Originally posted by MerF
Really, I'm curious why the 94-96 Impala SS can't be considered a muscle car? It's a new verion of a great old thing. A hoopty with a big V-8, and don't deny that the LT-1 isn't a big enough V-8. Just as much potential as the old skool BB's...
The late model Impala's are tanks. The iron headed LT1 in those cars were very underpowered also. They are cool cars, but by no means are they "muscle cars".
Originally posted by blasko
305, but we all understand what your saying
You obviously have no clue wtf you are talking about either. Can you tell me when the first 305 came out?
Originally posted by MerF
Is a '68 Camaro considered a Muscle Car? The stock 302 that came in it wasn't making 12's I guarantee that. Also the first few years of the CORVETTE...they were sloths! But they are considered "muscle cars".
The 302 was only available in the Z/28. From there the 327, the 350, and a couple differently rated 396's. The 302 and the 327 were close HP wise, and would both run some low 13's or high 12's off the showroom floor with polyglas tires. The 396's would run low 12's and upper 11's with polyglas tires.