:laugh: http://media.photobucket.com/video/toronado/haynes73/carolsgraduationpoolcar159.flv?o=5 http://media.photobucket.com/video/toronado/haynes73/carolsgraduationpoolcar147.flv?o=7
Muscle cars...NO. Personal Luxury Car...Yes. "My" personal luxury car. I'll stay with you up to 130...in style and comfort. 472 cu. in. 375 HP, 525 FT. LB.
What color was that car? My neighbors up the street have an old toronado and he has had it in car magazines and everything. It is red. Jason
What he said. Small to mid size car with full size engine. Think about this, the muscle car era came when GM let them put large engines in midsized cars. The same engines had been around and powering full size cars in the past. If you call this a muscle car, you would have to call a 70 eldorado a muscle car too. Just another powerfull car with people who enjoy them.
So if the tornadoes were musclecars, would that make the GMC motorhomes muscle RVs?? I would build one with buick 455 power!! :TU: KFD
yes. Even, Better. In 1957: Chevy needed, a better, more powerful, truck engine for; their medium truck. So, they put the 322 Nailhead in them.
I'd have to say, No The wide definition of muscle car, is a cheap stripped down mid size with a enhanced full size car engine - that 17 year olds of the day uld afford. An image car meant to empress stop light to light, or on the strip. ( Buick ignored the stripped part on the GS GSX etc- and was ignored as a muscle car many years, even though they are quicker than many) it wasn't until the mid 80's and the GN/GNX that Buick started getting muscle car respect I can remember having my 69 GS Vert parked with friends SS396 and hopped 302 Maverick 340 Duster, Swinger 500 Charger, 340 Challenger and people going on about how fast those cars were and maybe comment nice convertible as the passed my GS. - if they only knew or were there the night we raced all out ( a 68 lark 350 2bbl started it and ended up ahead of all but the 500.) . Toro's, Rivs, Eldo's T birds are almost as quick as some of the lesser muscle cars, (faster off the line the Rivs case than some of the high end muscle cars) sure weren't stripped down, mid size, or cheap - the were flagship cars. I'd class them as high performance luxury coupes. An dont mind embarrassing your average 5.0 Mustang, Camero etc every in a while here's one of the back in the day tests comparing Riv, Toro, Eldo. compare the 0-30 time to any muscle car ( watch out for old Guesser's in Riv's stop light to stop light - you may be embarrassed if you only have short run) 0-45 time for the Riv compares to 0-60 for GS Stage 1 - so its not long before the weight factor cuts in. NOTE these are basic Riv and Toro , not GS, GT which have engine upgrades closer to stage 1/LS A body car. - advantage A body - same HP torque less weight. if want the full article send me an email me an email
I would really say it all depends on perception. "Musclecar" and "Hot Rod" are indefinite terms nowadays. Old Guys spend idiot money on XYZ car, down to the correct date-coded window crank clips. With Cocker repopping Polyglas tires for $700, smoking the baloneys is out of the question! Did we forget that LS6 Chevelles had kids in the back seat, and Hemi 'Cudas carried groceries? Same things with the vehicles that populate the mags sitting on newstands. Old guys reliving their youth by putting slowly to car shows in something they blew their retirement on. REALLY? Let's think about this for a second... Musclecar: usually based on a mid sized platform, with a stupid powerful motor, stripes, spoilers, scoops, built after 1964. Mostly aimed at the yoots back then. Just because you are rocking a combover doesn't exclude you from the club now. Why the '62 Squarebird with its dual quad 425 horsepower FE block punch, or my old '58 Coronet with its built 440 , aren't thought of as musclecars are semantics. Next we have hotrods. Usually four wheels, and stripped down and meant to go fast. Power steering, ac and sound insulation are for weenies! I think these groups go hand in hand, but aren't the same thing. The most fun I had on two wheels was a Honda. Yes, I had my Skylark in high school, a bevy of Forwardlook Mopars, and the Roach, a $500 '87 CRX. I stripped the interior on that thing, had the sunroof bolted to the car two months out of the year, bolted a VW-stinger type exhuast made from an ANSA tip from a Ferrari Lusso, and Coilovers found on Craigslist, and a rubber shark for a shiftknob. Ugly? Yes. Fast? It gave me a few tickets! Fun? It still gives me a goofy grin thinking about it! For about as much money as the machining done on the Dodge's 440, it was worth it! Hot rod? HELL YES! Musclecar? Not enough... So, back to the original question: the tornado has a snarling V-8 with power to spare, enough gravitas to piss enough the neighbors and scare drivers in their Priuses. That alone should make it in the musclecar ranks. Fast and swaggering with machisimo! KFD
Some folks seem to be annoyed if their favorite iron isn't called a "muscle car." The term (as has been mentioned before) originated to classify mid-60s intermediate cars that had been equipped with large-displacement V8s from senior models. There are other cars faster then the "muscle cars," but they are not necessarily muscle cars. Many Corvettes and most Vipers will eat a (stock) muscle car alive. They still aren't muscle cars. The fabulous "real" letter-series Chrysler 300s were fast, but they, like the Toronado and the Rivieras, would be classified as luxury-sports cars. For it's day the '53 and '54 Skylarks offered well-above-average performance, but they were luxury-sports cars too. Since the muscle car era started pretty much with the GTO in the early '60s, and ended with the emission motors of the '70s, the muscle car era is over. And there were none that were FWD. I still like the early Toronados, though.
I have a '66 Toronado and I'm not annoyed in the least by my car not fitting in that category, just like a Corvette or a Viper. Early Toronados are extremely cool cars in their own way, but they can't be classified in the same way as a 442, GS or Roadrunner.
I hate front wheel drive, but in the early Toronados, they were breaking new ground and that adds a lot of coolness points. '66 Toronados were nothing like anything that had been built before... Or since. My Toro (again):
Not to add fuel to this fire but I am in the middle of a debate about the definition of the term Muscle Car on another board. I have suggested that the Wikipedia definition be use. There are others that want the MuscleCarClub.com definition to be used. All I want is for one to be chosen and adhered to without deviation from this point forward.
A deffinition has already been chosen and it came from the guy who invented the muscle car. It's an intermediate body with the engine taken from a fullsize car which had previously been unavailable in the smaller chassis. The problem is people with small blocks whine because they have the same chassis, and the people with luxury cars whine because they have the same drivetrain. Then some people whine just because they feel left out of the muscle car hype. Just stick with the deffinition written by the guy who invented the dang thing. He would know best.
Delorean should get credit for coining the term. to me; this defines cars that predated the coining of the term. The first prewar Century. And, the first postwar Century <a href="http://s953.photobucket.com/albums/ae16/bhambulldog/?action=view&current=Buick-Century_1936_800x600_wallpaper_01.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae16/bhambulldog/Buick-Century_1936_800x600_wallpaper_01.jpg" border="0" alt="1936 Buick Century"></a> <a href="http://s953.photobucket.com/albums/ae16/bhambulldog/?action=view&current=Buick1954buickcentury_dsf.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae16/bhambulldog/Buick1954buickcentury_dsf.jpg" border="0" alt="1954 Buick Century"></a>
