What was the worst major company produced sporty type of car?

The earliest Triumph TR7's built at the Speke plant near Liverpool were absolute dogs. (I'm the proud owner of #514 built at Speke in 1975, the first year of production). Those cars starting falling apart the moment they left the factory. They were victims of radical unionism and incompetent management and the first few years were all coupes. The TR7 could have easily been introduced with the much better four valve Dolimite Sprint engine and the Rover/Buick/Olds V8 version could have been put into production much sooner. British Leyland later closed Speke and moved production and qualty we went up. The convertibles went into production and the V8 TR8 was finally introduced. Unfortunately it was too little too late and B.L. went the way of the dinosaur. Its sad because in the last couple years of production TR7's were actually very good cars if you could live with the styling.

plymouth prowler.

expensive, slow, and little potential.

Not necessarily because its a terrible car, but its not a sports car despite being marketed as such.

belteshazzar wrote: plymouth prowler. expensive, slow, and little potential.

I forgot about that one, its was turrible

kazoospec wrote: No necessarily because its a terrible car, but its not a sports car despite being marketed as such.

Well they seemed to want it to be the Celica. Funny if it was RWD it would be considered a sports car under the hype that one change makes so much difference.

Ranger50 wrote: Crossfire

idk... Crossfire SRT-6 is quite good. Weighs less than 350Z or it's Merc counterpart with more power than the 350Z far better brakes. Only downside is Auto trans but that's typically mercedesness that you have to get past.

Im honestly surprised that not many have said catera with the reputation that car has

kanaric wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: Crossfire

idk... Crossfire SRT-6 is quite good. Weighs less than 350Z or it's Merc counterpart with more power than the 350Z far better brakes. Only downside is Auto trans but that's typically mercedesness that you have to get past.

Biggest issue I found with them is everyone is mighty proud of them, haven't ever seen a cheap one. Too much $$$ for what it is.

mad_machine wrote: 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.

Daughter has an 04 Tiburon GT. Exactly what you stated. If the would have put a limited slip diff and have decent suspension available (aftermarket), would have been a great little sporty car.

How did the 370Z enter this discussion? Isn't it lighter, shorter, and wider than its predecessor?

Somebody said Camry Solara. I actually had a nightmare that I bought one of those. It was a black coupe. I woke up not remembering the dream, but I was stressed out and couldn't figure out why. Three days later, I remembered having the dream and I felt a wave of relief. I don't dislike them, but I don't see them as anything more significant than a regular blender with a half-sized lid.

wlkelley3 wrote:

kanaric wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: Crossfire

idk... Crossfire SRT-6 is quite good. Weighs less than 350Z or it's Merc counterpart with more power than the 350Z far better brakes. Only downside is Auto trans but that's typically mercedesness that you have to get past.

Biggest issue I found with them is everyone is mighty proud of them, haven't ever seen a cheap one. Too much $$$ for what it is.

That is true, better cars out there for the money. You could find a 350Z for like $8k now.

The Le Car and the Fuego have already been mentioned, but who can forget the Renaul Alliance GTA? When that thing came out in the 80's I thought they must be cool. Just look at the added on body kit. Sporty for sure.

The Fiasco...er... I mean the Fiero.

T.J. wrote: The Le Car and the Fuego have already been mentioned, but who can forget the Renaul Alliance GTA? When that thing came out in the 80's I thought they must be cool. Just look at the added on body kit. Sporty for sure.

I thought the GTA version was the one that chrysler did right?

Argo1 wrote: The Fiasco...er... I mean the Fiero.

oh it was horrible especially the first couple of years but I want one

Anything from the 80's that shows up on turbododge. my wifes old saturn handled better and was faster then my sundance is. Makes me wish i would have kept the n/a 4 popper mustang instead!

TR8owner wrote: The earliest Triumph TR7's built at the Speke plant near Liverpool were absolute dogs. (I'm the proud owner of #514 built at Speke in 1975, the first year of production). Those cars starting falling apart the moment they left the factory. They were victims of radical unionism and incompetent management and the first few years were all coupes. The TR7 could have easily been introduced with the much better four valve Dolimite Sprint engine and the Rover/Buick/Olds V8 version could have been put into production much sooner. British Leyland later closed Speke and moved production and qualty we went up. The convertibles went into production and the V8 TR8 was finally introduced. Unfortunately it was too little too late and B.L. went the way of the dinosaur. Its sad because in the last couple years of production TR7's were actually very good cars if you could live with the styling.

One of the reasons I was a Triumph fan was because they actually attempted to build a modern car, instead of foisting over the same old stuff with "updated" equipment/interiors. If I had to pick from the last of the LBCs, I'd take a 7 over a late MGB. The one I drove back when they were new was better than the 1st gen RX-7 in the twisty bits, it just didn't have enough grunt (I agree with you that the Dolly motor would have made it a better match). Of course, I'd take an 8 over either of them.

I actually like the styling..but am mystified that you put "proud" and "Speke" in the same sentence.

"I actually like the styling..but am mystified that you put "proud" and "Speke" in the same sentence."

I'm a long time old time Triumph guy - Spitfire, GT6, TR4, TR6, but the wedge "shape of things to come" is no doubt the best handling most modern car they ever built. The tragedy is that they could have easily got it right at the start. The four valve Dolomite Sprint engine was easily available but they went to the gutless 2 valve instead. Made no sense at all because then they would have had a car with a 2 litre that would have run away and hid from the RX7 and Porsche 924 and would have challenged more expensive cars in the performance department. The TR8 could have been into production earlier but they blew it. You can almost forgive BL for not going with a convertible from the start because at the time it seemed as if the USA would legislate convertibles out of existence. I've always thought the convertibles looked much better but the coupes are starting to grow on me.

I have four wedges, three TR8's and TR7.

Anything from the 80's that shows up on turbododge. my wifes old saturn handled better and was faster then my sundance is. Makes me wish i would have kept the n/a 4 popper mustang instead!

Speaking of TURBOdodge, did you try the TURBO version? Im assuming not since a properly running turbo shadow/sundance is about a WHOLE LOT faster than an n/a 2.3 mustang.

I mean, it's not like anyone has run a 13.4 1/4 mile on the stock tiny-ass turbo. Or mid-11s with bolt-on mods on a completely stock shortblock.

Worst "Sporty car" covers a huge marketing lingo territory! My personal experience for worst sports car was the Fiat X19. My father bought a new 1975 X19. It almost ended my parents marriage. It had wipers that did not work when it rained a heater that was only functional in July and seemed to generate new random drivabilty issues unlike any car we ever had before. It was as wonderfull to drive as any mid engine Italian car could be but it punished its owners with total unreliability.We really wanted to love it. In the end we really wanted to just push it into a field and burn it.When we finally decided to sell it there were no takers, only other X19 owners who tried to sell us their X19's with the argument that "two of could make one good one!" No. no it wouldn't.

There have been so many....The Mitsu Lancer OZ Rally, the Scion T??...the coupe thing, 3rd gen Mitsu Eclipse, Ford Escort ZX2, anything from ChryCo with FWD and an RT badge, Chevy Cavalier Z24.....I could go on, bust most are so forgettable that I've forgotten them.

dropstep wrote: Anything from the 80's that shows up on turbododge. my wifes old saturn handled better and was faster then my sundance is. Makes me wish i would have kept the n/a 4 popper mustang instead!

So you're saying a newer economy car designed in the mid-90's handles better than an older economy car with suspension designed in the 70's and with more miles on it? Shocking! We should call Ripley's! How about you just go and think about what you're trying to say before you say it.

Also, I'd say the Scaries and MiniMe guys would beg to differ with you.

The fact is the GLH-T, GLH-S, CSX/-T/-VNT were excellent cars of their time and could out accelerate and out handle many more expensive cars of the time. Which is the key, of the time, which was the mid-eighties. Were they sports cars? No. Never were billed as such. They were sport compacts and they filled those roles quite well. The fact that those same improvements could be carried over to the other cars based off that same platform meant you could build a Turbo Aries Wagon that would embarrass quite a lot of cars, get 30mpg and not draw anyone's attention while doing it.

T.J. wrote: The Le Car and the Fuego have already been mentioned, but who can forget the Renaul Alliance GTA? When that thing came out in the 80's I thought they must be cool. Just look at the added on body kit. Sporty for sure.

while hardly a brilliant car it was way more than a body kit.

Regular Alliances offered a choice of 1.4-liter, 64-hp OHV and 1.7-liter, 77-hp OHC four-cylinder engines; however, the GTA was blessed with a beefier 2.0-liter, 90-hp OHC power plant whose long-stroke design produced plenty of useable torque. Mated to the mandatory close-ratio five-speed transmission, it got the GTA from 0-60 in a respectable-for the-time 10.2-seconds. In addition to a hotter engine, the GTA received upgrades to its suspension and brakes, body cladding and Michelin performance tires mounted on 15-inch alloy rims

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1987-renault-gta-an-alliance-of-a-different-stripe/

These certainly aren't the worst but oh my gosh are they are insultingly boring for a 2dr coupe.

In reply to ArthurDent:

Is it the Tercel underpinnings or Tercel soul that made it worse??