Muscle/economy Or BOTH ?

[Don]

My 325 hp 2011 Camaro gets over 30mpg on open road. Handles better than a V8 model because its balanced better front to back and not nose heavy. I've driven both. Is it a muscle car? My 68 327 was only 300 hp, and most would consider that a muscle car.

Compared to yesterday's muscle cars, yes it is, compared to today's muscle cars, no it isn't. Sad to say my 4 cylinder 155 hp Suzuki would beat my 1989 Camaro in the 1/4 mile, but it's in no way a muscle car.

I would consider your 325 hp Camaro to be a well balanced sports car with more than enough giddyup to get you in trouble

 

[GearHead_1]

...Handles better than a V8 model because its balanced better front to back and not nose heavy...

Perhaps in some isolated circumstance but by and large I'd take the other side of the debate. The hot Camaros suspensions and brakes are also altered to handle the weight and power the cars produce. Certainlly there is a point of no return when it comes to stuffing a big heavy engine in the front of a mid size car but they haven't reached it with the LT platform. These engines don't tip the scales like an Elephant motor.

By today's standard's a Mustang, Challanger or Camaro with a V6 in is not a muscle car. Fast? Relitively speaking, perhaps. These just aren't the ones you buy if you expect the car to carry some inherent value with it through its life span. Ever watch the car auctions like Mechums or the likes? There's a reason the hotter V8's carry the price.

 

[Don]

Perhaps in some isolated circumstance but by and large I'd take the other side of the debate. The hot Camaros suspensions and brakes are also altered to handle the weight and power the cars produce. Certainlly there is a point of no return when it comes to stuffing a big heavy engine in the front of a mid size car but they haven't reached it with the LT platform. These engines don't tip the scales like an Elephant motor.

By today's standard's a Mustang, Challanger or Camaro with a V6 in is not a muscle car. Fast? Relitively speaking, perhaps. These just aren't the ones you buy if you expect the car to carry some inherent value with it through its life span. Ever watch the car auctions like Mechums or the likes? There's a reason the hotter V8's carry the price.

All true, but the insurance companies aren't as nasty to the V6s. I could have bought a '83 280zx 5 spd OR the '83 Camaro auto next to it. I WANTED the Z, which was less expensive than the Camaro, BUT the insurance company had it's way with me and I was financially FORCED to get the Camaro.

 

[GearHead_1]

Total cost of ownership is an entirely different conversation but I have no doubt is a serious consideration many include when buying a car.

 

[Don]

Total cost of ownership is an entirely different conversation but I have no doubt is a serious consideration many include when buying a car.

In that case, I'd have to go with cubic inches hands down.

 

[skibik]

By today's standard's a Mustang, Challanger or Camaro with a V6 in is not a muscle car. Fast? Relitively speaking, perhaps. These just aren't the ones you buy if you expect the car to carry some inherent value with it through its life span. Ever watch the car auctions like Mechums or the likes? There's a reason the hotter V8's carry the price.

Surprising how the arguments can go just over 2 cylinders. My 2012 Camaro 1LT sitting next to the same year SS is all in all the same car outside the motor and the suspension. Side by side on the the strip sure the SS is going to win because it has the extra 100 HP and the extra torque but it isn't going to beat it by what a couple car lengths. Now, 1967 Camaro 350SS, look at the numbers compared to my car and it will run door to door and by the numbers mine would still likely beat it to the line and it weigh about 700 to 800lbs more than the 67 does. By another argument the Camaro's and Mustang of that era were never considered a muscle car either and those had V8's.

Mecum auction last weekend. V8's you say carry the higher values. I would have to look up the year but think it was a 2010 Camaro SS owned by some musician, again would have to look it up, sold for $19k with 6k or 8k miles on it. Even my lowly V6 is worth just as much if not more and it has 23k miles on it and I am not even in a band.

In my opinion I think the term "muscle car" went out with the 60's or very early 70's.

correction: less than 18k miles and Originally purchased by Robbie Krieger of The Doors

 

[GearHead_1]

Whether you choose to call the pony cars of early generations muscle cars or not it's simply a matter of semantics. It's kind of like comparing LoPo Lemans to a GTO, essentially the same car, right? One is a muscle car the other, well... whatever you choose to call it.

Big engines (read HP) in mid-sized or smaller US manufactured cars are muscle cars in my book. Though maybe not by the strictest definitions, I believe that term is as valid today as it ever was. That said, pardon my choice of words. There's no real argument here. But trying to rationalize an entry level performer in any line of car as an equal to the upgraded siblings is nothing more than rationalizing what one has into what they would really like to have. Most Car Guys, being honest with themselves, given the choice of a car with no payments attached aren't going to pick the fuel miser with cheaper insurance. No offense intended here, Don.

Comparing earlier generations to today's top dogs just isn't apples to apples. You of course are aware that the way Horse Power was rated 50 years ago and the way it's rated today is also not the same. Certainly a tire, is a tire, is a tire doesn't ring true when comparing old muscle to modern day.

I'm not really sure where you're going with your comment on the recent auctions. In my above auction statement, it's not about what a particular car sold for but how it sells compared to its lesser optioned brother given the same set of circumstances. I'm not knocking your choice in cars, in fact, just the opposite. I'm glad you're purchase meets your needs. That's what being happy with a car is all about.

I'll stop here as I've gotten way off topic. I'll still take the position that the V6 does not handle better than the top of line model. That's where this all started anyway. I don't hate 6 poppers. I'd love to have a Grand National and I believe they were sub 200 horsepower.

 

[skibik]

The remark about the auctions was in your response that the hotter V8's sell higher when really they don't. The reason the higher selling price is because of the rarity of the particular vehicle and not just because of the engine.

The reason I stated that the term muscle car went out in the 70's is because that is when the restrictions began. Technology has certainly come a long ways. Every car enthusiast you talk has a different view point on what there idea of a muscle car is. Yours of course is much different then mine. Do I consider my car a muscle car? In terms of HP yes. Because it has only 6 cylinders instead of 8? Debatable. Do I consider today's Mustangs, Chargers, Camaros muscle cars? Majority of me says no, slight percentage of me does but we are talking cars like the Calaway, Shelby or even the new Hellcat.

The point of what defines a muscle car has been argued for decades. If HP defines a muscle car then how much HP does it take to fall into the category. If cylinders define what a muscle car is and the V6 doesn't make it because it is short two cylinders then in that case a Dodge Viper has two too many cylinders but I would much rather consider it a muscle car then most V8's today. The arguments can go on.

 

[skibik]

Also, my comparison was towards todays entry level in your terms of what my car is. My comparison was on published data that it could actually run door to door and would beat it to the line even though it has two less cylinders and it outweighs it.

 

[Old Pirate]

All I have to say is " Muscle ":autopia:

 

[GearHead_1]

Also, my comparison was towards todays entry level in your terms of what my car is. My comparison was on published data that it could actually run door to door and would beat it to the line even though it has two less cylinders and it outweighs it.

I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I'm not picking on the V6. Please note my original post did not denote V6 vs. V8, it's simply tied to the stated example. Entry level simpy means the vehicle that costs less as it is sold. In most cases where a V8 and a V6 are offered in the same model the V8 costs more and is often times more desireable. They typically carry that higher price throughout the life of the vehicle. Are there exceptions to this rule? You bet, a Boss 302 will most likely resell for a higher price than a Mach 1 with a larger engine of the same year. A 302 Z28 Camaro will probably command a higher price than one with a 350 the years they were offered. I just can't think of an instance where the V6's does this to a V8. A Ford truck might actually be an exception. The V6 EcoBoost might bring a higher price than the 5.0 liter. I don't know, I haven't looked into it.

As far as the auctions goes, 2 cars, same make and model, one with a High Horsepower engine verses one that doesn't make as much, all else being as equal as they can make it, I believe the nod goes to the higher horsepower car. These cars often have the Z28, GT, Yenko, Boss, RT , Hemi or whatever designation that goes along with it. The package is tied to the engine, not a lot of special packages tied to the smaller engine when a larger one is availabe. I'm not hung up on V8. I admit I am a little stuck on H.P. One of the other posters stated his V6 Camaro would out perform (handle) it's V8 counterpart, I don't believe this to be correct and that's where this conversation began.

As far as bringing the Viper into the conversation, are you suggesting that should they have offered a Viper with a V6 it would resell for the same price as the 10 cylinder? By the way the HellCat doesn't have the largest engine offered in th line, just the most powerful. It might be fun to watch the 2015's Mustang's with the new I4's that are turboed vs. the GT. That little EcoBoost is an awesome performer, no questions asked. Which do you think the Blue Book will favor 2 years out.

Auctions are only as good as the people in attendance spending money. A car that wouldn't sell at the reserve at one auction might double that price at the next. Should you have had your car for sale right behind the musicians car do you think it would have brought a higher price. Maybe so, probably a much better detail than the mucisian. A good detail is definitely a plus.

 

[skibik]

I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I'm not picking on the V6. Please note my original post did not denote V6 vs. V8, it's simply tied to the stated example. Entry level simpy means the vehicle that costs less as it is sold. In most cases where a V8 and a V6 are offered in the same model the V8 costs more and is often times more desireable. They typically carry that higher price throughout the life of the vehicle. Are there exceptions to this rule? You bet, a Boss 302 will most likely resell for a higher price than a Mach 1 with a larger engine of the same year. A 302 Z28 Camaro will probably command a higher price than one with a 350 the years they were offered. I just can't think of an instance where the V6's does this to a V8. A Ford truck might actually be an exception. The V6 EcoBoost might bring a higher price than the 5.0 liter. I don't know, I haven't looked into it.

As far as the auctions goes, 2 cars, same make and model, one with a High Horsepower engine verses one that doesn't make as much, all else being as equal as they can make it, I believe the nod goes to the higher horsepower car. These cars often have the Z28, GT, Yenko, Boss, RT , Hemi or whatever designation that goes along with it. The package is tied to the engine, not a lot of special packages tied to the smaller engine when a larger one is availabe. I'm not hung up on V8. I admit I am a little stuck on H.P. One of the other posters stated his V6 Camaro would out perform (handle) it's V8 counterpart, I don't believe this to be correct and that's where this conversation began.

As far as bringing the Viper into the conversation, are you suggesting that should they have offered a Viper with a V6 it would resell for the same price as the 10 cylinder? By the way the HellCat doesn't have the largest engine offered in th line, just the most powerful. It might be fun to watch the 2015's Mustang's with the new I4's that are turboed vs. the GT. That little EcoBoost is an awesome performer, no questions asked. Which do you think the Blue Book will favor 2 years out.

Auctions are only as good as the people in attendance spending money. A car that wouldn't sell at the reserve at one auction might double that price at the next. Should you have had your car for sale right behind the musicians car do you think it would have brought a higher price. Maybe so, probably a much better detail than the mucisian. A good detail is definitely a plus.

Not offended. I think you are taking what I am saying out of context. It boil down to the age old arguement of what in definition makes or is a muscle car. What I was trying to say is everyones idea or defintion is different.

My car probably would not make more following it at that auction. But, if it were run across at a different time it would be more likely that it would make as much and maybe even edge it out. But, as you said the right person would have to be their.

Lastly I didn't make any suggestion that my V6 can outrun a current V8. Although with the right mods it can more than do it but that was not my point. I was pointing out the fact if you compare the numbers of my econobox it can outrun the it's predecessor.

Point what makes a muscle and by who's definition?

Sorry if I struck a nerve that was not my intention. I guess I was just adding to all the other arguments out there on the debate is it an economy car, a pony car or is it a muscle car.

To the OP sorry this thread l has gone astray. I am envious of your ride and think that the HP the engines put out today versus the MPG is great.

 

[Don]

Most Car Guys, being honest with themselves, given the choice of a car with no payments attached aren't going to pick the fuel miser with cheaper insurance. No offense intended here, Don.

Not offended, you speak the truth.

 

[GearHead_1]

Not offended. I think you are taking what I am saying out of context. It boil down to the age old arguement of what in definition makes or is a muscle car. What I was trying to say is everyones idea or defintion is different.

My car probably would not make more following it at that auction. But, if it were run across at a different time it would be more likely that it would make as much and maybe even edge it out. If the cars were side by side I just don't think this would be the case. You can only compare apples to apples and there are of course always isolated circumstances. But, as you said the right person would have to be their.

Lastly I didn't make any suggestion that my V6 can outrun a current V8. I wasn't inferring that you did, as I indicated my remark was initially directed to another poster. Although with the right mods it can more than do it but that was not my point. Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go. You could of course make similar mods to the larger engine, suspension, brakes and increase performance accordingly. All things being equal CID wins. I was pointing out the fact if you compare the numbers of my econobox it can outrun the it's predecessor. No argument here but I am curious as to whether it's an econobox or a muscle car? Only Ron's can be both.

Point what makes a muscle and by who's definition? For what it's worth or isn't, I've given you mine.

Sorry if I struck a nerve that was not my intention. No nerve struck. I guess I was just adding to all the other arguments out there on the debate is it an economy car, a pony car or is it a muscle car?

To the OP sorry this thread l has gone astray. I am envious of your ride and think that the HP the engines put out today versus the MPG is great.

As I said earlier. I'm glad you like your car.

 

[skibik]

Your quote of "all things being equal cid wins". You couldn't be more wrong. Lets use my car as an example. Stock 2012 Camaro 3.6L (about 219CI) making 323 HP weighing in at just short of 4000lbs. Now I was comparing it to a 1967 Camaro 350SS making around 350 HP weighing in at roughly 3300lbs. As far as numbers went that I can beat it to the line in a quarter mile. Since the cars are not equal lets pull that unmodified 350CI out of that 1967 Camaro and drop it into an identical 2012 Camaro. What do you think will be the end result? We are talking both stock motors with no mods. I could have even went as far as pulling a 350CI out of say a 1974 model car. Before you say I have taken what you stated out of context I know you were comparing same cars with same year motors. I wasn't.

Since the point of this thread was muscle or economy you know and most everyone knows on here Ron was referring to his C7. If I gave you numbers like 323 stock HP, 0 to 60 in 6 seconds, stated it was a Camaro, left out the fact it was a V6. Is it a muscle car? That is the point I was getting at.

 

[Bunky]

I thought hp measurements changed since the 60's. I recall in the 70's when the detuned engines for emissions but thought numbers also dropped due to the calculation change.

 

[skibik]

I thought hp measurements changed since the 60's. I recall in the 70's when the detuned engines for emissions but thought numbers also dropped due to the calculation change.

Numbers dropped due the the way the engines were tested. Pre early 70's engines were tested bare bones at the crank, nothing attached no accessories no exhaust. The readings then changed because engines were then tested with accessories and all emissions attached. The horsepower also droped due to EPA regulations on emissions. High compression engines were on the way out in 72 or 73. Example, back in the early 80's I owned a 71 Impala 350 somewhere in the mid 200 HP range had 11.5:1 compression. My dads 74 4dr Impala with the same motor was rated around 165 and I think around 8:1 or 8.5:1 compression..

 

[GearHead_1]

Your quote of "all things being equal cid wins". You couldn't be more wrong. Lets use my car as an example. Stock 2012 Camaro 3.6L (about 219CI) making 323 HP weighing in at just short of 4000lbs. Now I was comparing it to a 1967 Camaro 350SS making around 350 HP weighing in at roughly 3300lbs. As far as numbers went that I can beat it to the line in a quarter mile. Since the cars are not equal lets pull that unmodified 350CI out of that 1967 Camaro and drop it into an identical 2012 Camaro. What do you think will be the end result? We are talking both stock motors with no mods. I could have even went as far as pulling a 350CI out of say a 1974 model car. Before you say I have taken what you stated out of context I know you were comparing same cars with same year motors. I wasn't.

Since the point of this thread was muscle or economy you know and most everyone knows on here Ron was referring to his C7. If I gave you numbers like 323 stock HP, 0 to 60 in 6 seconds, stated it was a Camaro, left out the fact it was a V6. Is it a muscle car? That is the point I was getting at.

You've missed the boat and it has sailed. How could you possibly pick two engines almost 50 years apart and start an "all things being equal" comparison? Can you say air flow, friction coefficient, aluminum block/heads, overhead cams, roller followers, direct fuel injection? Can you say technology? You were either kidding or just want to argue.

So... you win, you've convinced me. A Camaro with a V6 engine is the muscle car everyone should aspire to own. I have no doubt it's the car that everyone at the local track is talking about. The one they'll make audio recordings of the iconic exhaust note because of the awesome V6 rumble. The car 40 years from now that will insight riots at the auction block. The day will arrive when no owner will have to qualify it's merits with the ever so popular "not bad for a V6". Everyone will want this car and it's to be legendary powerplant and I'm lucky enough to have got in on the front end of the curve. Thank you, thank you! :chop

 

[silverfox]

The original question was...can you have both an economical car and a car with plenty of muscle. The answer is yes...it doesn't have to be either/or. There's nothing economical about a 60-70 muscle car so can that stuff from the thread. Nuff said....put a lid in this one.

 

[skibik]

You've missed the boat and it has sailed. How could you possibly pick two engines almost 50 years apart and start an "all things being equal" comparison? Can you say air flow, friction coefficient, aluminum block/heads, overhead cams, roller followers, direct fuel injection? Can you say technology? You were either kidding or just want to argue.

So... you win, you've convinced me. A Camaro with a V6 engine is the muscle car everyone should aspire to own. I have no doubt it's the car that everyone at the local track is talking about. The one they'll make audio recordings of the iconic exhaust note because of the awesome V6 rumble. The car 40 years from now that will insight riots at the auction block. The day will arrive when now owner will have to qualify it's merits with the ever so popular "not bad for a V6". Everyone will want this car and it's to be legendary powerplant and I'm lucky enough to have got in on the front end of the curve. Thank you, thank you! :chop

Wow! Didn't realize I was going on a cruise. I think you are typing faster then your brain is functioning. I was just turning your words around like you have done with mine. "All things being equal", in your words or definition they could never be. My example was as close to being equal as possible. My response was to refute the fact that CID does not always win. You are not always right nor am I. Yes it was an arguement over "is it a muscle car". But I guess with a user name like gearhead you are the messiah or is it god and can never be wrong.

Your welcome, your welcome.:bow