Well if you want to be technical the term muscle car refers to the midsize car with a big block engine GTO Chevelle SS 442 GS400 (my favorite) . But in general yes i think it should be considered a muscle car ever check out Jay Leno,s
Big engine in smaller (mid size) body = musclecar so the answer is no. Not everything with a big engine is a muscle car. Cadillacs had big engines right?
That's interesting. Given the degree of innovation introduced in early Toronados, they came out surprisingly robust and trouble free. The fact that the powertrain was used in motorhomes for many years speaks volumes for their robustness.
Cool- yes Powerfull- yes Muscle Car- no Just because a car has HP doesnt make it muscle. As msc66 said "Big engine in smaller (mid size) body = musclecar so the answer is no."
Unique car,killer motor, ahead of its time design wise ...but I would have to say - no it isnt a musclecar by definition due to its size.....hhhhmm we need a new term for large cars with killer engines ? "Barge GT's" ?
The term "Muscle Car" was a marketing tactic used in the 60s and 70s by the auto manifacturers to describe their intermediate size cars with big engines. I believe the term muscle car can be used to describe any high powered car. But if describing a car as factory built muscle car it would be limited to the factory built intermediates with the big engines. IHMO.Bob H.
I almost bought a white one here for $2000 once, but couldnt get past the front wheel drive thing.o No:
I never considered Toronados or Rivs Muscle cars. :Smarty: And to go further I never considered Camaros, Firebirds, Mustangs, Challengers, Baracudas or Corvettes Muscle cars either. I always thought of them as either sportscars or ponycars. Like stated in previous posts.. The intermediate family cars with hopped up factory motors are my definition of the American Muscle Car.:TU:
That is the generally accepted definition, for sure. Hard to argue. I think it is especially hard to exclude, say, a 1969 Impala SS 427 4 speed bucket seat 2 door or convertible from the list.
Technically, something like a roadrunner would be one. A basic family car in 2 door configuration with a factory souped up motor and a sporty nameplate. A camaro or mustang would be more like a pony car. In the popular sense, most any mid 60s to early 70s 2 door performance oriented American car now seems to fall into the muscle car category. The Toronado has the engine, two doors, and is somewhat sporty, so in the broader popular definition I would say it falls into the muscle car category, but not by the more technical definition, as it was not derived from any sort of more basic car.:Smarty:
Quote from leno site "Other features? Jay's stylin' new Toronado can get a max 7000 RPM, a compression ratio of 8.3:1 and an engine that uses a modified aluminum block as well as cylinder heads from the Cadillac CTS-V racing program." end quote
No... a Toronado, (like the Riviera) is not a muscle car. It has too much class, luxury and length to be considered a `muscle car` Muscle cars are just big engines wrapped in as less as possible sheet metal (so: European-Japanese sizes) and luxury with just enough room left for a small driver.
I'd have to say no. Neat cars, but I think an additional critera for being a muscle car would be the ability to run at least in the 14's in original form.
I think the name muscle car is changing as time goes. Kids today think my Rivs are muscle cars. The older guys will never consider big cars muscle. In a quarter mile, they might have not run with the A-bodies but run all the way to top speed and see which had the front. It might be the big one. I own a GS too and really don't see that much difference in them. So, I voted muscle.
