Hey, Im new to the site. I just wanted to know what is a good muscle car
that I can start off with. It'll be my first car. Keep in mind that I don't
have too much money. i.e. 6K and under. :2cents: :2cents: i know that
aint a damn thing but someone has to have an idea.
PLEASE HELP! :banghead: :banghead:
18 people bothered to see what i wrote, but nobody said a thing. cmon guys i need some help here.
how old are you?
you seem too young to be driving a muscle car...young drivers should not be driving muscle cars. too powerful for them.
and all that coming from me, a 16 year old.
i suggest you look elsewhere - maybe a civic or something.
a muscle car should not be your daily driver. you have some savings and a
few more years to grow up and get a good paying job
drive a saturn
i would recomend this site: http://www.collectorcartraderonline.com/
i too am looking for my first muscle car, mopar most likely. theres quite a few that you can find under 6k. i would check the description to make sure that they actually run. some even have rebuilts at about 4-5k, so check it out :2cents:
Yeah dude like everyone else said a muscle car isnt a very good combination for a young driver try to stay with a small car like a Honda Civic.
Im 16 and my first car is a 1970 chevelle SS 396, engines been redone and its got around 500hp
sice you have a very small amount of money I would pick up an issue of classic auto trader
How do you figure? :hi:
How do I figure What? That my cars got 500hp? The Machine shop estimated it at that but more than likey its got 500hp or more :wink2:
I can't argue with the fact that at 16 you're probably too young for a true muscle car (the insurance cost is going to kill you if the car doesn't), but I'm not your mother, so here goes:
Given your cash crunch coupled with your desire for a true muscle car, I might recommend you take a real hard look at some very underpriced muscle in the form of 1967 or 1968 Firebirds, particulary the top of the engine food chain, the 400 4 barrel with a 4-speed muncie tranny. I can't think of more bang for the buck than a Firebird of those years. The Camaros, Mustangs, and Vettes are always going to be at the top of the popularity list, so you will pay premium for one, even one that needs considerable work. Not so for the F-bodies. The stock Firebird 400 (also available in RAM Air) with a Quadrajet/4 barrel carb and a Muncie tranny could leave the same year Camaro well behind it in a one-on-one, but Camaros bring twice the price. It's all supply and demand my young friend, so you have to ask yourself whether you want the maximum oohhh and aahhhs from your friends (don't buy the bird), or you want the most muscle for your dollar (consider the 400 'bird). The 'birds look great, and the 400 with its hood scoops and ample chrome, oozes testosterone. They are still a steal. On ebay motors, I literally saw a 1967 convertible Firebird with a 326 3-speed, red on red, in good condition, not able to break a bid of $4,200. Had it been a Camaro, it would have brought a huge price. Facts of life my friend. They are not hard to find, and are cheap. Good hunting.
Yea listen a muscle car anit an old vintage classic that runs off steam and
a average speed of 2.6 mph here.
Muscle cars demand a few things!!!
* Maintence and for the money you got i dont want to see what state the cars going to be in. plus you got insurance .. yes its a Chevy Yenko SC yea thats right pushing about 475 BHP yea... HOW MUCH ???? :ticking:
* Respect you cant be a boy racer in one of theese monsters youll end up having a fight with the car and chances are the car will win and youll end up getting yourself seriously injured or killed.
*Driver exprience Muscle cars are old duhhh! so there for much more expreinced drivers.. take it from me get a smaller car . i have a lil honda civic :mrgreen: im a young kid too im only 18 .
Judging by what you said and what you seem like you want a beast to rip around town your young and dont have enough money to maintain the vechile. my advice is that you get yourself a beginners car a small nice freindly car and work your way up like most of us have to do! :thumbs:
I don't know about everybody else here and don't know your preferances, BUT
in my opinion you should go for a 1973-1977 GM A-body (chevelle, monte
carlo, el camino, regal, century, cutlass). These cars are easily
affordable for $6K and under depending on what condition they are in. You
can find a pretty decent one for around $2000. They make good drivers and
have lots of potential. There is so much you can do with these cars to make
them fast, but people prefer to not consider them for the following
1) They are heavy (depends on which car you get)
2) Emissions equipment (if you go for '75 and newer)
3) Reproduction parts and NOS (new old stock) parts are very hard to find. More than likely a wrecking yard and ebay will be your best friend.
You should check out the April 2003 and June 2003 issues of Car Craft and the September 2004 issue of Hemmings Muscle Machines. The April 2003 issue of Car Craft features a 73 Chevelle, the June 2003 issue of Car Craft features a 75 Malibu and the September 2004 issue of Hemmings Muscle Machines feature a 73 Chevelle SS-454 and a 76 Cutlass 442. Check them out. Maybe you'll feel some inspiration.
If you get a 73-77 GM A-body, I recommend a 73 or 74 because they are the years before Catalytic converters were mandated. Unless out live in a county/city that doesn't requirre DEQ. I am currently in the process of modifying my '76 Monte Carlo. Last year I dropped in a 300+ horsepower 350 V8 and had the transmission rebuilt. I removed the A/C and lighened the load 90-lbs. This winter I will be getting the rear end done with an Eaton posi and 3.73 gears and the exhaust done with a Flowmaster 2.5-inch American Thunder dual system and DynoMax headers. This car makes an awesome driver. It has been my driver for the past 4 1/2 years. Insurance isn't bad either for $91/mo with liability and comp. coverage. I will be 23 in 3 days and am listed as a full time driver.
Owner: 1976 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Landau
My Website (http://dustins76montecarlo.8m.net)
My Cardomain website (http://cardomain.com/id/katarn16)
For me and muscle cars, it's mopar or no car. I bought my 440 powered Satellite when I was the ripe old age of 16. I've had it for a couple of years now and have had no problems. I respect the car and the work I have put into it, and never feel scared of crashing it. Then agian, I don't do too stupid of things on public roads. One of my closest buddys can't even be trusted with an old beat up ltd though, so it depends person to person. I've got my daytona as my winter driver, and my satellite for spring summer and fall. To me, mopar muscle looks the best and were the only ones to make a real full sized muscle car, plus so many people drive the chevys, and I like something different. But if you want the best bang for your buck, chevys are the cheapest. Everyone and his dog has a 350, and they are just about the best engines hp per $. Their transmissions aren't the best, and their motors aren't as strong stock as mopar engines though. You can only really decide when you pick which brand you want. Just keep in mind that a Hemi RoadRunner or a Yenko Camaro or something is not going to be withing your price range.
My first car was and still is a 1970 Chevy Nova SS. Like the previous post
said, it's not the car so much as the driver. My suggestion would be find
a buddy with a muscle car and convince him to let you take it around for an
hour or two. If after driving it you still think you can handle the power
then look more into getting one, but otherwise stick with something like a
Civic or a Saturn.
And just to re-iterate, as young as you are you better have a good job, between insurance, maintainence, and gas you are going to go broke real quick-like.
It is possible to get a true muscle car for under 6k. If the car is
restored than obviously it can be more than 6k. But a muscle car with minor
problems can be cheap. Possible choices could include (depending on if you
have a preference) Chevrolet Nova SS, Ford Mustang (GT or Mach), Mercury
Cougar, Plymouth Duster, Pontiac Firebird. These are of course in no
particular order. :wink2:
EDIT: I would also like to add that if your a responsible person than a muscle car could be for you regardless of age.
Your 440 Satellite sounds like a nice car. I'm currently looking for
another musclecar and a '68-'69 440 Roadrunner or Superbee is on my short
list. I wanted to clear up a couple of errors in your post, though;
- although the term "full size musclecar" is a bit of an oxymoron since the original definition of a musclecar is a mid-size car with a large displacement motor, several companies made full size - full performance cars including, the Impala 427 Z-11, Impala 409 425hp, Galaxy 406 406hp, Pontiac Grand Prix 421SD, etc. Up until '64 the full size cars were the highest performance cars available.
- GM transmissions, particularly the TH400 is one of the stoutest auto transmissions ever built. It is considered the equivalent to the Dodge 727 torqueflight and Ford C-6 trannies. In manual transmission applications the Muncie M-20,21 and especially the M-22 rockcrusher were also considered some of the best trannies available.
- All manufacturers made some pretty strong stock motors in the late '60's and early '70's. The statement that Chev motors "aren't as strong stock" as dodge motors is somewhat misleading. The 427 L-88 had more power than a Chrysler 426 street hemi and the '70 LT-1 had more power than a 340 6-pak. Depends what motors your talking about. Other strong GM motors include;
Pontiac's 400 RAIV, Chev's 454 LS-6, Oldsmobiles 455 W-30 and Buick's 455 Stage I.
ps. I miss my 1970 442 W-30.
NO! disgusting, you cant really be serious that you want this kid to get a post '71 car and call it muscle....Go with a GM car and stay pre 1971, you'll go good places, trust me, i love my 2 pre '70s cars... and hey, im only 16....
Ill put it this way.. Get a smaller car first, I have a 1992 Geo Prism that
was givin to me by my grandmother when i was 15, AFTER a year or so, my
parets and i decieded to split the cost of my camaro (1500 dollars, few
problems with it, manyly the choke and timing) It pays to learn how to
drive a smaller car before you get a musscle car.
Why would I post it and not be serious? They can be easily built to go just as fast as a pre-72 muscle car. There is nothing wrong with owning a 73-77 GM A-body. Only muscle car "puritists" (sp?) see something wrong with them. If they were so bad, why did they sell so well? What places could you go with pre-71 that you couldn't go with 73-77 A-bodies? I would like to know what pre-1970 cars you do own.
I agree. I grew up during that period, and I know that any RWD, V8,
domestic sedan/coupe can easily be as much a musclecar as the pre '72's.
This one, for example, was one I had for a while...
I'm thinking a car like these are as much Domestic Muscle as anything pre'72:
At least if you are trying to build up a relatively inexpensive musclecar, these are viable places to look.
NICE! I love it! What is that? Not a GP... Lemans?
Here's a pic of a '74 Monte I found on take-off...
It's a '76 Grand Le Mans. Not exactly stock... 455 and TH400. Nice luxury cruiser with a lot of punch. Hard to find anymore, however...
Sure looks good doing the burnout. Most, if not all of, the 73-77 GM A-bodies are nice luxury cruisers. Being hard to find makes them stand out more than new cars or "main stream" classics.
go with a 1984 to 1992 mustang GT they nice cars and lots of mods for them and the 302 which in my own head is one of the best ford engines ever.
i am 18 with a 1978 corvette. but trust me, she is high maintainance.
although well worth it. she is a real beauty.
if i were you i would go for a hot nova. look for late 60s early 70s. fastbacks are my favorite. those cars are beautiful and with a few bucks they can be a rocket. good luck.
i think it was the 88 camaro, drives nice and right now i have a 1991 bronco damn it, i cant belive a have a shitty pick up :banghead:
ah here it is:
2002 Bronco? LMAO.
That is not a 2002 Bronco, just no. If there is one, that sure as hell aint it.
There isn't. The Exploder (oh, im sorry, Explorer) took it's place.
He he, very nice! :thumbs: :clap:
Actually, the Exploder took the place of the Ranger based Bronco II, not
the full size Bronco. In effect, the Exploder was the 4 door version of the
Bronco II. and arrived on the market in 1991, in both 4 door and 2 door
form (the Explorer Sport 2 door was the actual Bronco II replacement, built
on the same Ranger chassis)
The full size Bronco arrived in '77, and stuck around until 1996, when the F150 got redesigned to the more "aero" shape.