Re: [Amc-list] AMC INK

[Keleigh Hardie <keleigh3000@xxxxxxxxx>]

Some random thoughts...

Back in the Sixties, the other difference mentioned for the 
convertible/roadster definition was the presence or lack or roll up windows.

By the back seat definition, the only "sports cars" Porsche has produced 
in the last forty years were the 914, the Boxster, and the limited 
production Speedster. One would probably get an argument from a lot of 
Porsche fans and dealer nowadays, but I seem to recall that when the 911 
was introduced, they called it a GT.

I worked for a guy back in the Seventies that had raced Stingrays on 
road circuits in the Sixties. He said the 289 Cobras were far more 
competitive for 98 percent of the drivers. Only a rare, talented few 
could drive the 427s fast without crashing.

AMC content: he said he never remembered AMXs being much of a factor in 
American road racing at all...

Keleigh.

Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM wrote:
> Yes you did -- sorry for shouting! ;>
> I'm like you -- I'd call the AMX both a sports and muscle car. Back then
> the definition for a true sports car also had to be a convertible or
> roadster (the difference between those two -- a convertible has a
> permanently attached folding top, a roadster has a removable folding
> and/or hard top). So maybe it was technically a sports coupe. Only
> Americans would call a Camaro or Mustang a sports car -- the things have
> back seats!!! ;> Sporty cars, yes, and maybe a European would let you
> get by with calling one a sports coupe. Typically in Europe a "sports
> coupe" was called a 2+2 in the 60s -- like the Jag XKE with a back seat
> and even some of the big Jensens. 
>
> Unlike the Ford/AC Cobra, the AMX would have handled about the same no
> matter the size of the engine. The Cobras handled much better with the
> SBF, the BBF cars were more of a dragster. I read a road course test
> between the two versions of Cobra and they ended up finishing about the
> same. The SB version took the curves faster, but the BB version won out
> on the straights and powered out of tight turns better (had to brake
> like he-- going into them though!). The testing team (Car and Driver, or
> Road and Track...) started one car in front of the other then switched.
> Neither could pass the other once started in that position! 
>
> Most consider "mid size" and pony cars w/bb engines a muscle car, or
> engines in the 390+ range in cases where only one block serves all. I
> don't consider a 350 a muscle car, but then I remember the "real" muscle
> cars! For 1977 or so and later I suppose 350 can be considered muscle...
>
> -------------
> Date: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 10:54 AM
> From: Jock J Jocewicz <namdra@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Frank,
>   I never said Statham singled out the AMX. I did say it was one of the
> five cars to be voted on. And as far as the original AMX, wasn't it a
> sports car, not a muscle car? Or was it both? An AMX with the 290 surely
> couldn't be called a muscle car!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
>
>   
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list