GTP Cool Wall: 1969-1970 Mercury Cougar Eliminator

[spencer7x7]

I'm not a fan of huge muscle cars in general, they seem sterile for me. It's a meh for me.

 

[Johnny1996]

Sub-zero. Why? Because muscle car.

 

[Liquid]

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

To be fair this is a horrible quote used to justify all kinds of ludicrous horsepower debating nonsense.

For what it's worth I believe this was a late 60s quote about the state of Formula 1 and early winged cars which were dangerous. It's not necessarily in support of overblown production car figures. As @McLaren pointed out, actual Ferraris with lower power figures and better drag coefficients were much better around circuits than their Detroit counterparts, and the Prancing Horse maintained the speed records.

Even if you go back into F1, Ferrari's lack of success 1979-1999, twenty years, can be argued to be down to the Scuderia's insistance on heavy flat 12s and V12s right up until 1995 while their nimbler rivals cruised past with L4Ts, V10s and even a V8 in 1994.

It's a nice quote, with quaint pretensions of Old Man Ferrari's days of supercharged 1930s Alfas at AVUS but it simply doesn't stack up.

 

[Tornado]

And when Shelby got truly serious about racing internationally, the car he managed to put together sure looked an awful lot like those Ferraris (and to a lesser extent, the Aston Martins) he raced it against.

 

[Zenith]

This thread is all over the place.

Are muscle cars fast? No, not stock.

Were muscle cars fast? Depends on the car, many of the high end models were and proved this in international racing.

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

Were the factory horsepower ratings incorrect? Yes.

Did they make 650hp? Not a chance. None of the drivetrains the Big 3 were making at the time would have been able to handle that kind of power.

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.

No they couldn't have. If they had spent more time on the car then it would've cost more, if they had spent enough to try and top Ferrari it would cost much more. And what would be the point of that? It's a muscle/pony car, that's what people wanted it to be, not a Ferrari beater.

We can get into another argument about displacement, but I doubt it will go anywhere. Trying to compare the output per displacement between a OHC and OHV engine is pointless. It indicates that you know little about engine design if you deride OHV engines for their low specific output.

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.

But it matters today. Today is today and we're judging the coolness of the car today. You can't use age as an excuse. The car is crap on gas. This affects its cool rating.

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.

But it wasn't more aerodynamic, it was a Mustang. So it wouldn't have whizzed right by, in fact, it would've gotten whizzed right by on by the Ferrari at most speeds because aerodynamics help you accelerate more .

Why are you trying to compare a Shelby Mustang to a Ferrari? @McLaren is right, you're not helping your case. In fact, you're being an example of why old muscle cars are so uncool.

I see this so much and it makes me cringe.

• Fairy-tale horsepower claims "justified" by inaccurate factory power claims
• Tall tales of blue collar muh-sull cars being able to walk all over exotics of the time because power.
• Claims of being able to drastically increase performance with one or two minor mods.

And of course the moment anyone finds a legitimate fault with the car it's just chalked up to things being different back then, which is a cop out.

Remember those guys who drove Dodge Neons that grab about how they could totally out drag Corvettes by adding a high performance radiator hose? That's what you're doing. I like your taste in cars, you've got a great knowledge base of their models and design, but you liking a car doesn't change what it was and is capable of.

 

[CarBastard]

This thread is all over the place.

Are muscle cars fast? No, not stock.

Were muscle cars fast? Depends on the car, many of the high end models were and proved this in international racing.



Were the factory horsepower ratings incorrect? Yes.

Did they make 650hp? Not a chance. None of the drivetrains the Big 3 were making at the time would have been able to handle that kind of power.



No they couldn't have. If they had spent more time on the car then it would've cost more, if they had spent enough to try and top Ferrari it would cost much more. And what would be the point of that? It's a muscle/pony car, that's what people wanted it to be, not a Ferrari beater.

We can get into another argument about displacement, but I doubt it will go anywhere. Trying to compare the output per displacement between a OHC and OHV engine is pointless. It indicates that you know little about engine design if you deride OHV engines for their low specific output.



But it matters today. Today is today and we're judging the coolness of the car today. You can't use age as an excuse. The car is crap on gas. This affects its cool rating.



But it wasn't more aerodynamic, it was a Mustang. So it wouldn't have whizzed right by, in fact, it would've gotten whizzed right by on by the Ferrari at most speeds because aerodynamics help you accelerate more .

Why are you trying to compare a Shelby Mustang to a Ferrari? @McLaren is right, you're not helping your case. In fact, you're being an example of why old muscle cars are so uncool.

I see this so much and it makes me cringe.

• Fairy-tale horsepower claims "justified" by inaccurate factory power claims
• Tall tales of blue collar muh-sull cars being able to walk all over exotics of the time because power.
• Claims of being able to drastically increase performance with one or two minor mods.

And of course the moment anyone finds a legitimate fault with the car it's just chalked up to things being different back then, which is a cop out.

Remember those guys who drove Dodge Neons that grab about how they could totally out drag Corvettes by adding a high performance radiator hose? That's what you're doing. I like your taste in cars, you've got a great knowledge base of their models and design, but you liking a car doesn't change what it was and is capable of.

Can I be like you when I grow up? Pretty please?

 

[Sage Ages]

To be fair this is a horrible quote used to justify all kinds of ludicrous horsepower debating nonsense.

For what it's worth I believe this was a late 60s quote about the state of Formula 1 and early winged cars which were dangerous. It's not necessarily in support of overblown production car figures. As @McLaren pointed out, actual Ferraris with lower power figures and better drag coefficients were much better around circuits than their Detroit counterparts, and the Prancing Horse maintained the speed records.

Even if you go back into F1, Ferrari's lack of success 1979-1999, twenty years, can be argued to be down to the Scuderia's insistance on heavy flat 12s and V12s right up until 1995 while their nimbler rivals cruised past with L4Ts, V10s and even a V8 in 1994.

It's a nice quote, with quaint pretensions of Old Man Ferrari's days of supercharged 1930s Alfas at AVUS but it simply doesn't stack up.

You do realize I only posted that because it was ironic, right?

 

[Slash]

This thread is all over the place.

Are muscle cars fast? No, not stock.

Were muscle cars fast? Depends on the car, many of the high end models were and proved this in international racing.



Were the factory horsepower ratings incorrect? Yes.

Did they make 650hp? Not a chance. None of the drivetrains the Big 3 were making at the time would have been able to handle that kind of power.



No they couldn't have. If they had spent more time on the car then it would've cost more, if they had spent enough to try and top Ferrari it would cost much more. And what would be the point of that? It's a muscle/pony car, that's what people wanted it to be, not a Ferrari beater.

We can get into another argument about displacement, but I doubt it will go anywhere. Trying to compare the output per displacement between a OHC and OHV engine is pointless. It indicates that you know little about engine design if you deride OHV engines for their low specific output.



But it matters today. Today is today and we're judging the coolness of the car today. You can't use age as an excuse. The car is crap on gas. This affects its cool rating.



But it wasn't more aerodynamic, it was a Mustang. So it wouldn't have whizzed right by, in fact, it would've gotten whizzed right by on by the Ferrari at most speeds because aerodynamics help you accelerate more .

Why are you trying to compare a Shelby Mustang to a Ferrari? @McLaren is right, you're not helping your case. In fact, you're being an example of why old muscle cars are so uncool.

I see this so much and it makes me cringe.

• Fairy-tale horsepower claims "justified" by inaccurate factory power claims
• Tall tales of blue collar muh-sull cars being able to walk all over exotics of the time because power.
• Claims of being able to drastically increase performance with one or two minor mods.

And of course the moment anyone finds a legitimate fault with the car it's just chalked up to things being different back then, which is a cop out.

Remember those guys who drove Dodge Neons that grab about how they could totally out drag Corvettes by adding a high performance radiator hose? That's what you're doing. I like your taste in cars, you've got a great knowledge base of their models and design, but you liking a car doesn't change what it was and is capable of.

I suppose I do get a little worked up.

You make good points. Both you and McLaren.

 

[White & Nerdy]

I'm sorry, but

The car is crap on gas. This affects its cool rating.

This is not the gas mileage wall. Fuel efficiency is a good thing, but it's not cool, even if you're poor and need it. The only people who think gas mileage affects coolness are environmentalists and people more deserving than I of my username.

 

[Zenith]

I'm sorry, but

This is not the gas mileage wall. Fuel efficiency is a good thing, but it's not cool, even if you're poor and need it. The only people who think gas mileage affects coolness are environmentalists and people more deserving than I of my username.

Everything affects coolness. I never said that bad gas mileage was uncool, I never said that good gas mileage is cool.

 

[MoLiEG]

Mercury Cougar.

It's the 2st car name I learned when I was a little boy (1st one was Chrysler Spirit)...

Solid Cool I say! 👍

 

[Tornado]

Conspicuous consumption is no less uncool than pretentious preservation.

 

[homeforsummer]

People who specifically want the understated versions tend to be the kind of person who would gladly buy numbers-matching air for their tires, which is seriously, seriously uncool.

This made me smile.

The Cougar I think is cool - the specific Cougar I think of when someone mentions "Mercury Cougar" is owned by a person on this forum. It has a mis-matched door, all the vinyl peeled off the roof and whatever is left is left, a primered hood and a manual transmission swap since it used to be an auto. I won't post a photo, since I don't like posting someone's facebook photos online, but my favourite picture of it is of it being used on a drag strip.

It's about as far from matching numbers tedium as it's possible to get and doesn't need tacky stick-on crap to make a statement.

The car in the OP, on the other hand?

I'd be quite surprised if it isn't matching-numbers. And I bet it spends a lot more time with its hood up at shows wowing kids like you and Slash, people talking about how fast it goes rather than the reality of it actually being used to go fast. It maybe did a burnout once, and then the owner, wanting to preserve it because it's "special", spent hours cleaning vulcanized rubber particles off the rear fenders.

Sorry, give me a well-used standard version any time. Much, much cooler than the ones covered in stickers.

 

[White & Nerdy]

However, an Eliminator that actually gets used...

Speaking of, give me one of these and I promise, it will get used, or abused as the case may be. If I'm feeling brave, maybe I'll even get some snow tires and drive it year-round. And it'll probably end up very far from numbers-matching as well. I'm not the kind to go for fake patina, but I'm 18 y.o. with not much of a budget, so any modification I try to make myself will probably end up looking pretty ghetto, assuming I can conquer my laziness thoroughly enough to even get that far. Quick quiz, how many of you, if you saw a Cougar Eiliminator with custom front splitter, wing, side skirts, and wide fenders, all obviously functional and all doused in primer to stave off rust, would want to punch the owner?

 

[homeforsummer]

And that's another reason standard, rather than special-edition muscle cars are cooler (and why I'm disappointed more haven't been polled) - they're the ones you're much more likely to see being used how they should. The special editions are the high-value cars that are endlessly traded around at auctions or kept in air-conditioned garages, rather than getting driven every day.

As for your quiz, I'm not an oaf so I don't automatically want to punch people I see doing stupid things, but my first thought would be whether any of that crap actually was functional or not. I'd more likely see it as someone who'd needlessly stuck bits of plastic to an otherwise perfectly good Cougar. If it was out on the track? I might assume all that plastic was serving some sort of purpose.

 

[Slash]

People nominate the high end special edition ones because they are the ones most people typically consider cool and memorable for their presence and power. While I can understand your point about plain ones (and I even agree, and I actually would rather do that anyways), a special edition cars made big time names for themselves by being the fastest ones you could buy, sometimes the best handling ones too. Granted I am sometimes upset that they aren't driven hard like those plain cars you mentioned, but knowing they have the balls to put up a hell of a fight makes them cool in itself. Despite the rarity and performance of these things that is what makes them valuable. Because they were the cream of the crop. And that's what people remember. Like the Cobra Jet Mustang. Iconic name. Hell of a fast car for the time. People remember that. And 50 years later that name is still alive and well.

Most of them left such an impact based in history on the population that they have a huge legacy. That's where a lot of false information comes into play sometimes. That's why muscle cars are famous to begin with. 375-450 horsepower and 450-500 lb-ft of torque (sometimes even higher) was absolutely unmatched for the day; for years even. The special edition cars had all of the go fast parts; the big block engines, the low axle ratios and close ratio transmissions etc. They were made to be fast; while plain jane small block cars were the slow muscle cars and transportation if that makes sense. Everyone wants fast fast fast. And that is why people nominate them. The memorable ones. Bold styling, crazy names, funky stickers, lots of power, easily fixed and cheap go fast. Its really pretty simple. What's not to love?

Basically, they've got the guts to do what people say they can, and the presence they give off makes you realize that, without them actually needing do it.


I always thought that was neat and cool. Part of the reason why I like them.



Maybe its just me but I always enjoyed the attention. These cars just scream "look at me" and wether or not you think I am a douche as long as I think I look and feel cool I am happy. I don't know about you guys but pulling out of some place when everyone's looking at you and the loud rumble of the exhaust takes over shaking the ground, well that just plain makes me smile.

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

Yet another argument in a cool wall thread! How surprising! (Sarcasm)

As for the car, solid cool!

 

[Famine]

As for your quiz, I'm not an oaf so I don't automatically want to punch people I see doing stupid things, but my first thought would be whether any of that crap actually was functional or not. I'd more likely see it as someone who'd needlessly stuck bits of plastic to an otherwise perfectly good Cougar. If it was out on the track? I might assume all that plastic was serving some sort of purpose.

I'd be too busy making vibrator jokes.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yet another argument in a cool wall thread! How surprising! (Sarcasm)

It's not an argument, it's a discussion. If you aren't interested in partaking in discussions, then that's fine - but try not to get all high-and-mighty when others do.

People nominate the high end special edition ones because they are the ones most people typically consider cool and memorable for their presence and power. While I can understand your point about plain ones (and I even agree, and I actually would rather do that anyways), a special edition cars made big time names for themselves by being the fastest ones you could buy, sometimes the best handling ones too. Granted I am sometimes upset that they aren't driven hard like those plain cars you mentioned, but knowing they have the balls to put up a hell of a fight makes them cool in itself. Despite the rarity and performance of these things that is what makes them valuable. Because they were the cream of the crop. And that's what people remember. Like the Cobra Jet Mustang. Iconic name. Hell of a fast car for the time. People remember that. And 50 years later that name is still alive and well.

The difference is, a Cobra Jet Mustang is well-known to people who know about Mustangs. A Mustang itself is well-known to basically anyone.

This, I think, goes back to having to explain what you have, and that explaining what you have isn't particularly cool. The only place explaining what you have is particularly socially acceptable is around groups of other people who like staring at shiny engines and single model-year sticker packs.

If people like doing that sort of thing, then fair play to them - I can hardly comment, since we're all discussing this on a forum about a videogame (where people regularly discuss the merits of it against older videogames, or videogames made by other companies...). But it's not really cool.

But you can be anywhere with a regular 60s Mustang of undetermined origin - or to make it thread-relevant, a Cougar - and people will probably think it's cool. The bottom line is you don't need the stickers and bodykit or even the extra power - the car alone is cool, and quirky car-guy specific things erode that slightly.

And that is why people nominate them. The memorable ones. Bold styling, crazy names, funky stickers, lots of power, easily fixed and cheap go fast. Its really pretty simple. What's not to love?

I can understand your passion for it, but I can't really agree. I love the muscle car itself as an entity. It's cool because of what it stands for.

The moment you start rattling off numbers and chassis codes and sticker packs and weird options it takes away from the beautiful simplicity of what muscle cars are all about.

I don't know about you guys but pulling out of some place when everyone's looking at you and the loud rumble of the exhaust takes over shaking the ground, well that just plain makes me smile.

I like that too. Only I like it even more if the rest of the car isn't shouting, "LOOK! LOOK! LOOK AT MEEEEE! I'M BRIGHT AND SHINY AND LOOK!"

I'm not sure if you've seen the recent Leno vid with the Jag XK-SS, once owned by Steve McQueen and now at the Petersen Museum. Now McQueen was cool, and the XK-SS was cool. But McQueen had the original white with red interior changed to a dark British racing green and black interior, as white/red was too showy.

That I like. The car doesn't need to be bright and showy to be cool - if anything a photo like this:

...is far more iconic for the car not being loud and dramatic (to the extent an XK-SS can lack those qualities) than if it was painted some bright shade and covered in stickers. The same, to me, applies for muscle cars - whether the Eliminator was special, or powerful, or the top of the tree or whatever, it's still not as cool as a bog-standard Cougar. The Eliminator is the one people buy so they can tell people they've bought the shiny expensive one rather than just getting out there and driving it.

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

It's not an argument, it's a discussion. If you aren't interested in partaking in discussions, then that's fine - but try not to get all high-and-mighty when others do.

Doesn't look like it to me most of the time. I'll partake in them if needed and I am certainly not getting all high and mighty.

 

[Tornado]

It's certainly nice to know that you've stopped by to say nothing at all, then.

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

It's certainly nice to know that you've stopped by to say nothing at all, then.

You're quite welcome.

 

[Cano]

This car is awesome. I have always liked the Eliminator package not so much because of the mechanical parts, but because of how it looks. Of course, I have always liked the stupid stuff that was on full swing during the muscle-car era (I love the AMC Rebel Machine for example) because today it's higly nostalgic. Of course the Eliminator name is stupid (as is the Rebel Machine) but I do think you have to judge these cars with a bit of nostalgia, if you're refering at totally stock examples. Having said that, I like most of the high-impact packages for muscle-cars precisely for that. Like "what the hell were they thiking?"-mentality. And because I also like muscle cars that are not subtle at all. They're muscle cars, they are almost made for that.

I do agree that today these things will most likely be auction fodder and I find that extremely sad... yet again the same happens with virtually every collector car. @homeforsummer quoted the McQueen Jag in a picture, wonder how much that gets used. It's all part of the collector car phenomenon. Of course, it preserves them. Is it cool? I don't think so.

Still, I think a Eliminator Cougar stillll barely misses the too-costly-to-use-hard stigma that many top-dog muscle-cars epitomize today. You could arguably still find one or two that are more or less trashed on the street. Maybe.

EDIT: Oh, also, Ford muscle that isn't a Mustang is always always cool.

 

[homeforsummer]

I do agree that today these things will most likely be auction fodder and I find that extremely sad... yet again the same happens with virtually every collector car. @homeforsummer quoted the McQueen Jag in a picture, wonder how much that gets used. It's all part of the collector car phenomenon. Of course, it preserves them. Is it cool? I don't think so.

At the time, plenty (McQueen apparently often used it to drive around LA in the 60s and 70s - there's photos of him driving it littering the internet).

Now that it's at the Petersen, not so much I expect, though the Petersen is known for letting its exhibits out now and then.

However, I was more using it to illustrate that a bright paint job and something that shouts about its presence isn't necessarily cool. I prefer an iron fist in a velvet glove to an iron fist with a large neon sign above it reading "THIS IS AN IRON FIST"...

 

[Beeblebrox237]

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.

Oh, the irony. Enzo Ferrari himself said that "aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines." The engine was always at the heart of a Ferrari of that era. Aerodynamics were sacrificed for appearance, but the engine was always a masterpiece.

It should also be noted that you appear to be getting some of your information from Wikipedia, here's a direct quote:
"The 1967 GT-500 Super Snake was something special for it's time. Equipped with a 427 FE engine from Ford that produced over 650 horsepower, the car was capable of reaching speeds over 150mph, and at one point even hitting 170mph while testing tires for Goodyear."

This paragraph has no citation, so it's not credible. It could have been written by anyone, there's no real evidence to prove what's said here. And it should be noted that the 170 mph mark sounds like it was a one time mark, while the Daytona could far more consistently hit over 170.

 

[Cano]

At the time, plenty (McQueen apparently often used it to drive around LA in the 60s and 70s - there's photos of him driving it littering the internet).

Now that it's at the Petersen, not so much I expect, though the Petersen is known for letting its exhibits out now and then.

However, I was more using it to illustrate that bright paint job and something that shouts about its presence isn't necessarily cool. I prefer an iron fist in a velvet glove to an iron fist with a large neon sign above it reading "THIS IS AN IRON FIST"...

Yeah, I understood the point of your post perfectly, I was using something that had been posted in this thread so it would be easily referenced.

In the same vein, I'm sure most of the Eliminators sold back then were rudely used and trashed, and the ones that are now kept in climate-controlled garages come out to play once in a while. As I said, it's all part of the collector-car phenomenon.

 

[JAHHAJ]

Almost Sub Zero but not quite. I love this car it looks great, probably one of my top 5 muscle cars, I don't care about stupid names if I like a car I like it regardless of name. What I love about this car is that it's pretty much what a muscle car should be (in my opinion), a big brash unsubtle car.

 

[huskeR32]

To the people complaining about the name: ...seriously?

From the VW up! thread:

My take? I absolutely despise this car. The questionable styling and tiny engines are just the start. The name, with its lack of capitals and its ending in an exclamation point, are trying way too hard to be trendy in the worst way, and its variants aren't much better, at least with regards to the actual model names.

From the LaFerrari thread:

My take? Well, it's a supercar, with a ridiculous power output, so it's starting off nicely. But, it's a Ferrari supercar, it doesn't look that good, and it's a hybrid - they even bothered to quote CO2 emissions figures! Also, it translates to Ferrari TheFerrari, which means it has a stupid name.

You're priceless.

 

[Dennisch]

Consistent as a politician.

 

[Roger the Horse]

And a Liberal Democrat, at that.