Unacceptable!!

"Unacceptable" - adjective; Not suitable or satisfactory. Synonyms include disagreeable, obnoxious, and/or half-baked. I find it ironic that as diverse as the hot rod / muscle car / old-school racing hobby is, with God knows how many different genres and sub-cultures that are under that massive umbrella, I still hear that term - unacceptable - when it comes to vehicles.

I know there are still some people out there who simply cannot accept the fact that a new Challenger R/T, Mustang GT, or Camaro SS, (never mind a 4-door Charger R/T), can be a muscle car. No matter how much power is at the rear wheels. No matter to the fact that any one of these four vehicles can now blow the doors off any 60's / early 70's muscle car. In my humble opinion, that's a shame. We're finally at the point, technology wise, where the manufacturers can literally flip the feds and the EPA the bird, with uber-fast and technologically advanced vehicles that will pass any safety, emissions, and gas mileage requirement that gets tossed at them. (Photo above courtesy of Hot Rod Magazine)

But, on the other side of the coin, I can sympathize with those out there who are still anti-modern muscle car. How? I can remember back in 1987 when Cars magazine drag strip tested a newly restyled 1987 Fox body Mustang with the 225 horse 5.0 V-8 against a 1969 Mach 1 with a 428 Cobra Jet. As I read the article and the results, I was pissed that the Cobra Jet lost. I mean, it wasn't even close. As a result, I will admit that it took me a number of years to fully embrace modern things like EFI, overdrive transmissions, and turbos in classic Detroit iron. Adding insult to injury, the magazine summarized the lop-sided results; "... the future is here. The refreshed 5.0 screams like a Boss."

I guess it all depends what's been beaten into you (brainwashed?) at a certain age or by society. In my freelance automotive photography, I love shooting vintage vehicles that are kind of rough and loaded with patina - sometimes more so than beautifully restored hot rods. At times, I feel there's more angles and characteristics to photograph. But in classic human fashion, there are still some aspects of the car and nostalgia racing hobby that I am trying to adjust to.

First, is the use of patina in cars and trucks. Oddly enough, for me the years differ between the two types of vehicles. For cars, nothing built after 1963. But for trucks, I'm cool with patina and the mother-nature look up to around 1970. I think this stems from the fact that trucks were always considered work vehicles while I was growing up. They were supposed to look more beat up than the family sedan. I can really throw a monkey wrench into this debate, by saying I'm cool with patina and faded paint on drag-only cars up to say 1974. I'm not just talking funny cars here - I'm talking mild pro-stock / super-stock cars, or those barn-find local race cars. Even though they look a hell of lot like what the factory offered, in my mind they were never driven on the street - only on the strip. That's different.

I was on a high performance Chevy forum and one thread in particular was on fire because of some pictures of a late 70's Nova SS (picture on right used for example purposes only) that had the factory applied medium blue paint, but was weathered with patina. It had cool mag wheels, the factory bucket seat interior with the atypical array of after-market gauges, and the usual big tires out back / smaller tires up front raked look. It was if someone took a car that was era-modified, shoved it into a barn for 40 years, then took it out when it was done. Members galore were saying the patina was unacceptable because the car was not old enough. Things got so heated, the thread was removed by one of the sites moderators.

Even street and rat rods have run into these scenarios, but people are usually a little more tolerable about things because the vehicles in question are way older - for some reason that makes a difference. I found that even with rat rods, people have their line in the sand. But in retrospect, that was one of the main reasons behind the rat rod movement - some people just don't give a shit what others think.  

There are different types of supposed unacceptability in other aspects of automotive, especially racing. Most enthusiasts have seen and/or heard of the famous Smokey Yunick "7/8ths" 1966 Chevelle he built for NASCAR. Even back then, NASCAR had stringent rules regarding a vehicles body. It had to be the same dimensions as the factory model or it was no-can-do. One of the controversies that surrounded this car was when NASCAR measured it, they claimed it was too short - the body was not a stock length. It was deemed unacceptable for racing. Smokey did two things to overcome this. First, he compared his measuring jig to the one used by NASCAR - it was the same. Then he had one of his crew go to the local Hertz office and rent a new 1966 Chevelle. When the rental came back, Smokey measured his race car, then the stock unit. It measured identical. To this day, no one knows how this happened, but Yunick was allowed to race his "mystery" Chevelle.

Another story that comes to mind was an article that appeared in the early 90's in Mopar Action, where the magazine's tech editor Richard Ehrenberg and a good friend of his raced a homely looking 1987 Dodge Omni GLH (with the factory 2.2 liter turbo engine) in the famous One Lap of America race (similar to the pic but without the hood scoop). The team replaced the factory boost gauge with a more accurate after-market one. Once the team started cleaning the clocks of much more expensive iron, that gauge sparked rumors of a nitrous-fed motor amongst other things. Once those rumors were quelled, about halfway through the race, the man who organizes this entire event approached the team. He basically told them that he just couldn't have an Omni win this race - it would be unacceptable to too many fans. Excuse me? Ehrenberg was so pissed off, he almost dropped out in protest, but he ignored the warnings of the organizer. They did run into one or two technical problems that kept them from winning, but they did finish 8th overall - out of 50 total entries.

Even muscle car advertising, as wild as things got by the late 60's, had it's "unacceptable" moments. The ad I'm featuring this week only ran once - in the December 1967 issue of Motor Trend. It shows a new 1968 GTO in a turn-around area off the famous Woodward Avenue in Detroit - known nationwide for it's illegal street racing activities. What little wording the ad contains says it all. It also conjured up concepts of a GTO owner waiting for his next street race. Unfortunately, GM brass knew it too and pulled the ad.

Embrace new things people! United we stand... divided we fall.
Until next time, peace out.
Dave