Cheap Muscle Cars?

I have been looking for a 66 Buick riv for quite some time now.

rebelgtp wrote: Here local I have found a '71 Mustang for $750 and it comes with a 5.0 and T5.

I read that and clicked your profile to find your location. Across the country thank goodness...

*My name's Xceler8x and my first car was the 1971 - 73 Ford Mustang...."

Carro Atrezzi. Or the OP fomerly known as A401CJ wrote:

Cotton wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

Javelin wrote: Yep, really. I'm out in hicksville country though where everybody has trucks, so it's definitely a by-location type of thing.

I am in Alabama home of the pickup.

I'm in middle TN. Trucks are going up here, especially the short wides and 4x4s, but they aren't coming close to decent muscle cars. They are coming close to and/or have surpassed a lot of the less popular older cars. Then there are the extremely well done ones that bring good money like this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1966-Ford-F-100-4X4-/110864730960?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item19d00d8b50

every time i see a mechanical fan with no shroud like that I just know they can't be serious

I have a '66 F-100...they didn't have fan shrouds.

In reply to bravenrace:

It is generally accepted that the muscle car era ended in 1974, with SD455-powered Trans Ams being the last true muscle car.

Moparman wrote: In reply to bravenrace: It is generally accepted that the muscle car era ended in 1974, with SD455-powered Trans Ams being the last true muscle car.

Thank you good sir!

PS - The local cruise-in that was staunchly 72 and older only just this year changed it to 73.

In reply to Javelin:

I look at it this way: With exception of factory experientals and limited run cars for homologation purposes, muscle car performance in 1965-1966 was similar to 1972-74. The peak was 1967-1970, but that did not mean it ended after the peak. I have a question for the list.

When did teh muscle car era begin? Most enthusiasts agree it started with the GTO in 1964 (large engine in an intermediate), but there were many fast American, V8-powered, cars before that.

In reply to Javelin:

My local cruises allow anything. My 89 Shelby Dakota (which performs similarly as a 1970 350 4bbl Camaro) is welcome.

Slightly off the wall, but I have impure thoughts about this -

plus this

plus this written on the valve covers.

In reply to Moparman:

You know, I struggle with the whole big-engine into an intermediate thing because the 57 Rambler Rebel 327 really fits that definition. It was the fastest car you could buy in 57 save only the Fuelie Vette. All of the other early performance cars were full-size (421 Catalina, 409 Impala, 427 Fairlane and Thunderbolt, 426 Dodge, etc) until you hit the 64's (GTO, Chevelle, and realistically Mustang).

Most of the muscle car shops, magazines, and clubs say it's 64-74 which fits pretty well IMO. I do like Hemmings Muscle Machines coverage and really loose definition though, they feature everything from ~55 to present, but that does include sports cars (Corvette), full-sizers, and even non-traditional muscle (GNX).

In reply to Javelin:

That is my point exactly. There were fast cars before the muscle car era, even (as you point out) which fit the classic definition of a muscle car. The definition which I personally like the best is: Any car with a power-to-weight ration of 14 lbs for every 1 horsepower is a muscle car. Performance wise, this is an excellent definition.

Personally, I am tired of labels. In the 80s, the RWD Mopar guys would not associate with the FWD Mopar guys. The Neon crowd tried to bond with the import crowd, but they would have none of it. A stupid waste of energy if you ask me.

Personally, I am tired of labels. A stupid waste of energy if you ask me.

+

Javelin wrote:

Moparman wrote: In reply to bravenrace: It is generally accepted that the muscle car era ended in 1974, with SD455-powered Trans Ams being the last true muscle car.

Thank you good sir! PS - The local cruise-in that was staunchly 72 and older only just this year changed it to 73.

The 455 was available in both Pontiacs (in non SD form) and Oldsmobiles until 76. Sure they were down on power, but that power was just a cam and head swap away. Also, the w72 400 was available in the T/A until 79. In 79 a w72 ws6 T/A came with the hi po 400, 4 speed, and 4 wheel disk brakes.....awesome car. I think there is WAY too much noise in this thread of when the muscle car era ended.

I love the Goodguys shows, but the year limit does annoy me. I also find it ironic that the vast majority of their muscle cars running the autocross course, while falling within the year range rules, have modern suspension and drivetrains.

Moparman wrote: In reply to Javelin: That is my point exactly. There were fast cars before the muscle car era, even (as you point out) which fit the classic definition of a muscle car. The definition which I personally like the best is: Any car with a power-to-weight ration of 14 lbs for every 1 horsepower is a muscle car. Performance wise, this is an excellent definition. Personally, I am tired of labels. In the 80s, the RWD Mopar guys would not associate with the FWD Mopar guys. The Neon crowd tried to bond with the import crowd, but they would have none of it. A stupid waste of energy if you ask me.

This is EXACTLY why I hang out here most often these days. I'm on lots of other forums that cater to one make and they will not accept anything else other than cars from that brand or car company. I like cars from all eras and makes. I get crapped on by the V8 RWD guys for having a foreign DD and a FWD Shelby Dodge (not a REAL Shelby, they say), and the muscle car geezers crap on my Trans Am because it's a 1979 and they were slow when they were new.

To me, a traditional Muscle Car = something American (or Australian, hehehe) with a powerful V8 and RWD. Most of the time it's a 2 door, but cool sedans and wagons can fit in too. Most of the time it's got a carb too. I'd say that these cars span the era from 1955-early 80's. I include Pony Cars in as a subset of Muscle Cars.

Modern Muscle Cars are another story. They started in the early 80's when EFI started to catch on in the Pony Cars. I lump the GN's and the 1989 Turbo T/A in on this too. This era is still going, but I fear that it's going to be over really soon.

If you want to get in on something cheap, find something that fits outside of the 1964-74 era, because all the Kool-Aid drinking muscle car fans avoid them usually. And I reiterate that stock sucks, especially with the cars from those years. Plop another drivetrain in and go crazy.

Cotton wrote:

Javelin wrote:

Moparman wrote: In reply to bravenrace: It is generally accepted that the muscle car era ended in 1974, with SD455-powered Trans Ams being the last true muscle car.

Thank you good sir! PS - The local cruise-in that was staunchly 72 and older only just this year changed it to 73.

The 455 was available in both Pontiacs (in non SD form) and Oldsmobiles until 76. Sure they were down on power, but that power was just a cam and head swap away. Also, the w72 400 was available in the T/A until 79. In 79 a w72 ws6 T/A came with the hi po 400, 4 speed, and 4 wheel disk brakes.....awesome car.

Yup. Often overlooked. I'm pretty sure these were actually faster than the almighty Corvette in '79. Oh no!!!

I'd also like to put in a vote for the '55 Chrysler 300...and the "letter cars" that came after it as far as the factory muscle cars.

I'll agree with '74....bye bye Mustang....hello Mustang II.

In reply to Cotton:

My Aunt's 78 Formula 400 hardtop has been rusting in my Mom's field for 20 years. I gave up trying to save it. WS6 package even, IIRC. Sad ending for a killer car.

There will never be complete agreement on when the muscle car era began...some people include the 1957 Rambler Rebel, some argue the 1939 Buick Century was the first one, some cite cars built even earlier than that.

JFX001 wrote: I'd also like to put in a vote for the '55 Chrysler 300...and the "letter cars" that came after it as far as the factory muscle cars. I'll agree with '74....bye bye Mustang....hello Mustang II.

those Chryslers were beasts...

Ran across a '73 Duster, an '89 Camaro and a '67 Cougar all on my way for coffee this morning all for sale.

Moparman wrote: In reply to bravenrace: It is generally accepted that the muscle car era ended in 1974, with SD455-powered Trans Ams being the last true muscle car.

Generally accepted? Where's your reference for that statement? I've never read or heard that anywhere. I think some people look at this differently than others. Some consider the end being the year that the cars started getting slower instead of faster. Also, the SD was one car, not a genre of cars. Just because it was still fast doesn't mean the muscle car era was still alive.
Others look at is as the year the last muscle car existed. Okay, but I, and many others don't look at it that way.

The rise of the muscle car ties right in with the baby boomers and marketing to them. The first post-war babies were 18 in '64. The Mustang and GTO were aimed squarely at that group. The Mustang was designed as a sporty compact. The GTO was the first packaged mid-sized performance car. That one-two punch is why '64 is considered the beginning of the muscle car era. Even if the first Mustangs weren't bred as performance cars.

To me the mid-size is the key. Mid-sized domestic cars were new in the '60's. Domestic small cars were by a couple years earlier. The 300 letter cars were powerful luxury cars. Not aimed at young drivers. The 409 Impalas and 421 Super Duty Pontiacs were full size cars.

As to the end, it's a little less defined. It's more of a fade out. The hardcore will stick with '70 or maybe '71 as the end with the top guns going out of production at that time (LS6, Hemi, 440 6-Pack, Ram Air IV, etc.). Performance cars were still available after that, but not with the compression levels they had earlier. But they started to gain better suspension tuning, and some better comfort options.

One of the things that's been overlooked is that styles and tastes changed in the '70's. This was in addition to low/no-lead gas, gas crises, crash bumpers, emissions controls, and high insurance premiums.

Personal luxury cars came into vogue. Landau tops and opera windows replaced 2-door hardtops and SS stripes. Sporty little foreign cars were getting more attention since they got good mileage and were fun to drive too. Don't forget custom vans for those "life stylers."

For the mile marker I use, the first catalytic converters brought about the end of the '60's muscle car era. Those and the other early emissions controls and the legal penalties associated with removing or tampering with them. Year wise that's still 1974 for the end. Essentially a 10 year period

It's all just cycles. The original muscle cars were no different than marketing anything else that's fashionable. And just like Disco being out of fashion in the early '80's, the new generation of performance cars was just beginning. But that's a point for a different thread.

Me, I'm a hot rodder. The low compression '70's stuff is just more raw material waiting to be worked. But the hard core guys that remember new 454 Chevelles in the showroom will always think anything later is junk. And that's why the '78 Malibu I had in high school was such a great sleeper. And it was only a 10 year old car at the time. It wasn't a muscle car. But some younger people today might think it is.

I admit to not reading all 5 pages, but I agree that "muscle cars" by common conception ended in about 72. Part of that was due to the perception of horsepower created by the switch from Gross HP to SAE Net HP, and the other part was due to smog rules tanking compression.

The nice thing is, any of the 73-up wheezers can be easily and cheaply modified for some serious HP. I had a 73 Impala Station wagon with a wheezer 235-hp 454. Heads, intake, cam, and headers put me squarely at 390 hp with ridiculous amounts of torque. It was enough to move that boat fast enough to scare any big-wing, backwards-hat, jeans-around-their-knees punk kids who thought their "lightweight" WRX could hang.

I just snagged a 67 LeMans HT for $750. Its complete with a rebuilt 326 and good powerglide, but its mostly disassembled. Getting the one-off always saves you big money. If that were a GTO I would have been lucky to get it for $4000.

Another thing to consider: In the mid 70s, most cars started getting heavier due to crash test standards. A 74 Ford Maverick is 200 lbs heavier than a 72 Maverick and its mostly in the big ugly bumpers and brackets. The good news is, they're a lot lighter than you think. A 72 Maverick weighs the same as an 05 WRX, and a 57 Bel Air coupe with the straight 6 only weighed 3200 lbs. Compare that to a 2005 Impala V6 which weighs in at almost 3800 lbs. People think those old sleds are so heavy, but they really aren't by comparison.

I'm hoping to trim my LeMans down to about 2900-3000 lbs. That plus an 450-hp LSx and a T56 might be fun. Not sure though

As a twenty something with no memory of the 60s/70s, I define muscle car as " American, ill handling cars grey haired men pay huge sums for."

DaewooOfDeath wrote: As a twenty something with no memory of the 60s/70s, I define muscle car as " American, ill handling cars grey haired men pay huge sums for."

There are plenty of people who were around in the 60's/70's with no memory of it either.

As for the cars, they all didn't handle bad. Tire technology has come a very long way since then and that makes a huge difference. With a few tweaks the cars will handle very well. My Barracuda has surprised quite a few people.

I got my Barracuda in my late '20's and didn't have huge sums of money. Got my first gray hair when I was 19. I'd rather spend huge sums of money on my car than coloring my air.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: As a twenty something with no memory of the 60s/70s, I define muscle car as " American, ill handling cars grey haired men pay huge sums for."

Well I'm in my 30s....want to know what I think of Daewoos?