Does it have the round gauges in it? If it doesn't its an SE clone and not a "true" SE p :laugh: . Patrick
There is no "Websters" definition of what a MuscleCar is....or isn't. Generally speaking, Muscle cars were the Intermediate platform stuffed with the BIGGEST motor from that Marque. As the years have passed, the lower motors on the line have been included. They also had a different designation - GS, SS, 442, etc. Years ago, I had a neighbor who used to walk by me while I was working on my car infront of my parents house and he'd always ask "Is that car a Classic ?? My question back to him was "Define Classic...." and I'll let you know. Your car Looks great, is Very cool, and you should be proud. Personally I wouldn't even bother answering the person in question. If you do, ask him What a Muscle car is......and isn't.
About the only thing that I would say is that if a car had a small V8 in it(Camaro,Mustang,Barracuda)those cars would be considered "Pony Cars" Then there is a certain class of cars that had the biggest engines you could get(from the factory).It is those cars I consider to be musclecars.
mussel car That is a car that You haul mussels in right????? :laugh: :laugh: Looks like a nice car that any one with some class would love to own. When "muscle cars" were new back in the 60s NO BODY called them muscle cars. This was a term the insurance companys tacked on to them when they saw an opportunity for a money grab. The term is relative , I had a friend in Texas who had a 60 falcon with a 260 cu.in. engine that put out 850 + hp. I would say that was a muscle car. Take Your little coupe, clean it, keep up the appearance, reduce the weight as much as possible, blue print the eng. put a stiff gear in the diff. with a posi. keep it tuned real sharp. do all the little tricks that make hp. and in the process You will learn a lot that You will use further down the road of life and will have a bunch of fun doing it. :TU: Muscle car? A lot of people that followed the tail lights of my little 64 Skylark down the strip would say it was a muscle car, and it only had a 300 [optional] in it. That is what different classes are made for at the drag strip. I once raced a 3000hp 1948 anglia with my skylark. He beat me, but it was a photo finish and the guy told me after the race that he thought i was going to shoot him down. Muscle car, the term is relative, Enjoy Your skylark and dont let ANYBODY put You down. :Brow: :Brow:
Of course it isn't. Once again, the rule is that only MY car and cars EXACTLY like it are muscle cars. :Brow:
Reviving an old thread.... Steve said: "your '67 Skylark with a 340 is NOT even CLOSE to a Musclecar, because it is a "BASE" model SKYLARK! " My 1966 Skylark has the 340-4, AT, AC, PS, PB, PW, AM/FM, and most other factory options. Also, it came with the exact same drivetrain as the 1967 GS 340 and GS California. Don't understand how you can label such a "loaded" car as a "base" Skylark.... Gee, what does that make a Special Deluxe (also with 340-4), or God forbid, a Special sedan?
I think what he means is, special notwithstanding, the model most people started with when buying a midsized buick (before adding options) was the skylark. Even if you add every option in the book minus the GS options, you haven't upgraded the model beyond skylark hence it is the base model reguardless of options. Now as I understand it when you walked into a buick dealer and begun talking about a midsized car, the dealer would start you off at a skylark, id you wanted a special you needed to insist that you wanted the "economy" model. To the maufacturer the special is the base becasue that is the body they start with and begin to add options to it to make it an upscale model, to the dealer the skylark is the base because that is the model they they begin their sales tactics with. The individual options within the model don't really mean much, it is the GS 400 or 455 option that move the car up a model. So a GS340/350 is not a base model (it isn't a muscle car either) while a skylark with a 455 (if there was such a thing from the factory) is a base model (and a muscle car). Now as far as I know, muscle cars were called supercars by the magazines in their day, and they basically decided what was a supercar by weight and hp (platform size and engine displacement had a lot to do with it also). The mytical musclecar number is 1 hp for every 10 lbs or less (but in some cases they fudged it a little) The junior supercars (gs340 and gs 350) were cars that had everything the supercars packages had minus the large engine. They weren't really musclecars but werent base models either. These cars were the w31 olds, gs340/350, pontiac lemans 326 h.o, Chevrolet Malibu L79 (327 vette engine). Musclecar came in to vouge as a derogatory term in the 1970's to refer to the owners of the now used supercars, mainly refering to the machismo that the owners of these cars displayed (it was a sterotype). By the 1980's the term stuck and expanded to include newer camaros, firebirds, and mustangs in the 1990s. The term muscle car usually applies to cars that were high hp from the factory, modified cars (such as dropping a 455 stage one into a 65 skylark) are usually street machines. The line between the two however gets blurrier everyday.
Of course your skylark is a muscle car But the Electra is the father of all muscle cars :3gears: :laugh:
oh geee, well how about this for getting your panties in a bunch, you an't got a muscle car unless you have three pedals uzzled: , can't do this with automatic :3gears: don't let them bambooze'll ya, of course ya got a muscle car :TU:
It is what ever you say it is! NO ONE PERSON is the definitive maker of the rules. Your car is to you whatever you say it is. Who cares what someone else says about somthing you love. I have owned over 125 cars in the last 15 years, I feel that I have a lot of knowledge stored up from the careful purchase and ownership of these cars. My opinion doesn't mean S***, except to maybe myself. If it means anything to you, then my opinion is that you have a musclecar. It looks like a musclecar to me. How many musclecar owners have had themselves "Dusted" by what looks like a non muscle car. Tell the musclecar owners who were smoked by a Skylark last week at the F.A.S.T Race that a Skylark is'nt even a muscle car. As for displacement, what do you say to our Turbo Buick brethren. Enjoy your muscle car, or whatever YOU choose to call it. :TU:
I missed the muscle car era for the most part so I'm not sure on what the definition is. But I've seen plenty of nice base model cars from all the manufacturers that have been built by the owner to be a "hotrod" which is even cooler to me. I probably could have bought a GS, but I'm happy with the nice Skylark I paid 2500 bucks for. Now I can put any engine in it I want, paint it any color I want and do anything else I want because it's not inherently valuable which to me is the fun part of owning an older car. I had a GN before I bought my Skylark and felt bad about modding it. This thing is going to be whatever I want it to be which should be fun :bglasses:
Carl is right. My brother also pointed out that a 67 GS would take a 67 GTO any day....both stock of course.
Base model Skylark & Special came with a 300......340 was an option. So says the Selling Manual for 67
It Just Looks Like A Muscle Car!!!! Here is a little better picture of my (BASE MODEL) :grin: 67 Skylark
Doubtful, depending on which GS model and GTO model. A 1967 GS340 can't get out of it's own way let alone take on a car with identical weight and 60 more c.i. If you are talking a stock GS400 vs. a Stock 335 hp 4bbl "Base GTO" (california 2bbl option not withstanding). A stock 335hp car turns about a 14.66 in the 1/4 on street tires, a 360 hp H.O. automatic does 13.36 and the Ram Air (365 hp - underrated) 4 speed car does 13.10-13.20 (according to motor trend, the second two cars were tested on m&h slicks). The 1967 Buick GS is on the other hand rated at 340 hp and outweighs the GTO by 400 lbs (3860 for the buick automatic, 3490 for the GTO automatic). Car Life claimed a 0-60 mph time of 6.0 seconds and a 14.7 second quarter mile at 97 mph with its 3.90:1 Positraction hardtop. Admittedly the car life test was probably not performed on slicks as the H.O. and Ram Air GTO tests were. In the end, depending on driver and track conditions I think it is possible for a stock 1967 Buick GS400 to beat a Stock 1967 Pontiac GTO 335 hp car. As to a race between the Buick and either the H.O. and Ram Air GTO I think it would be very difficult for the buick to come out on top. That being said, I have never personally tested my theory, MY GTO built to Ram Air specs turns about a 13.5 on bias ply street tires (I use a ram air IV cam from the 1969 GTOs). I don't know what my buick turns but the one time i drove it (prior to putting it in storage) it felt quicker than my GTO, mostly due to the 455 that the car has in it. I have no doubt that a stock GS400 is a fast car, but there are other fast cars out there as well. No, why are we still arguing about a what is a muscle car, by now we shoudl have figured out the definition varies person to person, realized it's a personal thing and moved on. Remember, to the rest of the non-automotive public they are just a bunch of old cars. RDBSON - your car is a very nice street machine. :TU:
Mucsle Car Mania Hey everybody, just wanted to thank everybody who replied to my post, I have learned a lot from all the input and have enjoyed the banter, and most of all ( I think) you have all had some fun arguing your points I know I have enjoyed reading them, thats what its all about the joy we get out of our Buicks ,everybody have a :grin: day Randy
