Where do you draw the line between musclecar and sportscar?

>>14886213
Histoircally, a muscle car was usually defined as the small car with the big car's engine stuffed in it. GTO, Chevelle SS, GSX, 'Cuda, etc.

A sports car is, from wikipedia, "a small, usually two seater, two doorautomobiledesigned for spirited performance and nimble handling." Miata, S-chassis, S2000, Z4, etc.

So, basically a muscle car is typically designed for straight line performance and a sports car is typically for >muh feels. That doesn't mean a muscle car can't handle and nor does it mean a sports car can't be fast. That's just usually how it goes.

>>14886328
>musclecars
>small

Underage detected

>>14886213
One can turn and maintain a hih speed, the other is american.

File: hLXG0gG.jpg (139KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x682px

>>14886400
>implying yuros have ever produced a sedan that can lap the burgerkingring faster

>>14886213
Imo a muscle is anything that carries a big, high displacement V8 with very audible power, the "muscle" if you will.
Even moreso if it carries a smaller V6 as another engine option.

With that in mind, I consider an LS swapped Miata to be a muscle.

So no, it doesn't have to be American, as for RWD, probably not, but I can't think of many cases where that wouldn't be the situation.
Of course, this also puts trucks and SUV's into this category.
So I think of it like this.


Most if not all muscles can be also considered sports cars.
However, not all sports cars are muscle cars.
Tl;dr just like the word "coupe" it's been appropriated to not have a definition outside of a selling point.

>>14886393
I didn't say suzuki cappucino small. Just smaller than the car that its engine came from. John DeLorean literally had to go behind the higher-ups of GM's backs to get the GTO package to go into production for the Tempest. They wouldn't let him put the b-body engine in it normally (the Tempest being an a-body). And guess what, they sold the everloving shit out of them.

You should give On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors a read sometime. It's a really good book.

>>14886213
Muscle car = intermediate sized 2 door car that's given a fast, often race spec engine. Emphasis on looking good, sounding good and quarter mile performance, and little else

sports car = traditionally a standard car engine of relatively modest power stuffed into a lightweight 2 seater chassis that focuses on handling, now a car that focuses on all aspects of performance.

Main difference is that a muscle car can hold more people and is generally better for long road trips. You'd definitely want a Clallenger RT for a road trip instead of a Viper

>>14886431
Rebadged Australian car.

File: SRaVKYg.jpg (62KB, 640x472px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x472px

>>14886480
Wuuuut?

>>14886393
We're talking about 1950-60s american car "small", that means "less than 5 meters long"

>>14886465
so what's the Charger SRT-8/Chrysler 300 SRT-8/Dodge Magnum SRT8?

File: Screenshot (91).png (302KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1920x1080px

>>14886465
>>14886504
Also, the Viper doesn't really fit the Sport's Car bill.
>standard car engine
>relatively modest power
>lightweight

>>14886515
Read the fucking comment. I said "traditionally" as in old time cars before the 60's, and the Viper is more of a supercar anyway

>>14886543
You specified the Challenger as the muscle and the Viper as the sports car.
Don't trigger my autism like that.

Muscle cars were mid sized coupes for everyday drivability and usable while packing a big engine for fun and racing.

The Viper took inspiration from the AC Cobra and was designed for big N/A displacement and power in a small lightweight package that still made it a muscle car.

Non-American cars can never be muscle cars. If foreigners are jealous, blame their previous generations for not think of the term first.

>>14886575
>3,300 lbs
>"small, lightweight package"
just admit that it was a bad comparison.

File: 1443387201244[1].jpg (64KB, 691x882px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 691x882px

>>14886431
>this amount of delusion

>>14886639
I thought that wasn't in production yet?

>>14886611
Why do you guize always insist on comparing normal cars to tiny 20 year old Japanese economy cars?

>>14886648
It isn't and no footage has been posted of that insane claimed laptime

>>14886660
Why do you guys insist on claiming a Viper is a Sports Car and then backpedal, say it's more of a super, then go back on -that- and return to it apparently being a sports car?
Like this is Olympic tier mental gymnastics.

File: Acura-NSX-T-2002-1.jpg (235KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1600x1200px

3,100 lbs

>>14886672
IDK, ask the children. Now focus. Why?

>>14886680
>why
No, no, you first need to point out where I've compared a "normal" car to a 20 year old "japanese" "normal car".
I'm not seeing it.

>>14886672
because its as fast as some super cars, but still has the muscle car swagger, plus its front engined like a sports car.

Muscle cars are typically old V8s. Modern muscle cars are just poor performing sports car. Muscle cars have been dead since '74.

>>14888593

>plus its front engined like a sports car

Being a sportscar has nothing to do with engine layout. Many of the best sportscars are mid engined. The 911 is one of the quintessential sportscars and it's famously rear engined.

Muscle Cars are made for going in a straight line very fast. Sometimes they would do a little something to make them turn a little better.

Sports cars are made to turn really well, sometimes they would do some things to make them fast to.

>>14889607
Best answer ITT

>>14886666

Checked, Satan.

File: 99 ta.png (930KB, 816x459px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 816x459px

my car tries to be both

>inb4 cant turn

it handles extremely well; especially considering the rear axle setup is from the industrial era

>>14889717
>fireturd
>handles extremely well

when are you going to stop being so delusional?

File: Defense.jpg (108KB, 670x503px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 670x503px

>>14886446
This is the most mature response I've ever heard to a shitpost. Kudos.

File: cprep.jpg (133KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x768px

>>14889740
>has never driven an fbody

best car

File: Triumph Independent Suspension.gif (89KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 600x500px

>>14886328
>>14886497

Negatory, good buddy.

In the parlance of the 60's and 70's, muscle cars were not small cars. They were usually mid-to-full size coupes with big-blocks. The Chevelle and Torino were good examples. Big motherfuckers with even bigger motors.

The GTO and 'Cuda were not generally considered muscle cars because they were too small - they got the Pony Car label along with the Mustang and all the other compact-based vehicles.

Then for a period of time, people considered that the engine made the difference. Big block = muscle car, small block = pony car, non-V8 = sports car.


Either way, sports cars were generally small, and if they had a defining characteristic, it was the lack of a backseat. All the european roadsters of the 60's/70's, the original Thunderbird, the Corvette, those were considered sports cars. The fact that they could handle didn't make them sports cars.... it was just a side-effect of the light weight. Anything will handle if you cut enough weight out of it, even something with shitty 1960's suspension.

But since they were all distinctions drummed up by marketing in the first place, everything changed whenever a new advertising agency got a new contract. Now sports cars have back seats and V8's. Now muscle cars have small blocks and fit in a midsize footprint. So go figure.

>>14889717
>it handles extremely well;
no it doesn't. It handles better than expected, but not extremely well by any stretch of the imagination.

File: 1451644335200.jpg (36KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x374px

I always thought the difference was in styling and features.

A muscle car is more bare bones, you feel it and hear it as you drive. It has a longer front end and more edges.

A sports car has plenty of luxury options and a more rounded design.

I don't believe any modern vehicles fit the standard of being labeled a muscle car due to safety regulations and options. The last of what I consider muscle cars would be the GM g-bodys from the 80s.

>>14889806
The GTO has never been considered a pony car. It was a mid size car that shared the same platform as the chevelle/cutlass/regal.
Perhaps you are thinking about the firebird? It and the camaro were GMs pony cars.
Also, big block or small block never was a deciding factor concerning a muscle car, a SS chevelle with a 327 is still considered a musclecar.

>>14890341
*chevelle/442/GranSport

>>14886328

>S-chassis

Muscle car is a family car with a big engine in it.

Sports car is a car intended for someone to enjoy racing.

>>14889819
>A sports car has plenty of luxury options and a more rounded design.

Not really. MGs were known for being extremely spartan to the point where MG "purists" bitched that the MGB had wind-up windows.

Muscle car was born out of an edict among the big three to not put their biggest, highest Hp motors in anything but full size cars. Pontiac first broke from this with the GTO, the first muscle car. So a mid size car with a big motor is a muscle car.
Sports car is not so easy. I go with the purists...two doors, two seats, high performance.