Comments: 1-15, 16-22
Blew a head gasket in New Mexico on the trip back to Buffalo, NY.
Never been in snow.
Still restoring.
Rebuilt Motor & Tranny.
Needs paint and wheels.
The Dodge Aspen isn't, never was, and never will be a "muscle car". I don't think the younger generation has a clue as to what a muscle car really was/is. It seems they refer to everthing as "muscle cars".
I am not (unfortunately!) of the "younger generation," yet I think the Aspen R/T and Volare Road Runner are indeed budget muscle cars, especially with some of the common and inexpensive upgrades.
I appreciate the original poster sharing his experience with one of these very interesting and under-appreciated cars.
The 1976 Dodge Colt is definitely not a muscle car, I (happen to be of the "younger generation") know a muscle car when I see one. My brother has a 1976 Dodge Colt, the bicentennial edition colors on it too, it looks sharp, despite some rust that needs to be fixed. Can't help that much though, it sat in a field for a couple years in the snow before he got it. But it runs very well, and when the engine's heated up it'll compete with any new car.
It takes more than rwd and a V8 to be considered a muscle car: the car has to have some image and expectation of performance. The Aspen/Volare was a low-priced family car, not a performance car by any means. The 318 had no performance image at the time, but now, because it's a V8, is considered by many who grew up with only 4 and 6 cyl engines, to be a muscle engine.
And the R/T, Road Runner and even the Super Coupe variations are just kind of tacky now, although anyone under the age of 18 seems to think they are cool.
I am amazed that anyone in the world would consider an Aspen
or Volare a "muscle car". It seems people try to change the meaning of some words to fit their circumstances.
A reviewer "gave" his/her car "back to the bank" (repossessed), a Sunfire is a sports car (tacky econocar with over-the-top plastic cladding and noisy egg-beater engine), and now the Aspen/Volare are "muscle cars" tacky compact/mid-size with tape stripes, styled wheels and emission strangled small V8 (that put out less horsepower than many 4 cylinders of today).
NOT muscle cars.
I am a Mopar fanatic, and love them all from the 1957 Fury up to the last of the Ramchargers in '93. As I have attested to on this site, I think the Volare/Aspen is a good, reliable car and I wouldn't hesitate to own one for a dependable driver. My family is a Mopar family, and it's all I've ever owned or cared to own. I don't consider my 318 Charger to be a muscle car, and my 340 Barracuda might only marginally be considered a muscle car--the debate goes on regarding the small block E-body cars. The Aspen/Volare with the 318/360 was pretty respectable considering the late 70's competition (the Mustang Cobra II--a joke--and the "Hi Po 305" Camaro--HaHa). Although they are cool cars and fun to see, I would have to vote "No" on muscle car status.
The Dodge Durango will be also be available at Chrysler dealers starting in January under the Chrysler nameplate.
It will be called the Chrysler Aspen.
Yes, really.
(If they wanted to re-use an old name, they should have revived Newport. At least it wouldn't have the negative image that Aspen has.)
I love to body still on the Dodge Aspen and agree it is a great Muscle Car. I own 4 Dodge Aspen R/T's and every show I go to people love them. I have one even back halfed with a 572 cubic inch 1256 HP on d/direct port nitrous. Very fast and very bad to the bone.
I have 1978 Aspen and in my opinion, it is a very reliable and powerful car.It still has the origional 360 in it and I am in the process of geting a new paint job. I would have to say that the Dodge Aspen's are "muscle cars".
I like Aspens and Volarès, but if they are muscle cars, then all I can say is that it is setting the bar pretty low. Most people would say that the end of the Dodge/Plymouth muscle cars was in 1972 when the 440 and 340 lost compression ratios and the 383 Magnum disappeared. Although you could still get a rare 440 Charger or 340 Rallye Charger/Roadrunner in 1973, they were not the R/T Super Commando motors of 1971. The 360 was never a muscle car engine, and was never meant to be. It was a substitute for the seriously detuned 340 after 1972, meant to substitute torque for the high revving, high compression power of the 10.5:1 340, and pick up some slack from the loss of the 383. But it actually replaced the detuned 9:1 compression 1972 340. The 1974 Barracuda 360 is a neat car, but merely an oddity, and not comparable to the fire-breathing 340 of 1971. The big play for the 360 was in the Lil Red Express truck of 1978, with a 4-barrel, minimal smog equipment, and factory header-type dual exhaust with stacks. Maybe somebody has really built up the stock 360 in their Aspen, and if so, I think that's fabulous. But in stock form, with smog passage heads, miles of vacuum lines for emissions control, and more than likely a 2-barrel, it just wasn't a muscle car. I myself built a '72 360 with headers, Holley 4-bbl, Mopar Performance electronic ignition, Edelbrock cam/lifter/intake package, etc for a 1975 Charger. It was plenty powerful, but no match for a '71 340 Barracuda. If it didn't come stock with 350 horsepower, you have a really difficult time making a case that this was a muscle car. Even so, don't let that stop you from enjoying it for what it is--a rear-wheel drive, V-8, 2-door sedan that offers fun and decent performance.
Agreed, an Aspen even with a 360 can't compare to real muscle cars...
I purchased a '77 Aspen R/T new for $7400 and loved the car. Was is a muscle car? In my mind it was, but it did not compare to my "73 Road Runner. I enjoyed it very much, but I sold it when I got married. Hindsight being 20/20 I wish I had kept both of these cars. I hope to buy one of them again.
I think you'll have some luck finding both of these cars again. The '73 Chargers and Roadrunners haven't taken off in price yet and are still attainable for well under $10,000 even for a really nice one. Even the '72-'74 Barracudas have taken off already, driven by the popularity of the '71 'Cuda. The Aspen R/T's and "Volare Roadrunners" can also still be had cheaply. Might as well get any that you still can, because they all keep going up in value.
Well to those who think the aspen r/t and volare roadrunner are in fact not muscle cars, all I have to say to them is your very very close minded, in fact I'm 30 somthing and grew up with early 70's muscle cars and also grew up with the f body mopars. For you to say they are not muscle cars is just wrong... what exactly about them is not muscle? Take a 69 dart gt with a 6 banger in it, is that not a muscle car, why yes it is. I've seen an aspen r/t do low 10's on the 1/4 mile so I DO think the aspen r/t is in fact a muscle car, that's all of it.
Hello,
In 1980 when I bought a 1977 Aspen R/T Super Pack. This car in almost stock form was running 10.10 1/8th times,& pulled hard till it ran out of wind about 4800 rpm.
With some simple changes, 340 non egr heads, a cam the Chrysler rep give to me with no specs, blackjack headers, dual 2" exhaust with cherry bomb mufflers, an offy intake and a 800 cfm thermoquad off a 440 PI rejetted and 3.55w/posi,
This car was running 8.40 1/8th with no traction 2.20 60'.
I was out running a lot of the so called muscle cars with included 302 Boss, 396 Chevelle, 383 Cuda, 340 Demon etc.