Stefan (Not Bruce) wrote: The Fiero didn't meet the sales numbers needed to stay alive. That was the deal made and the market for them just wasn't large enough, especially after the early teething issues. Those that wanted one, bought one.
Sounds eerily like the BRZ/FRS.
gearheadE30 wrote:Stefan (Not Bruce) wrote: The Fiero didn't meet the sales numbers needed to stay alive. That was the deal made and the market for them just wasn't large enough, especially after the early teething issues. Those that wanted one, bought one.Sounds eerily like the BRZ/FRS.
It is. The small sports car market size is very, very small. Having a very unique (powertrain mostly, but if the chassis is that different) car for it is not a good idea if the goal is to sell a lot at a low price.
The Prelude not being RWD. My understanding is that Honda had intended for it to go this direction, especially in the early days, to compete with 80s Celicas. Instead, they opted to "sporty coupe" instead of "sports car". Very sad.
I need to also echo 3rd gen 350 F-bodies only being offered in auto form. This would've changed the whole 80s muscle car scene.
Taurus SHO. Great engine saddled in a...Taurus body? That decision never made sense to me.
jstand wrote:The 454ss seemed cool at the time, but wasn't the performer that I would have hoped for with only 230 hp. The specs haven't aged well with less hp than my minivan and only a few tenth a quicker in the 1/4.
Horsepower doesn't tell the whole story. These trucks made 385 lb/ft of torque when introduced, and 405 lb/ft later on. They were about as quick as a Mustang GT or a Z28 when introduced. The notion of a usable pickup truck that could smoke the tires all day long was a novel one back in the early 90s.
People tend to rely on HP numbers, but ignore torque-- which is actually more important in most cases.
Regal GS: The whole "AWD or Manual" choice was stupid. Even so, a phenomenal car, one of GM's most underrated, but it had zero marketing whatsoever
Chevrolet SS: Another phenomenal car that proved when GM builds a good car, they build a gooooood car. And then they saddled it with a stupid name, no marketing and auto-only for the first two years.
Joe Gearin wrote:jstand wrote:Horsepower doesn't tell the whole story. These trucks made 385 lb/ft of torque when introduced, and 405 lb/ft later on. They were about as quick as a Mustang GT or a Z28 when introduced. The notion of a usable pickup truck that could smoke the tires all day long was a novel one back in the early 90s. People tend to rely on HP numbers, but ignore torque-- which is actually more important in most cases.
And they also forget the times. For the early '90s, those output numbers and the vehicle performance were pretty eye-watering. They were also a pretty well-rounded package with Bilstein shocks, a bigger front sway bar and quick-ratio steering, so they weren't just straight-line performance.
Good point on the Chevy SS. Talk about the Marketing Team not getting the memo. And what bird brain named the car SS? SS is a package.
penultimeta wrote: The Prelude not being RWD. My understanding is that Honda had intended for it to go this direction, especially in the early days, to compete with 80s Celicas. Instead, they opted to "sporty coupe" instead of "sports car". Very sad.
I'm not sure I understand the thinking that it would be RWD. Honda didn't have a front engine/rear drive car from the S600 to the S2000. And there has not been one since. To go from a FWD car to a RWD car is a pretty big tear up.
This was also the era when other Japanese cars change from RWD to FWD- the 626 in the early 80's, and the Celica in the late 80's did that.
With Honda only making FWD cars from the late 60's up to nearly 2000 (not counting the NSX, which is FWD powertrain behind the driver), I just don't see the possibility of the Prelude ever being RWD.
land Rover Discoveries should have had the TDi option in the states.
And who thought that getting rid of the locking transfer case was a good idea? Still an Iconic Offroader, but needs a few thousand to make it right
I think the H3 missed the mark because of the H2.
Because the H2 looked the way it did and became the poster child for bad fuel economy, over the top excess, guys that wore jeans with fancy stitching on the back pockets and bedazzled shirts.
The H3 was really a very good offroader, although the original inline 5 cylinder was a bit down on power, it got upper teens if not squeaking into the low 20s for fuel economy.
alfadriver wrote:penultimeta wrote: The Prelude not being RWD. My understanding is that Honda had intended for it to go this direction, especially in the early days, to compete with 80s Celicas. Instead, they opted to "sporty coupe" instead of "sports car". Very sad.I'm not sure I understand the thinking that it would be RWD. Honda didn't have a front engine/rear drive car from the S600 to the S2000. And there has not been one since. To go from a FWD car to a RWD car is a pretty big tear up. This was also the era when other Japanese cars change from RWD to FWD- the 626 in the early 80's, and the Celica in the late 80's did that. With Honda only making FWD cars from the late 60's up to nearly 2000 (not counting the NSX, which is FWD powertrain behind the driver), I just don't see the possibility of the Prelude ever being RWD.
I agree. According to Gran Turismo 1 (that's the old ps1 version!) if you clicked on the prelude's info you would read that the prelude was actually designed to compete with the 240sx (s13). It was designed as a "date car" so a young man could pick up his lady and (somehow?) get it on in the back seats.... Having owned both prelude and s13, I can attest that this is impossible for american couples. Maybe in Japan...
spitfirebill wrote:BlueInGreen44 wrote: Also, how have we not mentioned the Ford Thunderbird reboot of the year 2002I was coming to say this^^^^^^
I liked the styling when they came out. I thought they were cool. Then I drove one. Nvh levels similar to mid 70's 4x4 pickup. That removable hard top squeaked, squawked, rattled and hummed, and not a small annoying amount, a very loud obnoxious amount.
penultimeta wrote: Taurus SHO. Great engine saddled in a...Taurus body? That decision never made sense to me.
I'm going to defend the original Taurus SHO. It was a brilliant engine and the Taurus, while dated looking now, was pretty sexy for its time when everything else looked like a box. So you had a sharp looking sleeper sedan with a ripping engine and some handling upgrades. Also, the all important manual transmission.
It worked well enough that they carried the idea into the 3rd generation but with no manual trans. option. It was also heavier, softer, and they used a new engine that turned out to have some reliability issues. And there we have the coulda been but wasn't.
3rd and 4th gen Mitsubishi Eclipse. It's as if they made a list of all the things that made the 1G and 2G cars popular, threw that in the trash, and did something else entirely instead. We wouldn't get the Lancer Evo until several years later so it's not as if they would have been competing with themselves if they did bring out a 2000 model year GST and GSX.
Trackmouse wrote:alfadriver wrote:I agree. According to Gran Turismo 1 (that's the old ps1 version!) if you clicked on the prelude's info you would read that the prelude was actually designed to compete with the 240sx (s13). It was designed as a "date car" so a young man could pick up his lady and (somehow?) get it on in the back seats.... Having owned both prelude and s13, I can attest that this is impossible for american couples. Maybe in Japan...penultimeta wrote: The Prelude not being RWD. My understanding is that Honda had intended for it to go this direction, especially in the early days, to compete with 80s Celicas. Instead, they opted to "sporty coupe" instead of "sports car". Very sad.I'm not sure I understand the thinking that it would be RWD. Honda didn't have a front engine/rear drive car from the S600 to the S2000. And there has not been one since. To go from a FWD car to a RWD car is a pretty big tear up. This was also the era when other Japanese cars change from RWD to FWD- the 626 in the early 80's, and the Celica in the late 80's did that. With Honda only making FWD cars from the late 60's up to nearly 2000 (not counting the NSX, which is FWD powertrain behind the driver), I just don't see the possibility of the Prelude ever being RWD.
Right. This board sees the 240SX as a RWD car that can be really fun, but the market sees it as a 4 seat coupe. Which is exactly what the Prelude is, too.
Bear in mind, Nissan, like Mazda (and largely Toyota) have been making some kind of RWD car for a long time- the Z car (or the RX7, Supra). So when it comes to making a different one, you have parts you can start with and modify. Honda, on the other hand, hasn't. And I think that's where the "lore" of a RWD Prelude falls apart.
In reply to dculberson:
That was the reason given and likely they were too expensive to build only in the US as the market outside the US was effectively dead.
BlueInGreen44 wrote:penultimeta wrote: Taurus SHO. Great engine saddled in a...Taurus body? That decision never made sense to me.I'm going to defend the original Taurus SHO. It was a brilliant engine and the Taurus, while dated looking now, was pretty sexy for its time when everything else looked like a box. So you had a sharp looking sleeper sedan with a ripping engine and some handling upgrades. Also, the all important manual transmission. It worked well enough that they carried the idea into the 3rd generation but with no manual trans. option. It was also heavier, softer, and they used a new engine that turned out to have some reliability issues. And there we have the coulda been but wasn't.
They should have followed Chrysler's path and made that same drivetrain available in another chassis, like Chryco did with the T3 in the Spirit R/T and Daytona R/T.
Can you imagine a Probe with a SHO drivetrain from the factory? Talk about hot hatch.
In reply to Stefan (Not Bruce):
By the time the second Probe came out, the Yamaha V6 was already history. The second Probe has the Porsche Engineering aided V6 that was carried until just a few years ago. Yamaha's V6 stopped in 1996. They did do a 60deg V8, but that didn't last...
Wouldn't have been - couple "groups" of cars here; all the GM's with the turbo V-6 (Grand National, T-Type, Syclone, Typhoon, Turbo Trans Am), also all the Twin Turbo models of the 90's (RX-7, Supra, 300ZX, 3000GT, Stealth), Dodge SRT-4. Would we still fondly remember these vehicles without those motors and packages?
Could Have Been - CR-Z for sure, also a manual in the Charger, why did they ditch the hatch version of the WRX (?!), never an SS model for the S-10/Colorado (so many had to do it themselves), Lexus IS350 with a manual
alfadriver wrote: Yamaha's V6 stopped in 1996. They did do a 60deg V8, but that didn't last...
Volvo sure seems to have gotten a lot of mileage out of it, if my brand-tech-sharing info is accurate. The Volvo 4.4l is supposedly an embiggened SHO 3.4.
In reply to Knurled:
Could be close, but I think Volvo did more work on it after getting it from Yamaha. I really wouldn't call it a Yamaha engine.... And for such a compact engine to start with, adding 1l to it... doesn't pass the smell test.
going to add the BMW 318ti to this list.. how much better would it have sold as a 325ti? It was available in Europe as a 323ti
CobraSpdRH wrote: Wouldn't have been - couple "groups" of cars here; all the GM's with the turbo V-6 (Grand National, T-Type, Syclone, Typhoon, Turbo Trans Am),
Just for the record, the Syclone and Typhoon used a turbo 4.3 liter, not the turbo 3.8 from the GN and Turbo Trans Am. Move along here....nothing to see.....
mad_machine wrote: going to add the BMW 318ti to this list.. how much better would it have sold as a 325ti? It was available in Europe as a 323ti
The hatch, with the older style rear suspension and simplistic interior, was always meant as an economy model. So the people who wanted performance and the bigger engine would be buying the more upscale models anyway, no?
I guess I always figured the 318ti just wasn't as popular cause they look kinda funny.
(I have one, and yes it would be cool if they sold them with the 6 cylinder)
In reply to Armitage:
3rd and 4th gen Mitsubishi Eclipse. It's as if they made a list of all the things that made the 1G and 2G cars popular, threw that in the trash, and did something else entirely instead. We wouldn't get the Lancer Evo until several years later so it's not as if they would have been competing with themselves if they did bring out a 2000 model year GST and GSX.
I agree, and add that Mitsu was still playing it safe long before then. The Starion would have been a better car with the 4G63. And as good as the DSM's were for the day, they left a lot on the table. It would have cost them little to nothing to have built them like the Galant VR4 RS and EVO that pre dated them. They would have been a bit too close to the 3000GT perhaps. The 3G and 4G Eclipses could have been built off the Lancer platform instead of the Galant, and been smaller 2 door EVO's.
One think I have noticed- most cars that miss the mark or veer from their "better" roots seem to sell better.
You'll need to log in to post.
