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