MUSCLE CARS or just CLASSIC?

Do you consider mavericks/comets to be muscle cars, or just classic?

I consider my maverick to be a Muscle bound classic car..

 

More like an economy Pony Car ...

The term Muscle car brings visions of GTO's, Chevelles, Cudas and Chargers too mind ... not Mavericks.

 

To be a Muscle Car, it had to be a muscle car from the factory. Since Ford never even put a 4 bbl in a Maverick/Comet, Mavericks, at best, can only be considered classic. If you really push true judging rules, I don't even think a Maverick/Comet would be called a classic. Mavericks are best described as FUN cars. JMO.

 

I second what Terry said.

 

what he said

especially with the later ones that have low compression

 

Perhaps the most common question people have is "What exactly a muscle car is." The term wasn't even used until the late 1970s, in the 1960s there were often called "Super Cars" if called anything at all. Therefore, the actual definition of a muscle car, or which models were muscle cars, is a topic that is often in conflict. Here is the general interpretation of what a muscle car is and what cars qualify, and which don't.



A Ford Mustang is a Pony Car. GTs, Mach 1 's, and Boss Mustangs are considered Muscle Cars. A muscle car is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price. A number of smaller vehicles started appearing on the automotive performance scene. These new "pony cars" and compact cars are generally considered muscle cars only if they have the top of the line performance engines and options. For instance: Chevrolet Camaro Ford Mustang, Plymouth 'Cudas, AMC Javelin, etc.

 

Honest folks

I agree with the fun thing. But good possibilities for the Classic, sneak up on a Muscle Car, and show them why light is right. We can start the Rodney Dangerfield class.

 

i lean more toward the classic car. even though you can hot rod them and have a quick street car, the muscle car picture to me is from the factory. not all camaros are muscle cars. some are classics. if you had a 396 or 427, for ex., you had a muscle car.

 

I do not think they are Muscle cars at all. These cars were made to get grandma to the grocery store on saturday and to church on sunday. Go back and read some of the old Ford brochures for these cars. Makes you wonder how they ever sold any of them by the way they made them sound.

They are classics for sure. I have had countless people tell me "A Maverick! Thats a real classic right there!".

There is nothing else like a Maverick, thats for sure. The thing about Mavericks are that they were cars that people actually HAD. Everyone has their own Maverick story. What makes them even more intresting now days is that they are more few and far between then most classic Mustangs. If you drive your car daily I think your going to be surprised at how much you get people comeing up to you wanting to talk about it. "A Maverick! Wow, I haven't seen one of those in ages!"

 

i would say the Grabber and the Gt are close ......and as light as they are they did not need a 4brl

 

I consider the Maverick to be a sporty sedan similar to what a Mazda 6 is today. Trust me, any car that can run for 35 years and accumulate over 200K miles without being rebuild deserves to be considered a classic. I'm willing to bet every Mustang that sat on the lot with my baby is a rusted hulk by now.

Now if Ford had only produced Grabbers and GTs with at least 351Ws...no doubt they would be muscle cars. But really, who the hell cares...we already have enough Mustang owners dismissing us, do we really need to pick it apart ourselves?

 

I agree with the classic thing. Although these cars make an excellent platform for performance mods and upgrades, they weren't initially manufactured with performance in mind, so much as economy. However, there's an older guy who works the parts counter at the local Canadian Tire who, almost every time I need him to look up parts for me, says "Wow! That's a real classic." 'Nuff said.

 

I wasnt trying to have us pick ourselves apart, just wanted some idea of what ppl think the maverick,. everyone has there own opp, and well lets face it, some mustang owners will always look down there nose at us, but.. all they'll see is our tail lights... (most of the time)
i look at the "muscle car" differently chargers, mustangs, they were and are muscle cars, but looking at the 70s mavericks/ comets are one of the closest things to a muscle car I've seen. Most of the cars from the 70s,..are not the greatest, but mavericks and comets are a touch above most of the 70s garbage.

 

When I was towing my Grabber back from Virginia I was stopped in almost every rest stop by someone who asked about it. Once a group of Harley riders passed me and gave me thumbs up...ironically we all stopped at the next rest stop and once huge biker came over and started telling me he'd been looking all over for a Comet GT. Really nice guy.

Everyone had nothing but nice things to say and all seemed to have Maverick stories...I had one, my wife had one, etc. I think they bring back good memories for most folks.

I agree, the Maverick was certainly close to being a muscle car. It's ironic that many Mustangs really weren't equipped with anything better than the Maverick but since the option existed to have a big engine they all get credit for being "muscle/perfomance cars". There were plenty of stock 6-cyl Mustangs that now have bigger engines...yet it doesn't seem to matter what they came stock with.

Sorry about my earlier comments but I've always been protective of these cars.