When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
like i said, i love big rims, like 22's on chargers look good. 24's on a newer escalade, stuff like that. when you have to lift a car to put rims on, thats when i dont think it looks cool. im gonna put 20's or 22's on my 95 impala, but theyre gonna be wide, and the car will have a proper stance. when you have to do truck suspension, youve gone too far on a car. some people just need attention and lack subtlety.. so they showboat. its just like the dudes who chrome out their trucks and put 44" tires on them. or the guy with an 83 camaro with 15" centerlines, white letter tires, and a 4" primered cowl hood. the guy with the 26's lives in the hood, the guy with the truck lives in the country, and the guy with the camaro lives in a trailer. stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason............ aramos3's car looks good to me. it does what he wants, im sure if he wanted to autocross it, hed change up the wheels. i wish my iroc was that smooth..... maybe its just a california thing.
Haha, I love these responses you are getting. My favorite is the no bigger than 18" or else saying. Personally, I don't care whether your IROC wheels are 20" or 16", IROC wheels are ugly. I know that is blasphemy around here and I'm not trying to dog on your wheels, I'm just stating my opinion. Additionally, I think the camaros are dog ugly compared to the birds. Yes, I'm biased.
I'm glad you like them and your car is well kept. Hats off to you for picking some wheels you liked and going with them instead of doing what 90% of the people on this board now do and look to copy someone else or ask everyone else to decide for them. Nice car.
Side note: A lot of people will agree that muscle cars died in the early 80's due to all the EPA regulations that killed off the big gas guzzling engines in heavy cars for lighter more efficient restricted cars. In my opinion, I don't own a muscle car. I own a third gen.
Last edited by GodSpeedGTA; 11-18-2009 at 10:56 PM.
ok ... after some research and talking to the old-timers yea firebirds and camaro are pony cars and the GTO and chevelle are there muscle car counter parts -.- ...... I been driving a pony all these years ........
Thats funny you dont consider the camaro a muscle car.I`m not saying I do completly but if you consider 70`s model vettes muscle cars,what do you think about the ones that only came with 180hp?Yes,they made them with all that power lol.My stock 305 made more than that.I`m not a fan of big a$$ cowl hoods unless you need them for your big a$$ engine.2" cowl is as big as I would go.Its a matter of preference,however if a guy driving a car can come anywhere close to looking me in the eyes while i`m driving my FULL SIZE truck its just ignorant IMHO.
I dont think its an 80`s thing.Its a function over form thing.If you`re into all show and no go knock yourself out.The car and suspension was designed for the size tires and rims it came with.Start changing that and you`ll be changing other parts soon enough.I promise you those big rims/tires will not make the car more fun to drive,and thats why I like my car.Its fun to drive.
a v6 does not make a muscle car, no matter what your definition is. you say the camaro was designed for a certain size rim and tire, so youll keep it that size. it was also designed for a certain size engine, and a certain size brake, thats just a dumb argument. if theyd had big tires and rims back in the mid 80's, they wouldve put bigger ones on our cars. not 26's, granted, but bigger. dodge pickups come stock with 20's for christs sake. just amazes me that somebody does something "ghetto" and everybody freaks out, but you do some straight "*******" sh it, and nobody trips......
your profile says you have a v6. do you think you drive a muscle car?
I'm talking body-style not engine-size, and what wrong with a V6 Buick grandnational came with one and it did high 13s out the box..... and my v6 isn't just a plain old v6 either so
Thats funny you dont consider the camaro a muscle car.I`m not saying I do completly but if you consider 70`s model vettes muscle cars,what do you think about the ones that only came with 180hp?Yes,they made them with all that power lol.My stock 305 made more than that.I`m not a fan of big a$$ cowl hoods unless you need them for your big a$$ engine.2" cowl is as big as I would go.Its a matter of preference,however if a guy driving a car can come anywhere close to looking me in the eyes while i`m driving my FULL SIZE truck its just ignorant IMHO.
I dont think its an 80`s thing.Its a function over form thing.If you`re into all show and no go knock yourself out.The car and suspension was designed for the size tires and rims it came with.Start changing that and you`ll be changing other parts soon enough.I promise you those big rims/tires will not make the car more fun to drive,and thats why I like my car.Its fun to drive.
re-read my post vettes have been considered sports cars since day one... they still are.
Haha, I love these responses you are getting. My favorite is the no bigger than 18" or else saying. Personally, I don't care whether your IROC wheels are 20" or 16", IROC wheels are ugly. I know that is blasphemy around here and I'm not trying to dog on your wheels, I'm just stating my opinion. Additionally, I think the camaros are dog ugly compared to the birds. Yes, I'm biased.
I think 'birds are hideous compared to camaros. They look like snowplows with the exception of hte 91-92 birds. And Pontiac had a knack for making the ugliest wheels in the world throughout the 80s, the only success tehy had was the corsslace wheels. But regardless, that's not the point. I'm just saying opinions are like *******s... Your car is about the only GTA I would ever drive, and it looks so good I think it's skewing your opinion.
Side note: A lot of people will agree that muscle cars died in the early 80's due to all the EPA regulations that killed off the big gas guzzling engines in heavy cars for lighter more efficient restricted cars. In my opinion, I don't own a muscle car. I own a third gen.
That's a bit silly. The 77 TA 6.6 liter v8 made a whopping 200hp. The 400 made 180hp. By 79 the Firebird made 220hp with its biggest motor, the 400. Then by 81 the Turbo 301 made what... 205hp? The decline had been setting in since 1973 and it was all downhill from there. Your magic number of "early 80's" is exactly when muscle cars came back.
After a decade of having 400+ cubic inch big blocks putting out 170-220hp throughout most of the mid 70s, by the early 80s they managed to make power via engineering and do it while getting decent fuel mileage. Then by 85 we've got a smallblock 305 putting out 220. By 88 we've got roller cams and a 5.7 smallblock putting out 245hp. And then by 93 we've got 275hp.
Even without taking into account the vast differences in the way manufacturers measured horsepower from the 70s and early 70s to today, the 85 305 TPI was the most power Camaro engine since 1974. The 195hp of the 85 Z28 engine was more powerful that at least half the 2nd gen Camaros also.
If horsepower is your criteria for "muscle car", then you need to come up with something better than that. Nevermind the fact that 80s F-bodies could hang with most of the 60's cars stock for stock. Thank the overinflated factory power ratings from back then. Gross horsepower is ridiculous compared to the way we measure it today.
There is no universally accepted definition for "muscle car", so if you wnat to argue about what is or isnt a muscle car, carry on, but I just tired of people having these ridiculous semantics arguments that no one can win because everyone has their own equally right definition.
i was talking body style as in my V6 firebird not as in all body styles but if u go with body style u think the dodge charger is a muscle car right? will what about the 2 second gen that came with a Slant Six
and YES i think the "buick grand national" is a muscle car the grand national
but same question i ask before godjackass what do u think is a muscle car ?
my idea of a muscle car is a 2 door car from the 60's with a v8, loud exhaust, and primarily made to go in a straight line. an old nova with a 6 cylinder isnt a musclecar. jorge was right, camaros were designed as pony cars, made to go around corners. take trans am for instance. that was a race before it was a car, you knew that right? and it wasnt a drag race....
I think 'birds are hideous compared to camaros. They look like snowplows with the exception of hte 91-92 birds. And Pontiac had a knack for making the ugliest wheels in the world throughout the 80s, the only success tehy had was the corsslace wheels. But regardless, that's not the point. I'm just saying opinions are like *******s... Your car is about the only GTA I would ever drive, and it looks so good I think it's skewing your opinion.
That's a bit silly. The 77 TA 6.6 liter v8 made a whopping 200hp. The 400 made 180hp. By 79 the Firebird made 220hp with its biggest motor, the 400. Then by 81 the Turbo 301 made what... 205hp? The decline had been setting in since 1973 and it was all downhill from there. Your magic number of "early 80's" is exactly when muscle cars came back.
After a decade of having 400+ cubic inch big blocks putting out 170-220hp throughout most of the mid 70s, by the early 80s they managed to make power via engineering and do it while getting decent fuel mileage. Then by 85 we've got a smallblock 305 putting out 220. By 88 we've got roller cams and a 5.7 smallblock putting out 245hp. And then by 93 we've got 275hp.
Even without taking into account the vast differences in the way manufacturers measured horsepower from the 70s and early 70s to today, the 85 305 TPI was the most power Camaro engine since 1974. The 195hp of the 85 Z28 engine was more powerful that at least half the 2nd gen Camaros also.
If horsepower is your criteria for "muscle car", then you need to come up with something better than that. Nevermind the fact that 80s F-bodies could hang with most of the 60's cars stock for stock. Thank the overinflated factory power ratings from back then. Gross horsepower is ridiculous compared to the way we measure it today.
There is no universally accepted definition for "muscle car", so if you wnat to argue about what is or isnt a muscle car, carry on, but I just tired of people having these ridiculous semantics arguments that no one can win because everyone has their own equally right definition.
WOW, so where in my statement did I ever say HP decided a muscle car's status? You seem to be directing your response towards me but I'm really hoping you meant it towards others since you clearly quoted my remark. My statement is fact. There ARE a lot of people (tv programs as well) that have stated the end of the muscle era as what I said (as their opinion). However, I KNOW that my car would stomp a 77 trans am and most of those 60s and 70s cars. Thats why I dont care to be named a muscle car.
In the 80s, technology got better and we had faster more powerful cars but find out how many people agree with you that THAT is when the muscle cars began. I bet not too many. By the way, that snow plow is pretty darn aerodynamic compared to the ugly front end on camaros. Just ask John Lingenfelter (way back when) as he chose a bird over a vette. Additionally, I'm glad you like my car and 91-92 camaros are the ones I disliked the least due to the aero package.
On my comment about being designed for certain sized tires and wheels and all.....An upgrade is an upgrade.Those big tires are not an upgrade but a downgrade.Everything will suffer.Braking,performance,mileage etc.Without upgrades his front end and other components are taking much more punishment than with the stock equipment.I just dont see the point.The car is beautiful.I just prefer a more stock look,and something that will help my car perform better.I guess its just a younger guy or west coast thing or something.The OP asked what we thought and hes gotten likes and dislikes.You cant please everybody.Its his car and if he likes it thats fine.Like has been said atleast they`re IROC 20`s.I wouldnt have gone bigger than 18" Irocs,and paint the stripes like the stock wheels.
So I just got my 20" wheels for my 1989 iroc z. What size tires r u putting on ur wheels so they fit. Also I went with staggerd wheels 10.5 in the back 9.5 in the front. I just don't want to order tires that won't fit so any help would b appreciated. Thank u.
11-18-2009, 11:15 AM
what a shame on these fools. 20 is as big as i would go. it still looks good but don't go any bigger please 
