What were your worst and most unique cars?

Worst car is easy.

I had a Datsun 310 (before they started calling them Nissans).

40+ mpg but it was a POS. Couldn't get out of its own way. Broke a motor mount and ruined a vacation.

1718123871073.png

Most interesting?

I had a Toyota FJ40. It was what a Jeep should have been. Same color as this one.

1718123608881.png
 
gadget73 said:
80s F body cars sucked. All the chassis rigidity of an overcooked lasagna noodle and nothing fit together well. That 2.8 was also a slug, though if it was late enough to be the multiport injected model it sucked a lot less. I knew someone who had one of these with the 2.5 Iron Puke 4 cylinder. If you think the V6 was bad, you should see how horrible those were.
Click to expand...

It was one of the earliest multiport injected models. Had "sufficient" power (when the catalytic converter wasn't stopped up), though nowhere near a "hot rod" by any stretch of the imagination.

I've driven a 4-cylinder Camaro. The old phrase "not enough power to pull the skin off of a rice pudding" comes to mind. Not as slow as a diesel Isuzu pickup truck of the same era, but uncomfortably close.

Regards,
Gordon.
 
tourmax said:
Worst?

Any and all of the Iacocca era K car components vehicles.

Built to a budget and they showed it.

Dad had a K-car and showed up one day with the 2.2 bucking and kicking. Dug into it and the crank had literally broken in half between cyl 2-3. Was still running, but on two cylinders that were still in time with the cam. Totally trashed. Dropped in a used replacement engine to keep it going.

Thats the same car that the front engine mount flexed the unibody member it bolted to so much, it fatigued it and snapped it in half. I banged it back in place and welded a piece of plate over it.

Body panels that would dent if you leaned on them too hard, paint that departed the fix early, rusting, etc, etc.

Might have pulled Chrysler out of the hoke, but horrible, horrible vehicles.

I did have a shelby charger (GLH) at one point. “Goes Like Hell” was a good name for it (what Shelby said GLH meant) because it was one fun, fast turbo 4 banger. But it also felt cheap, plastic-y and it was only a matter of time before rust and parts breaking on it made me move it on…cheap.

Most “unique”? Hmmmm, have to go with my old 74 Scout II with a lift and 38’s. Pop the hardtop off in summer and it was a ball. Damn thing was a monster with the 304, 727 and dana’s. Unstoppable. I once pulled a chevy out of the woods a couple miles with with the chevy upside down.

IH used to know how to make one tough truck….
Click to expand...

I'd have to say, someone must have been really abusing that 2.2 with the bent engine mount.

2.2s were slow, but unless you over-revved them and bent a valve (ask me how I know about this, money shift when someone pulled out in front of me when I was driving a 1981 Horizon), they were like cockroaches, IME.

Regards,
Gordon.
 
Worst was a '70 Ford Maverick that I bought used from a relative. Never could get that car to run right.

Most interesting (and ugliest) was my first car (and 2nd worst). A 1948 Plymouth coupe that the previous owner had removed the trunk lid, and welded in a metal box. He lived in the mountains and used to to haul wood. Paid $35 for it and sold it a few months later for $50. I think I once hit 50 mph; down hill with a tail wind. ;) I did learn how to drive a stick shift with it though (up and down the alley, before getting my license).
 
rickb119 said:
Worst was a '70 Ford Maverick that I bought used from a relative. Never could get that car to run right.

Most interesting (and ugliest) was my first car (and 2nd worst). A 1948 Plymouth coupe that the previous owner had removed the trunk lid, and welded in a metal box. He lived in the mountains and used to to haul wood. Paid $35 for it and sold it a few months later for $50. I think I once hit 50 mph; down hill with a tail wind. ;) I did learn how to drive a stick shift with it though (up and down the alley, before getting my license).
Click to expand...

My '36 Ford would hit 70 mph. All original drivetrain. no OD.

It was a handful, and I don't recommend hitting any curves at that speed.
 
I did a few years as an imported auto mechanic in the late '70s - early '80s and I worked on or drove some pretty unique cars, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. One sublime to ridiculous experience happened moving cars around the shop and lot one morning where I first moved a smooth as silk Rolls Royce Silver Shadow and immediately after fired up a Chevette Diesel. Quite the contrast. Other memorable cars from the time of my life include Mercedes 600 with hydraulic power windows that were like reverse guillotines, DeLoreans (which I thought were head and shoulders better than contemporary Corvettes except for the remarkably poor choice of engine), Porsche 928 with the easiest to change clutch in the world, lots of Mazda rotaries, Citroen SM with Maserati engine, a handful of high-end Italian sports cars, a '60s Aston Martin... good times.

As far as cars I've owned, I've enjoyed each of them (except one) for a variety of reasons, and most have been somewhat non-mainstream.

1969 Triumph TR-6, bought as a foolish impulse purchase with 125k miles and an overheated, oil-burning engine. Had overdrive. A blast to drive. This was the car that put me on the path of becoming an auto mechanic. One lower control arm mount broke off the chassis at 60mph on the highway but it stayed controllable. Rusty. Death trap. Most fun car I ever owned.
'71 Toyota Corona. Great car with a front suspension copied from Mercedes. Not super exciting, but better engineered and built than almost anything else on the road at the time.
'79 Toyota Corona Wagon. A non-memorable dog but reliable until the auto transmission started slipping badly.
Two or three late '70s Peugeot 504 Diesels. Most comfortable cars ever. Amazingly slow. Lots of strange and unique details, from the manual sunroof to the location of the ignition key.
'86 Peugeot 505 Turbo (gasoline) - comfortable (not as much as the 504), fast, good handling. Best cruise control. More conventional than older Peugeots.
'89 Peugeot 405 Mi16. Probably one of the first ones made, and it showed. Lots of things different from what the service manual showed. I got the sense that the engineers were chasing it down the assembly line making stuff up as they went. Good handling, pretty quick, not very comfortable, not very memorable despite its relative rarity.
'89 Plymouth Acclaim. Driven under duress. The only car I've owned that I hated.
'87 Mercedes 190D. Loved the car. Amazingly slow, pretty loud. Great highway cruiser. Needed many repairs over the years. It was rusting out from under me, but I still sold it for $900.
'04 BMW 325xi. Current driver and unquestionably the best car I've owned. Fast, superb handling, comfortable, pretty reliable, very easy to work on. Wish it didn't take premium gas and wish it got better MPG, but I only drive about 5000 miles/year so not that big a deal.
 
GordonW said:
I'd have to say, someone must have been really abusing that 2.2 with the bent engine mount.

2.2s were slow, but unless you over-revved them and bent a valve (ask me how I know about this, money shift when someone pulled out in front of me when I was driving a 1981 Horizon), they were like cockroaches, IME.

Regards,
Gordon.
Click to expand...
Nope. My dad was a pretty easy driver. Thin sheet metal bodies, porous iron castings.

He bought that 83 Kcar (Reliant, oh the irony in that name!) new off the lot so no one else ever drove it except mom and she preferred to drive her cutlas calais.

2.2’s came through the shop regularly with blown head gaskets. They just couldn’t get the clamping between the iron block and aluminum head right. that was at least excusable", as all the NA manufacturers were struggling with the new (at the time) aluminum head/iron block issue.

They were built cheap as possible and it showed up everywhere.

We also had a Horizon before the Reliant. Still a cheap car, but not too bad overall. Didn't have the 2.2 though, it had the Volkswagon sourced 1.7L. That car rotted out just lke the Reliant did. In fact, the strut towers rooted out on the Horizon and the struts came right through one day. The reliant just rotted everywhere.

Rust protection strategy was not high on Chrysler's list of "selling features" back then....
 
Last edited:
GordonW said:
It was one of the earliest multiport injected models. Had "sufficient" power (when the catalytic converter wasn't stopped up), though nowhere near a "hot rod" by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

sounds about right. Friend had a Firebird with the MPFI. It was "ok" at best. His dad had an ElCamino with that engine and a 2bbl carb. It was a complete slug. Have driven and ridden in a few carb and TBI 2.8 S10's, also slugs.


and yeah that 4 cyl Camaro was alarmingly slow. At the time I was driving a 1973 Beetle, and I could pass her. We always knew when she was coming though. The muffler had rotted off and it was obnoxiously loud. Between the volume and how slow it was there was plenty of warning.
 
What's funny, is that the MPFI Camaro was way faster than the 1981 Malibu wagon we had for our anime convention, later. And that had the much-larger 229 V6 (3.8 liter), as opposed to the 2.8 liter in the Camaro. Yes, curb weight was slightly heavier in the Malibu (but only by like 300lbs, IIRC), but the multiport injection made a big difference, as opposed to the carbureted 229 in the Malibu. 137HP for the MPFI 2.8 in the Camaro, as opposed to 110HP for the 229 V6 in the Malibu.

Of course, we weren't complaining about the Malibu. Bought it for a dollar. With good title. Previous owner couldn't get it to start- but, we showed up with a fresh battery, some gas in a can and some tools- and drove it away. Ran like crap (on probably four out of six cylinders), but we managed to drive it 20 miles to where we could work on it.

Needed a battery, plugs, wires, a heater core, a catalytic converter (clogged- caused by the bad plugs and wires), an oil and filter change, and tires (we bought a set of good used ones)- but we had less than $500 in it after fixing everything. Used that car for like 4 years.

Regards,
Gordon.
 
Worst: 1992 Ford Explorer 5 speed manual I swore off Ford (US) products for life after this one

Most Unique: 1959 English Ford Escort 3 speed that could have used another gear, with only 30,000 original miles and probably one of the best examples of this model in North America. Not worth much, but I never saw another one driving down the road.

Just right for picking up the Christmas tree with daughter number two.

ENFO Christmas.JPG
 
Ross6860 said:
Worst car is easy.

I had a Datsun 310 (before they started calling them Nissans).

40+ mpg but it was a POS. Couldn't get out of its own way. Broke a motor mount and ruined a vacation.

View attachment 3223433

Most interesting?

I had a Toyota FJ40. It was what a Jeep should have been. Same color as this one.

View attachment 3223431
Click to expand...
With you on the Datsun. My parents had an '82 Datsun 210 sedan that I got to drive as a teen. Woefully under powered and reeked of gasoline inside the cabin. At least it was rwd so a little fun on the gravel. I think my dad just abandoned it when we moved.

Runner up to worst would be the '91 Toyota Tercel hatch. It stank of a failing catalytic converter, the vinyl seats would ooze on really hot days, and couldn't pass an old school bus full of river rafters going up hill. But at least it kept running.
 
Worst is a tie between the '03 Chevy Equinox small SUV, and the '96 Ford Tempo. Both had lots of problems
Most unique are the two cars I hope to get back on the road. The '03 Saab 9-5 sitting in the driveway uncover, and the '61 Tbird hiding in the garage. Hope I can get to work on them soon
 
I know which car my dad would have said was his worst:

Plymouth Cricket.

He couldn’t spend enough to keep that thing on the road. Constantly breaking down and parts hard a heck to get. He got rid of it pretty quickly, but not before he built up a pretty healthy hate for it. I think he would have crushed it if he could have afforded to just eat the cost.

It was a rebranded British car (late 60’s early 70’s), which explained a lot of the issues.

The reliant kcar was a bit better, but only because it was a domestic manufactured car and easier to get parts for.
 
gadget73 said:
80s F body cars sucked. All the chassis rigidity of an overcooked lasagna noodle and nothing fit together well. That 2.8 was also a slug, though if it was late enough to be the multiport injected model it sucked a lot less. I knew someone who had one of these with the 2.5 Iron Puke 4 cylinder. If you think the V6 was bad, you should see how horrible those were.
Click to expand...

I've had two of them, and in stock form yeah, there are, , ahem, , shortcomings..... ;)

But, once ya spend a bunch o bucks on things like subframe connectors, UMI suspension, and the usual engine upgrades (bigger intake/exhaust/cam/etc) you can turn them into a fun little car. I would never accept a "bone stock" one, I figured it as they were selling ya a good looking body, to build into whatever kind of driver you want it to be. (even today the aftermarket catering to GM third gen F bodies is huge)
 
init4fun said:
I've had two of them, and in stock form yeah, there are, , ahem, , shortcomings..... ;)

But, once ya spend a bunch o bucks on things like subframe connectors, UMI suspension, and the usual engine upgrades (bigger intake/exhaust/cam/etc) you can turn them into a fun little car. I would never accept a "bone stock" one, I figured it as they were selling ya a good looking body, to build into whatever kind of driver you want it to be. (even today the aftermarket catering to GM third gen F bodies is huge)
Click to expand...

I actually enjoyed my '86 Firebird. 305 w/the fuel injection that looked just like a carburetor.

It was not fast, but it had T-tops and was a lot of fun.

3rdgen.org is your friend.

Now my 2001 WS6 with some tasteful mods was a whole different animal. SLP intake, TB bypass, headers, Borla exhaust, and someone that knows how to tune on a dyno (not me).

Nearly 350 hp to the rear wheels without much effort. Had to be careful with that POS rear differential.

One of the few vehicles that I regret selling.
 
Worst of any of the cars I owned:
1981 Fiat Spider 2000.

Beautiful to look at but rust bucket, mechanical nightmare and the shift throw was dashboard to seat.

And problematic Bosch fuel injection and the valves were adjusted with shims.
:mad:

Most unique:
1968 English Ford Cortina 2 door sedan with stick shift.
Nice car.
 
Last edited:
tourmax said:
I know which car my dad would have said was his worst:

Plymouth Cricket.

He couldn’t spend enough to keep that thing on the road. Constantly breaking down and parts hard a heck to get. He got rid of it pretty quickly, but not before he built up a pretty healthy hate for it. I think he would have crushed it if he could have afforded to just eat the cost.

It was a rebranded British car (late 60’s early 70’s), which explained a lot of the issues.

The reliant kcar was a bit better, but only because it was a domestic manufactured car and easier to get parts for.
Click to expand...

Whoever at Chrysler, that thought that rebranding a Hillman Avenger- during probably the most troubled time period of the British car industry- and selling it in the US- far away from most of the people who were familiar with the usual service problems (who were naturally in England)- and also not supplying dealers with proper service and parts support- was definitely part of the "collective idiocy" of upper management, that led to the bankruptcy of Chrysler, later in the 1970s. It made the whole (itself somewhat problematic) process of GM importing German Opels and selling through Buick dealers, look like it was thought up by Mensa members, by comparison.

Even the later Mitsubishi-made Cricket and Colt had its issues- but not nearly like the Hillman version...

As for the K-car and the Horizon/Omni models- at least, as mentioned, they COULD be fixed. And they actually were pretty inherently rugged, as long as they weren't just constantly thrashed. Cheap cars, but effective transportation, within reason.

Regards,
Gordon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom