This morning, we asked you which muscle cars you thought were the worst ever built. Despite all the debate around what actually counts as a muscle car, you gave some great answers — including an apparent blanket hatred for the years between 1969 and 1990. We compiled ten of the best answers for you, so the debate can be settled: These are muscle cars, and boy are they bad at it.
I’m sure this will be a common answer, but the 1982 GM F-Body cars. I believe max horsepower with the V8 was something like 145? Anemic af and they have evolved into the car the most successful meth dealer in the trailer park drives.
The F-body Camaro and Firebird may not have had the most power, the best handling, or the strongest construction. What they did have, however, was style — and lots of it. Those tucked-away headlights, the angular eighties lines, these cars just looked cool. If only the performance matched the looks.
Submitted by: J-BodyBuilder - Never stick to sports
The current Challenger/Charger. A 20+ year old Mercedes chassis cosplaying as a retro muscle car. It doesn’t advance the species like the Camaro/Mustang (hey, we can take corners now too!), it’s just pure nostalgia for those who don’t want the inconvenience of owning an original era muscle car. [Dons flame suit.]
The current Charger rides on a lightly modified version of its original 2005 platform, which it shared with the Dodge Magnum at launch. The Challenger rides on a shortened version of the Charger chassis. Neither platform comes directly from the E-class, as so many believe, but neither is exactly a modern clean-sheet redraw.
Submitted by: emilminty drives an E30 and a 200SX
The GTO is the worst? How quickly you forget the Volare Road Runner and Aspen R/T.
The Volare Road Runner and Aspen R/T made a mind-altering 170 hp back in the ‘70s, and an even more staggering 280 ft-lbs of torque. The transmission shared by all V8 models had three whole speeds. This isn’t a muscle car, it’s something out of the Jetsons — the car of the future, right here in the mid-1970s.
Submitted by: Qaaaaa
That span in the mid-2000s where Ford/Dodge’s entry level engine in their vehicles were anemic and paired with horrible transmission.
Dodge Challenger/Charger- 2.7L V6: 185hp; 4 speed auto
Ford Mustang- 3.7L V6: 210hp; 5 speed auto
Both of these variants were slower than sin. 0-60 times in the 9-10 second range.
The 2.7 liter V6 in the original Charger may not have been the perfect engine, but it had its charm. Sure, it never made much power, revved very high, made good torque, been reliable, sounded good... Where was I going with this? Oh, right, benefits to that engine. It sure did offer a cheaper entry point for Charger buyers.
Submitted by: i86hotdogs
2003-2004 Mach 1. Its a 99-01 Cobra engine, tied to a solid rear axle. It uses convertible frame braces. Stock tires are Goodyear 245/45/17s and they have ZERO grip. Shaker Scoop, unique hood, and a graphics/styling package that was INSTANLY copied by every V6 owner in existence.
It’s a car that is a blatant cash grab. Ford took an engine that got them in trouble in 1999, downrated it, and sold it as a limited edition. Then promptly changed the shade of yellow and made a ton more.
I love mine, but its always apparent that it was built to use up leftover parts in the factory until they realized they could make bank off of boomers.
This era Mustang is the source of one of my hotter automotive takes. Namely, that this is one of (if not the singular) best-looking generations of Mustang ever built. The pre-facelift version of the current model comes close, but there’s a timelessness about the New Edge body that just seems to get better every year.
Submitted by: Umoja
Idk about worst, but the ‘69 Barracuda I had was a real dumb piece of shit. It couldn’t do anything competently other than go in a straight line; the engine it came with was mismatched to the size of the vehicle, making its acceleration and top speed...poor, the ass-end looked stupidly out of proportion with the rest of the vehicle, it was too heavy for no good reason making it brake like a cement shithouse.
All around, a purchase I’d expect a dumbass 17-year old to make
So a big, old, heavy vehicle that couldn’t turn and barely accelerated? It sounds like you bought the perfect old-school muscle car. Start hyping up your SAE gross horsepower numbers, rather than that SAE net stuff California’s been trying to push on you, and you’re golden. Tucking your worn t-shirt into your khaki cargo shorts isn’t mandatory, but it’s encouraged.
Submitted by: SmaugTheUnpretentious
Ugly, trying to use its name/muscle heritage as a selling point despite that its a soft FWD cruiser. At least the later ones had the 5.3 V8.
I initially thought of the late 80s MC SS, which is absolutely badass. It’s not quick though.
V8 or no, this era Monte Carlo is about eight feet too long for its styling. It looks like someone at GM tried to sneak a new El Camino through the design department but couldn’t get away with ending the cabin at the b-pillar. Some rear glass was tacked on, and presto: a Monte Carlo.
Submitted by: Rockchops
What are we expected to do with a muscle car? If we want look cool, make a lot of noise and make fast quarter mile times a ‘70-71 Hemi Challenger (or something similar) would be the best choice. If we want to commute to work daily the previous best choice becomes one of the worst. Those things are ridiculously expensive, thirsty, unreliable and unsafe. Deathtraps can be cool but the best choice for a car shouldn’t be a deathtrap.
A Mustang II isn’t going to go fast in the stock form and most people don’t think that they look cool either (some of course do). They aren’t very thirsty or expensive but still unreliable and unsafe. But because Mustang II is a very tiny car compared to the other muscle cars you can still make it go fast with power upgrades.
So the worst has be something that is overall worst combining: performance, handling, cool looks, purchase value, safety, economy, upgradability
So I’m thinking about something slow, big and heavy from late 70's. I have never liked the last years of Gran Torino so I’ll choose this one. It being used in Starsky and Hutch TV series does not award positive points from me. It does have fancy safety bumpers but that kind of safety features aren’t very essential with a musclecar.
My uncle actual got into an accident with a ‘72 or ‘73 Challenger while these things were still quite new cars. His car got squished sideways between two heavy trucks. The Challenger got quite badly mangled but the thickness of the doors did provide a lot crumple zones and my uncle did survive without bad injuries. He didn’t describe how did he end up between the trucks but I somewhat expect that he was driving like a wealthy businessman with a fast car...
A Gran Torino that isn’t wearing the Starsky and Hutch livery is a bit of an oddity. That white stripe on the red body somehow made the car feel smaller, more lithe and agile. Seeing one in all black is almost startling — the hood is how long? The headlights sit how far below the hoodline?
Submitted by: kanadanmajava1
1986 Pontiac 2+2
Muscle cars are performance cars based on the more mundane base car. GTO was a hopped up Tempest. SuperBee was a hopped up Coronet. Grand National was a hopped up Regal. etc etc.
This was done to homologate the new front end and aero rear window for NASCAR, in the same way that Chevy created the Monte Carlo SS Aerocoupe. But this only had a wheezy 305 V8, piss poor gearing, and a single exhaust. Crappy performance.
Homologation specials aren’t always appreciated in their own time. Legends abound of dealers cutting the tails and nose cones off Daytonas and Superbirds just to get them out the door and into the hands of picky customers. The Grand Prix 2+2, however, isn’t appreciated in this time either.
Submitted by: Magnum_SRT8
Bandit Trans Am. Garish decal work, sub 200 hp big block V8, ornamental shaker scoop. Would be nothing without the movie.
I’ll admit, this one hurts a bit. I watched Smokey and the Bandit a few too many times as a kid, to the point where I installed a CB radio in my own Jeep once I could drive. Learning that this car made less power than a BRZ was like discovering your favorite celebrity is horrible off-camera — not entirely unexpected, but disappointing all the same. The decal work remains incredible, though.
Submitted by: Thomas Cotrel