![]() |
Would you conciter a 66 fury a muscle car?
Title says it all, would you say a 1966 sport fury to be a muscle car?
|
IMHO. the 66 sport fury IS a muscle car. 1. it is a two door hard top. 2. has a hi per engine. 3. it can be ordered with a 4 speed trans. 3. comes with a center console. 4. has bucket seats. 5. min chrome trim. is that enough?
|
No...Drives up the price of insurance....:naughty:
It's just a family car that goes out and blow's the other guys door off.:hello:...lol |
By definition, Muscle Cars were intermediate bodied cars with large displacement, high performance engines. The Fury was not marketed as a "Muscle Car" and catered to an older demographic that wanted the luxury of a full sized car yet still craved performance. So no, I would not consider the Fury a "Muscle Car".
|
what you call "luxury"? a luxury car is a chrysler new yourker, C300 rest of the real 300s, imperial. is a luxury car. there is NO NO NO way a "B" body can be luxury car. i have had them ALL. the next time there is a good car show go set in a 66 dodge charger, then go set in a 65-66 Imperial. better yet drive one after the other. if you cant tell the diff then i cant help you.
|
Originally Posted by moe7404
(Post 126420)
what you call "luxury"? a luxury car is a chrysler new yourker, C300 rest of the real 300s, imperial. is a luxury car. there is NO NO NO way a "B" body can be luxury car. i have had them ALL. the next time there is a good car show go set in a 66 dodge charger, then go set in a 65-66 Imperial. better yet drive one after the other. if you cant tell the diff then i cant help you.
|
I'm not an expert on this, and many of you will likely disagree with me, which is fine. But I would consider a 66 sport fury to be a muscle car.
I'm willing to grant that it wasn't built to be one. But over the years a lot of classics have become muscle cars. A good example would be the impala most people now consider that to be a muscle car, you were arguing that the Fury's size disqualifies it? Well the 66-68 fury's are slightly smaller and lighter than the Chevy Impala from the same period. I don't know if that little factiod will sway anyone, but there it is. |
I stay out of this debate any more because you have guys arguing a Mustang, Camaro or Dart are or aren't Muscle Cars.
I have my own Muscle Car qualifiers. #1 - Must be fast. #2 - 5 passenger minimum. (if 4 passenger then rule #3 must be doubled, '66 Charger OK) #3 - Trunk, minimum 1 case of beer per occupant. |
:doh:
|
I suppose it all depends on what one considers the properties of a muscle car consist of. Some go only by the designation that the manufacturer gave the car from production. Looks seem to count for quite a bit. Many cars in my day were referred to as a "sleeper". 1962 Chev Belair with a 409 comes to mind. It had no trim, dog dish hubcaps and looked "plain Jane" but don't mess with one at a stop light or the only thing you'd achieve was ultimate embarsement. Blown away by a family car! For me, every car that looks fast standing still doesn't mean it is and I believe to qualify for the "muscle car" status, regardless of looks, it has to be stout on power, fast off the line and relentless to the very last r.p.m. I believe there are many "sleepers" out there that would never be thought of as "muscle" stock and I'm sure many on this forum and others have them. So the next time you pull up to a light and there's a bit of noise next door think twice. Sometimes that rumbling sound is backed up with one awesome powertrain in a place it's not meant to be.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 PM. |
© 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands