TCCoA Forums banner
61 - 80 of 93 Posts
Too?
Hard to be remorseful when you basically purposely grenade a perfectly good motor.
Stock Terminator had forged crank and rods and is intercooled and only ran 8# of boost.
Trying to stuff 17# of boost on a non intercooled turbo with a stock Teksid bottom end is just asking for shrapnel.
I find it baffling that they all seemed surprised that it exploded.
Maybe they knew it would, and they did it for clicks, who knows?
My guess would be either -

1) They only did basic "research", meaning finding out what kind of motor it was (specs) and what cars it came in and decided to "try something" because boredom or needing content or,

2) They saw that it's a modern motor like an early 3rd Gen Hemi or LS1 and figured, we could abuse those motors like this so why not? Like a comparative beating or seeing what it could take using the same treatment they would have undoubtedly done to one of those other 2 motors. And then any failures could be attributed to general lack of knowledge of 4.6s.

I think part of shtick of his show is that he has 2 kinds of cars, the ones he loves and wants to build up and be proud of (not really show quality, just solid improved) or sell, and the ones he doesn't care about and wants to slap around to see how much they can take. This Mark VIII was the latter. "Hey guys, what would happen if we slapped a turbo on this old car and whipped it to see how much HP we can make? Right?" He obviously had no intention of keeping it or of flipping it so spending 3x the money to do it right would be a waste.

Also, at least in this instance, I think the goal was to push the car/engine to the point of failure, as a baseline, and then do it a second time closer to right and see what those results would be, as a comparison. "Oooh, when you do it right it actually doesn't explode!" I hope they put a real rear end in it, too, along with a solid transmission. No more excuses for why the car blew up before really showing what it could do. That happens too often on those MotorTrend shows (Hot Rod Garage/Roadkill/Roadkill Garage).
 
  • Like
Reactions: mercenvy
It's a whole lot easier to break stuff than to do it right. With no tuning that engine was running lean as hell.
They should call the channel bevis and butthead auto repair,lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mercenvy
Discussion starter · #67 ·
.

.
 
Discussion starter · #68 ·
At least in this episode they seemed to have the most respect for the car and the build. It’s cool that they found a stroked long block to build off of. And it sounded like they got motor and trans cross member mounts from SCP.

Between this build being featured on Hagerty’s YouTube channel and Tony’s notoriety from HotRod Garage, this may be a high water mark for MN12 / FN10 exposure. I know we can knit-pick, but this whole thing is pretty cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supergordo
At least in this episode they seemed to have the most respect for the car and the build. It’s cool that they found a stroked long block to build off of. And it sounded like they got motor and trans cross member mounts from SCP.

Between this build being featured on Hagerty’s YouTube channel and Tony’s notoriety from HotRod Garage, this may be a high water mark for MN12 / FN10 exposure. I know we can knit-pick, but this whole thing is pretty cool.
Agreed. While they are not respecting the car and engine as a whole like they would if it was an Impala with an LS engine in it, they are doing way more with that platform than I've seen so far. This is maybe the 2nd time I've seen a build based on an MN12/FN10 that didn't involve just ripping everything out and swapping in a Coyote motor.

I don't get the dismissive nature about these cars. They're basically stretched Mustangs of the same era, same drivetrain. They even had IRS before the Mustangs. I mean, I have always hated the foxbody Mustangs, they're ugly and cheap and barely recognizable as Mustangs (still better than the Mustang IIs, of course). But once racers started modifying them because they were plentiful and cheap and had 302s in them, everybody else got on board and starting doing articles about them. So hopefully this Tony Angelo thing could be the very beginning of "Hey, look at that, these cars are more or less like Mustangs, people should be building them, too!" video episodes.

I know the Coyote (and Aluminator) is a great motor (not to mention large) but I'm already getting bored with the swap out X for the Coyote builds, it's another version of LS-in-everything and Gen-III-Hemi-in-every-Mopar builds. I want to see more modifications of 2V/3V mod motors, combining the best parts and seeing what can be forced out of those engines.
 
Agreed. While they are not respecting the car and engine as a whole like they would if it was an Impala with an LS engine in it, they are doing way more with that platform than I've seen so far. This is maybe the 2nd time I've seen a build based on an MN12/FN10 that didn't involve just ripping everything out and swapping in a Coyote motor.

I don't get the dismissive nature about these cars. They're basically stretched Mustangs of the same era, same drivetrain. They even had IRS before the Mustangs. I mean, I have always hated the foxbody Mustangs, they're ugly and cheap and barely recognizable as Mustangs (still better than the Mustang IIs, of course). But once racers started modifying them because they were plentiful and cheap and had 302s in them, everybody else got on board and starting doing articles about them. So hopefully this Tony Angelo thing could be the very beginning of "Hey, look at that, these cars are more or less like Mustangs, people should be building them, too!" video episodes.

I know the Coyote (and Aluminator) is a great motor (not to mention large) but I'm already getting bored with the swap out X for the Coyote builds, it's another version of LS-in-everything and Gen-III-Hemi-in-every-Mopar builds. I want to see more modifications of 2V/3V mod motors, combining the best parts and seeing what can be forced out of those engines.
Seriously, I can’t believe how cliche Coyote swaps have become, I went to an auction last summer and almost every restomod Ford truck/Bronco had one, which in some cases seemed like a kind of dumb choice(a Coyote powered lifted crew cab long bed F250???). I don’t know, I kind of always liked the underdogness of 4.6s, back when that was the only Ford V8 everybody knew LSx engines made more power but yet you had guys like Johnny Langton and so forth running 12s not only with 2V 4.6s but in heavy ass Tbird bodies with the right combination of parts beyond the sexy horsepower items.

I liked when the Coyote came out because it validated the basic modular architecture it was built from, and admired early swap pioneers like Oxmanwi, but now that it’s become a standard for which a build is judged, meh. I hate that elitist shít. I think if I did another different engine swap I’d sooner explore something off the beaten path like the 6.2 seemingly everyone forgot about, which is essentially a modular SOHC on steroids, with decent bore spacing and really cool canted valve heads(like an old Cleveland, or big block Chevy!).

MN12s really aren’t anything like Mustangs besides the shared powertrains, and that’s a blessing and a curse for them(played out time and time again when people ask about front shock options), and racers liked the light weight of Foxbody Mustangs, which these aren’t. MN12s/FN10s only really have had being cheap part going for them, even with Tony that’s the premise of this build. But let’s be realistic, SN95s are dirt cheap right now too, have the same engines and have all the aftermarket Mustangs always had. MN12s will always be niche, there’s just too many quirks to overcome to be a truly appealing platform to most people, the Taurus bolt pattern alone has probably turned off a chunk of people who came and went from this forum over the years.

People are/have already been building them, who cares if a YouTuber is? The best outcome of this kind of exposure really is maybe for the few cars left the knowledge might cause pause for someone before sending grandmas old bygone car to the crusher like so many have, but with the few that are left you can’t really expect the following to get much bigger than it already is.
 
MN12s really aren’t anything like Mustangs besides the shared powertrains, and that’s a blessing and a curse for them(played out time and time again when people ask about front shock options), and racers liked the light weight of Foxbody Mustangs, which these aren’t. MN12s/FN10s only really have had being cheap part going for them, even with Tony that’s the premise of this build. But let’s be realistic, SN95s are dirt cheap right now too, have the same engines and have all the aftermarket Mustangs always had. MN12s will always be niche, there’s just too many quirks to overcome to be a truly appealing platform to most people, the Taurus bolt pattern alone has probably turned off a chunk of people who came and went from this forum over the years.
I meant only in terms of the powertrain. I would like a little more recognition for our cars as muscle cars (bigger Mustangs) vs. grandpa cars (Cadillacs). Step one in that direction would be admitting that all the same basic mods done to a Mustang could be done to a Thunderbird or Mark VIII. Of course I understand that it ain't that easy, some parts are different, many Mustang bolt-on parts won't swap over for whatever reasons, but it would be a nice challenge and change of pace vs. building another Mustang. Like building a Skylark instead of another Chevelle.

People are/have already been building them, who cares if a YouTuber is? The best outcome of this kind of exposure really is maybe for the few cars left the knowledge might cause pause for someone before sending grandmas old bygone car to the crusher like so many have, but with the few that are left you can’t really expect the following to get much bigger than it already is.
They may be building them, but if I can't casually come across those builds through magazines or TV episodes then it's basically a secret society. What I would hope to see is enough interest to spawn more aftermarket parts for them. Sure, not nearly as much profit as making more Mustang parts but how many goddamn headlights/headers/struts/sway bars/brake upgrades can companies keep making for those cars? I was surprised that I could get a larger all-aluminum radiator for my Thunderbird the way they're ignored. We need like 5 more supercoupeperformance sites but that wouldn't ever happen without more recognition and popularity. It would be nice to be able to buy simple crap like aftermarket headlights with different designs (Mustang-ish LEDs or HIDs) or even something as boring as different transmission shifter knob designs. It's the same damn transmission as a Mustang yet we have no options. Or how about new gauges with different designs (not just overlays) that would actually slot into the gauge cluster? Unless you make them by hand, forget it. But if the MN12 turned into another Mustang in terms of popularity, that might start happening. If it could achieve even a Buick Grand National level of popularity (don't tell me those cars are common or cheap), that would be an improvement. Even if just the Super Coupes could get there, most non-drivetrain parts would follow for us as well.

Pipe dream, I know, but just let me have that hope. Actually, also include Ana de Armas or Scarlett Johansson contacting me personally about the new parts, hahaaha, while Vinny Appice is giving me drum lessons. Might as well aim high.
 
I meant only in terms of the powertrain. I would like a little more recognition for our cars as muscle cars (bigger Mustangs) vs. grandpa cars (Cadillacs). Step one in that direction would be admitting that all the same basic mods done to a Mustang could be done to a Thunderbird or Mark VIII. Of course I understand that it ain't that easy, some parts are different, many Mustang bolt-on parts won't swap over for whatever reasons, but it would be a nice challenge and change of pace vs. building another Mustang. Like building a Skylark instead of another Chevelle.
Step one is admitting what everyone already assumes? Everyone(myself included) came to this forum and got their bubble burst at one time or another when told almost all what we assumed would fit was actually a “No.” or a “yes, but…”. The problem is very few consider the npi 4.6 SOHC/4R70w combo as a muscle car powertrain, even the 96-98 Mustang GTs are regarded as red headed stepchildren in the Mustang lineage, just above the Mustang IIs

And for me, pedantic as I am, I hate the broad labeling of every V8 American RWD coupe as a “Muscle car”. If you made it perform like one it’s a hot rod, or street machine or whatever you want to call it other than muscle car, which is a factory creation. I don’t even consider a 69 Chevelle a Muscle car unless it’s an actual SS


They may be building them, but if I can't casually come across those builds through magazines or TV episodes then it's basically a secret society.
Peoples cars from this community have been featured in magazines, much of them are archived in the fleet of fame section of he articles section in the forum, and there are a few others since, @1MTNCAT and @392Bird both had full spreads in Muscle Mustangs & Fast Ford’s. At the end of the day you me or a YouTuber just can’t force things to catch on, it has to happen organically. Freiburger was really trying to make that “crew cab Chevelle” thing a trend, but a 4 door Chevelle is still a 4 door.


What I would hope to see is enough interest to spawn more aftermarket parts for them. Sure, not nearly as much profit as making more Mustang parts but how many goddamn headlights/headers/struts/sway bars/brake upgrades can companies keep making for those cars? I was surprised that I could get a larger all-aluminum radiator for my Thunderbird the way they're ignored. We need like 5 more supercoupeperformance sites but that wouldn't ever happen without more recognition and popularity. It would be nice to be able to buy simple crap like aftermarket headlights with different designs (Mustang-ish LEDs or HIDs) or even something as boring as different transmission shifter knob designs. It's the same damn transmission as a Mustang yet we have no options. Or how about new gauges with different designs (not just overlays) that would actually slot into the gauge cluster? Unless you make them by hand, forget it. But if the MN12 turned into another Mustang in terms of popularity, that might start happening. If it could achieve even a Buick Grand National level of popularity (don't tell me those cars are common or cheap), that would be an improvement. Even if just the Super Coupes could get there, most non-drivetrain parts would follow for us as well.
The problem here is how many MN12s are left for how many of those model specific aftermarket parts can be produced? The Grand National is one car on a platform of several other cars (Malibu, Monte Carlo, LeMans, Grand Prix, Century, Regal, Cutlass, Cutlass Supreme) A lot interchanges with GM platforms beyond, or are easy for aftermarket companies to retool since they’re not much different than the A bodies as old as 1964. You want a broad selection of aftermarket headlights? That means various styles for 89-93 Tbirds, various styles for 94-95 Tbirds, and various styles for 96-97 Tbirds, plus Cougars with the 89-90 and 91-95 style, all of which need to be DOT approved. Mustangs only changed headlight styles with full restyles, and G bodies used universal sealed beam rectangle headlights that can be used on pretty much everything made in the 80s.

The Grand National was instantly cool when new, it was the fastest accelerating American production car at the time, noted for being faster than the Corvette. They didn’t make many but a lot survived because people always knew they were something special, which sadly cannot be said about SuperCoupes, they’ve grown in appreciation but their survival rate was poor, I’ve neve once found a Grand National, GNX, or Turbo T type Regal in a junkyard, closest to one was a late 70s carbureted Turbo Lesabre. SCs on the other hand I used to see as frequently as GTP Grand Prixs.
 
Step one is admitting what everyone already assumes? Everyone(myself included) came to this forum and got their bubble burst at one time or another when told almost all what we assumed would fit was actually a “No.” or a “yes, but…”. The problem is very few consider the npi 4.6 SOHC/4R70w combo as a muscle car powertrain, even the 96-98 Mustang GTs are regarded as red headed stepchildren in the Mustang lineage, just above the Mustang IIs
Stock, yes. I'm not talking about that. I'm old enough to remember when the foxbody Mustangs were considered garbage (everyone was still on the '60s bandwagon) not worth dealing with... until they weren't. It's also common knowledge that a PI swap is the convenient way to solve many ills of the NPI motors even though either head ported winds up improving to the same higher amount (but then there's the intake...) so those '96-'98 Mustangs can be bought cheap (because they're maligned) and converted into great, anyway (because most owners were going to modify whatever motor was in the car).

And for me, pedantic as I am, I hate the broad labeling of every V8 American RWD coupe as a “Muscle car”. If you made it perform like one it’s a hot rod, or street machine or whatever you want to call it other than muscle car, which is a factory creation. I don’t even consider a 69 Chevelle a Muscle car unless it’s an actual SS
I'm tired of it, too. But Thunderbirds and Mark VIIIs qualify. "Muscle car" means biggest/most powerful engine option from the full-size line (because those boats needed so much power just to function) installed in an intermediate sized body (MN12/FN10), rear wheel drive, 2-door, stick or auto transmission. That does not mean it is automatically the fastest car available or the most powerful it can get, there are always improvements (either factory or aftermarket). Now, there were a lot of unavoidables back then - no front-wheel drive intermediates, for example, no V6s being the most powerful motors in the options list being used in full-size cars. So the definition fell into place before any of that - RWD 2-door V8 intermediate.

By that definition any factory '69 Chevelle that is a 2-door with a V8 is a muscle car, even the weaker ones, the SS is simply the best of the bunch. Full-size powerplant gave way to any V8 (302, 350, 340, etc.) and pony cars were added to the size option. But otherwise, our cars fit that definition. The '90s Caprice/Impala design does not, no matter how many times people say it does, because it's full-size and it's 4-door. "Muscle car" isn't as simple as "fastest factory", and it's annoying reading about how early Chrysler 300s were the first muscle cars (full-size, sorry) or some other car was a muscle car (4-door or whatever). The description is overused, I agree.

Peoples cars from this community have been featured in magazines, much of them are archived in the fleet of fame section of he articles section in the forum, and there are a few others since, @1MTNCAT and @392Bird both had full spreads in Muscle Mustangs & Fast Ford’s. At the end of the day you me or a YouTuber just can’t force things to catch on, it has to happen organically. Freiburger was really trying to make that “crew cab Chevelle” thing a trend, but a 4 door Chevelle is still a 4 door.
I understand the chicken or the egg paradox of this, believe me. What has to happen is more voluntary interest outside of just us. There needs to be a foxbody Mustang realization that, wait, we're ignoring these cars that are essentially giant Mustangs (with automatics), anything we could do mechanically to those Mustangs (machine shop improvements, trans rebuilds, brakes/suspension) we can do to these MN12s, even if it's harder to do. That means more of a consideration in random magazine/TV show builds. I've seen many of those that talk about "let's try something different" and the car is different, not a Chevelle/Camaro/Road Runner/Mustang, but not our cars. Yet.

The problem here is how many MN12s are left for how many of those model specific aftermarket parts can be produced? The Grand National is one car on a platform of several other cars (Malibu, Monte Carlo, LeMans, Grand Prix, Century, Regal, Cutlass, Cutlass Supreme) A lot interchanges with GM platforms beyond, or are easy for aftermarket companies to retool since they’re not much different than the A bodies as old as 1964. You want a broad selection of aftermarket headlights? That means various styles for 89-93 Tbirds, various styles for 94-95 Tbirds, and various styles for 96-97 Tbirds, plus Cougars with the 89-90 and 91-95 style, all of which need to be DOT approved. Mustangs only changed headlight styles with full restyles, and G bodies used universal sealed beam rectangle headlights that can be used on pretty much everything made in the 80s.
True. But those GM cars were absolutely ignored until recently, because all the "better" options were disappearing or priced to the Moon. Hey, wait, how about this shitty Malibu, maybe we can build that? I guess... Same goes for those early '70s fat Mustangs, also ignored, until you couldn't get a more desirable Mustang, and those had real V8s (detuned). Those newer late-'70s/'80s GM cars are now slowly entering into the "let's try something different" class of cars worth fixing up and improving. There was a "Car Fix" episode with a Monte Carlo, there've been a few turn a Skylark into a poor man's Grand National attempts, too. That's what I'm getting at, once you can find our cars in a random episode or in a non-make-specific magazine (Hot Rod, Hemmings) being worked over, that's when there will be the minimal enough interest.

I agree that there might not be enough MN12s/FN10s left out there, though I still see a few in junkyards showing up, so they're coming from somewhere. But I think there are enough out there waiting if the interest can increase. I go to a Ford car show every once in a while, I might see one Thunderbird or Mark VIII (Cougars basically never, not sure why). But you know what I'm starting to see more of? Mavericks. No idea why, but a couple years ago there were like 5 or 6 at the Fabulous Fords Forever show (missed this year's), that's more than the Torinos which are far superior cars. It remains to be seen if Mavericks will become the new cool cheap/alternative deal.

The Grand National was instantly cool when new, it was the fastest accelerating American production car at the time, noted for being faster than the Corvette. They didn’t make many but a lot survived because people always knew they were something special, which sadly cannot be said about SuperCoupes, they’ve grown in appreciation but their survival rate was poor, I’ve neve once found a Grand National, GNX, or Turbo T type Regal in a junkyard, closest to one was a late 70s carbureted Turbo Lesabre. SCs on the other hand I used to see as frequently as GTP Grand Prixs.
Ya, it's too bad. There needs to be something like a couple Super Coupes showing up (modified, probably) at car events and beating other cars in races. Not being the absolute fastest, just being viable mildly modified street cars beating other mildly modified street cars, or at least being competitive. Basic recognition, oh that's right, those things had turboed V6s sort of like GNXs, oh ya, they had the same 4.6s as Mustangs, etc. Of course the realization will be that it's not as easy as building a Mustang but why be another Mustang guy, why take the easy road? None of the other alternative muscle cars were picked because they were as good/better than the classics, they were picked because the first picks were disappearing or too damn expensive.

I see it as similar to AMC muscle cars. Nobody ever gave a crap about any of them except the AMXs. Javelins and Ramblers were the next tier down. But their V8s were oddball, little information about them, and why bother when there are so many more better options out there with more support and info? Well, "so many" isn't that true anymore, and AMXs are getting expensive and rare (a friend of mine just got his, but he's been looking for a while). Ooooh, the Javelin is the same car but with back seats! Hey, the Rambler is pretty cool, like a baby Road Runner. But, once people realize the same V8s were also in Hornets, Gremlins, Pacers (ugly as sin), now those cars are considered. Our cars are like the Ramblers, they need to become like the AMXs. Hopefully that can happen soon. It could be as simple as a character in a TV show driving one.
 
Stock, yes. I'm not talking about that. I'm old enough to remember when the foxbody Mustangs were considered garbage (everyone was still on the '60s bandwagon) not worth dealing with... until they weren't. It's also common knowledge that a PI swap is the convenient way to solve many ills of the NPI motors even though either head ported winds up improving to the same higher amount (but then there's the intake...) so those '96-'98 Mustangs can be bought cheap (because they're maligned) and converted into great, anyway (because most owners were going to modify whatever motor was in the car).

Those Mustangs are cheap, generally have a high survival rate by virtue of being Mustang GTs, so if you’re interested strictly in performance with the 4.6 why would you pick a heavier, harder to work on, harder to source parts for Tbird for the same money?


I'm tired of it, too. But Thunderbirds and Mark VIIIs qualify. "Muscle car" means biggest/most powerful engine option from the full-size line (because those boats needed so much power just to function) installed in an intermediate sized body (MN12/FN10), rear wheel drive, 2-door, stick or auto transmission. That does not mean it is automatically the fastest car available or the most powerful it can get, there are always improvements (either factory or aftermarket). Now, there were a lot of unavoidables back then - no front-wheel drive intermediates, for example, no V6s being the most powerful motors in the options list being used in full-size cars. So the definition fell into place before any of that - RWD 2-door V8 intermediate.

By that definition any factory '69 Chevelle that is a 2-door with a V8 is a muscle car, even the weaker ones, the SS is simply the best of the bunch. Full-size powerplant gave way to any V8 (302, 350, 340, etc.) and pony cars were added to the size option. But otherwise, our cars fit that definition. The '90s Caprice/Impala design does not, no matter how many times people say it does, because it's full-size and it's 4-door. "Muscle car" isn't as simple as "fastest factory", and it's annoying reading about how early Chrysler 300s were the first muscle cars (full-size, sorry) or some other car was a muscle car (4-door or whatever). The description is overused, I agree.
Mark VIIIs are full sized (F in FN10)

Yeah, to me that broad definition is so full of cope I just can’t take it seriously, the original factory produced muscle cars are priced out of reach so everybody wants their 307 Malibu and Dodge Aspen they got cheap to be one. To broaden the definition that much(which means the majority of cars produced in the 60s and 70s are “Muscle cars”, since intermediate coupes and V8s were extremely common back then) and exclude full sizers like the 413/426 Max wedge Mopars, which were full size in name only, or the 427 Galaxies which could suck the doors off some intermediate heavy hitters is pretty arbitrary.

I just prefer the classical definition, Muscle car = started with the GTO in 1964, died around 74 when the names either died off or became trim packages, no longer tied to big V8s. Anything else I just prefer calling them what they are - coupes, personal luxury coupes(what these are), et al. Modern Muscle cars are more sports car/supercar or sports sedan at this point

I understand the chicken or the egg paradox of this, believe me. What has to happen is more voluntary interest outside of just us. There needs to be a foxbody Mustang realization that, wait, we're ignoring these cars that are essentially giant Mustangs (with automatics), anything we could do mechanically to those Mustangs (machine shop improvements, trans rebuilds, brakes/suspension) we can do to these MN12s, even if it's harder to do. That means more of a consideration in random magazine/TV show builds. I've seen many of those that talk about "let's try something different" and the car is different, not a Chevelle/Camaro/Road Runner/Mustang, but not our cars. Yet.
The Foxbody realization was “hey wait, the bare bones LX 5.0 is faster than the once top dog F bodys!” They earned a reputation for winning races, not from a social media influencer saying “hey guys, the MN12 Tbird is the coolest car you haven’t heard of… read Wikipedia bulletpoints …like and subscribe and comment!”. These can make great project cars but they aren’t for everyone, the fact that the 83-88 Tbirds and Cougars barely have any following despite actually literally being Mustangs under the skin should say it all, looks wise they aren’t all that different from the MN12s

True. But those GM cars were absolutely ignored until recently, because all the "better" options were disappearing or priced to the Moon. Hey, wait, how about this shitty Malibu, maybe we can build that? I guess... Same goes for those early '70s fat Mustangs, also ignored, until you couldn't get a more desirable Mustang, and those had real V8s (detuned). Those newer late-'70s/'80s GM cars are now slowly entering into the "let's try something different" class of cars worth fixing up and improving. There was a "Car Fix" episode with a Monte Carlo, there've been a few turn a Skylark into a poor man's Grand National attempts, too. That's what I'm getting at, once you can find our cars in a random episode or in a non-make-specific magazine (Hot Rod, Hemmings) being worked over, that's when there will be the minimal enough interest.

I agree that there might not be enough MN12s/FN10s left out there, though I still see a few in junkyards showing up, so they're coming from somewhere. But I think there are enough out there waiting if the interest can increase. I go to a Ford car show every once in a while, I might see one Thunderbird or Mark VIII (Cougars basically never, not sure why). But you know what I'm starting to see more of? Mavericks. No idea why, but a couple years ago there were like 5 or 6 at the Fabulous Fords Forever show (missed this year's), that's more than the Torinos which are far superior cars. It remains to be seen if Mavericks will become the new cool cheap/alternative deal.
Mavericks are really light, Torinos are heavy. Neither model really garnered the kind of following the Chevelle and whatnot did so if you’re going to pick one from that period you pick the faster one. Plus, just like MN12s the Torinos had a low survival rate and had serious rust issues, Mavericks rusted too and were disposable but Ford made millions of them compared to the low tens of thousands at best Torino fastbacks. G bodies had a good survival rate because the people who bought them were the elderly and holed them up in garages till they died. MN12s in their day were treated pretty much the same by their owners as Lumina and Monte Carlos, just run into the ground.

Ya, it's too bad. There needs to be something like a couple Super Coupes showing up (modified, probably) at car events and beating other cars in races. Not being the absolute fastest, just being viable mildly modified street cars beating other mildly modified street cars, or at least being competitive. Basic recognition, oh that's right, those things had turboed V6s sort of like GNXs, oh ya, they had the same 4.6s as Mustangs, etc. Of course the realization will be that it's not as easy as building a Mustang but why be another Mustang guy, why take the easy road? None of the other alternative muscle cars were picked because they were as good/better than the classics, they were picked because the first picks were disappearing or too damn expensive.

I see it as similar to AMC muscle cars. Nobody ever gave a crap about any of them except the AMXs. Javelins and Ramblers were the next tier down. But their V8s were oddball, little information about them, and why bother when there are so many more better options out there with more support and info? Well, "so many" isn't that true anymore, and AMXs are getting expensive and rare (a friend of mine just got his, but he's been looking for a while). Ooooh, the Javelin is the same car but with back seats! Hey, the Rambler is pretty cool, like a baby Road Runner. But, once people realize the same V8s were also in Hornets, Gremlins, Pacers (ugly as sin), now those cars are considered. Our cars are like the Ramblers, they need to become like the AMXs. Hopefully that can happen soon. It could be as simple as a character in a TV show driving one.
People do race them, people do take them to shows, what more is there to ask? People always ask me a multiple choice question of which engine I have in mine, so outsiders seem aware enough. I mean how much of a reputation can possibly be gained with the newest ones being over 25 years old? Cars don’t just suddenly surge in popularity at old age, and for those that took a little longer like G bodies(which is debatable IMO, as I said, the grand National has never not been revered) you can bet that those who have them now would dump them in an instant for a real muscle car if their prices were to fall back to earth.
 
Those Mustangs are cheap, generally have a high survival rate by virtue of being Mustang GTs, so if you’re interested strictly in performance with the 4.6 why would you pick a heavier, harder to work on, harder to source parts for Tbird for the same money?
I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about best options for converting cars into race cars or drag cars. Yes, that is legitimate but a completely different focus from what I'm suggesting. You would pick a heavier, harder car to work on because you don't want to do what everyone else is doing (Tri-5 Chevy/Camaro/Chevelle/Charger/Challenger/Nova/Mustang/etc.) and that's with the knowledge that it will be more difficult and irritating but so what. The money wouldn't enter into it because the second you choose the non-popular option that means used parts and bodywork, you already know it will cost more.

Race cars go in the opposite direction, they're all about max horsepower (parts you'd never normally use in your car) and weight savings, which usually turns into ripping out everything to save weight. That's not a car anymore, that's fiberglass body panels, no A/C, heater, power steering, etc., tube chassis and/or rollcage, no back seat, it's a miserable car to drive (if it's even still street legal). Those people aren't interested in finesse parts to make their cars look cooler/interesting, they want speed. Which is fine for those who are into that but that doesn't widen the market for cool parts like headlights or gauges other things that only mean unnecessary weight and expense.

Mark VIIIs are full sized (F in FN10)
Ok, but they've got the same wheelbase (113") as the MN12s, yes? So they're either all full-size or all intermediates in terms of size. I was under the impression that Town Cars (117.4") were full-size. In real world comparisons our cars are basically between the size of Chevelles (116") and Challengers (110").

Yeah, to me that broad definition is so full of cope I just can’t take it seriously, the original factory produced muscle cars are priced out of reach so everybody wants their 307 Malibu and Dodge Aspen they got cheap to be one. To broaden the definition that much(which means the majority of cars produced in the 60s and 70s are “Muscle cars”, since intermediate coupes and V8s were extremely common back then) and exclude full sizers like the 413/426 Max wedge Mopars, which were full size in name only, or the 427 Galaxies which could suck the doors off some intermediate heavy hitters is pretty arbitrary.
I agree there, the "full-size" cars kept getting bigger through the early '60s to the early '70s. But so did all the other sizes. So, a very loose set of definitions. But the muscle car label is what it is (meaning it was never an official industry designation). Ya, there were a lot of muscle cars back then. And also a lot of the exact same intermediates with straight 6s or tiny 2-barrel V8s (and some 4-door versions). I think the definition went from "full-size powerplant into intermediate car" to "powerful V8 into intermediate car" to accommodate the small-blocks and "smaller" big-blocks.

I just prefer the classical definition, Muscle car = started with the GTO in 1964, died around 74 when the names either died off or became trim packages, no longer tied to big V8s. Anything else I just prefer calling them what they are - coupes, personal luxury coupes(what these are), et al. Modern Muscle cars are more sports car/supercar or sports sedan at this point
Well, ya, that's the problem with a non-official, never nailed down definition. It's like asking what is hard rock and what is metal? Good luck. The GTO is rightly considered the first true muscle car because it was the first to be built on purpose to make the intermediate overpowered (compared to the expected engine options) though there are legitimate arguments for much earlier "firsts". "Muscle car" grades on a curve because those lesser late '70s/early '80s cars were muscle cars, but they performed like choking dogs. Which is the only reason a Buick turbo V6 could catch up. I mean, what was stopping GM from installing turbo V8s in cars and wiping the floor with the GNXs? Either gas prices or insurance. The modern 3 muscle cars are no joke, they'd eat any '60s/'70s muscle car alive and that's with catalytic converters, A/C, sound deadening, and power seats, hahaahaa!

All muscle cars are hot rods or performance cars, but not all hot rods or performance cars are muscle cars.

The Foxbody realization was “hey wait, the bare bones LX 5.0 is faster than the once top dog F bodys!” They earned a reputation for winning races, not from a social media influencer saying “hey guys, the MN12 Tbird is the coolest car you haven’t heard of… read Wikipedia bulletpoints …like and subscribe and comment!”. These can make great project cars but they aren’t for everyone, the fact that the 83-88 Tbirds and Cougars barely have any following despite actually literally being Mustangs under the skin should say it all, looks wise they aren’t all that different from the MN12s
Agreed, but not all foxbody owners race their cars, I think way more owners just want something they could mildly wake up to be better than stock and brag about streetlight to streetlight, a little fun driving to work. Improved suspension/brakes, another 50-100 horsepower, and more than anything being available and affordable because '60s Mustangs were long gone or rusted hulks. I bought my '95 Thunderbird because the Mustang was ugly, the Camaro and Firebird were too expensive, and Dodge had nothing with a V8. Insurance prices played into that, too. Initially I just sort of liked my car, best of a bunch of poor choices, but over the years I've grown to genuinely really like this car's looks. Change out the melted cheese nose and tail pieces and it's a '70 large pony car like a Challenger. The '83-'88 version was too blocky with weird proportions (wheel placement). My favorite car all-time is still a '71 Challenger but this Thunderbird isn't a bad modern choice at all.

Mavericks are really light, Torinos are heavy. Neither model really garnered the kind of following the Chevelle and whatnot did so if you’re going to pick one from that period you pick the faster one. Plus, just like MN12s the Torinos had a low survival rate and had serious rust issues, Mavericks rusted too and were disposable but Ford made millions of them compared to the low tens of thousands at best Torino fastbacks. G bodies had a good survival rate because the people who bought them were the elderly and holed them up in garages till they died. MN12s in their day were treated pretty much the same by their owners as Lumina and Monte Carlos, just run into the ground.
None of those Mavericks I saw were built race cars. Ok, maybe one (and it looked like it would be painful to ride in). The rest were more restored and optimized (swapped in V8), almost all with the non-functional but cool ram-air hood (baby steps). I think there's a bit of popular car fatigue that's playing into some of these lesser cars being finally noticed. But also availability, obviously, and expense. If "really light" mattered, Mavericks would have been popular for the last 30+ years because they were always cheap. That clearly isn't the case. For me I'd pick the better looking one, which means a '70-'71 Torino. The '72s+ are ugly, the '69s and earlier are boring. But, ya, good luck finding body/interior parts. Hmm, where have I heard that before...

People do race them, people do take them to shows, what more is there to ask? People always ask me a multiple choice question of which engine I have in mine, so outsiders seem aware enough. I mean how much of a reputation can possibly be gained with the newest ones being over 25 years old? Cars don’t just suddenly surge in popularity at old age, and for those that took a little longer like G bodies(which is debatable IMO, as I said, the grand National has never not been revered) you can bet that those who have them now would dump them in an instant for a real muscle car if their prices were to fall back to earth.
Again, outside of one TCCoA meeting I attended in Fullerton(?) years ago, I've seen at most one Thunderbird or Mark VIII at any Ford-specific car show. Now I suppose that might be different in other parts of the country. The Maverick has definitely surged in popularity vs. what I remember from just like 8 years ago and before. I think the IROC-era Camaros are starting to hit that surge, too (there were maligned as "mullet" cars, hahahaa). You can kind of tell from watching those Mecum auctions, they'll point out popularity trends, notice 3 examples of a car that couldn't get near an auction just a few years earlier, better buy them now before they hit 6 figures! Thankfully the Mustang IIs still haven't gotten there (them becoming popular is one of the signs of the Apocalypse).

I always liked the G-bodies but hated those miserable 305s and 307s (of course now an LS swap solves that issue). They're a little too blocky but they have some wedgy aspects to them, too. Huh, 108" wheelbase, I guess that's why those cars look like their wheels are too close to the center (too much overhang).
 
I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about best options for converting cars into race cars or drag cars. Yes, that is legitimate but a completely different focus from what I'm suggesting. You would pick a heavier, harder car to work on because you don't want to do what everyone else is doing (Tri-5 Chevy/Camaro/Chevelle/Charger/Challenger/Nova/Mustang/etc.) and that's with the knowledge that it will be more difficult and irritating but so what. The money wouldn't enter into it because the second you choose the non-popular option that means used parts and bodywork, you already know it will cost more.

Race cars go in the opposite direction, they're all about max horsepower (parts you'd never normally use in your car) and weight savings, which usually turns into ripping out everything to save weight. That's not a car anymore, that's fiberglass body panels, no A/C, heater, power steering, etc., tube chassis and/or rollcage, no back seat, it's a miserable car to drive (if it's even still street legal). Those people aren't interested in finesse parts to make their cars look cooler/interesting, they want speed. Which is fine for those who are into that but that doesn't widen the market for cool parts like headlights or gauges other things that only mean unnecessary weight and expense.
I’m not either, I’m just explaining why cars everyone else are doing tend to become popular in the first place, and generally speaking they all either offered a great bang for the buck formula when new like the tri-fives, or had an image associated with racing.

Racing lineage isn’t the rule, there’s a pop culture element as well, the 68-70 Charger was practically a character actor in movies after its appearance in Bullitt. But the impact it made was right away, heck even when it first sported the 01, rebel flag and orange paint on TV and entered the imaginations of every 80s-90s kid through reruns, it was only a 10 year old car in the pilot!

The Charger in Bullitt was actually originally intended to be a Torino fastback, as Ford was the vehicle supplier for the film. In that alternate reality the automotive landscape might be completely flipped. Maybe if Jade wasn’t such a piece of **** Tbirds would be used in more movies and way more popular today, who knows?


Ok, but they've got the same wheelbase (113") as the MN12s, yes? So they're either all full-size or all intermediates in terms of size. I was under the impression that Town Cars (117.4") were full-size. In real world comparisons our cars are basically between the size of Chevelles (116") and Challengers (110").
Wheelbase is meaningless to categorization, Crown Vics and Grand Marquis had 114” wheelbases, 68-72 Chevelle coupes had shorter wheelbases than sedans/wagons(112), and a modern Challenger is 116.2. I think the longer overall length is what pushed the Mark into full size territory(207”) but the fact remains, full size what it’s classified as, and by your definition then cannot be a Muscle car, right?

I agree there, the "full-size" cars kept getting bigger through the early '60s to the early '70s. But so did all the other sizes. So, a very loose set of definitions. But the muscle car label is what it is (meaning it was never an official industry designation). Ya, there were a lot of muscle cars back then. And also a lot of the exact same intermediates with straight 6s or tiny 2-barrel V8s (and some 4-door versions). I think the definition went from "full-size powerplant into intermediate car" to "powerful V8 into intermediate car" to accommodate the small-blocks and "smaller" big-blocks.
It’s really pretty simple SS396(both Nova and a Chevelle)/SS454, GTO, 442, Skylark GS, Fairlane GT/GTA, Torino GT/Cobra, Comet GT, Cyclone, GTX, RoadRunner, Coronet R/T, Superbee, Charger R/T, Dart GTS w/383+ and Rebel Machine/Matador Machine were muscle cars. Small blocks weren’t muscle cars, ponycars weren’t muscle cars. Potent ones ala Duster 340 were sport compacts, performance ponycars were sports cars.

Course there are exceptions or arguments like special order low trim big engine combinations and big block ponycars, but generally speaking if it’s a designated performance trim package tied to a BASE engine displacing close to 400ci and above it’s a Muscle car.

Well, ya, that's the problem with a non-official, never nailed down definition. It's like asking what is hard rock and what is metal? Good luck. The GTO is rightly considered the first true muscle car because it was the first to be built on purpose to make the intermediate overpowered (compared to the expected engine options) though there are legitimate arguments for much earlier "firsts". "Muscle car" grades on a curve because those lesser late '70s/early '80s cars were muscle cars, but they performed like choking dogs. Which is the only reason a Buick turbo V6 could catch up. I mean, what was stopping GM from installing turbo V8s in cars and wiping the floor with the GNXs? Either gas prices or insurance. The modern 3 muscle cars are no joke, they'd eat any '60s/'70s muscle car alive and that's with catalytic converters, A/C, sound deadening, and power seats, hahaahaa!
A Chevelle 327 coupe today would be the equivalent to a Toyota Camry, the original owners bought them for basic transportation. Yes the line blurs between hard rock and metal, but for me that blur would be whether to group compacts and ponycars with big blocks as muscle cars or not. But a 327 Chevelle is neither hard rock or metal, it’s easy listening at best, the equivalent of a mundane Camry today. Most people who bought mid level V8 intermediate coupes just wanted basic transportation with a little pep, not to burn out from every stoplight and get attention with the scoops and racing stripes.


I don’t think nearly any late 70s, 80 or 90s car qualifies as a muscle car, the priorities shifted too much, but the Grand National does make the greatest case for itself because it really was a (then)hot engine thrown into a dressed up midsize body. Modern Muscle is too spohisticated in tech, and while industry standards evolve and could be said that 60s cars were state of the art relative to what came before them 50 years earlier, the equipping of big block engines into intermediate bodies was a documented unintentional mating of the two(the GTO was a violation of corporate policy), they were deliberately under engineered in effect. It’s not a good thing, but that’s a big part of what defines them, muscle cars are called such because they are the automotive equivalent to a meathead. The modern approach of stability controls, traction controls, having huge very effective brakes and good handling makes them something else, something more akin to an American AMG Mercedes Or M series BMW
All muscle cars are hot rods or performance cars, but not all hot rods or performance cars are muscle cars.
Hot rods are custom built, Muscle cars are imitations of hot rods mass produced by manufacturer, they are mutually exclusive. If you start with a 307 Chevelle and drop in a 454, it’s a hot rod, not a muscle car. If you soup up a SS454 only then it can be both.

Agreed, but not all foxbody owners race their cars, I think way more owners just want something they could mildly wake up to be better than stock and brag about streetlight to streetlight, a little fun driving to work. Improved suspension/brakes, another 50-100 horsepower, and more than anything being available and affordable because '60s Mustangs were long gone or rusted hulks. I bought my '95 Thunderbird because the Mustang was ugly, the Camaro and Firebird were too expensive, and Dodge had nothing with a V8. Insurance prices played into that, too. Initially I just sort of liked my car, best of a bunch of poor choices, but over the years I've grown to genuinely really like this car's looks. Change out the melted cheese nose and tail pieces and it's a '70 large pony car like a Challenger. The '83-'88 version was too blocky with weird proportions (wheel placement). My favorite car all-time is still a '71 Challenger but this Thunderbird isn't a bad modern choice at all.



None of those Mavericks I saw were built race cars. Ok, maybe one (and it looked like it would be painful to ride in). The rest were more restored and optimized (swapped in V8), almost all with the non-functional but cool ram-air hood (baby steps). I think there's a bit of popular car fatigue that's playing into some of these lesser cars being finally noticed. But also availability, obviously, and expense. If "really light" mattered, Mavericks would have been popular for the last 30+ years because they were always cheap. That clearly isn't the case. For me I'd pick the better looking one, which means a '70-'71 Torino. The '72s+ are ugly, the '69s and earlier are boring. But, ya, good luck finding body/interior parts. Hmm, where have I heard that before...
Mavericks were always being used as race cars though, people know they have the potential to be that which is what makes them desirable build platforms for the street, just like Fox Mustangs. People tend to gravitate towards a known entity, and under the skin the Maverick is basically no different than building up an early Mustang. For me I’d unquestionably pick the Torino too, I don’t like small cars, but you simply don’t find them in classifieds often, but for whatever reason it’s not that hard to find a Maverick. It’s not even really a choice for those people, it’s what they could get their hands on, knowing it has the potential for speed is a confidence booster in making one a project car.

I do think there’s a degree of popular car fatigue, but I’m not sure that’s my own perspective from being into cars for so long or if that really is something the bulk of enthusiasts actually feel. I think what’s been going on in the blowing up of the Bronco/Blazer/Pickup world might be more representative of fatigue for muscle cars in general, rather than the less popular car models showing up at shows.


Again, outside of one TCCoA meeting I attended in Fullerton(?) years ago, I've seen at most one Thunderbird or Mark VIII at any Ford-specific car show. Now I suppose that might be different in other parts of the country. The Maverick has definitely surged in popularity vs. what I remember from just like 8 years ago and before. I think the IROC-era Camaros are starting to hit that surge, too (there were maligned as "mullet" cars, hahahaa). You can kind of tell from watching those Mecum auctions, they'll point out popularity trends, notice 3 examples of a car that couldn't get near an auction just a few years earlier, better buy them now before they hit 6 figures! Thankfully the Mustang IIs still haven't gotten there (them becoming popular is one of the signs of the Apocalypse).

I always liked the G-bodies but hated those miserable 305s and 307s (of course now an LS swap solves that issue). They're a little too blocky but they have some wedgy aspects to them, too. Huh, 108" wheelbase, I guess that's why those cars look like their wheels are too close to the center (too much overhang).
Well, ALL Muscle cars were maligned as mullet/trailer trash cars at one time or another, the IROC - Z increasing in value shouldn’t be much of a surprise, it was the most potent F body of that generation afterall

But I’m really not seeing your point here, that these cars aren’t common car show/auction sights, but Mavericks of late are. Well then what happened to increase the popularity of Mavericks in that time that should be happening to these? I haven’t really been aware of any trend setting Mavericks, or prominent project Mavericks on motortrend or YouTube, so it seems to me they’re surging organically, without any assistance. I mean there are at least three prominent online communities for MN12s, videos and pictures scattered all over elsewhere, some of the fastest ones at the tracks on YouTube, numerous articles on the blog sites, and many of us do attend shows to get them out there, so I just don’t know what else can be done to get anyone to flock to these cars in greater numbers than they already are.
 
Racing lineage isn’t the rule, there’s a pop culture element as well, the 68-70 Charger was practically a character actor in movies after its appearance in Bullitt. But the impact it made was right away, heck even when it first sported the 01, rebel flag and orange paint on TV and entered the imaginations of every 80s-90s kid through reruns, it was only a 10 year old car in the pilot!
Ya, and they destroyed so many of those Chargers during that TV show's run! It actually makes me sick to think about it, but it did put the Charger on the map like nothing else.

The Charger in Bullitt was actually originally intended to be a Torino fastback, as Ford was the vehicle supplier for the film. In that alternate reality the automotive landscape might be completely flipped. Maybe if Jade wasn’t such a piece of **** Tbirds would be used in more movies and way more popular today, who knows?
Oh wow, that would have been interesting, though my favorite Torino is the '70 so having a '68 be famous wouldn't help that much but I bet the Torino name would have really skyrocketed so the next few years would have been like the Chargers in terms of popularity.

What the hell? I never heard of that movie. And Googling it I see that there was a Thunderbird prominently involved in a chase. Aw man, now I'm depressed. You're right, that could have changed things.

Wheelbase is meaningless to categorization, Crown Vics and Grand Marquis had 114” wheelbases, 68-72 Chevelle coupes had shorter wheelbases than sedans/wagons(112), and a modern Challenger is 116.2. I think the longer overall length is what pushed the Mark into full size territory(207”) but the fact remains, full size what it’s classified as, and by your definition then cannot be a Muscle car, right?
Back then ('60s/'70s) it mattered. Of course now that I'm looking for the info I can't find it (everything is referencing rental cars, like that's important?) but -


Wheelbase is listed as (in inches) -
Size Avg Range
Small 108 97 to 111
Intermediate 114 112 to 117
Full 123 117 to 133

This aligns with what I have run across in various car mags I've read over the years (Mopar Action, Hot Rod, Hemmings Muscle Machines, etc.) in terms of typical lengths across makes. But I think you have a point in terms of overall length being important. And nobody could standardize the different sizes, anyway.

The Mark VIII is simply the luxury/rich version of the Thunderbird. It's like a GTX vs. a Road Runner. Or a Skylark vs. a Chevelle. Didn't somebody here swap in an entire Mark VIII interior into his Thunderbird? That would be impossible (in terms of dash/panel gaps) if the Mark VIII was actually bigger, they share all the dimensions. Seeing as how the MN12/FN10 is basically the same size as a classic Chevelle I'd say they're all intermediates.

It’s really pretty simple SS396(both Nova and a Chevelle)/SS454, GTO, 442, Skylark GS, Fairlane GT/GTA, Torino GT/Cobra, Comet GT, Cyclone, GTX, RoadRunner, Coronet R/T, Superbee, Charger R/T, Dart GTS w/383+ and Rebel Machine/Matador Machine were muscle cars. Small blocks weren’t muscle cars, ponycars weren’t muscle cars. Potent ones ala Duster 340 were sport compacts, performance ponycars were sports cars.
"Muscle car" was never tied to any specific model names or packages (because it's not an official designation). Yes, all those cars are muscle cars. But many people back then didn't have the money for the top dog versions so they ordered the poor man's version, which had many of the same performance parts while also ignoring others, which resulted in a cheaper car (and lower insurance) that would then be upgraded at home "unofficially". For example there were loads of Satellites that were ordered like taxis, bench seats, lamer engine option, no A/C or power steering, whatever, and then the necessary cam/heads/intake/carb/exhaust was added after the fact. Build sheet doesn't matter, if it's a "performance" V8 in an intermediate 2-door RWD car, it's a muscle car. My own Road Runner (that my brother now owns) had drum brakes all around and a bench seat with the 383 4-barrel. Nothing fantastic, but it is now getting bucket seats, a built 440, etc., if it were a Satellite the result would be the same - muscle car.

I wouldn't slag on small-blocks, either. Pony cars were added as muscle cars once they existed because they, too, had the same performance V8s as options and shared most other parts with the intermediates. And, again, because of vagueness in sizes, some pony cars were as big as the smaller intermediates (Mopar E-bodies). Mustangs could get Boss 429s in them, Darts could get Hemis, etc. Some cars that were compacts got redesignated as pony cars with mostly body panel changes.

Course there are exceptions or arguments like special order low trim big engine combinations and big block ponycars, but generally speaking if it’s a designated performance trim package tied to a BASE engine displacing close to 400ci and above it’s a Muscle car.
All that's necessary for muscle car is performance V8 in an intermediate (later also pony car) body (and 2-door and RWD), the trim package never entered into it. Obviously all those versions would qualify automatically, but the lower one or two versions could be just as capable. They didn't need to be the fastest or most powerful, just in the performance range. A LeMans with the 400 was just as much a muscle car as the GTO, even without Ram Air heads but it would have to be upgraded to compete, of course.

A Chevelle 327 coupe today would be the equivalent to a Toyota Camry, the original owners bought them for basic transportation. Yes the line blurs between hard rock and metal, but for me that blur would be whether to group compacts and ponycars with big blocks as muscle cars or not. But a 327 Chevelle is neither hard rock or metal, it’s easy listening at best, the equivalent of a mundane Camry today. Most people who bought mid level V8 intermediate coupes just wanted basic transportation with a little pep, not to burn out from every stoplight and get attention with the scoops and racing stripes.
I wouldn't dismiss the 327 so quickly, it's a solid motor. And swapping in a smaller crank to get it down to 302ci is what got you a Z28 Camaro back in the '60s, that thing was a terror. Of course that motor wasn't in the Chevelle you describe but it could be easily built up. Many cars were bought hobbled, single exhaust, lower compression, 2-barrel, etc., but then all the go-fast parts were added later as budget and enthusiasm allowed.

I don’t think nearly any late 70s, 80 or 90s car qualifies as a muscle car, the priorities shifted too much, but the Grand National does make the greatest case for itself because it really was a (then)hot engine thrown into a dressed up midsize body. Modern Muscle is too spohisticated in tech, and while industry standards evolve and could be said that 60s cars were state of the art relative to what came before them 50 years earlier, the equipping of big block engines into intermediate bodies was a documented unintentional mating of the two(the GTO was a violation of corporate policy), they were deliberately under engineered in effect. It’s not a good thing, but that’s a big part of what defines them, muscle cars are called such because they are the automotive equivalent to a meathead. The modern approach of stability controls, traction controls, having huge very effective brakes and good handling makes them something else, something more akin to an American AMG Mercedes Or M series BMW
All the Camaros and Firebirds from that era would qualify (assuming V8s). You also have to grade on a curve, what was the better/best performing cars for any particular year. The smog motors were pathetic, couldn't even get to 200hp. But still better than the alternatives available. Smog pumps, low compression, single exhausts, all that crap could be ditched, and they were. There were many 305-to-350 swaps, early heads/cams, dual exhausts, etc. The G-bodies are weak muscle cars. Not because they were amazing performers but simply because they fit the basic definition, best V8 in a 2-door RWD intermediate. Or pony car, those Firebirds were getting positively fat by the late '80s. Now I'm starting to see Mopar F-bodies (Aspen Super Coupes and R/Ts, Volaré Road Runners) get the slightest bit of interest because they still have V8s in 2-door RWD bodies and they're more or less the right size (not full). I don't think they'll ever reach G-body interest, though.

Ya, the modern pony cars are actually boring for many muscle car fans, too much tech, too safe. There's no "seat of the pants" thrill to them in terms of "Will this thing hold together at this speed?" during a race. Absolutely it will hold together. It probably also has heated seats and cupholders, too. Some of them even come with line locks for the drag strip. Come on already, that's too easy.

Hot rods are custom built, Muscle cars are imitations of hot rods mass produced by manufacturer, they are mutually exclusive. If you start with a 307 Chevelle and drop in a 454, it’s a hot rod, not a muscle car. If you soup up a SS454 only then it can be both.
I'm not sure where you're getting this distinction from. This is the first time I've heard anyone say that swapping in a 454 into a 307 Chevelle would not automatically make that car a muscle car. It would be a muscle car with the crappy 307, just not in any way impressive or desirable. Disappointing, to say the least, but a starting point for future greatness. If you swapped in a straight-6 into that SS454 it would cease to be a muscle car in the same way that Patrick Mahomes with his hands cut off would cease to be a quarterback.

Mavericks were always being used as race cars though, people know they have the potential to be that which is what makes them desirable build platforms for the street, just like Fox Mustangs. People tend to gravitate towards a known entity, and under the skin the Maverick is basically no different than building up an early Mustang. For me I’d unquestionably pick the Torino too, I don’t like small cars, but you simply don’t find them in classifieds often, but for whatever reason it’s not that hard to find a Maverick. It’s not even really a choice for those people, it’s what they could get their hands on, knowing it has the potential for speed is a confidence booster in making one a project car.
I suppose so, but over the decades I've rarely seen any Mavericks featured in magazines as either cool cars to own (valuable) or great race cars. Every once in a great while, yes, one shows up. But even reading about car shows that include racing, Mavericks rarely show up. I don't doubt that Mavericks and Vegas (and Monzas) are great, cheap, light race car options. But popular, no way. Not yet. Foxbody Mustangs, absolutely.

Again, there's a distinction between wanting a car as a project car for the track and wanting a car to restore/lightly modify as a cool fast car to show off and cruise around in. You go to a car show and see how many cars are parked there for judging, you can count on one hand the Mavericks. I'm sure there are way more primered no-back-seat heaterless Mavericks out there racing than there are nice preserved examples with better brakes and new interiors.

I do think there’s a degree of popular car fatigue, but I’m not sure that’s my own perspective from being into cars for so long or if that really is something the bulk of enthusiasts actually feel. I think what’s been going on in the blowing up of the Bronco/Blazer/Pickup world might be more representative of fatigue for muscle cars in general, rather than the less popular car models showing up at shows.
I've seen it (or heard it) in various magazine write-ups and car restoration shows, the feeling that why do another Camaro/Chevelle/Mustang (and others). It's similar to the LS engine swap fatigue. The Gen III Hemis are approaching that, the Coyotes still have a little time left before people are tired of those swaps, too. I'm no expert or industry insider, I'm looking at this as simply a car fan, but I see the G-bodies creeping up as the new emerging option to restore/build up, amongst others. Full-size cars are harder because they have even less replacement parts available compared to unpopular intermediates/pony cars. It's weird, I think the earlier S-197 Mustangs have been ignored a bit, I'm wondering when they'll blow up, they are my favorite modern Mustang because they look like classic '69/'70 Mustangs before all the goofy Transformers fake air scoops and tough shapes were added. Maybe it's the 3V 4.6 that people don't like.

Well, ALL Muscle cars were maligned as mullet/trailer trash cars at one time or another, the IROC - Z increasing in value shouldn’t be much of a surprise, it was the most potent F body of that generation afterall
No, not like those IROC versions (rear window louvers compound the issue, I don't know why). Many muscle cars are considered cool, especially ones that show up in movies (and the cool guys drive them). As much as I hate the Fast And Furious movies, they've promoted a few muscle cars, as did "Reacher" and a few others ("Dazed And Confused"). Those Camaros were dismissed because of their weak 305s and they were heavy. But now that you can't find a 1st or 2nd gen F-body for a reasonable price, the 3rd gen is getting some belated love. They're actually showing up in Mecum auctions lately.

But I’m really not seeing your point here, that these cars aren’t common car show/auction sights, but Mavericks of late are. Well then what happened to increase the popularity of Mavericks in that time that should be happening to these? I haven’t really been aware of any trend setting Mavericks, or prominent project Mavericks on motortrend or YouTube, so it seems to me they’re surging organically, without any assistance. I mean there are at least three prominent online communities for MN12s, videos and pictures scattered all over elsewhere, some of the fastest ones at the tracks on YouTube, numerous articles on the blog sites, and many of us do attend shows to get them out there, so I just don’t know what else can be done to get anyone to flock to these cars in greater numbers than they already are.
Well, the point is more wishful thinking, I know. It's dumb but it's because I'm a fan of our MN12s. It popped into my head because of this discussion about Tony Angelo beating the hell out of a Mark VIII on his show. Right now MN12s are like a local rock band that everybody likes and is really good, but nobody else is aware of it, they can't get to the next level of touring and album sales. I look at Tony's "Stay Tuned" car appearance as so close to getting the MN12 out there. But it's a YouTube show, "local". If these cars can get to the non-specific-brand magazine article level, a write-up on a Super Coupe in Hemmings Muscle Machines, a worked over LX in Hot Rod, maybe, then that might be the trigger for "Hey, that's right, those cars have potential!" and possibly (don't kill my dreams!) getting a bump in popularity to the point of an aftermarket response specific to these cars and not just hand-me-down parts from Mustangs. The growing G-body treatment and the resulting increase in parts variety.

I guess I'm wondering if there could possibly be a way for someone who owns one of these cars to wind up on an episode of "Texas Metal" or "Garage Squad" or whatever where they beef up the motor, do some custom body/suspension work, and wind up with a car that is surprisingly cool even to longtime fans like us.
 
Back then ('60s/'70s) it mattered. Of course now that I'm looking for the info I can't find it (everything is referencing rental cars, like that's important?) but -


Wheelbase is listed as (in inches) -
Size Avg Range
Small 108 97 to 111
Intermediate 114 112 to 117
Full 123 117 to 133

This aligns with what I have run across in various car mags I've read over the years (Mopar Action, Hot Rod, Hemmings Muscle Machines, etc.) in terms of typical lengths across makes. But I think you have a point in terms of overall length being important. And nobody could standardize the different sizes, anyway.

The Mark VIII is simply the luxury/rich version of the Thunderbird. It's like a GTX vs. a Road Runner. Or a Skylark vs. a Chevelle. Didn't somebody here swap in an entire Mark VIII interior into his Thunderbird? That would be impossible (in terms of dash/panel gaps) if the Mark VIII was actually bigger, they share all the dimensions. Seeing as how the MN12/FN10 is basically the same size as a classic Chevelle I'd say they're all intermediates.
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!

"Muscle car" was never tied to any specific model names or packages (because it's not an official designation). Yes, all those cars are muscle cars. But many people back then didn't have the money for the top dog versions so they ordered the poor man's version, which had many of the same performance parts while also ignoring others, which resulted in a cheaper car (and lower insurance) that would then be upgraded at home "unofficially". For example there were loads of Satellites that were ordered like taxis, bench seats, lamer engine option, no A/C or power steering, whatever, and then the necessary cam/heads/intake/carb/exhaust was added after the fact. Build sheet doesn't matter, if it's a "performance" V8 in an intermediate 2-door RWD car, it's a muscle car. My own Road Runner (that my brother now owns) had drum brakes all around and a bench seat with the 383 4-barrel. Nothing fantastic, but it is now getting bucket seats, a built 440, etc., if it were a Satellite the result would be the same - muscle car.
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 wouldn't slag on small-blocks, either. Pony cars were added as muscle cars once they existed because they, too, had the same performance V8s as options and shared most other parts with the intermediates. And, again, because of vagueness in sizes, some pony cars were as big as the smaller intermediates (Mopar E-bodies). Mustangs could get Boss 429s in them, Darts could get Hemis, etc. Some cars that were compacts got redesignated as pony cars with mostly body panel changes.
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.

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.

All that's necessary for muscle car is performance V8 in an intermediate (later also pony car) body (and 2-door and RWD), the trim package never entered into it. Obviously all those versions would qualify automatically, but the lower one or two versions could be just as capable. They didn't need to be the fastest or most powerful, just in the performance range. A LeMans with the 400 was just as much a muscle car as the GTO, even without Ram Air heads but it would have to be upgraded to compete, of course.
“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.

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.

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.

I wouldn't dismiss the 327 so quickly, it's a solid motor. And swapping in a smaller crank to get it down to 302ci is what got you a Z28 Camaro back in the '60s, that thing was a terror. Of course that motor wasn't in the Chevelle you describe but it could be easily built up. Many cars were bought hobbled, single exhaust, lower compression, 2-barrel, etc., but then all the go-fast parts were added later as budget and enthusiasm allowed.
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?

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.

All the Camaros and Firebirds from that era would qualify (assuming V8s). You also have to grade on a curve, what was the better/best performing cars for any particular year. The smog motors were pathetic, couldn't even get to 200hp. But still better than the alternatives available. Smog pumps, low compression, single exhausts, all that crap could be ditched, and they were. There were many 305-to-350 swaps, early heads/cams, dual exhausts, etc. The G-bodies are weak muscle cars. Not because they were amazing performers but simply because they fit the basic definition, best V8 in a 2-door RWD intermediate. Or pony car, those Firebirds were getting positively fat by the late '80s. Now I'm starting to see Mopar F-bodies (Aspen Super Coupes and R/Ts, Volaré Road Runners) get the slightest bit of interest because they still have V8s in 2-door RWD bodies and they're more or less the right size (not full). I don't think they'll ever reach G-body interest, though.

Ya, the modern pony cars are actually boring for many muscle car fans, too much tech, too safe. There's no "seat of the pants" thrill to them in terms of "Will this thing hold together at this speed?" during a race. Absolutely it will hold together. It probably also has heated seats and cupholders, too. Some of them even come with line locks for the drag strip. Come on already, that's too easy.
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.

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'm not sure where you're getting this distinction from. This is the first time I've heard anyone say that swapping in a 454 into a 307 Chevelle would not automatically make that car a muscle car. It would be a muscle car with the crappy 307, just not in any way impressive or desirable. Disappointing, to say the least, but a starting point for future greatness. If you swapped in a straight-6 into that SS454 it would cease to be a muscle car in the same way that Patrick Mahomes with his hands cut off would cease to be a quarterback.
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.

It really comes down to few can afford their dream muscle cars anymore, so just like participation trophies any V8 coupe is a Muscle car so we can feel better.

I suppose so, but over the decades I've rarely seen any Mavericks featured in magazines as either cool cars to own (valuable) or great race cars. Every once in a great while, yes, one shows up. But even reading about car shows that include racing, Mavericks rarely show up. I don't doubt that Mavericks and Vegas (and Monzas) are great, cheap, light race car options. But popular, no way. Not yet. Foxbody Mustangs, absolutely.

Again, there's a distinction between wanting a car as a project car for the track and wanting a car to restore/lightly modify as a cool fast car to show off and cruise around in. You go to a car show and see how many cars are parked there for judging, you can count on one hand the Mavericks. I'm sure there are way more primered no-back-seat heaterless Mavericks out there racing than there are nice preserved examples with better brakes and new interiors.
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.

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.

I've seen it (or heard it) in various magazine write-ups and car restoration shows, the feeling that why do another Camaro/Chevelle/Mustang (and others). It's similar to the LS engine swap fatigue. The Gen III Hemis are approaching that, the Coyotes still have a little time left before people are tired of those swaps, too. I'm no expert or industry insider, I'm looking at this as simply a car fan, but I see the G-bodies creeping up as the new emerging option to restore/build up, amongst others. Full-size cars are harder because they have even less replacement parts available compared to unpopular intermediates/pony cars. It's weird, I think the earlier S-197 Mustangs have been ignored a bit, I'm wondering when they'll blow up, they are my favorite modern Mustang because they look like classic '69/'70 Mustangs before all the goofy Transformers fake air scoops and tough shapes were added. Maybe it's the 3V 4.6 that people don't like.
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).


No, not like those IROC versions (rear window louvers compound the issue, I don't know why). Many muscle cars are considered cool, especially ones that show up in movies (and the cool guys drive them). As much as I hate the Fast And Furious movies, they've promoted a few muscle cars, as did "Reacher" and a few others ("Dazed And Confused"). Those Camaros were dismissed because of their weak 305s and they were heavy. But now that you can't find a 1st or 2nd gen F-body for a reasonable price, the 3rd gen is getting some belated love. They're actually showing up in Mecum auctions lately.
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)
 
My 63 Tbird with the 390 FE block. There was a sport version that came with 3 deuces; I had one of the manifolds; about 6mpg,lol. I also had a 2bbl manifold, which barely moved the car, and a 4bbl that I ran most of the time. :) Sport or not, at 5500lbs, it was a highway touring car. Not a hot rod or muscle car. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: supergordo
61 - 80 of 93 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top