By on March 27, 2019

TTAC’s Slack channel honed in on muscle cars the other day. As the discussion progressed, a question came to light which your author hadn’t previously considered. It’s a simple enough inquiry, yet there are many variables to consider.

Today we talk about the least sporty muscle cars.

The image of the muscle car has evolved over time, as automotive segments tend to do. A modern muscle car is faster than its ancestors, and can actually handle corners. Modern muscle cars like the Mustang and Camaro maintain their performance, even with automatic transmissions and four-cylinder engines. But the muscle car game has not always been so good — there were darker times.

In olden times, muscle cars were designed with straight-line speed and raw power in mind. Aggressive styling was an important hallmark, as well. But some so-called muscle cars couldn’t quite live up even to modest genre expectations. Too much weight, not enough sport or engine, or a design which was all wrong for a muscle car. My pick today ticks a number of least-sporty-type boxes.

But I love it anyway. It’s a Mercury Marauder X-100, and it wasn’t a sporty muscle car. The Marauder had a very short second generation for 1969 and 1970. Ford wanted to up its sporting game to lend it more credibility, and changes seen on the X-100 over the basic version included different seats, a floor-mount shifter for the automatic, and road wheels concealed by super sporty fender skirts. It was 219 inches long, available only with a three-speed auto attached to the 390 or 429 cubic-inch V8s. Those engines pushed around 4,300 pounds of coupe. A short-lived and lackadaisical attempt at muscle car from Mercury. I’d love to have one.

Tell us your picks for the least sporty muscle car entries throughout history.

[Images: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

94 Comments on “QOTD: The Least Sporty Muscle Car Ever?...”


  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Chevy Nova

    BTW, Mustang is a Pony car

    • 0 avatar
      BigOldChryslers

      Pony car is styling. (A Mustang is a Pony car whether it has a 6-cyl or a big block V8.) Muscle car is performance, typically a powerful engine dropped into an existing body. No reason the Mustang can’t be both.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        There are two schools of thought on the Muscle car vs Pony car debate, both are pretty animate in their positions

        Here is how Wikipedia defines Pony Car: “An American class of automobile launched and inspired by the Ford Mustang in 1964. The term describes an affordable, compact, highly styled car with a sporty or performance-oriented image.” And here is how they define Muscle Car: “A large V8 engine is fitted in a 2-door, rear wheel drive, family-style mid-size or full-size car designed for four or more passengers.” Both definitions go on to expand on the intended use of the cars, but these definitions get to the heart of the matter. A Pony Car is small, and a Muscle Car is somewhere between mid-size and full size.

        • 0 avatar
          nvinen

          “And here is how they define Muscle Car: ‘A large V8 engine is fitted in a 2-door, rear wheel drive, family-style mid-size or full-size car designed for four or more passengers.\'”

          If a muscle car has to have two doors, what do you call a large V8 engine fitted in a 4-door, rear wheel drive, family-style mid-size or full-size car designed for four or more passengers?

          In the UK I think they call that a “Super Saloon” but I think there must be another name? (Example: Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat)

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Back in the day Nissan called it a 4DSC (Four Door Sports Car)

            Not my definition, but it’s a common definition

      • 0 avatar
        CobraJet

        I like to think that mine is a muscle car!

    • 0 avatar
      Funky D

      Agree 100% with the Nova. They were definitely un-sporty in the fact that they were ill-handling beasts. I learned a fair bit about car control from owning one!

      Mustangs and Camaros are pretty much hybrids of pony and muscle car that is hard to put in one camp or the other. The only true muscle car currently on the market is the Dodge Challenger.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        Nova’s during the 70s would out handle any Granada or Volare of the day and were the basis for the F-body chassis. That was pretty common knowledge back in the day. Ones with the F-41 or heavy duty F40 setup were even better still.

        • 0 avatar
          dukeisduke

          And the 9C1 police package Novas.

        • 0 avatar
          DEVILLE88

          At least you know your history, even with a 6 cylinder a nova can look sporty. And in the 70’s the Nova was the best handling compact car built in america and rivaled some of the europeans. The Nova LN and Concours.

          • 0 avatar

            I had what you’d call an Ace of Base 73 Nova. It had the tech of the 60’s, with the single carb straight six. Body on Frame, a tank. Bench seat, three speed automatic. It was a runner on the highway, and took hits in Boston Traffic. I always dreamed about a 350 under the hood, but nope. I recall it as a very stable and linear platform-solid rear axle.

          • 0 avatar
            HotPotato

            I briefly drove a Nova from the late-malaise era: it was whatever the sportiest one was at the time, which is to say, Rallye wheels, V8, tape stripes. It made okay V8 noises while being reluctant about accelerating, hostile about cornering, and enthusiastic about swilling gas. Piece o’ garbage, really. But it had a nice cushy ride and plush seats — things I’d never experienced from behind the wheel.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The cars were meant to be modified, they just couldn’t tell you that in the owners manual or on window sticker.

            Everyone knew it though. First you ditched the pathetic factory rear-end gearing, upgrade to posi, and those alone made a tremendous stinkin’ difference.

            Of course if you were still unsatisfied, you went to a 4v carb, cam, intake, headers, dual exhaust, glass packs, etc, and if an automatic, a shift kit, stall converter and such. Lots of manual/clutch upgrades too.

            I mean, why even get if you were gonna leave it stock? There were “speed shops” everywhere back then; franchise, mom-n-pop, you name it.

            Remember “Super Shops”? You weren’t around if you don’t recall “Hooker Headers”.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Almost laughably the Nova was the basis for the Camaro (the so-called “hugger”) and really just a difference in style and chassis tuning.

        I suppose like the Falcon derived Mustang this was modular chassis design before it became fashionable

    • 0 avatar
      SSJeep

      The least sporty muscle car of all time would have to be the 4-cylinder Camaro and Firebird cars of the early 80s. They were pathetically slow, even by 80s standards, and handled like absolute crap owing to their base suspension components.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        Agreed. They looked – uh – ok, but inside was pure cost-cut-crap. Power was anemic, build quality sucked, reliability was poor. No wonder they killed the model for so long

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Never was convinced even as a car-nut teenager in the mid-‘80s when an IROC-looking Camaro drove by while uttering the distinctive sound of the Iron Duke!

      • 0 avatar
        ptschett

        V8 F-bodies in IROC/Z28/etc. form and Formula/Trans Am/etc. form can be musclecars where their 4-cylinder kin aren’t, though.

        • 0 avatar
          Erikstrawn

          I would agree that the 4-cylinder versions of muscle cars shouldn’t be counted if there was a V8 available that year.

          I would say an ’81 Camaro with a 305 is the least sporty musclecar. I had one. It wasn’t fast, it was ill-handling, but it did look cool.

          The Gran Torino is another un-sporty muscle car. They had to hop up the cars used in Starsky & Hutch just to get them to smoke the tires.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        I remember my mom picking me up from school in a rented Berlinetta: the early 80s Camaro with the 2.5 L Iron Duke. It had handsome dark blue paint, a futuristic digital display radio…”nice car,” I thought. First thing she said when I got in: “God, this thing is scary…no power!” I’ve read that the 0-60 time of the Iron Duke with the 3-speed automatic was 20 seconds, though I’ve never seen a contemporary road test to back that up.

        A couple of days later, she rumbles up to school in another pony car: a 1968 Pontiac Firebird 400 borrowed from our neighbor Betty. Black paint, red vinyl interior…”nice car,” I thought. First thing she said when I got in: “God, this thing is scary…no brakes!”

        Mom was in rented and borrowed cars a lot, actually. She insisted on nursing along a 1960s Peugeot 404. There was one Euro car mechanic in town, and he worked on Fiats, so the Pug got “fixed” with Fiat parts, a strategy that worked about as well as you’d expect. Later in life, I adopted my mom’s terrible habit of adopting unfixable Eurotrash, which is how I came to borrow Betty’s Firebird myself. Mom was right: despite what a badge on the interior advertised as power disc brakes (probably an extra cost option at the time), it was frighteningly indifferent about stopping.

  • avatar
    Drew8MR

    I mean, most of the classic muscle cars from each brand all basically shared 2 platforms, a big and an almost as big. A GM A body drives pretty much like every other A body and so on.

  • avatar
    StudeDude

    Since Studebaker was mentioned yesterday, I’ll submit the 1963 R2 Super Lark. Some would argue that the Super Lark and Super Hawk were the beginning of the muscle car phase back in the ’60’s. Of course, Studebaker could not promote or publicize these cars very much for financial reasons. Regardless, the Super Lark is the least sporty early muscle car in my eyes.

    https://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/studebaker-lark-super-lark/

  • avatar
    ajla

    Accord V6 coupe.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Put a screaming chicken on the hood!

      With a manual, it’s a pretty legit sleeper, though.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        Ah, the Accord Coupe V-6 manual. One of my favorite cars ever. A Mustang GT for people who have grown up and/or don’t care about handling. On paper, dumbest car ever (wait, you want to put nearly 300 horsepower through the front wheels of a sedan with the weight balance of a one-ended barbell? and you want it to be good for carrying just two people?). In reality, one of the most satisfying (buttery clutch, bolt-action shifter, sewing-machine engine, lusty acceleration, big-man seats).

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      A former scribe on this august site referred to that vehicle as the “last true muscle car” in another publication.

      Least sporty? No.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      Not a muscle car.

  • avatar
    mikey

    The FWD Monte Carlo SS…Or any FWD that claims to be sporty.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      I disagree, because those aren’t muscle cars and don’t attempt to bill themselves as such.

      And there is such a thing as the “sporty coupe”, or at least there was; these were typically fast and stylish FWD-based coupes that had sporty pretensions, but that didn’t quite reach sports car status. In the 90s, it was an MX-6, Probe, Integra, or Neon Coupe. In the 2000s, a G5, G6, Accord or Eclipse still would have qualified. Now, in 2019, the last one is probably the Civic Coupe, Si or not.

      The Monte Carlo was more a holdover from the large coupe/personal luxury coupe era. The only mainstream car that currently fits in that category is the Challenger.

      And yes, the W-body Monte Carlo SS was just horrible. Holy torque-steer. Ditto for its other hi-po platform mates, the Grand Prix GXP and LaCrosse Super.

      But, yes, calling those cars poor muscle cars is like saying the Hyundai Kona is awful at towing boats.

      • 0 avatar
        someoldfool

        I was going to mention the Monte Carlo too but he beat me to it. If you don’t like that one how about the Caprice with the Corvette engine? Plenty of muscle, 0 sportiness.

      • 0 avatar
        Featherston

        Honest question and not flaming, Kyree: Have you driven the full range of the LS4-powered, 3rd-gen W bodies? I ask because I haven’t, but purportedly the divisions had a good deal of autonomy in setting up the wheels/tires/suspensions, with the result being that the GXP and the Super drove better than the Chevrolets did. To wit, the GXP had its famous-for-about-15-minutes set-up with wider front tires. And Motor Trend said of the Super, “Torque steer is largely tamed, though the wheel still squirms a bit when pointed just off center.”

        I actually saw one of those Impala SS’s last summer. It had to have been at least nine years old, since ’09 was the last year for them. This example was pristine, and the driver was performing the incredibly-rare-in-the-US feat of driving fast but also fairly safely and courteously. (It was in medium-level traffic. He was signalling and giving other drivers a wide berth, but going fast when he could.) Kind of nice to see someone preserving and enjoying what I think are oddball but fun cars.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          @Kyree, If it’s not a muscle car, don’t slap an SS badge on it.

          At least the Cobalt SS had the benefit of sticking close to the original muscle car formula. Small car “big” engine.

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            “SS” originally meant “Super Sport”.
            Eventually it also came to sometimes mean “Sorta Sporty-ish”.

  • avatar
    nels0300

    Yeah, that Mercury is a good one.

    Who would buy that Mercury when you could get a 455 Buick? Mercury was probably the last brand you would think of when you’re thinking muscle cars.

    Which is kinda funny because they made one of the sleeperist muscle cars ever, the 427 Comet.

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    So many to pick from, especially during the malaise era. I’ll pick one I’m familiar with:

    The 80s Monte Carlo SS with it’s screaming 305 with 180hp. 3.73 gears out back helped, as did the relatively low weight of ~3400 pounds (stop laughing!)

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Impala SS (Holden). Still love that plain-wrapped beast.

  • avatar
    mikey

    The Nova has been mentioned …I vote the 340 Swinger..Both cars are basically grandmas 6 automatic .A 396 Nova ,over time would literally twist itself apart.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      Yes, the Swinger was the Chrysler version of the Nova. Grandma’s car that you could shoehorn a big ol’ V8 in

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        How many grandmas drove cars called Swingers? Besides, it was a two-door hardtop, the second sportiest body style Detroit produced.

        • 0 avatar
          CaddyDaddy

          My Grandma drove a Swinger. Leaning Tower of Power, Torque Flight and Factory Air. It was Frost Green. Would love that car today!

          • 0 avatar
            Russycle

            My aunt drove a green Swinger. I know everybody loves the Slant 6, but with a full regalia of 70s smog paraphernalia that thing was a slug. Nice looking though.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          My Grandma’s half-sister drove a ‘73 or ‘74 Dart Swinger, but true to form, it had the slant-6.

        • 0 avatar
          RHD

          My grandparents had a Dodge Demon, complete with the decal of the devil holding his trident to make the “M”. I was too young then to know what “irony” was, but it seemed strange to me, since they would pray the rosary together every afternoon.

  • avatar
    EquipmentJunkie

    My mind immediately went to a Mustang Cobra II.

    • 0 avatar
      la834

      Mine too, almost. Really, any ’75-’78 Mustang with the 110hp V8 and the only transmission available with it, a three-speed automatic.

      • 0 avatar
        Proud2BUnion

        Actually, the 302 was also available with a 4 speed.

      • 0 avatar
        TR4

        The Mustang II’s 302 V8 is usually listed as 140 SAE net hp. It was a lot faster in the Mustang II than in the heavier Thunderbird and LTD II. Sales of ’74 Mustang IIs were about triple that of the ’73 Mustang, so I imagine the guys at Ford were patting themselves on the back. It was the right car for the right (albeit dismal) time.

    • 0 avatar
      dougjp

      Agree. It was pretty grim.

    • 0 avatar
      scott25

      Can’t believe the Mustang II is so far down this list

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Hmmm…. did Ford bill the Mustang Cobra II as a muscle car though?

      Here is one add for the Cobra II ( tp://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–uDFzbmjH–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18ktcye7cdp1xjpg.jpg )

      Th Cobra II came along when muscle cars were extremely unfashionable due to the fuel crisis and insurance crack down (let alone environmentalism) and it seems to me since engines had be so neutered in the malaise era it was personal luxury and/or “European” inspired handling.

      IMO, the II gets a lot of hate since its taken out of context with the era not to mention everybody’s fond memories of Mustangs seems to be they were all hairy chested performance monsters from the get go.

      It appears to me that might have been the case from about 1967 to maybe as late as 1973 (Boss 351) and a more modern interpretation with the S-197 Shelby GT500s but outside of that it would be hard to argue the Mustang was any more than a sporty car with performance variants developed more to build on the European influenced image.

    • 0 avatar
      EquipmentJunkie

      My neighbor had a Cobra II when I was growing up. Even to a 10-year old kid in 1978, the car seemed to be the answer to a question nobody asked.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        The problem was the Cobra’s pathetic CAFE induced 3.00:1 final drive ratio. It had surprising 250 lbs/ft of Torque, but that ratio sandbagged it.

        I know this since my ’79 Fox Mustang 5.0 had the same drivetrain carried over. It was even more pathetic with 2.42 gears and a couple hundred lbs heavier.

        Of course I did what everyone did back then that wasn’t satisfied with the “performance” the factories were turning out, or the first thing and easiest. I immediately put 4.10s in the rear end turned into a real monster. It was like a whole other, tire shredding beast!

        All V8s in the era were built this way with big torque, real early in the rev band, which meant not much “HP” to brag about. But their lack of acceleration was simply and unknowingly blamed on their low HP figures.

  • avatar
    arach

    Any one of the big muscle or pony cars of the 70s. When Horsepower was 1/2 of what a Hyundai comes with in 2019, with a body that weighs as much as an elephant, and a transmission thats literally had been unchanged for almost 20 years (and used on cars with 4x the power), there’s no muscle or sport with those Muscle Cars.

    Gone were the glory days of the 60s, and companies had not yet figured out how to make cars that could perform and have reasonable emissions + Fuel Economy.

    Drive one of them unmodded today, and you’ll be begging to get behind the wheel of an accent.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      So true, lots of longing for the glory days until you drive one, yikes!

    • 0 avatar
      Flipper35

      Why would they need to change the a833? It could handle some pretty serious power when used in the pro-stock class and it shifts pretty easily. Other than it lacked an overdrive which not many had back then anyway. (Well, they did have the 4 speed overdrive with the flipped shift lever for 3rd and 4th gears, but no 4+ overdrive)

      • 0 avatar
        arach

        The cars didn’t put down any power to speak of… Most of those transmissions (the a833, M20/M21/ and especially M22) could handle all the mods you threw at them… but they weren’t substantially re-geared for the low power output of the 70s.

  • avatar
    Mike Beranek

    I gotta go with a different Mercury Marauder, the late 90’s Panther-body Crown Vic clone. While it looked cool with it’s blackout trim, the stock SOHC V8 came right out of the Town Car and was hardly muscular.
    I’d also like to add that some muscle cars hide under the radar. Nissan Maximas with manual transmissions and the VQ engines fit the definition. I had an ’04 that was fast as stink, it beat a lot of cars a Maxima had no business beating.

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    I thought the Marauder got the 32 valve DOHC from the Cobra. From memory it was still measurably slower than a LT1 powered Caprice.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      It was more Mach 1 than Cobra since the Mach 1’s 32v 4.6 was Cobra V8 done right.

      The Marauder’s problem IIRC was a torque converter too tight for the engine. Performance in those cars improved significantly with an aftermarket torque converter which allowed the engine to climb into the meat of the powerband.

      • 0 avatar
        Mike Beranek

        My bad, I should’ve researched first. It was a 302 horse “Intech” motor. I do remember the buff mags hit it pretty hard as a poser that didn’t have the power to beat anybody. Of course there were lots of upgrade parts available, but it was a dog stock.
        I was also wrong on the years, it was ’03 & ’04.

  • avatar
    la834

    Late ’70s Plymouth Volare Road Runner, ’79 Chrysler 300

  • avatar
    jdmcomp

    The malase era corvettes

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    1974-78 Mustang II’s, especially the early years that had a 2.8 V6 as the top engine. 1980-81 Mustang Cobra’s with 111-120 HP 255 V8’s. 1980 Volare with Road Runner package and a whopping 120 HP V8. Suddenly the 180 HP 305 1980 Corvette didn’t look so bad!

    • 0 avatar
      PeriSoft

      Yeah, I was thinking these things too. Reading contemporary magazine reviews of them is interesting — I recall a “Muscle Cars Are Back!” article from the early ’80s talking about 12-second 0-60 times “peeling your eyelids back” from the g-force. Those were *not* the days.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Any of those late 80s, early 90s Dodge Chargers that Shelby unfortunately put his name on.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    The ’79 AMC AMX. Gaze upon its’ awesomeness:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC_Spirit#/media/File:1980_AMC_AMX_black_right_side-NY.jpg

    Highly dishonorable mention: the early ’80s F-body Camaros and Firebirds with the Iron Duke.

  • avatar
    cbrworm

    I’m having so many flashbacks from the mid to late 70s right now, I can’t pick just one. Especially considering a mainstream ‘appliance’ V6 family car from the last 10 years can out accelerate and handles better than most easily available muscle cars made before the mid-90s.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      If you put the paper specs of hp, torque, 0 – 60, weight, etc of my 2005 town and country on one side of paper and the 1981 Camaro specs on the same page in the other side…

      Suddenly you realize you should harness seat belts throughout the mini van

  • avatar
    IllumFiati

    1985 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS, with 180 hp High Output V8 and the available 4 speed sport automatic transmission. I will add the optional floor console and the 14″ performance wheels.

  • avatar
    scott25

    Pretty much anything domestic and performance oriented from about 1974-1985 (yes, malaise) is the correct answer

    I nominate the 1974 GTO (which yes, was basically a Nova), and the 1975 Road Runner which had the greatest rear end decal of all time.

    The real winners are the most obvious ones though, Mustang II, Volare Road Runner/Aspen R/T, and Iron Duke Camaro.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m seeing a few people calling out the Mopar F-body. Were they really that bad? The ones with the 360 ranged from 170-195 hp depending on year. That’s definitely not good, but is it among the worst ever?

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    My ’84 Mustang was no sports car, nevermind the weazy V6 since most domestic “sports cars” of that time were dogs. It didnt even look sporty, with its LTD II front end and square taillights. The Mustang II was slow but it at least looked like a Mustang. On the other hand, I drove a more worn out non-turbo 300ZX of that time that felt and looked much sportier.

    I wasnt too big on an ’89 Supra either but it at least looked sporty and had decent enough power.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    Impala SS 6 cylinder w/ three on the tree or powerglide

  • avatar
    CobraJet

    I’ve never seen one in the flesh, but Google will find it for you. A 1985 Ford LTD LX 5.0. This is the fox-bodied LTD equipped with the Mustang GT 5.0 HO engine. Sort of a 4dr Mustang.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    1982 Ford EXP and Mercury LN7.

    70ish HP, 4-speed manual or 3-speed auto, 32/68 F/R weight ratio, the worst ever in a modern production car, rear drum brakes, standard rollers were 13″ steel rims with 80 series Goodyear Corsica tires.

    The EXP/LN7 weighed about 10% more than the Escort it was built off, sans a back seat.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      I remember my older sister’s boyfriend rolling up in a rented EXP back when they were new. I was excited because I thought they looked cool. “How is it to drive?” I said. “Meh,” he said, “a little slow.” His daily driver was an air-cooled Beetle. So…yeah.

  • avatar
    GrayOne

    Don’t all of the old muscle cars suck?

    Like couldn’t a Camry could beat a 60-whatever GTO or Mustang?

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Buick Grand National. Your Grandma’s Sunday driver, Olds Cutlass shared the same cheesy brakes, shocks, sway bars, etc.

    I remember C&D or R&T on the Road Test coming down a mountain road, when they pulled over to let the brakes cool (they faded to almost no brakes), its front hubcaps melted into a puddles on the dirt!

    Except for more power, bigger wheels and tires, the only thing the “GNX” did for the Grand National was a traction arm to help out with the GN’s spectacular “wheel hop”.

  • avatar
    namesakeone

    Least sporty muscle car? I would nominate the 1971 AMC Hornet SC 360. It could be called a muscle car (small car with big engine and sporting pretensions), but it hardly looked sporty.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • redapple: RED…. Great catch. Love it.
  • teddyc73: What an ugly rear end.
  • FreedMike: Have you ever heard a Ghibli’s exhaust? I’d say that’s one big selling point. Otherwise,...
  • deanst: After the car ages several years, and you’re driving in the cold weather, what is the real range – 100...
  • kosmo: Yup. Susan Collins is a Republican kind of like a Yugo is an automobile. Not really.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States