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

  • Thread starter Turbo
  • 167 comments
  • 13,465 views
Turbo

Turbo

(Banned)
3,824
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey
Every once in a while, a manufacturer will pump out a car that looks more special than it actually is. A car that appears sporty and fast, but it really isn't. Feel free to post and discuss cars of that nature, right here.

Examples of a few cars that me down, due to performance:

Proton Satria Neo CPS

This hot hatch looks pretty sporty on the outside, with nice bodykit, wing, and rims. However, the NEO CPS makes only 125 horsepower, and 110 lb-ft of torque. There were much faster and more performance oriented hatches than this, such as the Ford Focus ST, Peugeot 207 GTI, RenaultSport Clio, etc. Cars like these are dubbed "factory rice", sometimes, since they look all racy, but they actually aren't.

Ford ZX2

Here's an all-American car, marketed as a sports coupe, designed to compete with popular Japanese sport compacts, like the Honda Civic SI. Unfortunately, ZX2's performance did not live up to it's sporty image; most of them were powered by a single-cam 130 horsepower four cylinder. Civics and other import coupes were light-years ahead of this thing, and even the Cavalier coupe was faster. And what's really puzzling is that Ford offered the ZX2, and the potent Focus SVT, at the same time.

Nissan Sentra Nismo

As you know, NISMO is famous for creating very capable versions of Nissan cars. NISMO cars often have large amounts of power, and can turn very well. However, many, including myself, say that the NISMO Sentra is not deserving of the NISMO badge. This Sentra is already slower than the previous-gen performance Sentra, making just 188 horsepower. In terms of acceleration, speed, and handling, a large number of cars outperform the Sentra, such as the Honda Civic SI, Ford Focus RS, and Hyundai Elantra Sport.​
 
Last edited:
Porsche 914. While was the 70's and not the best looking Porsche, I'm guilty of enjoying these. 70 to 110 bhp is kinda bad to be honest imo, if it had at least minimum of 100 and maximum of like 160 bhp, It would have been quite the car.
 
The Toyobaru is probably the most controversial modern example.



A big one for me was the '02 Civic Si.

Honda-Civic_Si-2002-800-14.jpg


We didn't get the Type-R in America, so this car should have come with the 200hp engine from the 2002 Acura RSX Type S. Instead it was given the same 160hp motor with intake-only VTEC as the base RSX, but with a different intake manifold that also meant 10 fewer lb-ft of torque than an already weak engine. Even ignoring the existence of a Type-R trim, it was stupid that Honda had a more powerful 4cyl engine available in the same market and didn't put it in the performance Civic.

*ED. - Which reminds me of the CR-Z. Did you know that car's engine bay was actually initially designed to house a K20? There are now swap kits available to make this happen, and it's an easy conversion because of that late revision.

2015_Honda_CR-Z_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
WeThePeople
Every once in a while, a manufacturer will pump out a car that looks more special than it actually is. A car that appears sporty and fast, but it really isn't. Feel free to post and discuss cars of that nature, right here.

Examples of a few cars that me down, due to performance:

Proton Satria Neo CPS

This hot hatch looks pretty sporty on the outside, with nice bodykit, wing, and rims. However, the NEO CPS makes only 125 horsepower, and 110 lb-ft of torque. There were much faster and more performance oriented hatches than this, such as the Ford Focus ST, Peugeot 207 GTI, RenaultSport Clio, etc. Cars like these are dubbed "factory rice", sometimes, since they look all racy, but they actually aren't.

Ford ZX2

Here's an all-American car, marketed as a sports coupe, designed to compete with popular Japanese sport compacts, like the Honda Civic SI. Unfortunately, ZX2's performance did not live up to it's sporty image; most of them were powered by a single-cam 130 horsepower four cylinder. Civics and other import coupes were light-years ahead of this thing, and even the Cavalier coupe was faster. And what's really puzzling is that Ford offered the ZX2, and the potent Focus SVT, at the same time.

Nissan Sentra Nismo

As you know, NISMO is famous for creating very capable versions of Nissan cars. NISMO cars often have large amounts of power, and can turn very well. However, many, including myself, say that the NISMO Sentra is not deserving of the NISMO badge. This Sentra is already slower than the previous-gen performance Sentra, making just 188 horsepower. In terms of acceleration, speed, and handling, a large number of cars outperform the Sentra, such as the Honda Civic SI, Ford Focus RS, and Hyundai Elantra Sport.​
Click to expand...

The Sentra, I agree with, to some extent, but the other two, I feel, are kind of missing the point.

When it was new, the ZX2 sold for about $5k to $7k less than cars like the Si, SRT4 and Focus SVT... and it predated that bunch by quite a bit.

Being an older car, it was also quite a bit lighter, which meant that measly 130 hp got it to 60 mph in well under 8 seconds... respectable in those days against cars like the Protege and the non-SRT Neon. When the ZX2 was launched in 1998, in fact, C&D claimed it was the quickest sub-20k car they'd tested at the time. In 03, it was horribly outgunned by the SRT and Mazdaspeed Protege, but again, it was some $7k less... and still only 0.2 seconds slower than the 160 hp Civic Si, according to magazine tests... and dead even with the Honda if you went with the $1.5k 145 hp "S/R" package, which brought Tokico dampers, other chassis upgrades and an engine remap. Not a bad bargain for an entry-level sport compact at the time.

-

The Proton, that's not all that great, but in Asia, where we were a bit short on high-powered hot hatches back when it launched, not really... uh... terrible.

In 2009, when that Satria debuted, the sportiest compacts we had here in the Philippines were a diesel Focus (don't laugh) and a non-Si Civic. Both did 0-60 mph in around 8 seconds (0-100 in about 8.5), neither of which would be called fast in America. And our market wasn't as walled-off as Malaysia's. To actually import something like a Renaultsport or Focus ST would cost you double the sticker price of something like the Satria. Granted, that still doesn't make the Satria all that powerful, but choices here on the ground have always been quite limited.


-

I'd echo the CR-Z... total downer for the price and package. The Fit is nearly as quick... and you have to basically spam the Sport+ button to keep the hybrid boost on during acceleration runs. Don't get me wrong, fantastic car to drive, but the hybrid portion of the package, lacking battery capacity, an electric AC compressor and useable power, is a major downer.

-

The 86... well.. it's not slow, but the huge hole in the torque band is a big downer... especially compared to the subjectively and objectively quicker MX-5, which does much more with much less horsepower.
 
IMG_1807.JPG


The Toyota Sera only makes about 108hp, and even less tourque than that. Those specs are coming from an inline-four that could probably handle more power and a turbocharger too. Not to mention it has butterfly doors.
 
MrWaflz55
View attachment 611284

The Toyota Sera only makes about 108hp, and even less tourque than that. Those specs are coming from an inline-four that could probably handle more power and a turbocharger too. Not to mention it has butterfly doors.
Click to expand...

Now, if anyone has managed to shoehorn an ST185 engine into a Sera, that would be more like it.
 
I've driven a Hyundai Coupe with the 1.6 litre engine. 105BHP. Plenty enough to have fun on UK roads but nowhere near as powerful as I was expecting on acceleration.

It's bizarre how many cars I've driven that can be beaten by a Suzuki Alto in a straight line.
 
VXR
Now, if anyone has managed to shoehorn an ST185 engine into a Sera, that would be more like it.
Click to expand...

They're based on a Starlet / Tercel underneath, and people have managed to do that swap in those so it's certainly doable. That said, it takes a lot of work and none that have had the swap done (over here at least) are road legal anymore.

That said, this also means a Starlet Glanza engine swap is a direct fit, which isn't so bad. :P
 
MrWaflz55
View attachment 611284

The Toyota Sera only makes about 108hp, and even less tourque than that. Those specs are coming from an inline-four that could probably handle more power and a turbocharger too. Not to mention it has butterfly doors.
Click to expand...
Did you forget about the fact that it is very lightweight? 108 horsepower in a car of that weight, at that time, was pretty decent. Could it have gotten a turbocharger? Sure, and I'd like the Sera even more if it did.

Also, in what way are the butterfly doors a bad thing?
 
The original, non R-Spec Hyundai Genesis Coupe with the 2.0T certainly was not as fast as it looked, most magazines showed it would hit the quarter mile in just a hair over 15 seconds, which is on par with a 4 cyl Honda Accord Coupe of the same vintage.
 
For me, it has to be the Scion iM. Or is it the Corolla iM? Eh, same difference. Toyota had a perfect opportunity to create a serious hot hatchback out of that thing and shoved a slightly tuned up Corolla I4 in it instead. :grumpy: I would've bought it if it was closer to 160 HP in such a small car.
 
The Aston Martin V8 Vantage. Even with the 4.7 V8, it felt too heavy to make good use of the power it makes.
 
peobryant
I believe that is a 2014.
Click to expand...
Heh, can only find the old Australia prize. Guess they stopped making them in 2015.

$8000 cheaper then the next model up in Australia at the time, but considering it's Australia no idea what the equivalent would be over here.

$52k starting, the 320i starts at $39k over here.
 
bremics
$52k starting, the 320i starts at $39k over here.
Click to expand...
That may be $52k AUD, which at call it .80USD-$1AUD is not that far off. Still, one would have to have rocks in their head to pay that money for that model :lol:
 
bremics
Heh, can only find the old Australia prize. Guess they stopped making them in 2015.

$8000 cheaper then the next model up in Australia at the time, but considering it's Australia no idea what the equivalent would be over here.

$52k starting, the 320i starts at $39k over here.
Click to expand...

Yeah here we got the 316i as base model then the 318i as Base diesel, then 320i and so on.

At first the 320i was our base model then Bmw decided we might like some Slug slow base model instead for a tiny price compensation.
 
There are economy K20s and there are "VTEC yo!" performance K20s. Are you generalizing them all? I would think the amount of non-Honda enthusiasts swapping those better engines into their own cars is a pretty solid argument against that.

Bringing up the E30 M3 begs the question: are we talking underwhelming today, or underwhelming in a given car's own time? Because a lot of modern family cars can walk a vintage Ferrari V12 that was exciting in its day.
 
CyborgGT
There are economy K20s and there are "VTEC yo!" performance K20s. Are you generalizing them all? I would think the amount of non-Honda enthusiasts swapping those better engines into their own cars is a pretty solid argument against that.
Click to expand...
Agreed. First time I drove a K20 was in an EP3 Civic Type R about a year ago. By that time I'd already driven most (if not all) the current turbocharged hot hatchbacks with 250+ bhp. The Civic wasn't as fast obviously, but it was a long way from being "underwhelming". Not least because it sounds and responds far better than any of the turbo stuff.
 
1986 Porsche 928 S. This was years ago. Such a lovely thing... some sort of champagne gold. Anywho, I remember turning on to the onramp of the freeway, giving it the beans, and having my smile replaced with a frown. It made a nice enough ruckus, but it didn't seem to want to do anything in too big a hurry. Maybe my expectations were too high. Still love the model... was just underwhelmed.
 
CyborgGT
There are economy K20s and there are "VTEC yo!" performance K20s. Are you generalizing them all? I would think the amount of non-Honda enthusiasts swapping those better engines into their own cars is a pretty solid argument against that.

Bringing up the E30 M3 begs the question: are we talking underwhelming today, or underwhelming in a given car's own time? Because a lot of modern family cars can walk a vintage Ferrari V12 that was exciting in its day.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the EP3 swapped EG with Type R Transmission and everything and OEM EP3 for example.

I'm also talking about the E30 M3 in it's own league.

Everything would be different if I had an ubiased opinion to start with but I had really big expectations
from both due to the reputation on the interwebz. I really got dissapointed when I compared both to my P10 and they aren't so much better as I wanted them to be.
 
Make fun of Hondas all you want, but some of the fastest cars I've seen out on the track were little Honda hatchbacks. Nothing's funnier than a Ferrari owner having to point by a half bondo, half CRX go kart :lol:


As far as cars that under-performed, I am about to make an outlandish claim and say the Dodge Hellcat.

*gasp*

Here's why. The car was marketed around the number 707 and little else. "The most powerful sedan EVER!!". Yet in almost every actual performance test it completely fails to live up to its hype. Even in a straight line I've seen them get beat by cars with half the horsepower simply because the Hellcat weighs as much as an oil tanker. On top of that Dodge gave it little tiny tires from the factory. 275/40/20's? Really? for 700HP? I can barley contain 400hp on massive 315's. All the ones I've seen at the track were a complete joke. The ones that didn't spin out finished down with the stock 2004 Mustang GT's and Dodge Neon's.
 

Latest Posts

Back