Re: [Chrysler300] Oct Hot Rodding

["Jess" <jdmiklas@xxxx>]

A while back, a few of the musclecar magazines and I think the NMCA tried to
define a musclecar. Their efforts made it worse I think. The basic premise
was Horsepower but in cunjunction with weight. The 300's were "out" because
their great horsepower was saddled with great weight. The definition also
somehow grew to take in a "muscle" stance or appearance, which in the end
actually tended to disqualify the early max-wedge cars and the 273 HP
Barracudas and the 421 Catalinas for example.

You are therefore in great company!

I really liked your "school girl car" comment!

Jeff Miklas
----- Original Message -----



> 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?.
> >
> >
>
>
>