Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uw-june Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!emma From: emma@uw-june.UUCP Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: Re: Muscle_car != Sport_car Message-ID: <1561@uw-june> Date: Tue, 5-Jun-84 12:33:44 EDT Article-I.D.: uw-june.1561 Posted: Tue Jun 5 12:33:44 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 07:14:57 EDT References: <468@hou2h.UUCP> <899@eosp1.UUCP> <1972@rlgvax.UUCP>, <1550@uw-june> <476@hou2h.UUCP> <1989@rlgvax.UUCP> Organization: U. Washington, Computer Sci Lines: 16 Admittedly, my question about a question was intended to add heat, rather than light, to the discussion. I was planning to add a later submission regarding "what is a muscle car", but Dave Williams has already done that for me. The point is, it is really impossible to set down a list of criteria which will unambiguously separate sports and muscle cars. Handling? Compare a '66 Barracuda S with one of the last MG's (a lousy sports car by then, but a sports car all the same). Dave's criteria would make the Chrysler Laser a muscle car! We all know, deep in our heaart of hearts, the difference, and don't tend to make mistakes. We don't call a Porsche 930 a muscle car, or a Camaro a sports car. Granted, Au, most of the '60's muscle cars had the handling of a ballistic missile. But the brush was a little broad. -Joe P.