Okay all you buick fans here is one for you, a Guy at work says Buick Skylark is no muscle car, Mine is a 67 skylark not a GS with a 340, when my brother told this Guy what I bought his comment was well I thought he was going to buy a muscle car :rant: I would like your feedback on this and what you think I should tell him, is it or is it not a muscle car thanks Randy
We have a word for these guys, "looser." It is not unusual to get little respect for Buicks from know nothing jerks. Those who are knowledgeable about muscle cars have know doubts about our Buicks. Those who are stupid are just that and should be ignored. Whenever we get a chance we can usually educate them with an application of throttle. :Brow: Buy the way that is sweet looking muscle car you have.
If he is a Chevy guy, counter back by asking him if a Chevelle is a muscle car. He will of course, say yes. Then ask him to explain how a 283 Chevelle is a muscle car and your Buick isn't.
Then ask him if an "SS" badge automatically makes it a muscle car, then ask him if an SS 1972 Chevelle w/ a 307 is a muscle car (yes they made those). Patrick
Patrick, Are you sure that there was an SS307!? I don't know that there was any other small block SS option other than the 350. These are some interesting points, but at the same time many of them seem to support the idea that a 340 Skylark isn't a muscle car. My personal opinion is that they're not anyhow, but that's based on how I define a muscle car too. Even the GS350 is a "Junior Muscle Car" to me - all the looks of the real thing, but the smaller motor under the hood. To me, the 2 door Skylark is just the 2 door version of the 4 door sedan. They didn't become a muscle car until the (for a Buick) 400, 401, or 455 were put into them. It's not that they can't become muscular cars, they just weren't from the factory. Others' definitions may vary though - I think we had a thread on it recently, which I managed to avoid. :Brow:
Yep checked it to be sure on www.Musclecarclub.com. Check under 1972 Chevelle, scary thing is in 1973 you could have a SS station wagon! Scary to say the least. Oh and I agree w/ you on the strict definition of a muscle car, however it gets really diluted when it comes to small block cars. Patrick
hes probably just jealous his little 2 litre ricer doesnt have a mean grunt to it but instead sounds like a weedwacker.
It's interesting that they say it was possible, yet the motor list doesn't include the 307. I'm curious as to if one was every outfitted that way. Then again, the SS badge wasn't originally something that led one to believe the end all/be all of motors was under the hood. It was a styling package. My dad had a 63 Impala SS w/a 283 2bbl. Nothing awe inspiring there! Another fascinating thing about that site. If you go to the Skylark page, then the photos page, then the 62 Skylark picture... that's my mom's 62 Skylark convert! I took that picture about 10 years ago in the driveway of their old house in WA. I have no idea where they grabbed it from to put it up. I did have it posted in the past on a web page I think.
I hate to say it but, I don't really think your skylark is a muscle car, not unless your 340 is pushing over 300 hp, to vault you to that magic 10 lbs per hp mark. I doubt whoever said it wasn't a muscle car would consider the malibu, cutlass, or tempest a muscle car either. To look at it from a historical standpoint your skylark isn't a supercar, it's not a GS and it doesn't have the big 400 mill. Back then skylarks like yours were considered just regular cars and even until the early 1990's they were considered just old used cars, often swept aside for their bigger badder musclecar brothers, or used as donors for the GS's of the world. School teachers and grandmothers bought skylarks (and cutlasses, and tempests, and malibus), Hot rodders bought a GS (or a 442, or a GTO, or an SS396). That doesn't mean you car isn't cool or muscular looking, it certainly is, but is it a muscle car? not really. Don't feel so bad I have a 1967 GS 340, and I don't really consider it a muscle car either, because while it has the flash of a muscle car from the era, it doen't have the factory go to back it up. Fortunatly it now has a 1970 455, but I think the car is now more of a street machine than a true muscle car, although some would call it that. The point is: so what if it is a musclecar or not, do you like it? Do you have fun with it? if so big deal, go out and enjoy the car and stop worrying about what other people think.
By definition a Skylark is not a Musclecar. Neither is my Regal. Actually, my Regal feels like a Musclecar, and your Skylark looks like a Musclecar. HMMMM..........To heck with definitions :3gears:
Muscle Car I am not sure what the definition is but I can say this: A lot of teenagers give the "burn your tires" sign when they see me driving my '70 Chevelle, and this thing has more "punch" than my wife's 2001 3400 V6 Impala that makes driving that a bore. However, with the rear gear and oversized tires - it is not a tire burner - will maintain 60 mph in any hill I drive over! It has a 250 straight 6 with a 2 speed automatic manual brakes and steering - maybe that is the definition of a muscle car! I love driving it everyday to work! I also have a "cherry bomb" on it so it also has an interesting exhaust note - hard to describe but will bark when really getting into it! By the way, as far as I am concerned, the first post is a muscle car - nice ride!
Muscle Car Madness Thanks for everybodys input, for the most part It does not make much difference to me how anybody classifies my car, I just wanted Some input from the board on this, you guys can tell from the picture that is sure looks like a muscle car, and there have been many challenges when cruising around town, the unfortune truth is the stock 340 does not have much punch so I am not out racing it but boy if it had a 400 or 455 I would have covered there front end in rubber :laugh: its such a great crusier though and it is pretty quick from passing gear, and one other great thing I have been to some shows and cruises and have not seen one 67 skylark or GS , So thatm akes it more fun for me , thanks this board is awesome keep on crusing Randy
Hah! My grandfather bought a new 63 Impala SS with a 230 SIX cylinder motor in it. My older brother inherited it. So, I agree with you; if an SS badge alone makes it a muscle car, then my old Dodge minivan SE with the Turbo in it qualifies...
No, the Skylark is not a muscle car. That is one of the reasons why Buick made the Gran Sport-now, the Gran Sport is a muscle car, and as you all know is much different than a Skylark. It always was and it always will be.
By definition, what MAKES a Musclecar a MUSCLEcar, is the "Option Package" to how it PERFORMS, NOT how it "LOOKS"! The "badges" only IDENTIFY it, as an "Option Package" (as GS or SS or T/A, etc.), but have NOTHING ELSE to do with the car's Performance. My kid has GS badges on his Red Wagon, what category does THAT fit into? Muscletoy? The BASE model (Skylark, Chevelle, Firebird, etc.), is what the Factory STARTS with. When they ADD the "Big Block" (referring to the "early" years of '70s Musclecars), for example, then they add Heavy Duty Suspension, Disc Brakes, Front/Rear AntiSway bars, Wide Tires, etc., That is what "Transforms" a Base Model car INTO a MUSCLECAR! :TU:
Just a thought. If I owned a 70 sklark with the optional SP motor (350 -315hp) (same as the GS) Then my car is not a muscle car. because it is badged a skylark. but if I have GS badges then it is a muscle car. Personally - It is your car. Make it what you want. If they say it is not a musclecar and you think it is. then thats all that matters it is your car and not theirs. Good luck with your musclecar... :TU:
