If you’re wondering, that’s a Volkswagen SP2 in the top shot. Developed for the Brazilian market and sold from 1972 to 1976, it is one hot-looking machine. Just beautiful! As for performance … ehhh, that’s a different story. As an early-70s VW design, you’re getting an air-cooled 1,700CC flat-four producing about 65 horsepower. Not awesome. According to the SP2’s Wikipedia page, Brazilian car enthusiasts of the era joked the SP stood for “Sem Potência,” Portuguese for “without power.” Needless to say, we’d still love to have an SP2. Not to mention Volkswagen’s much better known sports-car-styled offering, the Karmann Ghia …
Volkswagen famously winked at the Karmann Ghia’s mix of racy, European sports car styling and unaltered Beetle mechanicals with a confession that it “can’t do much at the Sebring road races,” and was unabashed in pointing out the Ghia had the “same engine, same chassis, same transmission,” as the Beetle. Was anyone turned off? Hardly: the Karmann Ghia was in the VW lineup for nearly twenty years (1955-1974), and the final production number came in at 445,000. That’s a whole lot of sales on Monday despite absolutely no racing on Sunday.
Whereas the Karmann Ghia looked fast, was actually slow, but was nonetheless thoroughly entertaining to drive (just ask OMD!), Chevrolet’s notorious spin on style over substance, the third-gen Camaro Sport Coupe, was an ineffably frustrating driving experience. It looked the business with genuinely exciting styling that broke sharply from the super-70s aesthetic, but with just 90 horsepower via its Iron Duke 2.5 liter pushrod engine, this Camaro was pig-slow and definitely un-fun. [Editor’s Note: I nominate the Saab Sonett or the Mazda RX-7 SA22C/FD. -DT].
As for a sheep-clothed wolf, consider the Lincoln MKZ 3.0T. The MKZ was basically a tarted-up Fusion, and with 240-horsepower I4 and 300-horsepower V6 EcoBoost engine options, it had pretty good scoot. Wolf-mode arrived with the 3.0T model, which delivered 400 horsepower via a twin-turbocharged V-6 with direct injection and variable valve timing. Not that you’d ever suspect it from the MKZ’s exterior–just look at that blandly attractive, unfussy sedan. You’d probably never even think to challenge an MKZ to a stoplight-to-stoplight race, let alone be worried about losing.
And so, the Autopian Asks:
Which Slow Cars Look the Fastest, And Vice-Versa?
To the comments!
Triumph TR7 was the Wedge look in the late 70’s with sub 100 HP. it was small and to be honest all “sports” cars tend to be slow, but those TR7’s were much slower than they looked.
First gen SHO looked pretty much like every Taurus except for the wheels, it was kind of a fast car that looked slow.
They were beautiful wheels too…subtle but purposeful with that cool blade effect.
Wasn’t there a V6 RAV4 at one point that was just stupid-quick? I rented one once and thought it felt fast, and later found out it was Toyota’s quickest car 0-60 at the time, or close to it.
At the other end: Fiat X1/9. Looks like a baby Ferrari, accelerates like a 1.3 liter Fiat.
You are correct about the RAV4, and yes it was Toyotas fastest car in the U.S. at some point during it’s lifecycle, or maybe all of it.
I was thinking the same, but C/D also got a 2005 Avalon with that engine to 60 in 6 seconds flat, a few ticks quicker than the RAV. That Avalon is actually a good “fast car that looks slow” entry being before the big grills and styling add-ons, the 0-60 was quicker than several cars of its time that did look sporting – some by a little (Maxima in 6.1), some by a lot (3.5V6 Chrysler 300 in 7.3).
So maybe it’s the RAV4 Prime and maybe among cars Toyota actually makes (since that excludes the Supra)?
The current RAV 4 Prime, the plug-in hybrid version, is the second quickest car in their current line up. It sits right between the 4 and 6 cylinder versions of the Supra.
Owned said 3rd gen RAV4 V6 and they are quick (with a nice induction growl when hopped on. It was the fastest Toyota badged product sold in the US for a year or two.
“At the other end: Fiat X1/9. Looks like a baby Ferrari, accelerates like a 1.3 liter Fiat”
I had a 1.5L injected X-19. It was no rocket but even its daddy Ferrari 308 was relatively pokey by modern standards.
Face it, the original Magnum PI lied to an entire generation about the Ferrari 308. But it still looked cool.
There was a V6 Toyota trucklet in the ’00s that was epic.
The FR-S looked fast, but could only manage 60 in 7 seconds.
CR-Z took over 8 seconds!
0-60 in a whole 7 seconds? How does anybody manage to drive these things? I mean, that’s just dangerously slow!
The Opel GT, slower than it looked.
The Opel GT was equipped with a base 1.1 L OHV inline-four engine, which produced 67 hp (SAE) at 6,000 rpm. However, most buyers chose an optional 1.9 L camshaft in head engine, which produced 102 hp (SAE) at 5200 to 5400 rpm
Faster than it looks: 04-07 Saturn VUE with the Honda J35 V6 – 0-60 in 7 seconds or less (think FWD ones ran a bit quicker) was as quick as the V6 Accord and Altima of the day.
Looks fast but really isn’t: 2006-07 Malibu SS. Stats were actually ok, also about 6.9 0-60, but it had all the boy-racer styling bits added on yet it couldn’t outrun a plain V6 Accord of the same year.
Looked fast, was slow: Mazda Protege MP3
Looked slow, was fast: Volvo V70 R, especially with a couple mods
I guess it’s fairly subdued by today’s standards, but did the V70R really look slow?
I was pretty young at the time, but there were a few around my town and it was fairly obvious they were something ‘special’.
The R bumper was a huge upgrade from the homely base model, and really drew out the car’s long silhouette. It was hard not to notice the massive graphite 5 spoke wheels and Brembo brakes.
Maybe it’s badging fatigue-These days every entry level “luxury” car comes with an //M, F Sport, AMG, R-Design, S-Line wheel and styling package. 20 years ago that wasn’t so common, base models were very plain compared to the flagships.
Eh, nobody expects a long roof to be fast.
Especially not a Volvo long roof.
But if you know, you know…
Certainly here in the UK, I’m pretty sure everybody knew that Volvos could be fast.
We had an earlier 850 T5 which I thought was much more subtle, as the only real difference was the design of the wheels.
I tend to side with you and alreadyupsidedown on this. Maybe it’s the vivid colors for me, since the bright blues and oranges on the Rs weren’t usually what you’d find on a regular wagon. Rewind a bit and Volvo had cheeky ads in the ’80s with turbo wagons pictured next to a Porsche, Lotus, or Countach to drive home the point that they were quick, and those didn’t have as much in the way of styling add-ons.
Certainly the later Rs were sleepers and some of the earlier performance wagons, but I tend to think wagon variants without the styling bits drive home the point of “doesn’t look fast”.
Except for the Bright Yellow 850 T5s, those certainly stood out, in a good way (to me anyway) 🙂
2023 Toyota Camry V6. 0-60 in 5.6 seconds with a top speed limited to 135 mph. 301 HP and 267 lb-ft of torque. Given the reputation of Camrys as boring cars, I don’t think people would expect that.
Gotta love those slamrys.
Fast-looking slow cars – pretty much any 4-cyl MG or Triumph, Maserati Merak, Mustang II. Any decal-ridden “GT” version of a 74-81 American “muscle” car.
Slow-looking fast cars – the eco-boost Ford Flex or any other E-B Ford CUV.
I knew the Flex was going to get a mention in the comments somewhere.
My parents had a 2010 model (non-EcoBoost, sadly) which was still supposedly powerful, but I never really pushed it. “Think of the tachometer as a fuel consumption gauge”, paraphrased from my dad. That was the car I learned to drive in.
Late 80’s Olds Cutlass Calais with the Quad4.
Much faster than it looks.
Can confirm. I had an ’88 four-door in complete grandma-spec: maroon, chrome trim, etc – but wih the Quad 4, a five-speed, and the FE3 suspension. I pissed off a few Audi A4 and BMW E36 drivers in that thing.
Looks fast – is slow: Lexus CT. Thing looks like a Lexus hot hatch, but is actually just a Prius.
Looks slow – is fast: Honda Odyssey. 0-60 in 6.5 seconds? A mini-van? Far faster than you’d ever imagine.
I was just looking up minivan 0-60 times of the last few years to say the same. C/D had the last V6 Sienna to 60 in sub-7 seconds too. It’s maybe a little less impressive now in a world where we’re jaded by the acceleration of EVs, and even a Prius clocks 0-60 in 7.1 seconds, but definitely ~5 years ago, that could run with some much smaller and sportier machines.
Actually, sticking with Honda’s lineup – that Odyssey time matched a “looks fast but isn’t” car, the Civic Si – both the previous gen and the current.
A modern, unburdened minivan can be a joy when you get a chance to punch the accelerator. It never fails to surprise me anyway.
I was behind a CT at a stoplight just yesterday. Those always make me sad because I think they look awesome but also know that it’s just a miserable-to-drive gen Prius.
Yeah, I always liked the CT. Every time I see one I have to remind myself it’s just a Prius that doesn’t look terrible. Which I suppose was appealing to the 20 or so people who bought it.
Maybe Lexus will give that concept another shot now that the Prius isn’t miserable to drive.
….what makes gen 3 Priuses “miserable to drive”? I’ve had a 2012 Prius v for three years now and I mean, it’s nothing special, but I love the eCVT.
(For reference, the 3 other vehicles I have the most time driving, historically: 2005 Ford Focus ZXW (wagon), 2010 Ford Flex (non-EcoBoost), 1997 Ford Econoline-150 (4.6l V8))
Another one that people forget is that the first Boxsters were actually quite slow, especially with automatics.
The Prowler wins, so I’ll go for 2nd place and suggest the Opel GT
You do realize that the 1999+ Prowler did 0-60 in the (NOT SLOW) high 5 second range, right?
The Prowler looked fast and actually was fast in a straight line.
Even the 1997 model wasn’t that slow… with a 0-60 in the low 7 second range
For the fast cars that look slow list (no particular order/ranking):
-GMC Typhoons/Cyclones
-86/87 Buick Regal T-types with bench seats, column shifter, and a landau top
-Rav4 PHEV
-Rav4 V6
-Camry V6’s
-Saab 9-5 aero wagons w/manuals
Chevy Bolt… looks like a Chevy Sonic until you press the accelerator, bye bye big truck following so close
Pretty much the entire “get on your Pontiac and ride/we build excitement” lineup of the ’80s.
They all looked so fast and cool, popup headlights galore, nifty backlit P O N T I A C on the rears, arrowhead logo in lurid red, etc.
But yeah, no.
Plymouth Prowler
I feel this one truly wins. Chrysler had this chance to make something so wonderfully crazy, a concept car actually produced and sold to the public, and then blew it.
It got maybe halfway there with that amazing open-wheel racecar suspension (on a street-legal passenger car!) and beautifully-executed body style…but then it all fell apart with a Dodge Intrepid-spec (I think) engine and automatic.
You nailed it. I’d also say the 500 Abarth is almost there too, sounds fast, looks fast, is only kinda quick. But I still loved the one we had and would buy one again.
You do realize that the 1999+ Prowler did 0-60 in the (NOT SLOW) high 5 second range, right?
The Prowler looked fast and actually was fast in a straight line.
Even the 1997 model wasn’t that slow… with a 0-60 in the low 7 second range
(I replied to your standalone comment, but this may be where the discussion is so…)
It’s fast, just not in exactly the way buyers expected a car like this to be based on the styling.
The styling promised a scream off the line experience, but a V6 and an auto didn’t really deliver that. Fast as the rpms climbed, certainly, but by the late ’90s, most cars were…buyers for the Prowler wanted the (fantasy) hotrod experience, to be able to imagine they’re John Milner in American Graffiti.
Exactly. It looked like a hot rod but was barely lukewarm.
IOW the appearance wrote checks the drivetrain couldn’t cash.
Chevrolet SS, the Holden Commodore version, 4 door jelly bean sedan with a manual and 415 frickin’ horsepower.
The reason why I like the MKZ answer better than this one is that despite its plainness, the Holden has unmistakable RWD proportions. Even non-car people will comment to me that it’s sharp looking in a way they can’t really articulate.
Meanwhile the Lincoln silhouette could be any midsize FWD sedan made this century.
The *original* Ford Maverick – Swoopy car with little to back it up. Same with the Opel GT. Or the 914/4.
You might say it has the need for speed. Even when you goose it.
Euro spec 4-gen Civic hatchback, ZC engine.
While the 1.6 VTEC version was a beast and looked (and was) fast, the ZC (1.6 DOHC, non-vtec, available on Euro markets but not in the US) was mostly unassuming, but as pocket rocket as they come.
I’m ruling out the CRX versions here, they actually did look fast even in the 90hp base version in Germany (and were nimble enough to not qualify for the looks fast but is slow category).
Volvo 740 Turbo. Looks like a building, is actually quite fast.
Bricklin SV-1 looked quick, was embarrassingly slow.
I always thought the late 90’s Dodge Avenger Coupe looked fast. Based on it’s Mitsubishi Galant underpinnings, it was actually just a couch potato in athletes clothing.
On the flipside, big lumbering luxo-barge SUVs like the Bentley Bentayga certainly don’t look fast, but they most certainly are not slow.
Saab Sonett. Damn, I now see that DT beat me to it. Okay, how about Opel GT?
You beat me, saw yours pop up while I was typing. Both were slow but looked fast.
I want to see a comparison test of the “tiny gts” from the early 70s, Saab Sonett, Opel GT, Fiat X1/9.
It’s low hanging fruit, but Fiero.
Definitely the DeLorean.
I’m not convinced it could even reach 88 mph in a mall parking lot.
I actually saw one in the city where I work last week! As always happens these days, I was struck by 1) the presence of the design, still and 2) the incongruity of the sound of a ~40 year old French-Swedish engine issuing from it.
There’s one locally that’s got the full time machine add-ons, and they really do have a look about them.
It’s why in the unlikely event the concept Cybertruck sees the light of day, I think people will buy it. Stainless + angles looks sharp, no matter if the design is coherent (DeLorean) or not (Tesla).
I agree. Intriguingly, I think a big reason for widespread love for the look now is that cyberpunk is now a recognizable design ethos.
It wasn’t when the original DMC came out, but Blade Runner’s debut of it took place largely alongside the Delorean’s mystique and high ’80s styling, and the two have been intertwined in our imaginations ever since.
Why do you think it’s unlikely? There’s been a ton of spottings on the production test units and they’re down winter testing in NZ right now. ???
You’re curious why I’m skeptical of a Tesla promise?
I had to explain this to one of my kids yesterday. He was like whaaaaaat?
I recall reading that the movie car was heavily modified (think Chevy engine swap) because it couldn’t do half the stuff the script called for.
I actually read about this today because I was curious myself after writing my comment.
The V8 engine noise was from a Porsche 928.
Some of the off-roading scenes in the third movie required the DMC body to be put on a VW dune buggy engine and chassis, which presumably made them even slower.