Muscle car or Not

[baysinger]

I have been reading these threads for several months now and have concluded not so much muscle. My first real muscle car was a 1967 Chevelle 396/375hp. We use to street race almost every Friday and Saturday night. We never had any trans/drivetrain breakage. We would burn a clutch every now and then but nothing compared to to the problems I read about every day on these threads. GM I am sure is aware of these issues but other than warranty has no interest is taking real CORRECTIVE ACTION to prevent these problems from repeating. I do not like the fact I have to worry about any driveline failures everytime I am challenged at a red light by a mustang. These cars have a great engine. plenty of hp, but the trans/driveline/rearend leave a lot to be desired. The aftermarket suppliers of stronger components are going to have a field day. I bought my car 6 months ago and really love it but have little confidence in the drivetrane. I would be very cautious about buying one again unless these issues are addressed by GM. By the way, the muscle cars of the 60's HP were very underrated to keep down insurance costs. They were over 400hp from the factory. To those making engine mods for more hp be sure and beef up your drivetrane or you will pay the piper. Forget warranty

[Roger Ramjet]

Before 1972 manufacturers typically used brake HP numbers in their advertising. After that engines were listed as net HP. The bHP numbers were higher than the net HP for the same engine. So, the cars of the muscle car era actually had less HP than new cars now.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjet

Before 1972 manufacturers typically used brake HP numbers in their advertising. After that engines were listed as net HP. The bHP numbers were higher than the net HP for the same engine. So, the cars of the muscle car era actually had less HP than new cars now.

Most of those classics were fast for their time, but many modern cars would pulverize even the most respected muscle cars at the track.

[baysinger]

I was not comparing the muscle cars of the 60's to todays. I was comparing the driveline components that come equipped with the with the cars of that era to the clutch, transmissions, axle, and u/joint failures we are seeing in these new cars. If you read what I wrote carefully you would have understood this and the fact that GM is waiting for them to break and replacing them with the same weak parts.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by baysinger

I have been reading these threads for several months now and have concluded not so much muscle. My first real muscle car was a 1967 Chevelle 396/375hp. We use to street race almost every Friday and Saturday night. We never had any trans/drivetrain breakage. We would burn a clutch every now and then but nothing compared to to the problems I read about every day on these threads. GM I am sure is aware of these issues but other than warranty has no interest is taking real CORRECTIVE ACTION to prevent these problems from repeating. I do not like the fact I have to worry about any driveline failures everytime I am challenged at a red light by a mustang. These cars have a great engine. plenty of hp, but the trans/driveline/rearend leave a lot to be desired. The aftermarket suppliers of stronger components are going to have a field day. I bought my car 6 months ago and really love it but have little confidence in the drivetrane. I would be very cautious about buying one again unless these issues are addressed by GM. By the way, the muscle cars of the 60's HP were very underrated to keep down insurance costs. They were over 400hp from the factory. To those making engine mods for more hp be sure and beef up your drivetrane or you will pay the piper. Forget warranty

What are you worried about? So what if he challenges you at a red light? Don't use public roads as your own personal drag strip. Take it to the track.

[Partick]

Of course we've heard about the problems with driveline components but I'd be willing to bet it is a small percentage of the vehicles produced that have such issues and naturally you're going to hear more about it when it brakes. Not to many people chime in just to say their's is working just fine...

As far as older being more reliable idk, I tore up my share of M-21's, even tore up a rock crusher and several rear ends with my 74 Camaro. All in how you treat it I suppose

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

What are you worried about? So what if he challenges you at a red light? Don't use public roads as your own personal drag strip. Take it to the track.

[joeaux]

Hmmm. Me thinks this Op sounds somewhat Troll-Like. Uh huh.
-joe-

[PAUL SS]

Muscle car, refined!

[600hp-lpe]

I disagree with the OP.. this is a 1st year car..!!! Trans problems were related to heat treating of the output shaft, and incorrect tolerances. GM corrected this.

Axle problem - It's not GM's Problem if people abuse their car by inducing wheelhop and snap the CV joint.

I havn't broken anything yet.. and I have way more HP than stock.

I have already upgraded the Axles as they will break (due to wheelhop) or a lot of track time. My car will spend most of it's time at the tracks in my area.

I think GM built a good all-around product. What you do after you pick it up is up to you..

[coolman]

Originally Posted by baysinger

I have been reading these threads for several months now and have concluded not so much muscle. My first real muscle car was a 1967 Chevelle 396/375hp. We use to street race almost every Friday and Saturday night. We never had any trans/drivetrain breakage. We would burn a clutch every now and then but nothing compared to to the problems I read about every day on these threads. GM I am sure is aware of these issues but other than warranty has no interest is taking real CORRECTIVE ACTION to prevent these problems from repeating. I do not like the fact I have to worry about any driveline failures everytime I am challenged at a red light by a mustang. These cars have a great engine. plenty of hp, but the trans/driveline/rearend leave a lot to be desired. The aftermarket suppliers of stronger components are going to have a field day. I bought my car 6 months ago and really love it but have little confidence in the drivetrane. I would be very cautious about buying one again unless these issues are addressed by GM. By the way, the muscle cars of the 60's HP were very underrated to keep down insurance costs. They were over 400hp from the factory. To those making engine mods for more hp be sure and beef up your drivetrane or you will pay the piper. Forget warranty

I don't know what parts breaking has anything to due with a car being a muscle car or not. I too drove the types of cars your talking about ,and we broke them all the time. I had a 396 chevelle blow the bell housing right up through the floor one night. I do agree that GM needs to beef up the tranny and axles on these cars ,but they are still as muscle car as your going to get now a days.

[baysinger]

I do know there are only a few, who have had failures, are members of this web site. I also realize GM has probabley produced 70 to 90 thousand of the new Camaros who's owners are not aware of this forum. I think I did give GM a chance when I bought this car knowing they were in bankruptcy. This is why I so strongly believe, when GM has compiled enough field failure data, that they will address these issues (other than warranty) so as to restore our confidence that we have purchased a high quality, reliable product.

[hb35man]

Originally Posted by baysinger

I have been reading these threads for several months now and have concluded not so much muscle. My first real muscle car was a 1967 Chevelle 396/375hp. We use to street race almost every Friday and Saturday night. We never had any trans/drivetrain breakage. We would burn a clutch every now and then but nothing compared to to the problems I read about every day on these threads. GM I am sure is aware of these issues but other than warranty has no interest is taking real CORRECTIVE ACTION to prevent these problems from repeating. I do not like the fact I have to worry about any driveline failures everytime I am challenged at a red light by a mustang. These cars have a great engine. plenty of hp, but the trans/driveline/rearend leave a lot to be desired. The aftermarket suppliers of stronger components are going to have a field day. I bought my car 6 months ago and really love it but have little confidence in the drivetrane. I would be very cautious about buying one again unless these issues are addressed by GM. By the way, the muscle cars of the 60's HP were very underrated to keep down insurance costs. They were over 400hp from the factory. To those making engine mods for more hp be sure and beef up your drivetrane or you will pay the piper. Forget warranty

I strongly suggest that anyone who is unhappy with the performance of their Camaro,or the strength of its driveline visit this site
http://roadtests.tripod.com/index.html then be thankful
I believe this is the results for your first muscle car

1967 Chevelle SS396 (MT)
396ci/375hp, 4spd, 3.73, 0-60 - 6.5, 1/4 mile - 14.9 @ 96.5mph

[BLACK10]

Originally Posted by hb35man

I strongly suggest that anyone who is unhappy with the performance of their Camaro,or the strength of its driveline visit this site
http://roadtests.tripod.com/index.html then be thankful
I believe this is the results for your first muscle car

1967 Chevelle SS396 (MT)
396ci/375hp, 4spd, 3.73, 0-60 - 6.5, 1/4 mile - 14.9 @ 96.5mph

i agree, most muscle cars were not "fast" compared to today's cars. but different times/different technology