Top 10 (or 11) cars that don't deserve their engines.

[revvinkevin]

I found this on a website... kinda interesting and true. But being a performance car guy too, I don't know that I completely agree (you can never have too much power!!)

========

The engine is the crown jewel of any automobile and can make or break it in the eyes of an enthusiast. No matter how good the rest of the package is, a limp-wristed engine can completely kill a cars ability to make you smile. Conversely, nothing screams buzz kill like a superb engine installed in a dowdy package. Such is the case with the vehicles on this list of Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines. Some may consider these cars sleepers due to their often-unassuming wrappers, but (they) maintain these engines would rather live a life free of their humble trappings.

So anyway, here we go......... (This is paraphrased)

# 10: 2006-present Chevy Impala SS
With it's 303 hp 5.3 liter V8 and 0-60 mph in less than 6 seconds, too bad the car is a total bore.

 

[revvinkevin]

# 9: 2003-2004 Mercury Marauder
With its 302 hp 4.6 L V8 you might think it could live up to its muscle car reputation, but weak low-end torque and a heavy chassis make it number nine on our list.

 

[revvinkevin]

# 8: Dodge Caliber SRT4 and Dodge Neon SRT4
Lot's of power for a small car. Too much in fact for the rest of the car to handle.

 

[revvinkevin]

# 7: Dodge Spirit R/T
Terrible handling and unbalanced braking.

 

[revvinkevin]

# 6: Ford Taurus SHO
Too bad Ford's accessory systems couldn't handle the Potent and high-revving Yamaha 3.0L V6.

 

[revvinkevin]

To be continued later.....

After I get back home from work later this afternoon!

 

[hydralique]

My two cents . . .

Buick Grand National and most early Mazda rotary sedans.

The Buick was for some time in the '80s the fastest accelerating car made in the US, quicker then the Corvette even. Chevy sure didn't like that! However it had such a lame chassis that Buick limited the top speed to under 130 mph as everyone knew it became a real handful at high speeds. It wasn't easily fixable either, being due mostly to GM having designed a front engine, rear drive chassis with a ton of front overhang and short wheelbase. The end result was a twitchy, nose heavy car which worked OK with a 150 hp V-6 or V-8, but not with the 300+ hp Grand National turbo engine.

The first Mazda roatary car was the very cool and rare Cosmo sports car of 1967. Two seats, deDion rear end, sold mostly in small quantities in Japan though a few made it to Europe. Once assured they got the rotary right (better than NSU did at least), Mazda then started dropping it into their painfully ordinary sedans, like the RX-2, RX-3, and RX-4. They were all overstyled and featured painfully mediocre live axle rear ends and loose steering. Not much different from a Toyota of the era, but the Toyotas didn't have that smooth and powerful rotary engine. Mazda finally got it right again with the first RX-7.

 

[kenmoreguy64]

Boy, I surely know better than to get involved in this, but I don't agree with the Grand National suggestion. While it is very true that the G-chassis was meant for a totally different purpose and segment than the Grand National's target, I think it is important to take into account the automotive environment at the time.

The Grand National came out in '84 or so (?), just two years after the competition between the 1982 Mustang GT and Camaro re-sparked performance in factory affordable production cars. The engine was (and probably still is) a major design and functional achievement, coupled to one of the most stout and successful basic engines of GM's recent history. Within just a couple years, we switched focus from fuel efficiency via enemic engines or downsized and down-weighted chassis, to a new era of performance and road worthy vehicles. We can't get from point A to point H in one step or overnight.

The production capacity of the Grand National, and the intended sales market of that vehicle couldn't warrant developing a more road-worthy chassis or a whole new vehicle, so they had to contend with what was available. Part (note I'm not saying "all") of GM's speed restriction was due to available tire technology at the time, not simply because of the car as designed. If we had good Z-speed rated tires and rims that would work with the car and handle the speeds it was capable of, the suspension could have been tweaked accordingly, I feel sure. I'm not saying re-born, but improved. Some of the rest of this restriction came from skiddish insurance companies which didn't want the car out there blistering it's occupants.

So, I hate to say that the GN doesn't deserve it's engine. To claim that would, to me anyway, require that there were buildable and affordable alternatives, technologically and financially. Today we have the technology, which is one good reason that the Impala SS above could be chastised for not being better, but there was only so much of a transformation to be done on a car meant to be a family sedan first and foremost, not a performance car.

 

[swestoyz]

Buick GN

Knowing that this is a thread intended for opinions - I figured I'd express my opinions on the GM G-body; specifically the 1984 - 1987 GN or GNX. The G body General Motors cars of 1978 through 1987 were intended on being a personal coupe, designed primary with early to mid 70's technologies. Drivetrans ranged from carbureted 3.8L V6 Buicks, to Chevy small blocks, Olds small blocks, as well as the Pontiac 4.9L V8. I give kudo's to GM for designing a front end that has such diversity in drivetran arrangements. Personal coupes are not intended to be sports cars by any means. Luxury packages like the LX Grand Prix or Cutlass Broughams are meant to have a soft ride and really would not be much fun at all above 100 MPH. If I want a sports car, I'll buy a 'Vette or a Supra.

With the advent of the fuel injected, turbo charged 3.8 V6, Buick did beef up the suspension, primarily in the rear, and increased the solid axle from the mild 7.5 ring to the beefy 8.5 ring. The GNX also had the trailing arm set-up that was barrowed from the third gen Camaro/Trans Am - to help for launching as well as some corner cutting. But, the intent of the Grand National was never to be a corner cutter, instead it was meant to be a 1/4 mile sleeper, bar none. I really don't care if the car can handle in a tight corner going 70, just as long as I can pull off a 12.50 run in stock trim. As far as the drive train not being appropriate in such a chassis is of a personal opinion, but I certainly feel that it was a wonderful combination of GM technology, and a last grasp of real GM rear-wheel driving excitement. As soon as the buying public was made aware of the changes with the W bodies on the way in '88, invoices flew through Buick dealers across the country to buy one of the last true muscle cars that GM ever made. Thankfully it was a beautiful car to boot! The resale value of Grand Nationals has always been high due to the few modifications needed to go fast, and the reputation it has on the street. In my time of working on the G-body cars, I've personally never felt that they weren't 'easily fixable'. Quite roomy to work on in caparison to the later W body cars!

 

[cadman]

I'm not sure I follow the author's train of thought here (not you Kevin, you're cool). He pans #9 as being light on torque and heavy on weight, then slams #8 for being too powerful for a small package?? A 300 horse '08 Impala sounds a lot like a reincarnation of a muscle car, albeit better handling, more stopping power, more precise control, than most muscle cars could ever hope to be. To get something like that today perks me ears.

Obviously this guy has never enjoyed watching grandma's Estate Wagon blow off the fast and furious crowd from a stoplight, or thrown a 5200lb Eldorado with a hot cam through a tight corner, tires a' screamin!

 

[whirlcool]

As a previous owner of Chevy SS cars (a 63' SS Couple and a 67' SS Convertible) I never understood why Chevy based the SS on a 4 door car at the time of reissue. It kind of kills the whole idea IMHO.

 

[kenmoreguy64]

An interesting note maybe -

About the Impala, I find the LT versions to be quite interesting and fun. I rented an LTS last July and drove it all over Florida for a week. I hated to return it actually and thought about buying one for a while when I came home. Nice to look at, fun to drive, satisfactorily built.... I know little about the SS, but being a Mustang 5.0 fan I thought "that's the ticket". I looked at one, and determined it wasn't different enough from the basic LT sedan, and I didn't care for the wheels.

This, coming from a guy who in the 80s very much disliked the '87 Mustang GT for its differences and who correspondingly bought three 5.0 LXs that basically look like 4-cylinder clones. I guess tastes change. My only issue with the Impalas is the interior is too "plasticy" in basic trim and not up to other manufacturer's standards including Ford and Toyota.

 

[revvinkevin]

My 3 cents before we continue counting down the top 10.....

The Buick Grand National was an excellent modern incarnation of the classic muscle car, for the mid 80's. It was VERY quick right out of the box and had the ability (as Hydralique mentioned above) to out run Corvettes at the stoplight grand prix. BUT... with the addition of a good exhaust system, air filter, performance chip, fuel and tires (only about $1100 total) you could blast down the local 1/4 mile drag strip and take no more then 12 to 12.5 seconds to arrive at the other end AND then drive it to the grocery store or church WITHOUT changing anything! This is what "Muscle cars" are all about!

No this car did not have the most modern or aggressive, or balanced chassis available (Corvette?) but it wasn't meant to. This car was intended to go fast in a straight line, which it did VERY well.

A note on the Impala SS above, I have to agree... and I must add, this car is FRONT WHEEL DRIVE people, it has NO business having 303 HP!!!

 

[revvinkevin]

OK... Now on with the rest of the "Top 10" (or 11)

# 5: Oldsmobile Achieva SCX
The high revving 190 hp, 2.3L "Quad 4" was a sweet little engine, but the rest of this car was built for leisurely Sunday drives rather then carving up a twisty road somewhere.

 

[revvinkevin]

# 4a: 1986-1993 Lamborghini LM002
Why put a 5.2 liter, 455hp, DOHC, V12 in a truck? (Not the prettiest thing... is it?)

 

[revvinkevin]

OK, this is MY addition to the list.....

# 4b: 2004-2006 Dodge Ram SRT-10
I repeat: Why put a 500hp, 8.3 liter, V10 in a truck?

 

[cadman]

OK, that truck makes no sense, but that Achieva is awesome! We saw one once with the factory buckets and 5-speed.

Speaking of which, an AWD Pontiac 6000 with manual gearbox is on the must-have list. A Citation X-11, a supercharged Buick Ultra or even a Celebrity in blacked out Euro trim, factory spoilers and digital tach could be interesting. Turbo Skyhawk. Convertible Buick Reatta. Or my previous 1985 Eldorado Touring Coupe. Factory heavy-duty suspension, blacked out trim and mouldings, alloy wheels, buckets and console and white letter tires. Handled terrifically even with the weight of the fuel-injected Olds 403 I put in it....driving the front wheels. This is why I love the General. Just because you're in the market for a dowdy daily driver doesn't mean your choices have to be limited to the feature set of a Corolla.

I think a lot of Toronado owners would take exception to the 303HP FWD comment : )

 

[revvinkevin]

# 2: Dodge Omni GLH-S
2.2L, 175 HP, turbocharged engine. Dude, it's still an Omni.

(my comment: Yes it's an Omni, but OMG was this thing FUN to drive!! I rented one (well, three really...long story) from Thrifty Rent-a-Car! Yes it was a basic Econobox and had TONS of torque-steer, but I surprised a LOT of Camaro's, Mustangs, etc at the "stop light Grand Prix".)

 

[revvinkevin]

AND # 1: 1991-1992 GMC Syclone (truck) & 1992-1993 GMC Typhoon (SUV)
Turbocharged, 280 HP, 4.3L V6 (and AWD) make it very fast and fun. Too bad it's a truck with a ridiculously low cargo weight rating.

(My note: because of the All Wheel Drive, these things launch off the line VERY HARD!!!)

 

[revvinkevin]

OK... so there you have it!

While personally, I do not necessarily agree with all of the vehicles on this list or why they are on it, I think it's an interesting subject, none the less. I cannot lay claim to the compilation of this list, but I do present it to you for your comments.

Enjoy!
Kevin

 

[sudsmaster]

I would say that just about any muscle car from the 60's or 70's was an ill-handling boat that could hardly be expected to run a road course the way a modern sports sedan would. They were all about horsepower and bulk, burning rubber and fast take-offs, but not about cornering or agility. If you want to judge by handling, then few if any American made cars of the 60's or 70's deserved their high powered motors.

So I find the list a bit "duh!" because it includes so many older models - but it avoids the sacred cows of the currently way overpriced muscle cars of the time.

 

[hydralique]

Suds is sadlly correct . . .

Many of the older high-performance American V-8s were fantastic engines. They used a lot of fuel, but so did other engines making similar amounts of power. Most of them were commendably reliable and inexpensive to make too. It's a real shame that GM, Ford, and Chrysler couldn't be bothered to give these world-class engines platforms with equally adept suspensions, steering, and brakes. Had they done so, GM wouldn't be having to play catch-up to BMW and Mercedes with their current line of performance Cadillacs.

FWIW, high-perfomance tires were certainly available when Buick made the Grand National- I know of cars from as far back as 1970 which came standard with "V" rated tires, good for up to 160 mph. With a really good chassis, the Grand National could have been a real sports sedan offering BMW M3 performance in an American made car, rather than a footnote to the muscle car era that appealed to too few people to justify continued production.

 

[sudsmaster]

There were a few cases where good British or European car chassis were fit with American V-8 motors. The Sunbeam Alpine springs to mind. I've heard they are a hoot to drive.