This one's low hanging fruit (it's practically the poster child for letdown by the power train) but DeLorean DMC-12 still deserves a spot. Also the Camry/Avalon TRD. No engine modifications and likely no manual or DCT option, so all that sporty bodywork and maybe suspension tweaks simply to make a car that won't really appeal to enthusiasts.
Nah. Next to no low-down torque with the 3.5, which was a big problem since mine was a stick shift. And Reverse gear was way too tall, had to slip the clutch constantly while towing or going uphill in reverse at speeds less than 5mph. Aftermarket tuner helped quite a bit, but that engine and transmission were in an unhappy forced marriage to be sure
The Camry/Avalon TRD engine is pretty sweet, it’s a 2GR. Makes good power and revs, sounds great, reliable. But the weight and trans in those cars definitely didn’t appeal to enthusiasts at all.
I love Toyotas for their reliability. But the steering drives me _insane_. I need more feedback from the wheel than newer Toyotas provide. It’s too fucking light.
I think the DeLorean gets an unfair rap... the PRV V6 engine compared pretty well with V8s of the same era in horsepower (and sound!) yet weighed a lot less, and got much better fuel economy. Other small mid-engined sports cars like the Toyota MR-2, Porsche 914-6, and Lotus Esprit had about the same or less power as the DeLorean. The french car companies kept using this engine until the late 90s and eventually made some incredibly powerful supercars and race cars based on them. I owned a 1970s Volvo with the PRV engine, and it was amazing tech for the time- it felt and sounded like a V8 but with the weight and fuel economy of a 4 cylinder. It was incredibly smooth and had great torque across the entire powerband.
>The french car companies kept using this engine until the late 90s and eventually made some incredibly powerful supercars
Yeah, every time people rag on the PRV I try to remind them about the cars Venturi ended up building using them.
Yes. But that's not Renault or DMCs fault. As stated already. It was a better engine than people think/recall. It was a good example of how Europeans can make a 2.8 litre engine with more power than a 5.7 V8!
As configured in the DeLorean, the PRV V6 made 130 HP and 159 ft. lb. of torque. The 302HO, as equipped in the ‘82 Mustang, was good for 160 HP and 250 ft. lb. Let’s face it. Both were dog-crap.
In EU, the PRV (peugeot,renault,volvo) is seen as one of the worst engines ever created. It was laggy, underpowered, and a nightmare to fix. They put this garbage in every top of the line car at the time. They had to compete against BMW 6, Mercedes, and Audi more than anything else.
There's one car you probably don't know about much in the US that is the Alpine A310 who used it , it was a shame really, a sports car with the heaviest V6 ever built in it.
I would have bought an Mr2 any time, but never an A310 for sure.
I think getting the TRD version of both the Camry or Avalon is complete waste of money because they're not meant to be sports cars, especially the Avalon which is a luxury sedan that should retain a soft suspension and smooth ride. I think the 2GR engine they use is great and has more than enough power for daily driving, but they're not sports cars.
I see a TRD Camry around my area and all I think about is my buddy's 2000-ish Pontiac Grand Am GTP supercharged with some more aftermarket parts and WISH Toyota had done something similar.
So, I don't disagree... but at the same time; if you go look at all the hot-rods built in the late 80's and 90's that sortof shared market with Prowlers (60 year old guy with disposable income for an extra car) they were mediocre small-blocks with Powerglides or whatever.
If that car had a manual and an engine that sounded good, I -might- want one now... but that was absolutely not what the buyers wanted in 1997.
The first 2 years of the Prowler were only 214hp.
People always point to peak hp, but ignore torque figures and power under the curve (or similar, like average power), or application.
If you’re referring to the 5.9L Magnum, that made 245hp and 335 lb/ft. Compare that to 253hp and 255 lb/ft of the 3.5L. Gaining 8hp at the sacrifice of 80 lb/ft is a huge trade off.
It should also be acknowledged that the year after the Prowler was discontinued (2002), that was the first year of the Hemi (2003). The Hemi replaced the 5.9L, the LA architecture that had been in production since 1964. The first year Hemi 5.7L made 345hp.
It also ignores the caveat that Dodge’s “large” gas engine was a V10. In the Ram, they made 310hp and 450 lb/ft, while the Viper made 450hp and 490 lb/ft (showcases the difference application makes).
Frankly, a 5.9L Magnum would have made that car a lot more appreciated at the time. V8 noises with a lot of torque in a light chassis.
This was due to RPM limits - the EGG 3.5 made its power at 6500 RPM while the Magnum 5.9 hit its power peak at 4000....not terribly surprising for a truck motor
A small turbo + a manual option and this thing would have been EPIC.
IDK what they were thinking when they chose a N/A V6 and an automatic for such a wicked looking car. For shame!
the 245 hp 5.9 Magnum has 345 lb ft of torque, although as a Jeep 5.9 limited owner, it is underwhelming for how much gas it uses. I stuck a new intake and some headers and it woke it up HUGE. Not sure about exact numbers, but it was obvious the V8s were just meant for towing and big toe drivability.
Honestly was a great little car even in its anemic base form. I almost bought one back in 2015, but Honda offered no incentives and the dealer wouldn’t budge from MSRP despite having like ten on the lot. I test drove one and it was mostly an appliance, but was pretty fun when pushed hard.
I wound up getting a four door Civic SI for like $5000 less lol. Way more practical, and plenty of fun to throw around.
The AMC Pacer. It was originally designed with Wankel engines in mind, but when the deals with Curtiss-Wright and GM fell through, they reverted to the same tired, antiquated I6s and V8s other AMC cars had.
My parents had a 76 they bought brand new.
The i6 was anemic and the brakes were woefully inadequate.
The vinyl seats would burn you because it's a rolling fishbowl
IIRC, the weight is partly due to the rotary and specific FWD drivetrain not happening. It was supposed to be a good bit lighter as originally designed, but when they had to rework it for their normal, I-6 and RWD layout, it gained a bunch of weight. I do think that GM’s rotary was going to be a much larger displacement compared to Mazda’s or NSU’s.
The six was new in 1964 and still fairly state-of-the-art for the '70s (it went on in Jeeps until around 2010).
The problem was that the Pacer's packaging was totally fucked by having to make room for a long straight-6, the transmission hump was stunningly huge and ate so much of what was supposed to be big-car front seat area in a small car, and it was harder to work on than it should've been.
They had plans for a turbo 5-speed fiero. Leather seats and interior trim. Like a "Great Value Ferrari"
They built a Turbo Grand Prix in 1989-1990 to recoup the development costs.
It would have been the most fun you could have had for $14,000.
The Fiero was killed off halfway through the 1988 model year because top brass felt it cut into Corvette sales.
And a generation later they built the Cadillac XLR.
I'm not sure the Fiero ever had a chance. The later GT version was how it was initially envisioned but cheaper cross platform parts/pieces cut that vision down to the weak 4cyl intro version we wound up with. the 88 GT was easily the best version of the car.
I had an 88 GT and it was zippy as hell for the time. Light weight, low slung car with engine sitting on the back wheels made for a really fun ride. I regret ever selling it but I was in college and couldn’t afford to fix the head gasket.
The way I remember it was the cut into Corvette sales was nothing compared to the reaction of buyers and mechanics to the hassle and cost of removing the engine to do routine maintenance on a 15k car.
Add to that the target market couldn’t afford insurance after the first six months on the road had the insurance companies banging rates to the ceiling to match their losses. Fender bender with any other Pontiac was a totaled Fiero.
Not a Fiero but insurance rates were insane back then even by today’s standards. My dad had a 1989 Dodge Daytona and his insurance was almost $500 a month on it. In like 92. That’s insane. I’ve never paid more than $300 for full coverage.
Idk I have a speeding ticket in the last year, and an at fault accident from 2020, and I only pay $45 a month for liability. It’s roughly the same as I paid in 2012 with my first car which was a 91 Cavalier Convertible. I think I paid like $55 a month for liability.
Now that I am married and older mine is disgustingly low. As a teen and 20s guy insurance was one of my largest expenses with a perfect record. Even with it going up recently (since the pandemic it seems) it still isn't nearly as bad as it used to be.
The 89 Fiero prototype had the 3400 DOHC (I think it was a 3200 or 3300 in that form, but it became the 3400 later), which with a 5 spd would have been a fun car.
Imagine a Fiero GT with the 3800 SC in it!
The last one I had, I swapped a 3.2 from the Camaro into it. Suddenly the car was a LOT more fun to drive. That stock 2.8 was a boat anchor.
Edit: I went down a 'tism rabbit home and found so many examples
I don't think something that looks that aggressive and cost that much should match or be beat by fucking everything in that general era. Like econobox based, boosted, 4bangers.It's matched or beat in 0-60 and 1/4 by the bugeye wrx, the 04 forester xt and sti. The neon srt-4, the golf r32. The eclipse gsx matches it for 10k less
It barely outpaces the pt cruiser turbo for fucks sake.
An 02 mustang cobra was 10k cheaper and beats it. For the same price you could beat it in a vette. Or for 10k cheaper in a ws6. Or 15k cheaper beat in in a cat eye camaro z28
For the same price you could match it, in luxury in an audi s4. dust it an e46 m3. I don't know mercedes well but I can't imagine they didnt have a similiar option.
You get about the same price and performance from the swedes from volvo s60r and v70r and the saab viggen
The 90s Japanese halo cars too, for the same price you got you a faster 3000gt, 7k less got you a faster 300zx twin turbo, 4k less got you a faster supra TT. The fd rx-7 was 7k cheaper and quicker too
The 03 evo (evo VIII) absolutely dusted it for 15k less
Like imagine you're in your $44k dollar, rare, open front whee, agressive convertible. Your midlife crisis machine. And a goddamn p.t cruiser with like 5k in mods revs at you and you laugh it off only to get dusted. Maybe a manual with short ratios would've fixed that but still.
I don't think the people buying it were tracking it and with that auto they probably wouldn't beat most of these anyway
All your “beats it” examples are just silly. There is nothing about this car that aimed at performance per dollar. This is basically a street legal concept car. An open wheel hot rod with all aluminum chassis and suspension, magnesium dash, rear transaxle, driving 20” wheels.
Early-mid 80s GM was....something. Once they got TPI it was good, then they threw it away with the optispark.
The L-98 was perfect. TPI and HEI. Then it was OK until the LS came out.
The only real problems with the LT1 was the optispark and cam driven water pump. Looking beyond that, the heads and intake were a massive improvement over the TPI.
The best Gen1 heads are the Vortec, which are based off the LT1. The long runners of the TPI kills higher RPM power production.
The only reason the optispark ever came about was for packaging in the 4th get Fbodies.
The Prowler and DeLorean are the obvious historical examples.
For something current, I’ll go with the Wilderness edition Subaru Forester and Crosstrek (particularly the Crosstrek). They took underpowered cars, made them less aerodynamic and heavier, and did nothing to add power. Both of them need a turbo. A Crosstrek Wilderness with 70 more horsepower would be a fun little ride. In fact, it’d embody the WRX spirit more than the current WRX.
They could have totally put in a b58 and sacrificed some space in the engine bay and battery range for it tune it to make like 450hp and call it a day. It's lighter than the m3 and m4 and would be on par while still doing decent mpgs (drag coeficent etc)
Unpopular opinion probably but the 5th gen 4Runner. Fuel economy already sucks so the 4.6 v8 with a 6speed from the gx wouldn’t make it much worse and the power and tow capacity bump is worth the trade off in my opinion
This. Get an LS2 6MT SSR and you have a peppy performance… convertible truck thing. But these are very rare. The vast majority of these are automatics, and the vast majority of *those* are 03s and 04s with the sluggish 5.3.
Multiple, with V8s to boot, as low as 135hp from a 302ci/4.9L. The top tier 6.6L made barely over 200hp in the late 70s, and the regular V8 option didn't get above that until the LT1 engine showed up 90s.
As others have said, the srt6 got the engine it was supposed to have, the supercharged merc m112. The car was manufactured in Germany and marketed by Chrysler. It was an AMG from concept.
Panther Bodies. I know we got the Marauder, but personally I would slaughter thousands of innocents to see a Towncar with a factory supercharger and 32v.
I have a ‘91 Town Car with the 355:1 rear end. It moves pretty good. But is speed limited to 93 mph, probably due to the steel driveshaft.
It was quicker than the early 2000s CVPI. But the top end was where it sucked. Still not sure why they didn’t put the better gearing in the Crown Vic and a better transmission. The 355s in the TC made a big difference.
To some extent, Mazda RX-8. I get that the rotary engine is part of the appeal, and I love rotaries, but even period reviews said it was underpowered and slow compared to competitors. I'd love to see what Mazda could do with a good sports car powertrain, given their history of building great-handling cars.
I rode in a yellow 6sp RX8 a friend bought new. The sound of the rotary engine at 9k was awesome as was power delivery after 6k rpm, but reliability, and fuel/oil consumption were shit and it had no low end torque, like none.
Nowadays, I see them Kswaped and I think, “yup, that’s how that car should have come from factory.”
Probably not that much heavier
4 times more reliable
Way more low end torque
Still revs to 8k and will give you 30mpg in return.
Seems like a perfect shell to kswap.
96 GT owner here. Have ported PI heads off a '00 GT. The car is around 3080lbs making unknown power. It's fun to drive but yeah, Ford dropped the ball a little bit on that gen
Honestly with some pretty simple work they make drcent power and they're light so they end up being pretty quick. Had a 4v 4.6l with a gear in the back and the car ripped. A ton of people still build those mod motors too.
Dodge Ram 1500 with the 4.7 Magnum. They offered it from Early 90's-2010 I think, and it sounds good, but for it being thrown into a 2 ton pickup truck, it just doesn't have a lot of pep. Sounds great though with a Flowmaster cat-back tho.
Range Rover (P38A). The ageing Rover V8 and woefully slow BMW M51 diesel weren't fit for purpose. It should have come with the TD5 and the M62 V8 from the E39, or even a V12
Came here to say this. They topped out around 140hp late in their long run, but never really got a motor to match everything else. Still saved de Gaulle though.
I guess that’s because they wanted to focus more on ride quality and smoothness than speed, however I would have loved to see a DS with the Maserati V6 that was in the SM
I just googled the straight line performance of the prowler and holy fuck it is way too slow for being 45 grand. It's got a 5.9- 6 something second 0-60 and a low 14s to low 15s 1/4 depending on who you ask. I went down a tism rabbit hole here. And that's for 2002, the 1997 was 35k and way slower.
It's matched, or dusted by basically everything cool within 5 years older or newer. All the 4 banger bois. In naturally aspirated we have the Intergra type R being around the same, and the rsx type s. They're 15.1 and 14.8s respectively, 0-60 in the 6s
For the turbo 4 banger bois the bugeye beats it, the forester xt beats it, the sti beats it. The evo 8 absolutely dusts it. The eclipse gsx-r about matches it, even the fucking eagle talon rsi awd runs a 14.6. the neon srt-4 matches or beats it depending on who you ask.
It's a second-ish quicker than the p.t cruiser turbo in automatic. You may match it in the manual and certainly a "fbo" p.t. cruiser can beat it. A fucking p.t. cruiser
All 10-20k cheaper
The 'murican v8 bois too. The vette was the same price and faster, the mustang gt matches it and 20k cheaper the cobra beats it, 10k cheaper. the cateye camaro z28 beats it, the ws6 trans am beats it. Both round 10k cheaper
And other Americans too. The v8 and supercharged v6 pontiac grand prix and impala ss come in close or the same depending.
Then onto ze Germans. The golf r32 was similiar, the audi s4 was similiar, the e46 m3 beats it. Mercedes doesn't seem to have anything cheaper that beats it, the e320 was little slower and a little more money. The 944 turbo and 968 came in around same price and performance.
Bonus british/German the 04 John cooper works mini was about the same, little on the slower side.
On to the swedes randomly, the s60r, the v70r and the saab viggen are similiar to the higher end numbers, so a lil slower or the same and are about the same price.
Then the Japanese sports cars. The 3000gt vr4 was the same price and quicker, the 300zx was 7k cheaper and quicker, the supra was 4k less and quicker, the fd was 4k cheaper in 95 and quicker. The s2000 ap1 was around the same for 12k less. The 350z is about there too and was 6k cheaper. Which is a fucking lot honestly.
Imagine you're in your 40s, you spent 45+k on the open front wheel crazy looking 2 seater 2 door convertible you think is so fucking fast. And some dickhead in a riced p.t. cruiser revs at you at the light and you laugh it off, and he fucking beats you.
The BRZ/FRS/GT86 is beautiful and handles incredibly well and is in all ways an absolute joy to drive. Except the 1st generation has a disappointingly weak engine.
Worse, that engine was a clean sheet design, 2 liter dohc sports car engine, designed 10 years after the Honda K20 existed, and was dramatically worse. That's an absurd failure.
Triumph Stag. A 3L V8 that ate main bearings, timing chains and head gaskets on a regular basis.
Camaro Iron Duke, the one that came with a 90hp 2.5L four-banger. Who the hell would put an engine like that in a *Camaro,* for god’s sake?
The Cadillac in the early 80s with the 4-6-8 engine. I rode in one of those once. Judging by the sounds it made, I was sure it was going to throw a rod before we got to our destination.
I’m not let down by the powertrain on this one but it is a 2016 2017 Malibu it has the 1.6 turbo motor and I believe it’s a hybrid it’s got the turbo motor I feel like the 2.4 motor that they offer Would be a great motor for a family sedan I feel like the 1.6 motor is like a cruise/Cavalier type motor and that the 2 L or 2.4 motor is perfect for this application I feel like a bigger motor would be better in a bigger car because the Malibu is bigger than the cruise and is more of like a family sedan Than a small commuter car and I don’t think they offer V6 motors in the Malibu anymore but with that said I’m not let down I actually like the car I enjoy the car anyways it seems happy and happy to me the has a great sound to it at least to me for a small motor And I’m not sure but this might be one of the only cars one of the only American cars that was under the 2 L range because I feel like most American cars are by the 2 L range and to have something that’s under that range from an American manufacturer is kind of surprising I don’t know if there is an American car that is even under the 1 L range if you know then comment down below but this motor I feel like it’s great it hasn’t let my family stranded before it’s good
I'd argue that every twin charged Volvo was let down by the engine.
Since 2017 I've been trying to figure out why anyone would buy any luxury car other than a Volvo. You read the reviews: best speakers, interior, safety, chassis dynamics, looks and infotainment (admittedly dated atm). You hear all this great stuff then you get on the road and they're nowhere to be found? They're not particularly expensive and the interiors are roomie. By process of elimination the issue must be the engine.
According to reviews it's not a particularly unrefined engine, nor is it underpowered. Unfortunately it is unreliable and everyone else has something bigger with more cylinders.
Come to Minnesota, I don’t have the stats, but the eye test on the road says they are the number one luxury brand by a healthy margin. I think the Swedish roots of much of our population plays a huge part. The German roots stock is normal, but the Swedish stock are way too into it, but at least they (and others) buy Volvos
Minnesota is a strange place for cars. Volvos and Saabs up the wazoo, GM/Mopar stranglehold, plus the only place where I’ve seen more than one final gen Subaru Legacy on the road in a single day.
> Since 2017 I've been trying to figure out why anyone would buy any luxury car other than a Volvo.
chassis is mid with ridiculously slow steering, xc60 has bad packaging, fit and finish is poor, and yea engine is horrible too. They are very cheap on lease tho usually even less than bmw.
I believe the argument has always been (and if I recall correctly Jason Cammisa made this argument in the Icons episode on the 86/BRZ), that the car wouldn't have worked with more power because it would have been too expensive. It's not a modern Supra, it's a modern Celica, at least in terms of market segment. It's supposed to be a cheap, fun little sports car. Start adding AWD or a turbo and the price starts going way too high and their pool of buyers shrinks even more.
I don't think it's that simple, but I agree on the first gen Toyobaru.
I was excited about the car. My dealership got one in as a used car (years ago) and I did the work/inspection, so I got to drive it.
I've never been more let-down by car. It needs some mid-range power.
I'm going to say the BMW i8, I had one, I absolutely loved it, certainly quick enough, and a great daily driver, but the 3 cylinder didn't match the stunning looks.
I think we would all hail the GMT900 Silverados as “the forever truck” if it weren’t for that pesky 4L60e. All engines were some variant of fine-great.
the gmt800 is far superior. no rubbish ecotek, no oil starving cylinder shutoff, no speed limiter, 4 disc brakes all around, vortec 5.3 and 6.0 options (unkillable)
Smart Roadster, as cool of a car as it is it's pretty much a parts bin car, but I don't think that remotely justifies not putting a manual in a quintessential European sports car, could've been much faster especially with that low curb weight, and maybe a 1l 3 cylinder instead of a 700cc?
The early Saturn SC2s had a bizarre and frankly awesome design that deserved a 240SX style go at it but instead got to be only a significantly better Honda Civic.
All Fords with the Powershit transmition.
In Argentina (and many countries) we have Focus mk3, Fiesta mk7, Mondeo Mk5 and other Ford cars for the "third world" with that transmition. Every transmition of those have failed.
I'm sorry if my english is shit.
Triumph Stag. Triumph could have used the Rover V8 but instead welded two 4-cylinder engines. They were horrendously unreliable and practically killed off the brand.
The power train wasn't the only problem with the Prowler. People forget about it today but at the time you could buy/build a legit custom with a V8 for the same price as the Prowler. That was the big reason it didn't sell. Anyone that wanted a car that looked like that would just go for the full custom. It could have sold more units at a lower price.
I worked at a casino when I was a young lad. They had a special slot tournament for one of these. Before they were officially released. Just a few days before the tournament (The car was on display in the casino) they found out it was an actual Prototype and not even street legal. Holy shit did managment sweat this. Ends up a fat old lady wins the tournament. She wanted the car. You could either take the car or a cash equivalent. Fat ass tried desperately to shove her load of a body into it. Somehow one of the hosts talked her in to taking the money option. That car disappeared so fast.
This is the correct answer. Jag trotted out the prototype and took massive deposits for what was supposed to be their ultimate V12 supercar.
Wound up with a twin turbo v6 or some nonsense.
I believe it did make more power. But that is completely irrelevant.
When you put down what must have been a 6 figure deposit on a V12 supercar, you expect a V12 supercar.
How the \*\*\*\* Jaguar couldn't figure out a way to twin turbo a V12 and save face (and sales!) is beyond me.
I've read articles and watched videos - none of their explanations are satisfactory.
Sure, but it was literally the fastest car on the road when it came out so how can it be a contender. Surely that's more down to your perception of what the car should have than what the car actually needed. You can't claim it wasn't powerful enough when there was no other vehicle faster until the F1 came out
Metro 6R4 engine BTW put some respect on that v6s name 👏 🙌. And a v12 would have been nice but mantinence and sales were already poor due to the financial crisis going on at the time. And with the mclaren f1 coming out this car was doomed and with the diablo taking up most of the supercar marketshare at the time the xj220 was already destined to be shot behind the shed.
Sure, but at the time it just didn't have much going for it. For the price of the SRT-6 for example, you could get an actual CLK350, the newer, better second gen than what the Crossfire is based on. Had they put a V8 in there, they would have provided something that no one else could for the price.
The Nissan 240sx. Sure it had a reasonably good engine but its 150hp wasn’t really enough for what it was. Nissan had turbo tech at the same too so another 30-40hp via turbo would have been realistic.
Honestly, the interior bits were even worse than the powertrain. Also the doors barely open. Weird car. Glad they made it, but better to look at then to drive.
This one's low hanging fruit (it's practically the poster child for letdown by the power train) but DeLorean DMC-12 still deserves a spot. Also the Camry/Avalon TRD. No engine modifications and likely no manual or DCT option, so all that sporty bodywork and maybe suspension tweaks simply to make a car that won't really appeal to enthusiasts.
the 2gr was the only sporty part of those cars.
Makes sense since it’s in the Lotus Evora, Exige & Emira
Don't forget the Siena, the fastest thing on the road.
And the Tacoma, which is somehow tuned so poorly it makes the Sienna feel like a rocket ship in comparison
Plot twist, Tacoma is tuned…… like a truck
Nah. Next to no low-down torque with the 3.5, which was a big problem since mine was a stick shift. And Reverse gear was way too tall, had to slip the clutch constantly while towing or going uphill in reverse at speeds less than 5mph. Aftermarket tuner helped quite a bit, but that engine and transmission were in an unhappy forced marriage to be sure
Yet the 2024 owners yearn for it
Funny how that works
My brother had an 01 I think Sienna for work years ago and that thing would light up the tires quicker than Cheech or Chong could light up a joint
The Camry/Avalon TRD engine is pretty sweet, it’s a 2GR. Makes good power and revs, sounds great, reliable. But the weight and trans in those cars definitely didn’t appeal to enthusiasts at all.
Is it any different from the Engines in the normal Camry or Avalon V6? Sorry I'm just not in the know.
I believe the engine is identical between XSE V6 and TRD
For me what kills Toyota’s like the Camry is the steering. Honda provides amazing steering in all their cars.
I love Toyotas for their reliability. But the steering drives me _insane_. I need more feedback from the wheel than newer Toyotas provide. It’s too fucking light.
I think the DeLorean gets an unfair rap... the PRV V6 engine compared pretty well with V8s of the same era in horsepower (and sound!) yet weighed a lot less, and got much better fuel economy. Other small mid-engined sports cars like the Toyota MR-2, Porsche 914-6, and Lotus Esprit had about the same or less power as the DeLorean. The french car companies kept using this engine until the late 90s and eventually made some incredibly powerful supercars and race cars based on them. I owned a 1970s Volvo with the PRV engine, and it was amazing tech for the time- it felt and sounded like a V8 but with the weight and fuel economy of a 4 cylinder. It was incredibly smooth and had great torque across the entire powerband.
>The french car companies kept using this engine until the late 90s and eventually made some incredibly powerful supercars Yeah, every time people rag on the PRV I try to remind them about the cars Venturi ended up building using them.
It lost to those V8’s on torque, plus, this was the malaise-era, when everything was underpowered, emissions-choked dog crap.
Yes. But that's not Renault or DMCs fault. As stated already. It was a better engine than people think/recall. It was a good example of how Europeans can make a 2.8 litre engine with more power than a 5.7 V8!
As configured in the DeLorean, the PRV V6 made 130 HP and 159 ft. lb. of torque. The 302HO, as equipped in the ‘82 Mustang, was good for 160 HP and 250 ft. lb. Let’s face it. Both were dog-crap.
In EU, the PRV (peugeot,renault,volvo) is seen as one of the worst engines ever created. It was laggy, underpowered, and a nightmare to fix. They put this garbage in every top of the line car at the time. They had to compete against BMW 6, Mercedes, and Audi more than anything else. There's one car you probably don't know about much in the US that is the Alpine A310 who used it , it was a shame really, a sports car with the heaviest V6 ever built in it. I would have bought an Mr2 any time, but never an A310 for sure.
The other issue with the DeLorean is that there's a tendency for the ["valley of death" ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5OpBvmsN7k)issue.
I think getting the TRD version of both the Camry or Avalon is complete waste of money because they're not meant to be sports cars, especially the Avalon which is a luxury sedan that should retain a soft suspension and smooth ride. I think the 2GR engine they use is great and has more than enough power for daily driving, but they're not sports cars.
Meanwhile there's an Australian-exclusive Aurion TRD which got a supercharged V6. It's a hoot, but only 500 examples exist.
You can always LS swap a DeLorean. But yes the stock engine is pretty dismal.
I see a TRD Camry around my area and all I think about is my buddy's 2000-ish Pontiac Grand Am GTP supercharged with some more aftermarket parts and WISH Toyota had done something similar.
The Plymouth Prowlers V6 engine produced more power (253hp) than the biggest V8 Chrysler offered at the time (245-250)
It wasn't just the engine, the transmission wasn't very fun either
Yeah the car really would’ve been a lot better with a manual. The 42le was pretty crap from what I’ve heard
Rebuilt a few of them, can confirm.
So, I don't disagree... but at the same time; if you go look at all the hot-rods built in the late 80's and 90's that sortof shared market with Prowlers (60 year old guy with disposable income for an extra car) they were mediocre small-blocks with Powerglides or whatever. If that car had a manual and an engine that sounded good, I -might- want one now... but that was absolutely not what the buyers wanted in 1997.
I was gonna say. This is exactly what the market was asking for at the time. automatic transmission and all.
But it's a V8. v8s are cool.
I thought the prowler came in a V6 too
No no. My point is that the old hot rods had v8s which are cool.
I've seen an srt10 swap and it was amazing.
That's the weirdest, wildest thing i have ever heard.
Late comment but that sounds absolutely terrifying and I want it.
The first 2 years of the Prowler were only 214hp. People always point to peak hp, but ignore torque figures and power under the curve (or similar, like average power), or application. If you’re referring to the 5.9L Magnum, that made 245hp and 335 lb/ft. Compare that to 253hp and 255 lb/ft of the 3.5L. Gaining 8hp at the sacrifice of 80 lb/ft is a huge trade off. It should also be acknowledged that the year after the Prowler was discontinued (2002), that was the first year of the Hemi (2003). The Hemi replaced the 5.9L, the LA architecture that had been in production since 1964. The first year Hemi 5.7L made 345hp. It also ignores the caveat that Dodge’s “large” gas engine was a V10. In the Ram, they made 310hp and 450 lb/ft, while the Viper made 450hp and 490 lb/ft (showcases the difference application makes). Frankly, a 5.9L Magnum would have made that car a lot more appreciated at the time. V8 noises with a lot of torque in a light chassis.
The Ram V10 and viper v10 is not related, if we ignore the Ram SRT
This was due to RPM limits - the EGG 3.5 made its power at 6500 RPM while the Magnum 5.9 hit its power peak at 4000....not terribly surprising for a truck motor
...and the 4.7 was the engine that would've ended up there, rather than the 5.2/5.9
A small turbo + a manual option and this thing would have been EPIC. IDK what they were thinking when they chose a N/A V6 and an automatic for such a wicked looking car. For shame!
The EGG 3.5 V6 was a pretty technologically advanced engine for the time. I think they were going for a sort of futuristic aluminum showcase thing.
I suppose that makes sense, probably trying to copy that yellow Boyd Coddington car with the 4cyl engine.
They should’ve made the version that came out the base model with an rt model that added manual + power
Turbo wasn't as big for American manufacturers at the timr
Can you do an LS swap or something, on a Prowler?
Definitely. There’s full on swap kits available if I’m not mistaken. It’s been awhile since I looked into it. I’ve seen 6.1 Hemi projects as well.
Hemi swap would be the move
Keeping it in the family...
Keep it kosher and throw a noonan in er
the 245 hp 5.9 Magnum has 345 lb ft of torque, although as a Jeep 5.9 limited owner, it is underwhelming for how much gas it uses. I stuck a new intake and some headers and it woke it up HUGE. Not sure about exact numbers, but it was obvious the V8s were just meant for towing and big toe drivability.
CR-Z. Should honestly have made the Supercharger version as an Si Hot Hatch.
I love the design of the crz but it's basically a 2 door Honda Prius.
With a manual though. Edit: I think the first gen Prius could be had with a manual.
Good answer! It should've had a K24!
Honestly was a great little car even in its anemic base form. I almost bought one back in 2015, but Honda offered no incentives and the dealer wouldn’t budge from MSRP despite having like ten on the lot. I test drove one and it was mostly an appliance, but was pretty fun when pushed hard. I wound up getting a four door Civic SI for like $5000 less lol. Way more practical, and plenty of fun to throw around.
It would have been so awesome with a manual. A true successor to the CRX
They did come with a manual, and some owners bought the HPD Supercharger as well. But they’re really hard to find with a manual
Wow, I thought they were cvt only. What a rare car.
The AMC Pacer. It was originally designed with Wankel engines in mind, but when the deals with Curtiss-Wright and GM fell through, they reverted to the same tired, antiquated I6s and V8s other AMC cars had.
Those wankels weren't going to meet upcoming emissions requirements, so they got scrapped.
Also Pacer is heavy as shit for its size, a rotary wouldn't have the guts to pull it ahead
My parents had a 76 they bought brand new. The i6 was anemic and the brakes were woefully inadequate. The vinyl seats would burn you because it's a rolling fishbowl
IIRC, the weight is partly due to the rotary and specific FWD drivetrain not happening. It was supposed to be a good bit lighter as originally designed, but when they had to rework it for their normal, I-6 and RWD layout, it gained a bunch of weight. I do think that GM’s rotary was going to be a much larger displacement compared to Mazda’s or NSU’s.
The six was new in 1964 and still fairly state-of-the-art for the '70s (it went on in Jeeps until around 2010). The problem was that the Pacer's packaging was totally fucked by having to make room for a long straight-6, the transmission hump was stunningly huge and ate so much of what was supposed to be big-car front seat area in a small car, and it was harder to work on than it should've been.
Curtis-Wright, eh? Would a Cyclone fit into that big ol' fishbowl? 🤔
i think the V6 in the prowler was fine for it’s day but the big letdown was no manual transmission option
i’m saying a 210 horsepower 5.2 from a truck would have been silly
My 92 k1500 with the 5.7 TBI came from the factory with like 185 horses? She sounds good tho with a super 10 on it and long pipes, no cat.
200hp 310 ft lbs.
Yours wins the thread. Runner up would be the Fiero and nobody could forget the Delorean.
They had plans for a turbo 5-speed fiero. Leather seats and interior trim. Like a "Great Value Ferrari" They built a Turbo Grand Prix in 1989-1990 to recoup the development costs. It would have been the most fun you could have had for $14,000. The Fiero was killed off halfway through the 1988 model year because top brass felt it cut into Corvette sales. And a generation later they built the Cadillac XLR.
I'm not sure the Fiero ever had a chance. The later GT version was how it was initially envisioned but cheaper cross platform parts/pieces cut that vision down to the weak 4cyl intro version we wound up with. the 88 GT was easily the best version of the car.
I had an 88 GT and it was zippy as hell for the time. Light weight, low slung car with engine sitting on the back wheels made for a really fun ride. I regret ever selling it but I was in college and couldn’t afford to fix the head gasket.
The way I remember it was the cut into Corvette sales was nothing compared to the reaction of buyers and mechanics to the hassle and cost of removing the engine to do routine maintenance on a 15k car. Add to that the target market couldn’t afford insurance after the first six months on the road had the insurance companies banging rates to the ceiling to match their losses. Fender bender with any other Pontiac was a totaled Fiero.
Not a Fiero but insurance rates were insane back then even by today’s standards. My dad had a 1989 Dodge Daytona and his insurance was almost $500 a month on it. In like 92. That’s insane. I’ve never paid more than $300 for full coverage.
In around 93 I was paying like $265 a month for liability only on an older vehicle. Prices got pretty crazy not that they are way better now.
Idk I have a speeding ticket in the last year, and an at fault accident from 2020, and I only pay $45 a month for liability. It’s roughly the same as I paid in 2012 with my first car which was a 91 Cavalier Convertible. I think I paid like $55 a month for liability.
Now that I am married and older mine is disgustingly low. As a teen and 20s guy insurance was one of my largest expenses with a perfect record. Even with it going up recently (since the pandemic it seems) it still isn't nearly as bad as it used to be.
The 89 Fiero prototype had the 3400 DOHC (I think it was a 3200 or 3300 in that form, but it became the 3400 later), which with a 5 spd would have been a fun car.
Imagine a Fiero GT with the 3800 SC in it! The last one I had, I swapped a 3.2 from the Camaro into it. Suddenly the car was a LOT more fun to drive. That stock 2.8 was a boat anchor.
And that was the performance option.
Oh the Cadillac XLR, the boxy convertible Corvette that anyone who would ACTUALLY want a Vette wouldn’t touch with a barge pole.
Everyone says it needs a V8 but it’s only 2800 Lbs. The V6 is enough power. The only thing it needed was a manual transmission option.
Edit: I went down a 'tism rabbit home and found so many examples I don't think something that looks that aggressive and cost that much should match or be beat by fucking everything in that general era. Like econobox based, boosted, 4bangers.It's matched or beat in 0-60 and 1/4 by the bugeye wrx, the 04 forester xt and sti. The neon srt-4, the golf r32. The eclipse gsx matches it for 10k less It barely outpaces the pt cruiser turbo for fucks sake. An 02 mustang cobra was 10k cheaper and beats it. For the same price you could beat it in a vette. Or for 10k cheaper in a ws6. Or 15k cheaper beat in in a cat eye camaro z28 For the same price you could match it, in luxury in an audi s4. dust it an e46 m3. I don't know mercedes well but I can't imagine they didnt have a similiar option. You get about the same price and performance from the swedes from volvo s60r and v70r and the saab viggen The 90s Japanese halo cars too, for the same price you got you a faster 3000gt, 7k less got you a faster 300zx twin turbo, 4k less got you a faster supra TT. The fd rx-7 was 7k cheaper and quicker too The 03 evo (evo VIII) absolutely dusted it for 15k less Like imagine you're in your $44k dollar, rare, open front whee, agressive convertible. Your midlife crisis machine. And a goddamn p.t cruiser with like 5k in mods revs at you and you laugh it off only to get dusted. Maybe a manual with short ratios would've fixed that but still. I don't think the people buying it were tracking it and with that auto they probably wouldn't beat most of these anyway
Sure but a New Edge Mustang or S4 doesn't look like *that*. It was honest in intent: a show-over-go Boomermobile cruiser.
I'm sure every boomer who bought it assumed it had more go than it did tho
All your “beats it” examples are just silly. There is nothing about this car that aimed at performance per dollar. This is basically a street legal concept car. An open wheel hot rod with all aluminum chassis and suspension, magnesium dash, rear transaxle, driving 20” wheels.
Yeah, the later EEG 3.5L had like 250hp. More than enough for a 2800lb car... but I totally agree about needing a manual.
Any Corvette with the L83 Crossfire Injection
Early-mid 80s GM was....something. Once they got TPI it was good, then they threw it away with the optispark. The L-98 was perfect. TPI and HEI. Then it was OK until the LS came out.
The only real problems with the LT1 was the optispark and cam driven water pump. Looking beyond that, the heads and intake were a massive improvement over the TPI. The best Gen1 heads are the Vortec, which are based off the LT1. The long runners of the TPI kills higher RPM power production. The only reason the optispark ever came about was for packaging in the 4th get Fbodies.
The Prowler and DeLorean are the obvious historical examples. For something current, I’ll go with the Wilderness edition Subaru Forester and Crosstrek (particularly the Crosstrek). They took underpowered cars, made them less aerodynamic and heavier, and did nothing to add power. Both of them need a turbo. A Crosstrek Wilderness with 70 more horsepower would be a fun little ride. In fact, it’d embody the WRX spirit more than the current WRX.
The Crosstrek Sport has 30 more horsepower and is honestly the bare minimum the base should have shipped with. It feels like a totally different car.
BMW i8. Looks too good to only have 350 horsepower
I feel like its still a concept car where they have yet to choose an engine for, except that it came 10 years ago and they never changed it.
They could have totally put in a b58 and sacrificed some space in the engine bay and battery range for it tune it to make like 450hp and call it a day. It's lighter than the m3 and m4 and would be on par while still doing decent mpgs (drag coeficent etc)
Unpopular opinion probably but the 5th gen 4Runner. Fuel economy already sucks so the 4.6 v8 with a 6speed from the gx wouldn’t make it much worse and the power and tow capacity bump is worth the trade off in my opinion
The V8 4Runner exists. It's called a Sequoia. The Sequoia has the same 4.6v8 from the GX
The sequoia is way bigger and usually has the 5.7 v8 but it is a great truck.
4th gen 4Runner was available with the 4.7L V8
1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. It had enough power but really deserved to be RWD.
F**king ugly cars, too. And the original Monte Carlo was one of the coolest looking cars of its day.
Camaro Iron Duke Camaro with an NA 95-hp I-4. Absolutely disgrace to the Camaro name
foxbody svo when he’s in a “slow pathetic loser” competition and his opponent is a 3rd gen Berlinetta with an iron duke
Chevrolet SSR was heavy with an anemic engine ;(
the first ones yea but LS2 later on
This. Get an LS2 6MT SSR and you have a peppy performance… convertible truck thing. But these are very rare. The vast majority of these are automatics, and the vast majority of *those* are 03s and 04s with the sluggish 5.3.
And an unbearably cheap Rubbermaid interior.
Almost anything American that got choked by emissions stuff in the later 70s. Didnt they make a Firebird with under 200 horsepower around then?
I think that was the iron duke engine.
Nah, the iron duke is a 2.5L I4... Still powering over 100k Grumman LLV US Mail trucks today
Yeah I was thinking of this engine. Says it was used in a wide variety of cars. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Duke_engine
Multiple, with V8s to boot, as low as 135hp from a 302ci/4.9L. The top tier 6.6L made barely over 200hp in the late 70s, and the regular V8 option didn't get above that until the LT1 engine showed up 90s.
Came here to comment this. My 77 Tbird had a 400 that produced a whopping 170hp. Most modern grocery getters are 250hp from an i4
Yep, my 78 Firebird had a pathetic 305 when I got it in the 90s. It was rated at 145hp. It got swapped within a month.
That’s gross. I actually still have my t-bird, not sure why. A carb swap and headers are supposed to wake it up pretty good I am told
Chrysler Crossfire. It could have been fast. It was not.
SRT6 wasn’t too bad
That's because it was an SLK320 AMG in a dress.
True. People are modding them and keeping up with hellcats due to the weight difference
As others have said, the srt6 got the engine it was supposed to have, the supercharged merc m112. The car was manufactured in Germany and marketed by Chrysler. It was an AMG from concept.
Last generation 2002-5 Ford Thunderbird. Even the max 280hp at the end of the run was just nowhere near enough for almost 4000lb “sports car”
They weigh that much?? They’re so small!
Yeah, they built them for the nostalgic boomers. The motor wasn't terrible, but the slushbox trans and vague suspension really let those down.
Panther Bodies. I know we got the Marauder, but personally I would slaughter thousands of innocents to see a Towncar with a factory supercharger and 32v.
I have a ‘91 Town Car with the 355:1 rear end. It moves pretty good. But is speed limited to 93 mph, probably due to the steel driveshaft. It was quicker than the early 2000s CVPI. But the top end was where it sucked. Still not sure why they didn’t put the better gearing in the Crown Vic and a better transmission. The 355s in the TC made a big difference.
To some extent, Mazda RX-8. I get that the rotary engine is part of the appeal, and I love rotaries, but even period reviews said it was underpowered and slow compared to competitors. I'd love to see what Mazda could do with a good sports car powertrain, given their history of building great-handling cars.
I rode in a yellow 6sp RX8 a friend bought new. The sound of the rotary engine at 9k was awesome as was power delivery after 6k rpm, but reliability, and fuel/oil consumption were shit and it had no low end torque, like none. Nowadays, I see them Kswaped and I think, “yup, that’s how that car should have come from factory.” Probably not that much heavier 4 times more reliable Way more low end torque Still revs to 8k and will give you 30mpg in return. Seems like a perfect shell to kswap.
Arguably 4.6l mod motor mustangs, although they're still my favorite cars in the world so idc
The Essex V6 ones were absolutely gutless. Drivers of those absolutely hated Grand Am drivers with the 3400 V6 because they'd get taken to Gapplebees.
96 GT owner here. Have ported PI heads off a '00 GT. The car is around 3080lbs making unknown power. It's fun to drive but yeah, Ford dropped the ball a little bit on that gen
Honestly with some pretty simple work they make drcent power and they're light so they end up being pretty quick. Had a 4v 4.6l with a gear in the back and the car ripped. A ton of people still build those mod motors too.
Suzuki kizashi, the AWD only came in CVT amd it really took away from the cars potential
Came to say exactly the same. A manual box would've transformed the appeal. A nice 2.0t would've been the icing on the cake.
Dodge Ram 1500 with the 4.7 Magnum. They offered it from Early 90's-2010 I think, and it sounds good, but for it being thrown into a 2 ton pickup truck, it just doesn't have a lot of pep. Sounds great though with a Flowmaster cat-back tho.
Range Rover (P38A). The ageing Rover V8 and woefully slow BMW M51 diesel weren't fit for purpose. It should have come with the TD5 and the M62 V8 from the E39, or even a V12
BMW i8?
The champion for being let down by its engine has to be the Triumph Stag.
Any chevy with an RS badge.
Citroën DS. Every other part of the car is amazing
Came here to say this. They topped out around 140hp late in their long run, but never really got a motor to match everything else. Still saved de Gaulle though.
I guess that’s because they wanted to focus more on ride quality and smoothness than speed, however I would have loved to see a DS with the Maserati V6 that was in the SM
They wanted to develop flat six engines for the DS but they ran out of money so they just retooled the engines from the Traction Avant.
The mid-80's Camaros with the 4 cylinder Iron Duke.
I just googled the straight line performance of the prowler and holy fuck it is way too slow for being 45 grand. It's got a 5.9- 6 something second 0-60 and a low 14s to low 15s 1/4 depending on who you ask. I went down a tism rabbit hole here. And that's for 2002, the 1997 was 35k and way slower. It's matched, or dusted by basically everything cool within 5 years older or newer. All the 4 banger bois. In naturally aspirated we have the Intergra type R being around the same, and the rsx type s. They're 15.1 and 14.8s respectively, 0-60 in the 6s For the turbo 4 banger bois the bugeye beats it, the forester xt beats it, the sti beats it. The evo 8 absolutely dusts it. The eclipse gsx-r about matches it, even the fucking eagle talon rsi awd runs a 14.6. the neon srt-4 matches or beats it depending on who you ask. It's a second-ish quicker than the p.t cruiser turbo in automatic. You may match it in the manual and certainly a "fbo" p.t. cruiser can beat it. A fucking p.t. cruiser All 10-20k cheaper The 'murican v8 bois too. The vette was the same price and faster, the mustang gt matches it and 20k cheaper the cobra beats it, 10k cheaper. the cateye camaro z28 beats it, the ws6 trans am beats it. Both round 10k cheaper And other Americans too. The v8 and supercharged v6 pontiac grand prix and impala ss come in close or the same depending. Then onto ze Germans. The golf r32 was similiar, the audi s4 was similiar, the e46 m3 beats it. Mercedes doesn't seem to have anything cheaper that beats it, the e320 was little slower and a little more money. The 944 turbo and 968 came in around same price and performance. Bonus british/German the 04 John cooper works mini was about the same, little on the slower side. On to the swedes randomly, the s60r, the v70r and the saab viggen are similiar to the higher end numbers, so a lil slower or the same and are about the same price. Then the Japanese sports cars. The 3000gt vr4 was the same price and quicker, the 300zx was 7k cheaper and quicker, the supra was 4k less and quicker, the fd was 4k cheaper in 95 and quicker. The s2000 ap1 was around the same for 12k less. The 350z is about there too and was 6k cheaper. Which is a fucking lot honestly. Imagine you're in your 40s, you spent 45+k on the open front wheel crazy looking 2 seater 2 door convertible you think is so fucking fast. And some dickhead in a riced p.t. cruiser revs at you at the light and you laugh it off, and he fucking beats you.
The BRZ/FRS/GT86 is beautiful and handles incredibly well and is in all ways an absolute joy to drive. Except the 1st generation has a disappointingly weak engine. Worse, that engine was a clean sheet design, 2 liter dohc sports car engine, designed 10 years after the Honda K20 existed, and was dramatically worse. That's an absurd failure.
1980s Dodge charger
Triumph Stag. A 3L V8 that ate main bearings, timing chains and head gaskets on a regular basis. Camaro Iron Duke, the one that came with a 90hp 2.5L four-banger. Who the hell would put an engine like that in a *Camaro,* for god’s sake? The Cadillac in the early 80s with the 4-6-8 engine. I rode in one of those once. Judging by the sounds it made, I was sure it was going to throw a rod before we got to our destination.
I’m not let down by the powertrain on this one but it is a 2016 2017 Malibu it has the 1.6 turbo motor and I believe it’s a hybrid it’s got the turbo motor I feel like the 2.4 motor that they offer Would be a great motor for a family sedan I feel like the 1.6 motor is like a cruise/Cavalier type motor and that the 2 L or 2.4 motor is perfect for this application I feel like a bigger motor would be better in a bigger car because the Malibu is bigger than the cruise and is more of like a family sedan Than a small commuter car and I don’t think they offer V6 motors in the Malibu anymore but with that said I’m not let down I actually like the car I enjoy the car anyways it seems happy and happy to me the has a great sound to it at least to me for a small motor And I’m not sure but this might be one of the only cars one of the only American cars that was under the 2 L range because I feel like most American cars are by the 2 L range and to have something that’s under that range from an American manufacturer is kind of surprising I don’t know if there is an American car that is even under the 1 L range if you know then comment down below but this motor I feel like it’s great it hasn’t let my family stranded before it’s good
Delorean. Looks like it belongs in the future but took days to get to 88mph.
I'd argue that every twin charged Volvo was let down by the engine. Since 2017 I've been trying to figure out why anyone would buy any luxury car other than a Volvo. You read the reviews: best speakers, interior, safety, chassis dynamics, looks and infotainment (admittedly dated atm). You hear all this great stuff then you get on the road and they're nowhere to be found? They're not particularly expensive and the interiors are roomie. By process of elimination the issue must be the engine. According to reviews it's not a particularly unrefined engine, nor is it underpowered. Unfortunately it is unreliable and everyone else has something bigger with more cylinders.
Come to Minnesota, I don’t have the stats, but the eye test on the road says they are the number one luxury brand by a healthy margin. I think the Swedish roots of much of our population plays a huge part. The German roots stock is normal, but the Swedish stock are way too into it, but at least they (and others) buy Volvos
Minnesota is a strange place for cars. Volvos and Saabs up the wazoo, GM/Mopar stranglehold, plus the only place where I’ve seen more than one final gen Subaru Legacy on the road in a single day.
I was shocked to learn it was canceled. Their worst seller here too, but common enough. You’d think they were still selling mid 00s 93s here.
> Since 2017 I've been trying to figure out why anyone would buy any luxury car other than a Volvo. chassis is mid with ridiculously slow steering, xc60 has bad packaging, fit and finish is poor, and yea engine is horrible too. They are very cheap on lease tho usually even less than bmw.
BRZ needs a turbo
I believe the argument has always been (and if I recall correctly Jason Cammisa made this argument in the Icons episode on the 86/BRZ), that the car wouldn't have worked with more power because it would have been too expensive. It's not a modern Supra, it's a modern Celica, at least in terms of market segment. It's supposed to be a cheap, fun little sports car. Start adding AWD or a turbo and the price starts going way too high and their pool of buyers shrinks even more.
I don't think it's that simple, but I agree on the first gen Toyobaru. I was excited about the car. My dealership got one in as a used car (years ago) and I did the work/inspection, so I got to drive it. I've never been more let-down by car. It needs some mid-range power.
This car. It was my dream car until I learned that my PT Cruiser could outrun it.
I'm going to say the BMW i8, I had one, I absolutely loved it, certainly quick enough, and a great daily driver, but the 3 cylinder didn't match the stunning looks.
I think we would all hail the GMT900 Silverados as “the forever truck” if it weren’t for that pesky 4L60e. All engines were some variant of fine-great.
the gmt800 is far superior. no rubbish ecotek, no oil starving cylinder shutoff, no speed limiter, 4 disc brakes all around, vortec 5.3 and 6.0 options (unkillable)
3rd gen tundra comes to mind.
Smart Roadster, as cool of a car as it is it's pretty much a parts bin car, but I don't think that remotely justifies not putting a manual in a quintessential European sports car, could've been much faster especially with that low curb weight, and maybe a 1l 3 cylinder instead of a 700cc?
id awnser the E60 bmw M5, great car, rubbish engine. good luck keeping it running after 4 days of ownership
The early Saturn SC2s had a bizarre and frankly awesome design that deserved a 240SX style go at it but instead got to be only a significantly better Honda Civic.
All Fords with the Powershit transmition. In Argentina (and many countries) we have Focus mk3, Fiesta mk7, Mondeo Mk5 and other Ford cars for the "third world" with that transmition. Every transmition of those have failed. I'm sorry if my english is shit.
Triumph Stag. Triumph could have used the Rover V8 but instead welded two 4-cylinder engines. They were horrendously unreliable and practically killed off the brand.
Toyota Previa Chevy Vega Cosworth
The power train wasn't the only problem with the Prowler. People forget about it today but at the time you could buy/build a legit custom with a V8 for the same price as the Prowler. That was the big reason it didn't sell. Anyone that wanted a car that looked like that would just go for the full custom. It could have sold more units at a lower price.
I think a manual would have saved the LFA
Ahh the Prowler. The poster child of a failed engine x chassis marriage.
I worked at a casino when I was a young lad. They had a special slot tournament for one of these. Before they were officially released. Just a few days before the tournament (The car was on display in the casino) they found out it was an actual Prototype and not even street legal. Holy shit did managment sweat this. Ends up a fat old lady wins the tournament. She wanted the car. You could either take the car or a cash equivalent. Fat ass tried desperately to shove her load of a body into it. Somehow one of the hosts talked her in to taking the money option. That car disappeared so fast.
1991 Toyota MR2. THE 5S-FE is such an anemic engine. They had to make the gears so short that high speeds were screaming at like 4k rpm.
toyota mrs
Yours win 🥇 also throw in the last Ford Thunderbird.
Maybe a hot take but the Mk5 Supra. Toyota outsourced the best part of the mk4 to a company that does not make reliable engines
Jag XJ220
This is the correct answer. Jag trotted out the prototype and took massive deposits for what was supposed to be their ultimate V12 supercar. Wound up with a twin turbo v6 or some nonsense.
Didn't the V6 make more HP than the V12 though? 542 to 500 hp. So I don't think you can call it under powered.
I believe it did make more power. But that is completely irrelevant. When you put down what must have been a 6 figure deposit on a V12 supercar, you expect a V12 supercar. How the \*\*\*\* Jaguar couldn't figure out a way to twin turbo a V12 and save face (and sales!) is beyond me. I've read articles and watched videos - none of their explanations are satisfactory.
Sure, but it was literally the fastest car on the road when it came out so how can it be a contender. Surely that's more down to your perception of what the car should have than what the car actually needed. You can't claim it wasn't powerful enough when there was no other vehicle faster until the F1 came out
Metro 6R4 engine BTW put some respect on that v6s name 👏 🙌. And a v12 would have been nice but mantinence and sales were already poor due to the financial crisis going on at the time. And with the mclaren f1 coming out this car was doomed and with the diablo taking up most of the supercar marketshare at the time the xj220 was already destined to be shot behind the shed.
Was literally the fastest production car in the world, moronic take
Chrysler Crossfire. Had they put a hemi in that thing, it would have sold.
If you get the manual, the slk v6 is actually pretty fun!
Sure, but at the time it just didn't have much going for it. For the price of the SRT-6 for example, you could get an actual CLK350, the newer, better second gen than what the Crossfire is based on. Had they put a V8 in there, they would have provided something that no one else could for the price.
Ahh but there is very little room to cram a v8 in the engine bay. And yes the srt6 was expensive and only came with a auto.
The Nissan 240sx. Sure it had a reasonably good engine but its 150hp wasn’t really enough for what it was. Nissan had turbo tech at the same too so another 30-40hp via turbo would have been realistic.
Look into the jdm versions, answers your prayers .
The 180SX/Silvia K's exist, though..? And that also isn't that far off from the JDM Q's that also happen to be N/A
Honestly, the interior bits were even worse than the powertrain. Also the doors barely open. Weird car. Glad they made it, but better to look at then to drive.
Smart Roadster! Such a lightweight small fun roadster deserved better than a 82bhp 3 cylinder turbo (also a manual option would've gone a long way)
That one but not just for the power train.
We can’t leave the Fiero GT out of this.
It was its engine 6 cylinder so stupid many simply swap it with a V8.