"The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time"

[Fleet 500]

Here is an article from MuscleCars magazine (Jan., 1990).
The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time.

The author did a good job picking out the worst and I like some of the comments such as:

(1979-'80 AMC AMX)
"...The 17.5 to 17.7 second 1/4 mile times made walking almost as quick, and surely much less embarrassing..."

(1972 Mercury Montego GT)
"... A 351, 400 and 429-4V (good for 200 horses) were available..."

(1976-'81 Chevrolet Camaro Rally Sport)
"... With a hurricane-like tailwind, a 16.8-second 1/4 mile was within the realm of possibility..."

[Man of Steel]

I read about the amazing specs of the 1976-1978 Ford Mustang II Cobra earlier. 4-cylinder, 88 HP, 1250 kg and an astonishing top speed of 160 km/h... Nothing wrong with that as long as you consider the car as just a piece of transportation. A big problem however when you name it a Cobra, including those overdone decals.

[ScionDriver]

Yeah all these are featured in a book I have called "Automotive Autracities" in the section "Fake Muscle Cars"

[Falcon500]

Some of those cars had potential like the T/A if the had of got the turbo set up right they may of had a v8 GN. If ford actually gave the mustang II the v8 right from the start and modded the suspension a bit (an easy task to make a mustang II handel reasonbly well beleive it or not) and they could of had somthing that wasnt a pos.

Although alot of them cars are the sad final forms alot of those cars took which is sad.

And I must admit i thought the 305 vette was hilarious.

[clutch-monkey]

isn't the mustang they mentioned a good platform for people to start with? i remember seeing a few that people had picked up for next to nothing, and modifying it for road race, drag etc etc

[Fleet 500]

isn't the mustang they mentioned a good platform for people to start with? i remember seeing a few that people had picked up for next to nothing, and modifying it for road race, drag etc etc

Yeah, but from the factory, they left a lot to be desired.

[henk4]

is 10 not a too small amount?

[Fleet 500]

is 10 not a too small amount?

True, I could think of a few more.

[Ferrer]

True, I could think of a few more.

It'd be probably easier and faster to point out those that were actually decent...

[Falcon500]

isn't the mustang they mentioned a good platform for people to start with? i remember seeing a few that people had picked up for next to nothing, and modifying it for road race, drag etc etc

they had an overly expensive momo model (if i had my old computer i could post a pic it was bright orange and had a giant wing on it!) that had a marvelous set up but yeah to much $$$ and not enough advertising led to this potential laden mustang as one that best left forgotton or often hacked to peices to retro fit their suspension set ups in earlier falcons, mustangs, mavericks and so on.

[fpv_gtho]

I actually like the look of the AMC AMX. The front is a bit off, but it reminds me alot of a Mk2 Escort.

[Falcon500]

I actually like the look of the AMC AMX. The front is a bit off, but it reminds me alot of a Mk2 Escort.

probably worth a mint now due to how rare it is.

And if its a modified gremlin like it said the 401 should be able to fit realtivly easy.

[harddrivin1le]

Here is an article from MuscleCars magazine (Jan., 1990).
The 10 Worst Muscle Cars Of All Time.

(1976-'81 Chevrolet Camaro Rally Sport)
"... With a hurricane-like tailwind, a 16.8-second 1/4 mile was within the realm of possibility..."

So a 16.8 second 1/4 mile is laughably slow per your own thread.

This 4,780 pound 1969 Cadillac Coupe Deville ran a very comparable 16.5 second 1/4 mile:

http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend6-reg.jpg
http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend7-reg.jpg

Yet you continue to attempt to convince people that your 280 pound HEAVIER (5,060 pounds per you) 1969 SEDAN Deville is a fast car..

[Fleet 500]

So a 16.8 second 1/4 mile is laughably slow per your own thread.

This 4,780 pound 1969 Cadillac Coupe Deville ran a very comparable 16.5 second 1/4 mile:

http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend6-reg.jpg
http://www.imperialclub.com/Articles...Trend7-reg.jpg

Yet you continue to attempt to convince people that your 280 pound HEAVIER (5,060 pounds per you) 1969 SEDAN Deville is a fast car..

Come one, harddrivin, I thought you were smarter than that!
The Camaro was supposed to be "high-performance" car and the Cadillac was a full-sized, luxury car.
Don't you realize the difference?
And when did I say that my '69 Fleetwood (not Sedan de Ville) was fast? (I did say that it is faster than henk's Citroen.)

[harddrivin1le]

Come one, harddrivin, I thought you were smarter than that!
The Camaro was supposed to be "high-performance" car and the Cadillac was a full-sized, luxury car.
Don't you realize the difference?
And when did I say that my '69 Fleetwood (not Sedan de Ville) was fast? (I did say that it is faster than henk's Citroen.)

I see that BOTH cars were equally SLOW - regardless of what they were "supposed" to be and going purely by objective, EMPIRICAL data.

Cars struggled with ever tightening emissions American emissions standards from '72 on up and technology didn't begin to get the upper hand on that until the mid 80s. Everything from that era was a pig as a result.

Your boat had no such restrictions, used a much larger engines, required premium leaded gas (to truly run properly) and it was still no faster than that pathetic, emissions-burdened Camaro.


This entire thread is stupid because EMISSIONS compliance and low octane gasoline were responsible for the poor performance of the cars on that list.