Joined
·
4,517 Posts
I love those cars, but I agree, not very qwik even with the CJ and 3.91's. A new 4cyl turbo whatever would kick the shit out of that and just about any other "muscle car" except for the biggest dogs of that era.Those cement-boats were never muscle cars......they got what they found: junk.
They were faster than the over hyped chevies and were a terror on the race tracks. As for being heavy? Remember that they are a full size car.Those cement-boats were never muscle cars......they got what they found: junk.
I don't know how you can say anything from that era with a 428 SCJ wasn't a muscle car. Just like the 454 and 440 powered cars from the other manufacturers were muscle cars.Those cement-boats were never muscle cars......they got what they found: junk.
Correct. Those are pony-cars. To me, a 68-69 hemi road runner defines a real muscle-car.That is exactly what a muscle car is..... A full sized car. People that refer to Mustangs and Camaros as muscle cars are the ones who are wrong.
In my case, live bodies. How many times did we have 6 live bodies in the trunk of a car like that, sneaking into the Drive-In, or Wichita International Raceway? :-DMuscle car has to be able to fit at least 6 bodies in trunk like so
<<<<<<<
O.K. Captain, from now on I will call those Pony Cars! DaveThat is exactly what a muscle car is..... A full sized car. People that refer to Mustangs and Camaros as muscle cars are the ones who are wrong.
I'd say its a mid size car. The full size Fords were at least a couple feet longer/wider than that car. Talk about heavy, whats the weight of a 1969 Galaxie?They were faster than the over hyped chevies and were a terror on the race tracks. As for being heavy? Remember that they are a full size car.