In reply to failboat:
Crossfires were "quick" for about 100'. After that the weight and steaming pos v6 took over. Even in SRT form, junk.
In reply to failboat:
Crossfires were "quick" for about 100'. After that the weight and steaming pos v6 took over. Even in SRT form, junk.
Don't know about worst, but certainly the ugliest
I had a 1999 Tiburon. The first gen with the more sedate looks. It was a decent little commuter hatch with aspirations of trying to be a sports car.
Crossfires were "quick" for about 100'. After that the weight and steaming pos v6 took over.
IIRC the rear wheels weigh 54 lbs EACH. Talk about drivetrain loss.
Even in SRT form, junk.
Eh, I disagree there. I think the SRT version justifies a lot of the failings of the non-srt version with gobs of power. They trap well over 110mph bone stock. They are faster than the HP numbers might suggest at first glance.
Vigo wrote: So to me it seems like this thread concept falls apart right where you have to define "sporty". Having said that, I've owned a couple of the cars in this thread and still plan to own a couple more.
Not necessarily, i recognize that the allante was a terrible mistake as a sporty cadillac but I still plan on having one eventually.
Chevy Citation X-11...
BiTurbo.
Chevy SSR.
ryanty22 wrote:Type Q wrote: I would nominate the 1978-1979 Ford Thunderbird.I drove a 77 tbird once and it was the largest pile o crap Id ever driven. You didnt like the c3 vette? I thought they were ok, little uncomfortable but not the worst.Flight Service said: C3 Corvette, Mustang II
The Thunderbird hasn't been a sporty car since the 50's at that point.
C3 and the C4 to be honest both were horribly flexible cars, to be honest some of the motors I have seen in them just bewilder me as to why the cars aren't torn in half.
oldtin wrote:
Fuego.
RexSeven wrote: Chevy SSR.
Sporty or good handling was never mentioned when they sold me my SSR. Its a cruiser through and through.
Lexus convertible sc430 or whatever it was.
Smart Fortwo Brabus?
How about the Aston Martin Cygnet?
Nissan Pulsar NX?
Toyota Prius Superleggera? (Admittedly, this was probably an owner-installed set of stickers, and thus ineligible.)
Vigo wrote:Crossfires were "quick" for about 100'. After that the weight and steaming pos v6 took over.IIRC the rear wheels weigh 54 lbs EACH. Talk about drivetrain loss.Even in SRT form, junk.Eh, I disagree there. I think the SRT version justifies a lot of the failings of the non-srt version with gobs of power. They trap well over 110mph bone stock. They are faster than the HP numbers might suggest at first glance.
I think that the crossfire is a solid little car with some quirks. You're right though,the SRT is insane and a set of proper wheels would probably really help... Factory 19s I think 
JFX001 wrote:oldtin wrote:Not just the worst sporty car ever built but just flat out the worst car ever. GM hit a new all time low with this one.
'84 fiero.
90hp iron duke with a 4500rpm redline, that felt/sounded too high. 4sp trans, so 70mph max. weird handling. not to mention the problems. worst of all, they looked cool.
Now, in no way do I consider this car sporty. But I remember the ads tried to play it off as such, and remember, Pontiac was GM's "performance" division.
My vote goes to the Grand Am GT.
The Camry Solara has to be in the running, though.
Easily anything Dodge came out with in the '80's. They improved slightly by sticking the Shelby name on them, but even he wasn't a miracle worker.
dm289 wrote: Chevy Citation X-11...
Hmmm... The '81 I had was quicker than any Rabbit GTI, and ran in F Stock at the autocross, against the Z-28, Trans-Am, and GT. My dad and the owner of another '81 X-11 were always battling for first place against an alien driver in a Trans-Am. I'm guessing you drove a GT in the '80's.
Several candidates come immediately to mind:
Hyundai Scoupe
Pulsar NX
Renault Fuego
Plymouth Horizon TC3 (my mom had this exact car in yellow; she traded if for a Chrysler Laser turbo, but that's another story...)
Ford EXP
If you look at cars named after places associated with motorsport, it's hard to do worse than Pontiac Bonneville.
foxtrapper wrote: To me, the biggest disappointment along these lines was the Subaru XT. It delivered absolutely nothing. Sporty? Puhleeze!
Have you driven an XT6?
BIG difference.
I've driven a 3.3L powered XT6, and outran an NSX over Deal's Gap.
In reply to racerfink:
I don't completely agree with that. Some of the cars marketed as "sporty" may not have been as good as other cars in their class, but some of the ”sporty” versions of the sedans were better than other cars in their class.
Unless you are basing it all on build quality and how the cars fared over time, then I got nothing.
Swank Force One wrote: Mercury Capri. Like... the FWD Convertible ones. Man i hate those cars.
Yessir, those were turds. I lost a lot of respect for the Aussies when those showed up.
The Crossfire sucks balls too; we run and hide when one shows up. Think of it as the worst that both Chrysler and Mercedes could come up with in one package. One example: vacuum operated center console lock. Um. Yeah. Nothing to go sour there.
Having said that, an SRT6 Crossfire is a QUICK little bastard.
I always thought the Crossfire was a great looking car, just needed a proper powertrain.
Like say a swap from it's chassis twin and put in a Merc V8
Is it just me, or was this picture taken at the crest of The Uphill at Limerock? At least it was taken on hallowed racing ground...
Came in here to say Mercury Capri convertible, see that job has been done. I've had idiots confuse it with the Miata and tell me my car is FWD and thus no fun/good/not a sports car.
You'll need to log in to post.
