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

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP here... I have a Vulcan powered Ranger. Extended cab, manual. The power is adequate. I don't care for the Vulcan. Uses a lot of gas and I don't care for the way its power delivery feels. But mine is kind of worn out.

I've had some slow cars, NA Jetta diesel was the worst. My brother had a 267 Monte. It was fine. My parents had a Caprice Diesel Wagon. I was too young to drive it, thankfully. I think that was in the 55mph national limit days.

I had a B2200 Mazda that didn't have much pep past 80, but that was plenty fast for a dumb kid.
 
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 had one of those, albeit with no A/C. Not bad at all, plenty of power.
 
Originally Posted by nthach
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.


We bought a '97 3.0 Aerostar brand new at a steal of a price and we did 175K reliable and durable miles with it.
Underpowered?
It was a lunar rocket as compared to our '81 Vanagon and delivered about the same fuel economy as did the 4 spd VW while also providing real heat as well as strong AC.
The Vulcan was also unkillable, which couldn't be said of the VW Type IV engine.
Overall, the VW had better ride and handling along with better construction while the Aerostar was a much faster ride that gave less trouble than the VW.
Other than wear parts, the Aerostar needed a starter in the thirteen years that we owned it while the VW needed new heads and a new pilot bearing after but 105K.
Pilot bearing seized and heads cracked, as is typical of the Type IV. Easy to work on the VW engine, since you could easily drop it out. Not true of the Aerostar, where even changing the plugs is a PITA.
In terms of driving fun, I'd take the VW any day of the week. Shifts were slick, especially considering the ridiculously long shift linkage and the engine had a nice mechanical note, which you could usually barely hear, since it was buried way back there.
For daily driver and trip use, I'd take the Aerostar without question.
 
Originally Posted by Imp4
Originally Posted by zorobabel
Underpowered vehicles were not sold in the US for at least 50 years.

My 1979 Monte Carlo with the 267 V8 would like to beg to differ with your statement.
It made a whopping 120 HP.......
From a Chevy V8.....
And the car weighed 3200 lbs.....

My dad's1981 Datsun 310 with the 988cc E10 brought up the rear at about 49 HP and 1850 lbs.

I had an '81 Grand Prix LJ, with a Pontiac-sourced 4.3 liter 265 V8 that made a huge 119 HP.. This engine was coupled to GM's light duty 200 metric transmission and an economy oriented 2.29:1 rear gear ratio which helped achieve 27 highway MPG rating.The best I ever got out of mine was 26. and like the above, mine was a lead weight going down the road. Still loved it though.
 
That 6cyl Ford Fairmont had to be a powerhouse compared to my in-law's 4cyl, 5spd 1980 Fairmont wagon. I almost forgot about that turd. It was brown too. We really are spoiled today compared to some of those 1970 and 80s vehicles.
 
Last edited:
My mom's 2011 Fit is very under powered. I hate driving it because I feel like it can't merge safely. The transmission is probably most of the problem, as it intentionally stays in the highest gear to get better mpg, and getting it to downshift is annoying.

On the contrary, her previous 2005 Civic 1.7L had less HP, but seemed a lot more peppy with only a 4 speed auto. It was slow yes, but adequate and not annoying to drive like the Fit. The sad part about the Fit is that the Fit Sport actually handles decent for a compact car, if it had adequate power (like the 1.8L R18 from the Civic even) it would be much more fun.
 
My friend's parents had one of the early 80's Fairmonts, 2.3 with the automatic. It was absolutely, positively horrific. He was at a party one night, a little tipsy, and asked me to drive him and the car home because his parents needed the car the next day. I showed up, threw him in the passenger seat, had another friend follow us, and proceeded to his house. Within about a mile I said "Hey man, somethings wrong with this car. This thing is slower than dirt." He said no, its completely normal, Fairmonts arent fast cars, etc etc. I got out and checked it anyway. Carb throttle cable good, butterflys opening fine, choke not stuck, fluids good, not overheating, brakes not dragging, etc. Idled fine, smooth, no sputtering, whatever. Everything checked ok. I got him home, walked in with him... his parents were there. I told them I thought something was wrong with the car, it barely gets out of its own way. They were adamant, no its normal, we bought it brand new, its always been a slower car, they had test driven other ones, they were all like that, etc etc. I looked at them and teenage me, irreverent and immature, shook my head and mumbled "WHAT in the world would possess someone to buy a car like that? That car is awful.".... Those words started the very steep downtrend of a previously very amicable relationship I had with his parents that never really recovered, even to this day.

Early 80's Ford Fairmont for the win. Slowest, most under powered car in the entire Milky Way galaxy. I still have nightmares about driving him home in that car.
 
Originally Posted by jeepman3071
My mom's 2011 Fit is very under powered. I hate driving it because I feel like it can't merge safely. The transmission is probably most of the problem, as it intentionally stays in the highest gear to get better mpg, and getting it to downshift is annoying.

On the contrary, her previous 2005 Civic 1.7L had less HP, but seemed a lot more peppy with only a 4 speed auto. It was slow yes, but adequate and not annoying to drive like the Fit. The sad part about the Fit is that the Fit Sport actually handles decent for a compact car, if it had adequate power (like the 1.8L R18 from the Civic even) it would be much more fun.

The Fit is the spiritual successor to the the 1980s-1990s Civic before that became a mini-Accord. The 1st gen Fits are pretty fun for what they are. The 2nd gen cars sucked and the 3rd gens aren't bad. Honda could have a sleeperish monster if they shoehorned the turbo L15 from the Civic EX-T/Accord 1.5T into it and called it a Fit Sport-T or Si.

I'd still rather drive a Prius than a Fit IMO, mostly because of physics.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 5AcresAndAFool
Some of you never had to ride a bike or take the bus for transportation and it shows.

Some newer buses do have considerable go even if they need to push 14-20 tons around. I've rode a New Flyer Xcelsior XD60 with the 330hp Cummins ISL bolted to a 6-speed Allison B500R and it felt like it moved away from a stop with relative ease. I've seen MCIs move commandingly smoothly down the freeway. Supposedly, an MCI can hit 85-90 if the limiters aren't set in the engine/tranny ECMs.

I've read that Greyhound stockpiled a good chunk of the Detroit Diesel Series 60 for repowering their fleet when they started to build engines on the Mercedes platform.

eBikes are suprisingly fast, I've ridden a few. I think I was pacing a Civic on a converted Yuba Munbo with the Bosch system.
crazy2.gif
 
Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by 5AcresAndAFool
Some of you never had to ride a bike or take the bus for transportation and it shows.

Some newer buses do have considerable go even if they need to push 14-20 tons around. I've rode a New Flyer Xcelsior XD60 with the 330hp Cummins ISL bolted to a 6-speed Allison B500R and it felt like it moved away from a stop with relative ease. I've seen MCIs move commandingly smoothly down the freeway. Supposedly, an MCI can hit 85-90 if the limiters aren't set in the engine/tranny ECMs.

I've read that Greyhound stockpiled a good chunk of the Detroit Diesel Series 60 for repowering their fleet when they started to build engines on the Mercedes platform.

eBikes are suprisingly fast, I've ridden a few. I think I was pacing a Civic on a converted Yuba Munbo with the Bosch system.
crazy2.gif



They'll do more than that. The MCI I drove would run 90+ if not governed. 500HP DD60 and double overdrive Allison.
 
Not many under powered cars on the road today.

The saturn s single overhead cam with auto trans. The manual was fine , the auto was slow.

How about the 82 Camaro with the 2.5 iron duke?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by spasm3
Not many under powered cars on the road today.

The saturn s single overhead cam with auto trans. The manual was fine , the auto was slow.

How about the 82 Camaro with the 2.5 iron duke?


Oh, they were both slow, LOL! My buddy's GF had an SC1 with the 5spd and it was scary to overtake anything with.
 
Originally Posted by spasm3


How about the 82 Camaro with the 2.5 iron duke?


I know these existed, but I've never seen one in person.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
1 Week Review - 2025 Toyota Tacoma Hybrid Limited
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
20K
mikeduf
M
  • Locked
Hybrid vehicles
Replies
0
Views
655
Mike_dup1
Back
Top Bottom