Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, so many of you are wrong to bring price into the discussion at all.
I guess most of you don't know that the true muscle cars were the ones that had all the options checked, making them some of the more expensive cars on the road.
Take the 1964 GTO. The average price of a car in 1964 was $3500. The 64 GTO with the larger engine ran $4500. Muscle cars with the biggest engines put in them were some of the most expensive cars back then.
You want to argue price, that's a bang for the buck argument. It has nothing to do with whether the 2004-06 GTO is a muscle car.
If that was the case, we'd all be driving Fox body Mustangs running 11's in the 1/4 for under $8k.
Don't be naive. It's no secret that many people want those characteristics in a new car (for a multitude of reasons). This is what the 2011+ Mustang GT is about and in a different price bracket, the Nissan GTR.
Expand that beyond the obvious competitors, none of which beat the 05-06, to anything in that price range. Ownr has repeatedly said how slow the GTO was, and suggested that near everything was faster, which I'm disputing.
Actually if you read my posts, I'd never brought up price before your post. How many criteria do you want to add to a discussion that is a simple question... Is it a muscle car?
Price is irrelevant, we're not talking bang for the buck. We're talking how fast is it. The GTO goes pretty fast for the dollar, so does a Corvette. So what?
A GTO is going to get killed by an old guy coming back from his golf outing in a SL600.
Wow, so many of you are wrong to bring price into the discussion at all.
I guess most of you don't know that the true muscle cars were the ones that had all the options checked, making them some of the more expensive cars on the road.
Take the 1964 GTO. The average price of a car in 1964 was $3500. The 64 GTO with the larger engine ran $4500. Muscle cars with the biggest engines put in them were some of the most expensive cars back then.
You want to argue price, that's a bang for the buck argument. It has nothing to do with whether the 2004-06 GTO is a muscle car.
Sure. It's called bang for the buck. That doesn't make a car a muscle car, just because it can go fast for cheap.
So are you disputing the statement below?
"This is the idea of a muscle car. To get more performance and less luxury for cheap, and be able to beat more expensive cars."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
