GTP Cool Wall: 1969-1970 Mercury Cougar Eliminator

[Slash]

Great.

So by "You have got to have the most whacked out reasoning of anyone on this forum " you actually meant "I understand your reasoning completely" and you were really just posting to tell me that you don't agree with my "uncool" vote for a V8 pony car.

Forthcoming events: Conan Doyle's Holmes attempts to locate some excrement and fails.

No, sometimes your reasoning makes me scratch my head confused

 

[Joey D]

Nope, it's for folks who want performance in a relatively affordable package in comparison to its Euopean counterparts.

In your opinion, that's the great thing about the Cool Wall, almost none of it is based on anything but opinion and perception.

 

[Mikeybc]

In your opinion, that's the great thing about the Cool Wall, almost none of it is based on anything but opinion and perception.

No argument with that 👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The C7 is probably even less cool than the Cougar since it's a mid-life crisis mobile.

The point sailed over your head

Also I'm not really sure what you're taking issue with. I was saying I don't find a car that's owned and praised by rednecks and old guy to be cool. It's the same thing with many other cars, their owner or fanbase ruin it's coolness.

Well considering the nature that makes a red neck for example and the financials they have, they don't have in most cases an Eliminator. Also you're off base by claiming this is what makes up the fans of such cars.

I don't see any ignorance in my statement. It's an opinion based observation of how I see muscle cars with regards to coolness. An ignorant statement would have been "it's uncool because it has an oversized V8 and because it's slow" or something along those lines.

Um no it's ignorant because you use a wide brush to paint a group as either redneck or old. The old part I didn't have issue with even if it isn't true. The fact is I've seen you do this and then you act myopic as if how could you possibly be wrong. But that's for an entirely different conversation so I'll leave that alone.

In your opinion, that's the great thing about the Cool Wall, almost none of it is based on anything but opinion and perception.

Except when you state opinion in as if fact like W&N tends to do

 

[Murcie_LP640]

I'm not entirely a fan of the looks, but it has the option of a Cleveland under the bonnet and I for one like the name Eliminator.

Cool.

 

[McLaren]

Great.

So by "You have got to have the most whacked out reasoning of anyone on this forum " you actually meant "I understand your reasoning completely" and you were really just posting to tell me that you don't agree with my "uncool" vote for a V8 pony car.

Forthcoming events: Conan Doyle's Holmes attempts to locate some excrement and fails.

You could start filling a book with all the comments Slash makes towards people & then throws away when he agrees with their responses by this point....

 

[Famine]

No, sometimes your reasoning makes me scratch my head confused

Okay, but you just agreed with it...

It's not really hard reasoning to follow. Car has silly name, silly names aren't cool, car isn't cool*. I don't see what's so "whacked out" about it.

It's fine to disagree - though it's not like you needed to post that you'd disagree with any vote less than cool for a V8 American car from the 60s-70s, we already know - but acting like it's a flaw in reasoning is a bit silly. Particularly when you go on to say "I agree" to the same reasoning in the very next post...

*Also car has splitter, hood scoop and spoiler that look like the car owner's dad made them from 9mm plywood.

 

[AlvaroF]

I not fond of muscle because of the stupid engine sizes for the power they produce and I find them a bit uncool. In fact, to me, only a few are cool. The Cougar and the Charger are two of those. I like it.

 

[Slash]

I'm not entirely a fan of the looks, but it has the option of a Cleveland under the bonnet and I for one like the name Eliminator.

Cool.

It had the option of not one, but 2 different Clevelands under the hood, possibly even 3.

I not fond of muscle because of the stupid engine sizes for the power they produce

You realize this is 45 year old technology and was unmatched at the time right? Some of these cars were literally the supercars of the day, nothing could touch them on the street.

I don't see any Ferrari's some the '60s pumping out 650+ horsepower like the 427 SOHC.

 

[Tornado]

I not fond of muscle because of the stupid engine sizes for the power they produce and I find them a bit uncool

In the 1960s, rated power numbers didn't mean anything. Or, more frankly, they meant whatever the marketing department wanted them to.

 

[Joey D]

Um no it's ignorant because you use a wide brush to paint a group as either redneck or old. The old part I didn't have issue with even if it isn't true. The fact is I've seen you do this and then you act myopic as if how could you possibly be wrong. But that's for an entirely different conversation so I'll leave that alone.

The beauty of the cool wall is that nothing is based on fact and I never said it was. I'm not saying the car is bad or out to ruin the world, I'm just saying cars like this tend to be owned and liked by old guys looking to relive their glory days and rednecks. Perhaps I need to put big, flashing signs on my posts that state "In My Opinion".

Also really like the snide personal remarks there.

Except when you state opinion in as if fact like W&N tends to do

Nice try, but I never said it was fact. I'm actually pretty sure I just posted how it's entirely opinion and perception based.

 

[Slash]

In the 1960s, rated power numbers didn't mean anything. Or, more frankly, they meant whatever the marketing department wanted them to.

This basically. Those power numbers are so skewed in so many ways it's difficult to believe any of them. Some were notably lower, others notably higher, and that changed based on an absurd amount of factors anyways.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The beauty of the cool wall is that nothing is based on fact and I never said it was. I'm not saying the car is bad or out to ruin the world, I'm just saying cars like this tend to be owned and liked by old guys looking to relive their glory days and rednecks. Perhaps I need to put big, flashing signs on my posts that state "In My Opinion".

Actually there is a lot based on fact in the cool wall, just not the parts of why you think it's cool. That doesn't however mean you get to sidestep and claim every statement that isn't stats on the car being talked about is suddenly opinion because you want to be vague and try to get away with it.

I think I made it clear that I couldn't careless how you feel about the car at this point, your warped perception is the issue. And I say yeah put those signs up, unless you like debating me then keep avoiding it I don't mind.

Also really like the snide personal remarks there.

Being blunt is now considered snide? Well this is a new world you've opened my eyes too

Nice try, but I never said it was fact. I'm actually pretty sure I just posted how it's entirely opinion and perception based.

Um no, when a person says this:

Uncool. It's a muscle car and for the most part muscle cars aren't cool since they're primarily owned and lauded by rednecks and old guys.

The part in bold, is not opinion it's making a claim, and thus would act fact based or truthful. Now if you had said you've seen or only know them to be such, then that's your personal opinion the fact that you make a general assumption is your fault and the reason why I and others scratched are heads and stopped to make sure you didn't bump yours.

 

[GTPorsche]

Fairypansy Girly Anus.

It's a solid cool car.

 

[AlvaroF]

You realize this is 45 year old technology and was unmatched at the time right? Some of these cars were literally the supercars of the day, nothing could touch them on the street.

What I was trying to say is that they could be the fastest affordable cars out there, but you'd have to pull up to the pump in every 100 yards. But then who cared about fuel efficiency when petrol was cheap and abundant...

I still think it was a waste of engine for what it could do. The cars can still be clever, but in 68, a stock Ferrari was the fastest production car. With a bit more care and not spending much they could top the Ferrari. And then would be even cooler than they are now.

Of course this is just my opinion

In the 1960s, rated power numbers didn't mean anything. Or, more frankly, they meant whatever the marketing department wanted them to.

With these they tend over do stuff in the brochure.

 

[Joey D]

Actually there is a lot based on fact in the cool wall, just not the parts of why you think it's cool. That doesn't however mean you get to sidestep and claim every statement that isn't stats on the car being talked about is suddenly opinion because you want to be vague and try to get away with it.

I think I made it clear that I couldn't careless how you feel about the car at this point, your warped perception is the issue. And I say yeah put those signs up, unless you like debating me then keep avoiding it I don't mind.

It was always meant as opinion since the cool wall is always about opinion, and frankly I don't really believe it was that misguided of an opinion based on my own observations.

Being blunt is now considered snide? Well this is a new world you've opened my eyes too

When it has nothing to do with the conversation and was just thrown in there casually, then yes, it was snide.

The part in bold, is not opinion it's making a claim, and thus would act fact based or truthful. Now if you had said you've seen or only know them to be such, then that's your personal opinion the fact that you make a general assumption is your fault and the reason why I and others scratched are heads and stopped to make sure you didn't bump yours.

Fine, then I should have been clearer. I fully meant that as my opinion on the car and not as fact. If I wanted it to be presented as fact, I would have stated "muscle cars aren't cool because it's a fact that they're only ever owned by old guys and loved by rednecks". Plus I added the "primarily" in there meaning I wasn't attempting to say the only people that own these are old guys and red necks. Anyone can own anything.

 

[Rage Racer]

Cool.
Not Sub-Zero because it's not a Mustang.

 

[Sage Ages]

One of the more overdone muscle cars, and not in a good way. It also seems too similar to the Mustang with could be a good or bad thing based on your point of view. Uncool.

 

[Slash]

What I was trying to say is that they could be the fastest affordable cars out there, but you'd have to pull up to the pump in every 100 yards. But then who cared about fuel efficiency when petrol was cheap and abundant...

Despite what you might think, if you keep your foot out of the pedal, they aren't that bad on gas. I mean, not what you get today, but not as bad as you might think. Back then it didn't matter anyways.

I still think it was a waste of engine for what it could do. The cars can still be clever, but in 68, a stock Ferrari was the fastest production car. With a bit more care and not spending much they could top the Ferrari. And then would be even cooler than they are now.

Of course this is just my opinion

Might I remind you of just how badly Ferrari got their ass handed to them repeatedly by Ford in LeMans? And then Porsche, Alfa Romeo etc in the Trans Am series by just about all the muscle cars, and yes all cars were factory modified to about 470 horsepower in those series. With a small block 5.0L engine. So yes, the factory was very much capable of producing high horsepower engines. That was unseen by many production cars for a LONG time.

Might I also remind you that the GT500 Super Snake was capable of 170mph, in 1967, with the 427 FE engine. That wasn't even the best engine that it could have recieved, and that's a mere 4 mph slower than the hailed Ferrari of 1968, and the aerodynamics do not even compare. A more aerodynamic car and it would have whizzed right passed them. Want to know why it was so fast? Because power, not aerodynamics which the Ferrari seemed to rely on.

Believe me, I'm not sticking up for every muscle car out there because lord knows plenty of them could get destroyed by a modern Camry, but respect needs to be shown where it's due.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It was always meant as opinion since the cool wall is always about opinion, and frankly I don't really believe it was that misguided of an opinion based on my own observations.

It doesn't matter if the damn cool wall or not, it doesn't supersede that most people would still interpret it at a damn non-opinion or opinion trying to play fact. You trying to make a cop out by saying "we're in the cool wall thus international waters" doesn't mean crap.

When it has nothing to do with the conversation and was just thrown in there casually, then yes, it was snide.

What part, the part that I say myself is for another conversation. Glad I covered my bases even if you still want to complain.

Fine, then I should have been clearer. I fully meant that as my opinion on the car and not as fact. If I wanted it to be presented as fact, I would have stated "muscle cars aren't cool because it's a fact that they're only ever owned by old guys and loved by rednecks". Plus I added the "primarily" in there meaning I wasn't attempting to say the only people that own these are old guys and red necks. Anyone can own anything.

Wow reason finally wins. Also you don't have to state the word fact or phrase "it's a fact" because people expect you to make truthful statements unless you're specifying your personal belief that you're entitled to. I saw primarily, hence why I asked how you came to that majority. Did you read my rebuke toward you quotes or did you just see a guy saying things against you can decided to fire back? Cause if you legitimately read what I said you wouldn't have echoed me a few times in this post.

 

[Sage Ages]

Because power, not aerodynamics which the Ferrari seemed to rely on.

"Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines." - Enzo Ferrari

 

[McLaren]

I don't see any Ferrari's some the '60s pumping out 650+ horsepower like the 427 SOHC.

And I don't see any old school muscle cars tearing up the GP circuits like Ferrari did.

Might I remind you of just how badly Ferrari got their ass handed to them repeatedly by Ford in LeMans?

You mean by Brits in a car with an unlimited budget because Ford was butt hurt over the deal? Where has Ford been in the 1 racing series Ferrari has continued their efforts in since the company was formed?

And then Porsche, Alfa Romeo etc in the Trans Am series by just about all the muscle cars, and yes all cars were factory modified to about 470 horsepower in those series. With a small block 5.0L engine. So yes, the factory was very much capable of producing high horsepower engines. That was unseen by many production cars for a LONG time.

This is like claiming that Audi whooped Corvette's ass repeatedly in ALMS.

This was a 2 tier racing series with the Europeans in the Under 2.0 liter category.

Might I also remind you that the GT500 Super Snake was capable of 170mph, in 1967, with the 427 FE engine. That wasn't even the best engine that it could have recieved, and that's a mere 4 mph slower than the hailed Ferrari of 1968, and the aerodynamics do not even compare. A more aerodynamic car and it would have whizzed right passed them. Want to know why it was so fast? Because power, not aerodynamics which the Ferrari seemed to rely on.

500Hp+ horsepower, (at least 150Hp more than the Ferrari) and it was only slightly slower by a couple mph.

This is hardly something to brag about. If anything, it shows how piss poor Shelby was developing his car by throwing power at it whilst Ferrari went the smart route & didn't design a goddamn brick. If you want to talk about how if Shelby had put in a bigger engine just to "whiz right by them", I'm sure the Daytona with another 50 horsepower would have done the same. Your example only speaks the testament of Ferrari's superiority in technology, not Shelby.

Believe me, I'm not sticking up for every muscle car out there because lord knows plenty of them could get destroyed by a modern Camry, but respect needs to be shown where it's due.

Of which, you're doing none yourself.

 

[TheCracker]

Might I also remind you that the GT500 Super Snake was capable of 170mph, in 1967, with the 427 FE engine. That wasn't even the best engine that it could have recieved, and that's a mere 4 mph slower than the hailed Ferrari of 1968, and the aerodynamics do not even compare. A more aerodynamic car and it would have whizzed right passed them. Want to know why it was so fast? Because power, not aerodynamics which the Ferrari seemed to rely on.

Of course Ford needed three attempts before they beat Ferrari at LeMans, requiring bigger and bigger engines and extensive aerodynamic redesigns before winning (entering 8 cars that year)

 

[Tornado]

I still think it was a waste of engine for what it could do.

Actually, well... the big engines of the Big 3 were usually junk unless you got the top spec ones (which were about as extensively redesigned as the difference between the engine in an Acura Legend and the engine in the Acura NSX). Despite the ratings presented in the OP, "what it could do" for the 390 was considerably less than what the highest spec 351 in the same car was probably doing (as well as being lighter and much, much smaller); and the situation was similar with the crappy regular production 396 versus the fuel injected SBC it replaced (there were a lot of engineering fights when designing the C3 Corvette for exactly that reason), or the asthmatic 383 versus the LA 340.

They were specced that way because they were much cheaper for the manufacturer and considerably easier to live with while giving the impression of a significant performance upgrade (though not necessarily the reality of a significant performance upgrade), since they tended to essentially be transplanted truck engines.

 

[Parker]

For what it's worth, in my opinion at least, there is a huge difference between a redneck and white trash. Generally I consider the guys who scream "Murica, V8 F YEAH!" guys to be white trash but people seem to interchange the two. Just an observation.

 

[Panoz]

On the Eliminator name, it was the late 60's and early 70's. The carmakers were trying too hard to put a cool names on their cars.

Other guilty names:

Sub-zero on the Cougar anyways.

 

[Wiegert]

The Machine will forever be the most amusing of those performance packs. Not only because it had the most patriotic factory paint scheme, but because I can't think of it without this playing through my mind.


It's also worth noting that the original Eliminator has got nothing on the 90s SVE concept of the same name.

http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-ford/FMC-concepts-prototypes-showcars/sve_cougar-eliminator/

 

[Turtle]

I'm torn. Muscle cars are generally uncool, but the Cougar isn't as bad as some of the others. I like the performance of this version but not the looks. This would end up in 'meh', but I've decided that if that's my reaction, the car is uncool.

http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-ford/FMC-concepts-prototypes-showcars/sve_cougar-eliminator/

That is the classiest car I've ever seen.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The Machine will forever be the most amusing of those performance packs. Not only because it had the most patriotic factory paint scheme, but because I can't think of it without this playing through my mind.


It's also worth noting that the original Eliminator has got nothing on the 90s SVE concept of the same name.

http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-ford/FMC-concepts-prototypes-showcars/sve_cougar-eliminator/

What moron did they give the tools to do the exhaust work on it...looks silly

 

[ThrasherDBS]

Classic muscle cars earn an instant Sub-Zero from me.