Stuka wrote:The Hornet wasn't really a muscle car at all. It basically competed with the Mustang II.
AMC never really made a muscle car. The AMX, which was a good pony car, was great in the early years. By '77 it was just as gutless as what Ford and GM offered thanks to smog regulations.
$900 for that car is a total rip off. Even the roof is rusted clean through.
Ever see the AMX III concept? AMC was straight jumping from "Musclecars" over "sportscars" right into "Supercars". I really wish they would have been a thing.MidTNJasonF wrote: A bunch of stuff Redone will agree with.
Everybodyhas their own opinion. To me, the AMX fits into the Pony car definition. Its a small, light vehicle with a small block V8. To me (and many others), a muscle car is a full size car with a big block, and is great in a straight line, crap around corners. Much like a Chevelle or Charger.REDONE wrote:My hoopty next to a coworkers AMC "not" musclecar.
That car would look great with some dark carbon colored or black wheels. Bummer it no longer has the 390, those engines are getting so hard to find these days.REDONE wrote:He's really proud of it but has some frustrations with the PO (don't we all?). It was originally a 390 4speed car but has a swapped in 401. He claims he's not real happy with the color or the wheels, but he keeps driving it just the way it is. It's fun when we both start up after work, people think I have the bigger motor based on the sound of our exhausts.
I'll go along with the AMX/Javelin being pony cars...maybe. But I also consider "pony car" a subheading under "muscle car".Stuka wrote:Everybodyhas their own opinion. To me, the AMX fits into the Pony car definition. Its a small, light vehicle with a small block V8. To me (and many others), a muscle car is a full size car with a big block, and is great in a straight line, crap around corners. Much like a Chevelle or Charger.
For every rule, an exception :DarkMonohue wrote:what was we talking about, any...oh, yeah! Hornets!
Not a muscle car in any sense of the word.
No but you still have engine stamps and their relation to vin codes. There were a number of manufacturers that vin code or did not truly date code engines and transmissions but you can still match engine codes/types/sizes to the vin and/or available option packages for that model, year, and/or trim package.REDONE wrote:"Numbers-Matching" is a little bit of a fib since AMC didn't VIN stamp their engines. I'd still let that leak in my driveway though!
Yes, it is opinion. I do not really buy the pony car label. That is a sub class in a larger picture to me. Most of the iconic muscle cars were not full sized but rather the mid sized of that era and I consider the mustang, firebird, camaro, and other similar cars to be in that mid size class. Sure they may be on the smaller end of mid size but they were not small enough to warrant their own size class. On the other end you have things like the impala and biscayne that start stretching the top end of the mid size to full size bubble.Stuka wrote:Everybodyhas their own opinion. To me, the AMX fits into the Pony car definition. Its a small, light vehicle with a small block V8. To me (and many others), a muscle car is a full size car with a big block, and is great in a straight line, crap around corners. Much like a Chevelle or Charger.REDONE wrote:My hoopty next to a coworkers AMC "not" musclecar.
That is a great looking AMX by the way, they look good in pro-tour guise.
Yep! And there was acres of trunk space for Beer, Wimmins and shotguns...necessities for the open road!MidTNJasonF wrote:I had a 1968 chrysler 300, now that was a full size car. You opened the back door, walked in, found a seat on the couch and put your feet up in that car.