1 point for you if you can tell us pick-up version's name... I had a Mazda 323GT back in the late 80s. This was the 2WD version and was lighter than the AWD version and was pretty quick. 16V intercooled turbo...it would start spinning the tires halfway across an intersection...
Growing up in my neighborhood, a guy had a yellow VR4. He would light up all 4 tires for us when he came buy. I was actualy browsing the ones for sale the other day. Cool car.
Anybody own, back in the day, a 7-liter Gremlin?? The German foreign exchange student I went to high school with was just astonished that such a relatively small car would have such a huge engine. Seven liters is about the equivalent of 427 cubic inches. KevFla
Oops...I stand corrected. It was a 5-liter engine with just over 300 cubic inches. Still, a big motor in something about the size of a Beetle or Pinto. Wikipedia revealed an AMC dealership in Arizona, Randall, did build a few with the AMC 401 c.i. motor (6.6L) but I wasn't thinking of them when I made my initial post on the topic. KevFla
The 1982 TBI C3 Vette is getting forgotten, but it was probably the best Corvette at the time since 1974. If it had 400ci it would have been perfect, but CAFE killed that idea for the small block. TBI 1982 Vette Image Unavailable, Please Login
I friend of mine once owned an '82 Collectors Edition to bad it only had 182hp. Another friend of ours had a '57 Bell Air at the same time with a basic 350 dropped in it and that thing 'walked us' one night out playing "who's car is faster."
While there are some neat cars in the above list, let's remember there were pretty good reasons why many of the above were unloved, for instance: Pacer - Heavy, larger car chassis components coupled with a marsh mellow suspension gave poor handling, poor build quality. low powered six cylinder was the only engine available. 280ZX - Heavier and flaccid handling compared to the nimble and sporty 240Z's, more like a sport sedan than a sports car, the 2+2 was a sedan with a low roof. Grand Prix GXP - Living proof that you can only put so much weight on the front end of a car without the handling suffering. 82 Vette - Emission strangled and bog slow, my 84 RX-7 GSL-SE was almost as fast in a straight line, literally one of the worst Vettes ever. GLH - A hoot to drive, I autocrossed one of them a few times at national level events, but you gotta love torque steer and with that much boost, the reason there aren't many left is because they slagged down the engine. Neon ACR - fast and fun, but they fell apart at an appalling rate TR-8 - Contemporary 13B RX-7's were just as fast, handled better and had far better reliability, there was a reason Triumph went out of business. Gremlin V8 - Altered wheelbase Hornet was good in a straight line, but it plowed like a tractor in the twisty bits. Not saying these can't be fun cars, but, like I said, there are pretty good reasons why a lot of these aren't cherished classics. With today's technology a lot of them can be upgraded and made into really fun cars (the TR-8 for instance), but they are what they are and generally unloved for good reasons.
323GTX was a hoot. Scared the crap out of the salesman, but ended-up buying something else. Another one I looked at back in the late 80s: Celica All-Trac Turbo. One I considered, but wisely chose not to pursue: Isuzu Impulse AWD (suspension was set-up by Lotus).
Owned a few Z's myself, but all of the pre-ZX variety. My brother had a ZX - big leap forward in luxury and refinement. The 240Z, however, is definitely a raw sports car in a more true sense. The ZX more of a grand tourer. The ZX Turbo was a pretty awesome ride in it's day though...that had some real oomph.
Never. The TR8 could comfortably whip an RX 7 in everything except MPG and braking. The 8's were extremely reliable, handled well, were comfortable and the fi Solihull cars were built exceptionally well. The British auto industry's implosion killed Triumph, it certainly wasn't due to the TR8.
I'll beg to differ regarding the TR8. Triumph's problem at the time was the World's economy combined with local labor issues, high fuel prices and interest rates. Blaming the TR8 for Triumph's demise is inaccurate. As far as unloved the TR8 was introduced too late to make a difference. However... Speaking of unloved, consider that they sold over 115,000 TR7s during a six year production run. Not bad for a 2-seater [back then] if you ask me.
Not saying the TR-8 was a bad car, actually it was really a nice car, but it got beat badly in the market by the RX-7, at least here in the USA. Not blaming the TR8 for the demise, it's just that it was the last best hope and it didn't pull it off, for whatever reason. As far as being faster, in the USA the TR-8 wasn't very fast at all, maybe it was what they had to do to meet the tighter US smog reg's, or whatever, but compared to the 13B RX-7's it wasn't even close. Here are the zero to sixty and quarter mile times for both.. 1980 Triumph TR8 0-60 mph 8.4 Quarter mile 16.4 1984 Mazda RX-7 GSL-SE 0-60 mph 7.7 Quarter mile 15.7 At 60 the RX-7 is easily 50 ft ahead, and a the end of a quarter mile, the 13B RX-7 is four or five car lengths ahead, Seven tenths is a week in both zero to sixty and a quarter mile.... I ran against the TR8 in SCCA Solo II events all through the 80's, and the TR8's were dead meat every weekend. They might have been a nice handling car, but the RX-7 was superior on the track, and we are talking stock for stock cars here. The 12A and later 13B RX7's owned Solo II C stock from 1979 till 1990, I don't recall a TR-8 ever getting into the trophies at the Solo II national championships, but I could be wrong on that, trophies cover 1/3 of the field and a TR8 could have finished in the bottom of the top 15 cars or so.... The 12A RX-7's were a supposedly a bit slower in a straight line, (1978 Mazda RX-7 0-60 mph 9.0 Quarter mile 16.7) but the other thing about the road tests of the Rx-7 is that they always obeyed the manufacturers red line. In reality if you shifted up in a 12A car and you weren't over the red line in the next gear you were short shifting. You learned to ignore the "buzzer" that started beeping at red line, and shift when it started to run out of breath, 9,000 at least.. Driven that way the 12A cars were every bit as fast as a TR8, in fact a 12A car driven that way was very nearly as fast as a 13B car, I know that for a fact because we compared a couple of 12A and 13B cars at the strip one night.
Ford Capri here - also very famous in its crazy racing versions. In South Africa, there was a V8 model, the Perana, sold by the official Ford dealers. From what I hear, maintenance and repair is the point of the car. I don't think it actually drives. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Does Nissan Cherry turbo count or Peugeot 205 GTI 1.9? Both are fwd that have tendency to oversteer by midcorner lift off.
Can't believe Texasmr2 didn't say....the MR2! Specifically the SW20 MR2 Turbo - basically a cheap Ferrari IMHO. If you can find one of these in unmodified condition, it's a hit. If memory serves, the '93-'95 models had some changes to improve the oversteer inexperienced drivers would encounter from the mid-engined layout. Nice cars - don't see many anymore. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Thanks. Your own figures show the slowest of TR8s (btw C/D has the TR8 at 8.1/16.2) could dropkick an RX7 (hearsay aside). I wasn't aware an '84 SE could outrun an '84 TR8. Oh, right, that would be comparing apples with apples. Let's agree, ymmv, I've witnessed opposite. Both great cars imho, no question.
I cannot believe I forgot and you are correct I very rarely see any on the road anymore. I would love to get another one and if I may add a modified version can still be a good buy if properly modified and one is familiar with the car. My '92 was a beast yet also very very reliable and selling it is one of my biggest regrets. My buddy Frank who has that ranch had a 1st gen RX7 and that thing was a blast to drive. I'm a piston head and not really a Wankel head although some may argue differently lol! Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I loved my 1989 RX-7 GTUs They only made 1200 of them or so. It was basically a light-weight version of the turbo, but without the turbo. Had the bigger wheels, brakes, limited slip diff, larger sway bars, aluminum hood, no power windows, no sunroof, no rear wipers. Got 190k miles out of the first motor. Sold the car with 230k miles on it. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I've always wanted a '95 Turbo. I love Japanese cars, having owned quite a few. Mainly 240Z / 280Zs, but RXs, NSX, Supras, etc. are all "forgotten".
Where were those 1984 RX-7 GSL-SE figures from btw, Road & Track or C&D? GSL-SE had the larger 13B motor. 7.7 seconds for 0-60 mph is exactly what Road & Track got for their L82 4 speed 1979 Vette. 1982 Collector Edition Vette, and indeed any 1982 & 1984 Vette used the TBI L83 Crossfire motor, it was rated 205 hp net. Road & Track tested the 1982 CE Vette and got 0-60 mph in 7.8 seconds, but they had to test at least 3 cars to achieve that. The other 2 were slower, the new 4 speed auto (TBI 350 cars were auto only) wasn't hooking up right as I recall. Still, if a RX-7 GSL-SE could match a L82 4 speed Vette in the same magazine, that's pretty neat. Given emissions laws tightened after 1980. That would put the RX-7 at a disadvantage versus the pre 1980 L82 Vette.
There's always the Carl Green Enterprises Pacer. Dealer swapped in 401 V8s and added massive fender flares. On exactly what planet is the GN/GNX "forgotten"? Certainly not amongst people that actually care about cars. edit: My own suggestions, the Citation X-11. A bad car with a mediocre engine and decent suspension, but the combination was enough to give contemporary 305 Camaros fits. Also the Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais W-41 4-4-2, a little FWD econobox with a 190hp 2.4L 4 cylinder in 1991.
