1 2 3
DrBoost
DrBoost Reader
5/6/09 8:38 a.m.

Here's an article I found on the web. I re-created it here because it is loaded with tons of ads and junk like that. <img src="Sho" /> The Ford Taurus SHO, which stands for Super High Output, holds a special spot on our pages. Ford actually flew Taurus shells to Japan to have the Yamaha 3.0L V6 installed and then flown back. Why Yamaha? Perhaps because the company best known for supremely fast motorcycles knows how to make an excellent engine. Plus, as a maker of fine pianos, the Japanese company knows a thing or two about beautiful music - something else that the SHO's 220-horsepower V6 is well known for. So, why's it on the list? The engine is way better than the rest of the car, that's why. It's a little known fact that the SHO V6 was actually capable of revving up to about 8,500 RPMs, but Ford's accessory systems couldn't handle it, so the redline was dialed back to 7,300 so the engine didn't destroy the rest of the car. Imagine what this engine could have been in a different wrapper.

<img src="Caliber" /> Truth be told, these are fun little cars with powerful turbo fours that produce way more oomph than their front wheels can handle. There's definitely a place for inexpensive performance cars in the American market, as contenders from Ford (SVT Focus), Honda (Civic Si), VW (Golf GTI/R32), Mazda (MazdaSpeed3) and most recently Chevy (Cobalt SS Turbo) can attest. So, why do the Neon SRT4 and its replacement, the Caliber SRT4, earn a spot on our list of machines undeserving of their engines? Balance, or really the lack thereof. Having peers like the modern GTI fighting alongside for the same set of buyers just goes to show how crude these two machines happen to be. Regardless, we'll always have a soft spot for 'em, which is why they sit at number 8 on our list.

<img src="Spirit R/T" /> Long before the SRT4 badge was even thought up, Chrysler served up an enticing sedan that was powered by a force-fed four-cylinder powerplant of its own: the Dodge Spirit R/T. We have no qualms with its engine, as ensconsed underhood of this particular A Body was the ultimate expression of the venerable 2.2L four banger that almost singlehandedly saved Chrysler from its first-ever crisis. Other machines borrowed this engine, including the Consulier GTP. The problem was with the Spirit platform itself, which handled like a pig and had horribly unbalanced braking. What's more, its woeful interior makes Chrysler's current products seem like true luxury items - fine Corinthian leather this was not. Still, if you happen to run across one of the 1,208 Spirt R/Ts built at an attractive price, 13-second quarter mile times are little more than a quick tune away.

<img src="blazing" /> General Motors has proven to the world that it has the engineering talent and chutzpah to challenge the best automakers around when it comes to supercars. In fact, The General can make just about anything go really fast, a fact proven first in 1991 with the GMC Syclone pickup truck and its follow-up, the equally amazing GMC Typhoon SUV. That's right, GMC dropped an awe-inspiring turbocharged and intercooled 4.3L V6 engine between the flexible frame rails of its compact pickup truck and body-on-frame SUV. All-wheel-drive was thrown in for good measure and the four-speed automatic transmission borrowed from the Corvette made bracket racing the SyTy duo an extremely attractive propsect. At first, the idea of a Corvette-trouncing supercar in plain-Jane trappings makes some sense, but that theory fails to hold water. Despite the practical body style, neither of these vehicles was useful as a means of hauling goods, saddled as they were with a ridiculously low cargo weight rating thanks to their complicated suspensions. No matter, SyTy: We still love you and you'll always have a spot reserved in our fantasy garages.

<img src="Limpalla" /> Chevy's small block V8 engine has lived a long and illustrious life since its introduction back in 1955, which coincided with the launch of the classic "shoe box" Chevy. Since then, the mouse motor has been under the hood of nearly everything the General has offered, including the current front-wheel-drive Impala since 2006. The LS4 engine displaces 5.3-liters (325 cubic inches) and offers up a willing 303 horsepower - enough to pull this uninspiring barge to 60 mph in well under six seconds. Unfortunately, the rest of the car is a complete bore. The SS badge may not mean what it used to, but these days it is most out of place on the tail-end of the current-gen Impala.

<img src="Marauder" /> Mercury first used the Marauder nameplate back in 1963, just before the official start of the muscle car age, and later graduated the name to NASCAR duty in the late '60s when it re-emerged as a "personal luxury" model for the 1969 and 1970 seasons. Back then, Ford dropped its 390 and 429 cubic-inch V8s under the Marauder's long, flat hood, so when the nameplate was again revived in 2003, the motoring world was expecting great things from the blacked-out full-sizer. Unfortunately, the actual product was a bit of a letdown, but it wasn't the fault of the powerplant, a fully modern DOHC design that wound out 302 horses from its relatively meager 4.6-liters of displacement. The Marauder was big, heavy and ponderous, having inherited the aging Ford Panther platform from its Crown Victoria stablemate. The four-speed automatic transmission - the only option available - only compounded the high-revving powerplant's low-end torque deficiency, making the new-age Marauder rather slow off the line for a modern muscle car and leaving us to wonder what might have been possible with an equally modern chassis.

<img src="Under-Achiva" /> General Motors has never had a problem coming up with innovative and powerful engines. Proof positive is the Quad 4 powerplant that saw duty in various machines from 1987 until 2001. The ultimate expression of the Quad 4 debuted in 1991 under the hood of the Oldsmobile 442, but it was more common to find it in the 1992-1993 Achieva SCX. Although 190 horsepower might not seem like much these days, that much power from a naturally aspirated four-banger was practically unheard of at the time. Unfortunately for enthusiasts, that gem of an engine was placed in a turd. Although it had much cleaner lines than its Pontiac Grand Am cousin, which also used GM's N platform, the Achieva's front struts and solid axle rear suspension were tuned for boulevard cruising and left the Achieva wallowing in the wake of less-powerful competition such as the Ford Contour, Acura Integra, Mazda 626 and Volkswagen Jetta.

<img src="Lambo" /> Most of us here at Autoblog HQ actually like the Lamborghini LM002. The Italian company, which is much better known for soul-stirring supercars like the Countach and Diablo, actually began building tractors and started the "Cheetah" project with the intent on selling off-road vehicles to the U.S. military, a contract ultimately won by AM General and its HMMWV. When Lambo initially began work on the LM project, a V8 engine supplied by Chrysler was to be used, but when it became obvious that the LM002 was going to be marketed more towards rich sheiks than various military forces, Lamborghini chose to install its own V12 engines in either 5.2- or 7.2-liter guises, mounted amidships. As cool as the Rambo Lambo may be, it'd be better off with the plain ol' American V8 than the expensive Italian 12-cylinder powerplant that was topped with 6 temperamental Weber carburettors. This is an engine that would be much better off sitting just aft of the driver in a low-slung wedge-shaped supercar.

<img src="Trollblazer" /> Saabs are supposed to revel in their quirkiness, though that historic image has dwindled somewhat since General Motors purchased a controlling stake in the Swedish automaker in 1990. Perhaps no single model has served to diminish the brand's identity more than the 9-7X "Trollblazer" SUV (though the 9-2X "Saabaru" would certainly serve as a close second). Based on GM's GMT360 platform that's shared with the Chevy Trailblazer and GMC Envoy, the 9-7X is pretty egregious in all of its guises, but we're specifically waving our fingers at the Aero model, which is powered by the same LS2 engine that could be found nestled under the fiberglass bodywork of the 2005-2007 Chevy Corvette. Yes, it's fast, and yes, this is the best Trailblazer ever. Regardless, what's a Corvette engine doing in a Saab? Darned if we know.

This one hurts the most <img src="GLH" /> The fact that Chrysler has three separate machines on our list may mean that the automaker happens to be very adept at designing great engines. Unfortunately, it may also mean that the Pentastar brand wasn't quite able to deliver a truly well-rounded performance car during the '80s and early '90s. Whatever the case, this is the last Chrysler on today's list - but it also happens to be a Shelby. Though the man behind the Cobra may be best known for the time he spent with Ford during the muscle car heyday, Carroll Shelby also collaborated with Dodge on such timeless classics as the Omni and Shadow. Today, these cars are well known amongst true enthusiasts as econoboxes that are able to blow the doors of what may seem like much more sporting hardware, but that's almost solely due to the 2.2L turbocharged four-cylinder engine. A brief stint behind the wheel of one of these bad boys quickly reminds you that it's impossible to hide the humble K-car origins of the Omni, regarldess of the GLH-S (that'd be Goes Like Hell Some more, we're told) badge on the hatch's rump.

P71
P71 Dork
5/6/09 9:03 a.m.

The LS2 is in a Saab for wicked Street Mod engine swaps

AutoBlog's lists usually suck and this one is no different. I agree with the SHO and the Mopars, but others have equally capable chassis. The Sy/Ty had bespoke drivetrain/suspensions and handled quite nice in their day. The Marauder was let down by the engine, period. It just didn't make the power anywhere in the rev range.

Travis_K
Travis_K HalfDork
5/6/09 10:03 a.m.

Actually, other than the malibu and saab, and maybe the caliber srt4, i cant see why they chose those cars. The turbo dodge engines arent any better made than the rest of the cars, they are mean tto be cheap and fast, thats it. I wouldnt want an italian v12 in anything whether it was a car or suv, same with the sho engine, at least now when it is impossible to get parts for.

psteav
psteav Reader
5/6/09 10:13 a.m.

The Marauder was a great car searching for an engine. That is the exact opposite of their little list here.

The GLHS probably belongs on this list. The Spirit R/T and Taurus SHO were actually decent chassis, if you accept that they were high performance family sedans. And fit and finish and interior design on the R/T are no worse than anything else from 1991.

foxtrapper
foxtrapper SuperDork
5/6/09 10:28 a.m.

Another is the Titan V10 that Ford has. They have/had those in the F150, and even sold a bunch to U-haul for their mini-cube trucks. A whole lot of engine for a not enough truck.

geowit
geowit Reader
5/6/09 11:16 a.m.

Ha. I've owned 2 from the list. An '86 GLH that was scary fast and had torque steer that would humble Arnold. A '92 SHO that was a great car all around. It was fast, comfortable and fairly economical for a family sedan. The best feature of the SHO was to pop the hod. That engine was the prettiest piece of hardware since the old Mopar hemi's with a 2x4bbl tunnel ram intake.

That_Renault_Guy
That_Renault_Guy HalfDork
5/6/09 11:22 a.m.

I'm guessing whomever created this list is in their twenties, based on the vintage of the cars picked.

I mean, seriously, isn't the Cosworth Vega the exact definition of the statement?

friedgreencorrado
friedgreencorrado Reader
5/6/09 11:43 a.m.

The fact that the "Quad 4" was never offered in the Fiero (especially after the redesigned suspension) should be the epitaph on GM's grave.

pigeon
pigeon Reader
5/6/09 12:03 p.m.

Yamaha knows how to make a V8. There's one residing under the hood of my wife's Volvo XC90, and it makes me happy in the pants to stomp on the gas in that thing. It makes very nice noises and moves the pretty large SUV with authority.

Strizzo
Strizzo Dork
5/6/09 12:48 p.m.
foxtrapper wrote: Another is the Titan V10 that Ford has. They have/had those in the F150, and even sold a bunch to U-haul for their mini-cube trucks. A whole lot of engine for a not enough truck.

im pretty sure the f150 never got anything bigger than the 5.4. some of the van chassis got the v10, but i dont think those were 1/2 ton versions

P71
P71 Dork
5/6/09 1:43 p.m.

The only V10 Ford's I've seen were Super Duty's. The one I drove was an F550 Dually with the service bed for towing the Coast Guard's 27' SAFE Boats. And it SUCKED. The V10 had no grunt and the trans would slip going up inclines (you know, like a berkleying BOAT RAMP).

I was soooo happy when the GMC 3500 Diesel showed up that I ordered through GSA ;)

DrBoost
DrBoost Reader
5/6/09 3:42 p.m.

Having owned a number of turbo dodges I have to say that chasis is NOT decent. It can be made to be but it's just a humble front drive econobox. All-in-all, I don't agree with that list 100%, just put it up here for discussion fodder.....

psteav
psteav Reader
5/6/09 5:13 p.m.
DrBoost wrote: Having owned a number of turbo dodges I have to say that chasis is NOT decent. It can be made to be but it's just a humble front drive econobox. All-in-all, I don't agree with that list 100%, just put it up here for discussion fodder.....

The GLHS set a few track records when it came out. It was a torque-steering, evil little bastard, but it could hustle. It was not the greatest in terms of technological state-of-the art or driver feedback, but it was a fast car around corners. All in all, it accomplished its mission quite nicely. What else was that fast in 1986?

As for the Spirit, the later EEK chassis stuff was a lot better than the earlier ones. The R/T was a "decent" (note that I never said spectacular) chassis. I actually did own one, and it was fun to drive spiritedly on public roads in completely stock form and had good enough brakes and handling to cope with the level of power it put down. Was it a miata? Nope. Again, look at it context-when it came out in 1991, the only comparably performing sedan at that price point was the SHO (which also gets a bum rap here).

BobOfTheFuture
BobOfTheFuture Reader
5/6/09 5:25 p.m.

Got a feeling the author would think these were great cars for the day if there was an "H" on the hood.

Schmidlap
Schmidlap New Reader
5/6/09 5:30 p.m.

This is why I hate the internet - any idiot can publish a poorly written article regardless of how uninformed they are.

"Ford actually flew Taurus shells to Japan to have the Yamaha 3.0L V6 installed and then flown back." Yeah, and then they shipped the cars to Atlantis in a submarine to have the interior installed.

The engines came from Japan, but they didn't fly the whole damn car there to install it.

Bob

forzav12
forzav12 New Reader
5/6/09 5:45 p.m.
Travis_K wrote: I wouldnt want an italian v12 in anything whether it was a car or suv...

Blasphemy!!! No offense, but shouldn't you be perusing the Prius boards for the latest tips on hypermiling?

forzav12
forzav12 New Reader
5/6/09 5:48 p.m.

As for the article. Written by an idiot with no sense of perspective when referencing the older offerings and just plain inaccuracies with much of the rest.

72SuperBrian
72SuperBrian Reader
5/6/09 5:59 p.m.

forza, I think I agree with Travis_K.

My uncle has a Ferrari 550 Maranello. AWESOME car! Fast, gorgeous, great sounds... But $10,000 timing belt changes that start out as 'just a timing belt' and turn into a zillion other extremely expensive things (that you can only get from Ferrari and have to wait weeks for) to do 'while it's apart'

He worked and saved for his whole life to get that car and he LOVES it. He said, and I quote, "they all have low mileage because if anyone were to really use one as a regular car, it would either disintigrate or be outrageously expensive to keep in good running order."

If I ever inherit it, I'll never be able to afford to drive it.

72SuperBrian
72SuperBrian Reader
5/6/09 6:00 p.m.

That said, I agree that whoever wrote that article is a moron. But didn't it make for a great conversation starter?

neon4891
neon4891 SuperDork
5/6/09 6:11 p.m.

psteav, was the R/T spirit chassis and different than the plane jane spirit/acclaim chassis? I learned to drive in a '94 Acclaim and once you hit 70 on the interstate it was just unstable.

Sorry to vent, I just have a special place in my heart full of hatred for those cars

psteav
psteav Reader
5/6/09 6:33 p.m.

Depends on what you learned to drive in. The base acclaim was very grandma (not even sure they got sway bars...don't quote me on that). ES got stiffer springs and sway bars (and either a turbo 2.5 or a 3.0 V6, they can get out of their own way). The R/T improved on the ES, as per below:

allpar said: The Spirit ES suspension was modified with increased spring rates and front valving, performance-oriented rear shocks, 70mm progressive-rate front jounce bumpers, and a 28.6 mm rear sway bar. Tires were 205/60R15 Michelin XGTV4, wheels 15" x 6". Handling was decent, and torque steer was minimized by the modifications, but it is probably foolish to try to outhandle a Neon with an stock R/T.

'nuff said.

EDIT: Just found this as well.

allpar said:

The Acclaim was given a softer ride, and the Spirit was given a firmer ride with better handling. Other than the suspension tuning and the grille, there wasn't much of a difference between the Spirit and Acclaim.

MadScientistMatt
MadScientistMatt HalfDork
5/6/09 8:34 p.m.
That_Renault_Guy wrote: I'm guessing whomever created this list is in their twenties, based on the vintage of the cars picked. I mean, seriously, isn't the Cosworth Vega the exact definition of the statement?

The Cosworth Vega is certainly a prime example.

The Chrysler examples he picked aren't the ones I would chose. The Pentastar has put out some much weirder engine / chassis combinations, like these:

Chrysler Cordoba with a 225 slant six. While not bad for the era with a V8, the slant and the Cordoba should never have been combined.

Mid '80s Chrysler Limousine. The 2.5 Turbo is a great cheap fun engine in something like a Daytona, with the way it snarls and hisses under spirited driving. So who ever got the idea it was the perfect motor for a stretch limo?

Some I can think of from other brands that didn't seem to belong together:

Lincoln LSC / BMW four cylinder diesel.

'95 and later Lincoln Continental - This should have shoved the Maurauder off the list. Take the 4.6, make it all aluminum, and put it into a forgettable FWD chassis.

The closest I can think of to Honda delivering a case of a good motor in a horribly wrong chassis would be the first generation Odyssey, with a VTEC Accord four banger in a rather weird van-wagon hybrid. They've been guilty of boring engine / good chassis combos, but every time they've come out with a decent performance engine they've made a point of putting it in a chassis to match.

forzav12
forzav12 New Reader
5/6/09 9:11 p.m.
72SuperBrian wrote: forza, I think I agree with Travis_K. My uncle has a Ferrari 550 Maranello. AWESOME car! Fast, gorgeous, great sounds... But $10,000 timing belt changes that start out as 'just a timing belt' and turn into a zillion other extremely expensive things (that you can only get from Ferrari and have to wait weeks for) to do 'while it's apart' He worked and saved for his whole life to get that car and he LOVES it. He said, and I quote, "they all have low mileage because if anyone were to really use one as a regular car, it would either disintigrate or be outrageously expensive to keep in good running order." If I ever inherit it, I'll never be able to afford to drive it.

I must strongly disagree. My 550 is an incredibly reliable car and the belt change is more like 2600. The Maranello is very reliable with little to no issues. Services take no longer than any other modern car, nor is the hourly rate any worse than a Lexus, for example. The only problem other than very reasonable services has been an alarm system that occasionally has a mind of its own. My 60s V12 has been stone cold reliable as well and other than some expensive parts, no big mystery to keep running well. There was a reason these cars could run flat out for 24 Hours-and no, I don't mean the 24 Hours of Lemons. Disintegrate? Hardly. Unable to be used as a daily driver? Uh, no. I drove my 308 and 250GT daily for years without issue. Certain models like the TR and the 348 had issues and expensive "engine out" services. The 550 Maranello most certainly does not.

benzbaron
benzbaron Reader
5/6/09 9:32 p.m.

How bout the wrangler with the big v8 hemi in it? Great combo for street stomping. The thing sounds like a tank.

RexSeven
RexSeven HalfDork
5/6/09 9:38 p.m.
benzbaron wrote: How bout the wrangler with the big v8 hemi in it? Great combo for street stomping. The thing sounds like a tank.

I don't think ChryCo ever put the Hemi in the Wrangler. They did put it into the Grand Cherokee to create the SRT-8. It's as ugly and fast as sin.

1 2 3

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
h7NgKO1sHJR7W9ZOZXHOFimjW9cZSTVQ5Tfi9xGNBb4jf5KjdOgTrn0A4WQpSzsT