RE: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: what is a musclecar

[themixtoo@xxxx]

In a message dated 8/26/2004 12:23:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "John W Rosa" <JohnRosa@xxxx> writes:

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eddie Stakes [mailto:eddiestakes@xxxx]
>
>Either way, I think this whole 'what is a real
>musclecar' debate should be left to those
>editors to define in the major magazines.
>
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Oh, Hell no I won't. They are going to coddle to
>whatever direction will sell more issues, not
>work to maintain historical accuracy. That work
>must be left to those of us that haven't a penny
>to gain from the process.
>
>I can honestly and unashamedly state I have never
>owned a true 'Muscle Car', and I've now owned over
>20 Javelins- Pony Cars all.
>
>Can a Pony Car outrun a Muscle Car in a straight
>line? Sure, some can.
>Can a Muscle Car outrun a Pony in a slalom? A few
>could, I suppose.
>Is one title better than the other? Not in my book.
>Is it insulting to be left out of the Muscle Car
>category? Maybe for some, but it's just a
>classification based on wheelbase, really. Just
>a way to measure the car's size and intended use.
>
>The 'aura' of the title has become so big that
>folks like Bilwin lump all the fast US cars of the
>era together, calling them all 'Muscle Cars', but
>as I've said, it's an incorrect application of the
>title, just as a cheesecake isn't a cake- it's a pie.
>Just as American Motors didn't install motors- they
>installed engines. There's the way we use a term,
>and then there's the proper use of the term. Just
>because something is popular, that doesn't make it
>correct (Germany, 1934, for an extreme example).
>In the 1700s, you were nuts to believe in micro-
>scopic beings that invade our bodies are what cause
>illnesses. Today, it's crazy to not believe that.
>Yet, in both times, the WRONG side was the same one.
>'Muscle Car' is a victim of the reverse. It was
>coined for use to describe a particular class of car.
>Over time, it's been abused by people wanting their
>own car to fit under it. Hell, I've heard Tuners
>described as Muscle Cars, and even Bilwin will
>agree that's crazy (OK, maybe he wouldn't).
>
>The terms are exclusive for reasons. You can blur
>the distinctions by building a car that almost fits,
>but in the end, when you apply the criteria of each
>class, the vehicle ends up in one or another. Not
>in two or more at the same time. You can't be a Pony
>and a Sports car...tho AMX is the closest anyone came.
>You can't be Pony and Muscle...your wheelbase and
>seating will put you in one of them, never both.
>
>'Muscle Cars' isn't an umbrella for everything with a
>hood scoop. That's what 'Performance Cars' is for.
>
>Gremlin = Sub-Compact Car
>Gremlin 5.0 - Performance Sub-Compact
>Hornet = Sub-Compact Car
>Hornet SC/360 4v = Performance Compact Car
> ?[Above size cars often called 'pocket rockets' until
> ? quick Asian cars took the term]
>Javelin = Pony Car
>Javelin 4v = Performance Pony Car
>68-70 AMX = Performance Sports Car
>Rebel / Matador = Intermediate Car
>Rebel 4v / Matador 4v = Muscle Car
>Ambassador = Full-Size Car
>Ambassador 4v = Performance Full-Size Car
>
>In this discussion, wheelbase is paramount.
>
>John
>So, After all this, besides my beloved factory 5.0 Gremlin, is my 1966 Ford Fairlane 500 2dr hardtop, factory 390 315hp 4barrel C-6 dual exhaust 9"rear a 'real' musclecar? Maybe not, it has a bench seat and column shifter! 'The Mix' 
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>