' You say, 'This article is about the cars, not the term.' - obviously, I was editing the definitions section to revise the definition and give more information.

Therefore, it seems you have a 'closed house' to the information on that page and as it seems you 'edit' many other pages, I guess the same, a restriction on information. SO you have now left out possible origins of why the word 'muscle' was used and original sources and you think this a better way forward? The edits I was trying to make outlined the origins of the term and where the words came from. Let people research elsewhere as you will not let references and better information be added. A total Shame. talk

That these same cars earlier were known by a different name is highly relevant. How the cars became known as "muscle cars" would also be relevant, but we'd need a reliable source, not just blind speculation on some website with no indication of meaningful editorial oversight. And just for comparison, the very first section on the car article explains how the things we today know as cars obtained the name, including alternative names they were known by. Huon (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davea123456456! Please review the WP guidelines regarding identifying reliable sources. Specifically, "a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." In other words, the fastmusclecar.com essay that you would like to include in this encyclopedia article is in question. A foundational policy is that Wikipedia editors must base their contributions on reliable, published sources. There is no indication that this primary source on the fastmusclecar.com website is scholarly, reviewed, or vetted by anyone. Hope this helps! CZmarlin (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2015-Dodge-Charger-SRT-Hellcat-450x337.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Djmcclain02 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Djmcclain02 (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should more modern muscle cars be added, like the Hellcat and Demon, or possibly the brand new Ford Mustang Dark Horse? Because the Modern Muscle section is pretty outdated at the time of writing, it needs to be updated. Hunt-4za6 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]