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

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Ford Aspire count? What about Geo Metro?

Prius is nothing in comparison.


I don't know, I find it kind of hard to rag on the Metro/Aspire/Festiva because fundamentally, those were cars that were never built to go fast. They were city cars, designed for the streets of densley populated cities where space is at a premium and the fastest you'll ever go is 45. In that context, they were all fine, really. Great MPG, reliable, cheap to run and own, and you could park them anywhere. Surprisingly space efficient for such a small car, too. They weren't much good on the interstate, but that was never the point.

They were very good for what they were, it's just what they were was not really something Americans like.


I've worked with folks who used these little guys as long distance commuters.
As you said, cheap to buy, cheap to maintain and cheap to fuel.
These were never sold as comfortable or fast cars. They were always a less costly alternative to larger and thirstier vehicles and for those who got used to them they were just fine as daily drivers on hundred mile or more round trip commutes.
Never did that and never will, but there were always those willing to accept traveling for a promotion.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Ford Aspire count? What about Geo Metro?

Prius is nothing in comparison.


I don't know, I find it kind of hard to rag on the Metro/Aspire/Festiva because fundamentally, those were cars that were never built to go fast. .

I remember driving an old Mazda 121 once for a co-worker who wanted an oil change. For what they are, they are actually pretty nimble. The 121 was the basis for the Aspire/Festiva and Mazdas were the basis for pre-Hyundai Kias.

The Geo Metro beats the Prius at its own game, but the latter is a bigger, safer and more luxurious car. The Metro is pretty spartan. The Honda CRX HF was the "green" car of its era, even though it was carburated unlike the Si version. It was built during Honda's golden era.

 

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Ford Aspire count? What about Geo Metro?

Prius is nothing in comparison.


I don't know, I find it kind of hard to rag on the Metro/Aspire/Festiva because fundamentally, those were cars that were never built to go fast. They were city cars, designed for the streets of densley populated cities where space is at a premium and the fastest you'll ever go is 45. In that context, they were all fine, really. Great MPG, reliable, cheap to run and own, and you could park them anywhere. Surprisingly space efficient for such a small car, too. They weren't much good on the interstate, but that was never the point.

They were very good for what they were, it's just what they were was not really something Americans like.


I've worked with folks who used these little guys as long distance commuters.
As you said, cheap to buy, cheap to maintain and cheap to fuel.
These were never sold as comfortable or fast cars. They were always a less costly alternative to larger and thirstier vehicles and for those who got used to them they were just fine as daily drivers on hundred mile or more round trip commutes.
Never did that and never will, but there were always those willing to accept traveling for a promotion.


Funny thing is the prices on all of them went way up when gas prices were high. People used to mock those cars, yet as soon as gas went up, their prices shot up above 5000 for good examples. They're STILL some of the most fuel efficient cars you can buy and they will run until they rust to pieces. Unfortunately up here in the salt belt, that can happen pretty quickly.




Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Ford Aspire count? What about Geo Metro?

Prius is nothing in comparison.


I don't know, I find it kind of hard to rag on the Metro/Aspire/Festiva because fundamentally, those were cars that were never built to go fast. .

I remember driving an old Mazda 121 once for a co-worker who wanted an oil change. For what they are, they are actually pretty nimble. The 121 was the basis for the Aspire/Festiva and Mazdas were the basis for pre-Hyundai Kias.

The Geo Metro beats the Prius at its own game, but the latter is a bigger, safer and more luxurious car. The Metro is pretty spartan. The Honda CRX HF was the "green" car of its era, even though it was carburated unlike the Si version. It was built during Honda's golden era.


The Metro and Festiva are actually two of the better cars for 24 Hours of Lemons. You can buy them super cheap, they're reliable even on the track, and on a tight track they do surprisingly well due to their light weight and good handling. You can make them go really fast without much investment, either, because they way next to nothing.

 

[brages]

When I was a kid, we had a diesel Caprice wagon. We had some friends who hauled their family around in a VW microbus (ex-hippies, lol).

We should have had a drag race.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by nthach
. . .The Geo Metro beats the Prius at its own game, but the latter is a bigger, safer and more luxurious car. The Metro is pretty spartan. . . .
Usually you're stuff is right on target, but I've got to disagree with this one. The problem is simply that the Metro wasn't ever playing the same game as the Prius. First, the Metro a much smaller car than any of the Prii, even the Gen-1 sedan. The little Prius-c is closest to a Metro, but has still seven (7) cubic feet more passenger volume. The various hatchback Prius models and generations run about fifteen (15!!!) cubic feet more than a Metro.

Second, even the most basic levels of a Prius, this year's L-Eco for example(Prius line just morphed to the L/LE/XLE nomenclature like the rest of the Toyotas), is far "better" equipped than a spartan Metro. That's not a "good or bad" thing, it's just true that Toyota was never, with any Prius, ever shooting at the tiny, bare-bones market that the Metro is meant to fill.

Third, obviously, the Metro is a conventional, and at least by EPA numbers, burns more gas than any of the Prius models. The Metro's "game" was really good mileage in a very small, inexpensive car, achieved through the use of technology as basic as it could be made (even a three-cylinder engine choice!). The Prius plays the different game of great mileage through the use of a bit more technology, at a somewhat greater price than comparable conventionals.

EDIT: Ooops, not sure where this paragraph went... And as for 0-60 times, I found a Metro time published at 13.6 seconds (not sure if I-4 or I-3, I tend to think 4-cyl...) -- slow, but there are others that are worse. I found a 0-60 for the current Prius (normal not plug-in/Prime) of 9.6 seconds (pretty sure that's not in "power" mode).

 

[Garak]

In reference to your comments about different sizes, remember, back in the day, even a full size sedan generally had less leg room over a smaller modern sedan. You'll see the Prius in taxi service often enough not only because of fuel economy, but because the passenger room is pretty darned significant, despite it not being that big of a car.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by Garak
You'll see the Prius in taxi service often enough not only because of fuel economy, but because the passenger room is pretty darned significant, despite it not being that big of a car.

The space in the back of a Prius, except for headroom is almost like a full-size car. While I had the misfortune to be in the back of a Prius C or a Fit in carpools and shared Uber/Lyfts, the regular Prius and V are roomy. Toyota did a good job optimizing the placement of the battery pack/fuel tank to be as non intrusive as possible. To me, it's almost as roomy as a Mercedes S-Class or BMW 7 Series back there. One car I will mention is also deceptively roomy is the 8th-9th gen Accord.

The cargo bay(when the back seats are folded down) in a Prius, while not as cavernous as a Fit is also quite decent. I once did a favor for The Critic and hauled back 6 Pit Packs and 3 conventional cases of oil and ATF. Now, I don't think I can cram a tank-type water heater or a washing machine like I've seem people do in in an Element or Fit, but I know I can comfortably fit most cargo in my cargo bay.

 

[CR94]

Agree with most of above comments on Prius.

When I was shopping for an efficient hatchback a few years ago, I was disappointed that modern ones like the Versa Note or Accent, which are slightly larger than my old Mazda (listed below) on the outside, and likely thirstier, tend to have less usable passenger and cargo space. Therefore, I ended up in a Prius, to my own surprise.

 

[Colt45ws]

Originally Posted by clinebarger

The only way a stock 70's 305 powered Old's would do 140mph is if you dropped it out of an airplane.

I was ROLLING from this comment. Gold.

 

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by CR94
Agree with most of above comments on Prius.

When I was shopping for an efficient hatchback a few years ago, I was disappointed that modern ones like the Versa Note or Accent, which are slightly larger than my old Mazda (listed below) on the outside, and likely thirstier, tend to have less usable passenger and cargo space. Therefore, I ended up in a Prius, to my own surprise.

I've actually been nothing but impressed with the amount of room in my wife's Versa Note. At 6'1, I can sit comfortably in the back seat and have leg room to spare, which is quite a surprise. With the back seat folded down, we have been able to fit two goats (and cages) in there, or more bags of chicken feed than I'm sure it was ever designed to hold. On the freeway at 70-ish mph, I've seen 42 mpg, though being able to accomplish that is rare due to SoCal traffic. In real-world conditions including a lot of city driving, with the 5-speed manual, it almost never gets below 35 mpg.

Coming up on 60,000 miles with no issues, although in fairness the CVT model would probably need a new transmission by now! There's a reason we went with the stick.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted by fdcg27


I've worked with folks who used these little guys as long distance commuters.
As you said, cheap to buy, cheap to maintain and cheap to fuel.
These were never sold as comfortable or fast cars. They were always a less costly alternative to larger and thirstier vehicles and for those who got used to them they were just fine as daily drivers on hundred mile or more round trip commutes.
Never did that and never will, but there were always those willing to accept traveling for a promotion.


These were great cars. Just the question was about "most underpowered vehicle" and IMO they are underpowered, but more of a US vehicle being powerful in general vs the rest of the world.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by Colt45ws
Originally Posted by clinebarger

The only way a stock 70's 305 powered Old's would do 140mph is if you dropped it out of an airplane.

I was ROLLING from this comment. Gold.

Me too, but, while still laughing, I realized it's probably wrong! Just too much aerodynamic drag! Terminal velocity is probably like what -- 100-120 maybe? Actually, I have no idea -- just the whole idea is a good belly-laugh generator!

 

[pezzy669]

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.



The 115HP 2.0 was competitive in 1992 when they put it in the MK3, it was acceptable at 115HP when they were dropped in the MKIV series, when VW resurrected this dinosaur still at 115HP in 2011 for a bargain basement leader it was laughable. Almost 20 years later it was making pretty much the exact same output as it did in the car 3 generations earlier.

I had a '15 Jetta S 2.0 auto for a hot minute, unless you kept it revved to the moon that thing was definitely slow. I take great pride in knowing if I still had that car I could pull away from a Mitsubishi Mirage or a box truck.

**Edit - I will say the VW 2.0 8 valve had a very nice growl to it, despite the lack of forward movement it really sounded mean.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by pezzy669


**Edit - I will say the VW 2.0 8 valve had a very nice growl to it, despite the lack of forward movement it really sounded mean.

I know someone who swapped in the ABA 2.slow from a pre-1995 A3 Jetta into a 1978 Scirocco. The car was a heap, but that 2.slow actually made that thing go faster than [censored]. Supposedly VW made the pre-1995 ABA engine to handle boost with oil jets and forged rods.

If there's one engine VW made that wasn't ruined by Dieselgate or their overzealous tendency to be needlessly complicated(like the Audi 4.2L V8, V10 TDI, W16 in the Veyron/Chiron) or carelessness(1.8T/2.0FSI, which are actually good motors but need vigilance for maintenance) the 2.0L is definitely it. The VR6 comes in 2nd.

 

[1978elcamino]

geo metro, 3cyl 50hp.

 

[Benzadmiral]

Much as I liked the car overall, my 2011 Buick Regal with the NA 2.4L engine (182 hp) seemed slow. It was quick enough to go from 40 to 80 -- I tested it on open Texas roads more than once. But from a standing start, or going up a long incline like the GNO Bridge, I had to put it in manual mode and downshift to 5th or sometimes 4th to keep from being run over.

 

[Dave Sherman]

Originally Posted by 1978elcamino
geo metro, 3cyl 50hp.


Oof. I thought my 66 HP MG was underpowered. Somewhere on Youtube there's a video of a Subaru 360 microvan and the joys of driving that on the highway.

 

[brages]

An old thread, but I did end up getting my 2.3 extended-cab Ranger. And yes, it is very slow. The 3.0 Ranger I had was not quick, but it was always seemed like it had sufficient power. The 2.3 often leaves you wishing it had more power, and can require a downshift into 4th on a big hill. Plus it gets a bit buzzy at high RPMs.

However, I find the level of power is adequate for all of my driving tasks. Merging requires a little more revs and noise than ideal, but it merges. And it can hold highway speeds on most terrain just fine. I don't live in the mountains.

It's a good bit faster than the NA Jetta Diesel (52hp when new) that I once owned. And I suppose it's faster on the top end than the ~80hp B2200 Mazda pickup I had as a kid, probably a bit slower off the line, though.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted by ekpolk

And as for 0-60 times, I found a Metro time published at 13.6 seconds (not sure if I-4 or I-3, I tend to think 4-cyl...) -- slow, but there are others that are worse. I found a 0-60 for the current Prius (normal not plug-in/Prime) of 9.6 seconds (pretty sure that's not in "power" mode).


I recall a Suzuki Swift 4 cyl that came in a 9.95 seconds, so the 13.6 seems like a 3 cyl number. They had a XFI cam too that made even less power, but IDK if all the 3 cyls got that or just the mileage leaders.

My 2019 prius power/economy/normal mode is just a different curve between the gas pedal and engine output-- WOT is the same on all the "modes".

 

[wander2039]

Originally Posted by brages
An old thread, but I did end up getting my 2.3 extended-cab Ranger. And yes, it is very slow. The 3.0 Ranger I had was not quick, but it was always seemed like it had sufficient power. The 2.3 often leaves you wishing it had more power, and can require a downshift into 4th on a big hill. Plus it gets a bit buzzy at high RPMs.

However, I find the level of power is adequate for all of my driving tasks. Merging requires a little more revs and noise than ideal, but it merges. And it can hold highway speeds on most terrain just fine. I don't live in the mountains.

It's a good bit faster than the NA Jetta Diesel (52hp when new) that I once owned. And I suppose it's faster on the top end than the ~80hp B2200 Mazda pickup I had as a kid, probably a bit slower off the line, though.


What year as your 2.3L and is it a auto? Had the 2.3L in a 06 Ranger with the manual and it would move. No problems at high rpms.