If it was the 1960s, would the twins be considered muscle cars?
 

An odd question... but since the 1/4 mile and 0-60 times are right in line with the muscle cars of the day (see link), I think it's a fair question.

http://listverse.com/2009/08/15/10-c...n-muscle-cars/

I'm half-trolling, of course... LOL. But everyone whines about the twins being slow. Yet no one whines about muscle cars from the '60s being slow.

Fair question, but no. It would have been considered more of a "roadster" or sports car, not a muscle car, just like it is today. The definition hasn't really changed.

It also might have been considered a really fast go-cart given its size.

The twins are a 2+2. I'd lump them in with the first year small Mustang, Jaguar, Corvair maybe, so "sportscar" would be the closest catagory. True sportscars for a purist, would only have 2 seats, and no roof, making the twins simply a 2+2. Muscle cars are larger v8 powered in my opinion.

This thread makes my brain hurt.

Possibly.

Our Twin's 0-60 times ARE typical of the best sports cars from the '60's.

They'd have been competing with other 2+2 coupes from the period like the Jaguar E-type coupes, Toyota 2000GT, Datsun 240z, Lotus Élan +2, Ferrari Daytona, Maserati Ghibli, etc...

But I tend to think of a "Muscle car" as a big heavy American car with awful suspension.

Personally I like the Toyota 2000GT and Sports 800 connection. :-)

More Datsun 240 if anything.

Muscles cars are called muscles because they have so much Torque, and Weight, and is built like a tank. I don't see anything fit the 86. Do you ? Modern Muscles has gone on a diet for cost relation, and emission, but the definition has not changed much.

No more than a modern Toyota Camry SE or Acura MDX would be considered a muscle car.

Similar 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile times (or better) but the category goes beyond that.

I get what you're saying though - these cars would definitely be considered fast back in those days, but so would contemporary sport sedans and SUV's.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Years ago a magazine took an old Porsche and compared it to a modern mini van. Guess which vehicle did best in every single performance test?

Ultimately no, the twins would be on the same level as the MGB's and other British sports cars of the time, not muscle cars.

1967 Porsche 911S
2+2 Gran Tourer
2.0L 6 Cylinder Boxer Engine
180 HP, 144 ft-lbs
0-60 in 6.5 seconds
2280 lbs.
Fuel Economy 14-18 mpg
Roughtly $7,000 to buy (just shy of $50k today adjusted for inflation only)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review

It'd be a really high end sports car that would be great for about 10k miles and then you wouldn't have any oil to put in it because the right kind didn't exist back then, and a billion other little things that would put the car in a glass case for decades. But that's being literal, in terms of a magic drag strip it wouldn't hold a candle to the specials of the day Shelby Cobra's, Sunbeam Tiger's, Cobra Jet Mustangs, Hemi's, prepared racecars (NASCAR, various sports cars) etc.

Top of the line muscle cars in the 60's were well north of 300 horses and only a couple hundred pounds more than the Toyobaru.
Cobra Jet Mustang in '67: 335 horses, <3,000 lbs

Nah, they would still be imports. However, if they were built in the 70's they would have been considered exotics.

No. It would be considered an elite exotic.

Keep in mind horsepower was measured differently back then. It's the engine on an engine dyno without any accessories (alternator, power steering pump, water pump, etc). Dyno any of those cars today and you'd be sorely disappointed...

Fair play, still a 6.5 second 0-60 on tire technology that's laughable today, still remarkably on par with the Toyobaru's performance.