Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding

["Keith Langendorfer" <langendorfer@xxxx>]

Folks:

A bit of overkill at this point, it would seem, however...

There are several definitions of the first musclecars, including the first
Buick Century (Special Body w/ Roadmaster engine). In the modern context of
smaller car/larger engine, I have always contended (I was even quoted as a
16 year old in a 1967 edition of Motor Trend Magazine, believe it or not),
that the first incarnation of the GTO-type defintion was the 1956 Studebaker
Golden Hawk. Think about it...the largest engine in 1956 was a 374" Packard
engine (the G-Hawk engine's larger brother, some of which were dealer
installed in these cars w/ dual quads..310HP). Also, the car could be had w/
stick/OD
(HD T-85 B-W), ratios up to 4:56, ordered without PS or PB and, at no extra
cost, evil handling. A brute to be sure, but one that mesmerized the
automotive press
at the time. Certainly, this was not the balanced vehicle a 300B was, but,
in its way, was a precursor for some of the outrageousness we saw in the
sixties.

Just my opinion...

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Farris <jackfarris@xxxx>
To: Owen & Jo Grigg <ram300@xxxx>; Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; heinitz <heinitz@xxxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding


>Although I don't necessarily agree, the term "Muscle Car" refers to a
>certain genre of mid-sized cars of the mid sixties to early seventies that
>had big block engines and were produced specifically for the purpose of
>going fast. The first car that was "officially" designated as a "muscle
car"
>(if I recall) was the Pontiac GTO. Other muscle cars included Olds 442's,
>Barracudas & Chargers (big blocks only), big block Camaro's and Mustangs,
>and other big block mid-sized Mopars and other makes. There may have been
>other cars that could go faster, or were more powerful, but they did not
fit
>the definition of the genre. "Muscle Cars" were produced primarily to
appeal
>to a younger demographic than our 300's.
>
>Jack
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>>From: "Owen & Jo Grigg" <ram300@xxxx>
>>To: <Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "heinitz" <heinitz@xxxx>
>>Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding
>>Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2001, 3:06 PM
>>
>
>> Good question how do you define what a "musclecar" is?
>> Sometime back I was invited to show my 300C at the National Musclecar
Show
>> in NZ. Now I was told they had to bend the rules to allow my car in.
There
>> rule book states only early 60's to early 70's as a musclecar. The C
stood
>> out like a sore thumb at the show, and more than a few scoffed at it,
saying
>> what's a full size '50s car doing here.
>> I on the otherhand looked around at the small cubic displacement
Mustangs,
>> Camaros, and Cudas, which I commonly refer to as "school girls cars", ie-
>> low hp compact cars!
>> My C puts out 375hp from factory other cars present were lucky if they
broke
>> the 300 mark. So if the word muscle means hp..........
>> Or does it mean any old compact from the 60's and 70's era?
>> Owen
>>
>> Question. At a meet last year my 68 300 was judged as a reg Chrysler,
when
>> along side of me a Baracuda with a 318 was judged as a muscle car. I
thought
>> that was wrong, what do you guys think?.
>
>
>To send a message to this group, send an email to:
>Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>For list server instructions, go to
http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>