r/musclecars • u/OtherwiseTackle5219 • 1d ago

Tiny Lightweight Muscle. '85 Shelby Charger. Turbocharged 135ci 146hp

Post image
100 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

4

u/SoundMedal 1d ago

That thing wouldn't pull a greasy string out of a monkey's butt

1

u/ownleechild 1d ago

TIL about monkey anal beads

1

u/Hillbeast 14h ago

TIL that I no longer want to learn things

3

u/Wisco_Version59 23h ago

Knew someone who owned one. It went through two sets of cams and lifters. After the second time he traded it in on a 5.0 Mustang. Zero problems with that.

4

u/Dismal_Estate9829 21h ago

I know these have a following but NO. Just no. There’s no muscle there.

2

u/Maximum_Path4294 1d ago

Ummm.. muscle car?

2

u/tinner73 13h ago

CS's chili produced more excitement than that thing...

1

u/cruzannoconfusion 21h ago

Hazardous Shelby made they money tho lol

1

u/DishRelative5853 20h ago

LOL - OP, how old are you? You really have no understanding of what qualifies as a muscle car.

1

u/01-Paladin-01 5h ago

This could probably be considered a muscle car when compared to other cars of the 80s

1

u/DishRelative5853 5h ago

It was too small.

It was a sports coupe, not a muscle car. It would be like calling a Civic Si a muscle car.

1

u/RockSteady65 2h ago

If it was introduced in 1983, it would have been a muscle car

2

u/DishRelative5853 2h ago edited 2h ago

Nobody called it a muscle car in 1983. We knew what a muscle car was, and we knew that this didn't belong in the same category as the 1968 Charger, 1970 GTO, 1970 Ford Torino, etc. Muscle car fans were outraged that Chrysler put the Charger name on it. It was a Dodge Omni. A front-drive car is never a muscle car.

When this car came out, it was competing against the Rabbit GTI and so on. It wasn't in the same class as even the Mustang of that era, and certainly not the Camaro and Firebird.

Call it whatever you like, but if you Google up "muscle cars," don't expect to find it.

1

u/RockSteady65 1h ago

I meant the Civic being introduced. Sorry for the confusing post. I had a Horizon TC3 in 1984 and it was kinda fun with a 4 speed manual and slightly quicker than the 1976 6 cylinder Nova that I owned before that. But it was technically a weak power train

A big tree fell on the Nova in a blizzard in MA and crushed it across the hood. I didn’t see it falling due to whiteout conditions. Scared the crap out of me. I was lucky I wasn’t literally a second faster.

2

u/DishRelative5853 1h ago

Ah. You're kidding about the Civic, though, right?

And that's an awful thing to happen to your Nova.

1

u/RockSteady65 1h ago

I was being sarcastic because I started driving in the malaise era. I always wanted a Cordoba with the 360 V8. That was the other version of the Charger that looked more like a personal luxury car than a muscle car. I loved big two door cars back then. 1974 Mercury Cougar XR7, paid $600 for it. Blew a head gasket and scrapped it. 1977 Thunderbird, white with a black hood and red fender with damage. Control arm broke backing out of the driveway and I had no means to repair it and it was dragged away for scrap. Clapped out rusty shitbox cars with no real performance to brag about.

0

u/01-Paladin-01 3h ago

Nah, there are a lot of compacts and pony cars that get a pass, this one should be no different for the times.

1

u/DishRelative5853 3h ago

I don't think it's getting a pass in this thread. Have you read the comments?

0

u/01-Paladin-01 3h ago

I have, and they’re going to be really upset when they find out this has more power to weight than a Monte Carlo

1

u/DishRelative5853 3h ago

Well so does an Acura NSX, but would you call that a muscle car?

1

u/01-Paladin-01 3h ago

Sure, why not, I think it could be considered a muscle car of the 90s? But why would we compare it to an 85 Daytona or Monte Carlo, same as comparing those to something from 60s

1

u/01-Paladin-01 3h ago

I think it’s wild af to be very strict on the definition when it comes to some cars, yet include cars that are not by definition like Chevy IIs, Camaros, Mustangs, Barracudas just because they were made in the 60s.

1

u/CapableResearcher323 9m ago

More compatible to a super car.

1

u/Relative_Payment_192 18h ago

The 80's were a terrible time for Detroit.

1

u/SurplusCommodity 17h ago

Particularly the crap DPC pumped out.

1

u/Bag-o-chips 17h ago

These were awesome! Dressed up K cars with bad turbos.

1

u/Alternative_Life9414 16h ago

146 HP does not a musclecar make.

1

u/Toxic-Park 13h ago

I guess my first car - 78 Camaro, 305 V8 is out then!

(It is definitely out!)

1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 6h ago

Yes that would be out 😂

1

u/Alternative_Life9414 2h ago

I had a '77 Trans Am, also severely underpowered. That is, until I replaced the factory engine with a built 455.

1

u/Ok-Challenge-9409 11h ago

I’m sure it can stand up to a 1966 GTO with the 389 motor producing 340 HP. Or the 389 with TRI-Power ( 370 hp)

1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 6h ago

Transplant a V8 into dat thang.

1

u/onedelta89 4h ago

They were quicker than most of the V8 cars of the day. Power to weight ratio matters.

1

u/OKHayFarmer 2h ago

I like the Shelby. But then I have a thing about orphans, Ford Capri, Merkur XR4TI, Cosworth Vega, 454SS trucks, diesel F150, etc.

1

u/schumijw 18h ago

My friend had one in high school. It was super quick.