The Death of American Muscle

File: 1968-Dodge-Charger-green-30.jpg (183KB, 1200x788px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1200x788px

1968 charger rt

File: 1978-dodge-charger-04.jpg (152KB, 580x315px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 580x315px

1978 charger SE

File: tumblr_mp8kfdl8y11qelkhfo1_1280.jpg (676KB, 1280x1080px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 1280x1080px

good riddance desu senpai

muscle deserved to die

File: kingcobra.jpg (80KB, 720x543px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 720x543px

The mustang 2 king cobra is my favorite. In 1978 this was actually considered fast for that MY.

>5.0 l Windsor
>139 hp
>250 lb/ft
>0-60 in 9.8 seconds

File: maxresdefault.jpg (116KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1024x768px

1966 gt 350 for comparison:

>289 Cid v8
>306 hp
>329 lb/ft
>0-60 in 7.3

File: Dodge_1978_Aspen-RT_NL29G8B260346_4.jpg (166KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 640x428px

Pic related was powered by that godawful 318 motor but managed to deliver a lightning fast 11.1 second 0-60 time

The worst part is that all these cars look fairly muscular. Like if they had a 350 small block making some real power they'd be a blast to drive fast.

ITT: Things that happened

File: 93246_Front_3-4_Web.jpg (99KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1000x667px

>>16484301
stick with the 360 with a 4bbl

1978 models could still pull 7s and 8s on the 0-60

>>16484306
The Malaise Era versions are some of the most fun for tinkerers since they respond really well to mods.

As for OP's point of discussion the real reason muscle died was the market was changing towards luxury even before insurance made muscle unattractive. Then almost as quickly it moved to sport sedan.

>>16484301
>godawful 318
why the 318 hate? You can NOT kill them great engines. And if you know what you're doing, you can screw 400+ HP from them N/A

File: CC-61-019-800.jpg (433KB, 800x573px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 800x573px

ITT: mistakes were made

>>16484301
I'd like an Aspen R/T. The duck tail works for me and a hot 360 should be a lot of fun. Or maybe a Gen III Hemi. Too bad I'm bogged down in a 4 eyed Fox resto atm.

File: 1973-Chevelle.jpg (68KB, 650x389px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 650x389px

>>16484220
this is the saddest one for me, they should've just killed the poor thing instead of making it this fuckfaced turd, and yeah I didn't like Drive that much

Shout out to the Challenger though for at least keeping the sexy body styling through 1974

File: barracuda.jpg (701KB, 790x617px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 790x617px

>>16484377
the 'Cuda deserves a mention too ofc, consider the fact that the Mustang II was in its second year by then

File: gp.jpg (1MB, 2325x1590px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2325x1590px

I'd like to build a bomber to hoon around in when I get some additional income. Maybe I should get a second job.

>>16484301
>>16484316
Duck tail spoilers and huge v8s are my fetish.

>>16484404
do this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUefSKCjP8w&t=3s

>>16484261
I kinda want a shitty low Hp American V8, just to park next to EV charging stations.

>>16485706
so cringe

>>16484377
tfw 1973 chevelle is the only chevelle i like

File: gaaaaay.jpg (13KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 222x227px

>>16485852

>>16485854
the earlier chevelles are ugly and the 74-77 didnt have the right tail lights

>>16484220
that car looks better than anything that came out of the 60s

File: BuickGNX_700.jpg (43KB, 700x367px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 700x367px

Took them long enough, but they found a solution. 300 hp from a spicy turbo 3.8L V6. Sadly diminished very soon because of a stuck up target audience (muuuuh veee aaaaiiite) and boundless GM bad decision making.

>>16485857
you're really not helping your case

>>16485868
meh 73 chevelle best chevelle

>>16485877
lies
64-69 chevelle >> 70 >>>> 71-72 >>>>>>>> 73-77

>>16485885
64-67 plain economy car 68-72 ugly boomer garbage 73-77 smex city

>>16485868
hes probably one of those faggots who saw Drive

>>16485867
Funny how things come full circle isn't it.

>>16485895
probably, that or just being a contrarian shit

>>16485896
Full circle from what?

>>16485902
We have turbo v6 again this time it's replacing the V8 for good

>>16485895
the body lines on the 68-72 are awful and prior are just eco boxes 73-77 have the right amount of windows and low lines that i crave

>>16485892
the chevelle was always boomer garbage
the tempest and the cutlass were always more attractive cars

>>16485867
>Sadly diminished very soon because of a stuck up target audience (muuuuh veee aaaaiiite)
Not in the slightest. The things sold so well that GM actually extended the production run as long as they could without running into 1988 crash standards and also contract penalties because that plant was already obligated to produce other vehicles. Extending a production run like that is a huge deal to an automaker because they have to get suppliers to ramp up to produce shit they hadn't planned on producing because they'd already set about making other things.

>>16484220
Can Am was a homoligation special. Probably one of the last ones out of Detroit too.

>>16486887
>Probably one of the last ones out of Detroit too.
The W41 Quad 442 would like a word with you
>just over 200 built for the specific purpose of SCCA racing.

File: 947f79ef8af54bcb8947aa9eec2be678.jpg (389KB, 1774x1083px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1774x1083px

>>16486903
attaching the pic would help

File: Olsmobile_Toronado_15.jpg (2MB, 6342x2141px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6342x2141px

>>16484220
Tfw no 7.0 v8 making 450f/lb torque

>>16488625
510 from 68-70

>>16488625
>through the front wheels
what absolute madmen the engineers at Oldsmobile were.

>>16484228
>>16484220
That looks badass

File: 1478520064147.jpg (41KB, 720x539px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x539px

>>16484220
cant wait for the next energy crisis crippling american fatsos with their colossal trucks for which biggest load is walmart groceries

>>16484241
>implying you wouldn't dd a comfy malaise boat
the '78 charger didn't even look that bad

>>16488645
we're already preparing anon. This time, we'll be ready. The downsizing trend has started.
A great example is the Ford F150. There's a single 5.0L V8 option, but 60% of them have the turbocharged V6 options (2.7L and 3.5L)

File: 2015-ford-f-150-lariat-27-ecoboost-engine.jpg (2MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1360px

>>16488687
fucking forgot the pic. I need to stop doing that

>>16488691
but the truck bodies are still getting bigger

the oil crisis of the 70's drove people away from boats and v8's and into cramped city cars with asthmatic 4 cylinder engines. People now are still driving full size car but with cuckolded engines

>>16488710
>but the truck bodies are still getting bigger
but the trucks themselves are getting lighter to help with fuel efficiency.

>>16484301
>>16484328

>140 HP
>5.2L V8

That's why.

>>16484241
Fuck I love malaise era "muscle", looks so comfy

>>16485719
kill yourself my man

>>16488721
theres still no sense of downsizing what theyre driving though. Your average driver doesn't give a shit about weight, only physical dimensions and so i believe without downsizing the physical proportions of the trucks, theres no current trend for smaller cars.

Unless of course, the F series starts becoming unpopular and the Ranger becomes more mainstream

>>16488625
why is this car getting so much recognition lately, when cadillac eldorado FWD was better, stronger with the 8,2

>>16488972
It was the first popular American FWD.
It was the first car period with no seam where the roof had been attached/welded
It won the fucking Pikes Peak Hill Climb with a bone stock car.
The drivetrain was so overengineered and so bulletproof that it was used to power 1970's GMC motorhomes.

And by the time Cadillac's 8.2L came out emissions has strangled the horsepower from it.

>>16489056
Cord
ok
it won a stock class against other stock cars and didnt even run a fast time
thats not impressive considering that was a regular occurrence

the Cadillac engines were more powerful on average

>>16489081
Oh Cord was popular? I didn't know they were still around.

dumbass

>>16489100
because Oldsmobile is still kicking eh?

some top tier logic there anon

File: 14915144_1711748202485137_3010499415569198307_n.jpg (97KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 960x540px

>>16485867
One day desu,

my N/A 2bbl V6 will be a Turbo FI V6

File: stang.jpg (636KB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 1280x782px

>American muscle is more powerful than ever, enormously so when you consider the 60's/70's had a different way of measuring horsepower
>and can stick it to those stuck-up no-sense-of-humor German cars on the track with just a V8, stick shift, and RWD

What's wrong with modern muscle, if it does everything classic muscle can do ON TOP of being able to turn? Seriously, a Challenger Hellcat would be rated at 1000 HP back in 1960's

>>16489118
Lasted longer than Cord, didn't they?

>>16484220
That 6.6L V8 made 325 ft-lbs at 2200 rpm at least.

You might have felt fast for a second or two off the line.

Passing on a freeway in higher gears was probably not that bad either.

Still a strangled choked out engine though.

>>16489158
doesnt mean more popular though

Cord was a limited production cutting edge automobile made in the great depression and its fwd dominated Indy racing

the Olds Toronado was a fwd barge

Id say the Cord was way more popular in their respective eras

>>16488742
so throw money at it. 318's respond well to mods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECeTWlUnpgY

File: 1966_Oldsmobile_Toronado_Deluxe_For_Sale_Engine_1[1].jpg (131KB, 580x393px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 580x393px

>>16488640
Through the front wheels WITHOUT turning the engine 90 degrees and using a transaxle, no less.

>>16488972
Because they're cool, and Oldsmobile had always been the people's car instead of a Cadillac which was priced and marketed way, way above the other GM marques.

>>16489139
1972 was the year they switched from SAE Gross to SAE Net horsepower measurements, and where the real disconnect in old horsepower ratings lie with the modern.

SAE Net is more or less what has carried on since under standards J1349 and J2723.

Of course, several old muscle cars were underrated by the SAE Gross method, so it was also kind of a wash in some cases. The "overrated" hp method was partially corrected by a voluntary underrating by the manufacturer.

>>16489231
hardly any of the muscle cars were overrated as much as people like to act

>>16489259
underrated*

>>16489259
Well certainly there are those who take artistic license with the phenomena to the point of exaggeration.

The point is that old Gross SAE ratings prior to 1972 are a crap shoot. 1972 on is more or less comparable.

File: 48-1969-Cadillac-Eldorado-matte-finish.jpg (440KB, 1024x647px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1024x647px

>>16489212
Yeah but the Caddy looks miles better.

>>16489203
You don't even have to throw that much money at it.

A $500 camshaft would do wonders compared to the stocker.

I'm always astonished how American manufacturers managed to justify a 50%+ drop in horsepower over 2 years or so, PR-wise. How did they sell a car that was way slower despite using almost the same engine as its predecessor?

>>16489315
sure its a crap shoot but Ive seen enough dynos to know that plenty of gross ratings were about right

you can multiply gross hp by .75 and youll get in the general area of the net hp

like a K code dynos 170whp ends up being a little over 200 net hp do the math and you get around the 271 rating

>>16489139
Hey dude, is there any easy way to translate old horsepower ratings to modern ones? I'm about a 289 V8 from 1966 into my Maverick and want to know what I'm putting in there before I do.

File: 357737.jpg (2MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1200px

>>16489364
Marketing and options, lots of it to appeal to as many people as possible

>>16489360
500 for a camshaft is way too much

>>16489364
they werent way slower

File: 1973FordLTDAD03-crop2[1].jpg (134KB, 565x402px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 565x402px

Why would you want to drive a dangerous, explosive mess when you could cruise in luxury?

most malaise era cars have been crushed by monster trucks in the 90's.

only desirable american malaise are camaros, corvettes, firebirds, cadillacs and that's about it.

>>16489838
did those explode too?

>>16489857
Not really. The fuel tank is above and behind the rear axle not slung under the trunk like most Detroit stuff of the era.

>>16489350
meh/ I prefer the looks of the Oldsmobile.

>>16489350
Gross. It's like they couldn't decide on a front end design and the loser became the ass end. The fastback Toronado is way nicer looking.