What is the most underpowered vehicle found in large numbers on the roads today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y'all complaining...... PFFFFFFTTTTTTTT!!

Try a 1980 Ford Fairmont Station wagon with a 3.3 liter (200 cube) straight six and
a C4 auto trans, wheezing through a tiny 1-bbl carb - - with the A/C on
and a whole 71 net HP
with 2 adults and 4 kids (and 2 dogs) piled inside

MOST of Y'all have NO CLUE what a TRULY underpowered vehicle is!!!
 
Originally Posted by Linctex
Y'all complaining...... PFFFFFFTTTTTTTT!!

Try a 1980 Ford Fairmont Station wagon with a 3.3 liter (200 cube) straight six and
a C4 auto trans, wheezing through a tiny 1-bbl carb - - with the A/C on
and a whole 71 net HP
with 2 adults and 4 kids (and 2 dogs) piled inside

MOST of Y'all have NO CLUE what a TRULY underpowered vehicle is!!!





I applaud you for even admitting that you owned one of those.
 
2011 Honda CR-V 2.4L. Yuck, it was peppy up until 55 mph or so. It sucked in the mountains and passing on the freeway. It couldn't keep it's top 5th gear driving down the highway with flat ground driving in the rain. The wet road was too much resistance...

My Camry is quite slow too.

The slowest car I've driven is my aunt's 1970 VW Beetle with a 1500 single port engine. 22 seconds 0-60 (I timed it), but it doesn't feel horrible I guess. It's a blast to drive though.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I'd wager there isn't much that is slower than the 1st gen Smart forTWO with the 0.8L diesel. It had 45HP and a 0-60 time of 19.2 seconds.


That's like an Urkle car, Steven Q Urkle, that is.
 
1987 Gen 1 Suzuki Samurai - could barely break 65 on the freeway 60 with AC on. It was a REAL dog.

I think it had 63 ponies.

My first So cal GF bought one brand new- I was 19 she was 24 and couldn't drive a stick shift car.

Conversely - it was astonishingly good offroad.

UD
 
Last edited:
When I was testing cars in the late 70s and early 80s, I think honors for slowest was about a tie between the Rabbit diesel, Chevette diesel, Datsun B210, and Ford Granada with a relatively huge, gas-guzzling 250 I-6. Those all took about 20 seconds 0-60. That's better than a 1960s VW Vanagon. Even it was speedy compared to a Solex moped with a top speed of 20 mph.

People complaining about 11-second 0-60s are spoiled brats!
 
Originally Posted by Dave9
Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by zorobabel
Underpowered vehicles were not sold in the US for at least 50 years.
I mostly agree, although vehicles of around 40-45 years ago were generally closer to "underpowered" than those of 50-55 years ago. Typical American V8s of the mid-1970s were slower than any of the modern vehicles that are ridiculed in preceding posts of this thread.


Disagree, my first mid-'70s car had a 350cu in and 4 barrel carb, was not slow at all. First late '70s car had a 305cu in and wasn't slow either, both completely stock (Oldsmobiles no less, not sports cars), quite fast compared to say a Geo Prizm, and had higher top ends than a Trans Am of the era... just couldn't go over 140MPH without the steering/front suspension getting nervous.


The only way a stock 70's 305 powered Old's would do 140mph is if you dropped it out of an airplane. 403 Old's powered 1979 Trans Am's with 2.41:1 final drive would probably do a Buck-Forty with enough freeway.
 
Had a 2.7 Tacoma before my 3.4 V6 model, and that thing was a turd too. They're still being made with a 2.7 standard, and the trucks are even heavier and bulkier now!

Although the slowest car I've ever driven was a Ford Festiva from the 80's that belongs to a friend. Could probably accelerate faster up a long grade by getting out and pushing the car by hand, I dunno how much power that thing has but it is GUTLESS! It gets great fuel mileage around town though, which is why my friend keeps using it. Not so great on the highway, and wind blasts from trucks is a white knuckle experience to say the least!
 
I had an '88 Ford ranger, bought new, with 2.3 that was rated at 80 hp. At 1800 rpm or 4000 rpm. First year for FI. I think they dual plugged the head in '90. That bumped it to 100 hp. It was the only truck I ever owned that actually did 26 mpg on highway trips.

With the exception of a Pinto 1.6 rental in 1973, my current '82 Dodge D150 with slant 6 is the slowest thing I have ever driven.
 
Originally Posted by Linctex
Y'all complaining...... PFFFFFFTTTTTTTT!!

Try a 1980 Ford Fairmont Station wagon with a 3.3 liter (200 cube) straight six and
a C4 auto trans, wheezing through a tiny 1-bbl carb - - with the A/C on
and a whole 71 net HP
with 2 adults and 4 kids (and 2 dogs) piled inside

MOST of Y'all have NO CLUE what a TRULY underpowered vehicle is!!!

I still think it is faster than Zastava 101 with 1.1 liter engine, 55hp, two adults, two kids and luggage for a month stay on Croatian beach, navigating Bosnian mountain passes.
Or, in 1996, four of us going to one athletic competition in Europe, in Yugo 45 (45hp) with all equipment etc. Guy who is driving is trying to catch up with Porsche 911 on auto bahn and he did, bcs Porsche was driving around 115km/h. At that point I though passenger would have to hold steering wheel too, that is how much it was shaking.
 
Last edited:
I owned one bought new.auyomatiic with air conditioning.turn it on and it would slow down
like you were down shifting. drove it for 99000 trouble free miles till I traded it.
 
Originally Posted by hank2
I had an '88 Ford ranger, bought new, with 2.3 that was rated at 80 hp. At 1800 rpm or 4000 rpm. First year for FI. I think they dual plugged the head in '90. That bumped it to 100 hp. It was the only truck I ever owned that actually did 26 mpg on highway trips.

With the exception of a Pinto 1.6 rental in 1973, my current '82 Dodge D150 with slant 6 is the slowest thing I have ever driven.

I had a reg cab 2wd 2.3 ranger twin plug that was a dog. Had to nearly floor it to hold 75mph on highway.
 
Originally Posted by Linctex
Y'all complaining...... PFFFFFFTTTTTTTT!!

Try a 1980 Ford Fairmont Station wagon with a 3.3 liter (200 cube) straight six and
a C4 auto trans, wheezing through a tiny 1-bbl carb - - with the A/C on
and a whole 71 net HP
with 2 adults and 4 kids (and 2 dogs) piled inside

MOST of Y'all have NO CLUE what a TRULY underpowered vehicle is!!!



I do. My '82 Mustang had this setup. You don't realize how much work it is for an engine to propel a car with 3 gears, until you dive a car with 10. But that engine was shamefully underpowered for its size.
 
What was worse for a lot of V8 engine cars then simply the low horsepower rating and the big weight was the axle ratios that they selected at many times. It is almost unbelievable some of the ratios that they used. You might be surprised how many V8 sedans had something like a 2.5 to 1 axle ratio.
 
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
What was worse for a lot of V8 engine cars then simply the low horsepower rating and the big weight was the axle ratios that they selected at many times. It is almost unbelievable some of the ratios that they used. You might be surprised how many V8 sedans had something like a 2.5 to 1 axle ratio.


Yes, a land yacht powered by an i6 or tiny V8 topped with a 1 or 2 barrel backed by a powerglide and a rear end with "highway" gears was insanely slow.
 
My 4cyl Ranger isnt too bad for daily. Slow but maintenance are cheap and easy. Sad but i have to sell it. Enjoy it once you buy it!

4055F837-601B-40BF-8363-6815764180AD.jpeg
 
For the Ranger guys, is the 3.0L Taurus Vulcan V6 that much better than the 2.3/2.5L I4? I have a friend whose girlfriend bought last year an Aerostar with the Vulcan and while I do remember it as adequate for Taurii, it felt a little dog-like in the Aerostar. At least it's not the OHC Cologne.
 
I never got to drive it, but my parents had a 1975 Chevy Monza with the optional 5.0L V8. It was California spec and I believe that meant 125 HP. It required unleaded regular and drank fuel like crazy. Seems almost ludicrous now, but that was before catalytic converters got more efficient and engine design improved.

I find my wife's 2002 Civic LX to be woefully underpowered, but it's decent basic transportation and it's paid for. My 2004 WRX certainly doesn't feel underpowered, although I might need to wait for the turbo to spool up.

And once I borrowed my uncle's late 80s Toyota SR5 to move some furniture. Not only was it underpowered, but it was weird driving a manual transmission without a tach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

slo town
My experience 30 floors up during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
2
Replies
20
Views
839
wpod
StevieC
Oxygen Sensors - How they work & basic diagnosis
Replies
17
Views
5K
partspro
5
  • Locked
Got the Aspire on the road today!
Replies
4
Views
647
Willy_G
M
  • Locked
Hybrid vehicles
Replies
0
Views
563
Mike_dup1
Back
Top