Has there ever been a car you’ve been interested in, and as you dig into it you soon realize that the engine for the car just, you know, makes no sense? Like, sure, it works, in the sense that the lump of oily metal parts that smack around inside that crankcase get the car actually moving, but beyond that the engine just doesn’t seem to fit, technically or conceptually or performance-wise or whatever? Let’s talk about these cars.
There’s a lot of examples of these, when you really start thinking about them. For some cars, I think the choice of a wrong engine can be genuinely catastrophic, and, in one example I can think of, even destroyed that car and its whole company before any of the cars could even be sold.
I’m thinking of the Elio.
Remember the Elio? That little three-wheeled car that was supposed to be built in Shreveport, but the whole thing just turned into a huge mess, and maybe a scam? I think a lot of the issues with that company happened when they decided to re-engineer the old three-banger Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift engine. Why didn’t they just get a tiny three-cylinder from a supplier like Ford or GM or Mitsubishi? I have no idea. It was a terrible engine choice, and it was part of that whole disaster.
But maybe that’s not really right for this – that was more of a disaster. We’re talking more just mismatched.
How about the iconic Citroën DS?
The DS was a wildly advanced car when it came out in 1955, a genuine Gallic land-spaceship with advanced aerodynamics and design, a hydropneumatic self-leveling and adjustable suspension system, power steering, a semi-automatic transmission and so much more. It was a marvel. And yet, all of this advanced hardware was powered by the same 1911cc inline-four from the old Traction Avant, a car that came out in 1934.
It was supposed to have an air-cooled flat-six, like a Porsche 911 or a Chevy Corvair, but that never happened, so it got the hand-me-down engine from the old Traction. It was fine, but very much out of character with the advanced jet-age character of the DS.
There are plenty others: the DeLorean DMC-12 was similar to the DS in that it felt like a spaceship, but tucked in its rump wasn’t an engine that reflected the gull-winged, stainless steel character of the car, but a humble Peugeot-Renault-Volvo lump of a V6 that was dowdy and slow, more at home in rational Volvo sedans.
Our own S.W. Gossin suggests this mismatched pair:
Plymouth Prowler for mismatch. The V6 was the best they had at the time, and beat the V8 available, but didn’t really work in the marketplace with a percentage of the customer base.
The Prowler really did feel like a V8 car. I get it. Let’s hear what Mark Tucker thinks, why not?
For mismatched engines: the Mazda Rotary Pickup. Let’s put a high-revving, no-torque rotary engine – in a truck.
Okay, fair enough, but those rotary trucks were just so damn cool.
But more importantly, we want to know what you think! What car feels the most mismatched with its engine! Tell us all and then argue and agree with everyone else, as you see fit, and with glee! That’s what we do here, after all!
What Is The Worst Possible Getaway Car? Autopian Asks
What New Car Would You Buy With $15,000 Cash In 1985? Autopian Asks
What Are The Most Annoying Things That Can Happen When Wrenching On An Old Car?
What about mismatched but brilliant? Because the RAV4 V6. Toyota shoving a V6 in its bland little family SUV in the 2000s to make something that goes 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds? Makes no goddamn sense. Compels me though…
Otherwise, the VW lump in the Porsche 912, which made it sort of like a factory-built kit car – it looks like the real thing, but it’s just a bundle of old VW bits under there.
A friend of mine was considering a 2009 (?) AMG clk 63 and that’s another one along the line of “This engine should not have been in this car but thank god someone did it”
If you want further ruined, the 1st gen Escape V6 3.0 DOHC is also a sleeper. The platform is not tuner friendly at all and there are almost no mods for it. But a friend with one who had cams put in it was throwing down 300bhp. Pricey though as there are no off the shelf grinds and thus this is not garage-mechanic level mods most could do.
Owning a V6 RAV4, it was a brilliant thing. It was 3600lb, but it carried that weight like a OLB/CB. A bit husky but oh so powerful and brisk. The weight shrunk as speed rose until aerodynamics came into play.
The engine in the 912 is the same as in the 356C. It has 102 horsepower not 60. It looks like a type one VW and many of the parts are interchangeable since Porsche had the rights to buy anything that they wanted from VW in exchange for VW having the rights to build the Porsche designed Beetle, but it is definitely not a VW engine. The industrial versions designed to run at peak power for hundreds of hours are definitely not VW engines.
Looking it up I was thinking about the 912E instead of the original. That had a Type 4 engine and was a stop gap until the 924 showed up.
compels, or impels?
It’s a Knives Out reference.
The 1.3L 4-cylinder in the 2nd generation Geo Metro is clearly an engine that doesn’t match its car. When paired with a 3 speed automatic transmission, the combined fuel mileage was a measly 28 MPG.
What did the Geo Metro have going for it other than its outstanding mileage? How did GM so badly misunderstand their own product? The tiny 1.0L 3-cylinder engine of the base model gave the car a combined mileage of 40 MPG. Driven frugally, it was easily capable of hitting the mid-50s while also having enough space in its hatchback body style to transport an entire symphony orchestra.
Instead of embracing what made the Metro unique, GM tried to convince buyers to buy the bigger engine which made the car, essentially, a more expensive, decontented Suzuki Swift.
Ya, back in the day if I wanted power steering, A/C, and an auto that could cruise the interstate I probably would’ve got a Cavalier. Why ruin a conversation that starts with: “What kind of mileage you get?” (These days I always answer: “I donno; filled it up back in ’98 and I still got a quarter tank.”). Even the 1st gen with a slushbox lost around 10mpg. Never considered buying one just because of that.
I had a 2001 swift with 1.3 16v and a manual. Trans was blown so I bought one from a 3 cylinder Sprint for $100.
I also fitted some 15 inch wheels and nice tires, and a tiny tach.
I’ve owned sports cars, but that Swift was one of my favorite daily drivers. Very fun to drive and peppy with the short geared transmission.
Mileage wasn’t great with that trans though.
6th Gen Celica – the base 1.8 was shared with the Corolla. And the GT trim upgrade? The 2.2 engine from a Camry with 135hp. (USDM) It just couldn’t compete with the Integra or Prelude with that low of power.
CR-Z not splitting between a fuel-efficient HF and sporty Si models and instead trying to be both and ending up being neither. The new Prelude is highly likely going to make the same mistake which is a damn shame as I love the design, but why get it over an Accord hybrid? Make a hybrid and ICE-only version you cowards!
The 7A-FE and 5S-FE Celicas should’ve been sold with the 4A-GE and 3S-GE instead. And of course, the 3S-GTE should’ve been an option.
Japan got the 3S-GTE all trac
The DeLorean is a good answer. They look like spaceships but are basically economy cars when it comes to their powertrain. If I recall correctly most if not all were automatics as well. There are some cultured people out there that have pulled off LS swaps in them and they’re doing the lord’s work. God’s own V8 sure brings them up to snuff.
I’ll also add the current C63 AMG. A goddamn turbo 4 cylinder and 1,000 pounds worth of hybrid gadgetry in a nearly six figure performance sedan that’s always had a V8 is hysterically bad. Mercedes also had the absolute audacity to make that stupid 4 cylinder the base engine in the GODDAMN AMG GT.
Imagine paying LC500 or 911 money for a turbo 4 popper…and I say this as someone who dailies a turbo 4 popper. It’s great in a $35,000 hot hatch. It has no place in flagship sports car.
“…It has no place in flagship sports car.”
Lotus Esprit and BMW i8 have entered the chat.
The i8 is actually a three cylinder….and for some reason that’s weird enough for me to forgive it, especially considering it was designed to be a PHEV and outright performance was never the goal.
It’s the 1.5 triple from the Mini.
Very heavily reworked though as the i8 version has a very high specific output. For example, the Mini has a water cooled turbine housing whereas the i8 doesn’t.
A Mini with the i8 engine would probably be a real hoot.
I’m not sure what the split is, but at one point as a potential DeLorean purchaser there are plenty of manuals out there.
There are currently 4 listed for sale in the US on cars dot com and they’re evenly split. Obviously manuals command much more. One is listed for nearly 100 grand which seems a bit silly to me.
I am curious about the parallel universe where I’m cross-shopping Ferraris and DeLoreans. I bet it’s an interesting place.
It was more a case of what cool car can I get for my budget. I wasn’t specifically looking for a Ferrari at first.
https://www.hagerty.com/media/car-profiles/say-a-little-prayer-for-me-i-bought-a-1983-ferrari-mondial-qv/
I know people like to bag on the Mondial, but that is one beautiful little car.
I know a local guy with a K-swapped DeLorean with a turbo the size of your head.
Wait, my head?
I actually owned a delorean. Most of them were actually manual. It’s not as sluggish as you might think. You have to think about it in it’s time. It had a 130hp v6. At the same time the mustang cobra had a 130hp V8. They are by no means a fast sports car. They do make very nice cruisers though.
The Mazda Parkway bus. A 24 passenger bus powered by a rotary engine, for an even more extreme mismatch than the REPU. To nobody’s surprise Mazda sold very few rotary powered busses and the majority of the ones sold had piston engines.
A very efficient was to turn gas into noise. Torch ignored my suggestion of the Mazda Roadpacer.
Early C1 Corvettes stymied more by the two speed power glide auto than the blue flame I6. You’re seriously trying to compete with Jaguar and the like with a 2 speed auto?
Did Jaugar even offer an automatic at the time?
The 1954 Jaguar Mark VII was the first.
Blue Flame = Glorified Stovebolt.
That’s all they had at the time; the small block wasn’t introduced till 1955. Zora really fought for that to save the car.
IIRC, the blue flame had triple carbs on it and was good for 150hp, which really wasn’t far off what small V8’s made at the time. Agree about the trans for sure though.
Listen, the DeLorean and DS may have had slow engines that were a little underwhelming compared to the rest of the car, but they were fine.
As far as a real mismatch goes, I submit literally every American V8 muscle car built before the Malise era. Shit brakes, downright dangerous suspension, interiors made of paper mache, bodies made of the thinnest, crappiest “steel” on the planet, and bonkers powerful engines. They were garbage right off the showroom floor, but *dangerous* garbage.
Yes, but they were also fun garbage. Not exactly a rational purchase, but then we humans are always rational. Especially when it comes to automotive transport.
Perfect comment by looking at the issue from the other direction. My first car was like that. I had a 69 galaxie (once over 135 (that was as fast as the spedo read)) and it would have been instant death if I would have had to turn, stop or steer it.
2nd Gen Cadillac Seville and the standard diesel engine.
What was supposed to be an elegant, smooth luxury car came with a smoking, clattering, underpowered diesel.
While we’re at it – the optional BMW diesel in the Lincoln Mark VII.
The detuned Eta engines in BMW 3 and 5 series of that same timeframe.
And also, the severely underpowered 3.8L in the Mercedes-Benz S Class and SL from 1981-1985
I would agree with you on the Eta engines, but a lot of people seemed to be ok with them.
And the V8-6-4 engines. They should not have been put in anything. It wasn’t the engine’s fault, but the system that shut off 2 or 4 cylinders was very problematic. Good idea, poor execution.
A Lincoln Continental Mark VII with the BMW Diesel and Versace trim is like the ultimate version to have as it’s truly the most “Continental” of them all!
There’s a few US domestic vehicles that could be in the “style and comfort says nice car, engine/transmission says agricultural implement” mismatch list.
I once drove a Mercury Topaz with a diesel engine. Someone actually had bought this company car from Ford in Dearborn, and I was the lucky idiot sent to pick it up. For a Topaz it was nicely appointed on entry. But then, you’d grip the ignition key, and instead of the 2.3L HSC head gasket killer roaring to life, the Wait light for the glow plugs would come on.
After it let you crank the engine, it, it was a symphony of thrash and comical vibration with no power whatsoever. Acceleration was best described as theoretical; both tailwind and downhill grades critical to realizing this concept.
This car elicited the same response from anyone who got in it and quickly learned it was a diesel – some variation of “aw (random expletive)”.
Nearly any 70s/80s GM car with an Iron Duke as a base engine should be on this list too, because in most of these applications it was the Little Engine that Couldn’t. Ever driven a Firebird Formula or midsized GM vehicle with one of these engines? As more than one person said in reviewing this muscular powertrain, “It could hit 0-60”. The word “could” is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence.
In Jeepland, the 3.7L six was pretty unloved in most applications. Should have been a good powerplant given the displacement. Real life performance, along with the litany of things that empty your wallet (exhaust valves giving up at speed, anyone?) would suggest otherwise.
The torque and horsepower coming on at more than 4500 RPM is the exact opposite of where it needed to happen for these vehicles. Having to explore the redline in a Commander or Liberty for max power did wonders for gas mileage and the driver’s underwear, given their handling characteristics.
For imported vehicles, there was a time that VW had a really puzzling 4 in the Jetta. It should have been pretty fun to drive with the 5-speed manual. Instead, it was oddly reluctant to do anything even when revved. It just made uninterested racket and ho-hummed its way towards redline without much in the way of forward velocity. Bonus: the 5-speed manual provided the slick-shifting feel of a boat oar in a barrel of oatmeal.
I’m not sure which gen or which engine you’re referring to in the Jetta.
I had a 2001 TDI 5M and once out of warranty got a fairly mild ECU reflash that allegedly took it from 90 HP to 110. Torque, stock, was 155 ft-lbs and I imagine that got a boost as well. I only did a 0-60 run once and it took 10 seconds.
It was a great engine for that car around town and even on the freeways of Washington and Oregon.
But the lack of a sixth gear made it unpleasant in Texas, where 75, 80 and 85 (on a toll road between San Antonio and Austin) mph speed
limitsrequests were routinely exceeded.Lincoln Continental also got the diesel engine from BMW, too, for a single model year of 1984.
That 3.8 in the benz was such a dog you had to drive it foot to the floor like it was a 240D. Also single row timing chain caused them to grenade until they came up with a double row fix. I would also nominate the Becker Mexico in the SL of that vintage to be the worst car stereo ever invented.
The Becker Mexico is… Not great. The knobs feel great, heavy, nice detent, but that’s it.
Yeah – It was worse than the 1980 version of the 4.5L v8 that was detuned from 200hp at introduction in 1972 to 160hp.
That 3.8 in Europe produced @200hp too – It was all about detuning for mileage and avoiding the gas guzzler tax in those days.
AMC’s I6 in the Pacer. The designers banked on sourcing a Wankel rotary, which never came to pass, then had to shoe-horn a six into it at the last minute.
Same for the Vega — a promised rotary and we know the rest of the Vega’s engine story. What isn’t talked about is the early Pinto engines were no bargain either.
Pacer was ultimate AMC,repurposing everything other than the bubble glass, and spice with whateverelse was cheapest from GM or Ford for accessories
Old I6 Fit in.
At least the Pinto 2.0L didn’t self destruct at idle like the Vega.
Cadillac and the HT4100 V8. But especially in the big RWD Sedan and Coupe Deville. What a turd of an engine, even if it was reliable you have 130hp propelling a 4300lb sled.
GM management had an edict that “we will not sell a car with a gas guzzler tax” Really screwed over Cadillac at that time, the customer base would have gladly paid it to keep driving their big block V8 cars. Its a night/day difference between the 77-79 cars with the 425 V8 and the HT4100 ones in terms of power.
Also around that same time as Cadillac introduced the HT4100 Mercedes reintroduced their V8 to the US market after selling only diesels for a couple years. You paid the gas guzzler tax with the Benz but they were rocket ships for that era with 80 more hp than the Cadillac
You got it wrong.
Mercedes-Benz never “reintroduced” the V8 models as they have always been available in the US every year since 1963 “Großer Mercedes”. Mercedes-Benz continued to sell 450 SEL, 450 SL, 450 SLC, and 6.9 (all with V8 engines) in the US during the 1980 model year before switching over to W126 380 SEL in the autumn 1980 for 1981 model year. Don’t believe me? Look up 1980 450 SEL, 450 SL, 450 SLC, and 6.9 in the Auto Trader Classic website.
What saved Mercedes-Benz from the colossal “gas guzzler” tax in 1980 was eliminating all of models with 2.8-litre straight six (280 E, 280 CE, and 280 SE) and focusing more on the 2.4-litre and 3-litre diesel engines for W123/C123/S123 models as well as selling US-exclusive 300 SD TURBODIESEL (W116 and W126). That was also the right move due to the second oil price shock in 1979 and the recession of 1982, leading to the higher fuel price and lower customer confidence.
Mercedes-Benz made terrible mistake of bringing its anemic 380 SEL/380 SEC/380 SL to the US market in 1981 as supposedly to avoid the “gas guzzler” tax. They were horrendously underpowered (155 bhp) and slow (0–60 mph in 11 seconds), leading to American customers snapping up the grey imported models with 5-litre V8 engines. The 184-bhp 500 SEL/500 SEC were belatedly added to the 1984 US model range and slapped with “gas guzzler” tax.
Correct on all counts.
It was the proliferation of these grey market imports from Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and others that lead Congress and NHTSA to protect the US industry and US Importers by implementing highly onerous testing requirements for new models, and the 25 year rule in 1988.
https://www.dirtlegal.com/blog/the-truth-behind-the-25-year-import-rule-may-surprise-you?srsltid=AfmBOoqX_oXVdGqqq2jpB6oO1EqwlSLSkSkSeGU_BPmSEMZxX_QNchb-
^^ this person Benzes.
In defense of the Prowler, the V8 made no sense for the project. The whole point of the Prowler was that It was an experiment in aluminum. All that hard work to make an aluminum chassis just to put a pig iron V8 in? No, the all aluminum V6 was a far better choice.
As far as my choice for most mismatched engine car combo. My vote is the 86 Taurus. Ford comes out with a brand new space age sedan and what’s powering it? An equally brand new stone age archaic V6. I could forgive an American company for still sticking with pushrods in the early ’80s, what I can’t forgive is the complete lack of aluminum heads and a half decent transmission. I understand the Vulcan is a tough as nails engine, but they are extremely underwhelming in every other aspect until you give it to Yamaha to make DOHC.
And why didn’t Chrysler already have an all-aluminum V8 by the late 90s? GM had just released the LS1 around that time.
Do you really expect a decent transmission from Ford? LOL
Broke in the ’80s and then busy merging with their equal in the late ’90s. Even the Viper owes it’s existence to Lamborghini as it designed the engine block during that short-lived hookup.
They just weren’t playing in the V8 space outside of their truck platforms. Because of design timing freezes there was no way that they could redesign to fit a M-B V8….but that’s actually a cool thought now that I think about it. Paging @TheBishop to give us an alternative timeline of the Daimler Chrysler marriage with a followup Prowler based on the R129.
This is wrong. Every facet of the engine was designed by Chrysler in Detroit. Lamborghini helped by sharing technical knowledge related to casting large aluminum blocks, but that was the extent of their involvement.
Oops! Thanks for the correction V10!
No problem.
This misconception pops up a lot, and having met some of the original Viper engine designers (who are still active in the community) I like seeing them get proper credit for the work they did.
They didn’t have the experience: the first aluminum Chrysler engine was an experimental Slant 6 in the early 60’s that lasted 2 years at best, and the second one was the Viper V10, with the help of Lamborghini teaching Chrysler engines how to build aluminum engines. That’s what help spawn the DOHC all-aluminum 2.7 V6, a year into the DaimlerChrysler merger.
Prowler Customers would have been happy with an Old Mopar LA engine with aftermarket heads, intake and valvecovers, so it would have looked like a Hot Rod with the hood popped open.
It wouldn’t have mattered that it was worse gas mileage or performance.
It would have been better for expectations.
Oh, and sounded better.
It’s the sound that really ruined that combo.
The whole point of the Prowler was to look like an old-school hot-rod. It wasn’t a technology demonstrator, it wasn’t some high volume could-be-used-as a commuter car that needed to have a V6 to be practical, it was pure nostalgia bait. I have literally never heard the prowler had anything to do with aluminum until I read your comment.
Putting a V6 in that thing was like like making a modern “T-bucket ” but putting a 4-banger eco-boost in it.
Where’d you hear it was nothing but nostalgia bait?
It was even in an article from here that it was built as an exercise in aluminum manufacturing:
https://www.theautopian.com/the-plymouth-prowler-was-way-more-advanced-than-its-appearance-suggests/
Also, someone made a Honda-Powered Ford Model A as an F1-inspired build; people are ready and willing to add any engine to an old hotrod:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-whKiFobys
Because uh, look at it? It’s supposed to be a hot-rod, but they forgot the hot part.
And ok it had cool engineering, that wasn’t the main point of the marketing though.
Can I complain in general about the rash of 1.5l turbos in full size cars? It’s one thing for GM to do it, but was recently in Germany and our euro spec decked out luxury passat wagon (with integrated seat massage!) had a 1.5T as well. It performed decently enough.. but 3cyl engines just don’t belong in a full size car!
Bmw i8 and Cadillac ELR, kind of responses to the Model S, but came just a little short.
Came to the comments to find the i8. It’s a car that looks like a spaceship from the future… with a 3 cylinder and a tiny battery. What a waste
Yeah the i8 looks amazing, but fake exhaust, 3 cylinder, tiny battery, just swing and amiss.
The massive battery in the new Hummer. Kinda heavy for what’s designed for offroading.
The second gen Taurus SHO.
No one would expect that there’s a Yamaha V8 in there driving the front wheels.
Here with what I’m sure will be an unpopular opinion… the Skyactiv engine in the modern Miata. No complaints about performance, reliability, or anything that actually matters, but it just has such an annoying raspy buzzy mechanical sound at high rpm’s compared to their older 1.6 and 1.8’s.
Gotta love direct injection.
I think it has more to do with the switch from a timing belt to chain and them over/sideways engineering it to be very reliable. I can think of plenty of very reliable timing chain engines that are raspy as hell but super reliable, and several that are super quiet but fail the second the warranty runs out. Plastic intake manifolds and more advanced variable valve timing have likely made this worse too. Direct injection and the high pressure fuel pump does contribute to this though, but I wouldn’t expect it to be the main cause.
Definitely not the worst out there, but the Karmann Ghia fits the bill, I think. It’s a nice looking little car, but it’s got VWs ubiquitous air-cooled engine in it, making at most ~50hp.
The Pontiac Fiero was definitely severely let down by its choice of engine.
The Iron Dukee is a bad choice no matter what it’s installed in.
The Fiero should’ve gotten the 122 or the Family II, with the Quad 4 being optional once it came out.
I was going to say the Duke in the 80s Camaros.
also should’ve been a 122 instead of the duke
That was the first car that popped into my mind when I started reading the article. So much promise in that car and so little engine to realize it.
I disagree on this one. Yes, the engine was strangled for US emissions with 1970s-era catalytic converters and tuning that strangled the engine, but don’t forget a turbo 2.5L version of the same engine powered the much-lauded Alpine GTA turbo, and LeMans-spec versions made well over 400hp.
The Delorean was a really European car that was horribly federalized. The chassis was designed by Lotus, having a lot in common with the Esprit. However, they found the headlights sat too low to meet US specifications (what is it with the US and dumb headlight regulations?). It was far too late to restyle the whole body, so instead they jacked up the car on taller springs, wiping out much of the Lotus benefit.
They had all kinds of crazy aspirations for the engine with a Wankel being one of the bigger ones, but the Euro-spec PRV engine isn’t terrible, it’s just awful with US federalization.
I plan to own a Delorean someday, and I’d resto-mod it back to much of the original design intent. It will never be a supercar, but it does untapped potential.
You know,the PRV engine in the Delorian was used in a lot of pretty neat cars and was raced at LeMans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V6_PRV_engine
Every now and again, while waiting to cross a main thoroughfare to get to work, I’m there in time to catch a guy who drives his DeLorean to work (I’ve seen him a couple of times).
It’s always striking how low and wide it is compared with everything around it, but my favorite part is the incongruous engine note coming out of it.
When I lived in Lexington there was someone who drove theirs on a regular basis and it really is striking in person.
Once I saw two Deloreans there in the same day, but in different places, so it wasn’t the same car.
Once, back in the late ’80s, I saw one painted red in Wisconsin. I’ll always remember it b/c red DeLorean and also it was at the drive through of a Burger King! The driver had the door cracked to snake his arm around to acquire his bags from the window.
Yeah, that engine could be made to be pretty good, actually.
The Pacifica PHEV V6 should’ve been a 4-cylinder, for example. Instead, the V6 PHEV gets worse mpg than a Sienna, which isn’t even a plugin.
Early midsize-to-large cars and crossover hybrids used a V6 when they should’ve used an I4, though that was eventually corrected later. The electric motor provides the instant torque, and the I4 has better mpg than a V6.
Outside of hybrids, a good example is the shitty 54-degree V6 in the Catera and other GM cars. The Catera should’ve gotten the 3800 (which was already offered in Australia, in both NA and supercharged forms)
The 90s and newer Panthers had a lazy V8 with V6 power. The standard engine should’ve been a V6 (they had a 3.0L with 220 hp at the time), and the V8 should’ve been the same version as the Mustang GT of the time (260 hp instead of 224). The Marauder engine should’ve been standard on the Town Car.
I was always a little surprised that Ford put a detuned 4.6 in the Crown Vic. If it had offered the Mustang version, then they really would be rear gear swap away from being the muscle-car-in-plus-size-clothes that some people now mistakenly think they are.
I think the CVPI guys sort of perpetuated that myth. It’s enough power for the vehicle, but should never be mistaken for a sports car. My 97 GM even has the “Handling and Performance Package”, which really helps tighten it up a bit while maintaining excellent and comfortable road manners.
Incorrect opinion on the panthers. That lazy bastard is happy to chug along for 80 billion miles. Torque is plenty to move it’s fat ass out of its own way, and it makes a nice quiet v8 noise which is essential for that class of vehicle. Would I take a more raucous version in my grand marquis? Of course! But I think it was the right choice to make.
Fully agree the 4 cam should have at least been optional on the GM, TC and Crown Vikkie
My wife’s Pacifica phev gets no less than 33mpg (close to 43 in the city) as a normal hybrid and the V6 as a generator is far smoother and quieter than the rattly Toyota 4… When it works. Currently waiting 63 days and counting on a replacement transmission because Chrysler being Chrysler cut the wrong corners in the drivetrain
I’ll go the other way – the ’90s Dodge Spirit, in R/T guise that provided the 2.2 turbo engine.
A forgettable, dowdy-looking sedan with an absolute screamer of a motor. Amusement park ride quality torque steer just added to the unexpected drama of how fast they were.
I was going to bring this to the table. I believe they also made a Plymouth version (Sundance?) that looked like something my grandma would have drove.
Yes! Mismatched can be a good thing sometimes too. Similarly, the Trailblazer SS and Grand Cherokee SRT-8 are pretty traditional SUVs closing in on 5000lbs, very cynical mid-2000s domestic products, but completely improved by a snout fulla lusty V8.
Third Gen Camaro with the Iron Duke, Pontiac Fiero with the Iron Duke. Mazda REPU with the 13b Rotary.
I love them all though.
I would add the fox Mustang with the 2.3 lima
What about the 3L inline 6?
TBH I’ve never encountered one. Sounds like the classic sports car formula, but those HP figures are shocking!
They are very rare, looked for one for a while but never found one to buy sadly.
That Camaro should’ve used the 122 instead. GM should not have even bothered making the Iron Dukee in the first place.
So I’d say anything with the Iron Duke is a mismatch.
Iron Duke camaro for the win! Worst match ever! Muscle car plus anemic 4 banger. Talk about writing checks your engine can’t cash.
The 8 cylinders barely cashed those checks.
It does make for a great looking extremely fuel efficient RWD car. 40 MPG stock.
Putting the iron duke in a 3rd gen Camaro was a sin. I think the 0-6 time was about 20 seconds. I had the Fiero, it was a horrible car, but it performed better than you would have expected. It was just a pain to work on.
If you only see the 3rd gen Camaro as a muscle car. With the Iron Duke it became a sporty high MPG commuter with great looks.
I had a friend in high school who had a short bed, square body Chevy pickup. It had a 454 in it, and if you breathed heavy on the throttle, the tires lit up and it started to slip sideways.
Because there was basically no weight in the back, you had to drive it ve-e-e-e-e-e-ry carefully, especially if the road was anything but absolutely clear and dry.
It could be a real giggle box, but it would also turn on you like a 930 Turbo.
My brother had a ’77 like that he ordered new. tons of illicit fun.
He eventually sold it when his insurance payments exceeded his loan payments.
Mazda Roadpacer AP. Because nearly nothing could be worse than a 2-rotor Wankel to propel 3400+ lbs of Aussie metal down the wangan-sen.
worse than that- there was a bus they made with that motor.
The cover star of my “how the fuck does that move?” file.