If the GTO wasn’t the first muscle car, then what was?
- Thread starter Turboomni
- Start date
LeBaron1973
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 6,303
- Reaction score
- 2,405
I believe there is some thought that the twin H Hudsons were early musclecars, probably numerous others.
C Body Bob
Old Man with a Hat
The '64 Tempest GTO (GTO was an option package, rather than a separate model, that first year) would have possibly been the first "mid-size muscle car", if you don't count the (pretty much the same size) "full-size" Plymouths and Dodges of the '62 model year. With the B/RB motors, of course.
When the '55 Chrysler 300 was conceived/produced, there were nothing but full-size cars . . . even if the lesser nameplates (including Chevrolet and Ford) had shorter wheelbases, but still classified as "full-size" back then.
The lighter-weight Chevrolet would be "quicker", but ran out of rpm due to their "deep" gears to get the quick acceleration. Ford had the supercharged 312 Y-block V-8 in '57, but nothing in '55 that was really powerful. But the C-300 had the top end power to receive speed records on the flying mile at Daytona Beach (on the sand!).
"Muscle car" or "Car with muscle under the hood", the Chrysler 300 would be both!
But then there was the '56 Plymouth Fury 318 2x4bbl that was much closer in performance to the C-300 than anybody in Chrysler cared to admit! But that was in '56 and the C-300 was 1955.
CBODY67
When the '55 Chrysler 300 was conceived/produced, there were nothing but full-size cars . . . even if the lesser nameplates (including Chevrolet and Ford) had shorter wheelbases, but still classified as "full-size" back then.
The lighter-weight Chevrolet would be "quicker", but ran out of rpm due to their "deep" gears to get the quick acceleration. Ford had the supercharged 312 Y-block V-8 in '57, but nothing in '55 that was really powerful. But the C-300 had the top end power to receive speed records on the flying mile at Daytona Beach (on the sand!).
"Muscle car" or "Car with muscle under the hood", the Chrysler 300 would be both!
But then there was the '56 Plymouth Fury 318 2x4bbl that was much closer in performance to the C-300 than anybody in Chrysler cared to admit! But that was in '56 and the C-300 was 1955.
CBODY67
Last edited:
C Body Bob
Old Man with a Hat
That was mentioned in the article
Fury Pursuit
Senior Member
50 years prior to the Ponitac "GTO" was the 1914 Stutz Bearcat. The first "muscle car".
I would be the 55 Chrysler 300 Hemi was the first Mopar hot rod.
LatPeahy
Active Member
The 30s and 40s had to be the era when guys were making cars faster to out run the cops when they were running moonshine
LatPeahy
Active Member
bluefury361
Old Man with a Hat
[QUOTE="CBODY67,
"Muscle car" or "Car with muscle under the hood", the Chrysler 300 would be both!
But then there was the '56 Plymouth Fury 318 2x4bbl [/QUOTE]
For the record.
The term "muscle car" is a magazine made up term referring to what the industry called "super cars". It didn't come around until the late 70's.
In 56 the Plymouth Fury had a 277 CID poly with a 4bbl. The two four bbl option was available over the counter, as was a special camshaft. The 318 two four bbl engine was standard in the 57 Fury.
First factory "supercar" ? I'd put that on the Stutz bearcat, or the supercharged Duesenberg model J.
Henry Ford said a race car as the 2nd car ever built.
"Muscle car" or "Car with muscle under the hood", the Chrysler 300 would be both!
But then there was the '56 Plymouth Fury 318 2x4bbl [/QUOTE]
For the record.
The term "muscle car" is a magazine made up term referring to what the industry called "super cars". It didn't come around until the late 70's.
In 56 the Plymouth Fury had a 277 CID poly with a 4bbl. The two four bbl option was available over the counter, as was a special camshaft. The 318 two four bbl engine was standard in the 57 Fury.
First factory "supercar" ? I'd put that on the Stutz bearcat, or the supercharged Duesenberg model J.
Henry Ford said a race car as the 2nd car ever built.
1Fury1
Slab Side Slacker
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
The 300 and 57 Fury were expensive cars and lots of content, maybe not as much as a Imperial but fancy for sure.
The GTO was bare bones/Tempest like with Ventura /Bonneville engine in it.
The 62,63,64 Savoy and 330 were packaged more as a race car. Very high compression, big overlap cam, no intake heat for cold weather drivability and icing. Not really a everyday driver.
If you ordered a 62 Savoy with a 413 out of a 62 New Yorker that would be more "Muscle car" ish but I doubt you could get the paperwork through to get it built. That's what the GTO was a simple trim level box check that included the big car engine, another couple of checks in carburetors and trans and your done.
Sure a 62 330 Ramcharger engine would stomp a mud hole in any 64 GTO but they are just 2 different animals.
The GTO was bare bones/Tempest like with Ventura /Bonneville engine in it.
The 62,63,64 Savoy and 330 were packaged more as a race car. Very high compression, big overlap cam, no intake heat for cold weather drivability and icing. Not really a everyday driver.
If you ordered a 62 Savoy with a 413 out of a 62 New Yorker that would be more "Muscle car" ish but I doubt you could get the paperwork through to get it built. That's what the GTO was a simple trim level box check that included the big car engine, another couple of checks in carburetors and trans and your done.
Sure a 62 330 Ramcharger engine would stomp a mud hole in any 64 GTO but they are just 2 different animals.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
There is no specific defintion of "muscle car" so one cannot give an answer to what was the first one.
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
I agree with this Stan. They say Camaro, Mustang, Challenger are muscle cars, no, they are pony cars.
I would say the Charger is the only muscle car around now, maybe a Taurus SHO, but they are 4doors which kind of kills the youthful image. So like Stan said no clear definition so no answer. Kind of like the Mary Ann or Ginger question, to subjective.
barnfind
Old Man with a Hat
72Fury
Senior Member
I think the GTO did start a movement of sorts, as did the 64 ½ Mustang for pony cars. I had a professor in engineering school teaching kinematics & dynamics (that 's for you Stan, one of my last semesters of pre business school 
) and he told me his brother had a 409 Impala that was the king of the hill until the GTO came out. He said the thing constantly fouled plugs, and the 389 would walk away from it.
) and he told me his brother had a 409 Impala that was the king of the hill until the GTO came out. He said the thing constantly fouled plugs, and the 389 would walk away from it.
MrMoparCHP
Old Man with a Hat
rexus31
Senior Member
I think ease of availability, big car motor in a mid size car and affordability defines a "Muscle Car". Some of the cars mentioned above, although top performers of their day, do not meet all these segments. The GTO was the first mid size car to come from the factory (as a package) with the larger displacement engine, marketed as a high performance car that sold in numbers; 32,405. I may be a little biased though. My '64 GTO, Tri Power, 4 Speed:
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
Have you upgraded anything on it? I know you like them very pure.
Similar threads
