Would you consider a Turbo Buick as a muscle car?

["Turbo-T"]

Some say a Turbo Buick is a muscle car, others say it's not. What do you think?

 

[jpratt]

I voted yes, but I would rather call it a more modern muscle car than the "Muscle Cars" heyday.

 

[NCTyphoonKid]

I voted yes, but I would rather call it a more modern muscle car than the "Muscle Cars" heyday.

i agree with you as it being a modern muscle car

 

[machinegun]

Technically the true description of a muscle car is a mid sized sedan platform with the most horsepower you can get into it.

Pretty much describes a TB to me.

We just got the added features of AC, Power, 24 MPG

Gues you could call it the gentlemans Muscle car. HMM sounds like a new name for our cars.

 

["Turbo-T"]

Technically the true description of a muscle car is a mid sized sedan platform with the most horsepower you can get into it.

I've always thought of the term as a "mid sized car with a powerful engine that was designed to be used in a full size".

 

[JOHNDEEREGN]

YES:biggrin:

 

[my1stgn]

Well if its been compared to and called a muscle car, not to mention beat all but 1 muscle car, well then I guess its a muscle car!

Showdown! Old And New Musclecars Duke It Out - Popular Mechanics

 

[my1stgn]

I like this quoted

"Are the musclecars of the '60s and early '70s really as fast as we all remember? Are today's high-performance automobiles really fast enough to be called musclecars? We wanted to know, once and for all. Can high tech beat high torque? Can a 450-hp 1997 Dodge Viper GTS really outrun a 450-hp 1970 LS-6 Chevelle? We were determined to settle it, once and for all.

On a recent morning, Raceway Park, in Old Bridge Township, New Jersey, was sucked backward in a time warp. On its starting line, waiting to do battle, sat a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS-454 LS-6, a 1970 426 Plymouth Hemicuda, a 1962 Chevrolet Bel Air 409, a tri-power 1965 Pontiac GTO, a 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 428 SCJ, a 1974 Pontiac Trans Am SD-455, a 1970 Oldsmobile 442 W-30, a 1970 Buick GS-455 Stage 1 and-just for kicks-a 1987 Buick Regal T-Type, twin to the famed Grand National, the ultimate musclecar from the time of junk-bond kings and leg warmers. "

 

[BlackMetal]

I would agree with calling it a "modern" muscle car, it doesn't really remind me of the true old muscle cars, plus factoring in fuel injection and a turbo...

 

[Quick6'n'-K.C.]

We were talking about this over the new 2008 muscle car calendars from the local radiator shop today.

I flipped to a 1970 Dodge Daytona "winged warrior" and started drooling over it and telling the guys from work that id love to own one of those cars someday. (wont ever be able to afford it anyway, so might as well dream)

They just laughed and said it was ugly as sin and would never own anything that ugly Ive always thought they were great looking cars

Anyway, one of the other guys there was joking and flipped his calandar forward quite a few months and said " 1987 buick regal turbo limited" thats when everyone started to laugh and say " you would never find a 1987 buick regal turbo car in a muscle car calendar." I just shrugged it off and first thought in my mind was "modern musclecar"

I tend to agree with Jeff Pratt, these arent late 60s and early 70s cars, they are a modern muscle car from the late 80s that just happen to have a full frame, 8.5 rear end, and all the power that you could get from a "muscle car"
back in the day.
I just enjoy my car like those guys did back then, except i can take my car on road trips and get better fuel economy, comfy seats and a few more modern upgrades over a 1970 GS.
My 1987 turbo regal is my little GTO, Gas Tires and Oil :biggrin:

 

[t-topflyer]

I consider the turbo buicks modern and smart muscle cars. They combine decent overall gas mileage, luxury, and muscle car power in one package. The muscle cars of the 60s and 70s usually lacked at least one of these traits.

 

[at7we2]

this has been debated/discussed numerous times in the last 15+ years, and it's always been interesting to read different opinions and rationales.

I voted "yes" in the poll, but to me the turbo Buicks are sort of in a grey area as far as classification. I think more modern terminology like "performance coupe" might be more appropriate. In many ways, a turbo Buick is really more like a European luxury sports car, like a BMW M5 - but without all the modern refinements and German engineering!

On the other hand the chasis and body configuration and construction of a turbo Buick is the same as the "muscle cars" of the '60's and '70's with solid axle rear-drive, full frame, big trunk and seating for 5 (or 6 with a front bench).

Personally, I'm not sure the F-bodies and Mustangs have ever really qualified as "muscle cars". They used to be called "pony cars", but I guess after the big three stopped offering large displacement engines in mid-size coupes people started calling F-bodies and Mustangs "muscle cars". And where does that leave the Corvette as far as a classification?

A lot of muscle car enthusiasts insist the last "muscle car" was produced in the mid-70's although I think there is some debate even among them as to which car was truely the last muscle car built. A lot of guys in the Monte Carlo community insist the '88 Monte SS was the last muscle car built. It's all a matter of interpretation.

 

[BlackoutDrunk]

On the other hand the chasis and body configuration and construction of a turbo Buick is the same as the "muscle cars" of the '60's and '70's with solid axle rear-drive, full frame, big trunk and seating for 5 (or 6 with a front bench).

A lot of muscle car enthusiasts insist the last "muscle car" was produced in the mid-70's although I think there is some debate even among them as to which car was truely the last muscle car built. A lot of guys in the Monte Carlo community insist the '88 Monte SS was the last muscle car built. It's all a matter of interpretation.

I agree the GN is a "muscle car" built (same config as 60's/70's cars) but the term "muscle car" implies that the car is fast. I had a 86 monte ss and as much as I loved that car it was the most disappointing car I ever drove. IMO that car was the biggest miss in GM history. That car could of been as popular or maybe more popular than the GN if they gave it the 3.8t.

Interpretation is key, who's to say the 94-96 Impala SS or the 03-04 Mercury Marauders aren't the last muscle cars.

 

[XxDarkSidexX]

I think that it definitly is a muscle car. but you have to remember the muscle car has multi definitions. and for the 80's that definition was the GN, technology and a pretty little whisstle from a turbo. of course for the 60's and 70's the definition was big displacment motors and a heavy metal tank shell for a body. Either way muscle cars is just a way of saying performance car or sports car or hot rod.

Turbos are the displacment replacment, and GN's do this very well

XxDarkSidexX

 

[70Mach1]

I think that it definitly is a muscle car. but you have to remember the muscle car has multi definitions. and for the 80's that definition was the GN, technology and a pretty little whisstle from a turbo. of course for the 60's and 70's the definition was big displacment motors and a heavy metal tank shell for a body. Either way muscle cars is just a way of saying performance car or sports car or hot rod.

Turbos are the displacment replacment, and GN's do this very well

XxDarkSidexX

Actually, cars of that era were not particularly heavy. My 70 428CJ Mach 1 weighed 3275#. They may have appeared heavy, but they were just sheet metal with none of the crap that is loaded into cars today for safety and comfort.

I guess as someone who grew up in that era, I don't consider the GN as a muscle car, but looking at it in the era of the 80's, you would have to say it is.

 

[at7we2]

....I had a 86 monte ss and as much as I loved that car it was the most disappointing car I ever drove. IMO that car was the biggest miss in GM history. That car could of been as popular or maybe more popular than the GN if they gave it the 3.8t. ...

no doubt a factory installed turbocharged Buick 3.8 in the 80's Monte SS's would have made a nice car, but I always thought GM *should* have put the Z28's TPI 350 in the Monte SS's from the factory. IMO, that would have been more consistant with their product offering for the time.

 

[GNTurbo6]

Tons of power? Check.

Handles like crap? Check.

Muscle car? Check.

 

[slow87]

It's an 80's muscle car. In the same respect 4.6 fords, lt1/ls1 gm's were muscle cars of the 90's.

 

[bobc455]

The original term musclecar was from a mid-sized sedan with the big-car engine. They were not sports cars (like the mustang and corvette), but rather a more drivable, usable family car. The mother could take the kids to soccer practice, and the dad could use it as a commuter car. But it had a nice big powerful engine to boot.

You can definitely consider the GN to be an evolution of the musclecar, since it is essentially a family car with a more powerful motor. It wasn't actually the biggest motor (I know regals that had factory v8s, for example), but it was more powerful. And it wasn't a stiff handling car like a corvette/mustang, it was very palatable for long trips.

At minimum, you could consider the GN/TR to be an evolution of the musclecar. And apologies to the viper, corvette, and mustang - you are sports cars and not musclecars.

-BC

 

[batmansbuick]

At minimum, you could consider the GN/TR to be an evolution of the musclecar. And apologies to the viper, corvette, and mustang - you are sports cars and not musclecars.

-BC

Ditto what he said. I always thought of musclecars to be regular grocery getters (plain jane Regal) that got special paint/decals and upgraded drivetrain. TR is a musclecar, the Buick geeksquad of the time tried to have good gas mileage and good performance out of one powerplant, and they did it. Too bad GM has turned its back on it now.