1
2
3
4
'68 C3 Vette. It had just gone through a very meticulous mechanical restoration by a good friend of mine. Was as close to stock as possible. A lovely little 327 / 350 horse (gross) torque monster and just the right gearing to snap your neck back hard.
Every aspect except the power-train was horrid. Just absolutely horrid. Didn't turn, didn't stop, didn't handle. I didn't feel safe pushing it over about 65 mph
My modded 87 mustang coupe with a 2.3 Turbo and a bunch of suspension upgrades.... I bought a Protege5 and bone stock it'd run circles around it. At least handling wise.
Then I got my first E36.... My current daily beater. Rebuilt it and slapped springs/shocks/swaybars and I'm not to happy about the handling. Understeering pig. My country squire is on another level, well balanced, nimble, and the only suspension mods are front springs, shocks and an aftermarket front swaybar. .. The is ti a nice appliance for the age and what I paid for it, just far from the "ultimate driving machine" I was expecting.
familytruckster wrote:country squire is on another level, well balanced, nimble,
That's a first...
The first gen CRX is just as fast and gets better gas mileage, and that's just sad.
Uhh, what? You mean the LAST crx SI is just as fast and the SLOWEST crx gets SIMILAR mileage? Because that's what's actually true.
You'd be hard pressed to find a CRX Si owner that avgd better than 28-33. Fuelly shows the CRZ avging 39. There are reports of 50 if you drive it just so (not that im recommending that). But you wouldnt just be hard pressed to keep up with the CRZ in a 40mpg avg HF.. you flat out could not. You would not be in the same ballpark.
So basically, CRZ takes HF efficiency, Si performance, modern safety, and a nice interior, and puts them all in the same car.
Speaking of the ep3 civic si... i raced one of those, an 89 crx si, and a crz, all in the same car (at different times). They all seemed to accelerate about the same! but i beat them all in a dodge dynasty.
The only disappointment I can think of was the 2010 Genesis Coupe 2.0T
On top of the dealer demo being a Autotragic 6 with flappy paddles, the car felt gutless, very underpowered, and as can be seen by the specs, way over weight. My friend has a 6MT model, but i feel it's probably the same.
I just largely hate all newer cars, too big, heavy, safe.. I like my tin cans.
All the other cars I've owned i havent had long enough to hate them, aside from my 92 legacy turbo, fun car, terrible mileage, but i like the 40-50mpg the tercel gives me..
nderwater wrote:
Lamborghini Gallardo. I had so looked forward to driving this car, only to be totally underwhelmed. The SMG transmission is unrefined, unpredictable and brittle. AWD dampens the handling. The interior is a snooze-fest. There are so many more entertaining cars you can buy for the money.
Cool stor...
Jelous
familytruckster wrote:Then I got my first E36.... My current daily beater. Rebuilt it and slapped springs/shocks/swaybars and I'm not to happy about the handling. Understeering pig.
You can't just slap sways on a car. Assuming you know this? That can make any car handle like trying to stab a noodle.
The C30 was mentioned earlier, but it's mine. I really, really wanted to like it. I like the styling, and I love my S40. I figured a smaller, lighter version of the S40 had to be a winner. No. Smaller is only in the rear seat and non-existent trunk, and lighter didn't particularly happen at all. There's nothing sporting about it. It drives just like an S40, with a crapload less space and utility. And if you look hard enough, you can get a turbo, manual equipped S40.
ProDarwin wrote:rotard wrote:Yeah, I'm more interested in all-around performance than just straight line. Different strokes and all that.
This. I think its hardly acceptable to call a Corvette chassis a POS because it can't do 7s in the 1/4 on a stock suspension.
Personally, I think that borders on the verge of trolling.
mr2peak wrote:nderwater wrote:Lamborghini Gallardo. I had so looked forward to driving this car, only to be totally underwhelmed. The SMG transmission is unrefined, unpredictable and brittle. AWD dampens the handling. The interior is a snooze-fest. There are so many more entertaining cars you can buy for the money.
Cool stor...
Jelous
familytruckster wrote:Then I got my first E36.... My current daily beater. Rebuilt it and slapped springs/shocks/swaybars and I'm not to happy about the handling. Understeering pig.
You can't just slap sways on a car. Assuming you know this? That can make any car handle like trying to stab a noodle.
They are factory sport bars. It's better than it was with the stock bars. It really needs a bigger front bar, but it's not worth spending 3x the purchase price of the car for a little bit better handling and a worse ride.
Dashpot, yes probably is. But it's true. Amazing what springs, shocks and a huge swaybar can do.
Bobzilla wrote:It could be, but I do know that a lot of people only care about drag racing. Another disappointment:ProDarwin wrote:rotard wrote:Yeah, I'm more interested in all-around performance than just straight line. Different strokes and all that.
This. I think its hardly acceptable to call a Corvette chassis a POS because it can't do 7s in the 1/4 on a stock suspension.
Personally, I think that borders on the verge of trolling.
Porsche 944 Turbo. When I was in college, I had a friend named Steve (doesn't everyone?) that decided it would be a good idea to buy a 951 from a father-son combo. Having never driven one before, I guess Steve thought it ran right. I got to go for a ride in the car with him when we got back to Clemson, and was massively underwhelmed. The car never seemed to reach boost and was slower than my Taurus SHO. The car ate batteries, alternators, and some other stuff and was only driven 2 or 3 times in the few months he owned it. His $6k 951 turned out to be a giant paperweight that he traded back to the seller for a E36 325i that was equally sucky.
Almost every car I've ever owned has been a disappointment. It is one of the reasons I learned to weld.
a401cj wrote:'68 C3 Vette. It had just gone through a very meticulous mechanical restoration by a good friend of mine. Was as close to stock as possible. A lovely little 327 / 350 horse (gross) torque monster and just the right gearing to snap your neck back hard.
Every aspect except the power-train was horrid. Just absolutely horrid. Didn't turn, didn't stop, didn't handle. I didn't feel safe pushing it over about 65 mph
On top of all that, the seats were absolutely awful even taking into consideration the state of engineering at the time. There was just no way to get comfortable. I thought it was just me, but no; more than one person said the same thing.
Curmudgeon wrote:a401cj wrote:'68 C3 Vette. It had just gone through a very meticulous mechanical restoration by a good friend of mine. Was as close to stock as possible. A lovely little 327 / 350 horse (gross) torque monster and just the right gearing to snap your neck back hard.
Every aspect except the power-train was horrid. Just absolutely horrid. Didn't turn, didn't stop, didn't handle. I didn't feel safe pushing it over about 65 mph
On top of all that, the seats were absolutely awful even taking into consideration the state of engineering at the time. There was just no way to get comfortable. I thought it was just me, but no; more than one person said the same thing.
yep. i especially remember the seats and the fact that the steering wheel had no adjustment and I could barely get my legs under it and that my head was hitting the convertible roof.
The amazing thing was that at the time I had a modified '76 which was essentially the exact same car. Mine drove well and fit like a glove. I think they made some big changes in '69 and the '68 is sort of a bastard child even though they look almost identical.
I suspect that this particular '68 may have been suffering from alignment woes. These cars are very very sensitive to alignment. My'76 had been aligned by one of the best in the business on both the front and the rear and drove better than any other Vette of that vintage that I ever sampled
Ranger50 wrote:Almost everything GM/Ford/Chrysler.
GM can make monster HP but they stick it in a POS chassis, including Corvettes.
Ford can't make any power, but they make nearly magical workable chassis's. CIP, 96-04 Mustang GT's.
Chrysler, well, it's Chrysler.....
Wow, you're on drugs. It took Ford until 2005 to get the Mustang right, then until 2011 to get the power right. Even then, the new Mustangs are still too heavy. I've owned probably half a dozen Mustangs. I jumped ship and bought a C6 Corvette. I can't believe anyone would trash talk Corvettes and then talk about how wonderful SN95 Mustangs are. They compromised on everything to make a buck. I consider Fox body Mustangs to be unsafe at any speed. Any car that turns itself into razor blades under normal driving is completely unacceptable. Please! Yeah, so if there's an automotive disappointment to me, the Mustang is at the top of my list.
