MUSCLE CARS or just CLASSIC?

There is a gal here in So.Cal. that runs a Cobalt with the 2.2 4 banger no NOS or other add ons and runs high 10's in the 1/4.

 

1/8 mile? or was that the 60ft time....Heck, my kids Jr.Dragster (1 cyl. Briggs & Strattan) ran faster then that!!!! 11.9@75mph

 

i got to drive my friends base model 4dr cobalt a few weeks ago. it was actually suprisingly fast.

 

Is that a Cobalt SS, or LS?

Chris

 

Hmmm....My first Beretta was a '96 2.2 5 speed and was REALLY slow - but it got really good gas mileage.

 

It's an non-super charged engine. There are 2 SS models. One has the Super Charger and the other is a trim option only. The SS with super charger is 2.0 ltr, without it is a 2.2 or 2.4 ltr.

My daily driver is an HHR panel 2.4 ltr and 5 spd. Good performance and 30+ MPG.

 

Hmmm feels like I'm in a Chevy site all the sudden?
seems pretty off topic to me, just an opinion,

 

HHR is a colbalt underneath, just like the Neon and PT Criuser share the same platform

 

I used to think the HHR looked horrendous, but that panel version actually looks great!

 

I always thought of it as a litlte econobox with a V8 for highway ability, something that needs to be done today, what with all the overpriced performance oriented cars out there.

 

PT and Neon don't share the same platform. PT has a flat floor and different rear suspension because of it. Basic Engine and trans are the same. PT will not turn as tight as the Neon and never got the performance suspensions and top motor option. I have two of them as well..

 

When it first came out, my dad was working the parts counter at a Dodge dealership. He said they were based on the Cirrus/Stratus platform, but had the Neon engine and drivetrain. (At least, that's what the salesmen told the customers, and I wanna say I read that in a brochure as well.) Of course, later the Stratus (usually) had the Neon engine anyway, so I think it's safe to say the PT is more Stratus than Neon.

I used to have a dealer promo model of the PT Cruiser with Plymouth badging that my dad gave me, wish I'd kept track of it...

 

this is a touchy issue and im gona have to go with both, muscle for the 302 and early years and classic because its not really a performance car...

but do you concider 80s camaros as muscle cars???

 

http://collector.johnnylightning.com/products/those_70s_cars/index.asp

 

Back to the subject at hand... Here's my two cents on this ancient thread. At birth, no way was the Maverick a muscle car. Not even the 302 Grabber. It's like the Cobalt SS, Subaru WRX or Dodge SRT4. Hot little rides, absolutely, and respected even in their own time by people who know what they are, but exceptions to the rule among Cobalts, Imprezas and Neons. And hot as they may be, they aren't Vettes or Vipers.

In 30 years if all new cars are weak little corn-burning two-cylinder hybrid Smartcars that drive themselves safely at 5mph under the limit and stop on their own for squirrels and the police, those little SRT4's, SS's and WRX's appeal among people like us will likely be huge. They still won't be Vettes, Vipers and Saleens, but those "real" cars won't be easily attainable by ordinary people, just like most of us don't have '67 fastback Shelbys in our garages. But we have the next best thing. (And if you do have that coveted "real" muscle car, at least admit you can't or won't drive and enjoy it every day like your Maverick)

Our cars became muscle cars. The non-enthusiast who looks at a nice Maverick doesn't even make the the disctinction. Mechanically, many of them have muscle car guts, they look, sound and drive like muscle cars, and their small size isn't a bad thing anymore because next to current cars they aren't that small. And in a way having a hot Maverick is better than having an "official" muscle car. It's like we're liberated from all the BS that comes with owning one, and we're free to enjoy them. We can modify our cars without a second thought, and we can drive them as much as we want because we can afford to fix or even (God forbid) replace them. They turn heads, start conversations in parking lots and at gas pumps, lay as much rubber and tire smoke as anything but there is no potential guilt and nobody's ever going to give you any BS about those non-original buckets, custom stripes, Grant steering wheel or Bobcat taillights.

I say they they're muscle cars if they have the muscle. A V6 Camaro isn't a muscle car, but nobody will argue that it becomes one when you swap that big block into it.

And while the muscle question may be debatable, are they classics? Hell yes. More than just "antique" for sure. It takes more than being old to be a classic, and the Maverick definitely has that appeal. If the Volkswagen Beetle can be a classic then I'll stand my ground on this one.