where else can I put the AWD or RWD post?
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
From: Durham NH
AWD is for WRXs and cars that are ment to handle well. If they made these muscle cars with AWD I think it would make them less of a muscle car. It takes all the fun out of it. A muscle car incorparets something that isen't ment for handling ment for straight line driving. If it is a true muscle car it needs to be RWD.
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Muscle Car?
I really don't want to start a flame war, but rather a friendly debate...Isn't the F-body really a sports car? It seems like domestic enthusiasts have really turned thier backs on the humble begginings of the Trans Am and the Camaro. They were designed to run the Trans Am road racing circuit were they not? I mean I do realize that the F-bodies were some of the few rear drive V8 cars GM offered besides the Corvette for quite a while, but I really wouldn't call them muscle cars. My take is that the muscle car distinction just grew out of a lack thereof. The Monte Carlo SS and the Olds 442 were valiant efforts-they're what pops into my head when someone says "80's muscle car."
However, even these just couldn't live up to names like Chevelle, El Camino, and others. Now THESE are MUSCLE CARS. Look at them side by side...Camaro-Not light, but not a tank either, low stance, sleek lines, suspension geared more towards performance, fairly powerful engine for the time. Chevelle-weighs in just behind a Sherman tank, sits up rather high, no thought given to suspension other than grocery getting, big-@$$-straight-line-put-your-foot-down-and-hold-on-V8. Of course this is just one man's opinion...plus this is the opinion of a guy who prefers watching Formula One or World Rally Championship racing rather than NASCAR.
Actually, even though I may be opening up a real can of worms, here's another opinion. Honestly I think the Turbo Trans Am was a hell of an idea. GM just had it a little backwards. They should have used the 4.3L V-6 instead...in ALL F-bodies. Imagine that-the thing ran a 13.5 with the 3.8L on 16lbs. Think of what it could do with a 4.3L on 25lbs! Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that would have been more of a "Sports Car" engine is all-I dunno, maybe I should just shut up and build something
Later,
Matthew
P.S. If you're going to reply and call me a "*** sports car lover" because I don't think the F-body is a hairy chested manly muscle car send them to my e-mail (tr1pp1ngb1lly@hotmail.com) rather than clutter the board.
However, even these just couldn't live up to names like Chevelle, El Camino, and others. Now THESE are MUSCLE CARS. Look at them side by side...Camaro-Not light, but not a tank either, low stance, sleek lines, suspension geared more towards performance, fairly powerful engine for the time. Chevelle-weighs in just behind a Sherman tank, sits up rather high, no thought given to suspension other than grocery getting, big-@$$-straight-line-put-your-foot-down-and-hold-on-V8. Of course this is just one man's opinion...plus this is the opinion of a guy who prefers watching Formula One or World Rally Championship racing rather than NASCAR.
Actually, even though I may be opening up a real can of worms, here's another opinion. Honestly I think the Turbo Trans Am was a hell of an idea. GM just had it a little backwards. They should have used the 4.3L V-6 instead...in ALL F-bodies. Imagine that-the thing ran a 13.5 with the 3.8L on 16lbs. Think of what it could do with a 4.3L on 25lbs! Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that would have been more of a "Sports Car" engine is all-I dunno, maybe I should just shut up and build something
Later,
Matthew
P.S. If you're going to reply and call me a "*** sports car lover" because I don't think the F-body is a hairy chested manly muscle car send them to my e-mail (tr1pp1ngb1lly@hotmail.com) rather than clutter the board.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
colton_carlson
Firebirds for Sale
7
Mar 8, 2019 12:21 PM