Letter To Muscle Machines
 

A Letter to Muscle Machines Magazine --

"Thanks for the last issue. It helped me make up my mind to let my
subscription expire. Upon receiving it I was pleasantly surprised to
see a '64 Comet on the cover. That got my hopes up, only to be dashed
by the pathetic contents of the issue. I suppose there are people out
there who want to read about '76 Chevelle Lagunas and '84 Rivieras,
but I'm not one of them. What's next? Aspen R/Ts, maybe a Citation
X?

I realize the definition of a muscle car is always debatable, but you
guys need to get a grip.

I'm sure you won't print this letter since Fitzgerald left, but, I
wanted to let you know why you lost another reader. Best of luck to
you and your politically correct magazine."

---

Here would be my reply if I were editor.

Look at the title of the magazine, again. You'll notice it's NOT
called 'Muscle Machines of 1960s'. It's called "Muscle Machines."
Period. Dot. Muscle machines didn't start life in the 60s and end in
the early 70s. Ever since the first internal combustion engine car
was built the race has been on to build better performing machines.
While the mid-70s/early 80s were some lean years, the factories did
continue building [some] performance vehicles. Sure, they were a big
step backward in straightline performance, but they did offer
evolutionary progress in areodynamics, braking, and handling. And if
we look back in automotive history we see numerous peaks and valleys
in performance, so why single out, and obmit, the late 70s/early 80's
valley? Plus, today's [now] middle-age population grew up with these
cars, and have a nostelga for them, just like earlier generations have
about their period cars. Time marches on.

---

I say bring them on -- the Aspen R/Ts, Citation Xs, Cobra 2 Mustangs,
Gremlin Xs, Little Red Express Trucks, Bandit T/As, LTD LXs, turbo
Buicks, Omni Chargers 2.2s, whatever. In my book, they all belong in
the same muscle machine family.

Patrick

Letter To Muscle Machines
 

aint it the ****s getting old?
the cars I had as a kid in the early 80's were 60-70s cars about 10-15
years old -- pretty obtainable for the average kid hotrodder.
todays generation in the 2000's looks back 10-20 years for a car and see's
mostly 80's stuff.. that is what they have to work with. so maybe the
magazine is trying to appeal more so to the average day hotrodder.?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>A Letter to Muscle Machines Magazine --
>
> "Thanks for the last issue. It helped me make up my mind to let my
> subscription expire. Upon receiving it I was pleasantly surprised to
> see a '64 Comet on the cover. That got my hopes up, only to be dashed
> by the pathetic contents of the issue. I suppose there are people out
> there who want to read about '76 Chevelle Lagunas and '84 Rivieras,
> but I'm not one of them. What's next? Aspen R/Ts, maybe a Citation
> X?
>
> I realize the definition of a muscle car is always debatable, but you
> guys need to get a grip.
>
> I'm sure you won't print this letter since Fitzgerald left, but, I
> wanted to let you know why you lost another reader. Best of luck to
> you and your politically correct magazine."
>
> ---
>
> Here would be my reply if I were editor.
>
> Look at the title of the magazine, again. You'll notice it's NOT
> called 'Muscle Machines of 1960s'. It's called "Muscle Machines."
> Period. Dot. Muscle machines didn't start life in the 60s and end in
> the early 70s. Ever since the first internal combustion engine car
> was built the race has been on to build better performing machines.
> While the mid-70s/early 80s were some lean years, the factories did
> continue building [some] performance vehicles. Sure, they were a big
> step backward in straightline performance, but they did offer
> evolutionary progress in areodynamics, braking, and handling. And if
> we look back in automotive history we see numerous peaks and valleys
> in performance, so why single out, and obmit, the late 70s/early 80's
> valley? Plus, today's [now] middle-age population grew up with these
> cars, and have a nostelga for them, just like earlier generations have
> about their period cars. Time marches on.
>
> ---
>
> I say bring them on -- the Aspen R/Ts, Citation Xs, Cobra 2 Mustangs,
> Gremlin Xs, Little Red Express Trucks, Bandit T/As, LTD LXs, turbo
> Buicks, Omni Chargers 2.2s, whatever. In my book, they all belong in
> the same muscle machine family.
>
> Patrick
>

Letter To Muscle Machines
 

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:49:09 GMT, "¾ - Dave - ¾"
> puked:

>aint it the ****s getting old?
> the cars I had as a kid in the early 80's were 60-70s cars about 10-15
>years old -- pretty obtainable for the average kid hotrodder.
>todays generation in the 2000's looks back 10-20 years for a car and see's
>mostly 80's stuff.. that is what they have to work with. so maybe the
>magazine is trying to appeal more so to the average day hotrodder.?

I don't think so. I've been a subscriber for 2 or 3 years and I think
they try to sweep the gambit of cars. Some of them aren't performance
cars by any standard except maybe the corresponding model years, but
they play up how scarce the car is or whatnot. The magazine is more
of a 'restorer's' type magazine than a hot rodder mag.

I almost canceled last year because I was getting tired of the tedium
of reading about the designers and statistics and whatnot, but at the
last minute they dropped the subscription price and I said WTF.

In my opinion, I don't really mind the articles on the mid 80's cars.
Something different. Not muscle machines, but different none the
less...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?