What is the most underpowered vehicle found in large numbers on the roads today?
- Thread starter brages
- Start date
- Status
Toyota Tacoma
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by Propflux01
Originally Posted by simple_gifts
I had a 76 LeMans with a 110HP Olds 4.3L V8; bought it for $150, with about 60K on it; estate car.
Regardless of the fact that all my vehicles I currently drive have been mentioned, the LeMans is a class leader in dangerously slow vehciles
Yes, My father had a '77 LeMans, straight 250 six. Lugging a large 4-door land yacht. Could hardly get out of its own way.
Sounds like my mother's late brother. C-body Plymouth Fury, loaded with every option...with a slannt six.
When I was in the service in the late 70s early 80s, we had Dodge pickup trucks with 4 doors, long bed and a slant six. They all had granny gear manual trans on the floor. They were slow. I had both a 2.5 S-10 and 2.3 Ranger and the Ranger was slower. It may have been the gearing, though.
Originally Posted by Propflux01
Originally Posted by simple_gifts
I had a 76 LeMans with a 110HP Olds 4.3L V8; bought it for $150, with about 60K on it; estate car.
Regardless of the fact that all my vehicles I currently drive have been mentioned, the LeMans is a class leader in dangerously slow vehciles
Yes, My father had a '77 LeMans, straight 250 six. Lugging a large 4-door land yacht. Could hardly get out of its own way.
Sounds like my mother's late brother. C-body Plymouth Fury, loaded with every option...with a slannt six.
When I was in the service in the late 70s early 80s, we had Dodge pickup trucks with 4 doors, long bed and a slant six. They all had granny gear manual trans on the floor. They were slow. I had both a 2.5 S-10 and 2.3 Ranger and the Ranger was slower. It may have been the gearing, though.
For the express purpose of this thread (new cars), the Mitsubishi Mirage G4 sedan wins the contest of most underpowered new car available in America in 2019. There isn't really much of anything else to recommend about this car either, other than it's low price and reasonably good reliability. As slow as the Chevy Spark is, it is a rocket ship by comparison.
Originally Posted by wag123
For the express purpose of this thread (new cars), the Mitsubishi Mirage G4 sedan wins the contest of most underpowered new car available in America in 2019. There isn't really anything else to recommend about this car either, other than it's low price. As slow as the Chevy Spark is, it is a rocket ship by comparison.
The Mirage is the most popular small car and the most fuel efficient non-hybrid and the manual base model at least are also reliable with cheap easy repairs.
For the express purpose of this thread (new cars), the Mitsubishi Mirage G4 sedan wins the contest of most underpowered new car available in America in 2019. There isn't really anything else to recommend about this car either, other than it's low price. As slow as the Chevy Spark is, it is a rocket ship by comparison.
The Mirage is the most popular small car and the most fuel efficient non-hybrid and the manual base model at least are also reliable with cheap easy repairs.
Originally Posted by zzyzzx
![[Linked Image]](https://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/10/2015/11/2009-toyota-prius-touring-hatchback-angular-front.png "[Linked Image]")
Hmmmm, someone enjoys indulging in stereotyping and presumption. . . These aren't especially fast cars -- they're not meant to be; but nor are they slugs. Especially because of their electric motor-generators, they out-torque anything close to their size. The current model even has a "power mode" that essentially makes all of the charge in the traction battery immediately available the instant you step on the "gas" pedal. So essentially, the electric motors offer ALL of their available torque from 0 rpm. So, when you apply full voltage to the motors as you start to step on the gas, you get all that tq, right now. And of course, it's torque, not hp (I know, I know -- oversimplification...) that gets you off the line. Even the most acceleration-optimized gas or diesel engines take SOME time to get up to the rpm at which they are torquing for maximum effect.
LATE ADDITION: The Gen-2 Prius, pictured above (my 04 was the first year of this series) produced essentially the same acceleration numbers as the first car I bought new: a 1983 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am, with a 5.0L V-8 and a 5-speed manual transmission! Approx 9.5 seconds 0-60. See my post below.
Hmmmm, someone enjoys indulging in stereotyping and presumption. . . These aren't especially fast cars -- they're not meant to be; but nor are they slugs. Especially because of their electric motor-generators, they out-torque anything close to their size. The current model even has a "power mode" that essentially makes all of the charge in the traction battery immediately available the instant you step on the "gas" pedal. So essentially, the electric motors offer ALL of their available torque from 0 rpm. So, when you apply full voltage to the motors as you start to step on the gas, you get all that tq, right now. And of course, it's torque, not hp (I know, I know -- oversimplification...) that gets you off the line. Even the most acceleration-optimized gas or diesel engines take SOME time to get up to the rpm at which they are torquing for maximum effect.
LATE ADDITION: The Gen-2 Prius, pictured above (my 04 was the first year of this series) produced essentially the same acceleration numbers as the first car I bought new: a 1983 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am, with a 5.0L V-8 and a 5-speed manual transmission! Approx 9.5 seconds 0-60. See my post below.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by HangFire
Diesel Chevette no longer qualifies by the "large numbers on the roads today" rule because there's not (or ever has been) large numbers of them. But I use that as my benchmark for underpowered US cars in the modern era.
A 4 cylinder Dodge Dakota (yes there was such a thing) could give a 4 cylinder Ranger a run for its money. My understanding is that was a fleet only vehicle.
Strictly speaking, the original Volkswagon Beetle meets all the criteria. Large numbers of them (mostly in garages) and very slow.
Amen to all that. I owned and drove a 69 VW for a year. Even with very little comparative experience (it was my first car, owned mostly during high school), I knew it was a slug. I still loved it, though. But I think I could have walked away from a stop light faster than it could accelerate. Any modern car, yes even a Prius, is an absolute rocket by comparison.
Diesel Chevette no longer qualifies by the "large numbers on the roads today" rule because there's not (or ever has been) large numbers of them. But I use that as my benchmark for underpowered US cars in the modern era.
A 4 cylinder Dodge Dakota (yes there was such a thing) could give a 4 cylinder Ranger a run for its money. My understanding is that was a fleet only vehicle.
Strictly speaking, the original Volkswagon Beetle meets all the criteria. Large numbers of them (mostly in garages) and very slow.
Last edited:
This is a fun thread, nothing wrong with the discussion, but it does have two major problems. First, using the term "underpowered" is hopelessly vague and relative. It might be better to define it in terms of 0-60 times, quarter miles, or whatever. More technically, weight per hp might be more helpful.
Second, since cars are lasting longer than ever, the fleet of "large numbers" on the road, still contains a substantial number of cars from just a few years back that are way less powerful (and torque-ful if that's a word...) than today's cars. Today's base mid-size sedans typically come with I-4 engines that meet or exceed the output of the optional V-6 engines they had only 10-15 years ago.
And here's an eye-opener (maybe): though there aren't too many of them on the roads today, when I was still physically young (and somewhat foolish?) I bought a brand-new 1983 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am. It came with a 5.0L carbureted V-8 that produced a whopping 150 hp! Yep, one-hundred-fifty! It produced essentially the same acceleration as the 2004 Prius someone else here suggested was "underpowered" -- 0-60 in approx 9.5 seconds. Imagine, a Trans-Am and a Prius running neck-and-neck...
Second, since cars are lasting longer than ever, the fleet of "large numbers" on the road, still contains a substantial number of cars from just a few years back that are way less powerful (and torque-ful if that's a word...) than today's cars. Today's base mid-size sedans typically come with I-4 engines that meet or exceed the output of the optional V-6 engines they had only 10-15 years ago.
And here's an eye-opener (maybe): though there aren't too many of them on the roads today, when I was still physically young (and somewhat foolish?) I bought a brand-new 1983 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am. It came with a 5.0L carbureted V-8 that produced a whopping 150 hp! Yep, one-hundred-fifty! It produced essentially the same acceleration as the 2004 Prius someone else here suggested was "underpowered" -- 0-60 in approx 9.5 seconds. Imagine, a Trans-Am and a Prius running neck-and-neck...
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by dishdude
The 2.0 they were dropping in the Jetta for a few years was pretty pathetic. Think it was like 115 hp, 8 valve rig. Closest modern car you'll probably find that's close to 1980's slow.
They are perfectly fine with stick shift. They are developed with stick shift in mind.
You're absolutely right. The problem, however, is that they (many different mfrs) would develop such an engine, and then turn around and make 3/4 of the cars in which they were installed with automatics.
Originally Posted by dishdude
The 2.0 they were dropping in the Jetta for a few years was pretty pathetic. Think it was like 115 hp, 8 valve rig. Closest modern car you'll probably find that's close to 1980's slow.
They are perfectly fine with stick shift. They are developed with stick shift in mind.
You're absolutely right. The problem, however, is that they (many different mfrs) would develop such an engine, and then turn around and make 3/4 of the cars in which they were installed with automatics.
Originally Posted by ekpolk
LATE ADDITION: The Gen-2 Prius, pictured above (my 04 was the first year of this series) produced essentially the same acceleration numbers as the first car I bought new: a 1983 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am, with a 5.0L V-8 and a 5-speed manual transmission! Approx 9.5 seconds 0-60. See my post below.
That's actually not far off from a non-turbo Subaru and definitely faster than some CUVs.
Compared to the Firebird it has 1/2 as much cylinders and a fraction of the displacement. I drive a gen 2 and for the exception of passing and merging(on very short merges) it has enough power to satisfy daily driving in the city. It does decently well on the highway unless hills are involved.
And one thing about a Prius - there's little feedback at speed. I know I can be going 65-68 one second only to be going 80-85 down the freeway without doing too much. The Toyota hybrids are deceptively smooth(except when the ICE is starting up/shutting down and you feel that "kick").
LATE ADDITION: The Gen-2 Prius, pictured above (my 04 was the first year of this series) produced essentially the same acceleration numbers as the first car I bought new: a 1983 Pontiac Firebird Trans-Am, with a 5.0L V-8 and a 5-speed manual transmission! Approx 9.5 seconds 0-60. See my post below.
That's actually not far off from a non-turbo Subaru and definitely faster than some CUVs.
Compared to the Firebird it has 1/2 as much cylinders and a fraction of the displacement. I drive a gen 2 and for the exception of passing and merging(on very short merges) it has enough power to satisfy daily driving in the city. It does decently well on the highway unless hills are involved.
And one thing about a Prius - there's little feedback at speed. I know I can be going 65-68 one second only to be going 80-85 down the freeway without doing too much. The Toyota hybrids are deceptively smooth(except when the ICE is starting up/shutting down and you feel that "kick").
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by HangFire
Diesel Chevette no longer qualifies by the "large numbers on the roads today" rule because there's not (or ever has been) large numbers of them. But I use that as my benchmark for underpowered US cars in the modern era.
A 4 cylinder Dodge Dakota (yes there was such a thing) could give a 4 cylinder Ranger a run for its money. My understanding is that was a fleet only vehicle.
Strictly speaking, the original Volkswagon Beetle meets all the criteria. Large numbers of them (mostly in garages) and very slow.
Amen to all that. I owned and drove a 69 VW for a year. Even with very little comparative experience (it was my first car, owned mostly during high school), I knew it was a slug. I still loved it, though. But I think I could have walked away from a stop light faster than it could accelerate. Any modern car, yes even a Prius, is an absolute rocket by comparison.
You actually had one of the good VWs. I had a '64 with the 1200 40 hp engine.
Originally Posted by HangFire
Diesel Chevette no longer qualifies by the "large numbers on the roads today" rule because there's not (or ever has been) large numbers of them. But I use that as my benchmark for underpowered US cars in the modern era.
A 4 cylinder Dodge Dakota (yes there was such a thing) could give a 4 cylinder Ranger a run for its money. My understanding is that was a fleet only vehicle.
Strictly speaking, the original Volkswagon Beetle meets all the criteria. Large numbers of them (mostly in garages) and very slow.
You actually had one of the good VWs. I had a '64 with the 1200 40 hp engine.
Originally Posted by nthach
. . .
And one thing about a Prius - there's little feedback at speed. I know I can be going 65-68 one second only to be going 80-85 down the freeway without doing too much. The Toyota hybrids are deceptively smooth(except when the ICE is starting up/shutting down and you feel that "kick").
I'd say that the "deceptive smoothness", as you put it, is another sign that the Prius really doesn't belong in this discussion. I too have noticed this "effect," and in my eyes, it's proof positive that the car is certainly not underpowered.
Your point about the ICE light-off "kick" is a good one. I did find that to be occasionally "too noticeable" in my 04, but not to the point that I found it unpleasant. And we would all hope with the passage of fourteen model years and two redesigns, that issue is vastly improved in the Gen-4 cars. You can still feel it sometimes, but never with the sharpness/roughness of the light-off in the Gen-2 cars. Other times, the only way I can tell the ICE has come on is via the instruments or my Scangauge. Don't get me wrong, I'd have been very happy driving my poor old 2004 for another several years, had not the economics and timing of its last problem (a severe brake overheat/near fire) dictated replacement.
. . .
And one thing about a Prius - there's little feedback at speed. I know I can be going 65-68 one second only to be going 80-85 down the freeway without doing too much. The Toyota hybrids are deceptively smooth(except when the ICE is starting up/shutting down and you feel that "kick").
I'd say that the "deceptive smoothness", as you put it, is another sign that the Prius really doesn't belong in this discussion. I too have noticed this "effect," and in my eyes, it's proof positive that the car is certainly not underpowered.
Your point about the ICE light-off "kick" is a good one. I did find that to be occasionally "too noticeable" in my 04, but not to the point that I found it unpleasant. And we would all hope with the passage of fourteen model years and two redesigns, that issue is vastly improved in the Gen-4 cars. You can still feel it sometimes, but never with the sharpness/roughness of the light-off in the Gen-2 cars. Other times, the only way I can tell the ICE has come on is via the instruments or my Scangauge. Don't get me wrong, I'd have been very happy driving my poor old 2004 for another several years, had not the economics and timing of its last problem (a severe brake overheat/near fire) dictated replacement.
If we are discussing the slowest most underpowered vehicle ever mass produced and sold, it has to be the VW microbus, I had one. It had only 47hp and you couldn't get a 0-60 acceleration time on it because it wouldn't do 60 (maybe going down hill with the wind at it's back and no passengers). About 55 was all it could do in normal circumstances on flat ground, down to 45 in 3rd gear on a slight grade, pedal to the metal. It was scary slow on the Interstate, and passing semis would blow it over 1/2 a lane in the road. I had to tailgate within 10' of the rear of a semi to keep up with traffic. The Beetle was a rocket ship by comparison, it would do 0-60 in about 20 seconds or so, I had one of them also.
Originally Posted by wag123
If we are discussing the slowest most underpowered vehicle ever mass produced and sold, it has to be the VW microbus, I had one. It had only 47hp and you couldn't get a 0-60 acceleration time on it because it wouldn't do 60 (maybe going down hill with the wind at it's back and no passengers). About 55 was all it could do in normal circumstances on flat ground, down to 45 in 3rd gear on a slight grade, pedal to the metal. It was scary slow on the Interstate, and passing semis would blow it over 1/2 a lane in the road. I had to tailgate within 10' of the rear of a semi to keep up with traffic. The Beetle was a rocket ship by comparison, it would do 0-60 in about 20 seconds or so, I had one of them also.
Wait a minute! You live in Texas, are are willing to admit prior ownership of a VW Microbus!?! You, sir, are a braver man than I...
Before I quit the legal business and returned to the cockpit, I once got a not guilty verdict for a young guy charged with DUI while driving a 1968 VW Microbus. It was a good case to try because there were very real questions about whether my guy was guilty (another long story, not for here...). Anyway, central to the demise of the State's case was the arresting trooper. He was a good cop, I believe, but was prone, on occasion, to exaggerate. Again, my guy was driving a 1968 Microbus. The trooper insisted my guy was doing at least 70 mph, leaving Pensacola Beach on the Bob Sikes bridge. This is the Bob Sikes Bridge:
![[Linked Image]](https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7859/33242492708_847078d8fe_q.jpg "[Linked Image]")
The closing argument consisted, almost totally, of me stating, correctly I think, that a VW Microbus couldn't do 70 mph coming DOWN that bridge with a Space Shuttle booster rocket strapped to its roof and in full burn! The jury took about three (3) minutes to return a not guilty verdict.
Yep, the Microbus might just be the winner in this thread!
If we are discussing the slowest most underpowered vehicle ever mass produced and sold, it has to be the VW microbus, I had one. It had only 47hp and you couldn't get a 0-60 acceleration time on it because it wouldn't do 60 (maybe going down hill with the wind at it's back and no passengers). About 55 was all it could do in normal circumstances on flat ground, down to 45 in 3rd gear on a slight grade, pedal to the metal. It was scary slow on the Interstate, and passing semis would blow it over 1/2 a lane in the road. I had to tailgate within 10' of the rear of a semi to keep up with traffic. The Beetle was a rocket ship by comparison, it would do 0-60 in about 20 seconds or so, I had one of them also.
Wait a minute! You live in Texas, are are willing to admit prior ownership of a VW Microbus!?! You, sir, are a braver man than I...
Before I quit the legal business and returned to the cockpit, I once got a not guilty verdict for a young guy charged with DUI while driving a 1968 VW Microbus. It was a good case to try because there were very real questions about whether my guy was guilty (another long story, not for here...). Anyway, central to the demise of the State's case was the arresting trooper. He was a good cop, I believe, but was prone, on occasion, to exaggerate. Again, my guy was driving a 1968 Microbus. The trooper insisted my guy was doing at least 70 mph, leaving Pensacola Beach on the Bob Sikes bridge. This is the Bob Sikes Bridge:
The closing argument consisted, almost totally, of me stating, correctly I think, that a VW Microbus couldn't do 70 mph coming DOWN that bridge with a Space Shuttle booster rocket strapped to its roof and in full burn! The jury took about three (3) minutes to return a not guilty verdict.
Yep, the Microbus might just be the winner in this thread!
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by wag123
If we are discussing the slowest most underpowered vehicle ever mass produced and sold, it has to be the VW microbus, I had one. It had only 47hp and you couldn't get a 0-60 acceleration time on it because it wouldn't do 60 (maybe going down hill with the wind at it's back and no passengers). About 55 was all it could do in normal circumstances on flat ground, down to 45 in 3rd gear on a slight grade, pedal to the metal. It was scary slow on the Interstate, and passing semis would blow it over 1/2 a lane in the road. I had to tailgate within 10' of the rear of a semi to keep up with traffic. The Beetle was a rocket ship by comparison, it would do 0-60 in about 20 seconds or so, I had one of them also.
Wait a minute! You live in Texas, are are willing to admit prior ownership of a VW Microbus!?! You, sir, are a braver man than I...
Before I quit the legal business and returned to the cockpit, I once got a not guilty verdict for a young guy charged with DUI while driving a 1968 VW Microbus. I was a good case to try because there were very real questions about whether my guy was guilty (another long story, not for here...). Anyway, central to the demise of the State's case was the arresting trooper. He was a good cop, I believe, but was prone, on occasion, to exaggerate. Again, my guy was driving a 1968 Microbus. The trooper insisted my guy was doing at least 70 mph, leaving Pensacola Beach on the Bob Sikes bridge. This is the Bob Sikes Bridge:
The closing argument consisted, almost totally, of me stating, correctly I think, that a VW Microbus couldn't do 70 mph coming DOWN that bridge with a Space Shuttle booster rocket strapped to its roof and in full burn! The jury took about three (3) minutes to return a not guilty verdict.
Yep, the Microbus might just be the winner in this thread!
Ahhh, high school and college days my friend. I lived in Wisconsin. VWs were cheap to buy, cheap to own, good on gas, and went good in the snow. Unfortunately they were also unreliable, unsafe, very slow, and had no heater to speak of for the Wisconsin cold (especially the microbus).
Originally Posted by wag123
If we are discussing the slowest most underpowered vehicle ever mass produced and sold, it has to be the VW microbus, I had one. It had only 47hp and you couldn't get a 0-60 acceleration time on it because it wouldn't do 60 (maybe going down hill with the wind at it's back and no passengers). About 55 was all it could do in normal circumstances on flat ground, down to 45 in 3rd gear on a slight grade, pedal to the metal. It was scary slow on the Interstate, and passing semis would blow it over 1/2 a lane in the road. I had to tailgate within 10' of the rear of a semi to keep up with traffic. The Beetle was a rocket ship by comparison, it would do 0-60 in about 20 seconds or so, I had one of them also.
Wait a minute! You live in Texas, are are willing to admit prior ownership of a VW Microbus!?! You, sir, are a braver man than I...
Before I quit the legal business and returned to the cockpit, I once got a not guilty verdict for a young guy charged with DUI while driving a 1968 VW Microbus. I was a good case to try because there were very real questions about whether my guy was guilty (another long story, not for here...). Anyway, central to the demise of the State's case was the arresting trooper. He was a good cop, I believe, but was prone, on occasion, to exaggerate. Again, my guy was driving a 1968 Microbus. The trooper insisted my guy was doing at least 70 mph, leaving Pensacola Beach on the Bob Sikes bridge. This is the Bob Sikes Bridge:
The closing argument consisted, almost totally, of me stating, correctly I think, that a VW Microbus couldn't do 70 mph coming DOWN that bridge with a Space Shuttle booster rocket strapped to its roof and in full burn! The jury took about three (3) minutes to return a not guilty verdict.
Yep, the Microbus might just be the winner in this thread!
Ahhh, high school and college days my friend. I lived in Wisconsin. VWs were cheap to buy, cheap to own, good on gas, and went good in the snow. Unfortunately they were also unreliable, unsafe, very slow, and had no heater to speak of for the Wisconsin cold (especially the microbus).
Originally Posted by nthach
Any Subaru with the 2.0/2.5L N/A engine
Back in the real world, my Forester is usually the first away from the lights without even pushing the gas pedal very far. And while it's no Ferrari, it's as fast as any other car I've owned, particularly once you hit 4k rpm.
I do agree about the 2.0 Impreza, though. The one we test-drove was a bit slow for modern driving.
Any Subaru with the 2.0/2.5L N/A engine
Back in the real world, my Forester is usually the first away from the lights without even pushing the gas pedal very far. And while it's no Ferrari, it's as fast as any other car I've owned, particularly once you hit 4k rpm.
I do agree about the 2.0 Impreza, though. The one we test-drove was a bit slow for modern driving.
Originally Posted by pandus13
I've rode in a Trabant as a kid.....
Have your parents finished serving their Child Endangerment sentences yet?
I've rode in a Trabant as a kid.....
Have your parents finished serving their Child Endangerment sentences yet?
Originally Posted by ekpolk
And we would all hope with the passage of fourteen model years and two redesigns, that issue is vastly improved in the Gen-4 cars. Don't get me wrong, I'd have been very happy driving my poor old 2004 for another several years, had not the economics and timing of its last problem (a severe brake overheat/near fire) dictated replacement.
I think Toyota had to tweak things for the 3rd gen Prius and the HiHy/Camry Hybrid due to Lexus usage. Toyota holds very high NVH standards for the Lexus lineup. I've been in a few HiHys, RXhs and Camry Hybrids in both carpool and Uber(the things drivers do to get 5 stars) and the "kick" is barely perceptible. One time I drove a LS600hL and it felt very similar to the non-hybrid version except for power delivery. Oddly enough there's a tachometer.
How did the brakes overheat? Bad brake actuator(a ticking timebomb on the 2nd gen cars, Toyota did issue an extended service campaign but didn't recall them) or the brakes weren't getting used?
And we would all hope with the passage of fourteen model years and two redesigns, that issue is vastly improved in the Gen-4 cars. Don't get me wrong, I'd have been very happy driving my poor old 2004 for another several years, had not the economics and timing of its last problem (a severe brake overheat/near fire) dictated replacement.
I think Toyota had to tweak things for the 3rd gen Prius and the HiHy/Camry Hybrid due to Lexus usage. Toyota holds very high NVH standards for the Lexus lineup. I've been in a few HiHys, RXhs and Camry Hybrids in both carpool and Uber(the things drivers do to get 5 stars) and the "kick" is barely perceptible. One time I drove a LS600hL and it felt very similar to the non-hybrid version except for power delivery. Oddly enough there's a tachometer.
How did the brakes overheat? Bad brake actuator(a ticking timebomb on the 2nd gen cars, Toyota did issue an extended service campaign but didn't recall them) or the brakes weren't getting used?
- Status