Last edited:
Slowest car ever
- Thread starter Nick R
- Start date
- Status
My old s-10 with a 2.5l that had soo much blow-by you could pump your tires up with it was freakin scary on the hwy. Of course putting in 4:10 gears with 15" rims and and slightly bigger tires than stock really didn't help. 5th gear was completely useless unless you were over 65mph. I miss that piece of junk, it was great! just wheel into any old spot at walmart and not really care if some old woman dragged her cart down the side of it.
Ha
My parents had a 77 Accord with the POS CVCC engine made 68 HP with a 2spd auto. Car was light but was still the slowest dog I ever drove. Only good thing was as the fenders and floors rotted out the car got light LOL and I suppose the ET's would drop as the iron worms gorged themselves;0
Originally Posted By: silverrat
You guys must be kidding. My Accord is 3000 lb loaded and has 125hp. I have no problem merging, passing or having fun while driving.
Just keep the revs high and row through the gears.
Tested in 1993 numbers are 0-60 in 10.1 quarters in 17.6 for automatic.
My parents had a 77 Accord with the POS CVCC engine made 68 HP with a 2spd auto. Car was light but was still the slowest dog I ever drove. Only good thing was as the fenders and floors rotted out the car got light LOL and I suppose the ET's would drop as the iron worms gorged themselves;0
Originally Posted By: silverrat
You guys must be kidding. My Accord is 3000 lb loaded and has 125hp. I have no problem merging, passing or having fun while driving.
Just keep the revs high and row through the gears.
Tested in 1993 numbers are 0-60 in 10.1 quarters in 17.6 for automatic.
Here's a fun link. Actually, on the two vehicles I've tested this on (not the VW because it's way out of the curve) it was pretty darn accurate to my actual recorded times.
http://www.060calculator.com/
http://www.060calculator.com/
2006 Mazdaspeed 6
Sweet...mine's 0-60 mph: 5.51 seconds.
I think you'd really have to abuse it to achieve those numbers.
Sweet...mine's 0-60 mph: 5.51 seconds.
I think you'd really have to abuse it to achieve those numbers.
Hah.. I WAS abusing it. That was foot to the floor couldn't push any harder the whole time. I might be able to shave a couple seconds off by shifting manually at 5300RPM, as opposed to the auto shifting at 4700.
I don't require a lot of hp in my daily driver, but my 4 cyl VUE is somewhat less than adequate from a standing start, it needs a little more.
slowest I've driven was my '93 saturn SC1; 85hp, 5 speed. to be fair, I think it was a bit old and tired, but it couldn't maintain 65mph, forget it if you turned on the A/C. you could have it floored and you would be slowing down. merging was downright scary.
fixed it all w/ a twin cam swap, 124hp.not much more, but a healthy engine, and the car only weighed 2400lbs. then I was hitting 75 at the end of some ramps w/ still another gear or two to go.
slowest I've driven was my '93 saturn SC1; 85hp, 5 speed. to be fair, I think it was a bit old and tired, but it couldn't maintain 65mph, forget it if you turned on the A/C. you could have it floored and you would be slowing down. merging was downright scary.
fixed it all w/ a twin cam swap, 124hp.not much more, but a healthy engine, and the car only weighed 2400lbs. then I was hitting 75 at the end of some ramps w/ still another gear or two to go.
Originally Posted By: slammds15
My old s-10 with a 2.5l that had soo much blow-by you could pump your tires up with it was freakin scary on the hwy. Of course putting in 4:10 gears with 15" rims and and slightly bigger tires than stock really didn't help. 5th gear was completely useless unless you were over 65mph. I miss that piece of junk, it was great! just wheel into any old spot at walmart and not really care if some old woman dragged her cart down the side of it.
Auto or manual? My 88 2.5L was auto and I can't say I miss it any. I almost had heart failure a few times trying to pass someone. Was a great in town driver though. But I'd rather have my Ranger.. I can get a 3 third gear scratch out of it.
My old s-10 with a 2.5l that had soo much blow-by you could pump your tires up with it was freakin scary on the hwy. Of course putting in 4:10 gears with 15" rims and and slightly bigger tires than stock really didn't help. 5th gear was completely useless unless you were over 65mph. I miss that piece of junk, it was great! just wheel into any old spot at walmart and not really care if some old woman dragged her cart down the side of it.
Auto or manual? My 88 2.5L was auto and I can't say I miss it any. I almost had heart failure a few times trying to pass someone. Was a great in town driver though. But I'd rather have my Ranger.. I can get a 3 third gear scratch out of it.
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
But I'd rather have my Ranger.. I can get a 3 third gear scratch out of it.
You must have what's known as a 'factory freak' (an engine that seems to put out more power than it's factory rating). My 2.3 Ranger would barely scratch in first. I hated that gutless wonder.
But I'd rather have my Ranger.. I can get a 3 third gear scratch out of it.
You must have what's known as a 'factory freak' (an engine that seems to put out more power than it's factory rating). My 2.3 Ranger would barely scratch in first. I hated that gutless wonder.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
If we're talking 0-60 times, the GN should be right in the 2 second range on slicks. Not sure exactly as it's impossible to time but it's pulled bottom 1.5 60' times.
2 second range??????? I want to have what you are smoking
We are talking about time it takes a vehicle to go from 0 to 60 mph.
- Vikas
If we're talking 0-60 times, the GN should be right in the 2 second range on slicks. Not sure exactly as it's impossible to time but it's pulled bottom 1.5 60' times.
2 second range??????? I want to have what you are smoking
We are talking about time it takes a vehicle to go from 0 to 60 mph.
- Vikas
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
But I'd rather have my Ranger.. I can get a 3 third gear scratch out of it.
You must have what's known as a 'factory freak' (an engine that seems to put out more power than it's factory rating). My 2.3 Ranger would barely scratch in first. I hated that gutless wonder.
What year was your Ranger? The 2.3 Duratec is a whole other animal compared to the Lima. With 150ish hp it can move the XL single cab quite well. But come to think of it I don't think I can scratch 1st gear (geared to low).. 2nd and 3rd is no problem though.
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
But I'd rather have my Ranger.. I can get a 3 third gear scratch out of it.
You must have what's known as a 'factory freak' (an engine that seems to put out more power than it's factory rating). My 2.3 Ranger would barely scratch in first. I hated that gutless wonder.
What year was your Ranger? The 2.3 Duratec is a whole other animal compared to the Lima. With 150ish hp it can move the XL single cab quite well. But come to think of it I don't think I can scratch 1st gear (geared to low).. 2nd and 3rd is no problem though.
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
But I'd rather have my Ranger.. I can get a 3 third gear scratch out of it.
You must have what's known as a 'factory freak' (an engine that seems to put out more power than it's factory rating). My 2.3 Ranger would barely scratch in first. I hated that gutless wonder.
No doubt about that. Even my dad's 1998 Ranger 2.5L, 5spd was so gutless, even starting out in first the first time I drove it, I swore a rear brake was hanging up. I also had a 1997 Wranger TJ 2.5L 5spd that was low geared OK, but highway was a foot to the floor endeavor.
Joel
Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
But I'd rather have my Ranger.. I can get a 3 third gear scratch out of it.
You must have what's known as a 'factory freak' (an engine that seems to put out more power than it's factory rating). My 2.3 Ranger would barely scratch in first. I hated that gutless wonder.
No doubt about that. Even my dad's 1998 Ranger 2.5L, 5spd was so gutless, even starting out in first the first time I drove it, I swore a rear brake was hanging up. I also had a 1997 Wranger TJ 2.5L 5spd that was low geared OK, but highway was a foot to the floor endeavor.
Joel
Mine was a 1997 5-speed regular cab sportside, I really don't know what engine it was beyond being a severely anemic 2.3.
It ran pretty good on cool mornings right after startup, but a few miles down the road after it warmed up and the clutch fan locked, it felt like I was towing a 4-spot horse trailer. I was seriously considering replacing the fan with an electric one, but then someone stole the truck and it was totalled. I'm still not sure if that was a blessing or a curse.
If I'd stood my ground and insisted on a 4.0 5-speed, I'd probably have loved that truck. I think back then, the 4.0 was available in the regular cab shortbeds, which sounded fun to me. Just couldn't find one, so I settled for the 2.3. I'm glad I learn from most of my mistakes.
It ran pretty good on cool mornings right after startup, but a few miles down the road after it warmed up and the clutch fan locked, it felt like I was towing a 4-spot horse trailer. I was seriously considering replacing the fan with an electric one, but then someone stole the truck and it was totalled. I'm still not sure if that was a blessing or a curse.
If I'd stood my ground and insisted on a 4.0 5-speed, I'd probably have loved that truck. I think back then, the 4.0 was available in the regular cab shortbeds, which sounded fun to me.
Just couldn't find one, so I settled for the 2.3. I'm glad I learn from most of my mistakes. Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
If we're talking 0-60 times, the GN should be right in the 2 second range on slicks. Not sure exactly as it's impossible to time but it's pulled bottom 1.5 60' times.
2 second range??????? I want to have what you are smoking
We are talking about time it takes a vehicle to go from 0 to 60 mph.
- Vikas
You don't know much about drag racing do you? His Grand National runs low 10s. Some of the worlds fastest street cars, like an Ultima GTR, do 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds on a prepped track, so a drag car with slicks that runs 10 second quarter miles could easliy get to 60 in roughly 2 seconds.
Top fuel Dragsters to 0 to 100 mph in under 1 second for cripes sake!
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
If we're talking 0-60 times, the GN should be right in the 2 second range on slicks. Not sure exactly as it's impossible to time but it's pulled bottom 1.5 60' times.
2 second range??????? I want to have what you are smoking
We are talking about time it takes a vehicle to go from 0 to 60 mph.
- Vikas
You don't know much about drag racing do you? His Grand National runs low 10s. Some of the worlds fastest street cars, like an Ultima GTR, do 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds on a prepped track, so a drag car with slicks that runs 10 second quarter miles could easliy get to 60 in roughly 2 seconds.
Top fuel Dragsters to 0 to 100 mph in under 1 second for cripes sake!
Hey BuickGN...do you have your list of mods posted here anywhere? That's some incredible performance numbers, even for a GNX.
Fun car...I was working at a Pontiac / Olds / GMC dealer during the GNX heyday. They were wiping the pavement with the current Vette and completely humiliating the Monte Carlo SS. I remember when that engine surfaced in the '89 Trans Am and we had one delivered. NOBODY was allowed to drive it and it spent its time on the showroom until a buyer came along. I think the car came back about a year later as a trade-in, and I thought that was finally my chance to drive one..but the sales manager kept the keys locked in his desk. :-(
Fun car...I was working at a Pontiac / Olds / GMC dealer during the GNX heyday. They were wiping the pavement with the current Vette and completely humiliating the Monte Carlo SS. I remember when that engine surfaced in the '89 Trans Am and we had one delivered. NOBODY was allowed to drive it and it spent its time on the showroom until a buyer came along. I think the car came back about a year later as a trade-in, and I thought that was finally my chance to drive one..but the sales manager kept the keys locked in his desk. :-(
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
62hp in a 3000lb car is dangerous.
Thinking that one is above the law, better than other drivers, and therefore entitled to drive over the limit is dangerous.
People talking and texting are dangerous.
People aware of the other vehicles on the road are far less dangerous, provided they don't have bad habits like those given above.
So how is 62 hp, or based upon my comment, 120 hp dangerous? Because somebody feels entitled to mash the go pedal without concern for other cars/ drivers, let alone physics?
Last I checked, we also share the road with other slower vehicles, and slow is generally superior for economy anyhow. Too much power is just as dangerous, and generally also corresponds to a better than you, entitlement attitude, which is dangerous.
62hp in a 3000lb car is dangerous.
Thinking that one is above the law, better than other drivers, and therefore entitled to drive over the limit is dangerous.
People talking and texting are dangerous.
People aware of the other vehicles on the road are far less dangerous, provided they don't have bad habits like those given above.
So how is 62 hp, or based upon my comment, 120 hp dangerous? Because somebody feels entitled to mash the go pedal without concern for other cars/ drivers, let alone physics?
Last I checked, we also share the road with other slower vehicles, and slow is generally superior for economy anyhow. Too much power is just as dangerous, and generally also corresponds to a better than you, entitlement attitude, which is dangerous.
Originally Posted By: JTK
...Even my dad's 1998 Ranger 2.5L, 5spd was so gutless, even starting out in first the first time I drove it, I swore a rear brake was hanging up. I also had a 1997 Wranger TJ 2.5L 5spd that was low geared OK, but highway was a foot to the floor endeavor.
Joel
I drove a '91 for a service truck and with all my parts in the back, it would not maintain 55 mph on a gentle hill without downshifting to fourth. Real good truck though, it was way over 200K miles and running great last I saw it.
The later models are way faster and still good trucks.
...Even my dad's 1998 Ranger 2.5L, 5spd was so gutless, even starting out in first the first time I drove it, I swore a rear brake was hanging up. I also had a 1997 Wranger TJ 2.5L 5spd that was low geared OK, but highway was a foot to the floor endeavor.
Joel
I drove a '91 for a service truck and with all my parts in the back, it would not maintain 55 mph on a gentle hill without downshifting to fourth. Real good truck though, it was way over 200K miles and running great last I saw it.
The later models are way faster and still good trucks.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
62hp in a 3000lb car is dangerous.
Thinking that one is above the law, better than other drivers, and therefore entitled to drive over the limit is dangerous.
People talking and texting are dangerous.
People aware of the other vehicles on the road are far less dangerous, provided they don't have bad habits like those given above.
So how is 62 hp, or based upon my comment, 120 hp dangerous? Because somebody feels entitled to mash the go pedal without concern for other cars/ drivers, let alone physics?
Last I checked, we also share the road with other slower vehicles, and slow is generally superior for economy anyhow. Too much power is just as dangerous, and generally also corresponds to a better than you, entitlement attitude, which is dangerous.
+1
Are people stopping at the end of an offramp and then try to merge or something? Is that why they need 0-60 in 6 sec or less?
I honestly can't see how a car that gets 0-60 in 10 to 15 sec. can be dangerous.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
62hp in a 3000lb car is dangerous.
Thinking that one is above the law, better than other drivers, and therefore entitled to drive over the limit is dangerous.
People talking and texting are dangerous.
People aware of the other vehicles on the road are far less dangerous, provided they don't have bad habits like those given above.
So how is 62 hp, or based upon my comment, 120 hp dangerous? Because somebody feels entitled to mash the go pedal without concern for other cars/ drivers, let alone physics?
Last I checked, we also share the road with other slower vehicles, and slow is generally superior for economy anyhow. Too much power is just as dangerous, and generally also corresponds to a better than you, entitlement attitude, which is dangerous.
+1
Are people stopping at the end of an offramp and then try to merge or something? Is that why they need 0-60 in 6 sec or less?
I honestly can't see how a car that gets 0-60 in 10 to 15 sec. can be dangerous.
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
Hey BuickGN...do you have your list of mods posted here anywhere? That's some incredible performance numbers, even for a GNX.
Fun car...I was working at a Pontiac / Olds / GMC dealer during the GNX heyday. They were wiping the pavement with the current Vette and completely humiliating the Monte Carlo SS. I remember when that engine surfaced in the '89 Trans Am and we had one delivered. NOBODY was allowed to drive it and it spent its time on the showroom until a buyer came along. I think the car came back about a year later as a trade-in, and I thought that was finally my chance to drive one..but the sales manager kept the keys locked in his desk. :-(
the monte SS IIRC had 180hp. the corvette had 235hp, and the GN had a rated 245hp. by todays' standards that isn't much to brag about; a turbo ECOTEC makes 260hp now, and the 3.9 V6 in the last gen malibu SS made 240hp w/o a turbo!
the GN was a good starting point and the aftermarket really took off with them.
Hey BuickGN...do you have your list of mods posted here anywhere? That's some incredible performance numbers, even for a GNX.
Fun car...I was working at a Pontiac / Olds / GMC dealer during the GNX heyday. They were wiping the pavement with the current Vette and completely humiliating the Monte Carlo SS. I remember when that engine surfaced in the '89 Trans Am and we had one delivered. NOBODY was allowed to drive it and it spent its time on the showroom until a buyer came along. I think the car came back about a year later as a trade-in, and I thought that was finally my chance to drive one..but the sales manager kept the keys locked in his desk. :-(
the monte SS IIRC had 180hp. the corvette had 235hp, and the GN had a rated 245hp. by todays' standards that isn't much to brag about; a turbo ECOTEC makes 260hp now, and the 3.9 V6 in the last gen malibu SS made 240hp w/o a turbo!
the GN was a good starting point and the aftermarket really took off with them.
Speaking for Dallas..the onramps here are short. Underpowered cars are typically only going 40mph by the time they reach the highway, where people are likely traveling 70+ mph. So, the guy on the on-ramp typically slams his brakes at this point in an effort to try and find a huge hole to try for, instead of having the ability to mesh with the 70mph traffic encountered at the end of the ramp This screws everyone behind him, and causes ugly problems for the folks who are already on the highway. Everyone has to slam their brakes to match HIS speed, when it's his responsibility to achieve the speed of traffic on the highway so he can merge safely.
If you don't drive on the highway, by all means...drive a slug. Inner-city driving is a perfect place for such a car. But don't wonder why (or get mad at) everyone who rides your @ss on freeway ramps or when you pull out in front of them on frontage roads - another area the slugs should avoid.
If you don't drive on the highway, by all means...drive a slug. Inner-city driving is a perfect place for such a car. But don't wonder why (or get mad at) everyone who rides your @ss on freeway ramps or when you pull out in front of them on frontage roads - another area the slugs should avoid.
- Status
