What cars "underwhelm" you, in terms of performance?

[GranTurNismo]

Well, is it slower than the Corolla sold from the same years?

Yep. By a long shot, even. The top-of-the-line USDM Corolla was the XRS which made 182hp in the early to mid 2000s. Even the normal Corolla had 15 more horsepower.

 

[ScottPuss20]

2002-2004 Mitsubishi Lancer OZ Ralliart. Obviously I knew these were slower than the Evos, but I didn't realize they only had 120hp (the same as the normal trims) and couldn't even do 0-60 in sub-10 seconds with the 5-speed manual. I always thought these were about as fast as a Civic SI or Sentra SE-R or Matrix XRS, but I was way off. The facelifted model's power was bumped up to 160.

It's crazy to think just how different the regular Lancer is to the Lancer Evolution. It doesn't even look like the same car. At least when you the look at the 2008 Lancer, you can see how it's connected to the Evolution.

 

[GTV0819]

It's crazy to think just how different the regular Lancer is to the Lancer Evolution. It doesn't even look like the same car. At least when you the look at the 2008 Lancer, you can see how it's connected to the Evolution.

Aside from the sporty seats, different gauges and materials, interior-wise pretty much they used to have the same interior.

 

[TheCracker]

2002-2004 Mitsubishi Lancer OZ Ralliart. Obviously I knew these were slower than the Evos, but I didn't realize they only had 120hp (the same as the normal trims) and couldn't even do 0-60 in sub-10 seconds with the 5-speed manual. I always thought these were about as fast as a Civic SI or Sentra SE-R or Matrix XRS, but I was way off. The facelifted model's power was bumped up to 160.

Puts it on par with the non-WRX/STI Impreza Sport of that era. Most of the looks but none of the go.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

This

For once, I wish Toyota would actually use the nameplate to mean something more than just a sticker package.

EDIT: Yup, I brought back a dead thread to post about this.

 

[Volksauto]

This

For once, I wish Toyota would actually use the nameplate to mean something more than just a sticker package.

EDIT: Yup, I brought back a dead thread to post about this.

Toyota could’ve put a little more straight line performance in the car. But I think that package is mostly a handling upgrade.

 

[Tornado]

The Camry is already the most powerful car in the class. What more do you want out of a FWD sedan beyond better handling to complement it?

 

[GranTurNismo]

I'd say the Avalon TRD qualifies as "underwhelming" more than the Camry. It's a few inches longer, $11,000 more expensive than the Camry TRD, and has the same bodykit too, but it's not any more powerful than the Camry.

The Camry is already the most powerful car in the class. What more do you want out of a FWD sedan beyond better handling to complement it?

He probably means even more horsepower.

301hp is actually quite good for even the sportiest Camry trim, especially in a time where non-luxury midsize sedans are becoming less powerful, largely due to the fact that V6s aren't an option anymore.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Toyota could’ve put a little more straight line performance in the car. But I think that package is mostly a handling upgrade.

That's my issue, it's mainly just a handling upgrade and I'm not even sure it's the best one given to a 4-door sedan.

The Camry is already the most powerful car in the class. What more do you want out of a FWD sedan beyond better handling to complement it?

More than those basically. The most powerful car in this class has 301 hp and is FWD versus being AWD like some options have. For something being given a TRD badge, I guess I just wanted Toyota to aim higher with the Camry I guess. I was thinking more of an AWD sedan with 400+hp.

I already know why Toyota didn't do it, but I still can't help, but feel disappointed by the car.

 

[GranTurNismo]

1995-2000 Dodge Avenger, the coupe version of the new "cab-forward" Stratus and successor to the Daytona. To say it bluntly, its performance figures did not match its looks at all. The two engine choices were a 2.0L I4 making 140hp or a 2.5L V6 making 155hp, allowing for 0-60 times in the low-10s and low-9s respectively. The Avenger's less-than-expected sales suggest that there really wasn't a place for it in the market; I guess it could be described as a more mature alternative to the Eclipse/Talon, but by the late 1990s, coupes of mid-size sedan sales were plummeting, and it was more expensive than the Eclipse/Talon and the Neon Coupe, which was faster than the V6 Avenger even with its base engine. I'm not sure why the 214hp Intrepid V6 was not an option for the Avenger.

 

[kikie]

Simple, the Toyota GT86. It is slow even though it is a pure driver's car. Even the latest 2.0 MX-5 is faster. I think.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Simple, the Toyota GT86. It is slow even though it is a pure driver's car. Even the latest 2.0 MX-5 is faster. I think.

I feel like this is missing the point, though. The 86/BRZ's niche is being a spartan, budget-friendly drivers car, and not meant to be particularly "fast". Given it's weight and size, 227hp and a 0-60 time of 6.0 isn't at all slow, though in a time where most other sports cars make significantly more power than that, I can understand why it may appear to be "slow". Buyers who want something quicker and more sophisticated would opt for the GR Supra or even the Lexus RCF.

The Avenger, on the other hand, could be seen as "underwhelming" in that it was a slower car than its predecessor (despite having sporty looks and advertised as a "sports coupe"), as well as being slower than the much smaller and less powerful Neon Coupe.

 

[kikie]

I feel like this is missing the point, though. The 86/BRZ's niche is being a spartan, budget-friendly drivers car, and not meant to be particularly "fast". Given it's weight and size, 227hp and a 0-60 time of 6.0 isn't at all slow, though in a time where most other sports cars make significantly more power than that, I can understand why it may appear to be "slow". Buyers who want something quicker and more sophisticated would opt for the GR Supra or even the Lexus RCF.

The Avenger, on the other hand, could be seen as "underwhelming" in that it was a slower car than its predecessor (despite having sporty looks and advertised as a "sports coupe"), as well as being slower than the much smaller and less powerful Neon Coupe.

The fastest 0 - 62 is 7.6 sec and definitely not 6 seconds. The GT86 and I'm talking about the GT86 and not the new GR86 is a slow car.
It is 200hp and not 227.

Toyota GT86 Price & Specs | Top Gear

The simplest and most exciting Toyota in years is also a real pleasure to drive

www.topgear.com

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I feel like this is missing the point, though. The 86/BRZ's niche is being a spartan, budget-friendly drivers car, and not meant to be particularly "fast". Given it's weight and size, 227hp and a 0-60 time of 6.0 isn't at all slow, though in a time where most other sports cars make significantly more power than that, I can understand why it may appear to be "slow". Buyers who want something quicker and more sophisticated would opt for the GR Supra or even the Lexus RCF.

The Avenger, on the other hand, could be seen as "underwhelming" in that it was a slower car than its predecessor (despite having sporty looks and advertised as a "sports coupe"), as well as being slower than the much smaller and less powerful Neon Coupe.

Just curious here, have you driven one? I've been trying to think of a way to describe the 86/BR-Z's shortfall in a better way. Slow is an inadequate description, IMO, because it's not actually that slow - or at least it's not slower than the likes of an NC MX-5 or a Civic Si (previous model) which are not as frequently maligned as being too slow. Like people remark that MX-5s are slow, but it doesn't feel like a complaint in the way it does when attributed to the 86. What I mean by this is that you can drive an MX-5 and think, "this is a slow car", but when you drive a GT86 you think "this is a too slow car." The implication here is that there is nothing wrong with the MX-5's relative slowness whereas there is something wrong with the GT86's slowness.

The 86 feels burdened. My 2.5 Boxster has an almost identical power to weight ratio to the first gen 86 and they probably provide similar levels of acceleration in absolute terms. But the H6 in the Boxster provides useful levels of torque from 2500rpm and it keeps building in a linear fashion all the way to the ~7,000rpm redline, there are no holes. It's not a fast car, but the engine is satisfying. You nail the throttle anywhere between that 2500-7000rpm range and you will get a predictable response that builds in a sporting fashion. The 86 isn't like that. If you nail the throttle in the mid range, it feels like there's nothing there - it eventually builds, but sounds kind of harsh when it does. The car works pretty well on a track because you aren't typically using the lower reaches of the rev range, but on the street the car just feels insufficient. Again, it's not that it's slow, it's that its powerband is totally unsatisfying. I've driven slower cars that feel more satisfying. I honestly feel like the engine in the first gen 86 was less satisfying to use than the 1.5, 100hp engine in my old Mazda2. An NA MX-5 is way slower than an 86, but it's powerband feels appropriate for its chassis, particularly in 1.8 form.

 

[r_outsider]

I must admit I was struggling a bit with the complaints about the 86, I mean, i've not driven one, but it was never advertised as being FAST so I was wondering what everyone was on about, but you've explained it in a way that makes sense. Nothing worse than a lifeless feeling engine, even a reasonably powerful one (Looking at you, EcoBoost Mustang...)

 

[05XR8]

1995-2000 Dodge Avenger, the coupe version of the new "cab-forward" Stratus and successor to the Daytona. To say it bluntly, its performance figures did not match its looks at all. The two engine choices were a 2.0L I4 making 140hp or a 2.5L V6 making 155hp, allowing for 0-60 times in the low-10s and low-9s respectively. The Avenger's less-than-expected sales suggest that there really wasn't a place for it in the market; I guess it could be described as a more mature alternative to the Eclipse/Talon, but by the late 1990s, coupes of mid-size sedan sales were plummeting, and it was more expensive than the Eclipse/Talon and the Neon Coupe, which was faster than the V6 Avenger even with its base engine. I'm not sure why the 214hp Intrepid V6 was not an option for the Avenger.

In the same vein, I'll say the 240SX(S14) pre-facelift.

One of my ex's, her co-worker had one. I had my '88 GLi 16V/VR6 conversion at the time(around 1999-2000) and wasn't too impressed by the 240s acceleration, when he took me for a ride on some Bronx parkways. Sure, it was a few years old, but I knew the potential was there, if he were to fit a JDM engine. At least it was a manual, in a nice green w/light gray leather.

 

[kikie]

BTW, I have driven a GT86 when it was released and compared to my 3.0 V6 Duratec, the GT86 gave me the feeling that there was no torque at all, which is nonsense of course because there is always torque available.

My little Fiat 500 Twin Air with 85 hp and 145 Nm of torque feels much faster and satisfying than the GT86.

 

[Tornado]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Intrepid engine simply wouldn't have fit in the Avenger. The Avenger was basically an enlarged Eclipse and it's V6 was one off of Mitsubishi's parts shelf rather than anything Chrysler actually developed, whereas the cloud cars were always designed to use the Chrysler engine including the SOHC version of it. Remember in the Intrepid and etc that engine wasn't transverse.



And I suspect the Avenger didn't get the 4G72 that was similar in power to the Intrepid engine because Mitsubishi would rather you just buy a low spec 3000GT or Stealth if you wanted something that looked sporty but wasn't.