Most overhyped, disappointing car you've ever driven?

Drove a later 944. My Saturn could beat that thing in a drag race.

'04 GTO - Big ol' fat fatty. A friend and I used to commute in his 6 spd Cosmos(?) Purple car. I drove it a lot. Burnouts were fun. Turning and stopping weren't.

WRX - To me, AWD isn't fun on pavement with any less than ridiculous power levels. Throw in a mediocre interior and boy racer image and I just really didn't enjoy this thing. I liked the noises and nothing more.

2003 Subaru WRX STi It was like an understeering farm tractor with boost and a shifter that might be mounted in some kind of pudding.

Vigo wrote: Also FWD people are stuck on running square tire setups for some reason.

Which is doubly odd, because lots of RWD people want to run staggered setups, which just make 99% of all RWD cars understeer more. I guess they think it looks cooler.

I do not have any real track experience, but I would think that on a big track FWD's disadvantages would be reduced. On an autocross course, you often need to be able to get the power down while digging out from a tight turn, and that plays to all of FWD's shortcomings.

I loved my Neon ACR but I can't imagine it put the power down anywhere near as effectively as my Miata coming out of a tight bend.

Duke wrote:

Vigo wrote: Also FWD people are stuck on running square tire setups for some reason.

I do not have any real track experience, but I would think that on a big track FWD's disadvantages would be reduced. On an autocross course, you *often* need to be able to get the power down while digging out from a tight turn, and that plays to all of FWD's shortcomings.

A guy in NJ built up a VW Mk IV GTI 1.8T to be a pretty effective DSP car using 285 front tires and 245's on the rear. Granted, the coilover suspension was stiff and a bit higher than OE to keep the tires away from the fenders. It got the power down well, though.

350Z/G35 Coupe. Sounds great on paper. Interior sucks, hated the way it drove.

Overhyped:
- Lamborghini Gallardo. I so wanted to love this car, but was totally underwhelmed by the early example I drove. I hated the clunky auto-clutch gearbox, AWD numbed the handling, the interior wasn't that special and it didn't even feel that quick.

Disappointing:
- Fox Mustang Convertible with automatic V6. Worst pony car ever made?
- E36 BMW 318i automatic. Recipe for fail: take the most under-powered BMW in the lineup, then saddle it with a mediocre GM slushbox.
- Dodge Magnum. This car look so badass when parked, but drives like it's been castrated.

FRS. Definitely didn't feel like the new "answer"

Ian F wrote:

Duke wrote:

Vigo wrote: Also FWD people are stuck on running square tire setups for some reason.

I do not have any real track experience, but I would think that on a big track FWD's disadvantages would be reduced. On an autocross course, you *often* need to be able to get the power down while digging out from a tight turn, and that plays to all of FWD's shortcomings.

A guy in NJ built up a VW Mk IV GTI 1.8T to be a pretty effective DSP car using 285 front tires and 245's on the rear. Granted, the coilover suspension was stiff and a bit higher than OE to keep the tires away from the fenders. It got the power down well, though.

Autocrossers are the exception rather than the norm. Staggered FWD setups are pretty common in Solo work.

Vigo wrote: I liked the car but it didnt change my fwd tastes.

Not that there is anything wrong with that (play on words in comparison to something else there is nothing wrong with that may or may not refer to someones sexuality without actually saying so )

While I can't say I have driven them, all the new cars where I currently work disappoint me...

I think once you become a real car enthusiast / driver it's hard to be impressed by much. Then you buy a Bike.

I agree on the WRX and the STi... Jush meh (I worked for subaru) New camaro is a tubby Biach.

I drove a friends prepped 71 240 with an L28 and webers.. Impressed with the entire experience. My fathers 997S with the bolt ons is fun but almost too refined and the LS1 Corvair is just hilarious to drive.

Grand Prix GTP. My friend owns one and he's the one who overhypes it. He acts like its the fastest car on earth. It's a bloated pig. Handling? It's not there, just understeer. Fast? Well in a straight line from a dead stop maybe, but acceleration from a roll is not that great because the transmission sure takes its precious time downshifting.

MR2 SC

At the risk of getting lynched. Mazdaspeed 3. I read every single review and comparison test when it came out. I was 110% convinced it was the car for me and set off to the dealer convinced I would get one. I would almost have bought it without a test drive I was so sure it was for me. Luckily I did test drive it back to back with the MS6. Damn, that killed it within ¼ mile, it was my biggest let down ever. The interior was cheap and tacky plastic and it appears they come with solid steel rods instead of rear shocks as the ride was atrocious and harsh. Solid rebound damping doesn't make a sporty car. Heck a lowered 70's 911 with Koni's rode much better than the MS3. On top of that the NVH sucked, loud and buzzy. I was massively disappointed. I much much preferred the MS6 I drove at the same time, but it was getting to be an old platform. I ended up with the C30 instead which is so much better in every conceivable way.

I'll also 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th whatever a stock 2.0L WRX, the lack of low end and lag makes it horrible around town. Now, loose the cat in the up pipe and re-flash it and you have a great car.

I'll also bash the STi, EVO and 350Z for the same over harsh rear shock damping making you crash and thump down the typical Michigan potholed road and head straight for the closest chiropractor.

One more, the original base 2.7L Boxster, just not enough torque, power or response to go with the rest of the car, and this from a guy who prefers the 1.6 over 1.8L NA Miata’s. Now, I’ll still take a 3.2L ‘S’ in a heartbeat, but the original 2.7 was just not up to the task of the old 986.

Right, after slaying all those GRM sacred cows I think I’ll change my name, move and enter the Whiteness protection plan or I may not survive the week!

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Right, after slaying all those GRM sacred cows I think I’ll change my name, move and enter the Whiteness protection plan or I may not survive the week!

Whiteness protection program? Sounds racist.

I'll put forward the MkI GTI. I recognize that at the time it was a breath of fresh air, but by the time I got around to ever driving one, it seemed horribly dated.

z31maniac wrote: More like 400 according (3200 vs 2800) to what I'm reading, but the Z is also a leather clad/BOSE stereo/NAV having Grand Touring car with a 340HP V6 and sub 5 sec 0-60.......not a spartan, underpowered 4 banger. They are not really meant to be directly compared. I was just pointing out your concept of FR-S being "smaller" isn't accurate.

Scion FR-S Curb weight: 2,758 http://www.scion.com/cars/FR-S/specs/
Nissan 370Z curb weight: 3,272 http://www.nissanusa.com/sportscars/z-coupe/versions-specs

514lbs difference, just for reference.

Hmm. I've driven my son's '11 STi in anger on some fun twisty backroads around here, and I loved it. Drive it like my old 911s: trail brake slightly into the corner and as the tail lightens up, squeeze the throttle and feel the 300hp and AWD pull you around the corner with a slight tail-out slip angle. Massive fun. If you find it to be an understeering pig, you're a piss poor driver.

I find a lot of autocrossers are like that, though: they can only drive a car fast if the car is set up for their driving style, and are unable to adapt to a car's driving style.

His STi also rides great and the seats are very supportive. I couldn't care less about the tactile sensations of the plastics on the dash in a performance car, either.

In reply to Chris_V:

I'm a piss poor driver, too, then because the one I drove was an under steering pig, too

A lot of these sound more like a problem with unrealistic expectations, from reading into the hype rather than through it. It's hard to be "disappointed" in a car as long as you don't believe any hype that comes without a healthy dose of perspective (reality check) and go into the experience keeping in mind all of its known shortcomings.

Driven5 wrote: A lot of these sound more like a problem with unrealistic expectations, from reading *into* the hype rather than *through* it. I've rarely been "disappointed" in a car...At least not as long as I didn't believe any hype that comes without a healthy dose of perspective (reality check) and went into the experience keeping in mind all of its known shortcomings.

I agree with that. But I still hold that the BRZ/FRS was a huge letdown. I could still see one as my next car, but it is missing some punch. It is probably faster off the line than my miata, but it sure as hell doesn't feel that way.

(I realize your post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just throwing my defense out there )

JamesMcD wrote: Yeah, pretty much. My FD is nearly stock and is perhaps a bit too refined for me. The fact that I restored the whole thing and built the engine makes me hate to sell it, but it's probably going to happen. Also, I have to be another guy to bag on FCs. I drove mine daily for two years. It was reliable and fun to hoon in the rain, but it was slower than my MX6 GT, got worse gas mileage, was far more flexible and flimsy feeling on the highway, and didn't handle as well. I thought it was going to be a revelation in comparison, but it just made me want my MX6 back.

The problem with FD's is that they are SO good looking it's hard to say "I just don't care for it" It's like dating a supermodel with no sense of humor. I'm usually pretty good at tuning a car to get it to where I want it but with that car...it did everything really well and I still couldn't put my finger on why I didn't have a connection with it. I felt so much more connection with my 76 BMW 2002 even though it did nothing close to that car.

Also I put those cars in the Supra, 3kgt vr4, NSX (maybe) era of early 90s japanese supercars and compared to let's say a MKIV Supra turbo...it just fell short to me.

In reply to Driven5: Well said, I couldn't help but think the same thing.

On the other hand, this is the internet and such fair well-thought out observations are generally frowned upon.

Oh, yeah. Mine was a new edge Roush Mustang GT. What a clumsy hulk. I couldn't wait to get back in my 140hp Integra. Different strokes I guess.

I'm going to add my 68 Mustang fastback to the list. My 78 Lincoln Continental is better damped & I've driven dump trucks with more steering feel. Sure does look cool, though.

Eibachs, both LMs, CSS center caps, and Boost Gauge are sold and paid for.

I was a little surprised by my FRSBRZ experience because i was eating my words a little bit about the power. I thought it would be just fine with 200hp. What i found is that, while it probably IS fine with 200hp, what you actually FEEL is the powerband, and the powerband doesnt give enough drama. It was surprisingly good in the midrange but there was absolutely no 'crescendo' to the upper RPMs. I almost think the car would be better with less mid range and more high range just so that you would have some suspense, some REASON to want to go to redline. IMO the powerband encourages you to drive it 3-4k rpm everywhere.

I thought the rest of the car was great.