Mopar, Pony, Muscle...

[nigel68]

Esatto  :ok:

[Adriano S.]

Ooohhhhhhhh yessssssss

[Guest]

nessuno ha il diritto divino di sancire cosa è una berlina, cosa è un suv, cosa è una 2 volumi, etc etc..........

se fosse cosi facile stabilire se la tua auto è una muscle o una pony, molti strateghi di marketing in giro per il mondo sarebbero disoccupati non potendo più coniare nuovi termini per la lana caprina 

[Adriano S.]

appunto .. e per quello che tutti i "vecchietti " che hanno vissuto gli anni 60 negli States e che quindi erano presenti parlano di muscle cars era

[bronzo]

appunto .. e per quello che tutti i "vecchietti " che hanno vissuto gli anni 60 negli States e che quindi erano presenti parlano di muscle cars era

 

Si...ma non significa che tutte le auto di quell'epoca possono definirsi muscle cars....

 

si parla di muscle cars era perchè indubbiamente in quel periodo, le muscle cars (quelle vere) hanno contraddistinto un'epoca....

basterebbe prendere un pò di ads dell'epoca per capire quali realmente erano definite muscle cars...

alla fine degli anni 60 nessuno si sarebbe mai sognato di chiamare una Mustang MUSCLE CAR, semplicemente perchè il termine PONY era stato coniato proprio da casa Phord qualche anno prima....

 

trovatemi un testo, una pubblicità, un qualsiasi riferimento DELL'EPOCA in cui una Dart o una Mustang vengono definite Muscle....

[Adriano S.]

ho contattato David Newhardt , che oltre ad aver scritto svariati libbri sulle muscle cars e' ache considerato uno storico dell'argomento .. vediamo un po cosa dice ..

 

inoltre ho contatatto 5 musei di muscle cars negli Stati Uniti .. vediamo cosa dicono .. sono pure io curioso

[Piero]

Ma il problema,se cosi' si puo' definire ....,e' risolvibile controllando appunto la bibliografia DELL'EPOCA,come afferma Bronzo....non ho mai letto pubblicazioni,pubblicita' ed altro,degli anni '60 ,che definiva muscle car ....quelle che non lo erano.

Mi preme ribadire che si scrive su questo topic,senza nessuna polemica...,solo per il piacere di conoscere opinioni differenti e,almeno nel mio caso,certamente piu' affidabili del sottoscritto.

[skylineeeeee]

una considerazione: la definizione che citavo post addietro, ossia mid-size con motore preso dalle full-size non è esaustiva, a meno che non si ritenga che (per esempio) una '69 Hemi Road runner NON sia una muscle car, dato che sulle full-size di casa chrysler non mi risulta venisse prevista l'installazione dell'Hemi.

[Adriano S.]

prima risposta da motosrportshalloffame museum: ( aspetto altre 4 rispote da 3 musei specializzati ed un scrittore/storico)

 

Muscle car is a term used to refer to a variety of high-performance automobiles. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines muscle cars as "any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving." A large V8 engine is fitted in a 2-door, rear wheel drive, family-style mid-size or full-size car designed for four or more passengers. Sold at an affordable price, muscle cars are intended for mainly street use and occasional drag racing. They are distinct from two-seat sports cars and expensive 2+2 GTs intended for high-speed touring and road racing. Developed simultaneously in their own markets, muscle cars also emerged from manufacturers in Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere

.

According to Muscle Cars, a book written by Peter Henshaw, a "muscle car" is "exactly what the name implies. It is a product of the American car industry adhering to the hot rodder's philosophy of taking a small car and putting a large-displacement engine in it. The Muscle Car is Charles Atlas kicking sand in the face of the 98 horsepower weakling." Henshaw further asserts that the muscle car was designed for straight-line speed, and did not have the "sophisticated chassis", "engineering integrity", or "lithe appearance" of European high-performance cars. However, opinions vary as to whether high-performance full-size cars, compacts, and pony cars qualify as muscle cars.

 

Bruce Ramey, Manager


IMHOF

[Adriano S.]

_{ Risposta dello scrittore , storico e intenditore di macchine americane David Newhardt:}

 

 

 

 

<sub> 


Hello Adriano, how are you doing?


 


     It's good to hear from another "car guy"! You ask a very good question, one that is still debated here. Personally, I am in the same camp as you regarding the definition of a "Muscle Car". Pony cars, such as the Mustang and Camaro, can be considered true muscle cars IF they have the right driveline. That tends toward a big-block engine. When the 1964 GTO was introduced, that was the birth of the proper "Muscle Car" era. As you note, that was an intermediate platform with a huge engine. Pony cars, when the Mustang was unveiled, leaned more towards a well-rounded driving experience; they had the ability to turn and brake, as well as accelerate. The 1964 GTO made no attempt at turning or stopping well; it was built to go fast in a straight line. As the 1960's wore on, the pony cars started to offer drivetrains that emphasized the straight-arrow approach to performance embraced by "pure" muscle cars. At that point, the pony car became a "proper" muscle car. Case in point; the 1969-70 Boss 429. With a race-bred engine meant for NASCAR use, the Mustang could hold the huge engine only after the firewall and shock towers were beaten with a hammer to provide clearance. The engine was HEAVY, which did nothing for handling or braking. The Boss 429's single reason for being was to lunge down a drag strip. Period. And that is exactly what any self-respecting muscle car was meant to do. 

    Some people point at vehicles such as the Boss 302 and the Z/28 and say that they're not muscle cars. And those people are right. Those vehicles and others, such as the Challenger T/A, were street versions of Trans Am road racing cars. Able to carve a corner and stop well, they cannot be considered "Muscle Cars". Look at a Chevelle LS6; it can't turn or brake its way out of a paper bag. But you'd better have it aimed when you nail the accelerator. 

    I hope that my long-winded rant helps. If you need anything else, just give me a shout!</sub>

 
_{Warmest Regards,}

 
<sub>David 

 

Â</sub> 

[baraz]

mi sembra chiaro...

[bronzo]

"Personally..."

[bronzo]

Comunque sta diventando un gran bel topic...grazie Gekko.

[BLACK CAT]

Facendo un sommrio di entrambe le versioni propendono senza dubbio ad identificare le muscle come : mid size con grossi motori - con scopo primario l accelerazione in linea retta .. Con qualche eccezione Mustang429 ( solo per questo motore )


.mentre le pony = boss 302 , z28 , cuda e chally sono delle auto di ispirazione europea adatte al road racing e usate in competizioni tipo trans am

[Adriano S.]

Esatto bronzo .. come dice lui anche all inizio : _{You ask a very good question, one that is still debated here} ... cmq ci sono svariate persone che la vedono come me tutto li .. gente che scrive libbri , manager di musei muscle cars .. aspetto ancora la risposta di LLoyd Garrett e due altri due esperti di muscle cars ..

Non sto dicendo che abbia ragione in assoluto .. per'o' va dato cmq un po di eco a queste voci che fanno questo di mestiere ... che non sono di parte .. cosi come Bob Gaines o Jeff Sneathen che sono stati puntati col dito da qcuno come di parte .. ( io personalmente lo escludo .. = ..

[baraz]

^{_{ Risposta dello scrittore , storico e intenditore di macchine americane David Newhardt:}}


 

When the 1964 GTO was introduced, that was the birth of the proper "Muscle Car" era. As you note, that was an intermediate platform with a huge engine. Pony cars, when the Mustang was unveiled, leaned more towards a well-rounded driving experience; they had the ability to turn and brake, as well as accelerate. The 1964 GTO made no attempt at turning or stopping well; it was built to go fast in a straight line. As the 1960's wore on, the pony cars started to offer drivetrains that emphasized the straight-arrow approach to performance embraced by "pure" muscle cars. At that point, the pony car became a "proper" muscle car. Case in point; the 1969-70 Boss 429. With a race-bred engine meant for NASCAR use, the Mustang could hold the huge engine only after the firewall and shock towers were beaten with a hammer to provide clearance. The engine was HEAVY, which did nothing for handling or braking. The Boss 429's single reason for being was to lunge down a drag strip. Period. And that is exactly what any self-respecting muscle car was meant to do. 



^_ 

 

^{_{questo è un dato di fatto, comunque:}}

[Adriano S.]

Facendo un sommrio di entrambe le versioni propendono senza dubbio ad identificare le muscle come : mid size con grossi motori - con scopo primario l accelerazione in linea retta .. Con qualche eccezione Mustang429 ( solo per questo motore )


.mentre le pony = boss 302 , z28 , cuda e chally sono delle auto di ispirazione europea adatte al road racing e usate in competizioni tipo trans am

 

 

parla solo del MODELLO  CHALLENGER T/A ....

[Adriano S.]

Domanda : Hello David good to hear from you ..

So Cudas and Chally's with the big block engines are Pony muscle cars as in your books right-?
 

 

 

 

Risposta : Exactly. They could haul butt in a straight line, but don't ask anymore of them. American Motors never "got it" regarding muscle cars. The Javelin/AMX leaned towards the TransAm camp, and attempts such as the Rebel Machine were rather embarrassing. American Motors was hindered by the lack of a good big-block engine. Strange styling didn't help their cause. 

 

 

[Adriano S.]

Sempre discutendo in prima persona con David Newhardt :
 
Domanda:  But people who only accept the definition  of  muscle cars whicn includes  only mide size/ intermediates with full size engines .. I mean who came out first with this description and when?

 
Risposta:

 

Funny thing is, in the era, these vehicles weren't called "Muscle Cars", they were called "Super Cars", and an entire industry grew up building ever faster straight-line cars. Witness the success of Yenko, Baldwin-Motion, Royal Pontiac, etc. These firms didn't limit themselves to intermediate platforms with big engines; they beefed up anything. People who say that muscle cars MUST be an intermediate body with a large engine are frozen in 1964. Detroit's manufacturers didn't freeze in a single brief era; they evolved the genre to meet the demands of the market. The public wanted cars that could go like stink in a straight line, and some of them wanted a vehicle that wasn't an intermediate. Maybe they liked the look of a smaller car like a Camaro or Mustang. The Big 3 knew this, and they created brutal, straight-line machines that were Super Cars.  

 

 

[baraz]

amen