Detroit News scribe Scott Burgess offers a piercing glimpse into the obvious: the muscle car is dead. Burgess reckons "no one could have predicted the dramatic change in consumer tastes, high fuel prices and eco-politics when designers started penning those car's revivals." OK, well, anyway, Burgess isn't quite ready to pronounce the muscle car's TOD. "The Go-Fast gene in men and women will never disappear," he concludes. Frighteningly enough, Burgess' rant includes wistful quotes from GM players who talk about the move away from high horsepower vehicles as if the thought just occurred to them, with a similar lack of closure. "There's going to be a lot of internal pressure to move engineering resources to these other products," opines Tadge Juechter, GM's vehicle chief engineer for the Chevrolet Corvette and Cadillac XLR. "That's going to really impact future muscle cars." Going to be? Going to? "The concept of the muscle car will probably evolve into a really fun-to-drive, stylish vehicle," predicts Troy Clarke, GM's president of North America. "As opposed to something that just breathes fire and has more cubic inches than the next guy." Probably? Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports that the industry shills knows as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have high horsepower vehicles in their premium hoiking sights. Enjoy your Challenger while you can Scott.
[Interview with Scott Burgess about muscle cars below.]
Scott Burgess needs to get with the program. Muscle car enthusiasts moved into trucks years, almost decades, ago, and have hardly looked back.
no one could have predicted the dramatic change in consumer tastes, high fuel prices and eco-politics when designers started penning those car’s revivals
Except for everyone who lived through the death of the muscle cars in the 70s, or who knows of it. And many auto industry followers. And people with a semblance of logic and common sense.
Sorry, but the rush to muscle cars by GM and Chrysler was/is, in a word, stunned.
Mr Burgess column is a statement of the obvious which is that it was always a dubious proposition that today’s market could sustain three Pony/muscle cars. Only one is likely to survive and I strongly suspect it will be the same one that survived the last blowout.
The BMW 135i is the template for the Muscle car of the future, not some poorly balanced, overpowered full-sized truck.
andys120: Only one is likely to survive and I strongly suspect it will be the same one that survived the last blowout.
I agree…note that the majority of Mustangs are sold with the V-6 engine. The current Mustang will get a version of Ford’s new V-6 with its next update (within a year or so).
Even the vast majority of the original Mustangs were sold with either the straight six or a mild-mannered V-8.
That broad appeal is why the Mustang has survived past shakeouts…and will probably survive this one, too.
The original Mustang was outpowered by the Hemi-powered Challengers and Barracudas; the Fox-bodied Mustangs were outpowered by the GM F-bodies…but somehow, it kept going while the others went to the boneyard.
Yes I agree muscle cars are dead. Now which 260+hp vanilla family sedan should I buy?
Sometimes you wish for the very thing that will undo you.
GM exec’s – and I speak from having heard the words – considered small cars with few horsepowers unmanly, and unworthy to work on. Anyone put in charge of such projects was a lesser man when they all met up.
When Honda rolled out its downsized cars in the late 90s, declaring an intention to aim for fuel efficiency in all its categories, GM exec’s laughed out loud at the stupidity of that move. They pointed to the smaller margins generated by each vehicle, compared to the huge margins won by creating supersized cars.
Trouble is if those Leviathans are left standing in the lot, unsold, no margin to be had then. They tricked themselves by “selling” the cars to the dealers, and were thus able to pretend that they had generated a profit; next they began offering zero financing and huge incentives: what happened to the margin then?
Meanwhile, Honda was doing just fine, once the public caught on – and while the margins are smaller, it all adds up.
Burgess says something like: “I hope some kid in a garage is building a car that runs on AA batteries and does 0-60 in 3 seconds.”
Almost a perfect description of the Tesla Roadster. Hmmm.
Could someone once again define “Muscle Car”?
If you mean a car that is smaller and lighter than a sedan, with more performance/power, sportier styling, and also more utility than a true sports car, then NO, they are not dead.
If you mean a car that is all the above but also has poor handling, a cheap interior, and a bad trade off of power to efficiency, then certainly that is a dead concept for now.
Kind of a nit, but the IIHS does not meet the definition of a shill in that there is no deception involved. And I, for one, appreciate the information they generate. It helps me choose a safer vehicle than I might without their work, and since my interest in avoiding injury and property damage aligns with my insurer, we’re both happy.
Could someone once again define “Muscle Car”?
Douglas Adams came up with a rather good definition when he penned this for one of his books:
“Looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow.”
i get scared when they say “evolve into a really fun-to-drive, stylish vehicle.” their definition of stylish and fun-to-drive probably includes the Ford Edge.
“stylish” is for orthodontists’ girlfriends.
i’ll take cubes and fire any day.
Speaking of RIP and muscle cars, Roy Scheider has passed away at 75. In his NY Times obit they mention The French Connection, Jaws and All That Jazz, but not the grainy cop drama The Seven Ups, which has one of the memorable car chases of the era.
Muscle cars are simply rear-wheel drive Ford, GM and Chrysler products that emphasize acceleration performance above all else.
They may or may not also handle, they may have four doors, they may have five doors, they may have a tray instead of a backseat like the El Camino SS, they might even be trucks like the Lightning and SRT10, they also may not have style like the GM GTO revival.
Muscle cars have always been produced since their heyday and despite the energy crisis and other perils the original Mustang and GM’s F-body answer to it have survived and remained popular.
We’ve also been blessed to recieve other entries like the turbocharged Buick Grand National, LT1 Impala SS and the popularity of Chrysler’s LX HEMI and SRT8 cars.
The people who buy cars like this new aren’t just those who grew up with the originals. They are people of all ages who love the style, the sound, the fury, and that feeling as you mash the gas and get pressed into the seat.
Style more than anything has returned to muscle cars thanks to the redesigned Mustang which finally sports it’s signature, iconic and timeless looks after years of looking like a bland contemporary car. Compare the current Mustang to one from the 1990s and 1980s and those don’t even look like Mustangs. Not only is the look back, it also stands out more than ever before. You can say the same about the upcoming Camaro compared to the 4th generation models.
People don’t restore the old ones just because they were fast, they restore them because they look fantastic, drop-jaws and attract attention. They are unlike anything else on the road.
There will always be a market for cars like this as long as they remain affordable, fun, and stylish. A V8 model is always a must and a hallmark of this type of car. And yes, we should enjoy them all while they last.
Perhaps if GM didn’t make and rebadge so many trucks, SUVs and egg-shapped crossovers they wouldn’t have to kill the cars people actually want to buy from them. The types of cars people are willing to pay MSRP for as contrasted to trucks with thousands of dollars on the hood.
Food for thought.
I have no problem with IIHS and its crash tests. That is useful data.
The hand-wringing over people driving 80+ mph on interstates with (under-posted) 65 mph speed limits, and attempts to link horsepower to higher insurance claims (when there are several other factors to consider, such as the type of person who usually drives that particular vehicle, or how well the vehicle is constructed, as vehicles with higher quality materials and construction cost more to repair) are a waste of time, and often downright silly.
The hand-wringing over people driving 80+ mph on interstates with (under-posted) 65 mph speed limits, and attempts to link horsepower to higher insurance claims (when there are several other factors to consider, such as the type of person who usually drives that particular vehicle, or how well the vehicle is constructed, as vehicles with higher quality materials and construction cost more to repair) are a waste of time, and often downright silly.
Of course there are multiple complicating factors involved in setting speed limits and insurance rates. A good alert driver in a car that handles well at 85 still presents a higher risk than one going at 65 because the vehicle going 85 closes faster on other vehicles and is more challenging to those drivers. I’ve read that the difference in speeds between vehicles is as/more important than absolute speeds, within limits of course.
I wonder whether insurance companies have any incentive to set rates according to factors other than their own financial risk. I don’t see why they would. Certainly cops have a financial incentive to nab people for whatever. I recently traveled on I71 south of Cleveland. As has been mentioned here before, the cops are thick along this route. I see no reason for more attention along this stretch than say on I70 west of Columbus, but there is a huge difference, or at least the I71 cops are far more obvious. Admittedly I don’t have info on accident rates on either road.
RIP muscle car? Too bad, so sad. The classic American iron of the 60s/70s will always be remembered fondly (if not for their handling) but their like has no place in today’s world.
If there’s any automotive species that evolution should show no pity to (save the luxury SUV) it should certainly be ‘automobilus equus’ and its steroidal subgenus ‘automobilus equus fortius.’
What car can combine crappy handling, bland appointments, useless rear seating and crummy economy, and still hope to escape the pitiless hand of the market? Brute brake HP, by itself, doesn’t cut it these days.
Horsepower are much cheaper and more plentiful than they were 30-40 years ago, and smart handling is no longer the exclusive province of pricey (often underpowered) European marks. There are plenty of mainstream sedans today that would dramatically out-drive most vintage Chargers, Cutlasses, Mustangs, Camaros, etc.
On the other hand, if the muscle car/ponycar mutates into something with decent handling AND good power, then it stops being a muscle car and becomes a true sports car. And I think there will always be room for those on the roads.
Can’t Ford and GM try bringing over their Aussie muscle cars? That is the Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore respectively.
What have they go to loose? If a “muscle car” is simply a cheap car with lots of power, these cars fit the bill.
All they have to do is LEAVE THEM ALONE. Beyond switching the wheel over the left, they are fine the way they are.
Wow, Burgess is from another era. Is he terrified of the Big Three? Is he afraid to come out and say “Detroit blew it?” Does he have a lot of friends who work at the domestics? Ask him why they don’t make decent small cars next time.
The Mustang has survived because it kept itself relevant, barely. The current Mustang might have a primitive rear axle and a gnarly interior, but it is still a decent daily driver, a practical car in every respect. Maybe the Camaro and Challenger will have these characteristics as well, but the price better be right. The V6 Mustang is dirt cheap.
The next-gen Mustang will need a good 4-banger to survive to the mid-2010s. The 2.4 from the Mazda3 would be a good choice, plus a turbo model might embarrass the V8.
Regarding muscle cars, the objective is quickness, with top speed if you can have it. I have a 443 hp American car that can get to 60 mph in the low 4s, cruise well into the middle century marks, and it handles. It returns 25mpg on steady 80+ mph late night freeway runs and gives an honest 16mpg in squirt & brake city driving. And I’m sure the next version can have more power and burn less gas. I used to be satisfied with less, like ~320hp pushing about the same weight, which felt pretty strong in its day and had similar mileage.
Going forward, we have lots of options to preserve this. First, electric motors have peak torque at zero rpm, so off-the-line performance isn’t going to be lacking in any eventual electric era. We just need the batteries to store enough energy to perform and still get us home. Or how about deisel hybrids? Then there is the dramatically underexploited option of “adding lightness.” Materials are getting to the point where adding lightness without sacrificing strength is beginning to be economically viable as an engineering theme for a production vehicle. Recent Corvette history is encouraging.
Sure, I’ll be happy to have an 1800 lb. car I fit in, packing the number 220+ in both hp and torque.
Phil
Do you think the fact that GM is just now figuring out the muscle car era is over has anything to do with the fact that GM is on ‘Death Watch’? Nah. Completely unrelated.
somethings come around again. What the deal with muscle are culture. To me Muscle is muscle. I consider tire grip a type of muscle. Chassis tuning a type of muscle. I think a true muscle car is about having the human spirit and body in a car. I guess I’m not interested in looking through others eyes at muscle cars all that much. I like to think a Barracuda can be loved by an owner of a Celica and Accord and PT cruiser all the same. I like cars to hang out. I like my cars to go which ever way it is they go.
I’ll probably not see huge Cubes any less or any more than I do now, for a while anyhow. Still Americans are Americans, People are people. I think others will bless me with their touch on life. Some sick and ill touches and some neat and admirable. Its a sad time future for those that fell in love with Cubes. I may need to grieve about this. Every cloud has a silver lining though. Long life our dreams, lets look to the future with gusto. I wanna share my passion for life. There are replacements for displacement.
ps, Kei cars rock!
You know, I am not so sure there is a replacement for displacement. There is replacement for horsepower. But the same power in a large relatively slow turning engine is a good part of where the muscular feel is.
On the other hand, recent Corvette engines show that relatively large displacement engines need not be overly heavy or thirsty for fuel.
BTW, despite all the hullabaloo over handling do you know the key factor in lap times prior to downforce aerodynamic devices? It is power/wt ratios. These often also being something of a muscularity quotient. This was the important insight of Carrol Shelby. Get a light car barely big enough for a big V8. Get the power/wt ratio up there and you are done. Handling wasn’t a priority.
In real world uses car on car, rarely will handling overcome a deficit of muscle. Back when gas was cheap and so were the engineering of big engines muscle cars were simply rational ways of getting real world performance. That time has passed in general, but real muscle still has real uses with genuine appeals. There are many pleasures to be hand in the motoring world. One of the simplest and easiest to understand is hitting the go pedal and feeling the power. That pleasure only intensifies once you do cloth it in efficient good handling and good stopping automobiles.
“no one could have predicted the dramatic change in consumer tastes, high fuel prices and eco-politics when designers started penning those car’s revivals.”
Uh, what rock have these people been living under? Weren’t most of the relevant decision makers alive during the 1970s fuel embargoes? Anyone who claims that the run up in fuel costs over the past five years was a surprise is an idiot. The growth of Asia and it’s surging fuel demands has been thoroughly documented. The flat-lining and then decrease in US fleet fuel economy was likewise well documented.
The only ones who didn’t see this coming where those who DIDN’T WANT TO SEE IT COMING.
“Can’t Ford and GM try bringing over their Aussie muscle cars?”
Uh, you must have missed the recent Pontiac GTO which is just such an animal. Don’t feel bad, almost everyone missed it. But hey, Lutz tried …
“In real world uses car on car, rarely will handling overcome a deficit of muscle. “
I guess it depends which real world you live in. For me an enjoyable real world drive is Bear Creek Road through the Santa Cruz California mountains. It is a whole lot more fun in an old underpowered Fiat X1/9 than it is in anything with a V-8.
RIP muscle car? Better to kill it off now while muscle cars have reached their zenith of hp and refinement, rather than let them morph into something totally unworthy of the name. Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. Remember the 70’s fuel crisis? What kind of “muscle” car did that bring us? A Pinto-based Mustang II “Cobra” and a 145 hp V8 Camaro. No thanks.
Love the picture with this story. Now that’s a real Challenger! Good memories.
I am saddened but not surprised at the eminent demise of the muscle car. Teh approval of the new CAFE standards was the death knell of muscle cars to my ears. I agree with the poster who siad there is no substitute for the feeling you get when you floor a high cube V8 engine, both the sound and the force tugging you back in your seat. I enjoy high revving engines as well-I owned an RX7 at one time-but it is not the same. Throw the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times out the window, a small engine with peak power above 5,000 rpm and no low end grunt just doesn’t give the feeling of speed that you get with a muscle car, whether it be Ford, Chevy, or Chrysler. i imagine that any true gear head, at least anyone over the age of 35, will shed a tear for the passing of the true muscle car.
I imagine that Ford will keep the Mustang galloping as long as they are in business. They probably will go back to a 4 cylinder base variant-harking back to the dark days of Mustang, the 70’s-with a turbocharged 4 for the GT. And like the 70’s, it just won’t be the same, even if they find a way to wring 300 hp out of a turbocharged four. (Somebody mentioned the current turbocharged 2.3L, 4 that Mazda uses; even tuned to maximize power for rear wheel drive, I doubt it would equal the 300 hp that the current V8 puts out. Afterall, it’s under 300 hp in the 4 wheel drive Mazdaspeed6.)