MUSCLE CARS or just CLASSIC?

for the fact that the car bares a general resemblance to the typical big body, if you will, design older "muscle cars" i call it a muscle car.

for the fact that the majority of the car was made of actual metal, i believe that to be true at least(dont ruin it for me), instead of fiberglass, i call it a classic.

in my book, the Comet GT is a Classic Muscle car.

 

From Wikipedia:

Definition
According to the June 1967 issue of Road Test magazine, a "muscle car" is "Exactly what the name implies. It is a product of the American car industry adhering to the hot rodder's philosophy of taking a small car and putting a BIG engine in it. The Muscle Car is Charles Atlas kicking sand in the face of the 98 hp (73 kW) weakling."[7] Author of the book Muscle Cars the quote is drawn from, Peter Henshaw, furthers that the muscle car was designed for straight-line speed, and did not have the "sophisticated chassis", "engineering integrity" or "lithe appearance" of European high-performance cars[7]

I wouldn't put a stock Maverick in that category.

 

I have to agree with parts of what a lot have said on this topic and add just a little to it. Let's take for instance the Olds 442. Are they really a muscle car? Most people would say yes but I have to dissagree for only some of the 442's were true muscle cars. 4 barrel, 4 speed 2 door was what the car was based on as a muscle car but then Olds built them with the 350 auto putting them into the grey area of what a true mucle car was supposed to be. If a car is to be a muscle car just because it has the same tags on it than I would have to say that Ford built a whole lot of economy cars and disguised them as muscle when they affixed the Mustang tag to them. Remember they did build them with 170 I6's and automatics. I don't think that this is a true MUSCLE car, do you? They all did it especially Mopar such as the Barracuda was nothing more than a Valiant in the beginning with a 273 2 4's but later they built cuda's with 318 auto's. This matter has and probably will always be an argumentative topic but I am leaning towards what Mopar said when they built the 69 formal hardtop cuda with the 318 auto and floral interior and vinyl tops, "This is a special edition muscle car we have built with the ladies in mind." With this being said, the V8 Maverick's and Comet's are pushing real hard on the border line of muscle but still within the grey area.
One last thought, Our Mexican and Brazilian enthusists do have factory V8's with 4 speeds in light weight bodies which classifies as a muscle car in most respects but the U. S. built the same cars and limited them to 3 speeds to keep them just under the line of Muscle Car statis. This is only my thoughts and they may be bias since I grew up in "Super Car and Muscle Car Haven." Let's not forget the Grandfather's to these classes. in the 50's and early 60's they were called "Interceptors" which my favorite of these was the 1962 4 door Galaxie with the 406 tri power 4 speed and bench seat.
Enjoy your day folks

 

A Maverick is a muscle car

 

Wow! Over five years and 19 pages, and its still a compact- economy car. At best the Grabber was billed as: "the reliability champion in snazzy sports clothing" -Mav brocure 1/72.

Make it what YOU want it to be!

 

the maverick came out in 69 .i know we have some people on the board who were car nutz back then.any idea roughly when the gear heads of the day noticibly started making our cars look and keep up with the cameros and faster cars of the day.was it right away or were they "only driven on sundays" for a couple years.

 

71 grabber 3 speed manual special order 302 isnt a muscle car?

 

Nope...

 

WHAT!!!!!!

 

442 is 4 barrel, 4 speed, 2 is dual exhaust. But mavericks might not have been muscle cars, but you definitly can make em into one...so i guess it depends on how you look at it

 

Motor Trend tested an early 4-4-2 and found that the 3,440-lb (1,560 kg) car would run 0-60 mph (0–96 km/h) in 7.5 seconds, the standing quarter mile in 15.5 seconds at 90 mph (140 km/h), and reached a top speed of 116 mph (185.6 km/h). A total of 2,999 were sold.

Maybe a "muscle car" but it aint a very fast one.

 

The following year the 442 got rid of the 330 cu in small block and added the 400 inch engine. Modern Rod tested a 1965 F85 442 with the four-speed manual, slicks, and headers and obtained a quarter mile acceleration of 13.78 seconds at 102.73 mph. Put into 1964-5 perspective, this was a fast car! 15.5 for a stock automatic car.

So what are the ET's for a stock 302 Maverick? My 250 all stock Grabber ran 20+ second 1/4 miles at LACR on a good day. This is 5-7 seconds slower then a 64-5, 442. Put that in perspective, my Grabber would be at the 1/8 mile mark when the 442 passes the finish line.

 

I agree with some of you and disagree with some of you. What it all boils down to is just a matter of opinion and in my opinion, my '72 Grabber with a built 302 is a classic muscle car. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

Technically, not even Mustangs and Camaros were considered "Muscle cars"

The smaller, sportier "long hood, short trunk" cars were referred to as Pony cars

It was larger and full-size sedans that were available with big engines that first inspired the term "Muscle car". One of the first being the GTO, but then the label became retroactive to other big engine sedans that came before.

Chevelles, Torinos, Galaxies, Road Runners, Impalas, GTX's GTO's and even early Comets were considered "Muscle cars" Even some of the early really big sedans qualified, Like Bonnevilles, Caprices and Furys, but their advertising was aimed more to their size and luxury than the hi-perf engines they had under the hood.

The great thing about Pony cars is they're categorized as sporty and nimble.......the fact some were available with monster motors doesn't exclude the Maverick, however, the Maverick and 70-up Comets did have the styling drawback of being one of the only body styles that could be considered Pony car that was available in a 4 door model.....the other being the Chevy II Nova (which wouldn't have been considered a Pony car til the 68 body style)

And, the Maverick had it over the early Novas, Darts and Falcons, all of which came with performance engine options, because the Maverick's body style definately fit the "long hood, short trunk" Pony car requirement that the "boxy" Novas, Darts and Falcons didn't posess til later years.

In the end though, it doesn't really matter.....I whole-heartedly agree the Maverick/Comet is a true classic car,.....anything past that, is really up to those who own one......because technically, if you build some serious power into your Maverick/Comet, you have every right to call it a muscle car......


after all, body builders weren't born buff, they had to build those muscles on their bodies, but no one argues the point that they are, indeed, Muscle men!

As for me, I consider my Maverick a classic, high performance street machine, because that's the way I'm building it.

 

Working in the auto industry as I do I guess I'm a little more sensitive to terminology.

Muscle Car..Never was attached to even the big block small cars like Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Challenger or Cuda's. The 302 in a Maverick had just slightly more horse power then a 6 cyl. Heck, the Firebird's OHC 6 had over 200hp.

Classic car is a term designated by the Classic Car Club of America ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Car_Club_of_America ).
In the words of the CCCA:
A CCCA Classic is a "fine" or "distinctive" automobile, either American or foreign built, produced between 1925 and 1948. Generally, a Classic was high-priced when new and was built in limited quantities. Other factors, including engine displacement, custom coachwork and luxury accessories, such as power brakes, power clutch, and "one-shot" or automatic lubrication systems, help determine whether a car is considered to be a Classic. The CCCA is considered to have invented the term classic car, which was coined to describe the vehicles covered by the Club's interest. While the term is nowadays used to describe any interesting old vehicle, many in the US consider it only properly used to describe vehicles considered eligible for the CCCA. This may be considered analogously to the correct usage of 'Classical music' to mean only from a specific historical period, even though many people use the term to mean any orchestral work.
In order to avoid ambiguity, classic cars that are eligible for the CCCA are generally called 'CCCA Full Classics', 'CCCA Classics', 'Full Classics', or just capitalized as 'Classics'.
The CCCA has an admittedly narrow focus, tending to be interested only in the high-priced cars available in a limited time period. Racing cars and serious sports cars are not covered by the CCCA, either.


At best, we have (from the factory) a weak (low HP) pony car. That said, it is a title only and if we are all worried about if our cars are muscle cars or not then we are taking the hobby too seriously and too worried about ego titles.. We have great looking cars that are becoming very collectible and desired. Stop trying to fit them into a specific definition and just enjoy them. My $.02