Muscle cars looked so cool, why didn't they make a single one that actually handled well?

They handled fine for what they were, comfy, boaty, grocery getters. Add some sway bars and modern tires and they'll keep up with the average sedan. Let's keep in mind this is what was going on on Europe around the same time.

youtube.com/watch?v=NqtbaQL8K9Y

They handled well for their time. They were meant to be cheap and powerful, no one cared about the turns

Stuff like disk brakes and independent rear suspension were state of the art back then and very expensive to engineer properly. Arguably they would have been even worse if they attempted the good stuff

>Arguably they would have been even worse if they attempted the good stuff

Well the Corvair was goo.... Well maybe not.

>he says as he posts a homologation special for a road-racing series

Cost. Cost is always the answer.

1st gen was shit, the 2nd much better

What's up with the driver burning all that rubber when accelerating? Hasn't he heard of a thing called static friction?

corvair had live axle 1st gen

Because they weren't about handling you retard. They were about cheap power put down to the rear wheels.

There were literally hundreds of muscles cars, they could have at least tried one that sacrificed a bit of affordability for handling.

Charger Daytonas, Z28s, and Shelby gt 350s handled just fine

That's how we do it an america. Gotta let those eagles fly. That was one of the main uses for a muscle car, To turn gas into burnt rubber.

Have to warm up the tires for max grip.

Handles ok for what it is. A stock 350z will run circles around it in handling.

>they handle just fine

youtube.com/watch?v=9nAx2jtr3K8

...

Yuppers

Well yeah but they didn't show a single acceleration run where he didn't burn the tires.

Haaaaaa! Please find a new hobby. You know nothing about cars.

It's a 4000lb boat with 500lbs of iron in its fender wells.

Swing axle, like a bug. Second generation had an independent suspension.

>aaa it heavy it slow
>america car no go corner

>Durrr Americuck can overcome physics and build magic boats that float like clouds and corner like slot cars!

it brakes 60-0 better than Porsches and shit 40 years newer

ran 13s with an automatic no tuning and stock tires

destroyed nearly everything at the time but youre just a shitposter who thinks its supposed to compete with a modern Lotus or Ferrari

AMC AMX, legit Corvette chaser in its day for three quarters of the price.

My uncle owns one. It's weird seeing a something that looks like a muscle car with the wheelbase of a Miata. Still solid axle though.

Lol. My god, what a delusional faggot...

Hemi Road Runners run high 13s low 14s. And they were stripped down, light weight street cars.

But I am the shit poster? Lol

Even the Corvette had solid axles until the mid 80s. The AMX is about as good as you're going to get for muscle cars, unless you're autistic enough to completely rebuild a 61/62 Pontiac Tempest for performance because it did have IRS (but no performance trim). And even that is not going to be a guarantee for handling.

The best answer. Amazing Trans Am success with guys like Dan Gurney heading up development.

Straight axle isn't inherently bad on a smooth surface like a race track.

Ropedrive transmission is why it never had a performance version.

But it shares the platform with the Corvair.

I have faint hopes of being able to shove a C5 Corvette driveshaft and transaxle and possibly even suspension in there.

The Corvair did use the exact same suspension setup, even with some improvements later on, but it also had a gutless 100 hp flat six.

youtube.com/watch?v=raT9QafSvPY

13.82 @ 101

factory rating back then was 13.98 @ 101

Hemis were garbage that would get taken by 440s on the frequent

not a muscle car either

its a sports car

Yeah, but at least it handles which is what OP asked for, unlike your absolutely offtopic 13 second straight line barges. Do you know what handling is? Do you know how acceleration isn't handling? Do you know how OP asked for handling?

>Less than 100lbs lighter
>Stripped down, light weight street cars

>It's more expensive
>No one cared as long as it's comfy, quick in the straight line and looks cool and has a loud v8
Customers always get what they ask for. Shame nowadays most people are numales who don't like a loud V8 comfy boats.

are you retarded

he asked for muscle cars and you post a sports car

the Hurst Olds was an excellent handling car for the time

its 60-0 ft was 115 in 1969 which is better than the AMX

>It accelerates like a rocket-sled, stops and corners better than many of its European peers, and is uncannily smooth on the road

is what was said about it

the thing had coils all the way around and sway bars its quite possibly the best handling classic muscle car

Not really. There were a couple dozen body styles used over several brands with mostly minor changes. A Nova for example is just an X platform car that's very similar to the Apollo, Skylark, Omega, Ventura, Phoenix and Acadian.

If someone wanted a super good handling car for track use they went to companies that specialized in sports cars at the time like Ferrari, Aston Martin, etc.

There are some cars such as the Corvette, Mustang, Camaro and Datsun coupes that tried to focus on weight reduction and handling. But they still aren't comparable to today's sports cars as they use performance tech made 50 years ago.

If you love the old styling and want something track worthy, the option is to build it yourself. There's a huge aftermarket and community for resto-mods.

You have to be 18+ to post here.

Not a gullible retard.

Who is weighing them? My god you faggots know nothing about cars, science, or engineering.

The Hurst Olds is the same thing as a fucking pig fat Chevelle with an Olds engine.

It is NOT a good handling car you stupid faggot by any stretch of the imagination.

not an argument

no one can find a better handling muscle car

and no the Chevelle still has shitty leaf springs and a heavier engine lol

corvettes have used an irs since the early 60's friend

Listed curb weights by manufacturers
In addition to literally fucking anyone who weighs them, it varies from 3200 to 4000lbs

The Roadrunner is just as much a pigfat landbarge as a 442 bud

>I agree with fagay
I must be wrong. Allow me to reconsider.

Shit opinion

Pony cars did well for what they were. Rest were shortened sedans with big blocks, didn't handle as well. But ultimately it means nothing as if you're buying an old car shit is worn out and there's a dozen aftermarket kits to completely change the suspension components.

>Rip off Snowflakes
>side pipes
>aftermarket shaker
>wrong tires
>that paint job

nothing I posted was an opinion

Idk, time era? Wgat european cars were as fast and had "amazing ha dling" except for supercars? What could a factory worker afford in europe back then? A morris morina?

As much as I love the olds, the GTO was a better car.
It handles better and is faster stock than the Hurst olds.

I doubt it handles better and GTOs were mid 14 second cars at the time that couldnt hit 100 mph in the 1/4

Both are around mid 13 cars, with the GTO being a little faster, and in my experience handles better.
I know someone taped the Pure stock drag race between the Hurst and a 455 HO GTO if you want proof for yourself.

I already know the video youre talking about and the cars are not stock

1969 GTO (MT)
400ci/350hp, 4spd, 3.55, 0-60 - 7.2, 1/4 mile - 14.9 @ 98.3mph
1969 GTO RA IV (CL)
400ci/370hp, 4spd, 3.55, 0-60 - 6.1, 1/4 mile - 14.4 @ 98mph

Mate I can confirm that they are. Its literally at an event for only pure stock cars and they bring specific car experts to meticulously look over your car to make sure its stock.
I got in trouble for having a non stock radio and a hose clamp in the wrong spot.
I know that you are a contrarian trip fag that only looks at Wikipedia numbers But I actually encourage you to join the pure stock racing community and actually learn a bit.

"mate" theyre not stock you fucking retard

its not stock when you change the cam rejet the carbs install an exhaust bore an engine over and bump up the compression

maybe look at the fucking rulebooks instead of taking names like theyre the end all truth

I will believe magazine tests from 1968-9 over a goddamn modified car running in the 2010s when it comes to stock cars

No need to be rude friend, I know for a fact that the 4 cars we run are 100% stock and the 70 GTO does mid 13's. Are there people who cheat and bend the rules? Yes they drive studes.
All mags have agendas no matter the time, just look at the state of hot rod, it's just shilling.

That’s not an f-body fuckhead

F-body is the term for the camaro and firebird. Doesn't matter what year.

...

>Homologation car designed to break 200mph on a NASCAR track loses on the skid pad

No shit dumbass. The Daytona Charger was the slowest muscle car on the drag strip too as well as the poorest selling muscle car.

To keep costs down? If you wanted a cheap sports car, it would be something smaller with two seats a most likely a 4 cylinder engine. If you wanted to something as big as muscle car, with a V8 and could handle well, it would be very expensive.