Thats more like it...




Fuck you you wetback nazi fuck.

 

I'm showing that over 5 years, they produced almost 15,000 GT 350s and 500s. What would you call it?

You consider the mustang a muscle car and tout it's heritage, but of all the production foxbodies, the 93 Cobra was the most powerful at a whopping 235 horses and the lowliest 4.2 V8 making a stunning 120 horses. They were never renamed, but clearly, they didn't live up to their "Muscle Car Heritage".
In contrast, the Corvette hasn't dipped below 200 horses since 1962 (even when the only produced 40 of the Cross-fire nightmares that were never sold in 1983), but I guess that's not powerful enough to be considered a "Muscle Car". Given all that, they never renamed the Corvette, since it didn't keep with the 427s muscle car name. Bastards, all of them.

 

I'm not saying there wasn't a faster car in 1987, but:

1) It's not 1987
2) The Pontiac Grand National is supposed to be faster than its sluggish Buick predecessor.

So you're thinking that the better handling, AWD launching GNX wouldn't do a better 1/4 mile than a 450hp GNX? What are you basing this on (other than alcohol-fueled speculation)?

 

My your flawed logic, they should change their names as not to disgrace their "Muscle Car Heritage".

 

Only 12,000 were sold to the public.

And out of all those production years, only the '67 GT500, the '68 GT350 (barely) and '69 GT500 were considered production cars back then. If I remember right, 1200 back then was considered a "production" car.

So, from what your saying, I'm gathering ANYTHING thats fast and "handles" good is a muscle car?

 

According to your argument, it shouldn't matter whether or not they never went out of production. You're saying because there are no more muscle cars that GM should use a different name. Yet, you say the Corvette and Mustang have evolved, so they can keep their names. It is the industry definition of a muscle car that has evolved.
You are saying that a muscle car was built to go fast in a straight line. Now, the GNX does that, better than the 87 GN did. How is it not as much of a muscle car as the 87 GN was?

 

Actually, I'm saying that the GNX is every bit a muscle car as the GN was. You know why? Since it wasn't powered by a large V8, the GN isn't technically classified as a muscle car. But you two are considering it one because it goes fast in a straight line. So how is that the GN is one, but the GNX isn't?

 

The cars themselves have evolved. The definition of a muscle car has not. If the car's one and only goal in life is to get to the 1/4 mile mark as fast as possible, it's not a muscle car. End of story.

edit: the new GNX is not a muscle car because they took handling into account and it isn't designed specifacally to run the 1/4 mile as fast as possible. With a different suspension (say one designed around the concept of the '87 GN), I'd expect low 11's out of a 450hp car.

 

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...finition.shtml

But then, since the new one gets there faster than the old one, how is it not a muscle car?

 

see previous.