Non American muscle cars

>>17620442
Aston Martin can't be muscle due to the luxury, plus most of them would be classed as grand tourers

>>17620442

All the 70s Aussie muscle cars from Holden, Ford, Chrysler etc.

These niggas are pretty cool IMO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barreiros_(manufacturer)#The_Spanish_Dodges

I'd argue things like the Jag XJS V12, the Opel KAD cars, and maybe the Volvo 262C, although that's probably a bit underpowered

>>17620461
Cool thing about Australian muscle cars is they still race them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awP9eJc7srA

File: Vantage Le mans duel supercharged engine.jpg (107KB, 800x576px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 800x576px

>>17620442
Virage Vantage Le Mans. supposedly the Virage was built for or at least to appeal (to) the american market following the purchase of aston by Ford.
>Duel superchargers
>Callaway designed heads
>Enough torque to tenderize macho man randy savage
Aston understood the american market well even if we ironically never got the car here (i believe due to emissions)

>>17620461
Jag is more of a grand tourer, v12s are a bit too refined to be true muscle

Jensen interceptor? Vauxhall firenza and droop snoot firenza.

File: 1977_Holden_Monaro_(HX)_GTS_sedan_(17951702284).jpg (2MB, 2592x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1728px

there are a lot of neat Australian muscle cars that arent sold anywhere else.

File: 2006052517024808045.jpg (17KB, 400x172px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x172px

>>17620515
Think that got sold as a Vauxhall ventora, raced in the British supersaloons in the 70s

File: supra.jpg (227KB, 1200x898px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1200x898px

I'm pretty sure this was heavier than the Mustang and Camaro at the time

>>17620531
can't really find any good pics of one but they don't look like the monaro at all, fairly sure the monaros were based off opels though so could do

>>17620547
Its also (at least in america) more famous for drag racing than almost anything else. when i think "built supra" i always think of thicc drag tires and a shit-ton of horsepower.

>>17620558
Funny how people in supercars get excited when they see a supra, i wouldnt really call it a muscle car it is beyond that.

File: Vauxhall-Heritage-NEC-Motor-Show-2015-Gerry-Marshall-with-Baby-Bertha-Silverstone-1975.jpg (94KB, 580x432px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 580x432px

>>17620552
Think its the same frame underneath, but its the droop snoot firenza that was going to be the British muscle car before the oil crisis. It was virtually unbeatable.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ocEXwEkDzcA

File: Jensen-Interceptor-4[1].jpg (179KB, 1280x511px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1280x511px

Everybody forgets, don't they?

File: 94029ae024fd5533fc00a75fea4a7ab7.jpg (138KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 736x552px

alfa romeo montreal

>>17621044
That thing had no power or sporting prowess, it was just a pretty cruiser.

File: autowp.ru_chevrolet_camaro_1le_17.jpg (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

>>17620442
>what are some good muscle cars that were not made in America?
Assembled in Canada

>>17621055
so its the mustang of Non American muscle

>>17621066
Doesn't count, leaf

>>17621080
HOW
WILL
FORD
EVER
RECOVER

File: 1456199154514.png (249KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 640x360px

How has no one posted the Celica yet

Daily reminder that it's not a muscle car unless it has a V8

File: cpontiac-g8.jpg (544KB, 1274x684px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 1274x684px

>>17621083
It was based on an Australian platform too.

>>17621149
Aussie muscle has already been mentioned, syrup sucker

>>17621112
It's not a muscle car

>>17621157
It was a Japanese Muscle Car
plus it's styling mirrored the Mustang at the time

File: a65.jpg (22KB, 499x430px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 499x430px

>it's a "yuropoors think classic shitboxes are muscle cars" episode

>>17620487
This.

Is considered Japanese muscle to the japs due to the high displacement for their country.

File: torino.jpg (266KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1024x768px

>>17621162
>4 cylinders = muscle car

LOL

see>>17621187

File: Ianbarrett.jpg (143KB, 800x527px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 800x527px

Tvr griffith

File: 3.jpg (367KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1024x768px

>>17620442

>>17621216
not much of a car guy but are those big wheeled old muscle cars even nice to drive? i mean do they even handle good?

File: 13d2c48d7a63ec88d5940345129efaeb.jpg (2MB, 3888x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3888x2592px

Why would non-Americans build muscle cars? The bloody things don't make any sense. At best we got some muscle car inspired designs in other places, but with cute four cylinder engines.

what about american kei cars?

>>17622411
They don't exist.

>>17621055
>That thing had no power or sporting prowess, it was just a pretty cruiser.
So its a muscle car then? Because that is literally the definition of one.

File: MercedesC63AMG0311(5)_794_529_70.jpg (53KB, 794x529px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 794x529px

That fucking sound man.

File: HotShot.jpg (52KB, 500x488px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x488px

>>17622422
>They don't exist.

80mm too long and 65cc too big of an engine but its close

>>17622443
And a complete piece of shit.

>>17622450
kei cars are pieces of shits

at least the Hot Shot has racing credentials and some actual interesting design

>>17622351
They're fine. You just gotta know the limits of the car very well

File: 1.jpg (89KB, 730x547px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 730x547px

Not really a muscle car because the most powerful engine it had was a 3.0 v6 but was designed by the guy who made the mustang apparently so there's that.

A muscle car is:
>Cheap
>V8
>Relatively powerful
>RWD
>2 door

90% of the cars mentioned ITT aren't muscle cars:
>Aston Martin
>Jensen
>Jaguar
>Opel KAD
>Montreal
>TVR
>Mercedes AMG
Not cheap, not a muscle car.

>Spanish Dodge
>Volvo 262
>Nissan Z cars
>Supra
>300E AMG
>Kenmeri Skyline
>Celica
>Opel Rekord
>Ford Capri
Not a V8, not a muscle car.

>Aussie muscle
>V8 Volga
Not 2 door, not a muscle car.

>>17621066
>>17622720
>Camaro
>Mustang
Those are ponycars, not musclecars.

>>17622351
Nope. They're literally the shitboxes of their day, but with bright paint and big engines. Horrid in corners, horrid on the brakes, you sometimes have to fight them just to go in a straight line.

>>17622758
And then there's THIS level of autism.

>>17622753

Ok, Jag XJS or XK V8 fills this criteria

Not sure about why it has to be a V8 exclusively, and the 2door thing seems a bit arbitrary but too many people are posting GT cars ITT

>>17622768
>Ok, Jag XJS or XK V8 fills this criteria
Nope, too expensive.

>Not sure about why it has to be a V8 exclusively
Because muscle cars are, by definition, powered by a V8.

File: 38661680001_original.jpg (430KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1600x1200px

>>17622776
>Because muscle cars are, by definition, powered by a V8.
Wrong. Muscle cars by definition are affordable and powerful, nothing else. Neither the number of cylinders nor the number of doors matters.

>>17622783
Of course it matters. In 1969 MURIKA, you had to have a V8. Anything less wasn't powerful, anything more was expensive and foreign.

Same for doors. 4 or 5 doors was for family haulers, while 2 doors was the peak for performance and styling.

You can whine all you want, but a Vista Cruiser isn't a muscle car, even if it has all the options of a 4-4-2. It's a really nice car, a great wagon, but it's not a muscle car. Hell, I'd prefer one over a regular 2 door, but that doesn't make it a muscle car.

File: Autodelta Montreal Group 4.jpg (63KB, 900x548px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 900x548px

>>17621055
they made one with a little bit of power

File: 12slides1044.jpg (63KB, 656x525px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 656x525px

>>17622753
>cheep
you aught to do some reading
unless ofc you want to limit your self to a ford model A

>>17622351
>>17622759
I think their downsides make up their character but make it easy to make fun of them and their drivers.

>>17622753
>2 door
Where did you get this idea?

>>17623265
2 doors are cool.

More doors aren't.

Muscle cars are cool, therefore, they should only have 2 doors.

>>17620621
These things literally had a MOPAR 440 under the hood at some point.

>>17623271
So what's a Charger Hellcat?
It's not a sport sedan because it's too heavy to turn, even though every other sport sedan tends to be handling oriented.

File: 7a66be3c91ac496278f591803a60e162[1].jpg (80KB, 667x500px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 667x500px

>>17621187
Here's a "classic shitbox" with a Chevy 327 under the hood, pal.

>>17623279
>So what's a Charger Hellcat?
A very fun burnoutmobile.

Not a muscle car though, that's what the Challenger Hellcat is for.

>>17623281
That's not a shitbox, that's an obscenely expensive luxury coupe. Not a muscle car either, given that idiotic pricetag.

File: Opel_Commodore_GSE_Coupe_2490cc_1971[1].jpg (1MB, 3389x1737px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3389x1737px

>>17622354
Commodores had an inline 6 option.

>>17623291
That's still two cilinders and a bank short of a V8 though.

>>17622753
>muscle cars
>cheap

they were never cheap

>>17623298
Yeah, I'm just saying there were bigger options than an inline 4.

Fun fact: the Opel Commodore C formed the basis for the VB Holden Commodore in Australia.

File: 1414325449326.png (804KB, 433x675px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 433x675px

>>17622354
>Why do they build cheap performance? Don't the silly yanks know that anything with more than 6 cylinders is for Nobility? Plebs should be content with 3-bangers
Fuck anglos t b h

>>17623320
>le muscle cars weren't cheap meme

In 1969, a Charger Daytona started at 4K USD, with the 426 Hemi being a 700 USD option. That thing was priced outrageously high, they barely sold It was cheaper than the cheapest Cadillac back then - the ~5500 USD Calais coupe. If you correct 4700 USD for inflation, you end up with 32K in today's money. 5500 USD cebomes about 37K by the way. Both cars are cheap by modern standards.

>>17623338
"Performance". Things couldn't brake or turn, could barely track a straight line, and weren't all that fast either. Just flashy and noisy.

a muscle car is literally a family car with the V8 engine from a truck

so i suggest the Porsche Panamera

File: 562a7c61b575d76013ac4e83[1].jpg (73KB, 720x393px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 720x393px

>>17623386
If that's all it takes, pic related. The V8 from the Q7 put into a family sedan chassis.

>>17621088
LMAO WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THESE MIRRORS HAHAHAHAH

>>17623386
>>17623401
>Panamera
>S8
Those are way too expensive to be muscle cars. Also, they've got too many doors, and too many driveshafts: a muscle car should be a RWD 2 door.

>>17622753
What if I put a V8 in a Nissan Z ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwDFfxTz4mQ

>>17623620
That's not a muscle car, that's HERESY.

Also, it'd be way too good at cornering to be a muscle car.

>>17620558
400hp supra...13 second quarter mile
800hp supra...13 second quarter mile

that piece of shit went extinct for a reason.

>>17622870
typical porsche driver...

File: 1497244089170.jpg (76KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 320x480px

>>17623636
>drifting in a muscle car
>listening to Gas Gas Gas over the sound of an LS1

File: 1499947646491.jpg (61KB, 720x543px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x543px

>>17623645
You're retarded

>>17620452
>Aston Martin can't be muscle due to the luxury
Muscle cars were pretty fucking luxourius.

>>17623757
Huh? No they didn't, they were regular sedans, the equivalent of today's Malibu's, Fusions, and Impalas
They were not luxurious in anywhere near the same sense

File: Opel-Rallye-Kadett.jpg (620KB, 1600x1120px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1600x1120px

>people so autistic they have to get a literal definition for muscle car

it doesnt exist

the term muscle car didnt even exist when they were being produced

the idea of a muslce car is just a factory hot rod

something like this fits that definition a small car with a reletively big engine

File: 1442798709577.jpg (248KB, 1500x963px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1500x963px

>>17622720
and you could get these with a 302 still backed by a warranty in South Africa of all places

>>17622351
They were intended for drag racing, and often produced in small quantities with specific option packages.

If you want to play in curves, anything less than an F1 car is garbage and should be hated, especially since there are no straight roads and cornering prowess is everything, everything, everything!

Muscle cars were comfortable and fine for blasting down the highways of the US. No one else has anything similar except Oz so they have zero need for anything similar.

Also some musclecars came with autotragic transmissions, which despite their consistency at drag strip launches are gayer then Elton John.

File: 1973_chevrolet_firenza_can_am.jpg?itok=ve6kFmV4.jpg (124KB, 800x477px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 800x477px

>>17623855
also in SA you could get a Vauxhall with a DZ302 from the factory

>>17622423
>So its a muscle car then? Because that is literally the definition of one.

No, dumbshit. True muscle cars have large, powerful engines. The makers also sold small gay engines because the only reason for horsepower is racing and high speed isn't usable on the street.

>>17623866
>comfortable

muscle cars ride and drive like shit

only thing theyre good for is going straight for 1320 ft or less and they are still slow as fuck at that

>>17623842
The definition exists though, and can be readily applied: A relatively cheap and powerful, V8-powered RWD 2 door car.

A small car with a big engine? That's a stupid definition, it could apply to just about anything. With that definition, a Golf GTI could be a muscle car.

>>17623866
>Also some musclecars came with autotragic transmissions
Actually, in the early sixties the automatics were still looked down upon, and a 4 speed manual with floor shifter was the golden standard. Those examples also command a premium nowadays.

If you want excellence and schmexyness on a dragstrip, get a Lenco.

>>17623881
in what world is a 3000+lb car with a 2.0L a small car with a big engine

>Actually, in the early sixties the automatics were still looked down upon, and a 4 speed manual with floor shifter was the golden standard

oh you are actually retarded

3 speed was standard and automatics were popular more were sold than manuals

>>17622768
What illiterate faggots post ITT has nothing to do with the actual meaning of muscle car.

Station wagon are what we used for drivetrain donors. They are the equivalent of the SUVs before routing around CAFE regulations required "truck"-based platforms.

Two-doors were all anyone cared about because weight. Four doors were crusher bait and I personally helped send a few hundred to the shredder in the late 1970s. We torched out the engine, transmissions and rear axles then pancaked the hulks. Nothing of value was lost.

>>17622753
>A muscle car is cheap
>Dodge Demon $85k
>Ford Mustang GT350R $56k
>Chevrolet Camaro 1LE $70k

Are these still muscle cars...?

>>17623841
Aren't you forgetting about old Challengers, Barracudas, Cougars, and early Corvettes?

>>17623913
The Camaro and Mustang were never muscle cars, they're pony cars.
The Demon is a factory drag racing special.

>>17623908
This. The two-speed Powerglide is still produced by the aftermarket for drag racing.

http://www.atiracing.com/products/trans/pg/index.htm

File: 005-American-Outlaws-Jeff-Lutz-Camaro.jpg (280KB, 2040x1360px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 2040x1360px

>>17623924
yeah I think the TH400 took over the PG market tho

its what all the fast guys are running these days

>>17620452
Have you seen how expensive muscle cars are?....

>>17623915
>Cougar
Pony car and platform mate of the Mustang
>Corvettes
Seriously? Corvettes have never been muscle
>Challengers and Barracudas
Again, Pony cars that we're meant to compete with the Mustang NOT A MUSCLE CAR

>>17620487
Wrong.

>>17623908
>in what world is a 3000+lb car with a 2.0L a small car with a big engine
It's 2017, 3000lbs is light.

3 speed manuals were standard equipment in the USA right up untill the popularisation of the automatic, mainly in column shift form. However, ina true muscle car, you want a a four on the floor. Only a small fraction of muscle cars was actually sold with those though, which explains the huge premiums they bring nowadays.

>>17623913
Mustang and Camaro are ponycars, not muscle cars. The Demon is literally the fastest production car to 60MPH. A performance V8 model of all three (5.0, SS or Scat Pack) can be had for less than 50K.

Now, let's compare them to some of the expensive cars listed in >>17622753:
>Aston Martin
Starting at 190K USD.
>Jaguar
The cheapest V8 Jag I can think of is 106K USD.
>Opel KAD
Used to be GM's V8 halo cars. The modern equivalent would be an 87K USD CTS-V (pretty close to muscle territory).
>Montreal
Alfa has moved out of this segment. For an Italian V8 coupe, expect to pay at least 135K USD for a GranTurismo - Ferraris will be much more expensive.
>TVR
Rumors of the new model are around 115K USD.
>E63
Starts at 100K USD.

Most of the Aussie muscle cars just look like shitty four door family cars.

There is exceptions such as two door Monroe and valiant chargers.

They mostly look like grandma's bingo sedan however.

>>17623982
>muh cylinder count

>>17623967
See >>17623984
Muscle cars are cheap when you can have a 400+ hp V8 for way less than the competition. They'll have loads more equipment than the originals, too.

>>17623953
Most people still use a Powerglide though, because it's less parasitic loss. It's only in specialised stuff like Drag Week where you'll see turbo 400's perform.

>>17623880
You're an idiot.

>>17624002
I hate to agree with him, but prove him wrong

>>17623984
So the Opel KAD lineup is basically the closest thing Europe had. Makes sense I guess, since they're GM's Euro division.

>>17623871
What kind of Vauxhall is this?

>>17624017
Vauxhall Virenza.

>>17624013
Not really, since they were just fullsize luxury cars. They just happened to get that Chevy small block crammed into them.

Closest that Opel got though.

File: L-Vauxhall-Firenza-Droopsnoop-2.jpg (30KB, 609x353px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 609x353px

>>17623967
heres what he means

a 1969 Aston Martin DBS V8 was around $15-16,000 (107k adjusted)
a 1969 Plymouth Road Runner loaded down with options and a 426 Hemi would be less than $5,000 (34k adjusted)

>>17624002
if you bring up the fact that they are fast when modified it really doesnt prove me wrong

muscle cars arent fast any more unless you want to count modern muscle

>>17624017
Firenza

>>17623386
Fuck off you dumb Aussie.

>>17624029
Old Opels are pretty cool anyway, you can hotrod the fuck out of them.

>>17624040
>Old Opels are pretty cool anyway, you can hotrod the fuck out of them.
Word. They have GM's best styling of the period, in really small chasiss'. Once you combine that with a modern engine and suspension upgrades, they make for awesome restomods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6xo2BMLDEM

>>17622783
Fuck off retard.

>>17623265
He isn't Australian perhaps...

>>17624070
I really want to build an old Manta A with a modern DZ302 homage at some point. Basically turn it into a mini-Z28, with a relatively small V8 that revs to the fucking moon.

>>17624037

>dumb aussie

i'm an american, and the truck V8 into a family car is literally what started the muscle car trend.

Nowadays most of our 'muscle cars' are just sports cars.

>>17623374
Cadillacs are expensive luxury cars dumb arse.

Especially back then..

>>17624111
Same but with a Rekord coupe.

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/4-8l-crank-ls3-block-how-to-build-an-8000-rpm-ls-stroker/

This would do nicely, especially with ITB's.

>>17624121
There's only one true muscle car left in the US market: the Challenger. Camaro and Mustang are pony cars, SS is two doors too many, and everything else is too expensive.

>>17624129
Which was exactly my point. A ridiculously expensive homologation special, so expensive that people ripped the wings off to sell them as cheaper ''base'' models, with the biggest baddest engine option you could get in 1969, was still cheaper than the cheapest that Cadillac had to offer. Muscle cars weren't expensive.

You aren't American.

Four door cars aren't thought of as performance cars much outside of Australia.

Outside of Australia 4 door is associated with plain family cars.

There are exceptions such as four door guys skylines but they didn't sell as well as four doors.

Probably because four doors means family car in many people's minds outside of Australia.

Don't lie and tell me you aren't Aussie.

File: 52319ac33f4b2186217cbd5038c20216[1].jpg (686KB, 1536x1152px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 1536x1152px

>>17624161
Yeah, exactly like that one.
And a Rekord coupe would be awesome as well, especially since the Commodore (its luxury counterpart) ended up being Australia's own muscle icon much later on.

File: jensen.jpg (165KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1200x800px

>>17620442
This baby - BBC 454

File: 1499459036706m.jpg (120KB, 882x1024px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 882x1024px

>>17623645
What did he mean by this?

>>17624218
He meant 12's but he is correct.

>>17624212
Not a muscle car, since it's way too expensive to be one.

Also, they never used a BBC, but a 383 or 440 Mopar.

>>17623645
now this really made me think

>>17624232
My bad, you are correct

Still a muscle car due to the engine from factory

>>17624121
>>17624180

This was for you.

>>17624240
Again, not a muscle car. Just because a Polara or Monaco used a big block doesn't make them a muscle car, and the Jensen wasn't a muscle car by virtue of being way too expensive. They were well over 10K USD when a Cadillac limo was 7-8K USD.

>>17622351
No. They were sub-par even in their time. Just heavy economy cars with big engines.

>>17622720
I would sex a Capri.

File: download.jpg (5KB, 309x163px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 309x163px

>"muscle cars need muh V8"

<- How do you define this thing then?
Sedan?

>>17624315
Sleeper

>>17624315
Relatively fast drag car that would have been better with a V8.

>>17624327
>Relatively fast
It was one of the fastest production cars made in it's day, and is still faster than a huge percentage of cars on the road today, stay plebian

>>17624284
If you're talking expense from an American perspective, of fucking course American cars are going to be cheaper. Are you sane?

>>17624327
A V8 in it would ruin it's weight distribution, one of the best characters of this car was, besides putting most of the V8's at the time in the trash bin, being a good handling car for American standards.

The turbocharged V6 was perfect for it.

>>17624357
It was only truely fast in a single metric: straight line acceleration. Everything else was pretty damn mediocre.

>>17624365
It was expensive by everybody's standards. It cost something like 11K GBP. This was at a time when you could have a brand new Rolls for less than 10K GBP, a V12 E-type for under 4K, and a Cortina for just under 1000 GBP.

https://www.motoringresearch.com/cost-car-year-born/

>>17624416
See
>>17624375

>>17624244

>much outside of Australia

Tell that to the C/E/S AMG, the M5, the Aston Martin Rapide, the Porsche Panamera, and almost the entire Audi line-up.

>>17624406
Too many doors. Used another company's economy engine.

>>17624375
It was still 55/45, so quite front heavy. Weight distribution was still shit, and good handling ''for contemporary US standards'' means it's still shit at handling. A 308 would have ran circles around it.

The V6 was perfect for sticking it to the man (both GM corporate management, and the government), but it would have been better as a turbo V8. Better at the straight line thing, at least, which is all it's good for nowadays.

>>17624446
None of those are muscle cars though, since they're all too expensive, and most of them have too much doors. Some don't even have a V8.

>>17624457
>turbo V8
Are you even 18? This thing was developed back when the only cars that had that setup were supercars like the Vector and F40, a V6 turbo that was putting out the performance that it was for $25,000 out the door was amazing, you couldn't do that with a turbo V8 at the time

>>17624480
Pretty sure he was referring to "4-doors aren't cool".

>>17624508
This. Yurocucks can't handle real V8 power.

>>17624486
Please explain how it would be harder for McLaren to put:
>Garrett turbo
>Intercooler
>Different ECU/TCU
>Different torque converter
>Trans cooler
>Exhaust
>16'' wheels
>Upgraded rear diff
>Cosmetic upgrades
On a 305 V8 instead of the V6 that was used. Because it would not have been any harder, outside of some minor packaging issues.

>>17624496
They aren't cool though.

>>17620442
What kind of mustang is this?

>>17624508

>don't exist outside of America

wtf what do you call the entire line of AMG cars? You can buy a 4 door sedan with a twin-turbo V8 that pumps out 460-500 horsepower. Shit, you can buy one that has more torque than most diesel pickups!

you guys are on drugs

>>17624534
>wtf what do you call the entire line of AMG cars?
Not a muscle car, since they're usually SUV's, hatchbacks or sedans. Those that aren't are usually too expensive to be considered muscle cars.

>>17624457
The already good engine was redesigned and improved on in every way. The Rover V8 is a top tier engine, cunt.

>>17624521
Not for them, but GM wouldn't put that much money on something that would be faster than the Corvette, the fact that the GNX was made at all is a miracle

>>17624541

i don't know if you know this, but a C63 AMG coupe is cheaper than a Z/28 Camaro and has almost as much power

>>17624543
Still too many doors.

Also, it was shit-tier in some Range Rovers.

>>17624549
Reminder that they don't have a V8, so not muscle cars.

>>17623968
A Challenger isn't a muscle car? Please explain to me what you consider a muscle car.

>>17624593
That was the tuner version of a grand tourer though.

>>17624583
Oldsmobile 442
Chevelle SS
Buick GN
Pontiac GTO
Dodge Charger
Plymouth Road Runner
Plymouth Superbee
Ford Gran Torino

>>17624562
Camaro is a ponycar, Z/28 is a sportscar. Neither those, nor the C63, are muscle cars.

The C63 is the closest thing to a muscle car in the AMG lineup though, I'll give you that.

>>17624593
>musclecars can have turbocharged 6 cylinder engines
Stay delusional you commie. All GT-R's were too expensive to be considered muscle cars, they were lacking two cilinders - and boost doesn't make up for that in automotive definition. R32 and up were also AWD, which is beyond the original RWD muscle car.

>>17624583
The original Challengers were actually ponycars, meant to compete with the Mustang and Camaro.

>>17624644
Nah. Muscle cars were made out of two door version of compact or midsized family cars. The Skyline was more of a fullsized luxury car or grand tourer, which is a big difference.

Also, it's two cilinders and a bank short.

File: AR001102.jpg (1021KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1021KB, 2048x1536px

>>17624644
Actually muscle cars started out as fullsize everyman car engines stuffed into barebones midsize everyman cars. The American equivalent of grand tourers are personal luxury cars, which were at no point considered muscle cars.

>>17624642
The C63 is more of a muscle car than the Camaro since it's a performance trim of a pre-existing normal sedan

File: Nissan-President150.jpg (320KB, 800x405px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 800x405px

>>17624682
>so, just like skylines
Wrong, Skylines were available with two doors and straight sixes almost from the beginning. The correct comparison would be a Nissan President V8 in a Nissan Skyline.

>>17624717
Stop replying. I know you want to, but please, just stop.

File: 1970_Chevrolet_Chevelle_Malibu_4-dr,_front_left.jpg (221KB, 1280x613px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1280x613px

>>17624760
>not every charger or coronet had a big block
And not every Charger or Coronet was a muscle car. You could buy Chevelles as four door sedans with 3.8L inline sixes.

>Non American Muscle cars
>Non American
If it's not American it isn't a muscle car

>>17624815
>an engine from a full size sedan
Should be
>a V8 engine from a full size sedan
Otherwise it's not a muscle car.

>>17624961
That's why the C63 AMG is technically a muscle car

>>17622345
V8 on these is unicorn-tier rare

>>17624981
Not really, because it's too expensive.

>>17624984
>X had 6 cilinders and were muscle cars because I say so
No sweetie. A proper muscle car is powered by a V8.

>A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price.

Saying that a six cilinder car can be a muscle car because two six cilinder cars were similar to muscle cars isn;t proof. Neither the GNX nor the Aussiecharger were muscle cars exactly because they weren't powered by a V8. That's called begging the question, and it's a logical fallacy.

>>17624984
They weren't muscle cars and neither was the xu1 Torana.

>>17625007
>it's too expensive
Yet it ticks off every box for what constitutes a muscle car, just because you're a poorfag doesn't mean it isn't

http://www.strawpoll.me/13569153

>>17621080
>>17623997
I love the car and would choose one over any muscle car but a Japanese 6 cylinder car is far from muscle car.

>>17624682
Shut up retard!

>>17625016
The requirements for a muscle car are:
>V8
>Relatively powerful
>2 door
>RWD
>Cheap
So it doesn't tick the final box.

>>17625038
Muscle cars weren't cheap when they were released, they typically were the most expensive trim packages of their respective models

>Muscle car is an American term used to refer to a variety of high-performance automobiles. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines muscle cars as "any of a group of American-made 2-door sports cars with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving." A large V8 engine is fitted in a 2 or 4 door, rear wheel drive, family-style full-size car designed for four or more passengers. Sold at an affordable price, muscle cars are intended for street use and occasional drag racing. They are distinct from two-seat sports cars and expensive 2+2 GTs intended for high-speed touring and road racing.

>>17625031
>>A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price.
There's your citation.

>GNX, Charger, Falcon
Not muscle cars

>Popular knowledge
Bandwagoning is not an argument, especially when people don't even jump on your bandwagon.

>>176245
They had v8 cars in Europe.

For example sunbeam tigers had died v8s.

Probably much lighter than most American muscle cars too.

>>17625047
Yes they were, see >>17624035

>>17625058
34k still isn't "cheap" for the every man

>>17625061
It's affordable enough, especially for the level of performance you got.

>>17625065
>level of performance
zOMG I CAN HAS FAST IN A LINE

>>17625047
>>17625050
>Muscle cars weren't cheap
A 1969 Charger Daytona with a Hemi had a sticker price of about 4700 USD, make that 5K with some options. Adjusted for inflation, that's only 33K in today's money. The average price of a car in 1969 was 3125 USD. This means that a high-end homologation special with an exotic engine cost 60% more than the average car back then.

The average car in 2016 costs 25500 USD. 60% more means about 41K USD, which is pretty damn cheap.

>>17625067
>A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price. Most of these models were based on “regular” production vehicles. These vehicles are generally not considered muscle cars, even when equipped with large V8s. If there was a high performance version available, it gets the credit, and not the vehicle that it was based on.

If any of you disagree with that trolling commie idiot, go to >>17625023.

>the definition of a word is defined by it's users
All users except you seem to define muscle car as having a V8. You're just being contrarian.

Is /o/ really retarded enough to think the definition of a muscle car goes outside of v8 cars?

Like I could understand people debating the definition between muscle and pony cars.. I could understand people debating about if a big car can still be a muscle car.

But debating If a fucking 6cylinder Japanese car is muscle?
Holly fuck that's retarded.

>>17625104
Thank fuck. Go here and end the debate >>17625023.

>>17625128
>>17625126
Both of you truely are the cancer that is killing /o/.

I sincerely hope you never get any replies anymore, and that you cry yourself to sleep tonight, knowing you didn't make a difference. Death be upon you, and death be upon your mother tonight if you reply to this post.

>>17625153
>>17625149

>>17624226
>can't even benchrace properly
https://youtu.be/k4HQR5W27O8

10.69 with 600hp

>>17622758
wow you're like, really smart for knowing that cool term

>>17623645
lol what the fuck

File: 450-11.jpg (65KB, 326x320px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 326x320px

>>17622790
isn't that a mid rear?

>>17624315
the GNX and T type are beasts all their own. the 80's turbo cars can never really be true muscle cars though

>>17624327
Want a V8, get a Monte

>>17625633
Nope, it's FR and even uses the Buick/Rover V8.

>>17624534
>AMG C63: 516 lb-ft
>New 6.6 Duramax: 910 lb-ft
Are you fucking retarded? Don't talk about shit you know zero about

>>17624035
Also the fact that the Aston was handbuilt (Making one took 1200 man hours says Wikipedia) and only 4000 were made over the span of 20 years

>>17625049
This is the perfect definition

>>17620442
the only non murican muscle cars are from american based companies in aussieland
stuff like what thid guy posted >>17620479

>>17620487
>>17620547
>>17621088
lel
always that one weeb that tries to be part of the club

File: 94d371ecbd5d0123b21d6ebe59b0f31c.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>17628070
In similar respect

>>17628097
Do you know what a muscle car is??

>>17622758
>I have no idea what I'm talking about

Than what are they? Grand tourers? They're muscle cars ya dip stop memeing

>>17628097

Grotesque treatment on that car. Completely ruined. Is it owned by a tasteless chad?

File: IMG_0202.jpg (1MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2816x2112px

>>17625002
You can put a V8 under the hood with your own hands.
I prefer this monstrous V8 from soviet bus LiAZ-677.

So I'm going to fag up the thread by coming in here and stating that the Zs are Japanese muscle even if they're not a V8.

Mods, well done.

>>17628070
>>17628097
Not muscle cars, they're too expensive.

>>17628283
Ponycars are different from muscle cars though. Hell, the Mustang started the genre (Mustang -> horse -> pony), and the Camaro was built as a reaction to that. You can clearly see the difference nowadays, where both of are sportscars first and foremost, which defines the modern ponycar genre.

>>17629021
>>17620487 Beat you to it.
Also, no V8 means they're not muscle cars.

>>17629227
Too many doors, not a muscle car.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (84KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1280x720px

>>17625633

>>17620571
that noise is great

Alright if we have to set our own arbitrary criteria, I'd say:
>Naturally aspirated
>medium-large displacement
>Coupe
>not handling oriented, typically

Note:
There have been exceptions to these criteria in most, if not all muscle cars' history. Specifically in engine configuration. People laugh at the 4cyl Mustang, but what they don't know is that has been a thing for a long time. There has also been turbo 4s

IMO many GT cars fail into this category. Hence why early z cars, NA V8 euro cars (C63 is a personal favorite), Straya V8s, etc. are being mentioned.

>>17629337
You forgot the requirement for a V8, and you forgot to specify cheap.

Mustang isn't a muscle car though.

>Nissan Z
Not a V8
>C63, E39 M5, E92 M3
Too expensive
>Straya V8
Often 4 doors.

>>17629337
>>Naturally aspirated
Bullshit. If somebody slaps a blower onto a 426 Charger, does that stop it from being a muscle car? Nope. Also, the Challenger Hellcat is 100% a muscle car (although it might be stratching the pricepoint for one).

>>17629342
I know theres some type of underlying point you are trolling to prove, but you're and idiot.

You're only basing cheap off of American prices. An M3 can be had from 55k in Germany and a 5.0 Mustang is 50k or something like that. Which puts them in the same price bracket. And guess what that means? Same class.

Are they more expensive? Base to base, yes. But features to features? An American muscle car, optioned out to be like a comparative European muscle car, even a base version? The price gap suddenly isn't that large.

>>17629356
But in its original form, it was a good ol NA V8. That being said, I agree. I'm just playing by the idiots in this thread's "rules"

>>17620442
Muscle Cars are American BY DEFINITION.
Seriously, look it up in the dictionary.

It's like their "World Series" "football" where only American teams participate.

>>17629396
>using world series and football in the same sentence
>putting quotation marks

Baseball is the world series you dope, and why did you use quotation marks? Are you questioning the existence of the World Series and football?

>>17629402
My bad. The argument stands, though:
>World Series remains solely the championship of the major-league baseball teams in the United States and Canada
>North American media sometimes informally refer to World Series winners as "world champions of baseball"

>>17629379
Let's use German prices then:
>A brand new 5.0 Mustang costs 44K EUR.
>A brand new M4 costs 78K EUR.
>The E92 M3 started at 69K EUR - about 75K EUR when corrected for inflation.
That doesn't seem like the same price bracket to me.

American ponycars like that are actually pretty well-optioned out here, otherwise they wouldn't sell. Also, note that the base price of a 5.0 mustang is 33K USD, or about 28K EUR. That's a 16K EUR difference to the German market price, which is mostly options (Euro market models have more options as standard) and added taxes.

File: _78_holden_lx_torana_a9x_1_by_the_ic-d56auo7.jpg (93KB, 1191x670px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1191x670px

>>17629264

>>17629396
But what if they weren't (which is the premise of OP)?

>>17629416
Would clearly be a muscle car:
>Coupe
>V8
>RWD
>Relatively cheap
>Relatively powerful

>>17629424
Cool as fuck, but not a coupe (so not a muscle car).

>>17629415
>>17629379
I just checked, you can;t even configure a 5.0 Mustang to be more than 55K EUR. That's cheaper than the M2, which starts at 59K base.

>>17629415
You arent wrong on both points. Yes they aren't AS expensive, but like you said typically European cars are better options.

The point I'm trying to make is that they aren't "cheap" and the price is relative. All muscle cars seem to fall into the 40k-80k range new if you get decent options or performance packages. Which makes them competitive with M cars and Mercedes' offerings

File: Toyota-CrownEight.jpg (703KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 2000x1500px

Maybe a bit too luxurious for muscle.

>>17629455
Are better optioned *

>>17629455
Muscle cars are cheap though. By your own definition (n/a, big V8, coupe, not handling oriented), the only muscle car for sale in the US is the Challenger with the 392. That starts at 39K, and ends up at 51K fully loaded. M products don't use a V8 anymore, so they;re out of the game, and the cheapest C63 starts at 67K bare.

The only things that compete with modern M or AMG products (in both handling and price), are ponycars like the Mustang or Camaro, especially in GT350/ZL1 trim. You shouldn't confuse those with muscle cars like the Challenger though, despite what the GM/Ford marketing department tells you.

>>17629479
Way too expensive, and too many doors. A fullsize luxury car isn't a muscle car even if it has the big engine.

>>17629284
I didn't know the French visited the moon.

>>17629496
Trying to keep to my devil's advocate rules. The only disqualifier for the GT350 and ZL1 is the handling, because that's one of the tropes of a "muscle car". But those packages bring them up to the C63/upper 3 series /5 series price and performance range. To me, that starts to blur lines of what cars get to be considered muscle cars. That's why I think they are comparable. It seems like the use of raw, loud V8s from both BMW and Mercedes are them punching down at traditional American V8 and the GT350, ZL1, and C7 type packages are American manufacturers trying to punch above their normal weight class.

>>17629567
This is why Kentucky is in the running for the worst Commonwealth, holy shit
Why do you keep calling the Mustang and Camaro muscle cars? THEY'RE PONY CARS FOR THE FIFTIETH FUCKING TIME IN THIS THREAD, that's why they're handling is better, they are PURPOSELY DESIGNED SPORTS COUPES, NOT MUSCLE CARS

>>17629567
>GT350
Mustang. Not a muscle car, but a ponycar.
>ZL1
Camaro. Not a muscle car, but a ponycar
>C7
Corvette. Not a muscle car, but a sportscar.

Like I said, they're comparable to AMG/M offerings but they're not muscle cars. They aren't punching above their weight, they're just moving the pony car/US sports car class up and up, towards the Euro sportscars.

Meanwhile, Dodge isn't giving a single fuck, building actual muscle cars.

why does anyone care about muscle cars besides boomers, just a bunch of expensive, slow, pigfat, pushcuck low hp per displacement shit piles, fucking burger technology lol, needs 7 liters to make 400hp,where nissan can make 600 with 3 liters, americans and their cars suck, they can't handle even the new "handling" muscle cars regularly get btfo'd lmao stupid ameriburgers

File: alpine-a310-v6-05[1].jpg (106KB, 1024x848px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x848px

inb4 muh V8

File: USC40MBCAH1A021001.png (120KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x330px

>V12
>cant turn.
>fuckheuge

>>17629615
That's a French 911.

>>17629615
>Not front engined
>Not cheap (30K USD in 1984 was a lot of money)
>Not based on an existing intermediate/compact car
>Not a V8
Sportscar, not muscle car.

>>17629620
>V8
>Can actually turn pretty well
>Smaller than a CLA
How can you fail so much in a single post?
Also, not a muscle car given the ludicrous pricetag.

File: 1499655780170.webm (946KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 960x540px

>>17620442
ITT:
>asks what are some good non-American muscle cars
>puts every suggestion into a different subcategory other than muscle car based upon own personal criteria to say you're all wrong
It's pretty easy to win a chess game when you decide which pieces transform into pawns as you play

>>17622720
was it a vulcan? if yes then my fucking taurus is a muscle car, which it is clearly not.

>>17630024
Nah, it was an Essex V6. Dunno if America ever got that engine.

>>17630032
the caprice mk1 had a v8 option tho

>>17629982
>>puts every suggestion into a different subcategory other than muscle car based upon own personal criteria to say you're all wrong
Now you know how i feel when some retard makes a thread asking "why are there no american super cars" and when people try to post legitimate suggestions they just pull requirements out of their ass and say every suggestion is wrong or they just suggest that the only super car that came out of america is Nu-Male """GT""" because their too lazy to google anything else.

>>17630032
Wasn't the Essex a DOHC engine?

>>17630692
Apparently it's OHV, although the DOHC Cosworth GAA is based on the Essex.

>>17630694
The GAA sounds like the GM LQ1, taking a OHV block and putting DOHC heads on it