I've mused about this for a long time and come up with 1981.
That was the year when just about everything cool died, also the worst year for quality and horspower.
Dodge/Plymouth lost ALL of it's cars that might have been of any interest to anyone who wanted to go Zoooom, like the Aspen and Volare
Ford/Mercury tossed out their 5.0 for that year and replaced it with the supremely crappy 4.2 smog V8 which was to musclecars what AIDS was to Rock Hudson. The 2.3 Turbo was MUCH more powerful than that POS.
AMC was a near non-entity with the Spirit GT. 1980's Spirit AMX at the very least had a V8 as an option. It was gone for 1981 and the inline 6 was standard across the board. At least it came with a manual transmission.
The only place to go look for anything that could get out of it's own way was GM.
Buick had nothing really. The Regal had a 3.8 Turbo but that wasn't all that great. Hardly the Grand National yet.
Oldsmobile had lost the 4-4-2 and the name wouldn't be revived for a few years.
Cadillac? Don't make me laugh.
Pontiac had one car. The Firebird/Trans Am and even that was piddling at best. 200hp with the 301 Turbo V8 (which only came with an automatic) and 165hp with a 305 V8
Chevrolet fared a little better with the Camaro and Corvette. The Camaro Z/28 came with the 165hp V8 and a 195hp 350 (but no manual tranny). The Corvette came with only the 350 and was arguably the LEAST powerful incarnation of that model ever built.
The only thing "good" about 1981 was that some RWD cars still existed like the Malibu, Monte-Carlo, Grand-Prix, Regal, Cutlass Supreme/Calais. The AMC Spirit, the Mustang/Capri and the Dodge Mirada/Chrysler Cordoba if that floated your boat. Nothing to write home about but they were good for an engine swap and some modifications down the road which modern cars can't do. So at least there was THAT.
However, as brand new stock cars they SUCKED.
What's your idea of a bad year?
1926 - The Model T had 22 1/2 horsepower (and that's using the generous formula for determining horsepower, d2 x n / 2-1/2, or the square of the diameter of one cylinder multiplied by the number of cylinders and the result divided by 2-1/2).
hey atleast the model T was a cool car
eric christenson wrote:hey atleast the model T was a cool car
And one of the fastest cars of it's time.
I meant post 1964 musclecar/modern car era when I say "worst" year.
The 80's in general was pretty forgettable for cars in general. Personally the Oldsmobile Cutlass and other G-Body cars where the best thing from the early 80's, things got better later with TPI and Fox body mustangs
73-81...
And now for something completely different... Click the Minister.
looks like everyone agrees at least on the general time being 70s-early 80s. i personaly have to say thats the worst era ever for automotive styling as well...EVERYONE was square bodied... am i the only one that is not a fan of the fox bodied stangs? i think theyre just as ugly as any other car made in the 80's... the camaro's got ugly, the vettes got ugly, the stangs got ugly, the thunderbird was an absolute styling joke, what the hell did dodge do in the 80s? get ugly, get slow, then fade out... I have said this before but the 80s just sucked ass... i mean.... lets look at what the 80s had going on in a BAD way...
cars were slower
cars were uglier
music was at its worst
hair styles were at their worst
clothing was at its worst
and hell, most of us were born...
so all and all the 80's had nothing to offer
On the other hand....you have other fingers.
I just bought a 20 inch widescreen ultrasharp flat pannel..I'm going to have to subscribe to the high quality porn places now......damn
And in 20 years we'll all look back and think: phhht, 1990-2010 cars were slow.
possibly... but i kinda doubt it... look at this.. there is still not a supercar made that can out perform the over all package of the McLaren F1 LM... and that started design in 1989 and final production in 1992-1994....the Enzo cant out handle, outpower, or out perform it in any way... oh yeah.. and it seats 3, not 2, and has COMFORTABLE room for all 3 and some luggage... was built as the all around package for a balls to the wall performer while keeping a street temperment and being a great daily driver... and reliability... NOTHING ferrari has ever made has the reliability of one.... now im talking about brand new cars VS the McLaren F1.... its going on 13 years old and is still on top of the game... so i say, given another 10-20 years, we wont be looking down on the cars of today like we are looking down on the cars of the 80s.... but then again maybe... the 00's have started to look a lot like the 80s... boxes with wheels(comapre: 80 camaro's and mustangs and ever 80s dodge to the xB, Element, etc..), bad hair(compair 80s popular hair styles to todays "music scene" as the emo trend is growing), the makeup(compair twisted sister to well... any of the new emo bands bringing on this fad[and believe me, this bullcrap will fade out like every other fad]), guys in girl pants(see previous comparison), and the music... well... it speaks for itself.... im done now lol
On the other hand....you have other fingers.
I just bought a 20 inch widescreen ultrasharp flat pannel..I'm going to have to subscribe to the high quality porn places now......damn
coke was big in the 80's...maybe that will make a comback too
JLAudioCavalier(1bad02cav) wrote:looks like everyone agrees at least on the general time being 70s-early 80s. i personaly have to say thats the worst era ever for automotive styling as well...EVERYONE was square bodied... am i the only one that is not a fan of the fox bodied stangs? i think theyre just as ugly as any other car made in the 80's... the camaro's got ugly, the vettes got ugly, the stangs got ugly, the thunderbird was an absolute styling joke, what the hell did dodge do in the 80s? get ugly, get slow, then fade out... I have said this before but the 80s just sucked ass... i mean.... lets look at what the 80s had going on in a BAD way...
cars were slower
cars were uglier
music was at its worst
hair styles were at their worst
clothing was at its worst
and hell, most of us were born...
so all and all the 80's had nothing to offer
music was at its worst my ass. 80's wtf pwnd, cept for the hair metal, ignor that crap and you have some seriosuyl tallented artists.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:73-81...
Not at all a bad call, but arguable in the sense that 73 to 80 had at least one or two cars that were decent
The 1973 Pontiac Trans Am Super Duty 455 was actually FASTER than all of the 1970 Trans Ams and Camaros. Hardly slow. Also the 1973 'Cuda 340 and Challenger Rallye 340 looked damn nice. You could still get a GTO with a decent 455 engine in 1973. The Charger Rallye 440 could still impress. You could get an SS454 Chevelle. You could still get a Stage I Buick.The cars were slower in 1973 but with some minor tweaks you could make them fast again.
1974 lost the GTO, and Dodge/Plymouth gained a smogger engine (the 360) to replace their 340. All the big blocks lost a lot of power and the Mustang II came into existence taking Ford completely out of the fast car business, but apart from that '74 was no worse than '73.
1975 was bad. If 1981 had a competitor, 1975 would be it. Dodge and Plymouth lost their Barracuda and Challenger. The Charger got ugly and fat, as did most other cars. The Roadrunner was an embarrasment. AMC got rid of it's Javelin. GM lost a ton of fast cars. No more Camaro Z/28, no more Trans Am Super Duty. No more Stingray Corvette. No more 454 Corvette. And the dreaded Catalytic converters came to be. A dark time in the annals of history to be sure. But... you could still get the Oldsmobile 442, the Oldsmobile Hurst/Olds, The Trans Am lost the Super Duty 455 but the regular 455 wasn't slow. You could STILL order a Duster 360 and a Dart Sport 360 which mechanically and cosmetically speaking weren't far removed from their 1970 counterparts. AMC still offered the Hornet X with a 360 and that thing could move. 1975 wasn't great, but it wasn't all bad.
Similar arguments can be made right up to 1979 with it's Oldsmobile Hurst/Olds (the only time a 350 was put into a G-Body) 1980 though... that was bad. 1980 was almost identical to 1981 except that a few more cars could be had with semi-decent V8's like the AMC Spirit AMX and Mustang Cobra. Another good thing about 1980 is that a lot of the cars could be had with manual transmissions so even if they were slow at least they were kinda fun to have. The Monte-Carlo, Malibu and El Camino all could be had with manual trannies and V8s. It wasn't common, but the option was there. Also the Dodge Aspen R/T and Plymouth Volare Roadrunner were still around. They were laughable in power but they looked kind of neat compared to the boxy "futuristic" look that a lot of cars adopted in '81.
However, despite my long winded BS above, saying that the whole decade from 1973 to 1983 sucked for cars isn't false in the least. I fully admit that I'm looking for the gold in the manure here when I'm picking 1981 over 1980 for example.
83 was a crappy year as well.... No corvette, and the f bodies hi-po motor was the garbage 305 crossfire. The H/O with the lightning rod shifters were pretty cool though, even if they only had a 307. That was just the way things were back then, monte ss's, 5.0/2.3 turbo stangs, turbo buicks, etc were all lucky to push 200hp. In 82 Caddy had the 4-6-8 motor that was a joke, but was a good idea. Don't forget the olds 350 diesel in olds and caddys either.
Chrysler was in the mist of filing bankruptcy, but the govt bailed them out (not sure on exact year but sometime in the early 80's) They didn't have any appealing cars at all until later in the decade, but the mini van helped out a lot with its introduction in 84.
Things started to get better in the mid 80's and picked up from there.The 87+ 5.7 f bodies, 87 GN/T Types/GNX, 86+ 5.0 fi stangs, etc were all a good starting point.
wasnt this the same time that the nova was just a rebadged toyoata tercel with a 4 cyl engine?
Injection is nice but id rather be BLOWN!
can't forget when they turned the nova into a corolla clone and the charger in to a weak ass srt-4 ancsetor wanna be, hell even the mustang came with a 4 clylender engin during the 80's
It all began in 1973 and continued through out most of the 80s.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
In my mind one car saved the 80's.....
GRAND NATIONAL!!
Rob
Sold 2/2/05
^^^ agree'd
for the most part 73-87/8 sucked for most cars that wanted to go fast
yes there was a few good 1's in that range , but it was around 87/88 that most companies started getting the stuff up to par and going faster and cleaner
Cars slowly started getting fast around 1983 with the Mustang GT. It wasn't much but it could cut a 15.9 quarter which was a lot better than most cars. (The Camaro Z/28 embarrasingly did it in 17.0) It got even better in 1984 with the new Corvette and SVO Mustang. Both which could do 15.3 (or so) Quarters. The Mustang 5.0 was about equal to the SVO. By 1987 the Mustang, Camaro and Trans Am could all do at least 14.8 in their sport versions the new musclecar age as we know it started again.
The Grand National was about a 14.7 machine. Lots of people will say it was faster but it's just not true. The GN did about 245hp, had an automatic transmission and weighed almost 3500lbs. The GNX was faster and probably did the quarter in 13.9 or so but nowhere near the insanely fast 13.4 that some people credit it with.
Something really funny... the 1991 Mustang 5.0 coupe with no options was cheaper than a Honda Civic Si by almost 500$ No wonder they sold so many.
when my son brings home a GM economy car in 30 years and it runs 12's and gets 60mpg then ill look back at how bad my cars were...
Jeremy: 1973 really started it all with the emissions controls. I had this discussion with my dad and basically got the same thing. I'd say that 73-81 were the worst years because of emissions and Gas shortages. I didn't include 82 because that's when the 3rd gen F-bod (and I think the Corvette, don't quote me though) debuted, and they turned into decent cars in their own rite, and, a few other cars that started to really recuscitate the car hobby started to crop up.
As far as styling goes, really good aerodynamic shape dictates solid corners and flat lines or very gentle curves. As much as I loathe the shape of it, the Ferrari F40 is very well suited to speed because of it's squared out chape... If 83-92 F-bods didn't have all the pits and valleys in the under-body (not to mention some decent HP, and better handling) they'd be set to go fairly fast. REALLY sexy and curvy cars like the Jaguars from the 60's or 30's-50's high-line cars look awesome, but they're just rotten with air current eddies and bad flow.
Seriously, if I wanted to build a car, I'd get a 1973 Trans-am, ditch the engine and trans (if it weren't worth it to repair and/or upgrade) for an LSx (Jinxed
) or a new crate 455... I honestly love the style of the car, but as it progressed, I started to really hate it. The Smokey and The Bandit 81ish body just sucked.
I dug some of the 80's style bodies:
Porsche 944/928/911
VW Rabbit
Ferrari Testarosa hardtop
Lamborghini Countach
GM F-Body
Ford Fox Body
Alexis, Samantha.. etc
but the rest pretty roundly sucked ass.
And, I came out of the 70's, when Coke wasn't a white powder daddy snorted, Music was brash and not irritating, heroin meant Wonder Woman and you could still get a decent hamburger.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, October 05, 2006 3:51 PM
And now for something completely different... Click the Minister.
JLAudioCavalier(1bad02cav) wrote:possibly... but i kinda doubt it... look at this.. there is still not a supercar made that can out perform the over all package of the McLaren F1 LM...
the saleen s7 twin turbo more power and half the price... you could have about two s7tt's for the price of 1 mclaren f1 lm...
But, you wouldn't get a radio.
And now for something completely different... Click the Minister.
was pretty slow though