Hot Rod Forum banner

Ever driven stock/factory cars that were much faster or slower than you expected?

2K views 24 replies 16 participants last post by  Soul_Hunter 
#1 ·
I have a family friend who is also a client, and he lives next door to my Mother's house. He is retired from Lockheed Martin, where he had a good job, but he had a LONG daily commute to/from work every day. He would leave home in the A.M., drive about 7 minutes to I95 North, get on it and drive almost an hour, then get off and had a short drive from the exit to work.

So he had owned 2 new Buick Park Avenue Ultras. He bought the first in 1995, owned it til 2002 and traded it in on a new one. The first one had very high mileage(around 200,000), but it also didnt run good because he had regularly neglected to maintain it(long oil change intervals, refusing to do other maintenance, etc.). So when he bought the new one in '02, he took care of it more or less, except for the exterior.

This car is obviously a large, heavy, 4 door luxury oriented car, and not a sports car, and now it has 196,000 miles on it. So one day he asked me to drive his mentally challenged 38 year old daughter back to her Mom's house with him in the passenger seat, and he forgot to tell me where to turn, so at the last second, he said to get over into the left lane to turn, but there was traffic coming up, so I had to punch it. I was amazed when this car kicked into passing gear and screamed forward!

I asked him what engine it had and he said he didnt know, other than he thought it was a 6 cyl.(he's not a car guy and not at all mechanically inclined). So when we got back, I lifted the hood and discovered that it has the 3.8 liter V-6, with a fairly large overhead supercharger. It is probably the same 3.8 V-6 from the Gran National, but without the turbo lag. It has 270HP.

So I had to take it up to the service station to put some air in the tires the other day, and I asked him if I could see how fast it accelerated from a stop. He said to just be careful, so I stopped at a light, there was no traffic in front of me, so I punched it in drive, and accelerated to 60mph, timed it, then slowed to 55. It took me about 6 seconds to get to 60. Thats pretty good for a 4200-4400LB luxury car with 196,000 miles!

On the other end of the spectrum, the car I drove that was supposed to be quick but wasnt, was a 2005 Dodge Charger. I came back to the Dodge dealer where I'd bought my vehicle, because they'd given me a free detailing coupon. So the sales lady said I could wait up front for the hour it would take to get the detailing done, so I dropped it off around back, and came to the front and sat down. I then saw the same Hemi Charger sitting out front that was there 2 months earlier. I think it was a dealer demo car. So I asked my sales lady to test drive it, and she said OK, but dont be gone long, cause they arent supposed to allow people to drive them if the person isnt really likely to buy the car, and I had just bought another car anyway.

So I took it out, and noticed that it had already been past its break in mileage, and had about 1200 miles on it, so I could rev it a little. So I got onto the on ramp for the highway, and slowed once I got to the highway, then punched it. Then I got off the next exit and swung back around in a loop heading back to the dealership. I stopped at a few lights and there wasnt any traffic, so I punched it a few more times, even manually shifting, but it did not seem quick at all. Granted, that car is heavy, but I gotta tell you, the Buick Park Avenue mentioned above seemed quicker to me than this Hemi Charger, even though they probably weigh about the same, and the Charger IS meant to be a sports car, and the Buick isnt.....

I'm sure it is probably quicker than it seemed, but it sure didnt FEEL quick. It had the earlier 5.7L 345HP hemi.

What cars or trucks have you driven or ridden in that either impressed you or disappointed you?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
This is an easy one to answer. I just bought a new 2011 CTS-V, you know the one. Automotive journalists use terms like "on afterburners" etc, for describing its performance. While it does perform nice, corners flat, and is smooth and quiet, the 556 hp and 6 speed stick doesn't even come close to my track-t's performance. Of course this is an apples/oranges comparision, V weighs 4250 lbs, T weighs 1846 lbs.

Bob

 
#3 ·
1st would be a 2001 Kia Sephia ( yes the troubled throw away ). with the 5spd, they are extremely quick, especially when they were sold right at $10k new for a well optioned car. Second is a 2002 Chrysler Concorde with the 3.5L. Give it too much gas from a stop and it would bark the tires, and had very quick acceleration... 2008 Hyundia Elantra, for being a newer cousin to the Sephia, is a gutlass wonder in comparison
 
#5 ·
deckofficer said:
This is an easy one to answer. I just bought a new 2011 CTS-V, you know the one. Automotive journalists use terms like "on afterburners" etc, for describing its performance. While it does perform nice, corners flat, and is smooth and quiet, the 556 hp and 6 speed stick doesn't even come close to my track-t's performance. Of course this is an apples/oranges comparision, V weighs 4250 lbs, T weighs 1846 lbs.

Bob


Is the T a kit car or a real one? How does it handle corners?

How does the V seem to handle corners? Do you hear the supercharger? How long is the available loan on a $60,000 car? More than 6 years?

How much is the insurance on each car, T vs. V?
 
#6 ·
I have done both...my own cars at times, would do a modification and it made it worse......

One car I was really impressed with was a Stage 1 Buick Skylark.....That thing was scary fast...It had a few mods....headers, gears etc.....Faster than my LS6 Chevelle, by quite a bit
 
#7 ·
T is a one off hand built ride. I don't have the courage to find it's cornering limits but the G-Tech has recorded 1.04 G. By comparison my Corvette would pull .92 G before losing grip and the 2007 Mustang does a .88 G. I have not run the G-Tech on the Caddy yet, but seat of the pants tells me as good as the Corvette.

MSRP with options was $72K, paid $65,300, put $18K down (no trade in) and financed the balance at 0% for 3 years.

Can't hear the supercharger or exhaust, even at WOT inside the cabin.

Insurance on T around $350 per year, on V about $1,200 per year.

My income and SS number I will NOT divulge.

Bob
 
#8 ·
I don`t recall what year it was, my father bought a 1986 Buick Park Ave.
It was at the work place of my brother in law where he was the head mechanic. The car had belonged to a doctor who didn`t take care of underhood duties so it lasted until it got a 100,000 miles on it.
my bro in law overhauled the engine which was a simple 3.8 liter sequential
fuel injection. I drove it for the first time I couldn`t believe the power it had.
It would really lay you back in the seat. It sure didn`t feel like a 6 cylinder.
I`ve drove many a small block in stock configuration and that Park Ave would run off and leave`em. That was a real eye opener for me on what fuel injection could do over a carb. Even so we took good care of it we got about 120,000 miles out of it before the engine was due for overhaul again and why we finally parked it was because the transaxle went out. The interior was in rough shape thanks to how my sister treated it so it went to the scrap yard.
 
#9 ·
Just picked up a new 2011 Dodge Caravan to use for work, I know its a minivan right...but strip all the "stow and go" seats out of the back and take out the middle row (all the seats must weigh 300+pds combined) and the new 283HP 3.6L engine makes it move out pretty nicely, the six speed trans is icing on the cake. Surprised a few faster vehicles with it already, its no barn stormer but definetly the quickest minivan I've ever driven. Apparently the Charger has the same engine and its rated at 305HP, from the looks of it all thats involved is a cold air kit to reduce intake restriction...hmmmm. I get 9.5L/100km on the highway with it too, hard to believe.

Worst vehicle? Has to be a Ford Festiva a friend bought new off the showroom floor (he paid sticker too), didn't handle...no guts (even with the 5 speed)...ugly as sin...cheapest crappy interior...worst POS I've ever spent any time in. Not a single redeeming quality, it made my old 1974 Honda Civic seem like a Ferrari in comparison.
 
#10 ·
deckofficer said:
T is a one off hand built ride. I don't have the courage to find it's cornering limits but the G-Tech has recorded 1.04 G. By comparison my Corvette would pull .92 G before losing grip and the 2007 Mustang does a .88 G. I have not run the G-Tech on the Caddy yet, but seat of the pants tells me as good as the Corvette.

MSRP with options was $72K, paid $65,300, put $18K down (no trade in) and financed the balance at 0% for 3 years.

Can't hear the supercharger or exhaust, even at WOT inside the cabin.

Insurance on T around $350 per year, on V about $1,200 per year.

My income and SS number I will NOT divulge.

Bob

Man, I didnt ask for your your SS# or income......

I simply was curious about whether a $60,000+ car could be financed over more than the usual 5-6 years. I didnt even ask you how long you personally financed YOUR car either, just a general length of finance question that would apply to anyone.

I also asked how much the insurance would be for either a T or a V, because I've never owned either a one-off custom or a new high end, higher dollar sports car, but was curious as to how much the insurance companies would charge the average driver for these types of cars for future reference.

I didnt ask how much YOU paid for either car, you gave the price.

I dont see how those two particular questions could be considered too personal or problematic.

As far as your CTS-V not being fast, I can only think of 2 possible explanations for this. Either you are accustomed to driving EXTREMELY fast cars on a regular basis that are faster than the CTS-V, so much so that it seems that the CTS-V is slower by comparison, or there is something wrong with the car you received.

I say this because the CTS-V has a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds, which has been repeated by several testers, and a 1/4 mile time of 12 seconds flat, which has also been repeated. Both of these times can only be considered VERY quick for ANY factory car, even a light coupe. How many of even the top muscle cars of the 60's ran low 12's? Pretty much none.... 12 seconds is faster than the new Camaro and the mustangs, and so is the 0-60 time.

In fact, a 3.9 second 0-60 time is getting right into the beginning of the supercar range!

The V has also beaten and set a new record on the German Nurburgring for sport-saloon cars. That record has recently been beaten by a Porsche saloon, probably a Panamera, but only by 2 seconds over the long 13 mile track. That means it is still the second fastest sport sedan/saloon in the world! Faster than the BMW M5, and any Mercedes, Aston Martin, etc.

Maybe whats happening is that because it is larger and heavier, and its basically a luxury car with fantastic suspension, it simply rides more stable and therefore doesnt FEEL as fast as a lighter coupe, which tend to be a little more jerky and sensitive under heavy throttle, therefore they feel faster, but the fact remains that the CTS-V IS faster than most new cars anywhere.
 
#11 ·
Test drove a Chrysler 300C SRT8 a couple years back. I could tell the car was fast just by watching how fast the tach and the speedo climbed, but it just didn't feel fast at all. It accellerated so smoothly and rode so nice that it felt almost painfully slow. Also, I couldn't see anything from inside with the ridiculously low greenhouse. Didn't really care for the car.

On the other hand, when I test drove a 2001 z28 Camaro M6, I was blown away by how fast it felt. Both cars probably accelerate at the same rate but when I sidestepped the clutch into third and the rear end kicked out, I was very very impressed. That camaro felt quick. It wasn't a race car by any means, but it could get up and go.
 
#12 ·
CometCyclone,

My dear friend, you took my tongue in cheek reply a bit too seriously. On the V forum folks are aways wanting to know by comparison
1) if they got a good deal
2) how you enjoy the performance of your V

So the info I gave you was my generic reply that I give on the V forum and my comment about SS # and income was meant only as a joke.

Yes, I do know that the V runs 0~60 in 3.9 seconds for the automatic, and 4 seconds for the stick that I have. My comparison, for me is accurate, as I drive the T around 8000 miles per year and 4 seconds of foot in the throttle in the T has me past 80 mph. I will never run the T anywhere near the computer limited speed of the V at 191 MPH, but for short romps it is the T hands down. Over the years I have owned a number of 10 second rides, so I guess I'm a bit jaded with performance and was just stating that for the V. The V is a great car for what it can do hauling all that weight around and I am happy with its performance, but not like how the automotive journalists describe it though.

Below is me 30 years ago, the engine is a Ford 427 side oiler.

 
#13 ·
CometCyclone,

I neglected to answer one of your questions ".....just a general length of finance question that would apply to anyone."

Rule of thumb, if you have good credit and you want the lowest interest rates, then your down payment should be large enough that with depreciation, you are never upside down on the balance still owed vs current used market value. So, if you want to finance a $70K car for 5 or 6 years, you are going to have to put around $30K down for that best interest rate. If you only finance for 3 years, then 25% down should give you the best interest rates.
 
#14 ·
Honda civic. For the life of me I have no idea why guys mess with these cars. I've owned a few because they're reliable cheap to run and repair. They are absolutely, with very few exceptions, the most gutless wimpy cars I've ever driven. If you're not turning 4000 RPM's, you're not going up the hill. Period.

K
 
#15 ·
I've had a few pretty fast feeling factory cars (not muscle cars) but the one that surprised me the most was my dad's 69 New Yucker with a 440 in it that he bought new in eary 69 and actually let me drive it....and without him being in it with me lol. For a land yacht, it would move out pretty good and doing brake stands was about as easy as they got! And yeah, he heard about it from someone that saw it with me doing that. I guess he showed it to all his buddies before bringing it home.
 
#16 ·
This absolutely surprised me, was told to pick up the new 2010 fully loaded suburban, when I say loaded I mean with supply's when I got there I thought, oh man all the way to Texas with this, cant even see out the back window.Well surprise surprise went to pull out into traffic and Ill be darned if that thing didn't push me into the seat, what was real surprising also is the gas mileage and believe me I used passing gear more than necessary! I have no Idea what engine this had. (company car)
 
#17 ·
I've got a couple. I hadn't seen my dad in a few years and he is a 40+ year mechanic that for some reason hated muscle cars. Always said they were too loud and wasted too much gas lol. I asked him what he was driving nowadays and he said "a ford taurus, and its fast!" I litterally laughed out loud and he just gave me the keys and said to take it around the block. I said ok dad and got in. First thing i noticed was it was loaded with leather and sunrood and then I noticed it was a 5spd manual. I turned the key and the engine sounded like nothing i've heard before. I revved it and man this engine just sounded like it was actually somethin. So i took it around the block and let it wind up to redline in first gear and man this thing just moved! I shifted into second and barked the tires, IN A TAURUS! Turns out this was a 1989 Ford Taurus SHO(super high output), A sedan with muscle. The engine believe it or not was made by Yamaha and it was a V6. Truly the most Decieving car i've ever drove and it even had 215k miles to boot.
The second car I must mention is the 2006 dodge neon SRT-4. This car should not even be considered a neon, Turbo charged 4cyl that just screams at high rpm. Only available in manual trans and 4 door.
 
#18 ·
Just to change the pace a bit. Biggest disappointment was a show room new 57 Ford with 312 with two 4 barrels. A real dog as far as I was concerned. Right up there with it was a 58 Chevy 348 Tri Power. After those early years, job and family took precedence over performance, besides the late 60s, early 70s big boats with big motors, lousy paint and poor body work just did not turn me on.

Trees
 
#19 ·
deckofficer said:
CometCyclone,

My dear friend, you took my tongue in cheek reply a bit too seriously. On the V forum folks are aways wanting to know by comparison
1) if they got a good deal
2) how you enjoy the performance of your V

So the info I gave you was my generic reply that I give on the V forum and my comment about SS # and income was meant only as a joke.

Yes, I do know that the V runs 0~60 in 3.9 seconds for the automatic, and 4 seconds for the stick that I have. My comparison, for me is accurate, as I drive the T around 8000 miles per year and 4 seconds of foot in the throttle in the T has me past 80 mph. I will never run the T anywhere near the computer limited speed of the V at 191 MPH, but for short romps it is the T hands down. Over the years I have owned a number of 10 second rides, so I guess I'm a bit jaded with performance and was just stating that for the V. The V is a great car for what it can do hauling all that weight around and I am happy with its performance, but not like how the automotive journalists describe it though.

Below is me 30 years ago, the engine is a Ford 427 side oiler.


I could be wrong, but...Is that a Chevy that you put a Ford 427 into? Also, what did the 427 come out of, or was it a crate motor?

Also, as far as car insurance is concerned, I did realize that credit rating plays a role in insurance rates, however probably not as big a role as driving record does. But I didnt realize that a higher down payment would play any role in insurance rates, because if the car is wrecked, the insurance company still has to pay for the damage regardless of how much you put down on the car. If you have $5,000 worth of damage, thats how much its gonna cost the insurance company to fix the car regardless of how much you still owe the finance company.

Obviously if you have paid the car off, then you can lower your insurance coverage to liability alone, instead of liability AND collision, which lowers the cost(however I will NOT be doing that in November when I pay my truck off). But I would imagine that even if you pay 50%+ of the total car cost up front, you will still be mandated to buy full coverage insurance with collision by the financier, since there is still an outstanding balance to be paid. So I'm not entirely sure why the insurance companies would charge more or less for the same coverage, simply based on how much you owe on the loan.

Of course, I also dont really understand why they use credit rating as a factor in deciding a person's rates either. That has absolutely nothing to do with determining whether a person is more or less likely to get into accidents or not. I wonder if shoe size, astrological signs, or hair color are also factors?

Anyway, I got off subject and I digress.....

I just remembered another car that was faster than expected. In the late 80's, My brother had told me about his friend's stock VW Scirocco, and said it was very fast, which I really didnt believe. So one day the guy takes me for a ride in it, and it was pretty darn quick for a car made in the 80's...

Another slow car...... A guy who lived in our rural area of Pa in the 80's had a mid 70's Mopar which was brown with rally wheels, hood scoop, aftermarket exhaust, etc. He would always punch it whenever he left anywhere, and you could hear the engine and exhaust noise and it sounded like it was really fast, but when you actually watched it take off, it was pathetically slow! People would joke about how the sound made it seem like a hot rod, but it just slogged along as it was making all this cool sounding noise. I believe it was a '74 Road Runner if I remember correctly.
 
#20 ·
Insurance, to the best of my knowledge, is based on driving record and value of the car. Your credit rating will determine the interest rate that you might expect to get when financing a new car purchase. All I said was to get that interest rate as low as possible, put enough down to insure as the car depreciates, you never still owe more than the car is worth. Check with any bank and you will find this to be true. No exposure = better interest rate.
 
#24 ·
Not really, although the vw diesel golfs around 98-99ish had a suprising level of low-end torque i thought and thus pretty good 0-30 acceleration.


The only other car that suprised me was the mercedes 190E. Very good high speed ability(not nessesarily accelration, but good high speed cruising ability) Very smooth at 100+ mph, good handling very stable. This is with a 2.3 liter 4 cyl 16 valve.


Going 136 mph was no big deal, like the car wasn't even trying.
 
#25 ·
the turbo regals were slower than what i thought.
the first time i drove one was 84 or 85, i forget exactly what year the car was, i remember it was a hot air car. after hearing about them i drove one and was not impressed. later i drove a 87 GN, i still wasn't thrilled.
i mean they ran good for the time, but they just weren't that fast to me. the 87 was certainly faster than the hot air car, but nothing like i thought. maybe if it hadn't been for the hype they received, i would have felt different.

i didn't get to drive it, but a car that did surprise me was a dodge colt that i got to ride in when i worked at a dealership back in 83 or 84.
a factory big wig came in with it and it didn't look like the regular colts sitting on the lot. it had a pretty wild paint job, fender flares and the corners were much more rounded. 5 speed with a 2.2 turbo and a set of pretty wide tires on mag wheels. i asked if the tires and wheels were stolen off of a 911
Carrera because thats what they looked like.
maybe it was just the fact that it was so light that made it feel faster than it really was.
after giving a few more people a ride in it, it came back on a wecker with a snapped CV axle. it was never released to the public, which was probably a good thing because it was still just a crappie little FWD car.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top