[Asapientmachine]

Am asking for your opinions. Would you consider the Thunderbird 4.6 and turbo charged 3.8 be classified as 'muscle cars'? The reason for the inquiry was a comment I read on Youtube. Personally, I do consider these automobiles as muscle cars. What are your thoughts?

 

[RalphP]

I do not.

"Muscle Cars" are typically fairly light weight vehicles with big brawny motors that can go straight, but don't handle all that well.

For instance, a 1967 Mustang with a 500HP motor under the hood would be a muscle car. A Datsun 240Z would not be.

RwP

 

[Boston-Bull]

The super coupes for there day and time were concerned a "muscle car" I would say.

 

[barry96cat]

I think that at one time Cougars & Thunderbirds were called Personal Luxury Hot Rods.

 

[S4gunn]

I think that at one time Cougars & Thunderbirds were called Personal Luxury Hot Rods.

Bwahahahaa.
I had to google it because Personal Luxury != Hot rod.

I think the term you were looking for was "Personal Luxury Car"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_luxury_car

IMO, Hot rod implies something stripped down.

Another good term (not Muscle Car) for this vehicle might be "Grand Tourer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_tourer

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Am asking for your opinions. Would you consider the Thunderbird 4.6 and turbo charged 3.8 be classified as 'muscle cars'? The reason for the inquiry was a comment I read on Youtube. Personally, I do consider these automobiles as muscle cars. What are your thoughts?

Do you remember where on YouTube you saw this comment? If so can you link to the video where it was made so that I can see the context in which the comment was made.

I'd say no, the MN12 isn't a "muscle car" with the exception of the SC's.

... Because Ford can't build ANYTHING to compete with the :bowdown: "Beloved" Mustang ....

 

[1MTNCAT]

I think that at one time Cougars & Thunderbirds were called Personal Luxury Hot Rods.

You are basically correct. They were considered personal luxury cars/ Luxury hot Rods. However, they came as did the Challenger and some of the brand X cars with spectacular power plants for the time and ran excellent even though generally heavier than the more familiar muscle car platforms of the time like Camaro, Mustang, and some of the others.

The Cougar platform itself was actually the first Mustang platform. Mercury Cougar was introduced as an upscale performance version of the Mustang for 67 and maintained that image with similiar powerplant right into the early 70's. The platforms were similiar up to and including the early and mid 70. I owned several 69-70 Cougars including one Boss 302 for a short period of time in the mid 70's. You could basically get a base 289-429 Cobra Jet in throughout the model years (Powertrains varied from year to year on some). The old Y motor 427's were popular in 67 and 68 if you could find one (Cougar or Mustang). The Thunderbirds were mostly all big block 390 and up engines in those years. Earlier 60's versions were generally the police version 352's. They were readily available in the early 70's as the gas crunch hit except for the collectors that bought up what they could.

Into the early 80's the Fox chassis was used once they had downsized the cars for the Mustang, Cougar, Fairmont, Zephyr, LTD and Thunderbird.

In 89 of course that all changed with the advent of the MN12 platform. Cougar and Thunderbird went on their own as sister vehicles (Ford-Mercury).

The rest as they say is history.

Damn I'm old. LOL

 

[Asapientmachine]

Do you remember where on YouTube you saw this comment? If so can you link to the video where it was made so that I can see the context in which the comment was made.

I'd say no, the MN12 isn't a "muscle car" with the exception of the SC's.

... Because Ford can't build ANYTHING compete with the :bowdown: "Beloved" Mustang ....

The comment was published about 2 weeks ago by user, Robert Escamilla in regards to this infamous video titled '1995 Ford Thunderbird on 24s'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1CMG6n5ENs

'This is a muscle car its rear wheel drive with a v8 nd can smoke a **** load of cars.. But u **** it up with the rims u should of put that money into the motor'
Robert Escamilla.

 

[Boston-Bull]

You are basically correct. They were considered personal luxury cars/ Luxury hot Rods. However, they came as did the Challenger and some of the brand X cars with spectacular power plants for the time and ran excellent even though generally heavier than the more familiar muscle car platforms of the time like Camaro, Mustang, and some of the others.

The Cougar itself was actually the first Mustang platform. Cougar was introduced and an upscale performance version of the Mustang for 67 and maintained that image with similiar powerplant right into the early 70's. The platforms were similiar up to and including the early and mid 70. Even into the early 80's the Fox chassis was used once they had downsized the cars for the Mustang, Cougar and Thunderbird.

In 89 of course that all changed with the advent of the MN12 platform.

The rest as they say is history.

Damn I'm old. LOL

No we are not Steve . Like the wife keeps telling me " You are in your prime of life " LOL By the way we remember real " Detroit " muscle cars

AWWW I am blind I clicked on the link

 

[Tbird1997]

I had a huge debate about this with one of my friends recently. I said yes, he said no. We eventually came to the agreement that they are a 'hot rod'. I define Muscle cars as a big american muscular looking two door with a v8.. That's just me tho. My friend had completely different ideas about it.

 

[XR7-4.6]

No. Not even slightly.

I define Muscle cars as a big american muscular looking two door with a v8.. That's just me tho.

Well by that definition, 80% of every domestic car built through the 1960s and 70s is a muscle car. Big V8 coupes were as common then as V6 sedans are today.


With the MN12:

-The stock power to weight ratios are dismal

-The LX models had no sporting pretensions whatsoever

-The SC was way more BMW CSI than Torino Cobra


Modified form, yeah they're more like muscle cars, but muscle cars are factory creations, not owner creations. That makes a modified MN12 a hot rod more than anything, and even then I don't really consider them that unless they're gutted with something really radical under the hood.

 

[1MTNCAT]

No. Not even slightly.



Well by that definition, 80% of every domestic car built through the 1960s and 70s is a muscle car. Big V8 coupes were as common then as V6 sedans are today.


With the MN12:

-The stock power to weight ratios are dismal

-The LX models had no sporting pretensions whatsoever

-The SC was way more BMW CSI than Torino Cobra


Modified form, yeah they're more like muscle cars, but muscle cars are factory creations, not owner creations. That makes a modified MN12 a hot rod more than anything, and even then I don't really consider them that unless they're gutted with something really radical under the hood.

You may want to go back and look at the muscle in those days weights, engines etc then start looking at Factory Stock ET's etc. You may change your mind. Factory muscle car hot rods running low 15's high 14's on the track with huge V8's and car weighing less than ours.

Stock SC's ran low to mid 15's, later V8's running mid to upper 15's stock.

You're not proving it by me. I was around the muscle of that era and the cars. That being said, nothing like the sound of a thumping V8 Big inch motor!!!

 

[1MTNCAT]

Something I saw

Sometime ago. This may open a few eyes but I've seen similar numbers over time with some of these breeds.

Enjoy!!

Do we or do we not have modern muscle cars??? 3800 lbs cars with 281 engines!!!

http://www.mustangmonthly.com/thehistoryof/173_0310_ten_fastest_mustangs/viewall.html

 

[XR7-4.6]

Standards evolve and times change. Some muscle cars could out accelerate literally everything you could get in the country at the time, including the exotics of the day. That's not the case with the MN12s though. Yeah they can match some 20-30 year muscle cars but a 1970 Valiant with a slant 6 can match some 20-30 year older performance cars as well. It's just natural evolution.

The MN12s may have emerged when automotive performance was in the teething years of it's come back but there were still plenty of cars (granted, mostly from europe at a price) that were much quicker by 1989 and certainly through the 1990s. You think any of those 60s muscle cars would have been christened "super cars" at the time if they were slower than a BMW 2002?

My dad witnessed the muscle car era and he made sure I was around them as much as possible growing up, I know my history and I know the specs Not a single one reminds me of a stock MN12, for better or worse.

 

[v8nick]

Mustangs are not muscle cars, they are pony cars. Same goes for Camaro, Challenger, 'Cuda, Firebird, and AMX. Muscle cars were/are midsized cars that got the biggest engines crammed in them to go as fast as they could in a straight line. Look at the 64 GTO. Some say it's the first muscle car. It's mid-sized, came with 389 cubes and could run the quarter in the 13 to 14 second range. The MN12 doesn't really fit the bill. It is mid-sized, handles too good, and is too comfortable to be a muscle car, not to mention, they are underpowered too.

 

[dDUBb]

The MN12 was considered a luxury car. Not a Muscle car or a Hot rod. Just a bunch of metal, plastic and rubber .. cars are cars who really needs a definition ?? They all break down and are equal opportunity money makers / money pits. :tongue:

 

[Asapientmachine]

AWWW I am blind I clicked on the link

My apologies for that.

 

[bowez]

SC yes but more than a Muscle Car; rest no. But that's how it was originally too not all Lemans were muscle cars only the GTO, not all Chargers only the ones with Hemis not all Torino only Grand Torino.

With the death of the SC the Muscle car died we have no 2door, Mid-sized, powerful, RWD. Mustangs are Small Cars, SHOs are FWD/Sedans and Dodge and GM are in the same boat.

As for Muscle cars being unmodded guess you forget the aluminum intakes in the trunk of 390s to get around insurance.

 

[Rodeo Joe]

By the time the Gran Torino rolled around, they were more of a posh ride than a muscle car. Now a 1970-71 429CJ/SCJ Torino or Cyclone I would consider a muscle car!

Joe

 

[theterminator93]

To me, a "muscle car" is a big car that is fast (in a straight line) because it has a big engine to compensate for the size of the chassis. In essence, it's quick because it's got lots of muscle.

That said, I don't consider the T-bird one. It can be modded to become a bit of a sports car, but as others have said... its designers made it a personal luxury coupe, and that's what it is to me (but that doesn't mean it has to be slow! ).