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

kanaric wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

1966stang wrote: As far as modern actual sports cars go, I would say 370 Z.

Seriously? You have got to be kidding.

Overpriced. Genesis V6 gets the same 0-60 1/4 mile and track times as the Nismo version that costs almost $20,000 more. The car is behind.

You can't make that argument unless you accept the validity of the Ford Granada Coupe being the equal of the Mercedes in the ad's up page. People here should know that a car is more than the sum of it's stats. I may work for Ford, but I appreciate the 370Z as being a great sports car.

It's the Granada hands down, they were lame even in the 70's. Now the Lincoln Versailles, that was da bomb-diggety, but not even remotely sporty. Unless you thought landau vinyl roofs and wire wheel covers were sporty, they did have four wheel disk brakes standard.

Gasoline wrote:

Truth in advertising! Goose bumps go with cold sweats and nightmares don't they?

At least the 2.8 wouldn't strip the nylon timing gear like the 2.5 iron duke based motors would.. Ask me how I know.. Still love those alloys though, I think they were still putting them on the Celebrity Eurosport models up until the 90's

I knew i would catch a lot of E36 M3 from the turbo dodge fans but the fact that i daily drive a factory turbo sundance is the reason i say it. can they be made fast? Sure i have a friend who owned like 15 turbo dodges at one point and a few of his are fun. but i thoughg we were talking stock cars? There's no way this stock turbo turd with an auto is running anything under a 16.

dropstep wrote: I knew i would catch a lot of E36 M3 from the turbo dodge fans but the fact that i daily drive a factory turbo sundance is the reason i say it. can they be made fast? Sure i have a friend who owned like 15 turbo dodges at one point and a few of his are fun. but i thoughg we were talking stock cars? There's no way this stock turbo turd with an auto is running anything under a 16.

You're missing the point. Compare them to the crap the other big two were putting out at the time, at similar price points and tell me they didn't at least hold their own. Compared to the economy cars of today? They get their asses handed to them, but that's not the point.

What about late 70's smog era Corvettes? I love Corvettes, especial the early chrome bumper C3's and think the 72 was perfect with the delicate chrome around the side exit. It went down hill from there loosing the chrome side trim and chrome front bumper in 73, 74 went all the way plastic fantastic. Then you had the god awful 75 base car with 165h. The 82 'Collectors edition' wasn't much better. While the C3 was a decent platform when it was new in 68, by the late 70's it was a joke, by 82 it was beyond an embarrassment.

There's no way this stock turbo turd with an auto is running anything under a 16.

That's blazing fast compared to the majority of cars listed in this thread.

I can't get my phone to qoute but you guys may be correct. i wasn't alive for most.of the 80s and my only comparison as far as 80s turbo cars go were 2.3t swapped mustangs. i just personally find everything about this turbododge dissapointing and if it wasn't for the fact a friend has a garage full of parts i woulf have already sold it!

dropstep wrote: I can't get my phone to qoute but you guys may be correct. i wasn't alive for most.of the 80s and my only comparison as far as 80s turbo cars go were 2.3t swapped mustangs. i just personally find everything about this turbododge dissapointing and if it wasn't for the fact a friend has a garage full of parts i woulf have already sold it!

There were plenty of quick 80s turbo cars but the early 80s there wasn't much, the faster cars didn't come until around the 2nd half of the decade. Early 80s you pretty much had 280zx as far as pedestrian cars. 280ZXT was one of the fastest road cars sold in the US at the time. Volvo 242 turbo, though not as fast stock. I think there may have been a Fiat Spider turbo then. There was that turbo Pontiac v8 that everyone hates.

Other than that you were left with exotics like Lotus Esprit, 911 Turbo everything else early 80s turbo and fast was not sold in the US. Things like urquattro starting showing up in/near the mid 80s. Meanwhile early 80s overseas there was all kinds of nastyness. 3T-GTE Celica, Renault R5 Turbo, R30 Skyline RS, etc.

IDK what the difference is between early and mid/late 80s. There is a rather large difference in the power and performance of cars. I suspect some laws were changed.

kanaric wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

1966stang wrote: As far as modern actual sports cars go, I would say 370 Z.

Seriously? You have got to be kidding.

Overpriced. Genesis V6 gets the same 0-60 1/4 mile and track times as the Nismo version that costs almost $20,000 more. The car is behind.

But that doesn't make it a bad car just an overpriced one.

Also just realized you said $20000 difference and I am sorry but there is no way. The 370Z Sports starts at $33k and the Genesis 3.8 R-Spec starts at $29k

JohnRW1621 wrote: Lest we not forget the 1978 Ford European Sports Sedan. and Sports Coupe:

I love those ads. I am pretty sure a blind deaf chimp could tell them apart.

kanaric wrote:

dropstep wrote: I can't get my phone to qoute but you guys may be correct. i wasn't alive for most.of the 80s and my only comparison as far as 80s turbo cars go were 2.3t swapped mustangs. i just personally find everything about this turbododge dissapointing and if it wasn't for the fact a friend has a garage full of parts i woulf have already sold it!

There were plenty of quick 80s turbo cars but the early 80s there wasn't much, the faster cars didn't come until around the 2nd half of the decade. Early 80s you pretty much had 280zx as far as pedestrian cars. 280ZXT was one of the fastest road cars sold in the US at the time. Volvo 242 turbo, though not as fast stock. I think there may have been a Fiat Spider turbo then. There was that turbo Pontiac v8 that everyone hates. Other than that you were left with exotics like Lotus Esprit, 911 Turbo everything else early 80s turbo and fast was not sold in the US. Things like urquattro starting showing up in/near the mid 80s. Meanwhile early 80s overseas there was all kinds of nastyness. 3T-GTE Celica, Renault R5 Turbo, R30 Skyline RS, etc. IDK what the difference is between early and mid/late 80s. There is a rather large difference in the power and performance of cars. I suspect some laws were changed.

yes there was a Fiat Spider Turbo in 1982.. with all of 120hp

mad_machine wrote:

kanaric wrote:

dropstep wrote: I can't get my phone to qoute but you guys may be correct. i wasn't alive for most.of the 80s and my only comparison as far as 80s turbo cars go were 2.3t swapped mustangs. i just personally find everything about this turbododge dissapointing and if it wasn't for the fact a friend has a garage full of parts i woulf have already sold it!

There were plenty of quick 80s turbo cars but the early 80s there wasn't much, the faster cars didn't come until around the 2nd half of the decade. Early 80s you pretty much had 280zx as far as pedestrian cars. 280ZXT was one of the fastest road cars sold in the US at the time. Volvo 242 turbo, though not as fast stock. I think there may have been a Fiat Spider turbo then. There was that turbo Pontiac v8 that everyone hates. Other than that you were left with exotics like Lotus Esprit, 911 Turbo everything else early 80s turbo and fast was not sold in the US. Things like urquattro starting showing up in/near the mid 80s. Meanwhile early 80s overseas there was all kinds of nastyness. 3T-GTE Celica, Renault R5 Turbo, R30 Skyline RS, etc. IDK what the difference is between early and mid/late 80s. There is a rather large difference in the power and performance of cars. I suspect some laws were changed.

yes there was a Fiat Spider Turbo in 1982.. with all of 120hp

Wow, what was the point? The stock car didn't make much less at all and probably was 1% the hassle.

in 1978 with the 1.8 the Fiat spider made about 82hp
in 1980 with the 2.0 it made about 77hp (have to love smog)
in 1981 with Fuel injection it jumped to 102hp
and the turbo made 120hp

The supercharge "volumex" European only spider was gifted with 135hp

Swank Force One wrote: My litmus test for this question is "Is there enough fun buried in the car for me to even want to mess with it?" I'd mess with probably 80% of what's listed in here. I still maintain that Bravenrace and i picked the right answer on the first page with the FWD convertible Capri.

Yup. Nothing I've read in this thread makes me think otherwise. It was a poser of a sports car if there ever was one.

bravenrace wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: My litmus test for this question is "Is there enough fun buried in the car for me to even want to mess with it?" I'd mess with probably 80% of what's listed in here. I still maintain that Bravenrace and i picked the right answer on the first page with the FWD convertible Capri.

Yup. Nothing I've read in this thread makes me think otherwise. It was a poser of a sports car if there ever was one.

Unless the Granada counts as a sporty car, I agree with these two.

Thats the great thing about this thread is that nobody has been wrong. great read down memory lane

I'm gonna come right out and say it.

I like the Chevy Citation X-11 and would totally own one. They actually weren't bad cars. Bob McConnell drove a 1981 X-11 to SSB National Championships in 1982 and 1984--- according to wiki.

I even like the way they look---- I'd rock one as a DD.

ArthurDent wrote:

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/

I'm a fan-and I found one, not bad:

http://racine.craigslist.org/cto/4388086769.html

Another one!

scotman wrote: 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.

Strange, I've had a dozen or so and never experienced anything like that. The problem with the X1/9 and all Fiats were the dealers and other shops that didn't know how to work on them. I drove one for 12 years with never a failure. It helps if you know how to do the proper maintenance, which most of the dealers had little desire or knowledge. For instance, almost every electrical problem the car had were corroded grounds. Take about an hour once a year to clean them, and no more issues. Another, head gasket failure. Most were absolutely due to not knowing how to bleed the system. It involved jacking the front of the car up and removing the bleeder. MR2s have similar issues by the way.

Of course emissions equipment at the time also played a role, but as you remove them the car would run much better.

Anyway, most people I know that really understand them have no issues really.

kanaric wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

1966stang wrote: As far as modern actual sports cars go, I would say 370 Z.

Seriously? You have got to be kidding.

Overpriced. Genesis V6 gets the same 0-60 1/4 mile and track times as the Nismo version that costs almost $20,000 more. The car is behind.

I tell you what, you drive both and get back to me. I have a 370Z (Touring with a Sport Package), my boss has a Genesis Coupe with the V6 and track model. The Genesis is only about $6K cheaper, not $20k as you state, but it also is not nearly as nice in terms of materials and fit and finish. The Genesis motor does sound amazing however.

While the 1/4 mile times may be similar, in real world driving, the Nissan is much stronger. It has a lot more low end torque, turns in better, and feels a lot more "solid". Not that the Hyundai is bad by any stretch, I like them both. Where the Nissan really comes out ahead is that it doesn't beat you to death doing it where the Genesis does. Simply by going off figures in a magazine doesn't tell you the entire story.

For you to call the 370Z one of the worst is a silly statement. You may not like it, and that's OK, but I would suggest you actually get real world experience first.

IDK what the difference is between early and mid/late 80s. There is a rather large difference in the power and performance of cars.

Most of the difference is fuel injection. Meets smog goals with a lower castration quotient!

As for the dodges, the 'regular' turbos didnt get a whole lot faster, ever. The basic turbo motor made 142hp in 1984 and made 150hp when it was discontinued in 92. The higher performing models were all in higher-trim packages. Your basic turbo/auto sundance is a low 16 car. Considering a 305/auto Camaro was probably a low 16 car, i think that's alright.

But times have changed and now that we know what the hell we are doing, we can take your basic turbo sundance, slap a tune and exhaust on it and run high 14s. Intercooler and meth, low 13s. Turbo&injector upgrade, 12s, maybe 11s. People used to blow them up trying to run mid 14s but in 2014 your average internet user can learn quite a bit about how not to blow up a turbo car just by poking around on the forums.