MUSCLE CARS or just CLASSIC?

Agree

 

It's a classic that can easily be turned into a "muscle car". Obviously not a factory-built muscle car.

 

I think we should coin a new term for mavericks only... any suggestions?

 

Mavericks have been classified as part of a sub-section of musclecars for quite some time now. Tons of mags probably coined the phrase well more than 15 years ago. The reason I know this.. is that I have 4 big boxes full of them.

The term.. "Econo-Muscle".. pretty well sums them up.

When it's all boiled right down.. you can easily figure out the power per pound of curb weight and come up with a general consensus as to what constitutes "fast enough" to be called a muscle car. Mavericks and Comets might only have 210 horsies under their little 2 bbl autolite carbs.. but they only weigh 2,800 lbs wet. 2,800 lbs divided by 210HP = 13.33 lbs per horsepower.

Then there's plenty of.. what most consider to be muscle cars such as Chevelle's, Skylarks, and Chargers .. that weigh far nearer to 4,000 lbs wet(especially the luxury optioned convertibles) with only 325 horsepower under the hood. 4,000 lbs divided by 325 = 12.30 lbs per horsepower.

Hardly going to be an earth shattering difference in perceived speed differences with the econ-muscle cars only having to carry 1 more lb per horsepower. Many are still going to be 15 second cars with the right tune and driver anyways.

And.. there were far more bone-stock musclecars running 15's in the quarter mile back in the day than some may remember. The faster ones ran 14's.. and the super-cars.. Yenko's, Vettes and whatnot ran deep into the 13's or even high 12's with some tuning and light "tweaking". Only the factory modified or customized musclecars ran into the 12's or faster.

IMHO,.. "Econo-muscle" sums them right up as the entry level musclecars that they were. When you see any car that has spoilers, stripes and hoodscoops on it.. you generally don't think.. "hey!.. there's a classic car". You think.. "hey! there's one of those low budget muscle cars". Nowadays we just use the term "sporty" instead.

 

I agree for the most part, however the first Mavericks ('69.5-'71) did not have V-8s, so they were not even in the same zip code as a muscle car (not even an "economy muscle car"). They certainly provided the platform to build one though.

 

So why don't we just call them sporty muscle car's... sounds a lot nicer than econo-muscle car... or budget entry level muscle car.
Still think a new term would be better than the hand me down sub par crap most of the car world calls mavs/comets. Not that I really care, just thought it would be nice to have a collective agreement on a new phrase or wording to bond the mav community together with. ALL TERMS were created by a handful of guys who liked their cars...so we COULD have one as well.

 

I head the term "mini muscle" the other day.

 

economy car wasn't considered anything else when it was built they are not z/28 camaros or big block mustangs or a gto thats why they don't bring big bucks

 

Bingo!!!

Back when these cars were built, muscle cars were generally classed as being able to run at least a mid 14 off the show room floor...

The crowd that favors Cord, Duesenberg, La Salle, Packard, etc would no doubt argue on the classic aspect...

 

Don't care about history or other car club elitists. I am not sure why everyone thinks what terms were used in the past are set in stone. I for one, can still think and enjoy freedom enough to not accept others negativity into my maverick ownership.
If we as a community can't come up with a term for our cars...then I guess everyone is happy with the put downs and derogatory comments directed at mavericks/comets. Just thought it would be nice to have a consensus in the community.

 

while you make a good point there.. put both a striped out and spoilered up z-28 next to a Grabber or Comet GT and then ask the general public if they are a muscle car?.. or classic car?.. without having given out info about the engines.

From what I see at carshows and even the street scene over the years.. is that only the hardcore purists and those that have had there heads buried in magazines to be brainwashed into what constitutes a "true musclecar" would ever say that the hood scooped and spoilered Ford or Mercury was just a "classic car".

And personally speaking.. from a performance standpoint.. I will ALWAYS take a lightweight barebones "economy car that accepts V8's into the chassis with ease".. over a fluffed up "mass produced musclecar that you see in every book and at every show".. regardless of what others classify it as when it rolls off the showroom floor. Many "musclecar bodies" came with measily 6 cylinders but when you deck them both out and stand them side by side with a big-block?.. not many will say that both are not musclecars.. until they pop the hood and reveal the lowly 6. So, image and perception play a big role in what people generally think constitutes a musclcar or classic car.

So the main point after all that is this. It's very true that these cars were born as economy cars. But that means squat when you consider that the Chevy Nova and some others(Darts) were too when they were designed and came out with the 6 cylinder base model.

Factories quickly figured out that economy version base models with a V8 option were often faster(sometimes even with smaller motors) than that bloated over-optioned big-block that most considered to be a true musclecar. Once the horspower wars started winding down in '71.. image became even more important and these cars delivered that well enough to get folks to fill out plenty of V8 optioned build sheets.

But don't stop there.. after you put a V8 in it.. then make the parts available ove rthe counter for customers to pick up where the factory left off and you will gain a new market share. I can't tell you how many dozens of Mavericks/Comets and Falcons that I've seen with webers.. or a shelby cam and dress up kit in the past 30 years. But.. I can tell you that no one around me even came close to calling them an "Economy car" simply because most that they grew up around only had 6's.

 

They're light weight cars with V8 engines inside, that sounds like a muscle car to me, and when you look a them and see the fluid lines and fastback end you'll never guess they were intended as economy cars, you would think they were sports cars.

 

The Maverick & Comet function was mostly to try to recapture sales lost to the foreign market that was begnning to get a toe hold in North America, FoMoCo needed a fresh face to repl the bulkier, out of date Falcon(of course they needed a even smaller package, enter Pinto)... Additionally since M/C appeared as the muscle car era was nearing it's end and along with the muscle cars, evolved into mostly a graphics package(thank the insurance cos, and mandated primitive emissions systems for that)... Stripes, spoilers, three on the tree, 2bbl carbs, & single exhaust system do not equate into a muscle car... I'm actually glad my Comet isn't a muscle car, because most 'supposed' muscle cars from '73 to early '80s were a joke...

Of course none of the above means one can't transform their M/C into as muscular machine as they'd like(and no doubt are a great start), still just like my 5.0 '88 T-Bird that's fully optioned & has run 13.11@105 on the motor, doesn't make it a muscle car...

 

7 years and this thread is still going strong.....

 

and a lot of wishful thinking