A Sportscar...I Think Not

[ViperInBlack]

In the lexicon of American automobiles, there is the recurrent use of the term "sports car." Personally, I do not believe that there has ever been, or will ever be, an American sports car.

The MGTD, the Austin Healy 3000, the Triumph TR6 and even the little Mazda Miata were "sports cars." They were rather uninteresting, but they, for me, define that genre.

To me, the Dodge Viper is a muscle car. It is the Swiss Army Knife of muscle cars. It can be used on a road course, drag strip, or even for (God help us) "drifting."

It is a very versatile creation, and it came on the heels of glutinous spending in the 80s and introduced during the hard times of the 90s. It has been described accurately by the media as a cartoon. It is, indeed, a cartoon. The Spiderman Viper was an incredible cartoon (sidebar: I was vacationing in the mountains when the e-bay auction closed on the Spiderman Viper...I still wish I had it).

I saw one in the newspaper this weekend with headers, aftermarket exhaust, flywheel, 3.55 as well as trim changes. It was only a few months old. That "other car" made in America, and made in gross abundance with auto transmission option, is most often found bone stock many years after being sold. By contrast, Viper owners appear to be overwhelmed by the urge to modify and tweak and often rock themselves to sleep with thoughts of tire smoke drifting in their heads.

It could be argued that "the other car" is more refined, more precise, and more complete and needs no alteration.

Yes, and I suppose that digital is inherently more exciting than analogue.

Accuracy is not excitement. Accuracy is synonymous with predictability. Boring.

I do not find the Viper to be predictable. Indeed, I suspect that it is pre-designed to respond differently each time it is fired up. And there is no currently available American muscle car that fires up with this degree of style and flash.

We have a saying here in the South: "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Just because it has two seats, that does not make it a sports car, and I am fine with that.

Alice

 

[Austin]

How many threads are you going to start?!!

 

[quickysrt]

this should be in a car magazine column.

 

[GR8_ASP]

Hopefully as many as she wants.

 

[GTS Bruce]

Definition:Sports car is a 2 door 2 seat roadster of very limited creature comforts intended for the sport of driving.I guess a convertible top 2 door 2 seat qualifies these days.GT means sports car with a non-removable hard top,2 door,2 seat version of roadster.ANYTHING with more than 2 seats and 2 doors is a SEDAN as in mustang,bmw etc.Ok the 3 seat mclaren still qualifies as a GT, but certainly nothing with back seats. Bruce

 

[GR8_ASP]

GTS Bruce. So is the Porsche 911 a sedan? It sounds like it by the deinitions you state. I would think it is a GT. Also the Ferrari 575 has 4 seats but I would also consider it a GT.

 

[rac156]

I believe the 575 only has 2 seats, the 612 has four.

 

[Snakester]

I'd rather call the Viper a sportscar than a musclecar.

Some people like to generally refer to anything that has a big engine in a small car a musclecar. Especially Europeans.

For me, the range of muscle car only extends to 60s (and a few 70s) sedans and coupes with powerful V8s stuffed into them.

The two fundamental points that exclude Vipers from being musclecars are that they are not cheap to buy, and they do brake and handle very well.

I'd call a Mercedes E55 a musclecar before a Viper.

In some areas the Viper could qualify as an exotic car, or a supercar. But then you would get flack from people who only see European cars in those roles.

To stay safe I usually call the Viper a performance car, as that covers it's sporty nature, great handling and acceleration, without it being compared to a Miata or to a Chevelle.

 

[GTS Bruce]

Yes those VW's on steroids are sedans and so is a four seat Ferrari. Bruce

 

[dennis]

True, if a 911 is a sportscar, the Viper is a supercar.
I got no problem with that.

 

[ViperInBlack]

Supercar fits nicely...and uniquely.

Alice

 

[Steve-Indy]

By strict definition, "muscle car" has seats for 4...not 2.

 

[ViperInBlack]

Steve-Indy:

Then the Corvette was not a muscle car?

http://www.dupontregistry.com/sitemap/auto/sm-muscle-cars.asp

Alice

 

[RonnieSRT10]

Hemo...you are truly a sick individual...I love ya!!! We should definately get married! (but you would have to move to LA!)
Ronnie 04 SRT110 ...a pretty silver one!

 

[GR8_ASP]

By strict definition, "muscle car" has seats for 4...not 2.

By who's strict definition. These definitions are more the norm of use than anything else. I don't think Websters is going to provide a definition.

BTW I think I meant to say Ferrari 456, which is a 2+2. "The Ferrari 456 is a true four seat coupe with classic Pininfarina styling. The current model was first introduced in 1992 and was updated in 1998 with a larger radiator grille and brake intakes to improve cooling. The rear bumper incorporates a lower fixed wing to enhance the down force produced by the flat rear underbody and diffuser. The Ferrari 456 is equipped with a 5.5 liter V-12, producing 442bhp@6250rpm."

 

[ViperRay]

Muscle cars ended in 1971, at the time due to insurance companies and emissions concerns, etc. and the consequent detuning of engines (mostly lowering compression ratios and adding cats and other such things).

At the time, "muscle car" was intended to insinuate a powerful (and usually large, as in big block) engine in a relatively small (think 1960's as in GTO size) body. The '64 GTO is widely considered the first car of this genre. They all had back seats.
The corvette is/was not considered a muscle car by afficionados as it only had 2 seats.

The closest things to muscle cars today would probably be the powerful German sedans. However, the muscle cars of the '60's were affordable to the common person and that would not be a characteristic of today's BMW M5 or Mercedes AMG sedans. Furthermore, muscle cars were an American phenomenon which also excludes these cars. One possibility is the Cadillac with the 400 HP engine (CTV I think?). But a Cadillac!

Bottom line: no modern muscle cars IMO.

 

[GR8_ASP]

In general I agree with the definition of muscle. However, I think there are clear exceptions. I do not think a big block is part of it as there were many with small block engines. Even the 4 seat argument has at least one exception (the AMX).

The current Magnum and 300C come close to the muscle car heritage, albeit with a little too much upscale flavor. The GTO as well. However, In my mind a true muscle car had 2 doors. A 4 door that was fast was a sleeper and not a muscle car (again opinion).

 

[ViperRay]

Ron,
You're right about the AMX; the only exception with 2 seats.
2 doors was a must.

 

[SylvanSRT]

some mustangs also only had 2 seats the (some)'65 & '66 shelby GT350's.

 

[ViperRay]

Removing rear seats and putting in roll bars doesn't count.

 

[GR8_ASP]

I agree Ray. I believe the AMX was a shortened Javelin, with no rear seat area. I do not think the Mustangs were changed in size.

 

[SylvanSRT]

seats(Shelby) were not just removed, cars had parcel shelf

 

[ViperRay]

Mustangs were sent to Shelby American in San Jose without hoods, hood latches, grille bars, badges, rear seats, radios and exhaust systems.
They did indeed replace the rear seat with a fiberglass deck.
I wish I had bought one before their recent meteoric appreciation.

 

[SoFlaSRT]

By strict definition, "muscle car" has seats for 4...not 2.

By who's strict definition. These definitions are more the norm of use than anything else. I don't think Websters is going to provide a definition.

BTW I think I meant to say Ferrari 475, which is a 2+2. "The Ferrari 456 is a true four seat coupe with classic Pininfarina styling. The current model was first introduced in 1992 and was updated in 1998 with a larger radiator grille and brake intakes to improve cooling. The rear bumper incorporates a lower fixed wing to enhance the down force produced by the flat rear underbody and diffuser. The Ferrari 456 is equipped with a 5.5 liter V-12, producing 442bhp@6250rpm."

Maybe they should call it a 4-4-2. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[GR8_ASP]

You ever get the feeling fat fingers shouldn't type? I now reread my post above and on the second try I still could not type in 456 correctly. I'll try again ... the ferrari 456 is a 4 seater. Success???

 

[GTS Bruce]

Success yes but still a family sedan like all muscle cars. Bruce

 

[ARMORGOD]

Re: A Sportscar...I Think Not

Bottom line: no modern muscle cars IMO.

The 2005 Mustang GT will be 300hp/315tq and will base at 24.9K (meaning you could get one for 22-23K), which is very affordable, by today's standards. Sounds like a muscle car to me (even still has a solid rear axle). How about the new GTO? It'll have the 400hp LS2 for 2005. Not sure if the price is "affordable", though. The Cadillac CTS-V has the LS6, but is definitely NOT cheap, at 50K. Then, as was already mentioned, there is the 300C with the HEMI. It is rumored that the SRT-8 version of it will have the 6.1 liter, 425hp, HEMI. I think that the American muscle car is alive and well, no matter what minor quantifiers you want to put on the definition.

 

[ViperInBlack]

Re: A Sportscar...I Think Not

Perhaps it is like the word "hippie". It was used during a specific time period and people are loathe to re-use the term. Thus, there would be resistance to referring to the new GTO as a muscle car, and purists would even object to it being called "GTO" in the first place. This is the problem that Chevrolet had with simply exposing their headlights (hmmm, that looks mighty familiar) and concerned that purchasers would then feel it was not a "real" Corvette.

I like the term muscle car or super car applied to the Viper, but purists would not. I understand that.

Alice

 

[Bill Pemberton Woodhouse]

Viper Ray has a good point, yet, we have all forgotten the real reason powerful cars of the 60s and 70s were called muscle cars --- it took muscles to drive one. You had many without power steering, bone crusher Hurst and Muncie shifters were the norm, and stopping without power assist ( and most were loverly drum brakes ) took the strength of a NFL placekicker to get whoa'd down.
Yep, the last is a Kneebrasky term, but just a minor history lesson that the nomenclature has changed to what we envision a muscle car to be, and we have let the original terminology get buried in the archives of nostalgia.Hence, though it is tough to say, I must disagree with Alice a bit, and respond that Super Car is the better name for our beloved Snake.Now, let's get into a debate as to why we always call Vipers .....she!?

 

[ViperRay]

Just to beat this horse a bit more, muscle cars were also characterized by good (for the time) straight line acceleration. They couldn't turn or stop worth a darn.

Today's cars, even the ones you mention Armorgod, handle too well and are too refined.

Bill, I remember well trying to park one of those cars without power steering! I only recently sold my '65 goat because it had no P/S or P/B (drums) and was too much work to drive!