Our cars are neither. They are Gran Tourers or GT's, like the Porsche 928, Jenson Interceptor and Lamborghin Espada.

Most people in the UK call it a muscle car though as it is American, loud and relatively quick.


Don't forget the later 2nd Gen Z28's are muscle cars and had 175bhp....

 

Actually, aren't GT cars typically high-end luxury porformance cars? And it's not necessarily a distinct category. You could have a car that was both a sports car and a GT car. I would argue the Corvette or any Lamborghini (as examples) could be placed in both categories by definition. It's interesting because a quick search online will return results that place the f-body cars on muscle car, sports car, and pony car dedicated websites. I think what is done to the cars really has significant input as to which category they belong.

 

Generally a GT would be a 2+2 with big engine Our cars.

 

Bumpski

 

my point was more that the car was marketed as one thing, mechanically was something else and lastly interpreted by motoring journalists (whom let's crudely class as the opinion of the poeple at the time) as again something different. Thus take your pick and factor in your own thoughts as another variable.

PS: I think the 3rd gen is a great car and you can tell the engineers/ designers really loved their jobs. Alumunium bonnets, induction flaps which release on full throttle, impressive cd levels and timeless aircraft inspired aesthetics.

I just don't think it was the sophisticated car GM would have you believe, nor the muscle car its heritage nameplate implies. I think it was a great compromise - a car of the time for the particular 'sporty' (lol - not "sports car") segment and perhaps as a result genre defining

 

very well said, i think now i agree, although i also blame the emissions crackdowns of the era for the major lacks in performance , damn ozone layer

 

If i may say, I strongly believe we're muscle. When you get behind the wheel and let her back, the sound, the feeling, the barebone roughness, lets you know its a muscle car. Sports cars are all about the comfort and the style, sex on wheels kinda deal. Muscle cars feel the bumps in the road, they growl when you step on the gas, The interiors are jagged and tough. I'm not discrediting anybody else's ideas and i'm actually open to hear other's opinions of this statement. These are GM's muscle car of the 80's in my opinion.

1987 Camaro LT w/ loaded black interior. 2.8 Liter 5 speed.

 

it had to happen at some point, i'm actually thankful for it becuase it led us to the TBI, TPI, LTx, LSx and now the generation V with direct injection

 

this too is true, without the innovation that our cars first pioneered i doubt that the zr-1 would hold the production car record at the nurburgring, or it probably still would, but it doesnt change the fact our cars were "gateways" to higher performance which is probably why so many people still drive them, and give them the performance they deserved, i just went for a drive to autozone and i got three "hey nice cars" while i was there, and one "really thats a v6?" thus proving, its still stunningly beautiful

 

List of mods:
All fluids switched out for synthetic
LEDs in place of some bulbs in key areas
HD radio

So, I'm going to have to say :
Sports Car...no
Muscle Car...no
Race Car... Yup

 

I'm gonna chip in my 2 cents. First gens in 68 could be had with a 396 @415 lb. In 69 the 427 and the 454 were available with the 427 producing 460 lb torque. Pony car? That's some serious muscle.

The third gens just seem to have a little of both in my humble opinion. They look and handle like a sports car as stated well before my post. Yes, they have a back seat, which is borderline non functional. That's muscle car.

I owned a 68 Charger R/T back in the day. It was king of the road as far as I was concerned. With stock suspension it tipped and nose dived when cornering. Definitely not a sports car.

I also owned a 63 MGB. Not a Lambro, or Ferrari, but definitely a sports car. It handled almost as well as My third gens.

We need to remember at first the muscle car was mostly an after thought, throwing powerful engines in 2 door family sedans with bench seats. They evolved into cars with bucket seats, and sleeker lines, as time went on. Remember, the 70 Camaro was available with a 396, and the 5.7 LT-1 rated at 380 lb torque. They also had much better suspension than the earlier muscle cars. That's the evolution part I'm speaking of.

So anyway, they have characteristics of both.

 

bumpski.

 

why do you keep bumping this old thread?

 

because I'm the original poster and I liked the discussion at the time.

---

BUMP 6years+ later! How has people's views maybe changed on this matter.. or how about the new enthusiasts in our community that has shown up in recent years.. I'm not very active on TGO anymore but I want to get back into posting more again.

Remember the Question of the topic at hand was.. Do you view our cars as being A Muscle car.. or a Sports Car.. and how have you modified them to further represent your view point.. Also to bring up people in the topic had also considered them a GT Gran Tourer as well as an American 80s exotic. I'd love to hear what you have believe now after all this time has passed. Theres gotta definitely be new faces and ideas

 

This is how I've modified mine over the past 6yrs.. 6.3L 385 stroker running a stealth ram holley efi system.. full adjustable suspension.. upgraded brakes.. vette c5z wheels 11" wide tires up front.. 12" wide tires in back.. with a second set of rims w/ drag radials and skinnies on it.. and more.

 

This is a great thread. Glad you bumped it back into existence. To me for it to be a muscle car it has to have a certain stance or look. The sixties and seventies camaros, chevelles, mustangs, mopar cars, all had that look. I feel that fifth gen camaros also have that look. When dodge reintroduced the challenger a few years ago, it has that look. In my opinion, my 88 camaro also have that look. The fourth gens look like a sports car to me, and other than body style, they're pretty much the same as our cars.

My stock 305 tbi may only make 170hp, but when I let the clutch out, it feels like a powerhouse. I can be going any speed and step on it a little bit and get pushed back in my seat. My car needs some cosmetic work. The clear is peeling like crazy and the passenger door is messed up because it was lightly t-boned before I bought it. Even so, I've had a person roll up next to me in a new Bentley and admire my car. Last night (I'm in Vegas this summer) an older guy next to me at a stop light started oohing and aahing over it.

In my book it has the feel and look of a muscle car all the way.

Mods:
White lettered tires
Want to repaint and fix interior issues.
Someday may put 383 in it

 

Thanks also for bringing this thread back. Didn't see it back in the day. I consider my GTA as a tourer. It has plenty of power being stock and handles well. It is not a daily driver but does get used for some errands during the week.
I lived in the Seattle area when I bought the car. The most fun driving it was coming down the coast route in touring mode. Now it is fun on short day trips and hopefully longer ones once my wife retires.
Here's to Gran Touring Automobile.

 

Yes, I consider my T/A to fall into the GT category as well.

 

I think we're dealing with a lot of different terminology, and the fact that NONE of it REALLY is 100% set in stone.

I'm sure you could research this, but I'm just shootin off the top of my head. If I'm not mistaken, "sportscar" was originally a race sanctioning body term for a soft roof, 2 door, 2 seat performance car. GT was a hard top 2+2. ...I think it kinda morphed into any 2+2 being a "sportscar", and any 2+4 being a "GT". Sedan was more of an insurance or government term for a 4 seater, and they were either 4 door sedan or 2 door sedan. ...then to be stylish, you started seeing manufacturers use the letters "GT" show up on performance sedans. GT, GTA, GTO, etc. etc.

...all this really depends on who you ask, and in what part of the world I think.

....and then...the term "Musclecar". ...it's not really an "official" term anywhere. It can mean everything and anything. I think most people use it to describe the over-engined (if there is such a thing!!!) American cars from the 60's and early 70's.

My personal opinion. Our cars qualify as musclecars. They carried the flag of performance, regardless of what they actually delivered on the street. The MonteCarlo SS, the Mustang, the Turbobuicks and sy/tys etc. etc. -all Musclecars(trucks) IMHO. They were given larger engines or better performance than your average joe really needed, in the name of brand recognition. No one every really defined the term, so no one can really be right or wrong. The ONLY argument that I think holds water would be that they're really only 60s and 70s cars. If that's your angle, I'll give you that.

 

So to answer the question:

I think our cars are GT cars. They are NOT sportscars.

...as for Musclecar?- there's no right or wrong answer, but I think they are.

 

I love this discussion and had fun with it back in the day, because ultimately there really is no right or wrong answer. As as said before here.. they don't really "FIT" in any of the categories that well theres always stipulations or reasonings to put it in a different description. The idea behind this is to hear what people believe they would fit in.. and how that has affected their modifying of their cars to support this.. obviously someone who believes they're a Sports car/GT Touring car.. with modify it differently than someone who would believe it was a muscle car. I hope this thread will pick up in speed and get recognition like it once did. I would also love to hear from some of the original posters if they're around now 6years later to see if their opinions has changed.. as well as all the multitudes of new faces the forums have accumulated.

 

This is the main mod I'm going to do to my car. I feel like the white top is reminiscent of the first gens, and when combined with the rally stripes, it will look more the the muscle car I believe it to be.

And yes I know, that color of yellow is awful, it's supposed to be more tan or gold. Like the gold color of the firebird logo on black cars.

Once I start painting and restoring it more, I'll start a thread about it.