Sup /o/, I know fuckall about cars, the only things I've driven are a jeep patriot and a chevrolet cobalt.
Can anyone explain to me what the point of a muscle car is? Like ford mustangs and dodge chargers. What exactly makes it's "high performance" different from a luxury european car like BMW, audi, mercedes benz etc.
And what exactly sets all these cars apart from "reliable" cars like honda civics, vw jettas, toyota corollas etc?
A muscle car is a mid-size-ish RWD car, designed for performance, with a giant V8 up front sold at an affordable price.
It's just a fun car/sports car.
>designed for performance
so this means it just drives like a sports car?
>those german cars aren't luxury
then what is a luxury car? they've got a higher price tag than civis/corollas
so it drives like a pick up truck in the size of a sedan/coupe?
The higher price tag is literally because of "muh German engineering", which basically means you have to autistically maintain them. Exactly follow every single thing the service schedule tells you, can't skip an oil change or you'll risk blowing it up.
No, not necessarily. Only the really huge barges like the Chevelle handled truly terribly. And the Foxbody Mustang, but that was just due to the idiotic suspension design decisions.
A fourth-gen F-body like that trans am or the Mustang in the first picture would drive like sports cars, yes.
Defining characteristics of a muscle car:
>larger size compared to true sports cars
>heavier weight compared to true sports cars
>worse handling than true sports cars
>large displacement engine that makes relatively low power for it's size
>offered only in automatic, or at least with automatic as an option
I see this shit posted all the time.
>but that's not REAL luxury
>that's not a REAL sports car
With no explanation of why. Take your shitbox and fuck off, quit pretending like you're some kind of high class Alfa Romeo driver or something.
>inb4 that's not luxury either
Also OP the difference between a muscle car and a high performance luxury car is that a muscle car is fat and has a shit interior.
>muscle cars have to be heavy
>simple interiors not loaded down with faux chrome and faux leather on surfaces you'll never touch are shit
I will give you the mid-2000s Dodge cars though, those are awful interiors.
It's the power to displacement ratio. For example, the LS3 engine used in the 5th gen Camaro SS made 432PS with 6.2L, or 70PS per litre. That is quite low compared to, say, Honda's F20C (125PS/L).
Not true. Properly engineered sports cars tend to be faster while being less powerful than muscle cars.
>Mazda RX-7 Series 8 RS 1:04.00 280PS
>Honda S2000 Type S 1:07.72 242PS
>Porsche Boxster S 1:06.40 280PS
>Ford Mustang GT 1:10.88 318PS
>Chevrolet Camaro SS 1:10.67 432PS
>fucking hondafags still cling to hp/L meme
>what is dimishing returns
>what are differing torque curves
A 2011 Mustang GT with a performance pack hung right with an M3 of the same year. Back in the day, the same was true for an IROC-Z turd gen camaro and a Porsche 928.
A true muscle car is a mid size 2 door coupe with bare bones options and a huge engine. example is pic related
>the same was true for an IROC-Z turd gen camaro and a Porsche 928
no... and please dont post that horrible video where the driver cant even stay on the track from an era where auto media in america was just advertising
Muscle cars are mid-sized touring cars that broke the engine displacement restrictions manufactures put on themselves during the 60s. They came with manuals, and could actually turn fairly well for their class and price.
how does it feel to know the new mustang is slower than a 10 year old british bin part car around VIR? as tested by car and driver
Oh fuck off.... some of us are quite wealthy and are actually able to afford 1.8 TDI's you know
thats why americans make v12 7 liter supercars
Muscle cars come from a culture of the 60's and 70's, where low regulation, cheap sports cars, and long open highways lead to a trend of dropping large motors in stock cars. Instead of normal sports cars, American automakers have harkened back to this trend because it is the strongest most independently American aspect of car culture, but also because it's cheaper to put a big V8 in a heavy car than to focus on refining the handling and trying to shave weight off of it. But hey, shit like that is bankrupting Nissan and Toyota, so it's much better than no sports cars.
Most popular/common poorfag cars are either 1.9 and 2.5 diesel golfs, audis and BMWs, and there are quite alot old Audi v6 and BMW i4/i6 petrols with a fuckton of miles on them. My 2nd car was a 400k km (about 270k miles i think) e36 323i, rusted an scratched like crazy but the engine and transmission were almosy perfect. Same with my friends cars, all are old, very high mileage golfs, audis and bmws. North/eastern european here.
Not to derail your thread OP, but fuaark I love the new Mustang. When it came out I really didn't give a shit, but I fell in love a few months ago.
There are plenty of faster mustangs and camaros than your gocart, But anyhow
Lotus Exige S 3:04.5
2015 Ford Mustang GT 3:05.2
Costs way more, weights half as much and only beat it by a second, but your right mustangs can't turn.
You mean where they were as fair as possible and even said "this is just one day on one track, results could be different elsewhere?"
I'm saying it makes less hp because the torque comes on strong lower and dies off higher. Ergo the hp number is less, even though it obviously still accelerates fast.