By on May 2, 2017

1960 Mercury Marauder

As the heady 1950s horsepower race transitioned into the far-out 1960s pony and muscle car wars, buyers were able to gorge themselves on a buffet of choices. The only question needing an answer was: how wild do you want it?

If there’s money in your pocket, well, step right up to more horsepower and brawn than you can ever hope to handle, young man.

Seemingly overnight, Detroit felt the urgent need to muscle car all the things. Compact economy car? Better drop a 340 or 383 cubic incher in that light, skinny-tired sucker. Plush, gargantuan family sedan with soft springs? Meh, that thing can probably be made to haul ass. Add some cubes!

Budding environmentalists clutched their chests and reached for their puffers. Still, amid the smorgasbord of tire-shredding excess, some models made you wonder: was this really necessary?

Okay, there’s several ways of looking at this. First, there are the models that could claim some performance bona fides, but just didn’t seem right for the part. Others offered up all the flash, but next to no dash. The post-smog era 1970s is your go-to decade for those models. Dodge Magnum, anyone? Mustang II? Opera-windowed third-generation Charger?

Who are you fooling, buddy?

As easy as it is to criticize the wannabe muscle car with nothing under the hood, I’m going to have to go with the first option; models that joined the race simply because the automaker felt it had to.

[Public domain]

While there’s plenty of options to choose from, one model always stuck out like a bloated, overweight thumb at the top of the Mercury lineup, which isn’t an automaker that immediately springs to mind when one thinks of the muscle car era. Mercury played a role in the fun, sure. The Cougar gave classy Mustang lovers exactly what they desired, and the intermediate Cyclone eventually evolved into a snarling, NASCAR-worthy racer with available 429 Super Cobra Jet and Drag Pack options.

Above it, however, was a model already associated with your sort-of well-off father-in-law; a model poised to become one of the quintessential landau-topped barges of the 1970s. The Marquis.

By 1969, the Marquis had adopted the faux Lincoln look that paid Mercury big dividends for years, with retractable headlights, a vinyl top, and no shortage of cubic inches under the hood. Sensing the Cougar and Cyclone weren’t enough (can you imagine an era where not having a full-size muscle car would be harmful to a brand?), Mercury planners went to town turning the Marquis into something it wasn’t.

The result: the 1969 Mercury Marauder X-100.

While the front clip remained the same, the two-door Marauder sported buttressed C-Pillars (a la Dodge Charger), matte black hood and trunklid, deep-dish sport wheels and completely fake rear fender vents. Rear fender skirts only added to the vehicle’s visual bulk. Coming or going, it looked ungainly. But it also looked menacing, and that was half the battle.

[Public domain]

Under the hood, Marauder X-100 buyers received the base engine from the model’s Cyclone sibling hooked to a standard three-speed automatic. Boasting 360 horsepower and a very generous 480 lb-ft of torque, the X-100’s 429 V8 guzzled fuel by the tanker load as it strained to motivate 4,400 pounds of Detroit steel.

Its acceleration wouldn’t impress a modern-day family sedan driver, and few rivals quaked in fear of being swept from their performance pedestal when the X-100 rolled up to a stoplight. 0-60 miles per hour times flew by in a tick under eight seconds, with the quarter-mile mark arriving in 16 seconds (at 86 miles per hour). It was as good as the Marquis got, and it cost a pretty penny. Buyers yawned.

Production figures claim 5,635 X-100s moved off the assembly line in 1969, with another 2,646 in 1970. After that, Mercury was done trying. The world just wasn’t ready for a plush, personal luxury coupe muscle car — and it still isn’t. At least, not from a domestic automaker.

So, that’s my pick for a muscle car that landed with a thud, setting few hearts aflame. Nice try, but not necessary. (Would I own one now, just for the quirky privilege? Damn right. Let me get OPEC on the line.)

Now it’s your turn: What “muscle car” would you add to this list?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

88 Comments on “QOTD: What Muscle Car Couldn’t Pull It Off?...”


  • avatar
    ajla

    Honda Accord V6 Coupe.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    A Malaise Era vehicle I actually had. A Ford Gran Torino Elite. It was the ‘Broughamed’ version of the Torino, made to look if you squinted like a small T-Bird.

    Not to be confused with the Starsky & Hutch Torino or the one in Clint Eastwood’s garage.

    Came standard with a 351, you could option it up to a 400. The preferred version was ‘fully dressed’ in Ford’s most popular brown on brown and with a 460, 4bbl.

    • 0 avatar
      Moparmann

      @ Arthur Dailey: An older co-worker bought a G.T. Elite pretty much as you described it: brown on brown, and a 400 (IIRC). I thought it was kind of ironic that it was dressed with a complete gauge package, as the owner told me that “he didn’t care at all about them!” :-)

    • 0 avatar
      Irvingklaws

      My first car, a $300 brown on brown ’73 Mercury Montego Mx Broughm rust bucket I towed home from Grand Island in 1984. Not nearly as much car as all those names would imply. But with a single Thrush turbo bolted amidships where stock system rusted away the 351 Windsor was good for roaring single tire burnouts whilst departing the high school parking lot. About all the muscle car I could afford washing dishes on weekends.

  • avatar
    bachewy

    70 Mercury Cyclone Spoiler with the 429CJ. There’s one in my town that shows up occasionally. Pic:

    https://assets.hemmings.com/story_image/[email protected]?rev=2

  • avatar
    danio3834

    The Chrysler 300 Hurst wasn’t very fast, but man do they look good. I love me some fuselage C bodies.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    For the win…

    Chrysler Cordoba 300. Not only was it a dog, it defecated all over a great nameplate.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Chrysler-Cordoba-300-1979-2015-08-22-15.07.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      I still like the looks of the original Corboba. Changing the original round head and running lights to the stacked square headlights hurt the looks. And then changing the grille made things even worse.

      Had a friend with a ‘Charger’ derivative/variation of the Cordoba. Could not find a dealer willing to take it as a trade. It didn’t have the Cordoba name for those looking for one and nobody wanting to buy a Charger would even consider it.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I ***really*** liked the second-gen Cordoba, and the Dodge Mirada. For my money, they were the best looking personal luxury coupes out there at the time.

        But they were junk. My aunt had one – it was ATROCIOUS.

        And putting a 300 nameplate on a car with that sad, limp engine…heresy.

  • avatar
    427Cobra

    nice pick on the X-100… unique car. Would be fun to resto-mod/customize it- tho they’re fairly rare, so an argument could be made to keep it stock. A Monterey coupe of the same era has a similar look.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Mustang II Cobra.

    Just saying Cobra and Mustang II in the same sentence leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Is a full size car with a big engine really a muscle car? (AKA: Mercury X-100)

    If you said Mercury and muscle car in the same sentence I’d think of a Mustang based Cougar from the 1960s. That’s about it.

    Is a W-Impala with a V8 a Muscle Car? Not in my mind. Just a sedan with a big engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      I agree. The FWD GM V8 sedans of the mid-2000s (Impala SS, Grand Prix GXP, LaCrosse Super) landed with a profound thud. They were unimpressive all on their own—the Impala, which received the least attention, was downright dangerous—but it didn’t help that Chrysler had just released the handsome, RWD LX cars. The larger Lucerne Super with its Northstar V8 was a little better, since it didn’t promise to be anything it wasn’t (a slightly-cheaper DTS, with the expected floaty handling)…but this is one of GM’s “what were they thinking?” moments.

      It’s also the only one I can really speak on, since I was born in the early nineties, and didn’t witness the context of these classic cars when they were new.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The Lucerne Super and Bonneville GXP should have used a 300+hp version of the 3800SC hooked up the 4T80 trans.

        As they existed, the Lucerne Super and Bonneville GXP were both expensive because the N* and 4T80 cost a fortune to build (even though they had been in production for years). The bloom was off the N* by this time and the Hemi turned them into minced ham.

        The Lacrosse Super was cool, but the trans and engine combo are extremely unreliable.

        Impala SS fans wanted a V8, but they also wanted RWD and swinging d*ck styling. The Grand Prix set was generally happy with the supercharged V6. GM should have spent some cash on the interior instead of under the hood.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          My larger point was: Big engine does not equal muscle car. I’m not comfortable that we call the X-100 a muscle car just because it has a big engine.

          • 0 avatar
            bunkie

            Exactly. The original muscle car (the GTO) was called that because John Delorean broke the GM corporate edict that smaller mid-size cars would not be built with the large-displacement motors that came in the full-size cars.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          Yeah, even the final Series III 3800 Supercharged was within the limits of the 4T6x transmission family; the LS and the Northstar…were not. And these cars experienced frequent transmission failures. Which is a shame, because the one thing you could at the time count upon GM to get right was the powertrain.

      • 0 avatar

        That car was released around the time Bob Lutz was blogging for GM on their corporate site.

        I distinctly remember someone complaining in the comments that the Impala SS V8 should’ve been RWD and worrying about torque steer, etc.

        Lutz responded with what was essentially: “If you don’t like it you can always buy the V6.”

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      The Mustang was a Pony car, not a muscle car. A muscle car was, originally, a stripped midsize sedan, possibly a two door, with a really big engine. Cheap and fast in a straight line. That purity didn’t last long and turned into baroque bastardizations like the Pontiac Judge etc..

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Don’t forget inadequate brakes, for what the engine could put out. And virtually no suspension upgrades. That didn’t matter with mid ’70s Muscle, but the later Buick GNX got the “Muscle Car” theme correct.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    Willems: “Budding environmentalists clutched their chests and reached for their puffers.”

    Can you offer some proof there were people objecting to the muscle cars on the basis of environmentalism?

    I don’t recall any such thing going on. And if it was not going on, then your claim is a false, snide and gratuitous put-down of people with concerns somewhat more important than what this article suggests weighs on your mind.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I don’t either but I do recall people objecting to Hummers on the basis of environmentalism.

      http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/6b79ab94312342b3b7262495a040992a/protestors-take-their-message-to-the-hummer-display-inside-the-san-ccnpfb.jpg

      http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/c5d6259b770a4c778210e0b814e04870/protestors-take-their-message-to-the-hummer-display-inside-the-san-ccnpew.jpg

      http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/0b08fe0591bf46baa1961a6e3abfd912/protestors-take-their-message-to-the-hummer-display-inside-the-san-ccnpfd.jpg

      https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/codepink/
      pages/2623/attachments/original/1415978566/3312433240_11be60d91b_o.jpg?1415978566

      I think they may have also been protesting deodorant and grooming but I can’t be sure.

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      As someone who was involved with the environmental movement at my college back in 1970, yes, the environmentalists HATED muscle cars.

      To start with, they pretty much hated cars to begin with, unless it was some kind of beater Volvo that was left in pathetic condition to show their personal disdain for the automobile. (No, you didn’t bring up how they were being environmentally worse by not having the car in proper running tune.)

      Then, any kind of car that was owned for enjoyment (as opposed to unfortunate necessary transportation) was hated even more, because how dare you enjoy owning something so obviously heinous to society. Sports cars got a bit of a slide because they were small, with tiny engines, and usually owned by campus leftists. Good friends with a bad habit, and all that.

      But muscle cars? Big, stomping, mother-effing AMERICAN cars, with huge engines that gave lousy gas mileage, who were probably owned by supporters of our boys in Vietnam and Dick Nixon voters?!?!?!?!?!?!?

      I didn’t last long in the local environmental group, especially when the rest of the gang discovered my dad had been a Chevy dealer.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        or the VW, bug or van….
        the movement loved these.

        in 1972 i stole my little brother’s vw bug that had giant red flames painted on each front fender shooting towards the doors. very cartoonish (so as not to bother any fundamentalist I put a ? for spelling here) and sarcastic.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Seems to me the “environmental” concerns of those days were insecticides like DDT, acid rain and nuclear war. Whales came onstream as Greenpeace got started around 1973. Only a handful of unknown scientists were thinking about global warming.

      I don’t recall anyone using puffers back then either. Practically no one needed such things. How old are you, Steph?

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        If it’s a Steph Willems post, it’s going to have a pretty high troll-to-content ratio.

        I should clarify: I’m not above being trolled; Farago did it brilliantly.
        I’m generally unimpressed with TTAC’s content as of late, though, because the baiting is pretty unsophisticated.

        • 0 avatar
          bikegoesbaa

          Agreed, they’ve gotten much less elegant with it over time.

          Not sure why, but I’d guess it’s largely desperation driven by business pressures.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          The absurdity of the view that only rednecks who hate environmentalists are allowed to be interested in cars creates vast opportunities for troll journalism. VertiacalScope should realize that if this is their target audience, it is a diminishing minority.

      • 0 avatar

        I was an enviro probably as of the late ’60s. I didn’t learn about global warming until I took John Holdren’s course on “quantitative aspects of global environmental problems” in the winter quarter, ’75. But I do remember some young woman coughing at my ’63 Impala in the fall of ’74. (I think I told her the exhaust was composed of “organic hydrocarbons”, something she wouldn’t have realized was redundant.)

        • 0 avatar
          Loser

          I remember “global cooling” being the thing in the later 70’s. Didn’t know warming was a thing until the 80’s.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            People who’ve been involved in climate panics for more than a decade know exactly how full of it they are.

      • 0 avatar
        SPPPP

        Back in the 1950s and 1960s, there used to be a thing called “smog”, and automobiles of the time used to make it. People generally did not enjoy smog, and some disliked it enough to complain about it.

        https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2010/08/12/1960-the-smog-war-begins-2/

      • 0 avatar
        gottacook

        I doubt that it was “only a handful of unknown scientists” thinking about global warming; even non-scientists like Philip K. Dick were able to pick up on, and extrapolate the consequences of, global warming as a possible outcome of atmospheric pollution. One of his best-known novels, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch (with its very hot near-future Earth) was published in 1965, years earlier than the first Earth Day.

    • 0 avatar
      Johnster

      Strangely enough, back in the 1970s I used to always run into these well-off environmentalists (think trust-funds) who didn’t drive muscle cars, but big luxo-barges. Usually Detroit iron (Caddys, Lincolns, Imperials, Buick Electras, Olds Ninety-Eights, Mercury Marquis and Chryslers) along with an occasional Benz, Jaguar Mark X or Roller.

  • avatar
    incautious

    I owned a 1979 Magnum GT with a 360 4 BBl and although it wasn’t brutally fast as my 69 RT Charger or 70 440 6 BBl Roadrunner It was quite an enjoyable car with plenty of power for the day.

    • 0 avatar
      Flipper35

      They also weren’t sold as a muscle car, they were a GT cruiser and actually drove quite well for the day, and decent for even today. You could get it with a 400 as well. The 360 got decent mileage for a bigger car.

      I had a 1979, mom and dad had a 1978 they bought new. They were geared really tall as well. Mine would do nearly 90 in second gear at 5000rpm.

      Mine had T-tops of course, and did you know at 120 you can lose a whole ham out of the back seat when the tops are off?

      • 0 avatar
        Superdessucke

        Right. I’m not getting all the hate on mid/late 1970s cars here. Sure there were some comical attempts to resurrect the Muscle Car era but automakers tried as best as they could under the dismal circumstances they were presented with. Anything after 1974 to maybe 1982 was not a muscle car. Simple as that.

  • avatar
    TheDoctorIsOut

    As I recall it was the insurance companies that objected to muscle cars, let’s not go rewriting history. The greenies were more preoccupied with saving trees and wearing tie dyed stuff at the time.

    However I believe “Marauder X-100” was a bad ass name for a performance car and I’d rather imagine one that could have been than the sad sack of bolts and flat black tape that was the reality.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      As I recall it was the insurance companies that objected to muscle cars…

      True in that the manufacturers were lying about horsepower (revising it downward) because of insurance companies – not to please Rachel Carson.

  • avatar
    Hooligans

    In keeping with the theme of later model cars being used in a half-hearted attempt to keep the dream alive, I submit the 1974, Ventura based, 200 horsepower GTO!

    • 0 avatar
      Compaq Deskpro

      Chrysler did this with the Road Runner. To my surprise, they held out until 1975 before making it embarrassing.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Road_Runner#/media/File:Plymouth_Roadrunner_(9343628720).jpg

      Same idea, sub 200 hp wheezer engines with available slant six, lots of graphics slapped on a Volare with the taxi/police suspension package.

  • avatar
    2manycars

    The 1970 AMC Rebel “Machine” with its 390 V8 plucked from the AMX was pretty quick, but not really competitive power-wise with its big-block competitors.

    http://www.hotrod.com/articles/red-white-and-fast-1970-amc-rebel-machine/

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    1967 Pontiac GTO………..why…because I cant have one…

  • avatar
    newenthusiast

    My first car: 1975 Nova SS.

    Unlike the previous 3rd gen Nova SS package (68-72), which had actual performance upgrades, and were the base vehicle for the Yenko Novas, the 4th gen SS was a suspension and appearance package available on the fastback coupes.

    My 4000lb vehicle had all of 140 hp from a 305 V8 and was slow as hell. The ‘rally wheels’ were a weird size, and at the time I had the vehicle (1991-1994), tire options were minimal and grip was always a concern. I sometimes felt the rear end slip a little while simply pulling away from a stop into a turn.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      The SS Nova sounds a lot better than the other “muscle” choices of mid ’70s. The Mustang King Cobra too. If I can have either with a manual trans, modded rear-end ratio (3.50+), limited-slip, and otherwise “stock”, I’d be happy enough!

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff Semenak

      I owned a 1974 SS with the low-compression 2 barrel (!) 350. I agree with the atrocious handling although, I did a semi-controlled 180 on black ice on I-496 in downtown Lansing, MI. I ended up on the shoulder facing backwards. The shocked looks of other drivers thinking I was awesome, were belied by my need for a strong adult beverage afterward.

    • 0 avatar
      OzCop

      The mid 65, 66, and 67 Chevy 11 with 350/350 were straight line small blocks to beat back in the day. A friend of mine bought a new 70 Nova 350/350, and after I kicked his butt a few times with my Swinger 340…he, uhhhhh….burned it…yep, he did it, and a few months later burned his house. Not sure if he is out of prison yet, but I would assume so since that was 47 years ago…

  • avatar
    tonyola

    1979 Buick Roadhawk – a paint-on and spoilered package for the H-body Skyhawk, featuring a rip-roaring 115 hp from the 3.8 V6.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    At least the X-100 had presence and for the day, it moved nicely.
    That is one bad ass looking car. As for thuds, wasn’t there a Pacer “Sport” or “GT” edition? That would get my vote.

  • avatar
    Geekcarlover

    From the muscle car era, the Buick Apollo GSX. Paint and Pep Boys type clip on bits from the factory made it neither grand nor sporty.

  • avatar
    RedRocket

    You can’t judge the Marauder X-100 by standards of today. Back in the ’60s there were a number of full-size muscle cars: the Chrysler 300 letter cars, the Chevy SS427, the Olds Starfire, the Plymouth Sport Fury GT, and all the big Fords with the 427/428 and especially the Galaxie 7-Liter. They all became obsolete with the advent of big-block intermediates and ponycars, but they were seen as viable choices for some back then – the executive with a family who needed room but still longed for a powerful car.

    I loved the Marauder X-100 when I was 12. That blacked-out fastback rear deck and tail treatment was just way cool, and the Cord-like coffin-nose front end with the hidden headlights was killer.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    Well, the last year of the muscle car was 1971, before compression was reduced. Just about everything after that couldn’t pull it off.

    I’m more familiar with the poseur models, like a friend’s ’72 Plymouth Duster with a slant six and all the markings of the optional 340. For what he put into making it LOOK like the 340 version, he could have bought the 340 version.

    The award for most pathetic poser attempt goes to a guy who put a modified BMW grille on a Plymouth Horizon. He added other BMW badges and steering wheel, removed all evidence of the Horizon, and convinced his airhead girlfriend it WAS a BMW. I guess you have to allow for the intelligence of the observer.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus

    I found a Mitsubishi-sourced Dodge Challenger yesterday. Basically a rebadged Galant Sigma.

    I’m also thinking of the FWD Charger. At least the Stang II remained RWD, pathetic as it was.

    Gotta say, they were terrible attempts at reinvigorating both the nameplates and the cars they were associated with.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      Well, a turbocharged Shelby Charger was a muscle car in that it was a subcompact with an engine meant to make compacts and midsized cars into decent performers. They were also faster than most cars available at the time.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    The car that immediately comes to mind is the 1969 Chevy Impala SS. 427 cu. in. engine in a massive car with nowhere to go… at least off the line anyway. I’m sure it was a good highway runner as long as it didn’t pass an exit with a gas station!

    Next, the AMC Rebel. A nice-looking mid-sized car that tried to ape a Chevelle, but little sales. Perhaps it was fast, but I have no idea.

    In recent years? Almost everything Chevy put an SS badge on. Trailblazer SS was the most ridiculous.

  • avatar
    slance66

    That Marauder is hideous. As for the Cougar, it remains my favorite car of the era. Just about ideal.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    I gotta say, count me in as a fan of how that X100 looks, and what it’s all about. What’s the closest to a modern day interpretation of this? Challenger comes to mind, but it’s a bit too loud/brash/sporty. It’d have to be something a bit more grand-touring focused.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      I like it too. It’s hefty and substantial in the best slab-sided way of the era.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        I’m a huge fuselage-Mopar fan as well. At some point in my life I’d like to buy something obnoxiously big and comfy for daily commuting purposes for a summer. Something like a 70’ish New Yorker. I’m a huge fan of the 70s crime/cop movie genre, the ones were detectives and mobsters squeal tires and hop curbs and potholes in brash Continentals, beat up Impalas, etc all against the backdrop of gritty and grimy 1970s NYC. Nothing modern, not even a 300C or XTS (or S class) has the presence of a big American car from the 60s-70s.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Semenak

        Buy a Ford Flex Ecoboost 3.5.

  • avatar
    Brock_Landers

    X-100 is mad awsome! Flash and pizzazz! Today practicality and safety trump astethics and presence, back then it was vice versa. 220 inches of long swooping lines with enormous tail, hood and a cramped rear seat :D

  • avatar
    probert

    The original Buick Gran sports are well thought of, with both engine and suspension upgrades. The Riviera would be the closest to the Marauder – at least in concept. It is obviously a timeless design, while the ford is….not.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The specs on that Marauder X-100 are interesting.

    My 09 Sedona minivan weighs just as much (4400 lbs), but it performs almost exactly the same with a 244-HP V6 with 253 ft-lbs torque – substantially less engine than the Mercury. I’m guessing its 5-speed transmission helps connect the power much better than the Mercury’s 3-speed.

  • avatar
    BigOldChryslers

    > “The world just wasn’t ready for a plush, personal luxury coupe muscle car”

    It’s probably more accurate to say that the world was DONE with “fullsize muscle” by 1970. Chrysler had been profitably selling fullsize muscle cars for many years (Chrysler 300, Plymouth Sport Fury, Dodge Monaco).

    Wikipedia says that Chrysler only sold 501 examples 1970 300 Hurst, which was every bit the equal of the Marauder X-100 in comfort and outlandish paintjobs.

    Plymouth also sold only a minuscule number of 1970 Sport Furies with the optional 440 6-pack.

  • avatar
    gottacook

    I would add that Pontiac stopped offering the full-size 2+2 after 1967; that car was explicitly a performance car, with standard 421 V8 and other mechanical upgrades, but there evidently wasn’t a market for it, despite a near-complete absence of emission controls.

    Yes, I realize that the 2+2 had no unique sheetmetal among Pontiacs – it was just a nicer, more powerful Catalina coupe or convertible – but if Pontiac couldn’t successfully market a full-size performance car, who could?

  • avatar
    geozinger

    It’s funny you should single out the 2nd generation Marauder (the first was in the early 60’s), because a generation later another Marauder came on the scene (2004). I very badly wanted it to be a real Marauder like the 63’s, 64’s, 69’s & 70’s. However it was a late Panther with a warmed over engine and lots of “heritage” styling cues, but no real road crushing… anything.

    Grampa’s Grand Marquis in drag.

  • avatar
    la834

    Everyone remembers the late-’80s Buick Regal T-Type, Grand National, and GNX. But do you remember the LeSabre Grand National from the same period? It was just as black and just as menacing looking, though neither could overcome the lack of a turbo or wrong-wheel-drive.

    At the other end of the time continuum, there were the supercharged R2 and R3 Studebaker Lark, Hawk, and Avanti in ’63 and ’64 at the cusp of the muscle-car era. The R3 packed 335hp from a bored-out 304 V8 and could be had in a Lark (the purist’s choice since it was the cheapest and lightest), the Hawk (the pretty one), and the new Avanti (a sporty low-slung 2+2 coupe built off the Lark platform in ’63 – you only *thought* the Mustang was the first pony car). An R3 Lark could do 5-1/2 second 0-60 runs. http://www.hemmings.com/magazine/mus/2004/08/South-Bend-Stealth—1964-Studebaker-Super-Lark-R3/1280872.html

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    The car that started it ended it…The 74 GTO

  • avatar
    Shortest Circuit

    Mercedes-Benz 300SEL 6.3 (seriously, like a GTS440 Dart, do you know someone who actually drove these?)

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    When I was seven years old, I had a Tyco slot car set. Two of my favorite slot cars were Dodge Chargers in racing car paint schemes by Aurora AFX. One of them was a 1969 Charger Daytona. The other was a 3rd generation Charger with cool yellow and red two-tone paint topped by a flat black hood. If anyone had told me the 3rd generation car had superseded the Daytona at the time, I’d have been perplexed.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Inside Looking Out: I am sure he is a “businessman”. Nothing personal. Gavin was saved but Andrew got...
  • Inside Looking Out: Don’t worry, it is strictly among Democrats. “Elections” will be next midterm.
  • Inside Looking Out: ” Can we speedup the process?” Yeah, elect more Dems.
  • slavuta: Lt. Col. Scheller
  • 28-Cars-Later: I think its the other way around, Cuomo is at the level of unemployed at the moment.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber