My opinion of cars/trucks...

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  My opinion of cars/trucks...

I love muscle cars and old trucks!!!:fu:

posted by  jollyroger

Umm ok...so what is the point of this topic?

posted by  greg985

great thanks for wasting our time!

posted by  Andrew0261

I can see this topic is gonna end well then....But yeah, what was the point of this topic? You could have told us this in your intro thread!

posted by  Cliffy

Not really...When someone thinks of muscle cars, he thinks domestics. Therefore, it belongs in the domestic section. Get it right, Cliffy :banghead: JP lol.

posted by  chris_knows

That makes no sense, lol. I was stating that he could have explained something as trivial as this, in his intro thread :laughing:

posted by  Cliffy

You don't get it!!! :fu:

Lol...I was kidding, I don't think the guy's coming back.

posted by  chris_knows

I know you were joking....but I wasn't, lol

posted by  Cliffy

theres english muscle cars!!!
http://galeria.elcocheclasico.com/images/1971%20Jensen%20Interceptor%20Mk%2 0II-liteblue-sVr=mx=.jpg
1970's Jensen Interceptor with 7.8litre Chrysler V8's
http://www.diseno-art.com/images/Cerbera_4.5.jpg
TVR Cerbera V8
Vauxhall Monaro VXR500
i could go on........:wink2:

posted by  True_Brit

I was thinking of saying that all muscle cars were domestic, but then realized that there are many others, so I said "...When someone thinks of muscle cars, he thinks domestics".

posted by  chris_knows

oh yes, so you did!:laughing:
i should actually read whats written!

posted by  True_Brit

No matter what your opinion is or how much you want them to be, those ARE NOT muscle cars. Sports GT's? Sure. Gentlemen's Express? Yep. Big and fast? You betcha. Muscle cars? Not a chance.

Support your opinion. Tell me what makes them muscle cars and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

posted by  vwhobo

I wouldn't call the TVR a muscle car....and possibly not the Jenson either. But I think you could class the Monaro VXR as a modern day Muscle car, like the new Mustang....But then can you really call the Monaro British, even if it is badged as a Vauxhall?

posted by  Cliffy

Point taken on the XVR. I didn't catch it in the clutter. And no, it can't be considered British when re-badged as a Vauxall any more than it could be considered American when it was re-badged as a Pontiac... But some people did and will continue to try.

posted by  vwhobo

You kind of missed his question. What makes those cars a muscle car?

posted by  dodgerforlife

I wasn't really trying to answer the question as only one of the listed cars would really gain that title in my opinion. I'd class the Monaro as a Muscle car because in my opinion it has all the atributes a modern muscle car should have. It's got the big V8, modern yet classic looks, and RWD. No doubt there'll be a few things I've missed though :laughing:

posted by  Cliffy

ok, point taken, i wont argue about it.:oops:

posted by  True_Brit

The term "muscle car" can mean many things though. Some people say that only cars made in Detroit are muscle cars, others claim that they were made between a certain period in time.

posted by  chris_knows

To be honest, I had to look it up, but yes, that would basically be one of the modern muscle cars, it's actually been listed on a couple websites in a head to head against the new Mustang. But as for the classics..yeah, they don't come close to what an American muscle car was ;)

posted by  dodgerforlife

And they would be much closer to the mark than someone who called a Jensen Interceptor or a TVR Cerbera muscle cars. There is certainly room for debate on the subject within reasonable boundries... The Jensen and TVR are simply too far out of bounds.

posted by  vwhobo

Well, the general acceptance of muscle cars is a period of years in which certain styles of cars were made. RWD, mid-size, with a powerful engine, most commonly a V8, intended for tons of torque, and generally have enough room in the backseat for someone to sit comfortably. Also, they were basically only made in America and Austrailia. The Austrailian manufacturer's were basically mirrors of the American cars. I think that's about it....VWHobo might have better specifics, but I think that about sums it up nicely.

posted by  dodgerforlife

I agree, can't really beat the old stuff! I've only really loved muscle cars since joining CF really, and even now some of the terminology surrounding them baffles me. The muscle car scene over there in the US or Aus is far greater than here in the UK though, so I guess you guys would naturally know more than an outsider like me, lol.

posted by  Cliffy

and me:oops: :doh:

posted by  True_Brit

And you....:oops: :laughing:

posted by  Cliffy

Yeah, I guess you're right...

BTW Dodger, that's pretty much my definition of a muscle car too.

posted by  chris_knows

When you see a muscle car, you know. It's one of those things, for me anyhow.

posted by  PontiacFan27

I wish I had an appreciation for old muscle cars. I just don't feel anything when I see them. Probably because I didn't grow up w/ them.


My perception of a muscle car, or rather what I associate them w/, is a powerful, high-displacement/torquey car that the manufacturers cut many corners on in an attempt to make them affordable by the general public.


That's just a perception.


It doesn't mean I don't love them. My dream car right now is still a viper <3

posted by  Bronxie

guess whos back?:fu: :fu: :fu:

posted by  jollyroger

i dunno,,,who?

posted by  True_Brit

Not all muscle cars where cheap

posted by  Enthusiast

BIG engine in a mid-sized car. That was the original concept.

posted by  PontiacFan27

Yep I know.


BMW 6 series is definitely not cheap.

posted by  Bronxie

A 6 eries was not a muscle car.

Musclecars were American (and some Australian) intermediate or full size coupes and sedans designed by the factory as drag race or circle track cars, or replicas thereof. Pony cars were compact muscle, but most of those had versions suitable for road racing.

European and Japanese makers didn't make musclecars, even if they made fast cars. Musclecars were big, brawny, and relatively inexpensive. And Bronxie, you'd have to drive a good one to figure out the appeal. Muscle was all about acceleration.

As for time period, there was one era of factory musclecars, but that does not mean musclecars can't come from other eras. And a lot of the musclecar appeal was the ability to build one yourself using mostly factory parts, like my 455 powered Le Mans:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/pontipotamus.jpg

posted by  ChrisV

Ill will be posting every simialar pics of my car SOON. Next week or two. Im getting new tires for my Bday so I have to completely destroy the old ones first. Gotta start chargin the camera.

posted by  Enthusiast

I call the 6series German muscle because it's not a high output/Liter engine. It's torquey and powerful in a big coupe, so when you look at it like that, it has many similarities to muscle cars. Except the price, of course.

posted by  Bronxie

hp/liter is ricer math and pretty much useless but i see what your saying

I think the AMG line would be more the German muscle cars

posted by  Enthusiast

The BMWs and AMGs are far too refined to be muscle cars. Muscle = raw, unforgiving, and brutal pavement pounding power.

The 6 series can take turns. It's not a muscle car.

posted by  PontiacFan27

The relevance hp/liter has is that in lower hp/l engines, there is higher torque which is a common similarity amongst all muscle cars and most American cars to be honest.

EDIT: This is in reference to NA engines only.

posted by  Bronxie

Hp/liter wasn't the issue with muscle cars, it was their intentions as drag cars (or in some cases, circle track cars, like the Superbird and Torino Talledega). 6 series didn't have the hp or design to be drag cars OR NASCAR racers. They are gentleman's GTs, performance coupes, etc, but not muscle cars.

posted by  ChrisV

Stop with the facts already. His opinion is much more important. :wink2:

posted by  vwhobo

Yeah, What just tried to bust my chops over arguing about opinions. Hell, that's all anyone EVER argues about, here or anywhere...

posted by  ChrisV

What opinions did I give that relate to this discussion?


I dare you to find any.

posted by  Bronxie

How's this for starters Twinkie?


The entire post is opinion based on partial facts and half truths. As always, you purposely make your statements vague enough to keep yourself from being labeled entirely wrong... And to help hide your ignorance about cars. Surprise.

posted by  vwhobo

Congratulations..I got something for you.

http://www.cookingforengineers.com/hello/259/958/640/DSC_1144_crop.jpg

posted by  newyorker

HOLY CRAP.

I didn't think you were that dense.

Maybe you need to define in your head what an opinion is before you go accusing anyone of making them.

Why do you insist on arguing when you have no argument?

posted by  Bronxie

Bronxie, I sure as f*ck hope you don't call what Vwhobo quoted from you a "fact". You're better off accepting your opinion.

posted by  What

I don't have a lot of time or patience for idiots today Twinkie, so let's just start with the first few words of that post.


That is you stating your opinion based on an apparent complete lack of knowing or understanding (surprise again) the facts. I'll make it real simple for you, because you are real simple. You have once again been proven wrong! I don't care if you like it, I don't care if you accept it, and I really don't care to here anymore of your mindless drivel. Having a lot of somebody else's money to spend and driving a flashy car does not make your "thoughts" worth reading.

If you truly want to learn about cars as you claim to do, turn off your computer and go do something with them besides waste Daddy's gas. Because we all know that won't happen, how about you just STFU and let the big guys talk. Your constant babbling and instigating arguments is annoying and boring to us all. You make our former village idiot CarExpert seem like the "Einstein of Automobiles" when compared to you.

posted by  vwhobo

It is boring to us. You gravitate towards arguments. You remind me of a....bitch.

posted by  What

So, you say I'm just like you. Not hardly lil fella.

posted by  vwhobo

I like that mild response. I've tamed you vwhobo. You know who not to f*ck with.

posted by  What

Yeah. I don't f*ck your mother anymore since she got that nasty yeast infection. :wink2:

posted by  vwhobo

One thing I've noticed when talking sh#t with motorheads at various venues, is that:

someone always has a freak motor (as opposed to the lemon);
someone has vastly more ponies per cu in their stock engine than anyone else;
someone's car can do 12 seconds or better with stock everything;
an aftermarket zorst will always add 25% power at the wheels;
torque exists without any influence of power;
9" diffs are indestructable;
toploaders are indestructable;
forged pistons are indestructable and necessary for high CR or forced draught engines;
"H" and "I" beam rods are indestructable and necessary for modified engines;
stroking a 302 to 347 will double the engine ponies;
titanium valves require stellite seats;
turbochargers are cheating;
shiny boost pipes are are better;
shiny intercoolers are better;
etc
someone's car is actually a musclecar, but the maker didn't want it to be known for fear of public backlash. :wink2:

posted by  Wally

Ha!
I stroked my 302 to a 347. I almost doubled the power after the intake, cam, heads, exhaust, etc.

posted by  What

What you're arguing is that saying it was relevant is the opinion, despite the observation & inference it is based upon?


So in other words...you're arguing over NOTHING.


Sounds like a common act from a common idiot.


If you want to argue the OBSERVATION and INFERENCE mentioned, then do so.


What pisses you off is that I make a statement about cars or something related to cars and it may be correct, but the fact you believe I don't/can't meaningfully know if it's right or not makes you want to argue it and nitpick if necessary just to make that argument.


You think it's a guess I make and it may be right and it may be wrong but I wouldn't know either way.


So please, god, show me a modern NA engine that makes high torque w/ high hp/liter output and I will shut up, and I will defer to you always and kiss your godly hairy ass.

And just to avoid loopholes, it is only "high" in relation to the hp output, not in relation to other engines.

Let's see if you can come up w/ anything.







The first step to learning is to make observations and then research specifically to find the answer to the "why"s that come along w/ the observation. I do as much, minus the hands-on stuff.

posted by  Bronxie

Funny, isn't it? Now you're adding restrictions and creating loopholes for yourself to jump through while telling me can't. YOU ARE WRONG. Even an audience as diverse as What and newyorker can see that. Get over yourself little fella. You're typing just to read your own blather.

P.S. Don't give yourself so much credit. You're small and insignificant and nothing you do can affect my life, much less make me pissed off. You may think your have something useful to add to this forum, but only because this is the cyber world. In the real world, you don't even get to take part in the conversation.

posted by  vwhobo

What restrictions did I add that I didn't state earlier? Can you really not even name one?

I know you have an argument somewhere. Spill it.



LOL.


Could have fooled me or anyone else, "big guy".



I guess you are useful for claiming such superior knowledge but being unwilling to express it when approached. Way to "add something useful" to the forums.


Go ahead and argue that you don't need to do it or you don't owe us shit, but don't forget, you are the one claiming your own worth. W/out sharing, you are just as meaningless. besides, you made a statement, so back it up, please, God.

posted by  Bronxie

Ok.



That's an opinion of what a musclecar is. And it's based on faulty information, or at least a lack of knowledge of what a musclecar IS.

posted by  ChrisV

Sir, I love you and wish not to argue w/ you, but that's not an opinion.


It's a fact that I call it a muscle car for the reasons that follow. Though the reasoning may be wrong, it's still not an opinion.

If I were to say, "Vwhobo acts like a woman", it's different than saying "Vwhobo is a woman."




HOWEVER, you do have a point in that, "It has many similarities..." is an opinionated statement.

posted by  Bronxie

Sorry, but considering the 6 series a muscle car is in fact opinion. Saying that you feel that way is stating that that is your opinion. It may be a FACT that it is your OPINION, but it still states your OPINION quite clearly. And that OPINION is based on falsehoods. Period.

The fact that you stated your opinion doesn't make the opinion fact. Understand? You can't bait me with semantics.

posted by  ChrisV

Semantics? You are forgetting the statement.


"I call the 6 series a muscle car because..."



That is an objective statement.


Unless you wanna argue that the fact I am calling it something is not a fact, it is not an opinion.


I never said I feel any certain way about it. Like I said, it's all how you word it.


This argument isn't worth time for either of us.

posted by  Bronxie

Your Message