with everything my LT1 has now it still doesnt feel as fast as my SRT-4 when it was stage 2. After the turbo upgrade the LT1 had no chance. My LT1 takes it out of the hole but thats it. I wanted out the the SRT because I felt too old for it and grew up with "muscle cars". The guy I sold it to dynoed it at 386hp and something like 360torque. If the trans would hold it I would have another.

 

I am probably the oldest guy here. The SRT-4 and the Turbo PT cruiser are American Muscle. I ran into a PT cruiser that will beat most of the cars here and it was driven to the track. Was running 12 flat @118. Muscle cars were made by sticking big motors into small family cars. Thats exactly what these things are.

 

Lol I can't even explain how wrong this statement is.

"Muscle cars were made by sticking big motors into small family cars. Thats exactly what these things are"

These are small family cars with small motors, your own logic is flawed extensively. If you consider a 2.4L 4cyl a big motor then you're nuts.

and a 12.0 at 118 will not be most of the cars here by far

 

Change of the times. Soon big will be how many batteries you can add! From my perspective LT and LS motors are "small." Does not mean that I do not respect them. Big does not have to mean cubic inches. GN's are not muscle cars? Whats the cubes on an 03 -04 Mustang Cobra?

And I will stand by the statement that most of the cars here will not do 12 flats and 118 (I know if you can do 118 should be into low 11's.) With work sure, but lots of stock or mostly stock cars here and they will not meet those numbers.

If you want to get real tight on the defintion of a muscle car the last real one was made in 72. Nothing else has the same feel as those cranky old tanks. But the real point of a muscle car is having American powered reasonably priced factory hot rods that can put a grin on your face.

 

SRT4's dont need much at all to see 12's...Looks like u have a good running 6spd

 

So you consider 5.7L 346 ci V8 motors small. Well they are "small block motors" But I wonder what motors you consider big?

Ahh so the 2.4L 4 cyl motors are big. Gotcha

I saw a 70's boxter station wagon run 9's once. Ever see the wooly mammath on pinks? You can make anything fast with enough time and money. But I still wouldn't want to be seen driving a car that looks like a PT Cruiser or a Neon

 

Most of that fabled "muscle" people want remember actually ran 14s on a good day -- the same thing the SRT4 does today. The majority of the rest were ringers or factory one-off's. Sure, there were some examples of extremely fast cars but hardly any of them went as fast as they're "remembered".

What's a stock LT1 put to the wheels - around 220? I'd bet the SRT4 does pretty close to that, yet it's "crap" because it's FWD? Sure, FWD isn't my choice either, but if you lose to one does it matter which wheels were driving it?

For every car ever made, there's somebody saying "You'd never catch me driving a insert car here"

 

SRT-4's are not muscle cars. I remember Pontiac running "the muscle car lives" adds back in the late nineties. A black LS1 WS6 Trans Am was always used in those adds. Talk about modern muscle with an attitude

Umm, no. LT1's usually dyno 240-265 rwhp with autos dynoing the lower numbers and manuals getting the higher ones. Now SRT-4's do run similair 1/4 mile times but that's because of the lower curb weight.

LS1's on the other hand dynoed 280-315 rwhp depending on year and transmission. They ran about .6 faster then an SRT-4 give or take a few tenths.

But some cars have far more people saying it then others. Not too many would say they would never be caught in a Corvette, Ferarri, BMW, Lexus, ect. But plenty might say that about a Neon, gutted civic, slug bug, ect.

 

So I guess the Grand National is not American Muscle either, since it's not a V8?

Running a turbo on 4-cyl. doesn't exclude them from being American Muscle in my book. Their weapon of choice is different from mine and that is ok.

Nice kill, cause those things can be fast.

 

That would exclude it in my book.

"Muscle car is a term used to refer to a variety of high performance automobiles. The term principally refers to American, Australian and to a lesser extent South African models. It generally describes a 2-door rear wheel drive mid-size car with a large, powerful V8 engine, and at an affordable price. Although opinions vary, it is generally accepted that classic muscle cars were produced in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Muscle cars were built for street use and in some cases racing. They are distinct from sports cars and also from GTs, which are two-seat or 2+2 cars intended for high-speed touring/road racing. These are not generally considered muscle cars owing to their small size, relatively high cost and specialty nature. (The two-seater AMC AMX may or may not be an exception: one source queries whether it qualifies as a true muscle car or pony car, but also lists it among vehicles that fit the general interpretation of both categories. AMC was "never shy" about describing the car as "a genuine sports car" as it was relatively inexpensive).

For a definition from the muscle car era, a 2004 book refers the reader to an extract from Road Test magazine’s June 1967 issue: "Just what is a Muscle Car? 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 BIG engine in it [...] The Muscle Car is Charles Atlas kicking sand in the face of the 98 hp (73 kW) weakling." The book’s author adds 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"

It excludes it from mine as well as road test magazines.

 

Anyone who calls a PT cruiser a muscle car is retarded.
A neon is NOT a muscle car.
A GN/GNX is not a muscle car.
An f-body is a pony car, but also a muscle car with the right engine. 350+ the LS1 is pushing it in my book.

If you count the neon and pt and gnx you MUST include a GTP grand prix, and the turbo beetle and all sorts of other cars that are in no way a muscle car.

They may be damn quick or fast or powerful, but they aren't muscle to me. The GTP and GN are borderline, since they are BIG V6s.

Also, 12.0 and high 11x mph is faster than most here.

 

I'm glad GM could make a drivetrain with only a 30hp loss. And I know all the blah blah blah about underrating, etc, etc.

Sure they would. Porsche owners hate Corvettes. BMW owners hate Lexus. Everybody except Honda owners hates Honda. There's plenty of snobbery in any group.

Hyundai now makes 375 horses from their 4.6 liter v8, the same size as the Mustang's. Does that make it muscle? Where do you draw the line?

In the end it doesn't really matter. I don't care how happy the other guy is with his "muscle" as long as I can beat him when the tree hits green. That's a primary reason most of us are dropping cash into our cars is for more power. I don't really care how you get there - the results are the same.

 

If you knew all the blah, blah, blah and ect, ect then you would have known that LT1's dyno 240-265 rwhp. There have been a few weak autos to dyno in the 230's but the vast majority are 240+.

True enough. There is probably even some rich people who wouldn't be caught in any vehicle that isn't a Limo. But the number of people who would snub thier nose at a SRT-4 would still be far greater then the number that would do it to a Corvette.

I draw the line with American cars. When the muscle car scene first got big it was Chevy, Ford, Pontiac, Dodge and AMC that stood out. It wasn't just muscle, it was American Muscle!

That's absolutely true. I do all my racing at a local quarter mile IHRA track. When I line up at the tree only one thing truly matters and that's crossing the finish line first. Which is actually quite easy with a big stalled american muscle car

Sometimes it's too easy. Way too many kids at my track with 15-18 second cars. But at least they are racing at the track so I gotta give them props for that. But it does get a little boring winning 99.99% of the time. I've only had two losses this season. One was to a friend with a similairly modded 98 Formula and the other was to a very fast Corvette.

 

220 is a really low Lt1 dyno....Darrens numbers look right on...Lowest ive seen is lower 230's and ive even seen some hit 270's stock(Usually the SS & Firehawk/Ws6 cars)

 

Antz,
Are the firehawks 305 or 315 hp at the crank?
That would make sence as to why they are in upwards of the 270 rw mark. Not sure though?

Also, from my referrence...it is to take 0.85 x FWHP and this gives you RWHP.