TBK-Light.com

Hi this is a somewhat random question but I have heard generation4 being described as starting in 1992, but just from looking at the cars, I can't really tell a difference between 1991 and 1992. Was there not much physical difference? What were the differences? Or am I blind?

_________________
R.I.P. Justin

Completely agree. It would make so much more sense if Gen 3 ended '93 and Gen 4 started in 94, IMO. Roof flaps and slab sided rockers were introduced in Cup for 1994.

Except for the separation between Gen 2 and 3, and Gen 4 and 5, the rest are all arbitrary. They just picked a random point to mark the start of all the other ones. For example, it's hardly true that the cars were 'strictly stock' until 1966.

I remember when that came out, typical NASCAR bullshit.

I'd call 2003-2007 its own generation, that's when NASCAR moved to common templates across makes and the cars started resembling weird Hannibal Lecter-esque flesh masks.

_________________

Might just be a weird personal perception, but I feel like the big visual transformation in the Gen 4 era was from 1994 to 1995.

1995 was Chevy's Lumina to Monte Carlo switch, which was a pretty drastic styling difference. However, the Fords look essentially identical to me between those two years. That's just off the top of my head, anyone know more in depth?

I always thought the big change between 3 and 4 happened when the Taurus was introduced in 98. That was kinda the beginning of the body style doesn't have to really match the street car era. Making the four door look like a two door was goofy as hell.

That makes more sense, now that you mention it.

I'd agree on that being a really notable change. During the mid-90s all the manufacturers started to shift toward putting headlight decals on the cars too, and the Fords were the last to do this with the Taurus, so that was merely a cosmetic thing, but it certainly helps mark that transition too.

I remember being close to facepalm back in the day they advertised that (2013 ?). Technically the radial tires appeared in the finale of '92. I don't see another thing to save their face.

I would tend to agree with this statement. The Ford Thunderbird was still sort of boxier than the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix, but when the Taurus came along it looked more aerodynamic than the T-Bird.

But trying to turn the Taurus into a two-door car when Ford never built it as a two-door production model was just...strange.

_________________
Montana Grizzlies | Seattle Seahawks | Vancouver Canucks | Seattle Sounders FC | Washington Huskies

Ah so basically it's arbitrary nonsense NASCAR conjured up after the fact?

_________________
R.I.P. Justin

1967 is when the H&M half frame chassis came in so that was a big development.

They were making custom chassis before that though so saying "strictly stock frame & body" isn't accurate.
But then they covered 18 years in a few words. Saying gen 2 had stock bodies isn't right either.

Revisionist history.

Soon we can look forward to Kyle Busch overtaking Richard Petty as winningest cup driver once they decide stage wins = race wins.

_________________

If I remember correctly, 1967 was the year after the Junior Johnson Yellow Banana debacle, and that may have been around the time Smokey Yunick showed up with a 7/8ths scale Chevelle. Around that time, NASCAR introduced templates to determine if the car bodies passed muster in their eyes or not.

For what it's worth, the first race NASCAR used templates, all but one car failed inspection the first time, if I remember correctly.

_________________
-Joe.
Atlanta United FC | Cincinnati Reds | Atlanta Falcons | Tennessee Titans

i would say its more of a representative date to signify the change that occurred gradually in the early 90s to more aero dependent body styles

Even in that case i see big changes in 1995 (chevy) 1996 (ponyiac) and 1998 (ford) not 1992

_________________
R.I.P. Justin

i agree that 1995 would be a better marker. maybe they wanted to signify a generational change based on petty's retirement?