Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,203 |
Originally posted by cuda06:
yes mine is not technically a cuda but is a barracuda. i only list it that way because it is easier.
Yes, but my point is that since the Cuda name is technically taken, to say that you have a cuda is an error. I think the Barracuda is a fine example of a "early" muscle car era that really spawned the 'Cuda and the Challenger. I do agree that by the time the 'Cuda rolled around, the end of the era was already only a few years away and by 73, most if not all of the muscle cars were being beaten by the gas embargo.
Originally posted by cuda06:
also, to call only e-body cudas real muscle cars is a huge slip up... i dont think that anyone would say that the roadrunner was not a real muscle car and it was simply a warmed over family car(for simplification sake).
The roadrunner DID start out as a warmed over family car. Then automakers became engulfed in the muscle car era and began making exactly what the market asked for. That is, sleek, mean looking pony cars with big, throaty, gas guzzling engines that could put down more power than their chassis and tires could handle! And THAT is what I typically refer to as a muscle car. This is not to demean the powerplant/chassis combo that these "muscle cars" came from, but when one thinks of muscle cars, they certainly don't typically think of a 68 Barracuda. They see Camaros, fastback Mustangs, 'Cudas, and even hopped up Novas. This is coming from a former Roadrunner owner, so don't take it personally. I just wouldn't go around calling my 68 Barracuda as a Cuda, just because it's easier, when in fact it's essentially mis-representing your car. It's similar to saying you have a Shelby Cobra, when in fact you have a Mustang Cobra, not an AC Cobra that has been revamped by Shelby.
|
