Slowest 0-60 vehicle you own

A 401 CJ said:

When I first got my late ‘99 F350 dually with the 7.3 it felt like it was dragging a heavy trailer all the time.  It would hold a hill quite well without shifting down out of OD but oh sweet baby Santa was it ever slow.  Then I added an “Economy” tune from DP.  It’s advertised as helping with fuel economy and a side benefit is 80 hp more.  Some say it’s closer to 100.  Feels more like 200 to me.  That truck will flat bury my ‘13 Pentastar JK in 0 - 60 now.  I’ve been toying with the idea of throwing a set of hotter injectors on it.  That’s starting down a slippery slope though.

Any pics? Always wanted a dually

I have a 1994 Probe GT with a bad fuel pump that can't even get to 60. Does that count?

Well I just did a bit of googling and my slowest is the 74 T/A.  But it 'looks' the fastest....

Ever.... My bucket truck

Current. 81 omni 2.2 auto.

So, I timed the Ramcharger to 60 tonight on my way home from work...

19.8 seconds is not as bad as I thought...

Professor_Brap said:

Ever.... My bucket truck

 

Current. 81 omni 2.2 auto.

2.2?

(yes, I am referencing the Four Yorkshiremen, and deliberately so)

98 Civic HX lifted with 4 size bigger snow tires. I'm not sure if I've gotten it to 60.

In reply to solfly :

Senior buck truck was deathly scary at 50..... Im to scared to go 55

In reply to mr2s2000elise :

For you:

1985 toyota tercel 4wd 

as tested by motorweek 16 seconds to 60

Of the current fleet the Charger is 3.7s slower to  60 than the bike is at 6.5s.

I believe that of the cars I've owned the slowest to 60 would be a 1986 Buick century  , although I can't find any published times for it I imagine it would have been around 16s or so.

1973 Triumph Spitfire. The factory rated it at 75hp when new but I believe that was very optimistic. The good news is it feels much faster than it actually is. You can pretty much drive it flat out and not worry about getting a ticket.

My '66 Plymouth Belvedere in all it's glory is an absolute turd when it comes to any sort of acceleration. I suppose a tired 318 Poly (which was good for ~200hp on a good day when it was new) plus a 4000lb car doesn't make for anything too exciting. Luckily, the manual drums, lack of seat belts and bad idler arm make for an interesting drive.

Nick Comstock said: 1986 Buick century  , although I can't find any published times for it I imagine it would have been around 16s or so.

If it was a 2.5L with a three-speed, then the number I've seen published is 13.5 seconds.

I loved my '86 Century, though.

I have a feeling it's my 1970 Chevrolet C50 superleggera (There's no bed on it right now...) but it certainly could be the '77 alfetta with the poorly running microsquirt setup. Who knows.

My ‘96 F-150 4wd 302 automatic has gotta be slower than my ‘71 Ford station wagon with a 400. It would be close. The truck has less power, but 3.55:1 gears up against the 2.75:1 of the wagon. The wagon pulls a ton harder, though.  

Of course, the ‘81 Fairmont 200-six/auto is probably the slowest I have to 60. 

In reply to RossD :

The automatically shifted manual was slower.