Classic Cars

SkedAddled wrote in post #19394552
Sorry, Richard, I see now that i digressed into a fairly nonsensical ramble which did not fit the overall thread.

But Studebakers were seen with mixed opinions here, from what I understand.
While it was largely seen as a solid and dependable American marque, they had their ups and downs,
going through hardships and upswings. Post-war, they encountered some financial difficulties
from time to time, and ended up with collaborating on one of the ugliest cars I've ever known
to be in existence, which is Avanti. Ultimately, they merged with Packard, but it was not enough
to save Studebaker and Packard from a post-war shift in attitudes and buying habits.

thanks for this
Interesting how we see things so differently in another part of the world.
Obviously as a youngster commercial issues weren't even on our radar. Only the car and its impact on the senses ߘ.
As to Mustang. Again in my youthful days ANY Mustang was a "Wow Mustang" feeling for those appreciating the marque
They were exclusive cars for the few not the masses here in Tasmania

SkedAddled wrote in post #19394560
Sorry to ruffle your feathers, and I admit I did it in a tactless way, but isn't the Mustang itself
an iconic representation of a legendary muscle/pony-car? It was light, nimble and performance-oriented
when most other cars of the time were stodgy and monolithic land-barges, with Cadillac and GM beasts
dominating the roadways.

I was simply trying to state that the Mustang/Camaro/Grand National/Charger, et al
all came along during the time of the muscle-car surgence in the US, and the mid-1960s Mustang
could make it happen, whether with a V-6 or a V-8.
Whether or not you choose to define a muscle car by engine output alone is up to you,
but rest assured that the mid-60s Mustang represented it in nearly all iterations.

https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Muscle_car

Lou

While this discussion is getting a life of its own, I will add my 2 sents. In my mind there were muscle cars, huge monstrosities with 7liter engines, and then the pony car was born as a cheaper alternative. But I don't want to drag this out.
There is a local racing legend that in his retirement is racing a Galaxy in local historic races. Once he is in front, nobody can pass because it is taking up all of the road

60's Corvette

Piet ZA wrote in post #19394685
60's Corvette

Hosted photo: posted by Piet ZA in
./showthread.php?p=193​94685&i=i88561025
forum: Transportation

Looks like a 1959.

A1original wrote in post #19394730
Looks like a 1959.

Hood louvres is 1958

dsp921 wrote in post #19394744
Hood louvres is 1958

Think you're right!

Amilcar CGSS coupe Duval 1.1 litre 35HP Designed by Charles Duval

dsp921 wrote in post #19394744
Hood louvres is 1958

A1original wrote in post #19394787
Think you're right!

It is a '58 - What's of more interest to me is that Porsche 928 (Think 1983) behind it on the right.

Lou

English is a living language. A long time ago awful meant the same as what awesome means now. ie, it now has the complete opposite meaning. As mass media makes the world a smaller place, language is even more shared. Therefore, If I consider a 289 Mustang a muscle car, it is a muscle car. I can't say it's a Rabbit though. At the time of the 289 Mustang, many Brits were driving cars with 60 cubic inch engines, that weighed 70% of what the Mustang weighed. In Australia our most popular cars weighed similar to the Mustang but the most power available was about 120hp.
A little later, Brits had Cortinas with 1.3, 1.6, 2 litre engines. In Australia, our Cortinas were available with 4.1 litre sixes. They fit my definition of muscle car, way too much power for the brakes!
Then we had the Falcons that the Mustangs were based on. When the little Holden Torana with 202ci 6 beat the 351ci V8 Falcons at our biggest race, the Torana was in all but Ford fans eyes, a muscle car. Over in New Zealand, with their shorter tracks, the Chargers dominated with their 265ci 6 and the 'true' muscle car Falcons were victims of their, according to my definition, too much power for the brakes problem. Really, it was too much weight for the brakes. 351, top loader 4 speed and 9 inch diff all added up to a porker. The (Chrysler) Chargers were much lighter and the 265s were consistently making 312hp after blueprinting. The Chargers were muscle cars with their mere 6 cylinders. The 318 and 360 Chrysler V8s were saved for luxury family cars and the VIP coupes.

Choderboy wrote in post #19394912
English is a living language. A long time ago awful meant the same as what awesome means now. ie, it now has the complete opposite meaning. As mass media makes the world a smaller place, language is even more shared. Therefore, If I consider a 289 Mustang a muscle car, it is a muscle car. I can't say it's a Rabbit though. At the time of the 289 Mustang, many Brits were driving cars with 60 cubic inch engines, that weighed 70% of what the Mustang weighed. In Australia our most popular cars weighed similar to the Mustang but the most power available was about 120hp.
A little later, Brits had Cortinas with 1.3, 1.6, 2 litre engines. In Australia, our Cortinas were available with 4.1 litre sixes. They fit my definition of muscle car, way too much power for the brakes!
Then we had the Falcons that the Mustangs were based on. When the little Holden Torana with 202ci 6 beat the 351ci V8 Falcons at our biggest race, the Torana was in all but Ford fans eyes, a muscle car. Over in New Zealand, with their shorter tracks, the Chargers dominated with their 265ci 6 and the 'true' muscle car Falcons were victims of their, according to my definition, too much power for the brakes problem. Really, it was too much weight for the brakes. 351, top loader 4 speed and 9 inch diff all added up to a porker. The (Chrysler) Chargers were much lighter and the 265s were consistently making 312hp after blueprinting. The Chargers were muscle cars with their mere 6 cylinders. The 318 and 360 Chrysler V8s were saved for luxury family cars and the VIP coupes.

You mean one of these baby's it was and still remains a dream . . . . .

Clifty wrote in post #19394940
You mean one of these baby's it was and still remains a dream . . . . .

Certainly head turners in their day.
For those interested here's a blurb about them.
I hadn't realised they were so well received, but do remember them as high performance Aussie cars
https://www.shannons.c​om.au …vable-aussie-super-coupe/
That link asks to login. Just ignore and keep reading

asking price was $395000
The three-speed E38 was a brilliant enough performer, running the standing quarter in 15 seconds with a best of 14.8 and to 100 mph in 16.5 seconds. The E49, is in a realm of its own, utterly untroubled to lay 14.4 second quarters and record 14.1 times to 100 mph.

Has there ever been a six that went like this? God knows, we thought the Phase Three HO was quick, and its time to 100 mph was 15.2 seconds."

Over here they took the 1600cc engines out of some Capris and replaced it with V8s

Choderboy wrote in post #19394912
English is a living language. A long time ago awful meant the same as what awesome means now. ie, it now has the complete opposite meaning. As mass media makes the world a smaller place, language is even more shared. Therefore, If I consider a 289 Mustang a muscle car, it is a muscle car. I can't say it's a Rabbit though. At the time of the 289 Mustang, many Brits were driving cars with 60 cubic inch engines, that weighed 70% of what the Mustang weighed. In Australia our most popular cars weighed similar to the Mustang but the most power available was about 120hp.
A little later, Brits had Cortinas with 1.3, 1.6, 2 litre engines. In Australia, our Cortinas were available with 4.1 litre sixes. They fit my definition of muscle car, way too much power for the brakes!
Then we had the Falcons that the Mustangs were based on. When the little Holden Torana with 202ci 6 beat the 351ci V8 Falcons at our biggest race, the Torana was in all but Ford fans eyes, a muscle car. Over in New Zealand, with their shorter tracks, the Chargers dominated with their 265ci 6 and the 'true' muscle car Falcons were victims of their, according to my definition, too much power for the brakes problem. Really, it was too much weight for the brakes. 351, top loader 4 speed and 9 inch diff all added up to a porker. The (Chrysler) Chargers were much lighter and the 265s were consistently making 312hp after blueprinting. The Chargers were muscle cars with their mere 6 cylinders. The 318 and 360 Chrysler V8s were saved for luxury family cars and the VIP coupes.

I agree with this.

Many world regions have different definitions of their culture's muscle cars.
Too many US Americans are steadfast in defining muscle as a model with the 2 or 3 versions
of the highest-horsepower motors ever available in the model, while discounting the model's lower-output
options as 'not worthy' or some other such nonsense, ignoring the fact that entire model's option line-up
represented the icons they've become, as an overall representation.

I see now that meanings and definitions are different across the world,
while here in the US, a single model stood for the car itself being iconic, rather than varying levels
of options defining what made it become iconic. While the rarity of options increases value,
it's not accurate to make a blanket statement about what makes or doesn't make an American muscle car.
The model itself has been a definer here in the past:
Mustang
Camaro
Charger
Cutlass
Firebird
Riviera
Toronado
Cutlass
Eldorado

By most standards, many of the US's 'luxury' and 'family' cars could also be called muscle cars,
simply because of the gigantic motors in them during the late-50s through the mid-to-late 60s.

Piet ZA wrote in post #19394958
Over here they took the 1600cc engines out of some Capris and replaced it with V8s

Hosted photo: posted by Piet ZA in
./showthread.php?p=193​94958&i=i256668113
forum: Transportation

Very common here too. We had the 1600, 2 Litre, and 3 Litre V6, none of the RS3100s though.