The Lost Art Of Building Muscle: How The A-Body Evolved Into GM's Last Sleeper Platform

"Generosity, generosity...all is lost in the land of generosity," cried our fathers and grandfathers, as they pondered the performance era that they remembered. Truthfully, the men in our lives spent many a Saturday afternoon in various garages, tightening wheel lugs, flushing radiators and even pulling entire motors.

However, what made these suburban experiences remarkable were the conversations that took place over the tasks that were being performed. It could've been something as simple as tightening the driver's side mirror on Mr. Phillips' Chevelle wagon, but what really became important to us young guys were the comments that our dads made about cars, the memories they had.

For my dad and his generation, nothing made after 1973 in terms of American auto seemed to even matter. There was a protocol in the San Fernando Valley, and probably in every neighborhood in America, and it was one to be followed: the GTO was the beginning of "muscle," and it ended with the Chevelles, Buick GS and Goat of the early '70s. Anytime that you decided to stray from said protocol, you were looked upon as a dissenter, a "smog dog" lover.

But here's the thing: only the real car guys were those who were willing to accept the progressive nature of "the future." A funny thing to say, but then I was one of those growing-up who slipped under the radar of my father and forefathers' gearhead ideology. I thought that everything had to be from the '60s, and that cubic-inch was the cure for nearly every automotive flaw known to the industry.

For my dad, the A-Bodied Chevelle was the pinnacle of everything street and strip. Aside from a few V-8 Vegas and a 2 + 2 Stang that he had for a second, my dad ate and drank nothing but Chevelle, because apparently there was something about that ideal power transfer that made it the king of stoplight warfare.

In assuming this about GM's "A" platform, the old man wasn't entirely wrong. In fact, it was the A-Body in itself that carried many of GM's most successful muscle cars throughout the 1960s and early '70s.

What is taken for granted, however, is that the designation itself was one used from about 1936-58. During the '30s and '40s, the "A" designation carried many of Pontiac and Oldsmobile's most predominant models, some of which included the Olds Series F and Pontiac Torpedo.

These, of course, were not the same GM A-Bodies that my dad and his Van Nuys crew laid chicks in, during what probably spanned from the late '70s till about 1982. Thanks to the rear-wheel platform and the models to which it gave birth, some siblings may have been birthed that we still don't know about, but the hotbed for marijuana and sex that is the A car was actually introduced for the 1964 sales year.

What's more, the platform was one that spread across four of the General's most successful automakers. Pontiac, of all the GM sanctions, was the "big brother" who pinned down the smaller kids for their lunch money. That's because they defied General by disrupting the corporation's "330 cube code," one that necessarily set a displacement standard for all intermediate models to 330 cubic-inches for production V-8s. This didn't include Corvette, but that's because the marque was the "teacher's pet," in a sense, following its own set of rules and regulations.

All it really took for the A cars to get into steroids was the tearing-down of the engine size limit. It was a limit that was raised to 400 cubic-inches in 1965, and then completely removed in '70, due mostly to Chrysler's cut-throat advantage in the performance market. At that point, GM's A-based models became engaged in an all-out motor build.

Throughout the greater part of the 1960s and early '70s, Chevelles, GTOs and even Cutlasses were the road and track race standard. But then the smog era came along. Not too long after this, we were born. It may have been karma for all the sex and drugs that went down just a few years earlier, but our generation and even the one right before us came into the world regardless.

By the time GM had introduced a front-wheel version of the platform in 1982, the car that was the A-Body morphed into something late-model, the G-Body. It is but a curse to those who remember the "real" muscle car era, but to those who understand the history of automotive, it's a reminder that door-slammers evolved instead of outright diminishing.

Now, back in the garage, my dad and I'm sure yours are having a meltdown. Because everybody knows that an '85 Monte SS and an '87 Grand National aren't "real" muscle cars. Actually, they're kind of pussy compared to the motor monsters that preceded them, but that in itself is a matter of perception. Truthfully, it wasn't the fault of General Motors, Mopar or anyone else that our parents couldn't pull themselves off of that "V-8 nipple." They just needed to be weaned.

My dad owned nearly every standard and Super Sport Chevelle that was ever built, but that was a time when gas pumps offered what is now called "AV fuel." By the time that Chuck E. Cheese and Pacman became culture icons, you were lucky if you could buy 93-octane, let alone 104-108 race fuel. Nickelodeon and the Pizza Time Theater were more than happy to accept Buick's Grand National into the muscle car canon, but again that "nipple;" there really is nothing like the sound of an 8-mile-per-gallon engine, namely a big-block.

So what if a 3.8 motor doesn't lope, so what if a modern V-6 doesn't burn rich or use solid lifters to open-up?! Were those really the milestones of a great performance car? Does everything really have to be a dinosaur to be among greatness?! A Regal, a Cutlass or a Monte Carlo from the '80s is the muscle of that decade. And to boot, our parents and other cool car enthusiasts were warned about the prospects of automotive technology; we can't help if they preferred a 185-horse 305 over a V-6 that put out at least 250, just so they could look cool doing it.

Modern-day Chevelles and Malibus? Whether or not the G-Bodies of the '80s truly are will always be subject to opinion, I suppose. But let's not forget that one did lead to another historically, and that's a part of our automotive heritage that we simply can not ignore!

What really happened to the “Muscle Car Era” (A retrospective)...

Most of what can be seen in the history/evolution of high-performance, especially as it pertains to American performance, can be seen by simple observation, and doesn’t necessarily require any kind of extensive study of automotive history. In other words, a lot of the changes that have been made by manufacturers over the last several years are evident in the characteristics of American cars.

If you just think about it, what made the ‘60s and ‘70s that much different from, say, the ‘80s, in terms of car construction? Well, the obvious answer to that is that the gas/oil “crunch” of the 1970s left a mark on how major manufacturers like GM and Chrysler handle the problem of fuel management, and how it relates to the condition of the environment. The other obvious ones are changes like unibody construction, as well as the use of more restrictive exhaust systems, even catalytic converters. But even this is too much of an analysis for such simple technology.

If there is any real-lived model or analogy that we can learn from, let’s take the one that’s the most straight-forward. Say, for instance, we’re standing in the parking lot of the Chili’s in Northridge. Let’s also take the analogy one-step further by throwing-in a time traveling element; say we’re standing in that exact same parking lot, but in 1984. A car, brand new for that year, is idling nearby. The first things one notices are the “speedboat” idle and the rich-smelling exhaust. But now stand in that same parking lot at the exact same coordinates, but twenty years earlier, in 1964. Again a car, brand new for that time, is also idling nearby. There are, however, noticeable differences. For example, fuel injection, the very invention of it, has had a major impact on fuel management in both regular production and high-performance cars. But before electronic fuel injection, systems like the Rochester fuel injection system used on early fuelie Chevys were mechanical, meaning that most “three-deuce” setups (three two-barrel carbs) actually ran better and more efficiently than what was considered “fuel injection” by 1950s standards. Keeping this in mind, it would make sense that the parking lot of 1964 would be a lot more rich-smelling than that of ’84. Also, notice that even in that 30-some-odd-year gap, exhausts on cars still sound relatively unbridled, which could also say something about the automakers’ use of insulation in cars; car interiors by the ‘80s and early ‘90s, if you ever notice by simply listening, are still relatively noisy, though still not nearly as much as American cars from the ‘60s or early ‘70s.

It seems as though with the progression of automotive technology, different systems that govern different functions on cars have become more restrictive with time, though this is probably a matter of perception, since such inventions as relay packs in place of a distributor and the invention of GM’s LS motor have proven that sometimes it’s actually a good thing to leave behind certain traditions.

Is the use of electronics in automotive putting a hamper on performance? Again, it all depends on how you look at it. Always remember that it really doesn’t have as much to do with the manufacturer as it does with a state and its unique, state-wide laws. Here in California, for example, the state smog regulations are pretty tight, which means that it’s hard to build any kind of motor, while still getting around smog-check mandates. Makes you wonder, though: what kind of potential would late-model powertrains, like the LS motor, have if 

they were left uncontrolled by suffocating smog regulations? A scary, but exciting thought!

- Sal Alaimo Jr., B. A. (5/20/11)

S. J. A.