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.