Re: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: what is a musclecar

[harold losey <strlcuckoo_46@xxxx>]

Great reasoning Eddie!

                           Hal

Eddie Stakes <eddiestakes@xxxx> wrote:

> John, the best comparison I can give would be the term Hispanic. It's not a
> race. It could be anyone from a slew of countries. Muscle Car will always be
> a cobbled together group of vehicles without a solid definitive definition,
> depending on who is judging them, writing about them, or owning them.
> Another comparison would be the never-ending-debate of what was the first
> muscle car. Some say Plymouth, some say Nash, some say Studebaker, others
> say Rebel, some write GTO. No dust has ever settled.
>
> Here is another comparison in the watered down title department. When you
> watch any news, they refer to illegal street racing as 'drag racing' which
> gives drag racing a really bad black eye in my humble opinion. More recently
> more and more news organizations have been actually labelling it 'street
> racing' which is correct, and for some reason, they leave
> out the illegal.
> Like aliens, for some reason they call them immigrants, but they still are
> illegal, so the term has been misused, abused, over used till no one knows,
> and probably don't care, about it anymore.
>
> I'm sure some people vomited when they saw a 51 Hudson Super Six in HMM's
> Feb 04 issue. Od Donnie Solomon's Gremlin X garcing the pages in Jan 04.  Or
> a case could be made by Perry Mason of the Muscle Car Shootout HMM had (Feb
> 2004) whereas the following competed: 65 GTO; 71 LeMans; 73 LeMans; 72
> LeMans convertible; 87 Sunbird GT turbo; 64 GTO. While there was a huge
> turnout, they decided to focus on Pontiac here. Again, by my definition, not
> all above in the 'musclecar shootout' were 'musclecars'. The little Sunbird
> turned 14.1; 14.3; 14.3; 14.3; 14.5 consistently, not bad. But also not what
> I would consider a musclecar either, others may disagree too!
>
> The bottom line is that, there never will be a true definition of what
> is a
> musclecar. The term has been watered down and overused whereas some would
> even call a Pinto with a 429 a muscle car.
> Eddie Stakes
> www.planethoustonamx.com
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John W Rosa" <JohnRosa@xxxx>
> To: <BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:23 AM
> Subject: RE: [BaadAssGremlins] Re: what is a musclecar
>
>
>
> -----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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links

---

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!