I think we were discussing what performance numbers qualify as a "muscle car". Maybe you want to require it be easily modified to be much faster than stock? Or something else?
As for my choices, there are no 4 or 6 cylinder cars here, nor any sideways mounted engines, or any McPherson struts on the lot. Every car has a 400/425 trans, and between 350 and 500 inches of Olds or Cadillac engine. How about you? Bruce Roe 3 Jun 2006 "77w30" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Okay you feel that 4 cyl hunk of junk is comparable to a 442. how > about I > swap you the front wheel hunk of junk we have at the shop for a > nice 69 > 442. > Since it ranks right up there. > Just think how cool it would look with 60 series tires in the rear > and 50's > up front for traction. > The noise the of the timeing chain guids rattling after 80,000 > miles. And > the 1-1/8 split in the rear for that fake dual exhaust look while > it idles > so rough do being worn out. Where my 442 idled rough do to the cam > choice. > Lets not forget the oil it burns do to clogged pcv system. > At changing the starter is not a problem due to exhaust .the intake > is just > in the way. Lol > But it's a 442 > ron > > > > > > rodney fama OCA #033098 > 1969 cutlass s > 1969 442 north carolinia car > 1969 442 cali car. assembly required stay away from www.calicars.cc > what a > hassle. > 1972 cutlass convertable > 1976 phx y-76 arizona regional car. assy. required > 1977 cutlass supreme (3) > 1986 honda shadow vt 1100c cruiser > 1987 cutlass supreme > 1989 chevy k-2500 4*4 pick up > 1991 yamaha warrior atv > 1994 chevy caprice 9c-1 police pkg > 732-986-6388 cell > 732-254-9500 wk 2 pm best time to call week days > web site. shows disc brake conversion using 79 trans am rear disc on > my 77 > cutlass,and my 77 restoration project, along with other toys > > http://home.comcast.net/~77w30442/wsb/html/view.cgi-contact.html-.html > > http://home.comcast.net/~77w30442/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-MerchantI D-2 > 21197-Publish-t-makestatic-true-skip-45.html > > you may have to copy and paste the address to web browser. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 2:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: 442 Achieva > > That car was advertised to do 0-60 in 7.5 sec, if I remember > correctly. I define "muscle car" as 0-60 in under 8 sec. Or, > 1/4 mile in under 16 sec. The original 330cu 442 was I > believe 8.2 sec in stock form. > > While that seemed fast in 1960 or in the 80s, some may > choose other numbers considering the latest stuff. Still, > despite the large selection of vehicle models in theory > surpassing that perfomance, only a small percentage of > those actually on the road can do so. > > Bruce Roe > > 3 Jun 2006 Joe Vahabzadeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > At 10:57 PM 6/1/06 -0400, ron wrote: > > >I may be wrong about the achievia, but they did make a front > wheel > > drive > > >442 with a quad 4. and although it may have sounded mean. > > >It was in no respect a muscle car > > > > Late 80s or early 90s Calais, if I recall right. Given the the > car > > weighed > > only like 2700 or 2800 lbs, and the fact that it produced > something > > like > > 180 (I think) horsepower, I'm sure it could move. > > > > Of course, that was with (then) exotic technology on a 4 cylinder, > > > high > > compression (10:1), and you had to spin the snot out of it. I > think > > peak > > horsepower was at or just above 6000 rpm. Torque, as you might > > guess, was > > a bit shy, but then again, it wasn't a heavy car. > > > > I dunno, though. Would it qualify as a musclecar? What would > make > > it > > qualify, what wouldn't? > > > > - Joe Vahabzadeh > > > >
