Not impressed with New "Gen 6" Camaro

[OnyxCobra]

Luckily the Mustang isn't and never was a "muscle car". It actually wasn't even originally a performance based car so I don't see that much of an issue with the 4 cylinder. that aside I think the front of the new Camaro looks better than it did, but the rest of it loses me. Also it appears like the Mustang the new interior is a huge step up, but I'd have to judge that in person. Overall I'd take the Mustang hands down.

 

[Carnage281]

Wow, and I thought camaros couldn't get any uglier, would rather have the catfish-maro.

 

[atlanticblue98]

Since neither mustangs nor camaros are muscle cars the whole no 4cyl in a muscle car is pretty irrelevant

 

[torch318]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Camaro-Mustang.jpg
mustang vs camaro sales numbers.

 

[1998cobrasvt]

Luckily the Mustang isn't and never was a "muscle car". It actually wasn't even originally a performance based car so I don't see that much of an issue with the 4 cylinder.

Since neither mustangs nor camaros are muscle cars the whole no 4cyl in a muscle car is pretty irrelevant

I guess if you want to talk 1965 4 cyl onyx and get all technical sure you are 100% right.. My car gets called a "muscle car" where-ever i go. saying a Mustang or a Camaro isnt a muscle car...that's just busting balls at this point. :grin:

Atlanticblue98- what do you define as a muscle car good sir?

 

[1998cobrasvt]

Wow, and I thought camaros couldn't get any uglier, would rather have the catfish-maro.

Hahaha. that car is beyond ugly :smiley:

 

[1998cobrasvt]

http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Camaro-Mustang.jpg
mustang vs camaro sales numbers.

Very cool!

 

[lutter94]

Luckily the Mustang isn't and never was a "muscle car".

So a 429CID engine in a < 3000 lb. car doesn't fit your criteria?

According to Muscle Cars, a book written by Peter Henshaw, a "muscle car" is "exactly what the name implies. It is a product of the American car industry adhering to the hot rodder's philosophy of taking a small car and putting a large-displacement engine in it. The Muscle Car is Charles Atlas kicking sand in the face of the 98 horsepower weakling."[SUP][7][/SUP] Henshaw further asserts that the muscle car was designed for straight-line speed, and did not have the "sophisticated chassis", "engineering integrity", or "lithe appearance" of European high-performance cars.[SUP][7][/SUP]

 

[D3VST8R96GT]

Its crap always been crap. Always playing catch up to ford and still losing

 

[OnyxCobra]

I guess if you want to talk 1965 4 cyl onyx and get all technical sure you are 100% right.. My car gets called a "muscle car" where-ever i go. saying a Mustang or a Camaro isnt a muscle car...that's just busting balls at this point. :grin:

that's fine, that just shows they don't know what they're talking about.

So a 429CID engine in a < 3000 lb. car doesn't fit your criteria?

According to Muscle Cars, a book written by Peter Henshaw, a "muscle car" is "exactly what the name implies. It is a product of the American car industry adhering to the hot rodder's philosophy of taking a small car and putting a large-displacement engine in it. The Muscle Car is Charles Atlas kicking sand in the face of the 98 horsepower weakling."[SUP][7][/SUP] Henshaw further asserts that the muscle car was designed for straight-line speed, and did not have the "sophisticated chassis", "engineering integrity", or "lithe appearance" of European high-performance cars.[SUP][7][/SUP]

technically no, that's not a muscle car. Muscle cars were generally big cars, not Mustangs. Ask anyone that actually lived through that generation. Mustangs are pony cars.

also i can promise you no 429 mustang was under 3000 lbs.

 

[1998cobrasvt]

that's fine, that just shows they don't know what they're talking about.




technically no, that's not a muscle car. Muscle cars were generally big cars, not Mustangs. Ask anyone that actually lived through that generation. Mustangs are pony cars.

also i can promise you no 429 mustang was under 3000 lbs.

I can see where you are going.


However,


Directly from Merriam-Webster: Merriam-Webster dictionary defines muscle cars as "American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving."

 

[lutter94]

^ I like this guy......lol

 

[OnyxCobra]

I'd have to say that based on the 60s and 70s that definition is incorrect. It took more specifics than that. if you wanna call the old Boss 429s a muscle car I could kind of agree with that, but in general Mustangs were not. as corvettes were not, or the AC Cobras. 2 door sports coupe was not the whole story.

 

[OnyxCobra]

I can see where you are going.


However,


Directly from Merriam-Webster: Merriam-Webster dictionary defines muscle cars as "American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving."

here you go:

"A large V8 engine is fitted in a 2-door, rear wheel drive, family-style mid-size or 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."


that's why a Boss 429 technically isn't a muscle car.

 

[lutter94]

a 2 door designed for 4+? where do passengers 5 and 6 sit at?

 

[D3VST8R96GT]

Technically technically technically....

Its not a big deal in my book they are just general terms to me.... and nothing will ever change that. I appreciate car guys who car but its on the bottom of my list of crap to care about.

 

[OnyxCobra]

a 2 door designed for 4+? where do passengers 5 and 6 sit at?

not uncommon in older cars to sit 3 across the front and back.

 

[D3VST8R96GT]

And a kid in the back window

 

[1998cobrasvt]

Technically technically technically....

Its not a big deal in my book they are just general terms to me.... and nothing will ever change that. I appreciate car guys who car but its on the bottom of my list of crap to care about.

Agree, i was just trying to understand his reasoning...now I know.
Did not expect for a whole page to get dragged out on this mini-topic..

I'd have to say that based on the 60s and 70s that definition is incorrect.

Now i understand. Your using the 60's and 70's definition, ive been using the modern definition. Problem solved.

 

[1998cobrasvt]

*Post moved to page 3*