would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

i was having an argument with my friend. he says these trucks cannot even be considered as muscle trucks. i have seen a lot of mean machines of our generation. they were also made from the most popular years for muscle cars i think. opinions?

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

I dont think so but possibly hot rod trucks then id think classic would probally fit

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

eh, i always looked at them kinda like one.

off subject. you planning to modify your k20? ^^ not the truck

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

Now its all outside work are you into hondas

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

First of all it,there is nothing you can do to a truck or car that would make it a muscle truck or car.The term muscle car refers to factory-built hi-performance cars built from production stock.In other words,a sedan or sport coupe your grandparents could have been driving.For instance:GTO=Tempest with big motor and all the go fast goodies.
There never was a term "muscle truck" known until more recent years.Muscle car came along once these cars became a thing of the past by the low-performance`80s.But,these trucks are from the height of the muscle car era and I consider a BBC/TH400/posi/tach/bucket seat shortbed to be a muscle truck.I used to think that truck would have to be a CST/Cheyenne model.But,comfort and appearance options really don`t have anything to do with it.It could have a 350/3spd/tach/4.10s/posi/manual steering and be a muscle truck,IMO.That truck was built with performance in mind.The first thing many did was to massage the motor into a big power 350.Yes,after the factory.But,that`s how it was back then."Muscle car" is an era and back then as many all out muscle cars would go directly into the shop for some performance enhancement as left original.But,it`s still the vehicle you start with.I`d say these trucks,with certain options,could fairly be referred to as muscle trucks.Take`68 and line these up:
*Nova SS396
*SS396 Chevelle
*SS396 Camaro
*Impala SS w/427(or 396)
*Caprice w/396(or 427)
*CST/10 shortbed w/396
It fits right in there.It may not be the higher output motor.But,that truck was built or performance,not work.A 350(or 302) would fit in there,too.

I bought a truck about 25 years ago.Two brothers ordered identical trucks:
Shortbed Fleetside,red w/white top,396,bucket seat,tach,3spd,HD clutch,manual steering/brakes,posi(both changed to 4.10s,headers,intake,cam,head work,Mallory dual-point).Mine had Cragar S/Ss and he the other ran aluminum slots,both 8s & 10s.They were daily drivers,at first,as well as take to the track rigs.Those guys didn`t want a car.They were hot rodders and they liked trucks.They got all excited when GM offered the big block and ran on down to place their orders for the muscle car of their dreams...a shortbed truck with a big motor.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

We could build a muscle truck, rest mod or a pro touring truck but the fact is that I have never heard anyone describe our body style trucks as a muscle truck. It is definetly the most popular chevy truck body style (67-72) and as I know that there are plenty of our built trucks that can run with the best of the "Muscle Cars" but I dont think our truck no matter what it will ever be considered a "muscle" vehicle.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

first truck that i remember as a factory built "muscle"truck was the dodge lil red express

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

it`s not about the body style.It`s about the drivetrain.A Nova,Malibu,Biscayne,etc isn`t a muscle car until it comes equipped for perormance.The term didn`t exist until the era had passed.We used the term "Detroit Muscle" back then to refer to american factory performance rides.That`s what the "Muscle Cars" name evolved from.
Those lil`Red Wagons were ater the Muscle Car era and just an appearance package.A Plain Jane`63 D100 with wide block 318 could outrun a 360 Lil`Red wagon.Now,about the 383 equipped Dodge rom the muscle car era that I`d consider a muscle truck.
Darn,I can`t find the ad with Don Knotts arguing over the "Dude
package truck equipped with 383 and racing stripes from`71.The argument was over it being for work or play.
Since the term muscle car is not a factory term and created by the public,i`d say there is no argument.You are both right.It`s in your perception.You two could also run down a list of cars from this era and argue some are or are not muscle cars.Is a Cadillac Coupe de Ville with a 500 a muscle car?It`s the biggest motor out in a sport coupe that goes back to the depression era when the largest American cars had the big motors and built for sport and speed.I say it`s in the eye of the beholder.Nothing to argue over.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

im huge on hondas. are you on azht?

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

wow i got the whole cake. lol

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

azht PROBALLYNOT NOT SURE WHAT IS IT

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

its the local honda forums. mostly ricers. but a few clean ones.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

My trucks aren't muscle, but I've had a few that showed their @$$ end to some muscle cars...

Rg

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

I agree with most of the above, but have to disagree witht eh Lil Red Express comment. That truck was built as a muscle truck and advertised as such. It came with the best engine available at the time, a 360. It ran 14 second 1/4 miles, which was teriffic for the time. I believe it actually holds some acceleration record for production vehicles one of those years, certainly for pickups. I don't remember exactly what the details were.

I have a hard time believing a '63 D100 would outrun that.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

Mine is definitely not a muscle truck, the only @ss it hauls is mine.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

If you have the muscle under the hood, then why not call it a muscle truck. To me it seems like the term muscle truck came around when the SS454 and the Lightening(that's a Ford)were around. Are they muscle trucks? Sure, why not. They have big power plants, fancy wheels and graphics. As far as the 67-72 goes. They were built waaay before the term "muscle truck". Same recipe applies. Hot motor, a little flash, and boom. Muscle Truck. The key factor is POWER.:metal:

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

what the heck is a "muscle truck" anyway? :confused:

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

Sure, call it whatever you want. What really matters is put-up-or-shut-up time. Some of these guys have monster engines in their trucks and would take most muscle cars.

With my tired 350, I definitely wouldn't call my Blazer a muscle truck, unless we're talking about the muscle it takes to pull late-model SUVs out of snowbanks.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

I have a 90 454 SS And yeah it was built specifically to start a "Muscle truck" war with the Ford lightning, and now the Dodge SRT viper V-10 trucks. But as K mentioned the 72 could be had w/402 in a shortbed, sounds like a "muscle truck" to me??

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

i refer to my truck a muscle truck.
timeless looks, modern comforts, decent power, and sounds mean.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

I have to agree... racing stripes don't make a car (or truck) run any faster. It's what the vehicle is packing under the hood that counts.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

wow honda guys i have a 92 civic hatch with a built b18c1 gt35 turbo cage hondata running 10.98 at bandimere in colorado (high altitude)

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

Ive always considered mine a musc1e truck even though it came with a 350/350 and 3.08rear I also consider a '69 camaro SS with a 350/350 and a 3.08 a musc1e car too

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

The 454ss may may have been built to be a muscle truck, but they sure didn't seem to have much "muscle". When I think of a muscle like factory truck put out by GM, I would think of a late 70's-79 454. Those trucks halled butt. I have heard from several people that they were the fastest production vehicle at the time.

Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
 

Very well-put, and I agree.