Do you think Mustang or Challenger owners get the same attention as the Camaro?

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by RobertRS

There are more people than one might imagine that own a V6 Camaro not just because that's what they could afford. Trust me.

Yea, I agree...they're called women. LOL! Just kidding just kidding! I don't mean that at all. I just couldn't resist telling that joke. Just kidding tho seriously. Anyone who knows me here knows that I'm just joking and that I love the V6 Camaro just as much as I love the V8s. Just tryin to get a laugh out of you guys is all.

[2010SLVRBULIT]

Originally Posted by angryv6

The Challenger yes, the Mustang probably not so much.

[TxBandit911]

Originally Posted by spyderbuddy

Yep, us poor v6 guys again.

Notice I said v6 mustangs, there a ton more of those around that v6 camaros. I wasn't talking shit about V6 Camaro people, its great that you have cool car. Just the bazzillion V6 mustangs around make the mustang kinda no big deal.

And yes, 6cyl engines have been in these cars from day one. The first vettes had a 6cyl. Anyone remember the 67-69 firebird sprint 6 inline overhead cam engine? Ran pretty good, and holy shit, overhead cam in the late 60's...that was new tech for a domestic production car

The challenger, I always saw then as a big yawn from day one, thought they looked good, but overall kinda boring. Way over priced for the level of performance you get. Sure a 392 may pull on a SS, but can it turn? Doubt it...

[87GNX]

Originally Posted by stlrammer

I get tons of attention. I suspect our fellow pony car guys do too. I love all three. We are lucky to be living at a time when the best American muscle and hustle cars are produced. Long live the pony cars.

[Muscle Car Memories]

[QUOTE=angryv6;7613228]^^ it has begun. Everyone quick, grab a weapon and prepare for battle.


I think all 3 brands make a great looking Muscle Car it basically comes down to what brand your loyal to.....so just pick your poison!

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by Q'smuscle

The V6 always was in the muscle cars! So no your statement about the v6 ruining what they are, is just plain idiotic! I think a lot of v6 owners could afford a SS, I know that I could! I barely drive it ! Because it's just a weekend car but I don't go nowhere! Just to the store LOL.....

The V6 is part of the muscle car history! Ppl need to read about muscle cars and pony cars!

Mmmmm...well, yes and no. The V6 was not "always in muscle cars". While an L-head six (called an L6, not to be confused with an LS6, and very definitely an L6 is not a V6, it's a straight six) for example was the base engine for say, a 1970 Skylark, the 1970 Skylark with an L-head 6 was not a muscle car. It needed to be equipped with a V8. Why? Aside from the arbitrary " has to be a V8", there's the ET threshold, and the L6 equipped model can't reach it for its era. Some 'standard' Skylark models with their factory 350 V8s did, and the Gran Sport and GS and GSX models based on the Skylark did. But a V6 in that era? Not available in a Chevelle for instance.

The common criteria for a musclecar is RWD, front engine, US manufactured, sub "X second" (depending on era) 1/4 mile time despite relative technical unsophistication, Intermediate body (read: midsize) and a V8 engine. The 6 cylinder models were not touted or heralded as the performance models, and they didn't get the performance market buyers.

So while base model cars (in this example, the GM classic 'A Bodies': 6 cylinder Tempest, Skylark, Chevelle, Cutlass) could be optioned into muslce cars, that doesn't make every car with for example 'Chevelle' in it's name automatically a muslce car...although more 1970 Chevelle SS cars exist now then in 1971- they are converted to SS from L head 6 models

Now, the L head six is a great engine mechanically because of the position of the pistons. Technically a better arrangement than a V8. But factory L head 6 performance models in US sold muscle cars that rivaled the V8s and could meet the ET threshold for 'musclecar-dom'? I am not aware of any. Some 6 cylinder cars sold in Australia back then do blur the lines. Of course, you can hop up an L head 6. but you can also hop up an I4, and a Civic, no matter how quick in the 1/4 mile, will never be a muscle car

Once we reach for instance a Grand National in the '80s, yes, it has a V6. But as a Buick man myself, the debate over whether a GN is a 'muscle car' still is on. As far as I'm concerned, the muscle car era died when the Big Three stopped offering their largest car engines in midsize cars, so a GN cannot be one by definition of era, just like not many people would agree a '57 Ford with a factory supercharger is a "muscle car" because it is prior to the defined 'muscle car' era.

[Q'smuscle]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

Mmmmm...well, yes and no. The V6 was not "always in muscle cars". While an L-head six (called an L6, not to be confused with an LS6, and very definitely an L6 is not a V6, it's a straight six) for example was the base engine for say, a 1970 Skylark, the 1970 Skylark with an L-head 6 was not a muscle car. It needed to be equipped with a V8. Why? Aside from the arbitrary " has to be a V8", there's the ET threshold, and the L6 equipped model can't reach it for its era. Some 'standard' Skylark models with their factory 350 V8s did, and the Gran Sport and GS and GSX models based on the Skylark did. But a V6 in that era? Not available in a Chevelle for instance.

The common criteria for a musclecar is RWD, front engine, US manufactured, sub "X second" (depending on era) 1/4 mile time despite relative technical unsophistication, Intermediate body (read: midsize) and a V8 engine. The 6 cylinder models were not touted or heralded as the performance models, and they didn't get the performance market buyers.

So while base model cars (in this example, the GM classic 'A Bodies': 6 cylinder Tempest, Skylark, Chevelle, Cutlass) could be optioned into muslce cars, that doesn't make every car with for example 'Chevelle' in it's name automatically a muslce car...although more 1970 Chevelle SS cars exist now then in 1971- they are converted to SS from L head 6 models

Now, the L head six is a great engine mechanically because of the position of the pistons. Technically a better arrangement than a V8. But factory L head 6 performance models in US sold muscle cars that rivaled the V8s and could meet the ET threshold for 'musclecar-dom'? I am not aware of any. Some 6 cylinder cars sold in Australia back then do blur the lines. Of course, you can hop up an L head 6. but you can also hop up an I4, and a Civic, no matter how quick in the 1/4 mile, will never be a muscle car

Once we reach for instance a Grand National in the '80s, yes, it has a V6. But as a Buick man myself, the debate over whether a GN is a 'muscle car' still is on. As far as I'm concerned, the muscle car era died when the Big Three stopped offering their largest car engines in midsize cars, so a GN cannot be one by definition of era, just like not many people would agree a '57 Ford with a factory supercharger is a "muscle car" because it is prior to the defined 'muscle car' era.

Yea, true! I was just saying that the V6 in a camaro , has been around since it first started. ]Now, a 4 cylinder is different in a camaro. The mustang had a 4 cylinder, so it would be stupid for someone to call it a muscle car . Just because the mustang has a 4 cylinder!

A few of my favorite muscle cars are from the 80's ! The Monte Carlo SS and a El Camino SS! Not the biggest engine's but the best looking year's ,to me. So I would consider the Grand National a muscle , personally!

[TxBandit911]

Some '80s Fbodies could be had with a 4cyl....

One of my Favorite Fbodies ever is the '89 Turbo V6 Trans-Am. Thing was killer, Way better platform for the Turbo V6 than the Regal, IMHO...They GN and GNXs are cool, but they still drove like a Buick....lol

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by Q'smuscle

Yea, true! I was just saying that the V6 in a camaro , has been around since it first started. ]Now, a 4 cylinder is different in a camaro. The mustang had a 4 cylinder, so it would be stupid for someone to call it a muscle car . Just because the mustang has a 4 cylinder!

A few of my favorite muscle cars are from the 80's ! The Monte Carlo SS and a El Camino SS! Not the biggest engine's but the best looking year's ,to me. So I would consider the Grand National a muscle , personally!

Ah, I get you


(but to be honest, back in the '90s, we used to call the Monte SS a "Super Slow")

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by TxBandit911

Some '80s Fbodies could be had with a 4cyl....

One of my Favorite Fbodies ever is the '89 Turbo V6 Trans-Am. Thing was killer, Way better platform for the Turbo V6 than the Regal, IMHO...They GN and GNXs are cool, but they still drove like a Buick....lol

A lot of people that don't know Buicks think that. But to be 100% honest, the best Buick muscle was built on exactly the same platform as a 442, GTO or Chevelle SS. So when you say "drove like a Buick", that's a good thing. In fact, in contemporary reports, the Buick muscle cars had good handling against their rivals. And straight line...the mighty LS6 was no match for Buick torque. They say this is a '70 Buick...it's a '71 front end and rear bumper for sure. This looks like some kind of 'factory appearing stock tire' race

[batman53201]

when i see a camaro or challenger, they catch my eye.

mustang, not so much

[TxBandit911]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

A lot of people that don't know Buicks think that. But to be 100% honest, the best Buick muscle was built on exactly the same platform as a 442, GTO or Chevelle SS. So when you say "drove like a Buick", that's a good thing. In fact, in contemporary reports, the Buick muscle cars had good handling against their rivals. And straight line...the mighty LS6 was no match for Buick torque. They say this is a '70 Buick...it's a '71 front end and rear bumper for sure. This looks like some kind of 'factory appearing stock tire' race

I was referring specifically to the T-Types, GNs and stuff from the '80s. The few GNs I have driven felt like my granpa's car when it came to ride and steering feel. IE: drives like a buick

I give props to the older stuff and always have, I have always liked the Pontiac, Buick, Olds versions of a platform better than the chevys...IMHO, the Pontiac, Buick, Olds engines were better for torque than the chevys of the time....not to mention all the other ittle things that I think just made them beter looking cars in general compared to their plain jane chevy counterparts

[Q'smuscle]

Originally Posted by TxBandit911

Some '80s Fbodies could be had with a 4cyl....

One of my Favorite Fbodies ever is the '89 Turbo V6 Trans-Am. Thing was killer, Way better platform for the Turbo V6 than the Regal, IMHO...They GN and GNXs are cool, but they still drove like a Buick....lol

I have never been in a GN!

[QUOTE=ChrisBlair;7614143]Ah, I get you


(but to be honest, back in the '90s, we used to call the Monte SS a "Super Slow")[/QUOTE

I didn't know that! LOL... But yea I meant to say that just because the mustang had a 4 cylinder in it, didn't mean that it wasn't a muscle car! I fixed my statement ,in my post!

[Camarolover85]

Camaro's always catch my eye! Lol just saw a 14' convertible on the way back from the gym. Raced out behind him with my new exhaust roaring and gave him a head nod. It's probably just me, but there is nothing like a Camaro to me. Once you drive one, even just the V6, you fall in love.