Sizes vary, every catagory of car downsized in the 80s. In the 70s every category of car upsized. A 63 Galaxie is almost identical in size and weight to a mid 70s Torino or Chevelle, so if you’re going to do gymnastics to get the Mark VIII retroactively reclassified as an intermediate to qualify it for muscle car status, I can do the same and claim a Galaxie 500XL406 or 427 or Impala SS 409 et al are Muscle cars too. Heck, the 58-66 Tbirds too, which had a 113” wheelbase just like us. Muscle car! Everything is a muscle car!
All I'm saying is that it's the same size as an MN12. So either Thunderbirds and Cougars are full-size or Mark VIIIs are intermediates. Unless there's some measurement I'm missing (wouldn't be the first time). And MN12s/FN10s are inbetween a Chevelle and a Challenger from the '70s. As far as I know "full-size" wasn't a trim level, it was a physical distinction, arbitrary as those measurements were year-to-year.
The Roadrunner was a muscle car to begin with, it’s 383 was the high performance premium gas one with better heads,cam and 4bbl carb. Very very very few people bought strippo cars brand new only to upgrade them, and when they did they equipped them with the top engines from the factory strictly to campaign in racing, that’s the story of the Max Wedge Mopars. Are they muscle cars? Probably, yeah, there are exceptions to the “package” muscle cars. A 318 Satellite is not an exception.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. I've read loads of articles/interviews with people who bought the stripper cars at the time purely to save money (or weight) and then they added what they needed later, on purpose, many times with parts from the factory speed parts counter (or swapped in motors from other cars). A stock 318, I agree, too basic. A stock 318 with 340 heads (a more common swap than I was aware of) is more or less a 340 in terms of performance. And apparently the 318 blocks are stout. Certainly most buyers would have added the cool extras if they could have afforded them, although a few loved the "Q-ship" sleeper look for hustling race bets.
Ponycars had small V8s from the very start, they weren’t muscle cars. It’s a well publicized quote from both Lee Iacocca and Carrol Shelby that the Mustang’s image was that of a secretary’s car, not a performance car in any way, the GT350 was a way to boost its image with legitimate race prep and tuning to the engine and overall chassis and campaigning them in sports car racing(hence why I consider them sports cars). Later ones with the big engines? Yeah I can’t really argue the point, they’re definitely not sports cars in that configuration, but the ponycar shape is definitely not the image that comes to mind when I hear the term muscle car.
Well, ya, the first pony cars were weak. So were the first intermediates. The muscle car versions came later. The first Corvettes were crap, too, with those straight-6s. Valiants were weak economy cars, same as Darts. But once the performance Mustangs and Camaros/Firebirds started selling the race was on. And "secretary's car" only ever applied to the notchback, the fastbacks were always seen as cool/performance regardless of how fast they actually were. A T/A Challenger (340) was almost as fast as an R/T (440). I don't think "muscle car" ever stipulated that a car
couldn't handle curves, either, it just wasn't an emphasis or priority. I mean, drum brakes were allowed, ugh.
And I’m not slagging anything, you act like I’m denigrating non-muscle cars, but I’m trying argue the exact opposite, I say embrace what you have for what it is, don’t do mental gymnastics to fit your car into a category you yearn for your car to be a part of. You can call my Cougar a Muscle car if you want, I built it the way I did to be like one, but it started as a Personal Luxury Coupe, and as it sits today it is really a street machine by most traditional definitions.
Fair enough, I look at my Thunderbird and see a small-block (351?) Torino. Muscle car. Certainly not as powerful but that's what better heads, intake and cams are for. In that sense it's no different than someone in the '60s going to the speed parts counter and buying Ram Air parts for his stock 400 Firebird to turn it into a Trans Am.
I'm not saying you're slagging anything, more like fixating on labels, what the same body on the same chassis is called because of what options it came with. I agree that the weakest V8 intermediates would probably be excluded but the second they're upgraded with better parts to match whatever performance drivetrain was available, poof, muscle car.
“Performance” V8, yeah, a 318 isn’t a performance V8, a 307 isn’t a performance V8, literally every engine that came with a 2bbl carburator is not a performance V8. You seem to be of the mind that V8 = performance, qualifying literally every V8 coupe below full size to be a Muscle car, which is absolutely ridiculous. You can make power with inline 6s too with mods, but that’s really not the point.
Agreed. To me they're muscle cars in waiting. If left alone, probably too weak and underwhelming. If modified enough (while keeping the same size engine block), they're just like the other examples that were sold that way in the first place.
Entry and mid level V8s were just regular engines back then, no different than x engine in a Accord or something today. Muscle car may be a somewhat abstract term but Performance engines aren’t difficult to distinguish, back then it was a 4 barrel carburetor or multiple carburetors, bigger cam and high compression, and some hardcore ones even had solid lifters. Often times they have unsilenced air cleaners and chrome dress up, in some cases like Mopars the blocks were painted were painted different colors, like blue meant low performance, orange meant high performance.
True. But that's a head/cam swap and a new intake, on the same entry level engine.
You could get performance engines in various displacements, but what separates a sporty intermediate from a full fledged muscle car is still displacement, probably 383 minimum for one, maybe for a compact muscle car you could dip that back as low as 327 like the potent L79 Nova but a 327 Chevelle isn’t outside the boundaries of what could have been produced prior to the GTO. In fact the 63 LeMans with the 326 was a pretty legit performance car for the era (even had IRS), but not a muscle car.
No, it's performance. I mean, yes,
initially, it was displacement because full-size V8 in intermediate body. But that was the lazy performance fix. Full-size engines aren't great (many are average), they're just great in lighter bodies. But once the "horsepower wars" started, performance hit almost all the V8s. 302s, 340s, 350s, 351s, they all got enough development to be legit performance engines. Quarter-mile times mattered as much or more as displacement. There have been plenty of races where small-blocks have beaten big-blocks. Once the first corner shows up, though, all bets are off, hahaha.
But you bring up a good point that some intermediates weren't even offered with some of those smaller V8s. I don't think the first Chargers ever saw a 340, for instance.
I am not dismissing the 327 at all, the performance versions of it were excellent engines in Corvettes and mid 60s Novas,. As a mid level engine in a Chevelle or Impala? It’s the equivalent of a mid level V6 now a days. What the second third or fourth owner does is completely irrelevant. Do you consider ALL 32 Ford’s “hot rods” because many became so in the 40s and 50s as well?
Ya, that's a grey area with the early hot rods, potential vs. reality. "Hot Rod" is too encompassing, I think that is basically "performance modified" but it also includes altered bodies and suspensions, yes? Not my interest. A performance 327 in a Nova is still a muscle car, if a less impressive one. Once the options expanded past simply full-size (big-block) engine in intermediate, "muscle car" also widened. I think the limit was the Corvette - no 2-seaters (no 4-doors was already established).
The 302 Z/28 really isn’t as much a muscle car as it is a sports car, same as the 65 Shelby GT350s or Boss 302, they were designed for sports car racing(later Trans Am). These are better all around performance cars than what is typically thought of as muscle cars, and the lack of low end torque from the high winding 302 isn’t exactly the prototypical muscle car experience either.
Ya, they can take corners, hahaaha. But "muscle car" never meant the fast
est, only performance upgraded (and 2-door blah blah blah). I mean, even if pony cars never existed, each year
one muscle would be the slowest, right? So, would being slower than the rest disqualify it from being a muscle car? And, if so, what then with the 2nd slowest/now slowest because the original slowest was discarded? Pony cars, the performance ones, are still muscle cars even if most weren't as fast as the top intermediates, there was no minimum quarter-mile time requirement. That much is obvious by the mid-'70s.
Most G bodies that weren’t Grand Nationals, 442/Hurst, Grand Prix 2+2 or Monte Carlo SS came with puffy vinyl Landau tops, wire hub caps, skinny white walls, miles of chintzy chrome trim, pillowtop seats and were primarily sold to older buyers. These things are kryptonite to a muscle car. Volare Roadrunners/Aspen R/Ts we’re decal packages, unmarried to engine choice. Yes, that means a slant 6 roadrunner was possible. Sorry but no, even grading on a curve, these cars simply were not real muscle cars, just like the Mach E isn’t a real Mustang.
Some of them are. A G-body with V8, especially when by that time there was maybe 2 V8s to choose from, is still a muscle car. Again, there was no consistent performance standard to compare to (I suppose there should have been), just being a top performance option (or near to it) still available. I agree that all the luxury/comfort options would take away from the vibe (and add loads of weight, somewhat negating performance) but that shouldn't matter when GTXs and GSXs could come with leather interiors and power everything. "Muscle car" didn't
require vinyl bench seats or rubber floor mats or radio deletes and plenty came with too-small wheels.
Grading on a curve is exactly what you
have to do, year to year, because almost no two years were the same in terms of options. Should all Mopars before the Hemi be disqualified? All non-Cobra Jet Fords? Yes, the Volaré Road Runner was mostly stickers and paint... and in 1976 a 360 option, the biggest/most powerful engine left. It would be laughed out of 1970 but worshipped in 1980 where a 318 2-barrel was the only option (a pathetic top dog, but a top dog nonetheless). They don't make anybody's best muscle cars lists but they do qualify in their actual year.
I know this guy's example is highly modified,
1980 was the end of the line for the Plymouth Road Runner based on the compact Chrysler F-Body platform. Harold Schutz’s is just one of 496 built.
www.motortrend.com
but I'm more interested in this -
"You may recall that by 1976 the Chrysler Corporation had decided to sunset its compact A-Body (Plymouth Valiant/Scamp/Duster and Dodge Dart), replacing it with the demonstrably larger F-Body that hosted the Plymouth Volare and Dodge Aspen ... Though initially classified as a compact, the F-Body twins were eventually reclassified as intermediates to reflect Detroit's down-sized fleet more accurately."
I didn't realize they were considered intermediates, though based on comparisons to previous cars they certainly are big enough. They actually look nice, more like Novas than Dusters... but still uglier than earlier muscle cars.
People can say what they will about third gen Camaros/firebirds but they handled well, they essentially became better all round performance cars in the 80s despite some dodgy quality. That’s one reason why I don’t consider them Muscle cars, they were now competing directly against Supras RX7s e Nissan Zs etc. all they had unique to them was the V8 and being American. This is where I pretty much stand with the modern stuff too, they’re excellent cars but they’re too international in execution, hell Challengers and Chargers aren’t even built in the US!
I can understand that point of view but some of those Camaros/Firebirds had Corvette (of the era) drivetrains, 14 second 1/4 mile (vs. like 15/16 seconds for the 305s). Top options, definitely muscle cars, though the 305s had potential. And bigger/heavier than 1st gen F-bodies, even with better attention to handling. I like the 3rd gen F-bodies, but I would just upgrade the engine and transmission. I suppose those rear ends are weak, too.
If the SS454 is Patrick Mahomes the 307 is a football fan watching the game on the couch eating Cheetos. If that 307 Chevelle hit the gym and bulked up into a 454 and threw on a Mahomes jersey, it’s sill not on the team, and it’s definitely not Patrick Mahomes, it’s a fan tribute. Hot rod, street machine, clone, tribute, recreation, restomod, whatever. Not at real muscle car though, it’s not actually part of the team no matter how much it cheers.
What I was suggesting was in terms of capabilities of those 2 different motors, not displacement (a punched-out 307 would probably explode). If that 307 was swapped with a 454 out of an SS, it would very definitely become Patrick Mahomes (in my goofy comparison). A muscle car.
Hey wait a minute, you’re the one who said you saw mavericks becoming more popular at shows, not me lol. I frankly haven’t really seen that around here so I was taking your word for it and positing an explanation for the ones you said were showing up. That said I’m certain I had a car craft magazine from the 00s with a Maverick featured.
Yes, more popular than MN12a, but not
popular, not yet. What I'm saying is that I've seen the beginnings of a popularity jump for those cars, something I wish our MN12s could get to. I was just commenting in response to you saying that lots of people race them. I'm sure more people race them than Thunderbirds (how could they not) but I haven't seen them reach the level of showing up a lot in write-ups of stock drags (F.A.S.T.) in muscle car mags yet, which is a bit surprising to me since they should have a weight advantage. The Mavericks I've seen show up recently are at Ford car (display) shows, where they now easily outnumber any MN12s that show up. And Torinos, sadly.
There's different levels of popularity, I guess is what I'm saying. MN12s are at the bottom, someone's car will be written up in a magazine occasionally. After that is the magazine deciding to pick a Thunderbird or Cougar as a project car, see what they can do. We're not there yet, unfortunately, and I think that's the minimum for momentum of enough interest for aftermarket notice. Tony Angelo is a start but I wish that was on Hot Rod Garage, not his YouTube show.
All I’m saying is the racing connection stirs interest too, if you see someone running 9s in a full blown drag car with a fairly modest engine build, you can be pretty comfortable that you can build a much tamer street focused car with creature comforts to run at least 12s with a similar powerplant. That can be big motivator for a project car.
Absolutely. Maybe that can happen at a Fabulous Fords Forever type car show soon. Or some MotorTrend Channel street drags event.
Well remember these shows both on cable or YouTube as well as magazines are trying to create regular content and even they’re struggling to get their hands on the cars they used to, so they’re branching out elsewhere to try to create a stir, but it doesn’t always catch on even with their assist. Engine swap fatigue on their part is that they’re essentially doing the same swap over and over and they and their readers/viewers know it, so there’s a push to change content, but outside of the entertainment world I don’t know if there is that fatigue going on in garages, both professional or amateur where people are deliberately shunning LSs, Gen III Hemis or Coyotes. It’s the path of least resistance for good power - why try building a FE 352 for power when you can swap in a Coyote for less money and way less hassle acquiring parts? It’s the same factor that makes people seek out the common cars, or cars that are closely related under the skin (like Mavericks and Mustangs, or G bodies and old A bodies).
Agreed, most hobby builders aren't going to reinvent the wheel, crate engines (with warranties!) are the way to go if they're willing to deal with computers and giant wiring harnesses (that include controlling the transmission). But there are some who will shun that easy route to brag that they achieved greatness the hard way, building up an older drivetrain to match/beat the newer versions. The car bodies themselves are easier and, as you say, unavoidable when the best are all taken (or parted out) and only the ugly sisters are left to buy cheap and thrash on. The (comparatively) lamer Corvettes (4th gen) are popping up in auctions now, same with 3rd gen F-bodies and the G-bodies.
Coincidentally, what do I see in the current issue of Hemmings Muscle Machines? In their auction section there was a '98 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC. The car was (thankfully) described as "its twin-cam, 32-valve Ford Modular V-8 was essentially a twin of the Mustang Cobra's". Oddly, the seller rejected a $15,000 bid when the average selling price is apparently $8.500. Also listed, a 2006 Cadillac XLR, "Underneath every XLR lies a Corvette outfitted with twin-cam Northstar power". That sold for $22.790 with an average price of $6,500. And a '93 Firebird Formula that didn't get near the $10,000 average. All three are oddball auction entries to me, I hope that changes.
Now they’re considered cool, now. In the 70s and a good portion of the 80s when they were just used cars muscle cars were trashy cars, the Dukes of Hazzard wasn’t about royalty, it was rédnecks yelling yeehaw! The car casting reflected the characters. All of the movies you mentioned were made after the cars became collectible. Watch moonshine county express from 1977, it’s as rednecky as it gets and chock full of muscle cars(real ones too, not just dressed up clones like in modern movies)
I'll have to check that movie out. Ya, back in the day all those cool cars were just old used cars. Goddammit, if I'd only had the money and foresight to track down a few favorites and buy them!! But those 3rd gen F-bodies always had the "What, you going to grow a mullet now?" stigma, I guess because those years were when mullets were common. It's still the joke now from what I've seen.