Muscle car or Mod car... [Archive] - MercuryMarauder.net Forums

deerejoe

06-05-2004, 08:05 AM

Please correct me if I get this wrong...

As a former (amateur) drag racing competitor many years ago of Chevy, Ford and Mopar products, I am not quite certain where to place the Marauder...OEM 'muscle' or owner modified to make 'muscle'.

Maybe I don't understand the term 'muscle car' as applied to an OEM vehicle.
Is it a perceived term based upon certain performance criteria or one coined from a purely styling motif??

I admit to living in a rural part of the USA. Having said that, I don't recall anyone to date, the selling dealer included, describing my Marauder as a muscle car.
True, the Marauder will outperform many cars it's size in stoplight to stoplight
acceleration spurts.
Also true, the car will turn heads in drive-by or parked display.
But do these attributes make it a muscle car??

Perhaps it really depends on the marketing and advertising.
If that is true, the Marauder then becomes perplexing; as we all know the LACK of advertising and recognition that surrounds our car.
So, who defined the Marauder as a muscle car??

I suggest it to be a personal accolade of the buyer...based around styling, performance and the capability to be enhanced through personal modification of the basic OEM design.

But hey, can you not say that about Corvette, Mustang, Ford CV, etc. just to name a few??

Muscle car or hustle car...what's the difference??
It's all just a distinctly 'personal' car from the stand point of our imagination.

duhtroll

06-05-2004, 08:42 AM

The MM is a muscle sedan. Muscle cars were mostly 2-drs IIRC.

Muscle cars were meant to be modified. The MM is likened to a muscle car because it provides a solid platform for which the owner(s) can tweak and add to to get even more performance. Someone said it a while back - "no matter how it came from the factory, we would still be making improvements."

Muscle cars took nice stock packages and were easy enough to modify for uniqueness that even mechanical morons like me can do it. I think the MM fits this category very well.

-A

TAF

06-05-2004, 08:49 AM

"Back in the day"...even the "True Muscle Cars" straight from Detroit (yes, they were mostly 2-doors) most likely did not go to the track for serious racing without some go-fast goodies added. Out of the box, they may have been fast...but this was mostly due to power/weight ratio. As much as I love the "True Muscle Cars" of the past...there is no comparison and you can't beat the combination we enjoy with the platform and the ammenities that came with our cars. Yes Virginia...it IS a Muscle Car/Sedan.

What Mercury did right, is give us a quality platform to build off of, individualize and I STILL say...at a reasonable price in the marketplace.

I'm also really glad that not many of them sold.

Marauderman

06-05-2004, 08:49 AM

MikesMerc

06-05-2004, 09:04 AM

The MM is undoubtedly a Musclecar.

Not only was it advertised as such (as pointed out above), but it indeed has all the attributes of a musclecar.

There is FAR more to "musclecar" than stoplight to stoplight performance. Although having raw stop light talent is required, other attributes include:

True performance equipment. Such as posi or limited slip rear diffs, dual exhaust, instrumentation, performance suspension peices, and a whole lotta motor compared to other cars in its class.

Looks. The raked stance. The slightly larger rear tires. An unmistakeable look.

Sounds. A crisp, clear, and invigorating exhaust note. No watered down vacuum cleaner sounding motors need apply.

MM is a muscle car pure and simple.

Edit- BTW, there were indeed plenty of 4 door muscle cars in the past:)

duhtroll

06-05-2004, 10:19 AM

Advertised? When?

Also, note I did say *most* muscle cars were 2-drs.

-A

stevengerard

06-05-2004, 10:39 AM

Its a modern muscle car, in the past it was basically bigger engines in mid size cars. Today we don't need the amount of displacement to make as much hp and tq. Though I wish we had a 427 under our hood. But think of the pony cars with the 340 small block muscle, today old station wagons are the rage. To each their own, but I like the old and the new. Also many of the older cars where not as fast as folks remember them, many were mid to high 14 second cars. The ones in the mags doing low 13s high 12s were mostly "tweaked" for the test drives. Yes there were plenty that were that fast but we do have some now as well, Vette, Cobra, Viper etc. Expensive but they are there. I think the MM is much closer to what the old GM A and B bodies were of the 60s and 70s then we realize.

BillyGman

06-05-2004, 11:20 AM

I think that Steven hit it on the head. Muscle cars were usually 14 second, and 13 second cars in the 1/4 mile. There were very few that were 12 second ones that came from the factory that fast. And that's the reason why cars that came that fast from the factory are worth so much $$ these days. Such as a 67-69 L-88 427 Corvette, the 70 LS-6 454 Chevelle, and the 70 426 Hemi Cuda. All those cars were rare even back then. They weren't your run of the mill muscle cars, and not many of them were produced. The production numbers wewre less than that of Marauders.

Your average muscle car back then came from the factory with a "muscular" engine under the hood. Which meant a lot of torque, and a lot of cubic inches. Many of those cars had big block engines, but even most of the small block muscle cars had more cubic inches under the hood than the Marauder does at a puny 281 cubes. A couple exaples would be the 340 Cuda, 340 Challenger, and 350 and 327 Corvette and Camaro.

So a muscle car was a vehicle w/muscle under the hood. But "muscle" translates to power, and your typical muscle car had over 300 HP regardless of engine displacement. And that rating was taken at the flywheel just as it is today. So in that sense, our Marauders having 302 HP at the flywheel/flexplate from the factory, can be considered a "muscle" car even though it has such a small V8 engine. It just so happens that because of the advanced technology in the Marauder engine design, that it churns out more power than any 281 cubic inch engine did from the factory back in the 60's. That's undoubtedly due to the DOHC and the cylinder heads themselves.

As for the comment about "Muscle" cars being only two door vehicles, that's only because back in the 60's and 70's there were many body styles available w/2 doors whereas today there are very few 2 door cars made. Especially big ones. Just look around, and tell me how many 2 door cars you see that aren't all-out compact/ sports cars such as a Corvette, or Camaro, or Mustang? There are very few.

Back in the 60's and early 70's, you can get mid to big size cars with 2 doors. Some examples are the Challenger, Charger, GTX, Thunderbird, Galaxie, Chevelle, Lemans, GTO, Falcon, Impala, Caprice, Monte Carlo and the list goes on and on. And yes, there were plenty of "Muscle" cars available that were big cars, so I disagree w/the statement that Muscle cars were small cars. NO WAY!!! Not all of them were. The GTO was probably the first "Muscle" car ever which came out in 64, and that was NOT a small car like the 67 Camaro and Firebird was, or like the Mustangs were.

The only characteristic of the "Muscle" car that the Marauder does NOT have from the factory, is that in the 60's and early 70's (which were the true era of the "Muscle" car) ALL of those cars can leave rubber from a dead punch right out of the showroom, whereas the Marauder CANNOT. And that's a direct result of it's lack of engine displacement. So on second thought, maybe "technology" hasn't come as far as we thought. But ofcourse some of us here have found a way to take care of that lack of low-end grunt in the Marauder.

Marauderman

06-05-2004, 12:51 PM

There again is my man Billy---saying it right from my mind--wow, your sure reading my thoughts on this subjest exactly--and I was there for all of it , in person..duh!..

BillyGman

06-05-2004, 01:30 PM

There again is my man Billy---saying it right from my mind--wow, your sure reading my thoughts on this subjest exactly--and I was there for all of it , in person..duh!.. I now have software installed in my PC that can read your mind.....

...so now, whenever you have an interesting thought to share w/the group, I can just click on it w/the mouse and type it out myself to make me look good instead of you.

David Morton

06-05-2004, 01:32 PM

Bush-Hog say muscle. Foot go hard. Car go weee. Jap car go away.

Argh, argh, argh, argh.

merc406

06-05-2004, 01:42 PM

When it comes to muscle cars, if you think it's a muscle car, it is. :pimp:

duhtroll

06-05-2004, 02:16 PM

Ahem, er. . . Let me say it once again.

I never said muscle cars were ONLY two door cars. MOST of them were.

I wonder how many times I will need to repeat this. :rolleyes:

-A

Fourth Horseman

06-05-2004, 03:14 PM

The only characteristic of the "Muscle" car that the Marauder does NOT have from the factory, is that in the 60's and early 70's (which were the true era of the "Muscle" car) ALL of those cars can leave rubber from a dead punch right out of the showroom, whereas the Marauder CANNOT. And that's a direct result of it's lack of engine displacement. So on second thought, maybe "technology" hasn't come as far as we thought. But ofcourse some of us here have found a way to take care of that lack of low-end grunt in the Marauder.

I wonder if a few of those muscle cars from yester-year would be able to hook up better and leave less rubber (if any) today, using modern tire compounds.

BillyGman

06-05-2004, 03:22 PM

Ahem, er. . . Let me say it once again.

I never said muscle cars were ONLY two door cars. MOST of them were.

I wonder how many times I will need to repeat this. :rolleyes:

-Ayou've missed my point Dude......and that is weather you said "all" or "Most" the fact still remains that there are very few cars, especially mid-sized and large cars, that are even offered in the 2 door version these days anyway. So I think you're getting defensive for nothing.;)

BillyGman

06-05-2004, 03:29 PM

I wonder if a few of those muscle cars from yester-year would be able to hook up better and leave less rubber (if any) today, using modern tire compounds.I guess we might not ever know the answer to that. Unless perhaps someone here not only has an original stock 60's muscle car, but who also has a decent set of those old Goodyear "Polyglass" biased-ply tires, as well as some new BFGoodrich radials that come from the factory on the Marauder.:confused:

TAF

06-05-2004, 03:32 PM

Andrew...I know where your coming from, and once again I'll say it..."TRUE Muscle Cars" of the '60s and '70s were MOSTLY 2-door cars. Any "4-door Muscle Cars" were very few and far between. Billy is right, however, in the change/swing of "platform designation"...think about it...nowdays, a Taurus is considered a "full-size car"...yeah right. Back then...there were plenty of cars similar in size/length to our Marauders that had 2-doors. Those days are gone with the half-a$$ed 4-door sedans that are out there, calling themselves "full-sized cars".Good input from everyone above. I hope this answered the original question...

BillyGman

06-05-2004, 03:35 PM

Very diplomatic Todd. That's what we needed here. :up: Thanks

TAF

06-05-2004, 03:38 PM

Very diplomatic Todd. That's what we needed here. :up: Thanks
Anytime Billy my friend...anytime. :coolman:

merc406

06-05-2004, 05:04 PM

I guess we might not ever know the answer to that. Unless perhaps someone here not only has an original stock 60's muscle car, but who also has a decent set of those old Goodyear "Polyglass" biased-ply tires, as well as some new BFGoodrich radials that come from the factory on the Marauder.:confused:

My Marauder isn't stock but I have tried stock type tires on the back of her before, it was nothing more than a smoke fest. Those 1/4 times back then when taken with stock tires are a joke. You can lose 2,3,4, and more seconds off the line without the use of slicks or by starting out in second gear.

My 2 door 63 I do believe is longer then the new Marauder's, I will see if I can do a comparision on Sunday.

MikesMerc

06-05-2004, 05:13 PM

Advertised? When?

Here...Official MM site (http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/vehicles/marauder/exterior/suspension.asp)

"The Marauder's Muscle Sedan label is further reinforced by its aggressive muscle car rake"

Sounds like Mercury thinks its a muscle car.

Here...USA today at MM unveiling (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2001-02-12-chicago.htm)

The Mercury division of Ford Motor unveiled the Marauder sedan, an all-black "muscle" car that is really a Grand Marquis with bucket seats, 300-plus horsepower and a stiffer suspension.

They told the press the same thing.

The MM brochure, page 2 (http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/media/pdf/Preview_Marauder.pdf)

Like its musclecar predecessor, this American street machine pounds out racetrack performance..

Mercury uses the term "muscle car" right in the brochure as a reference.

That's plenty enough advertising.

BTW, a muscle sedan = a four door muscle car. That's what they called them in the mid sixties too:)

Hehe...you guys must be too young to know, or too old to remember, but there were more "4 door muscle cars" out there than you mention. By and large , yes most were two doors...as most cars were two doors back then..lol. I bet I can name 10 4 door muscle cars in just a matter of seconds. I bet we could come up with 20 without too much effort.

Not arguing, just setting the facts straight:)

duhtroll

06-05-2004, 05:18 PM

Exactly - which is why I feel that "muscle sedan" is a better designation for the MM. It certainly qualifies in equipment in performance - just not in outer appearance (rake and wheels notwithstanding). Appearance is one if it's big criticisms, and appearance is why I like it so much - it doesn't LOOK like a muscle car. It just ACTS like one.

-A

Andrew...I know where your coming from, and once again I'll say it..."TRUE Muscle Cars" of the '60s and '70s were MOSTLY 2-door cars. Any "4-door Muscle Cars" were very few and far between. Billy is right, however, in the change/swing of "platform designation"...think about it...nowdays, a Taurus is considered a "full-size car"...yeah right. Back then...there were plenty of cars similar in size/length to our Marauders that had 2-doors. Those days are gone with the half-a$$ed 4-door sedans that are out there, calling themselves "full-sized cars".Good input from everyone above. I hope this answered the original question...

merc406

06-05-2004, 05:32 PM

Hehe...you guys must be too young to know, or too old to remember, but there were more "4 door muscle cars" out there than you mention. By and large , yes most were two doors...as most cars were two doors back then..lol. I bet I can name 10 4 door muscle cars in just a matter of seconds. I bet we could come up with 20 without too much effort.

Not arguing, just setting the facts straight:)[/QUOTE]

I know of the 4dr Marauders Mike, but I don't remember any other American iron 4 doors. :confused:

deerejoe

06-05-2004, 06:18 PM

Thanks to all for the information.
I am now informed!!

So, the 'muscle car' designation was coined by the auto industry??

When it came to large displacement engines (back then), there were quite a few models and makes of 2 and 4 door style body's.
No question about it.

I'm not sure they were designated 'muscle cars'.

As for some of the attributes mentioned earlier...rake, aggressive dual exhausts, special instrument clusters and fancy wheels/or covers; a lot of this was inspired by 'hot rodders' from the late 40s into the 50s to present day.

BTW, 2 door cars were the style of choice for being cool. No one in my neighborhood would drive anything else.

4 doors=family car...like station wagons.

MikesMerc

06-05-2004, 06:34 PM

I know of the 4dr Marauders Mike, but I don't remember any other American iron 4 doors.

Here's a few teasers (all came as four door options):

61 Impala with the 409 or 396
1966 Coronet w/ 426 Hemi
1965 Chevrolet Impala w/ hi po 327 V8
1964 Chrysler 300 w/ 383/4bbl.
1964 Dodge 880 Custom 4 Door w/ 383 Engine
1966 Pontiac Ventura w/ 389
1963 pontiac Starchief w/ 389
1963 Dodge 440 w/ 383
1972 FORD GRAND TORINO w/ 351

There are plenty more.

The term "muscle car" was coined when the auto industry began putting in high power motors into otherwise very affordable cars. The muscle car was big on power, and pretty light on everything else.

As the HP wars continued, the term was thrown around a lot, and the original definition was expanded to include just about every car that had waaay more HP than the car needed. 4 doors aren't typical muscle cars, but there were some damn fast four doors during the hey days. It only took some creative option selecting at the dealership:)

Exactly - which is why I feel that "muscle sedan" is a better designation for the MM. It certainly qualifies in equipment in performance - just not in outer appearance (rake and wheels notwithstanding). Appearance is one if it's big criticisms, and appearance is why I like it so much - it doesn't LOOK like a muscle car.

It's pretty tough to just "ignore" the aggressive rake and big/little wheel package. Not to mention the dual exhaust hanging out the back. I guess I'm so used to being around all types of muscle cars from the "old days" that my perception of what is a muscle car is much broader. I still remeber how that 1966 Coronet Station Wagon with the 426 Hemi sounded as it raged down the track. I was only 8 yrs old then:)

deerejoe

06-05-2004, 06:46 PM

[QUOTE=MikesMerc]I know of the 4dr Marauders Mike, but I don't remember any other American iron 4 doors.

Here's a few teasers (all came as four door options):

61 Impala with the 409 or 396
1966 Coronet w/ 426 Hemi
1965 Chevrolet Impala w/ hi po 327 V8
1964 Chrysler 300 w/ 383/4bbl.
1964 Dodge 880 Custom 4 Door w/ 383 Engine
1966 Pontiac Ventura w/ 389
1963 pontiac Starchief w/ 389
1963 Dodge 440 w/ 383
1972 FORD GRAND TORINO w/ 351

There are plenty more.

The term "muscle car" was coined when the auto industry began putting in high power motors into otherwise very affordable cars. The muscle car was big on power, and pretty light on everything else.

You guys know EVERY thing!!
What a site!!

Hell of a run on those 'ricers', Mike.
Just be careful...don't let the boost get the best of ya.

merc406

06-05-2004, 06:50 PM

Looks like everybody's definition of a Muscle Car is different.

We didn't intentionally race with 4 door cars and there weren't many guy's back in the day with them. Any Hemi in a wagon wasn't factory put in it and the 4dr's were heavy heavy, the HP wasn't enough to call them factory muscle cars.
The 4 door has come into it's own nowaday's like never before.
The Marauder of old I dare say was really only a muscle car with the 406 and the 427 in her, otherwise it's just to heavy.

TAF

06-05-2004, 06:54 PM

61 Impala with the 409 or 396
1966 Coronet w/ 426 Hemi
1965 Chevrolet Impala w/ hi po 327 V8
1964 Chrysler 300 w/ 383/4bbl.
1964 Dodge 880 Custom 4 Door w/ 383 Engine
1966 Pontiac Ventura w/ 389
1963 pontiac Starchief w/ 389
1963 Dodge 440 w/ 383
1972 FORD GRAND TORINO w/ 351

Just to continue the fun here (I'm not coming at you Mike...just hate to have this hangin out there)...but your list above, in my book, certainly list what I would consider "fringe" versions of what are considered the classic "TRUE muscle cars". ;)

SouLRioT

06-05-2004, 07:39 PM

You guys might not remember this thread: http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3371&highlight=muscle+marauder

But the Marauder was voted into the top five muscle cars of 03.
Here's what was said in the article.

Putting on a jumpsuit doesn't make you The King--and just because it's fast doesn't necessarily mean it's a muscle car.
There are plenty of extremely quick, high-performance rides being built today: The Mistubish Evo and Subaru WRX STi are two notables. But these cars are not muscle cars. By definition, a muscle car is hulky and hairy; it is also rear-wheel-drive--always and without exception. And it must have a rumbly V-8 engine, as well as the ability to lay tar-like strips of smoldering rubber while bullying forward like a run-amok brontosaurus.
That's a muscle car.

Mercury Marauder:
The '03 Mercury Marauder is probably the last true American-style muscle sled that will ever see production. The attraction of a full-frame titan of the road as big and heavy (4,100 pounds) as many midsize SUVs is often lost on drivers reared on 2,500-pound, front-wheel-drive compacts. They're intimidated by the hulking presence of the $33,790 Marauder--a 300-horsepower version of the senior-center/cop-car-special Mercury Marquis/Ford Crown Victoria sedan. But if you can get them to go for a ride, the virtues of a burbling V-8 and rear-wheel drive quickly win them over enough to at least admit the thing is kinda cool.
For $5,000 more than you'd pay for a loaded, ordinary, "Grumpy Grandpa" Grand Marquis LSE, you'll get the Lord Vader all-black paint job, a hunkered-down suspension with gas-charged Tokico performance shocks, and pretty much all the heavy-duty stuff the cop cars get--only Johnny Law doesn't get those gleaming 18-inch rims and the Winston Cup stock-car-style, 50-series, ultra-performance BF Goodrich g-Force tires--or the hotted-up, 300-horsepower version of Ford's 4.6-liter V-8 engine

by Eric Peters
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/aut...muscle_maurader

RCSignals

06-05-2004, 11:29 PM

two doors, four doors, doesn't really matter.

Most "factory built" advertised and sold as a "muscle car" were two door sedans.

Many "muscle cars" though were not marketed as such by the manufacturer, they were buyer created, usually a base four door (or two door) sedan ordered with the biggest engine available, standard shift transmission, and no or very few "options"

BillyGman

06-06-2004, 02:11 AM

There was definately a lot more 2 door muscle cars than there were 4 door ones back then. But that's because just about every full size 4 door car there was (back then) was also offered in a 2 door version as well, and most people who opted for the biggest engine available would also opt for a 2 door car. Think about it.......how many 4 door full size or even mid size cars these days are also offered in 2 door versions? Not many at all, if any. Atleast I can't think of a whole lot of them. But back then you could get Impalas, Chevelles, Lemans,Skylarks, Cutless, Coronets, Torinos, Catalinas, LeSabres, Caddys,300's,Furys, and more all in 2 door or 4 door options.

And back then I never heard the terms "Muscle sedan" or "Muscle coupe". It was either a "Muscle car" or it wasn't. Therefore either the modern Marauder is either a Muscle "car" or it isn't. Weather it has 2 doors or 4 doors has nothing to do w/the "Muscle" designation. The car's engine has been beefed up w/more power over and above that of the marquis and the Crown Vic which are of the same basic platform, and as previously mentioned, it IS a RWD full frame V8 engine car. And those things are what makes it a muscle "car".

merc406

06-06-2004, 06:10 AM

It's ALL about power to weight ratio.

You guys with the power adders made the Marauder a muscle car.

MikesMerc

06-06-2004, 09:15 AM

Any Hemi in a wagon wasn't factory put in it and the 4dr's were heavy heavy, the HP wasn't enough to call them factory muscle cars.

The Coronet Wagon could indeed be optioned with the Hemi from the factory. Not sure if any exist, but they could definitely be ordered.

More popular (if you can even call it that), was the 426 Max Wedge motors that came in a small handful of mopar wagons. There are still some around like THIS (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2468295923&category=6210) one.

The rarest wagon I know of is the 1969 Dodge Coronet 500 wagon with a 383-4V Magnum and a 4-speed, along with bucket seats. Only 3 were made.

Here's some more "full size" fun:

http://www.lhmopars.com/MOPAR_Ads/63dgead3.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wagonworld/files/Station_Wagon05.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wagonworld/files/427wagon.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wagonworld/files/wagon1.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wagonworld/files/Two_Wagons0701.jpg

I think there is more to the definition than just power to wieght ratio. Many of the "classic" muscle cars ran modest 14 and 15 second times. If we were to measure HP to wieght we'd be surprised at just how many cars now fell into the muscle car group.

Is the Neon SRT 4 a muscle car?

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that the MM is a muscle car. Without any mods at all, its low 15 sec qtr mile times is enough to beat many of the classic muscle cars.:D

merc406

06-06-2004, 10:43 AM

Like I said before---

When it comes to muscle cars, if you think it's a muscle car, it is. :pimp:

All those cars pictured at the strip are highly moded out, the Battlestar Galactica, Larry's 64 wagon does 10's.

duhtroll

06-06-2004, 10:49 AM

Well, one thing is certain. When "muscle car" is mentioned, people have different ideas.

I believe my original point stands, that being the MM has all of the basic criteria in equipment, but that it does not have the basic appearance that many would call a muscle car.

As Mike pointed out, Mercury called it a muscle *sedan* which means they thought there were differences too. (My point about advertising was that there wasn't any to speak of, which is fine with me.)

Does it look like a muscle car either sitting in the lot or at the light? No, I don't think that it does. (How many cars have big shiny wheels today? - better yet - how many DON'T?) Which is also fine with me. Many folks criticize the MM as being a "black GM with shiny wheels," which again is fine. I think the general perception is that the car does not represent muscle cars visually, yet does in equipment and performance.

Am I going to call it a muscle car? When asked, my answer is "kinda," with an added smirk. There are undeniable differences, of which none matter.

We have been reminded that platform designations, appearances, performance, big block/small block, public preference in design has changed since the muscle car era. So . . .

Is the MM the same as a traditional muscle car?

No, it's far better.

-A

merc406

06-06-2004, 10:57 AM

Well, one thing is certain. When "muscle car" is mentioned, people have different ideas.
So . . .

Is the MM the same as a traditional muscle car?

No, it's far better.

-A

Very true, you guys got the brakes, suspension, comfort and the safety that the old ones never had. :up: :rasta:

MikesMerc

06-06-2004, 11:05 AM

Sounds like a good place to end this discussion:up:

BillyGman

06-06-2004, 05:31 PM

Sorry, I can't help but to add another 4 cents.......

duhtroll, you have made some interesting and thought provoking points, and I like that. About the accusations from people who say "That's just a shiny black Marquis w/mag wheels"......well I wonder if people also said that about the Chevelle SS in 65 and 66. Because they were basically a Malibu (same body style) w/some extra options that were included in the SS package such as different wheels, and a higher output engine just like the Marauder is as compared to a Crown Vic and a Grand Marquis. While the Camaro, Firebird, and Mustang were separate designs all together, the Chevelle SS as well as some others were NOT a seperate design and were the same platform as the more mild mannered cars. And they were "Muscle" cars.

Another example would be what some people consider to be the very first muscle car. The 64 GTO. Which was merely a warmed over Pontiac LeMans or Tempest w/a bigger engine and fancy wheels along w/a different name ("GTO") just like a "Marauder" is. I suppose yet another example would be the Dodge Charger. Wasn't it derived from the Coronet? But unlike the political climate of today which frowns on street racing, back then the public air was just right for such a car to take off in the market, and so instead of merely lasting 2 years like the Marauder has this time around, the 64 GTO as well as the 65 and 66 Chevelle took off and many were sold in the years that followed.

But I agree w/you about people asking "Is that a Muscle car?" If they ask ME that, then I simply say "What do you think?" or "You tell me". And let those who question it decide. I don't need to put a label on the car anyway cuz it already has one ("Marauder"). I think the only reason why those who are not Marauder owners would need to ask if it's a "Muscle" car is simply because most of them never knew what a "Muscle" car was in the first place since they've never had one.

.....interesting thread.......

woaface

06-06-2004, 06:14 PM

Bush-Hog say muscle. Foot go hard. Car go weee. Jap car go away.

Argh, argh, argh, argh.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Mercury did advertise it as muscle, it was said and highly suggested on the DVD they produced. Outlet magazines complained it wasn't what they said it was.

woaface

06-06-2004, 06:19 PM

Now THIS is a muscle car...straight from the import magazine hot-rod.

Check that baby out! It must be dusting all the yugo's around!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6256&item=2480967765&rd=1

BillyGman

06-06-2004, 06:23 PM

yeah, that CD that came w/the owners manual has a fantastic promotion clip w/the Maraudr smokin the tires as well as some heavy meatal music in the backround. But the dissapointment was that off the showroom floor you have to use the brake pedal along w/the gas to get the tires to smoke like that video clip shows. but I took care of that deficiency as did others here.

sailsmen

06-06-2004, 06:36 PM

Originally a muscle car was a bigger engine in a smaller car then what the factory was previously offering. As in the original GTO.

At that time V-8 and rear wheel drive.

duhtroll

06-06-2004, 06:40 PM

Holy crap - James' post reminded me once again that I have never even loaded the CD I got with the car to see what was on it. EVERY time I see or hear it mentioned I swear I will look at it. I'm going to get it RIGHT NOW.

-A

BillyGman

06-06-2004, 06:43 PM

You'll like it. it's really cool. I don't know why they didn't make that a TV commercial, cuz it was far better than the one that I did see. But maybe they did and I just missed it.

martyo

06-06-2004, 07:25 PM

Another example would be what some people consider to be the very first muscle car. The 64 GTO.

Billy: That was the very first muscle car.

hitchhiker

06-06-2004, 07:54 PM

merc406

06-06-2004, 08:02 PM

Billy: That was the very first muscle car.

Says Pontiac and GM, but...........

RCSignals

06-06-2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by BillyGman

Another example would be what some people consider to be the very first muscle car. The 64 GTO.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Billy: That was the very first muscle car.Only if you believe General Motors marketing.

there were many cars produced prior to the GTO that could easily fit the "muscle car" definition.

how about a '57 Ford custom business coupe (or any '57 Ford) with a factory supercharged 312?
or a '58 Ford Custom with a 352 FE

There are many more from other manufacturers as well

*edited for spelink

BillyGman

06-06-2004, 10:07 PM

RCSignals

06-06-2004, 10:31 PM

I've alwys considered only cars that produced over 300 HP at the crank to be true American Muscle cars. Perhaps that one w/the S/Ced 312 did, but was that actually a real production car, or were there merely 100 of them built?Real production car. Once available in '57 a supercharged 312 could be ordered in any model of passenger car and Thunderbird. (even Police Interceptors)
They produced over 1hp per cu in, before GMs claim of accomplishing that. (which by dyno reports I've seen, GM actually didn't, but GM has a great marketing department)
Ford's supercharged 312 and it's successes at the track were one of the reasons GM called for a ban on factory sponsored racing in 1957. GM also called for a ban on superchargers in racing, and got it.

At any rate, 300hp at the crank would be your own definition.

BillyGman

06-06-2004, 10:49 PM

Real production car. Once available in '57 a supercharged 312 could be ordered in any model of passenger car and Thunderbird. (even Police Interceptors) Sure, but how many of them actually were ordered? What I mean is that can this be another case like the 427 L-88 Corvette was? That too was said to be a real production car, but it actually wasn't. yes, you were able to order it, and a whopping 80 customers actually did each of the three years that option was available (67-69) but back then if you went to a Chevy dealer and wanted to otder the L-88 option, the dealer had no clue as to what you were talking about, nor did they have the order # for it since they weren't granted access to the order #. And they couldn't even find out for you. You had to know someone in professional racing circles who were reportedly the only ones who were given access to the L-88 option order #. Furthermore, even if you did gain access to the order # and gave it to your Chevy dealer, the only way the Corvette could be had w/that option was w/out a radio, and w/out a heater. So the L-88 wasn't really a true production engine option. The only reason why Chevy even made it possible for anyone other than racers to order it was because the track rul;es were that the engines being used by the manufactures had to be "production" motors atleast on paper that were offered to the public. Atleast this is in accordance to what I've read about this isssue. So I wonder if this so called S/Ced 312 engine option was the same way as ordering the L-88 was. Because I believe that the 64 GTO really was a true blue productio car that anyone was able to easily order w/out there being any hidden secret codes nor secret order #'s required.
They produced over 1hp per cu in, before GMs claim of accomplishing that. (which by dyno reports I've seen, GM actually didn't, but GM has a great marketing department)
Ford's supercharged 312 and it's successes at the track were one of the reasons GM called for a ban on factory sponsored racing in 1957. GM also called for a ban on superchargers in racing, and got it. I can see that your one of those Loyal Ford fans, and I really haven't any loyalty to GM nor to Ford. So who did what first really doesn't matter to me. I was just curious as to when this really started. In the 50's or the 60's. That's all.

At any rate, 300hp at the crank would be your own definition. Yep, it is.

merc406

06-07-2004, 05:54 AM

Muscle cars before the GTO, Fairlane T/Bolt same year, Galaixe 500's 406-427-390PI's, Marauder's 406-427's, Pontiac Bonneville's 389's 3x2's, Chrysler 300C's 392 Hemi's, Plymouth 412's, Pontiac Tempest, Impala 409's, I could go on if I had a book of em. :burnout:

duhtroll

06-07-2004, 06:43 AM

Now that I did not know. I guess I was content to let the GTO have that distinction.

All things end, however. Thanks, guys. I will LOVE bringing that up the next chance I get. The Marauder (and others) were around first? Sweeeet.

-A

prchrman

06-07-2004, 08:05 AM

Muscle cars before the GTO, Marauder's 406-427's, Pontiac Bonneville's 389's 3x2's, Chrysler 300C's 392 Hemi's, Pontiac Tempest, Impala 409's, I could go on if I had a book of em. :burnout:

406...you got that right...many cars before the 64 GTO were for sure muscle cars...just take a seat in a 406 or 427 marauder or galaxie and say it is not a muscle car...OBTW never seen 2 cars of any sort in the 60's as muscle cars that had 4 doors...no one would drive them...uncool for sure back in the day...the only fast 4 doors were old LEO cars and the motors were jerked and put into light bodied 2 doors asap...

BillyGman

06-07-2004, 09:35 AM

merc406, those sound like pretty good examples to me. Thanks.

jerrym3

06-07-2004, 10:47 AM

Big motors in heavy sedans, 2-4 dr sedans/hardtops or 2 dr convertibles, I consider them to be high performance cars.

I consider musclecars to be intermediate bodied cars with big motors.

First musclecar? My vote, Studebaker Golden Hawk.

Or, maybe the GHawk was the first real "Pony" car? If so, does that mean that had the GHawk been a big seller and credited with being the first smaller personalized car (not built as an economy model), the Mustangs, Camaros, Cougars etc would have been "Bird" cars and not "Pony" cars?

What makes it even more interesting is that the first Mustang was based on the platform of...............(brace yourself) the Falcon!!

The Firebird would have fit right in....

RCSignals

06-07-2004, 10:39 PM

Sure, but how many of them actually were ordered? What I mean is that can this be another case like the 427 L-88 Corvette was? That too was said to be a real production car, but it actually wasn't. yes, you were able to order it, and a whopping 80 customers actually did each of the three years that option was available (67-69) but back then if you went to a Chevy dealer and wanted to otder the L-88 option, the dealer had no clue as to what you were talking about, nor did they have the order # for it since they weren't granted access to the order #. And they couldn't even find out for you. You had to know someone in professional racing circles who were reportedly the only ones who were given access to the L-88 option order #. Furthermore, even if you did gain access to the order # and gave it to your Chevy dealer, the only way the Corvette could be had w/that option was w/out a radio, and w/out a heater. So the L-88 wasn't really a true production engine option. The only reason why Chevy even made it possible for anyone other than racers to order it was because the track rul;es were that the engines being used by the manufactures had to be "production" motors atleast on paper that were offered to the public. Atleast this is in accordance to what I've read about this isssue. So I wonder if this so called S/Ced 312 engine option was the same way as ordering the L-88 was. Because I believe that the 64 GTO really was a true blue productio car that anyone was able to easily order w/out there being any hidden secret codes nor secret order #'s required.
They produced over 1hp per cu in, before GMs claim of accomplishing that. (which by dyno reports I've seen, GM actually didn't, but GM has a great marketing department)
Ford's supercharged 312 and it's successes at the track were one of the reasons GM called for a ban on factory sponsored racing in 1957. GM also called for a ban on superchargers in racing, and got it. I can see that your one of those Loyal Ford fans, and I really haven't any loyalty to GM nor to Ford. So who did what first really doesn't matter to me. I was just curious as to when this really started. In the 50's or the 60's. That's all.
.
Not the same as the 427 L-88 Corvette at all. I don't have the production figures at hand, but i do know they sold more than 80. In fact I run into parts of the supercharger set ups occasionally at local swap meets. But I doubt there were thousands sold, common people don't usually go for that.
Ford sold more dual quad 312 setups in '57.

How does my statement make be a your one of those Loyal Ford fans ? I'm just stating a fact. It's automotive history. Only loyal GM fans would get upset with it.

It's something GM fans are always harping on about, and every car mag writes as gospel, so to someone, other than me, who did what first really does matter