@mikewilson @qwertgnerd what’s wrong with those cars? They make as much power if not more than most of their counterparts from the 60s-early 70s. @oldsstar Sure they’re not good looking but a 64, 71-72 GTO isn’t gonna win any beauty contests against a 65-70…
“How about the 1968-69 Chrysler 442”
Aka the Oldsmobile 442 … with one of the few undersquare (bore smaller than stroke) performance engines of the day.
Mike, I do not have any problem with the power it makes. But it simply does not LOOK the part. A muscle car is also a visual experience and the last Pontiac’s were just plan ‘unattractive’. A motor cycle makes plenty of power per lb but it is not a muscle car. A Tesla makes HUGE torque but it is not a muscle car. I know that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, and us old guys fade into the past the new kids will collect, love and lust after cars that do not interest me. But, their cars will not be muscle cars, in this old man’s mind.
Pontiac is one of the most hit and miss brands on styling, period. I can say this because I own a 60s Pontiac so I just don’t get the gripe on the looks being the determining factor on whether or not the 04-06 GTO is a good car. It’ll run circles around my 400/350hp and out handle it. It is probably one of the greatest Pontiac sleepers since the 64. Kind of a bland looking car that really delivers on the performance end. The 65 was a MAJOR upgrade in the looks department. Wouldn’t you agree?
Had both '67 and '69 Malibu coupes. Replaced the 307 lump in the '69 with a 327 and absolutely loved for the next 5 years. To my eye, the '69 was one of the most beautifully proportioned cars to come out of Detroit.
Look at it. Just LOOK at it!
Wow, yes the Olds 442, guess I have been in Chrysler products way to long since I let the 442 get away. Always enjoyed all the Muscle back then and have been in most that have been listed in this forum. Thanks for the correction!
Decent looking car and a better deal for a fast sedan than an M5 if you ask me. I don’t get the hang up on the amount of doors. Doesn’t bother the Australians any, and only an LS6 Chevelle or a Hemi Mopar can boast higher HP numbers out of the box for the “real” muscle car segment.
One man’s trash is another man’s treasure…not that Ferrari’s and Porsche’s are trash mind you.
76 Torino ? Fairlaines ? And worst of all an Australian MUSCLE CAR ?
a muscle car is at most a mid size car , not a full sized car like a fairlaine . Has to be FULL FRAME AMERICAN , only exception camaro and firebird / trans am 1st and second gen up to 71. Most debatable weather 70-73 which was the last MUSCLE CAR . I would say the 73 SD trans am was the last muscle car . Don’t chime in about newer cars built and engineered as a sports car ! A muscle car was simply the most powerful engine a company made put into a smaller package . They were scary as hell in the wrong hands . Getting pushed back into the back seat by over 500 ft/ lbs of torque in a car with drum brakes !
My 2015 Chevy SS is the best muscle car I have ever driven and handles as good as my 987. Sounds and accelerates like a muscle car should. Best sleeper ever.
Holden knew how to do muscle. 3,000 built each year from 2014 to 2017. Watch them hold or increase in value.
The 5th Gen Camaro is on the Zeta platform which is a Holden design. Which is also the same platform as the G8, SS.
I was one of the first 200 owners of the 65 Z-16 Chevelle. I have a similar 65 SuperSport today with a big block. I also have a C5 Corvette. If I drive the Corvette to a show I don’t draw flies but when the big block Chevelle rolls in people will be speaking in superlatives all night. They are both great cars.
I was really expecting to see the Javelin AMX, considering how popular the Prestone Javelin was in the magazines this year.
Mike … Yes there is a lot to be said for sleepers. I remember a certain 2-door post Biscayne that packed a 427 backed by a Muncie 4-speed. But, my objection to the last GTO is the design. It is just plain not attractive. Now the 1990 Bonneville SSEi was a very handsome car. If you put the power of the Corvette engine in that ‘modern’ Bonneville … then we have something to talk about. So I would argue that a true muscle car is a combination of sight, sound and performance. The last GTO lacks one (or 2) of these.
My 2 favorite sleepers are the 69 Dodge Daytona Charger w/440 automatic in hemi orange and black wing. The other sleeper is the 69 Dodge Charger R/T SE w/440 automatic in green w/green leather interior and A/C. Both are comfortably stored away for a long winter’s nap until I awake them in the spring to let them bend people’s necks.
Having just watched “Smokey and the Bandit” a certain other Pontiac comes to mind. According to the IMDb: “This movie made the Pontiac Trans Am a superstar. Trans Am sales jumped from 68,745 in 1977 to 93,341 in 1978. And just one year later that number swelled to 117,108 units sold.”
In 1968 I had a friend who ordered a Coronet station wagon with a 383 four gear. Was a super bee a muscle car? Yes. Was a Coronet station wagon with the same drive train a muscle car? Maybe today. But not back then.
Lots of things make up the ‘muscle’ part of ‘muscle car’. I would argue that not just horsepower to weight ratios matter. There is an attitude about a muscle car. And a Pontiac G8 ain’t got it.
Yes, my 69 Malibu and I agree!!
I think we should probably cut our losses here. You and I are not going to budge on our stances. I understand where you are coming from and you make a good point. I believe that the definition of what is a muscle car has evolved since 1972. I see something in this car (visually and mechanically) that not everyone does.