MUSCLE CARS or just CLASSIC?

Another thing in support of the "it became a muscle car" theory...

To me, the simplest definition of a muscle car and what they started out as was simply, "a mid-size car with a full-size engine." And if that's not what the Maverick was back then, it's exactly what a 302 Maverick is by today's standards. The last cars we had running around with 302s were full-size for sure. Crown Vics, Marquis...

Also, check this out:

Sounds like a Maverick to me!

 

Maybe that's part of Chrysler's problem, Even their dealers don't know what they are selling. It was a dealer that told me that it was basically a neon platfrom, but then again isn't the Neon the basis for several platforms, only enlarged? I know one of the Jeep vehicles share the the Caliber underpinnings. Here's what Wikapedia says about Neons and PT Crusiers though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_PT_Cruiser

 

What it all boils down to in my humble opinion is it's another continuation of the K-car platform, just like almost every other FWD Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth in the past couple of decades. I don't know for sure that the Neon has K-car blood, and I doubt Intrepid did, but Stratus, Cirrus, Sebring, LeBaron, and the minivans all did for sure. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the current lineup is still K-car related. I'm thinkin' that new Avenger is a re-done Stratus.

 

Yeah they reallly Really over used that k- car platform, The Lebaron Covertible was a boxy K-ar platform, then they made it ( somewhat) more sleek and rounded but underneath it was a K car heart and soul, when they introduced Sebring to take the place of the Lebaron Convertible it was based on the Mitsubishi Galant, I forget what year it had Mitisubish underpinnings, I was really surpised to hear that because the earlier Sebrings had issues but the '94 Galant I had was flawless. But then most stuff I have heard of and have had experience with Chrysler products has proven to show issues with a lot of their stuff, with some exceptions.

 

By the way The term "Muscle Car" does not apply to our cars, in my opinion, They can be powerful but. The term muscle car , to me, applies to Big 2 door Cars, Torino, Coronet Charger, Chevelle, Skylark, GTO, Cutlass, Camaros and Mustangs are Pony Cars. In My opinon, Mavericks and Comets ( 71-77) are (can be) beefed up grocery getters, but like faceless said we get the advatages he said plus we aren't paying crazy insurance costs for these cars!

 

My bad on the Sebring, it's not a K-car. But those other ones I mentioned are, minivans especially. As for whether or not they're any good... Maybe the maligned K platform is finally refined enough. I've had a 2004 DOHC 2.4 liter Stratus for nearly 5 years now, put lots of miles on it with no maintenance beyond oil, filters, plugs, wires, and the occasional check light when my wife leaves the gas cap loose. And even some of the old Chrysler products weren't bad. That slant six in the old Dodge trucks might blow oil, but they were just as bulletproof as a 240/300, and I had an '83 Kidnapper Van with a 318 that stood up to unspeakable abuse without complaint. I unknowingly ran that thing without a cooling fan for months, boiled it several times...

 

Yep like I said there are exceptions, 318 solid, slant 6 great motor, most of what I hav eexperienced is around tranny's and electrics. The mid to late 70's saw the introduction of the "Lean Burn" computer system... Baaad system, ever notice on mid to late 70's Mopars you have to crank the heck out of them to start? Aspens, Newports, Dodge trucks, anyway they have a lot to be proud of too. Growing up I always wanted a Charger,

 

Yeah, I must admit, I have very limited experience with the "Lean Burn" system beyond snatching it out of my van.

 

As a Chrysler tech since 1991 I can assure you that no tech would tell you the neon is related to the PT. Must have been talking to a salesman. The Caliber shares its basis with the compass and patriot but they arent real Jeeps. Sad they put that nameplate on that chassis. Wouldnt last 2 miles off road. Not a big seller here.
As for the K chassis and its relatives they are long gone. Too bad. We could use a simple, reliable platform today. Gone since 1995. The K style chassis had basic Mac Pherson strut front end and a solid trailing axle.
The new Sebring/Avenger/Stratus chassis is shared with the Journey.
Chassis's change so fast now its hard to keep up. The Liberty and Nitro share a chassis.
The Commander and Grand Cherokee shared a chassis till they axed the Commander. Another flop.
Wish they used one chassis style for the whole line like the K body days.
I think my favourite chassis was the LH platform. They should have kept that one.

 

Isn't that what they're still doing with the vans? Or, at least I think they did on the generation of them just before the current ones.

I agree, those were great cars. Intrepid was one of them, right? The engineers knew what they were doing with that one, saved my life. I ate a tree in mine at about 70mph when I fell asleep at the wheel. Walked away with very minor injuries, and the car could still drive. (although I'd have to say the alignment was a little off...)

 

The minivan is still old school but the front cradle is completely different from the previous generations. Up to 2007. The 08 and up is different again.
Really that old K chassis was one of the first big selling front wheel drive chassis. Most front wheel drives resemble it somewhat. That frame design was very simple even housing the sway bar in the frame and under the control arms. That design died mid nineties. They kind of killed it all at once. New minivan 96, Neon 95, Cirrus/Stratus. Big changes. Lost the old Spirits/Acclaims, Shadow/Sundance and the other models that used that same K frame set up.
Still like my LH platform though. Had a 97 Intrepid and now a 02 300m special. Both 3.5 liters. What a nice piece of work. Wouldnt mind heads like those on my old 302.
Like my wife and kids in a car with some size and metal. Little cars just dont do well in heavy hits.

 

i know we got a pic somewere with the front of the maverick trashed...but it still ran (thats what they said)

ide say if i have metal surounding me...its pritty safe

 

None of the above

Classic, Muscle, or Both? How about none of the above.

Putting a big engine in a compact car doesn't make it a muscle car IMO. Got to be factory equiped. In the early 60's a friend had put an Olds with 3-deuces, cam and headers in a HenryJ. Ran in the 13s (fast for those days) but no one would call it a muscle car. I drove it once on the track. Was going good till shift to 2nd exploded the rear universal joint.

Another friend had a 1962 409, 4-speed, posi, 4:56 Impala convertible. In retrospect, I think of that as a muscle car but I might be the only one. Glad we all survived those days.

Maverick a Classic? No way. The sixes might have been VW-fighters but i think of the v8s as filling the void left when 2V 289/302 Mustangs got bigger. My 302 Maverick is a lot like the '66 298 2V Mustang I owned for 11 years. Love em both.

I recently joined the forum and really enjoyed this tread. Thanks for resurecting it.

Jim

 

Welcome Jim. You nailed it. Not a Muscle or classic.. Just a good old car of special interest

 

Thanks, Bob. GREAT forum!!! BTW, I had a half car on a 406 Galaxy (another full size muscle car IMO) when the U-joint let go.