For All You American Car Guys

Classic Muscle vs. Modern Muscle

  • Classic Muscle

    Votes: 28 73.7%

  • Modern Muscle

    Votes: 10 26.3%
  • Total voters
    38

JRT1393

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Location
Vale/Charlotte, NC
Alright guys I am writing a research paper for my freshman college English class and the topic I have chosen is "American Muscle; Nostalgia vs. Cutting Edge"

I have gotten approval to take a poll in online forums and would like to hear the 4x4 owners' perspectives on which they like better and a statement of why you chose the one you chose
 
Modern Muscle. Maybe the cars themself have been redefined (mustang is more 'muscle' now than was... compared to chevelle/road runner/etc.), but it has never been better as far as hp, fuel economy, and *gasp* emissions are concerned.

Take it a step farther, and start modifying the modern cars - now we have 600-700whp cars cruising around with near-stock componentry, and they run smooth as glass.
 
I agree with Hurley.

I bet a persons age will have a lot to do with their choice.
 
O.K. heres a wrench!!!! I am a Fox body mustang guy!! 1987 to 1993 specifically so that is not a classic is it, nor is it modern plastic crap as Blaze put it, so where would that choice stand?? I am withholding my vote until this issue is clarified!!!
 
13bullets said:
I bet a persons age will have a lot to do with their choice.
Click to expand...

Guess that puts me in my place :flipoff2: since I'm a classic kinda person.

I prefer the raw horse power with no computers. It took real talent to tune in a six pack carb. Now you need a college degree in electronics and computer programming to even diagnose an engine. Give me a shade tree, a come-along and some tools over computer diagnostics and programming tuners any day. And yes, I'm 44 years old.
 
i love classic cars, but i would much rather be in modern muscle. i like the fact that you can have 5-600 hp with cruise,ac and all the comforts we have grown accustomed too. the other thing we sometimes forget about is suspension and handling has come a long way since the 60's.
back in the muscle car era, to gain 50hp it took a week of working on it and a bunch of parts, now you can throw a computer on it, hit a few keys and boom, 50hp.
 
Daddy always told me stories of his 65 GTO and how freakin fast it was. He got an 08 Tundra a couple years ago and says that it has more power and seat of the pants feel than his GTO ever did. And that is a truck! Imagine putting a 69 Challenger up against a 12 Challenger.
 
For me, it's a double edged sword. I like the clasic styling. They roll down the assembly line and get put together by human hands. I like the old Fisher interiors GM used, vs the plastic crap of the modern day stuff. I also agree there is a place where I would like to switch the newer drive trains into a Muscle car. That being one I would want to drive more. But one that I wanted to restore and maybe show, it would have the stuff from the day. With the add on's maybe such as headers, carb and such to give it more umpf.
The retro stylings that Ford put out on the stangs, t birds are great. I also like the new Camaro, but the chargers I think have the most retro to them.
 
This is becoming a tougher and tougher question for me to answer. 4-5 years ago...I would have said classic muscle hands down...the power just wasn't there from anything modern and the styling was pretty weak, now you're talking 300+hp out of a V6 (more than alot of the V8's even 2-3 years ago). That's not the case anymore, as mentioned you can get damn near 600hp from a $50-60,000 car these days. The only advantage I can think of for classic muscle is simplicity. If I'm being realistic, I'd have to vote modern muscle simply because it's more realistic that I could find one I could afford.
 
13bullets said:
I agree with Hurley.

I bet a persons age will have a lot to do with their choice.
Click to expand...

I am old fashioned and prefer the loud, raw, car shakin, big cam lope and simplicity of old muscle cars. I also like the styles of most all of them. No expert but I believe I could build 2 decent old cars for the price of a nice modern one and all that new complexity is more stuff to go wrong and need repairing one day IMHO. I may be biased having owned a 67 hotrod in the early 80s :burnout:
 
mommucked said:
No expert but I believe I could build 2 decent old cars for the price of a nice modern one
Click to expand...

Make them function...sure. Build an equivalent suspension, build an equivalen drivetrain, build an equivalent interior, built to all new??? I bet you blow by the cost of a new car by the time you're done with materials.
 
Anybody with a jobby job can go get a new "muscle" car and tune it etc. Although nice and plush it will just be another car on the road in 5-10 years. Take a classic car and its cool factor only gets better as time goes on. I guess in time that may be the case on a 2012 Challenger, but only time will tell. I bet that when they are 50 years old they won't be worth a fart in the wind.

I'd take either of these cars over a new one any day.

 
As a drag racing friend of mine likes to say "theres no replacement for displacement." big ci all the way.

classic

Im 27, had a 68 firebird 400 in highschool, wish I had it back. :(

Driven most modern muscle and sports cars from corvette to turbo'ed ricers, its fast but it just doesn't feel the same.
 
30 years down the road, classic muscle will still be around. Todays modern muscle cars will be piles of cracked fiberglass and rotten plastic.
 
Reid said:
30 years down the road, classic muscle will still be around. Todays modern muscle cars will be piles of cracked fiberglass and rotten plastic.
Click to expand...

The majority of my rigs are older than I am, so I'll agree with your assessment. However, does it matter? How many folks these days buy anything with the intent to keep anyway??? When the majority of the demographic only cares whether the new car will last long enough for them to not be upside down on payments so they can use utilize the trade in value...does it really matter how long the car lasts? We live in a throw away society, with manufacturing technology and sweat shop labor overseas, it is cheaper to replace than fix. I'd be willing to bet, the bias would be pretty is to determine depending on the focus of the site.
 
I've drove some of the new stuff that friend's and upper management have. Vettes, that Cadillac CTSV with the 6 speed and V8 (crazy fast for stock), AMG Mercedes (cut the traction control off and leave tracks that will last 6 months), Supercharged 350Z, Porsche GT3 and on and on....but...the stories I like to tell and most memorable are of the classics I've been in. Raw power, feathering the throttle till the tires hook up, monster torque. 67 vette convertable, 427, straight drive and side pipes...that was a blast.....Uncles Formula Firebird, straight drive, 455, side pipes again.....72 Camaro, split bumper, straight drive, slapper bars, red with black rally stripes....72 convertable vette gutted, straight drive, on the edge of out of control...Guy had an old charger in high school that was sweet....an old late 60's something XKE V12 Jaguar, squirrely....couple of mustangs....I got more of the oldies I like.

Out of all the new stuff I'd only want the Challenger, the camaro's are a dime a dozen and will be in every trailer park inside of 5 years, that's where all the old one's are now. The Mustangs look good but when I was in High School (80's) that is what the girls drove.

If I was driving here to Daytona I'd want a new one, if driving to the cruise in or over to a friend's house or work once a week on friday - a classic. If buying as a "play toy" second car to drive - a classic.

Anybody wants to let me drive a Viper call me up!!! Might change my mind.
 
Last edited:
SSWaters said:
Out of all the new stuff I'd only want the Charger, the camaro's are a dime a dozen and will be in every trailer park inside of 5 years, that's where all the old one's are now. The Mustangs look good but when I was in High School (80's) that is what the girls drove.
Click to expand...


This statement could have most probably rang true throughout the life of both cars, nothing new.

No slight to anyone, but I think that many people get 'raw power' confused with poor weight bias, outdated suspension design, and old tire technology
 
UTfball68 said:
Make them function...sure. Build an equivalent suspension, build an equivalen drivetrain, build an equivalent interior, built to all new??? I bet you blow by the cost of a new car by the time you're done with materials.
Click to expand...

I did'nt say equivalent.......I said "decent" or daily driveable. I'd rather drive a dogbed, fast old muscle car than any fancy, expensive new one anyday and know if something broke or needed maintanence or repair I could probly do it myself for alot less money and trouble than these modern, very complex machines.
 
Vroom
ai978.photobucket.com_albums_ae266_ncjeeper_1_001.jpg
 
no one has asked... What's the Question? Cool Factor? Fuel mileage? Smooth ride? Which one is gonna get you laid?

I'd be willing to say, you park an old Charger, Dart, Camaro, Mustang, FJ next to their modern Counter part, you'll have more people around the classics.
 
"I'd be willing to say, you park an old Charger, Dart, Camaro, Mustang, FJ next to their modern Counter part, you'll have more people around the classics."

Seen this played out at lots of car guy gatherings and car shows ^^^ The truth!

Of the new stuff I drove the Porsche GT3 was the most comparable to the early muscle cars..but..it was a caged out, single seat, modded up race car. The new stuff is probably alot faster, but you feel like you are in a cacoon with all the modern stuff, air bags, traction control, ABS, roll control, sound deadening, blah, blah, blah.

The old stuff has the thrill because you're on the ragged edge, it gives you a better adrenaline spike. You get squirrely in the old stuff you better know how to straighten it up. Plus, an old muscle car drifting it out is tops on cool factor. The new stuff ABS and Traction Control babies you when it's on.

I drove and do like some mid year "muscle", C4 vettes before ABS and Traction Control, Twin Turbo 300ZX's, Buick Regal T Type, Cyclone S10's for autocross, 280ZX Turbo's turned up, 5.0 5 speed Mustangs (wasn't it LT the fast one, less garbage on it?)

Some of these new HP claims, did they change the way horsepower is measured? I just don't believe some of them, next year they will claim 450 hp out of a civic or a corolla! Ooops, forgot, HP wins brags, Torque wins drags!
 
Last edited:
^most new cars outweigh their older counterparts, fwiw....and horsepower is also directly related to torque - HP = (tq x RPM)/5252

any dynamometer is going to read the torque output of the engine at a given rpm - what 'changes' is the correction factor based on standard operating parameters
 
Yes, but torque on a 4cyl at 6000 rpm versus 3000 rpm on a big block, guess who has the widest range. You can choke that 4 real fast. Lets say you take a 300 hp 4cyl to a 300 hp big block crank to crank, my money is on the wide torque range of the big block. That's my point - usable HP and TQ. It's a "gazillion HP for a split second", I personnaly want HP and TQ over a wider range. I think it's misleading on some of the ratings, 300 hp for a blip of a spike on the dyno sheet. People who buy trucks to tow with don't go after 300 hp V6's, they go after 300 hp V8's or coal burners.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top