"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)


Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very
short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models
and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's
an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed
had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios
and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in
engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can
outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger
R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high
output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true
of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch




I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)

Grow up and act like a man.


Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things just do by.

Kevin wouldn't know the definition of a "man" if it bitch slapped him in the
head.