What's the most A E S T H E T I C muscle car?

File: astonmartin_wallpapers_383.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

Amerifats get out

File: 1314244871986.jpg (403KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1600x1200px

>>16603857
easy

>>16603849
This.

File: New-GN-5.jpg (224KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1200x800px

>>16603952

File: 1990_1.jpg (450KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1600x1065px

>>16603841
not that shitbox secretary car

File: 1389761887254.jpg (420KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1280x850px

>>16603971

File: 110408 GMPA9X_0219.jpg (167KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 700x467px

>>16603981

Are some people getting a laff from posting expensive foreign sports cars in muscle car threads?

>>16603870
this is pleasing to look at

>>16604012
This is a pretty car.

lot of ugly cars itt

>>16603841
>muscle car
>under 100 hp

File: DBS.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>16603857
/thread

>>16604012
Holy fuck this is cool

File: 38876294002_large.jpg (73KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 640x480px

>>16604134
>I'm a hipster who'd play ten times the price for a British copy of an actual muscle car

>>16603857
>4000lbs
>hektik
lol

File: 1457713943094.jpg (831KB, 1363x766px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1363x766px

Either or

>>16604210
Go back to middle school.

File: aston-martin-9.jpg (811KB, 5454x3414px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 5454x3414px

>>16603857
>>16604134
prefer the later model but yeah have to agree

>>16604175
Aston came before that and is better than any American muscle car from back in the day

File: 2013-Chevrolet-Camaro-SS-1LE-side-view.jpg (911KB, 1500x938px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 1500x938px

>>16604220

What can I say, I like what I like.

File: isogrifo7.0.jpg (149KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1024x768px

>body by pininfarina
>engine is a 7.oh v8
you guys aren't even futurefunk
kill you're selves

>>16604255
they sexy I dont like the models with that uggo hood tho

File: iso.jpg (65KB, 1024x484px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1024x484px

>>16604255
I prefer the one with the riser
it breaks up the body
>>16604266

>>16604036
EAST BOUND AND DOWN, LOAD IT UP AND TRUCK IT

File: IMG_2736.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>16603849
its good

File: tmp_4666-opel-manta-black-magic731434784.jpg (788KB, 1669x2126px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1669x2126px

>>16603841

File: ford_gran_torino_1971_1_by_cmdpirxii-d2vnulp.jpg (329KB, 1280x689px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1280x689px

Torino, always.

+if you have a Cobra Jet under the hood.

File: tmp_4666-77cobra2_2_1280151322470.jpg (148KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 800x600px

Compact ponies need more love

File: 100_0799_original.jpg (911KB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 2304x1728px

>>16604449
Yeah, if they're good.

File: Chevy-II-HR-1962-IMG_2712Large.jpg (77KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1024x683px

>>16604449
Mustang II has some horrible proportions

Maverick is better

pic not related obviously

File: tmp_4666-cobra b380374772.jpg (214KB, 1600x921px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1600x921px

>>16604473
>horrible proportions

Its called kawaii, dad

File: 1448060189404.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>16604556
overhang isnt kawaii

File: p1090644.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

lol burgers get out

>>16604586
bland
ugly
fat

worst car itt

>>16604597
Also not a muscle car. I'm not even a muscle nazi and even I find the blatantly offtopic mentions for no good reason tiring eventually.

>>16604556
Shit malaise car

>>16604586
Shitty 90's shitbox only liked by highschoolers.

>>16604582
AMC a cute

File: 100529975.jpg?itok=50UbZG36.jpg (130KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1200x675px

>>16604603
yeah I know what you mean

I know these compact cars arent really muscle but anon brought them up and I like them so fuck it

>>16604614
whats wrong with sw20s?

I daily drive one and I also occasionally bring it to the track. It corners really well, and (the turbo models at least) feel really satisfying.

>>16604586
>4cyl
>Not even 200hp
>MR
Not muscle you fuck

File: 1481175203660.jpg (104KB, 2048x639px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 2048x639px

>>16604653
Snap oversteer also not muscle car

File: IMG_0249.jpg (218KB, 1105x723px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1105x723px

i love me some early to mid sixties mopar

>>16604688
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-SmoIQ-lMQ

muh six pak

>>16604700
sounds gr8, but those were some of the worst shifts ive ever witnessed

File: tmp_4666-mazda_rx-3_sp401212770.jpg (586KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 800x600px

>>16604582

o-ok

>>16604688
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tR-iDNsq388
ignore the 2002 mtv t.l.r. quality

File: pistol grip.jpg (280KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1024x683px

>>16604709
They's a long ass shifter in a B body

File: oldsmobile-cutlass-1969-2.jpg (124KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1000x750px

>>16604684
I have a sexual attraction to the 69 Cutlass coupe. Just look at those fucking curves.

>>16604727
It's just a Chevelle with a boat anchor for an engine.

>>16604047
>>16604169
Sarcasm...?

File: 4483050861.jpg (30KB, 610x407px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 610x407px

Does this count?

>>16604735
The chevelle is shit. SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIT. Cutlass squats over chevelle and drops a fat steaming log across the chevelle's shitty face so it can be even more shit.

The chevelle is babby's first muscle car. The cutlass is a god machine hewn from Mount Olympus and gifted with the visage of beauty itself.

File: 170395_Rear_3-4_Web.jpg (147KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1000x667px

>>16604727
69-72 Cutlass was a sexy motherfucker for sure

>>16604735
Olds 455 is quite a bit lighter than a Chevy big block so thats wrong

>>16604757
>The chevelle is shit. SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIT.
Then the cutlass is shit too because it's the exact same car with an engine nobody wants.

Even boaters threw away 455's

File: 68_lh_rear_uper_032805.jpg (279KB, 1953x1089px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1953x1089px

>>16604760
68*

>>16604761
yeah nah

Olds V8s are torque monsters

File: rambler.jpg (220KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 2048x1365px

mfw no 2800lb sleeper muscle wagon

>>16604761
Nigger you must be fucking retarded the 455 is the goddamn zenith of classic V8s.

Also it's not the exact same car because the body is vastly superior in appearance which is half the reason any enthusiast buys a car.

File: 3762312517_ee0cb18fbc_o.jpg (886KB, 1983x1146px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 1983x1146px

>>16604769
wouldnt mind a Tempest wagon myself

>>16604754
No, it's just a big car with a lazy torquey tune. Muscle is a big engine in a mid-size or small car for better performance.

>>16604769
How do you get a vehicle like that down to 2800lbs?
My wagon is 3890 stock. You can't throw out 1,000 pounds of seats and carpet.

>>16604766
>Olds V8s are torque monsters
312 hp and 415 ft lbs
meanwhile at the same time Chrysler's 440 made 375 hp and 480 ft lbs.

They're shit.

>>16604771
No it's not, you're more likely to find a Chevy in an Olds these days.

File: 9282322498_1ab9e39e9f_h.jpg (508KB, 1600x1010px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1600x1010px

>>16604773
Fuck you, this is MY dream. Unless you reserve the '63 for yourself because those are ugly, I want a '61 or '62.

File: dynodon.jpg (148KB, 1280x837px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1280x837px

>>16604778
The early 60s unibody wags weren't that heavy, 64-65 Falcon/Comet wags are 2750 lbs with the V8

>>16604778
These compact cars like the Rambler or Tempest weighed less than 3000 pounds to begin with. They're unironically compacts, smaller than a modern Ford Fusion.

>>16604778

They were sub 2800lbs stock approximately with a straight 6. The one in the pic is V8 swapped with a semi gutted interior and weighs around 2800.

>>16604794
Meanwhile early to mid 70's compacts are bigger than a Crown Victoria.

>>16604785
cherry picking retard

let me do the same

400hp @ 5000 rpm and 500 lb ft @ 3200
vs
375hp @ 4600 rpm and 480 lb ft @ 3200

440 is shit now

File: 1977LTDII014.jpg~original.jpg (76KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x480px

>>16604798
Well there were still cars like the Mustang II or Nova, but yeah. I love how Ford advertised the LTD II as a mid-size when it was as wide as a full-size and some four inches shorter.

THIS was a mid-size car in 1977.

>>16604806
lel not an argument.
Keep making up fake numbers to prop up the boat anchor you don't own.
455 olds is the perfect engine for a mild drive on a flat road.

>>16604809
its laughable to even call the Nova a compact tbqh

a Nova is a good 2 feet longer than a Datsun 510 and almost a foot wider

I dont think America knew what "compact" meant

>>16604811
oh youre one of those dumbass benchracers with no actual knowledge

guess I will just ignore you from here on out

suggest you google Olds 455 W-34 though

even lower engines made 365 and 390 hp

File: 1416361120009.jpg (321KB, 1616x958px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1616x958px

>>16603841
>Celica

Best muscle car

>>16604827
You're one of those retards that thinks peak torque at 3000 rpm is a good thing, or that horsepower is anything but a measurement of torque and rpm.
All you oldsfags keep talking about is "muh torque motors"

shit, honestly.

File: 47_151_1970_OLDSMOBILE_CUTLASS 442_1.jpg (79KB, 779x495px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 779x495px

>>16604684
>>16604727
Happy to see good taste in this thread. '69 is good but man, '70 does something for me with the grille that extends just below the lights like so while staying level at the top.

>4-barrel carb
>4 on the floor
>2 exhausts
>more women on your dick than you can handle

>>16604761
>engine nobody wants
Which is why General Motors got fucking sued for putting Chevy engines in the Oldsmobiles and not telling anyone, right?

File: 1486005417845.jpg (54KB, 600x1060px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x1060px

>>16604665
I was joking when I posted the MR2 here. I am well aware that it isn't a muscle car.

Snap oversteer is a meme. If you aren't autistic, you won't ever experience it outside of the track. Even on the track, its only happened to me twice.

>>16604882
>Which is why General Motors got fucking sued for putting Chevy engines in the Oldsmobiles and not telling anyone, right?
They've been putting Chevy engines in every car they produced for a long time now.
What i mean is, people restoring olds just put Chebbies in there, because they're better engines.
Even Buick made a better engine.

>>16604880
not an argument kiddo

did Jamal fuck your bitch in the back of a Cutlass or something

why did you change your ip just to shitpost too

>>16604897
people do it because its cheaper and plenty of people arent car enthusiasts and just want the way a car looks

File: 177274744.jpg (22KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 640x360px

>>16604882

>woman
Ya if you mean some old ass grannies

>>16604920
>did Jamal fuck your bitch in the back of a Cutlass or something
Jamal drives a Caddy.
only a wife's son would drive an Olds lmao.

>why did you change your ip just to shitpost too

wat

>people do it because its cheaper and plenty of people arent car enthusiasts and just want the way a car looks
And because the 455 is a junk engine.
There is no two ways about it, it is the very definition of a boat anchor.
Cool if you like the Cutlass or something but 454>455 and i don't even like GM

File: 1353737553419.jpg (11KB, 118x132px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 118x132px

>>16604897
>They've been putting Chevy engines in every car they produced for a long time now.
Yes, and it started in 1977, when they put the small-block Chevy in the Olds 88 and didn't tell anyone, not even the dealerships or the customers who had specifically ordered the car with a Rocket 350 or 403 because in that era people still bought cars depending on what engines they could get.

GM got sued, GM lost, GM had to pay customers or let them switch their car for one with an actual Olds engine, and GM started putting a tiny "Car may contain engine from other division" tag in their advertisements.

Nowadays, people don't put Chevy engines in because they're necessarily better, they put them in because they're more readily available and have larger aftermarkets due to the Chevy engines replacing the Buick/Olds/Pontiac specific powerplants over the course of the 70's and 80's. In that era, Olds people wanted the Olds engine because they knew what made it tick and probably already had a supply of speed parts just waiting to get bolted on as all Olds V8s are very similar from '49 onwards.

>>16604941
I'm not normally into GILFs but if she can dig the Rocket, I can dig her.

>>16604942
nope Cutlass is one of the most popular Donk cars

nope 454 is more of a boat anchor than a 455 since you know it weighs a lot more

only real advantage the 454 has is price

>>16603841
77 Celica is mai waifu

its just begging for a proper engine


its OK darling, im coming, i brought you a nice shiny V8

>>16604971
>Cutlass is one of the most popular Donk cars
Yeah maybe a malaise Cutlass.

>nope 454 is more of a boat anchor than a 455 since you know it weighs a lot more
Marginally but the 454 aftermarket is exponentially bigger and it will always have more attainable power than a boat anchor.
No, Chebby parts are not interchangeable on the boat anchor.

I'd even take a Nailhead over a 455.

File: cutty.png (45KB, 416x277px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 416x277px

>>16604942
>Jamal drives a Caddy.
>only a wife's son would drive an Olds lmao.

Don't be stupid. I love Olds to death but Pontiac and Oldsmobile are absolutely the top dindu cars, whether that be an old A-body Cutlass or Tempest AWN RIMMMZ, a G-body "Cutty" with wheels the size of garbage can lids, or a beat to shit '01 Grand Am or Alero with a sideswiped door and bad tags parked at the food bank while its occupants all file separately.

>>16604991
You're right, because it's nothing more than a facelifted Chevelle which is top nigger bait.

>>16603841
I love old Celicas
but
That's not a muscle car anon.

File: 6046094335_e3f5672621_o.jpg (2MB, 3872x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3872x2592px

>>16604988
nope

68-72 Cutlass is incredibly popular

yes 454 has more aftermarket but the Olds still has a lot and still weighs less and will likely always make more torque

>Nailhead

now I know you are full of complete shit

>>16605003
yet the only things more popular are Malibus and Caprices

some Malibus are just Chevelles

btfo

>>16605018
>Olds still has a lot
lel
>still weighs less and will likely always make more torque
lelelelel
You can't beat the massive aftermarket of the Chebby.
The more you attempt to argue the more retarded you look.

>some Malibus are just Chevelles
Then that means the Cutlass is just a Malibu LMAO

File: 340-duster.jpg (63KB, 720x462px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 720x462px

>no love for the 340 Duster
underrated as fuck

>>16604582
YES

>>16605032
>Malibu
>trim level of a Chevelle

>Cutlass
>same platform, different sheet metal, completely different engine family, different suspension options
???

>>16605048
Shame mine didn't come with a 340 but i don't feel bad for modifying a bare bones slant six auto.

>>16604984
>implying it would fit

>>16605055
>???
It was a joke nigga.
Anyway this argument is dumb. GM is gei anyway.

File: 3583169611_7cb1c80e56_b.jpg (391KB, 1024x570px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1024x570px

>>16605032
>The more you attempt to argue the more retarded you look.

the irony of this statement lol

I do realize I must look retarded for trying to argue with a braindead moron though you have a point

>>16605048
I like them a lot

File: 1426167005266.jpg (93KB, 1200x745px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1200x745px

>ITT: /o/ has somehow been replaced by boomers-with-zoomers.net/forums/

>>16605074
1UZ swap is pretty popular

File: Oldsmobile-442-W-30-Vista-Cruiser-Wagon-455-1971-11IPA31422653514[1].jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

>implying the most aesthetic muscle car isn't a muscle wagon

File: DSCN4303 edited_169aDSCN4303 edited.jpg (304KB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 2272x1704px

>>16603841

>>16605102

Lol. No.

File: images (4).jpg (9KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 275x183px

The gentlemans hotrod.

>>16603857
>muscle car thread
>posts roadster powered by anemic 6-cylinder engine

What's the displacement on that mill, like 2,500 cc?

File: de-tomaso-pantera-gr.4-c494209062013192827_4.jpg (96KB, 1024x562px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x562px

>Look through thread
>no DeTomaso Pantera
for shame, /o/. For shame.

File: IMG_0407.jpg (43KB, 608x455px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 608x455px

>>16603841
The boss 429 is probably my favorite. It even looks great under the hood

>>16605239
probably because thats not a muscle car

>>16605225
>anemic 6 cylinder
try a 5.3L V8 making between 375 and 403 HP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_V8_Vantage_(1977)

File: 1972-DeTomaso-Pantera-Engine-Bay-351-Cleveland-st.jpg (302KB, 1080x734px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1080x734px

>>16605253
>Ford 351 Cleveland
pretty muscle car to me

>>16605254
403 hp from a literal 4000 pound car is nothing.

>>16604210
>the hideous fucking rake on the front the camaro
>those ugly low ass roof lines
Design failure

>>16605264
engines dont make muscle cars

it takes more than that

>>16605266
better than just about every muscle cars p/w ratui tbqh

>>16605276
>better than just about every muscle cars p/w ratui tbqh
No, not really, even the pigfat challenger was on 3800 pounds with all the luxo equipment.

>>16605266
it was big news at a time when Ford's own 5.0L Mustangs struggled to make 200 HP.

File: 30675108-Attractive-drunk-business-man-lying-on-desk-wasted-and-drinking-whiskey-directly-from-bottle-in-alco-Stock-Photo.jpg (133KB, 1300x918px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1300x918px

>>16605285
Emissions was a mistake.

>>16605284
it didnt have anywhere near 403 net horsepower either

not even 375

them Astons are fast

>>16605149
>not a true muscle car

>>16604739
Piss off, I like it.

File: file.png (881KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

881KB, 800x525px

>tfw no qt dorito muscle
also for some reason almost none of the RX3 wagons on google images seems to have rear view mirrors

>>16605296
If the brits could meet emissions and still make 350+ HP, why couldn't the Americans?

File: 10-BM-1979-AMC-Spirit-AMX.jpg (394KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1920x1280px

I love me an AMC AMX. Year doesn't matter to me, but the compact ones are probably the most attainable.

>>16605314
American cars at the time were packing 2bbl carbs and low compression outdated engines for the most part

keep in mind that Aston was £20,000 in 1977

a 1977 Corvette Stingray started at $8,600 at the same time

basically American cars were cheaply done I dont really mean that in a negative way though it kinda is

>>16605301
426 net hp was around 460.
First, they underrated it in gross ratings to combat insurance agencies and when 1972 emissions hit Chrysler never reduced compression because they were pmuch done making them.

>>16605314
UK afaik didn't bother with emissions until the mid 90's.

>>16605365
nah they made more like 390-400 net and the curb weight would be about the same

so yeah I guess a 426 Hemi is about the only muscle car that would top it

would be an interesting race at the least

>>16605314
>>16605301
>>16605285
>>16605284
>>16605276
>>16605254
Bear in mind that at the time most American cars were open diff rwd with a light ass and bias tires.
4-500 hp would have just be a smoke machine at best and a death trap at worst.
Also, a lot of roads back then weren't paved.

>>16605427
>nah they made more like 390-400 net
You need to understand that there were two levels of tune for the 426, one for street and the other for making Ford cry at NASCAR.
I think that anon was talking about the NASCAR tune.

>>16605239
It's a good car but it's not a muscle car.

>>16605436
when the 5.0 was making 200hp was the 80s

plenty of paved roads and the Mustang was using high performance radials

plenty of magazines put those muscle cars on slicks for tests and they didnt do all that great for how much power they had

but thats only because the whole gross vs net thing

>I think that anon was talking about the NASCAR tune.

shit I wouldnt doubt the NASCAR hemis making more than that

my guess would be in the 500-550 hp range

>>16604886
>Snap oversteer is a meme.
>its only happened to me twice.

>>16605473
>when the 5.0 was making 200hp was the 80s
Yes but the Mustang 2 was an attempt to go back to a light, small car. Like the OG Mustang.

>but thats only because the whole gross vs net thing
Another thing is the SAE change occured right around the corner from the 1972 compression drop.
So it was like a double whammy of less hp.
the mid to late 60s was the peak of muscle car performance honestly.

File: IMG_1582.jpg (707KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 2048x1536px

>>16604882
my nigga
although fuck the '70 grill, I'm an ass man.

>>16605239
Not a muscle car you fucking dumbass.

>>16605484
Mustang II was the 70s and only had 140hp lel that thing was a complete disaster

Foxbodies had 200 in the early 80s

>So it was like a double whammy of less hp.

performance really didnt drop that much until the mid 70s

most cars in 1972 were running the same as 1970

File: compression.png (36KB, 569x423px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 569x423px

>>16605507
Nigga when they downsized the Mustang it never got bigger.

>>16605507
>most cars in 1972 were running the same as 1970
No they weren't. All 3 Detroit automakers reduced compression in most of their engines in 1972.
The reason being is leaded gas and catalytic converters don't mix, and running non leaded gas with 10.5:1 or 11:1 compression is a disaster in the making.
Then they started putting is retard cams etc.

>>16605537
>and running non leaded gas with 10.5:1 or 11:1 compression is a disaster in the making.
Funny, I'm running an 11:1 compression ratio on pump gas in my daily driver.

>>16605537
>Nigga when they downsized the Mustang it never got bigger.

then what the fuck was the point in even bringing it up

200hp was still awful

>No they weren't

yes they were

if only I could find them all with the same rear end

1970 Nova SS (CC)
350ci/300hp, 4spd, 4.10, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 14.90 @ 94mph
>1972 Nova SS (CC)
350ci/200hp, 4spd, 3.42, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 15.47 @ 88.93mph

>1970 Dodge Charger R/T (CL)
440ci/375hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - 6.4, 1/4 mile - 14.71 @ 96.67mph
>1972 Dodge Rallye Charger (HPC)
440ci/280hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - 8.1, 1/4 mile - 14.80 @ 91.8mph

>1970 Plymouth Duster 340 (CL)
340ci/275hp, 3spd auto, 3.23, 0-60 - 6.2, 1/4 mile - 14.72 @ 94.24mph
>1972 Plymouth Duster (HPC)
340ci/240hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - 8.2, 1/4 mile - 14.45 @ 95mph

>>16605572
hell Mazda has engines with 14:1 on 87

technology is a hell of a thing

>>16605573
>then what the fuck was the point in even bringing it up
>200hp was still awful
I wasn't the one who first mentioned the Mustang bro.
>
if only I could find them all with the same rear end

1970 Nova SS (CC)
350ci/300hp, 4spd, 4.10, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 14.90 @ 94mph
>1972 Nova SS (CC)
350ci/200hp, 4spd, 3.42, 0-60 - n/a, 1/4 mile - 15.47 @ 88.93mph

>1970 Dodge Charger R/T (CL)
440ci/375hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - 6.4, 1/4 mile - 14.71 @ 96.67mph
>1972 Dodge Rallye Charger (HPC)
440ci/280hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - 8.1, 1/4 mile - 14.80 @ 91.8mph

>1970 Plymouth Duster 340 (CL)
340ci/275hp, 3spd auto, 3.23, 0-60 - 6.2, 1/4 mile - 14.72 @ 94.24mph
>1972 Plymouth Duster (HPC)
340ci/240hp, 3spd auto, 3.55, 0-60 - 8.2, 1/4 mile - 14.45 @ 95mph

What does any of this have to do with reduced compression.

>>16605474
Its a meme because it only happened to me a few weeks after I got the car and I was going to the track for the first time.

>>16605613
uhh I said they were running about the same they were in 1970

youre the only one acting like compression killed off performance in 1972

>>16605630
Well it did, just look at your examples.
in two examples the 1972 cars are slower.
The third example has a different rear end.
Do you unironically think lower compression has no impact on performance?

>>16605650
I like how you ignore the Duster which was faster

only reason the Nova is that much quicker is that its a 4.10 vs 3.42

the Charger is a 0.09 difference

looks about the same to me anon my point still stands

>>16605668
>I like how you ignore the Duster which was faster
Different rear end as i've said.
You'll also notice it had a slower 0-60.

You can't ignore facts. More compression=more power. It's basic engine theory.
And to further my point all of the 1972 examples have less hp.

>>16605692
you didnt say that I said it

the fuck is wrong with you the difference in 3.23 and 3.55 is almost nothing anyway

and no anon 1972 is when everyone switched to net which is why most are that different

the compression drop didnt change performance that much

YOU are ignoring facts

>>16605727
>you didnt say that I said it
whatever bro

>the fuck is wrong with you the difference in 3.23 and 3.55 is almost nothing anyway
It's a difference nontheless, how do you expect to prove your examples when every car is equipped completely different.
We're also lacking information about options.
These cars may be heavier and lighter, some may have A/C. you just don't know.
I have posted proof of my claims.

>and no anon 1972 is when everyone switched to net
And this coincided with reduced compression by all 3 manufacturers.

>>16605763
holy shit you are a dense fucker

I have not said there was no difference

I said NOT MUCH

you havent posted shit but a compression ratio chart

and I will take actual times over your pretending

>And this coincided with reduced compression by all 3 manufacturers.

wrong most car companies already dropped compression in 1971

and dang look at this difference

>350 Horsepower. . . .. V8-440 4 Barrel 4.32 x 3.75 440 9.7 350 @ 4400 480 @ 2800
>335 Horsepower. . .. .. V8-440 4 Barrel 4.32 x 3.75 440 9 335 @ 4400

NOT MUCH

or are you too autistic to understand NOT MUCH

>>16605792
>you havent posted shit but a compression ratio chart
That's all i need, it proves everything i have claimed.

>and I will take actual times over your pretending
actual times from cars with different options lmao, i forgot i'm on /o/.

>wrong most car companies already dropped compression in 1971
I know, look at my chart.

>NOT MUCH
Did you know one of the symptoms of autism is repetition of certain phrases?

regardless, you've conceded as far as i'm concerned because my original point was that reduced compression yielded reduced horsepower.
That's it, that's all that i was arguing but because you're an autismo you had to blow it way out into this whole ordeal.
Congratulations i suppose.

>>16605490
HNGHHHH

File: 77ltd.jpg (75KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1280x720px

>>16604809
>I love how Ford advertised the LTD II as a mid-size when it was as wide as a full-size
Not even close. The LTD is a bit less than 1/3 wider. Not easy to tell in pics but you get 'em next to each other and it's obvious.
Oh, and Compact/Intermediate/Full Size was based on interior volume not external size.

>>16605805
you are retarded and didnt even keep up with the argument and stayed off topic the entire time

congrats

>>16605810
>Oh, and Compact/Intermediate/Full Size was based on interior volume not external size.
That explains why the gargantuan Gran Torino is considered a mid-size

>>16605814
You sound salty because you realized how retarded you look now.
For context, here's my original statement.

>>16605484
>Another thing is the SAE change occured right around the corner from the 1972 compression drop.
>So it was like a double whammy of less hp.

In the course of your "arguments" you've pretty much agreed and proven this statement.
Thanks holmes.

>>16605821
no anon

you are just stupid as fuck

>performance really didnt drop that much until the mid 70s

you were just off topic and couldnt follow the argument from there

File: 1482212896786.jpg (33KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x500px

>>16605829
>>performance really didnt drop that much until the mid 70s
Once again, see my chart.
There's no need to be upset, we're saying the same thing but you've been diagnosed with autism.
Thanks for supporting my claims btw.

>>16603981
So you post a picture of an ugly ass clydesdale

File: CorvetteStingray1969.jpg (583KB, 2048x1154px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 2048x1154px

easily the C3 stingray

>>16605837
your chart proves nothing about what I was arguing

your claims werent being argued

you cant even stay on topic

>Most children find that paying attention can be hard work at times. For children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it can be a big challenge.

so instead of memeing you should seek real help bud

>>16605853
>your chart proves nothing about what I was arguing
Yes it does, it proves compression was reduced and it proves by 1974 hp/cuin was at its lowest.
If two cars are exactly the same but one has a lower compression ratio, it will have less power.
How can you claim otherwise?

>>16605849
It's always been a sports car though.

File: 23465.jpg (116KB, 802x608px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 802x608px

>>16603849
What is this retarded shit all about?

>>16605894
You should have worked harder for the big block.

>>16605887

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/muscle%20car

>any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving

>>16605907
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sports%20car
>a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving

>>16605859
yeah I said in my original post that things started to get bad by the mid 70s

the argument was cars in the early 70s and how they wasnt that much different from before the drop

I know that dropping compression will lower the power but it wasnt that bad at first

1970 Corvette 350 did 14.2
1972 Corvette 350 did 13.9
1975 Corvette 350 did 16.1

I guess were just done here since I was never arguing about compression as much as I was real world performance

>>16605916
So it's both then, awesome

>>16605917
>the argument was cars in the early 70s and how they wasnt that much different from before the drop
But there was a difference, that was my point.
Regardless of how minor it is, HP was lost between 1970 and 1972 and further on.
Believe it or not but we are agreeing with each other.

>>16605922
Sure, but it's always emphasized handling more than any muscle car has.

>>16605946
It's still a muscle car, which is what this thread is about.

>>16605953
That and autism.

>>16605946
>it's always emphasized handling more than any muscle car has.

>>16605907
>any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving
>designed for high-performance driving

So going by the definition of a muscle car, what you're saying is that the corvette is more of a muscle car than most other muscle cars.

>>16605963
>it's a sports car it doesn't count
>IT DOESN'T COUNT
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>calls someone else autistic

File: plymouth-superbird2[1].jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>16605092
This and pic related >>16605149
All other answers are wrong.

>>16605305
Go find a fire and die in it.

>>16606019
not everyone is a ricer

>>16605907
They left out the price point. They were cheap. It was a stripped down two door with a minimum of options and the biggest engines. Stuff like corvettes, GTX's and SS stuff don't really count, it had to be low buck. Power for the common man.

>>16605894
Style.

They had a theme they wanted to produce and it took a certain amount of length for it to play out properly. It just so happened that it was longer than the hard points of the previously engineered platform. This occurs with most things that have style in addition to mere mechanical engineering.

>>16604586
HAHAHAHAHA

File: 2db3824c20a9f348aca5cdcb6e369126.jpg (35KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x424px

>>16605028
Plastic nose second gens are underrated, both Chevys and Ponnies.

>>16606102
>T/A GTA
That car better fucking have the digital dash and info system.

The wheels need to go, though.

>>16605339
The Aston was also handmade and less than 5000-6000 were made (In the 20-ish years it was made) as far as I know

>>16605537
Unleaded and cats wasn't mandatory until 1975

>>16603849

Came here to post this.

fpbp

>>16605727
>the fuck is wrong with you the difference in 3.23 and 3.55 is almost nothing anyway
Retard, it's more than enough to make a few tenths difference in zero to 60

File: mad-max-interceptor-build-hero-2.jpg (65KB, 770x382px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 770x382px

Always.

>>16606693
No clue man, I just think they look cool and want one.

Im gonna save up some money, and find one with a T-Top and Digital Das

>>16606918
no it isnt "retard"

File: the academic community frowns on your conclusion.jpg (116KB, 480x455px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 480x455px

>>16607545
>no it isnt
>10% difference in gear ratio is "nothing"

Nocar spotted

>>16607613
benchracing nocar spotted

maybe if you actually drove youd know that is hardly noticeable

maybe a few thousandths difference at best

>>16607620
You realize that just repeating what someone says back to them and insisting they're wrong doesn't bend facts to your will right?

>>16607652
sorry you cant read anon I get it your fucking stupid

BENCHRACING

thats not repeating

you pretending to know what youre talking about means nothing as well if you did you wouldnt be a benchracing fucktard and would have actual experience

File: 1451975538174.jpg (94KB, 778x518px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 778x518px

You guys have no taste

File: truck005.jpg (53KB, 615x461px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 615x461px

Also no one said the last muscle car ever produced

>>16607455
It also still looks great even when the front end is smashed in and the body is covered in dirt.

Sexy base car, sexy in mad max and even sexy when damaged, perfection.

>>16607713
neither do you

>>16607725
and this is a truck and an abysmally slow one at that

File: e2f6b108c1b6ffdb7e3d40cc9c1701d6.jpg (208KB, 1600x919px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1600x919px

>Find: gsx
>Zero results found.

File: 13902638985_59283ee390_b.jpg (353KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1024x576px

>>16607766
Even GSX copies on cars that never came as a GSX look better than the GSX. It's just a brightly colored, badly selling option on an otherwise relatively unremarkable midsize coupe, apart from the headsplitting torque.

>>16607663
>B-B-BENCHRACING
>GEARING RATIOS ARE JUST NUMBERS THEY DONT MEAN ANYTHING
>Y-YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE!
Keep going...

>>16607826
nah

youre just being a baiting faggot now and you arent going to put up a worthwhile debate you cant even comprehend basic text

I will give you this last (you) so you dont sit here and wait on me to post

>>16607713
Those rims are aids

>>16607889
out of curiosity, what rims would look good on a classic muscle car like that?

File: 25993710672_large.jpg (154KB, 1023x767px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1023x767px

>>16607900
classic muscle wheels

>>16607946
alright, cool...

Im only asking since i've been thinking of getting an alternate pair of tires for a 69 mustang.

File: 07.jpg (144KB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1000x562px

>>16607976
just dont go over 15 inch

File: Jensen_FF_Mark_II.jpg (188KB, 1024x642px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1024x642px

Four wheel drive

>>16607981
sounds awesome. Hopefully i'll get there eventually... Theres a whole list of things i need to fix to get there.

Yesterday it was the drum brakes, today its the proportioning valve/brake system, tomorrow its the windows.

eventually, get the rust fixed and the car re-painted...

File: KrjV9FN.jpg (202KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1920x1080px

>>16608034
was going to include a photo, forgot.

File: plymouth__duster_360_ci_v8_go_wing_hood_scoops_1974_1_lgw.jpg (74KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x480px

>>16607981
muh mags

>>16604473
Is it fwd?

>>16604230
>better than any American muscle car from back in the day.

K-E-K

File: 2016-06-14-1970-Rallye-350-1-2537-640[1].jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

>>16607788
>brightly colored, badly selling option
Did you say bright yellow A-bodies? Because I thought I heard you say bright yellow A-bodies.

For bright paintjobs though I have to agree with >>16604684, the gold over white Hurst/Olds look almost angelic.

>captcha: speed road

File: 21580440209_a107be35da_k.jpg (628KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 2048x1536px

>>16608885
wat

no

>>16609245
I dare you to find a better one

>>16610256
>Rallye 350

so much yellow