13 Worst Design Flaws in Muscle Cars
A design flaw is an inherent defect that ultimately undermines the essence or complete enjoyment of a product. Such defects can sabotage the product’s effectiveness even with a successful completion of the manufacturing process. As with many things in life, many cars throughout history have been born with a design flaw. No segment is spared of this malady, from regular cars to SUVs to pickups to muscle cars.
When it comes to muscle cars, though, we love them too much to put them through harsh scrutiny. So, instead of beaming the flashlight on certain models and going, “Look, that muscle car is flawed,” we highlight the worst flaws that could happen to a muscle car and, of course, mention the models that happen to suffer from such defects. So, the focus is more on the flaws and less on the muscle cars. That said, here are 13 of the most notorious design missteps in muscle car history.
Poor Aerodynamics
Poor aerodynamics can be just as disastrous for a muscle car as regular cars with controversial designs. The Pontiac Aztek, Chevrolet SSR, Chevrolet Vega, Chevrolet Corvair, and Renault Le Car are only some of the cars that suffered the consequences of ill-conceived body design. Similarly, muscle cars can’t flex much without aerodynamics.
Some early models prioritized looks over aerodynamics and paid for that miscalculation with impaired performance, fuel efficiency, and handling at high speeds. An example is the 1969 Chevrolet Camaro, with a flat front and boxy profile that hindered its aerodynamics.
Weak Brakes
Power is nothing without control. We won’t argue if you told us a performance car is only as good as its stopping power. Although many muscle cars that prioritized speed were forgiven for coming with inadequate braking systems, the modern dispensation won’t be as forgiven.
A good example is the Pontiac GTO — early models, we mean. We forgave because, well, it’s the Pontiac GTO. With its powerful V8s, iconic styling, and GOAT status, it typically featured drum brakes that didn’t always match its power.
Heavy Weight
A muscle car without nimble feet will most likely struggle to keep up with its more agile rivals. A muscle car can’t have nimble feet if it is overweight. Even if the manufacturer compensates for the extra weight with burly engines, that won’t solve the handling and cornering problems. It’s challenging enough that muscle cars are built for straight-line speeds and will struggle to keep up with nippier sports cars.
For this reason, the last thing a Muscle car needs is more weight. While their large engines and robust frames made them heavy during the golden age of American muscle, advances in engine technology and automotive design ensure muscle cars can aspire to match the agility of lighter sports cars. The Chevrolet Chevelle SS, particularly the 1960s and ’70s models, is a good example of overweight muscle cars. It weighed around 3,500 to 4,000lbs.
Underpowered Suspension
The importance of the suspension system for muscle cars isn’t just about passenger comfort and ride quality. It should be able to handle the horsepower flowing from the engine, or the car will have poor cornering performance.
For example, the early Mustang GT’s simple leaf spring rear suspension and basic front suspension setup were inadequate in a muscle car and more suited for regular passenger cars.
Naturally, the mid-‘60s GT struggled with handling and stability issues when driven like the muscle car it supposedly was. Of course, Ford nailed other aspects of the car’s development, which made the GT extremely popular despite its design flaws.
Basic Interiors
This 1966 Chevelle (without the Super Sport pkg) shed 239 lbs by getting rid of the stock interior and instrument panel — deleting the rear seat and replacing the factory bucket front seats with lighter versions. Similarly, the 1963 Impala Z11 was stripped down to unleash the full potential of its 427 cu-in V8.
So, a bare-bones interior will always be a mark of respect in racing circles, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us want a performance car with no air conditioning, ergonomic seats, high-tech infotainment, or adequate sound insulation. For example, the Plymouth Road Runner impressed performance freaks with its stripped-down, no-frills interior, even though they did it primarily to keep costs down.
Lack of Safety Features
Some early models can’t even dream of meeting safety standards today because they lack essential safety features such as airbags and reinforced crumple zones. The Camaros, for example, didn’t bother with airbags and reinforced crumple zones, and it wasn’t alone in this design misstep among many cars of the era.
The Camaros, and others like them, can be forgiven for focusing on performance and style since safety requirements like crumple zones didn’t become a thing until safety standards evolved in the late 1980s and 1990s. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that merely featuring driver and front passenger airbags isn’t nearly enough these days.
Rust Issues
Muscle cars were not the only segment affected by rust during the golden era. According to DaSilva Auto Body, “Models [cars] from the 1950s through the 1970s used 22-gauge steel without the protection against the elements zinc affords. As a result, the main sheet panel is especially rust-prone.”
Consequently, the 1970s Dodge Challenger was particularly notorious for rusting, especially in the rear quarter panels and undercarriage. This singular design flaw was capable of undermining the car’s long-term value.
Poor Fuel Economy
The muscle car segment was so disconnected from MPG that it was the worst hit when the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) was born with the Clean Air Act of 1970. Models from the ‘60s and ‘70s focused on power and performance with little regard for fuel economy. Consequently, their burly V8s drank like a camel as they delivered intoxicating horsepower and blistering acceleration.
The Chevrolet Camaro Z28 is a good example. It didn’t care about miles per gallon with its robust V8. However, a new day has come, and not even gearheads tolerate a performance car that drinks like Frank Gallagher from Shameless. We now have the Mustang EcoBoost, the Challenger SXT, and even the Camaro LT, all offering much-improved efficiency without sacrificing performance.
Engine Overheating
Overheating is a problem for drivers of regular cars, how much more so for performance car drivers. It’s an understandable yet unacceptable design flaw for a performance car like a muscle cars to be prone to overheating. Their owners expect they can handle the stresses associated with enthusiastic driving.
Unfortunately, some muscle cars featured inadequate cooling systems that left their engines prone to overheating. For example, the 1970s–‘80s Pontiac Firebird Trans Am sometimes struggled to manage the heat from its powerful engines. Many owners had to upgrade or mod their cooling systems to solve the problem.
Transmission Problems
Some muscle cars suffered the design flaw of weak or poorly designed transmission systems, a defect that impaired the proper management of engine power. For example, the Plymouth Barracuda’s transmission struggled with the engine’s power and torque output.
This flaw was common in the mid-‘60s Barracudas due to the limitations in transmission technology back then. The 1965 Barracuda, for instance, featured a 4-speed manual and TorqueFlite automatic shifters with limited interchangeability and strength. They would struggle to handle the increased power from the larger Barracuda engines that came later.
Visibility Issues
Muscle cars, like many cars across segments in automotive history, sometimes suffered a design flaw that reduced driver and/or passenger visibility. Perhaps their windows were too small, or they had large pillars that impaired the driver’s forward or rearward visibility.
We don’t have to look far to identify muscle cars with this flaw. It’s an inherent defect in nearly every muscle car from the golden era because of their typical long hoods. The Chevrolet Camaro is probably among the most affected by this flaw due to its relatively small windows as well.
Limited Trunk Space
While the focus for this segment is primarily power and aesthetics, the trunk size is far from inconsequential in muscle cars. The trunk isn’t the first that comes to mind, but you’ll quickly realize even performance-oriented cars need to be practical when you buy one for daily driving.
Unfortunately, many muscle cars rely on a design language that won’t dare compromise just to give you more space for groceries, luggage, and other essentials.
However, consumers to whom trunk space is important won’t hesitate to consider a limited one a massive design flaw. Besides, a spacious trunk increases the car’s versatility. The Mustang’s traditional fastback design is a prime example of this flaw.
Difficult Maintenance
Even gearheads who love to work with their hands aren’t thrilled by performance cars always falling apart and are difficult to maintain. A tight engine bay, for example, makes it harder than necessary to work on the engine.
This particular flaw is typical with small cars the size of BMW’s MINI (Hello, Renault Modus), but some larger cars like the Hyundai Coupe/Tiburon and Z32 Mitsubishi 300ZX also have nightmare engine bays that look like their engines got shoehorned in them.
They may be worst-case scenarios, but some muscle cars aren’t so far behind. A prime example is the 1969 Mustang Boss 429. We love to sing its praise without ever mentioning how its massive 429 V8 fits in the engine bay. We could say the same about the 2nd-gen Camaro Z28.