Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
04-17-2009, 02:39 AM | #1 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: chandler
Posts: 331
|
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?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
04-17-2009, 05:50 AM | #2 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: CASA GRANDE AZ
Posts: 4,276
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
I dont think so but possibly hot rod trucks then id think classic would probally fit
__________________
70 SWB STEPSIDE 70 BLAZER 09 challenger |
04-17-2009, 05:58 AM | #3 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: chandler
Posts: 331
|
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
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by combustion; 04-17-2009 at 05:59 AM. |
|
04-17-2009, 06:11 AM | #4 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: CASA GRANDE AZ
Posts: 4,276
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
Now its all outside work are you into hondas
__________________
70 SWB STEPSIDE 70 BLAZER 09 challenger |
04-17-2009, 08:51 AM | #5 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: chandler
Posts: 331
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
im huge on hondas. are you on azht?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
04-17-2009, 09:00 AM | #6 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: CASA GRANDE AZ
Posts: 4,276
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
azht PROBALLYNOT NOT SURE WHAT IS IT
__________________
70 SWB STEPSIDE 70 BLAZER 09 challenger |
04-17-2009, 09:01 AM | #7 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: chandler
Posts: 331
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
its the local honda forums. mostly ricers. but a few clean ones.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
04-17-2009, 06:29 AM | #8 |
Special Order
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mt Airy, MD
Posts: 85,852
|
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.
__________________
"BUILDING A BETTER WAY TO SERVE THE USA"......67/72......"The New Breed" GMC '67 C1500 Wideside Super Custom SWB: 327/M22/3.42 posi.........."The '67" (project) GMC '72 K2500 Wideside Sierra Custom Camper: 350/TH350/4.10 Power-Lok..."The '72" (rolling) Tim "Don't call me a redneck. I'm a rough cut country gentleman" R.I.P. ~ East Side Low Life ~ El Jay ~ 72BLUZ ~ Fasteddie69 ~ Ron586 ~ 67ChevyRedneck ~ Grumpy Old Man ~ Last edited by special-K; 04-17-2009 at 08:09 AM. |
04-17-2009, 07:23 AM | #9 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Florida
Posts: 11,375
|
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.
__________________
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please!!!!!. Sylvester's build thread >>>http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...ht=big+rebuild |
04-17-2009, 07:26 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: daytonabeach
Posts: 22,956
|
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
__________________
71c-10 350/2004r/4:11 lowered3/4 longbed/dead by hurricane MEANING OF DEATH::::: SOMEBODY ELSE GETS YOUR STUFF DONT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK TAKE MY ADVISE;I DON'T USE IT ANYWAY |
04-17-2009, 08:04 AM | #11 |
Special Order
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mt Airy, MD
Posts: 85,852
|
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.
__________________
"BUILDING A BETTER WAY TO SERVE THE USA"......67/72......"The New Breed" GMC '67 C1500 Wideside Super Custom SWB: 327/M22/3.42 posi.........."The '67" (project) GMC '72 K2500 Wideside Sierra Custom Camper: 350/TH350/4.10 Power-Lok..."The '72" (rolling) Tim "Don't call me a redneck. I'm a rough cut country gentleman" R.I.P. ~ East Side Low Life ~ El Jay ~ 72BLUZ ~ Fasteddie69 ~ Ron586 ~ 67ChevyRedneck ~ Grumpy Old Man ~ |
04-17-2009, 08:52 AM | #12 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: chandler
Posts: 331
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
04-17-2009, 01:44 PM | #13 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 62
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
Quote:
__________________
"Two rules get you through life: If it's stuck and it's not supposed to be, WD-40 it. If it's not stuck and it's supposed to be, duct tape it." Last edited by lowbucktruck; 04-17-2009 at 01:47 PM. |
|
04-18-2009, 12:29 AM | #14 | |
STOLEN
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,022
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
Quote:
__________________
In Search Of |
|
04-17-2009, 09:11 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Murray, Kentucky
Posts: 3,592
|
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
__________________
Roger '68 Short step - https://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/...d.php?t=849675 '69 ('70?) 2wd Blazer '70 GMC Jimmy 2wd '73 Firebird - https://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/...d.php?t=853203 |
04-17-2009, 09:21 AM | #16 |
Dork For Days
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 407
|
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.
__________________
1972 C20, 402/700R4 - My first classic truck, bought in September 2005. 85% transformed from "Farm" to "Cool" status! 1970 Dodge Challenger 440, 4sp (my other toy) 12.67 @ 117 MPH, with a pathetic 2.022 60' 2007 Dodge Charger SRT-8 2008 Cadillac CTS All-American garage, baby! |
04-17-2009, 09:37 AM | #17 |
Blaze-Air
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,117
|
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.
|
04-17-2009, 09:23 AM | #18 |
classic=of recognized value
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 317
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
Mine is definitely not a muscle truck, the only @ss it hauls is mine.
|
04-17-2009, 09:39 AM | #19 |
Account Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: over yonder
Posts: 14,270
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
what the heck is a "muscle truck" anyway?
|
04-17-2009, 11:52 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Orem, Utah
Posts: 7,954
|
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. |
04-17-2009, 01:20 PM | #21 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,271
|
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??
|
04-17-2009, 01:28 PM | #22 |
the boat guy
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: springfield mo
Posts: 2,339
|
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.
__________________
67, swb, fleet, tach, throttle, 5.3, 4l60e, 3.73's, fuel cell, 5 lug, p.d.b., 4-6 drop. great little truck 66, stevens drag/ski 18' silouette, 350, 2.02 doublehump heads. comp extreme marine 278 cam, vette 7 fin valve covers, old polished edelbrock intake, velvetdrive, casale v-drive, adj cavitation plate. 28, model a rpu project, |
04-17-2009, 02:54 PM | #23 |
Moderator
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern Cal
Posts: 20,022
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
Very well-put, and I agree.
__________________
1972 C/10 Cheyenne Super SWB. Restored, loaded, slammed. 1968 C/10 50th Anniversary LWB. Unrestored, stock, daily driver/work truck. RIP ElJay RIP 67ChevyRedneck RIP Grumpy Old Man RIP FleetsidePaul |
04-17-2009, 03:39 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,079
|
Re: would our trucks be considered muscle trucks?
x2
__________________
-- Josh Instagram: @americanmusc1e OLD SKOOL-- 1970 C10. 454/Th400/3.07 posi Build Thread FARM TRUCK----1949 Chevrolet 3800 Power Wagon Hauler Build Thread 1999 4wd OBS Tahoe - daily. DM me if you can't see photos i posted |
04-17-2009, 01:50 PM | #25 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: colorado
Posts: 66
|
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)
|
Bookmarks |
|
|