Italian muscle car

>implying italians make muscle cars

badb8

File: Iso-Grifo-GL-350-1200x800-fc5da3c32270f098.jpg (154KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1200x800px

>>16665641
depends on how loose you want to get

File: 1024px-Alfa_SZ_AutoItalia_Brooklands_May_2012_THP_7123.jpg (137KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1024x680px

>>16665600
Implying Italians make muscle cars is like saying America makes executive luxury cars. They just don't.

Someone can argue the Alfa Romeo SZ is one but it isn't.

The alfa romeo brand paved the way for today's Italian sports cars. Maybe be the pioneer>>16665641

File: tmp_1693-1972-Alfa-Romeo-Montreal-front-right-view-651777812.jpg (961KB, 1500x938px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 1500x938px

>>16665600
>italian muscle cars
>not alfa montreal

Logically, they are very different from American muscle cars, but they are muscle car. Are 2 different styles, for the same purpose

File: FERRARI-412i-3186_27[1].jpg (523KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 2048x1536px

Muscle cars are supposed to be relatively cheap (for the level of performance) high performance variants based off high volume platforms.
However they're also supposed to be large, with a bias towards straight line performance.
Italians tend not to do both parts of the equation at the same time.

File: 2015-08-05_00-49-22.jpg (213KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 800x600px

>>16665708
>dat puny V8

least the Grifo had a Tri-Power 427 option

File: Detomasso-Mangusta-DV10.jpg (146KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1024x680px

>>16665600
power indeed

File: motor montralv8.jpg (80KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x332px

>>16665735
The Montreal with Engine v8 in a medium chassis, normal in the Italian cars. It is true that they never differentiate between size and motor. That's why I defined it as 2 distinct muscle car styles, Americans as well as Italians

>>16665760
Nobody makes muscle cars except Americans.

Americans coined the term. Other manufacturers make cars that perform like muscle cars, but they're not. It's stupid since it's such a global thing; at one point most companies have made something resembling a muscle car.. But they're not.

Even Americans dont really make muscle cars anymore. Anything with enough power is too expensive to be a muscle car. The literal only muscle car left in the world is a Challenger, maybe the mustang and camero if you ignore their new sports car characteristics and go for the most base-model with large engines you can buy.

Pontiac GTO, Thunderbolt, old chargers/challengers, falcon, those 80s special edition regals..
Basically normal 2 door american cars + too big of an engine. They're supposed to be a little bit terrible in all aspects except engine. That's what makes them cheap.

>>16665808
>Even Americans dont really make muscle cars anymore. Anything with enough power is too expensive to be a muscle car. The literal only muscle car left in the world is a Challenger, maybe the mustang and camero if you ignore their new sports car characteristics and go for the most base-model with large engines you can buy.
This, in the muscle car era, every car had a v8 option, most had big-block options.
Based on Chevy Nova production numbers, half of the cars sold in America at the time were V8s.

(this is extremely limited information though)

>>16665808
Mustangs and Camaros were never muscle
Falcons were never muscle (unless you go Australian)
Regals were never muscle
Thunderbolts just about cost the same as a Corvette when new

>>16665823
>Based on Chevy Nova production numbers, half of the cars sold in America at the time were V8s.

this is probably the most retarded logic I have ever seen on /o/

>>16665827
>7L V8, even the 4.9L V8 1970's Falcon
>2 door fastback
>not a muscle car

The camero and mustang started as pony cars, which were just slightly underpowered, smaller muscle cars. But they developed to bridge the gap between the two, so kind of became muscle cars.

>>16665843
>this is probably the most retarded logic I have ever seen on /o/
read
>(this is extremely limited information though)
I've only ever bothered to look at Chevy Nova numbers.
As well, the Nova was a compact econo-car of the day, larger cars will likely only have V8 options.
it's a fair statement to say that the V8 ruled the late 60's to early 70s.

>>16665848
oh wow

you are really dumb enough to think the Fairlane Falcon trim that lasted for 1 year is a Falcon

and no they started as pony and only the Mustang grew into an ugly pigfat piece of shit
>>16665851
no even fullsize cars had 6 cylinder bases

>>16665864
>no even fullsize cars had 6 cylinder bases
No shit, everything was an option back then.
But how many people pre-emissions cared about economy?
The oil crisis is when the I6 became really relevant.
Nobody buys a Superbee with a slant six.

Even Chevelle production numbers support my original point that half of cars sold are I6.
http://www.chevellestuff.net/1969/style_prod_no.htm
Keep in mind at this point in history GM controlled something like 50% of the auto market.

>>16665885
anon dont say no shit when you say stupid shit like this

>larger cars will likely only have V8 options.

it makes you look stupid

no one gives a damn that there were V8s most of them were anemic pieces of shit economy models

>>16665907
Find me an I6 option on:
Oldsmobile Toronado
Chrysler 300s
Plymouth Satellite
Any Cadillac
and so on

Landboats were never offered with I6.
That was my point retard

>>16665925
dont call people retarded when youre too dumb to clarify what you mean

>>16665929
>doesn't know what a large car in the muscle car era is
wow, you're hopeless.

>>16665932
wow youre damage controlling

File: 1485878016640.png (169KB, 493x263px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 493x263px

>>16665940
lmao btfo

>muh m..muh damage control

Sorry, i only thought someone who was speaking on the subject to have a shred of knowledge about it. Considering this is /o/ my only fault was thinking that you knew what you were talking about.
Sorry to hurt your feelings.

>>16665948
then why dont you have any basic knowledge

if you did you would know fullsize cars came with 6s

I guess youre cherry picked examples covers every model tho I wish I was dumb enough to feel smug when Im ignorant as fuck

File: 1485647489345.jpg (49KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1920x1080px

>>16665958
>then why dont you have any basic knowledge
In fact i have demonstrated my sizable knowledge on this subject.

>if you did you would know fullsize cars came with 6s
see
>>16665925

>I guess youre cherry picked examples covers every model tho I wish I was dumb enough to feel smug when Im ignorant as fuck

>doesn't know what fullsize means in 1960s to 70s

There you go again with that stupid of yours
Fullsize referred to the occupancy, not the physical dimensions of the car.

lmao just stop posting maybe you'll save some face

>>16665971
weird bro

why are these cars fullsize but come with inline 6 as a base?

Fury
Savoy
Belvedere
Polara
Bel Air
Biscayne
Impala
Ambassador
Im sure youd like me to stop posting because you know youre just a retard who doesnt know anything

>>16665987
>Fury
>Savoy
>Belvedere

lol Plymouth, the poorfag brand, dig a little deeper and find out that were using flatheads into the late 50s.

>Polara
Late 60's models had no I6 option.
the early 70's got an I6 conspicuously right before emissions were going to start taking effect and the oil crisis hit.

>Bel Air
>Biscayne
>Impala
Oh, you mean the company that neglected to even put a roof on the first gen Corvette, discarded.

>Ambassador
>AMC
i think we're done here.
I'll give you a B for basic knowledge, or rather 10 minutes of crawling wikipedia.

>>16666008
yup

cherry picking fact denying retard detected

we are indeed done

thanks for playing

>>16666017
>cherry picking fact denying retard detected
lol it takes one to know one retard.
Enjoy irrelevance I6 cuck.