When did cars forget to have fun?

[LTC8K6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hondamatic

Yep, it was a 2 speed.

 

[obamanation]

Well, I only looked back to 1980. Honda had 2 speed autos earlier, which were probably pretty slow.

Here's a big list of reported 0-60 and 1/4 times.

http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=10251

Those 0-60 numbers are for the cars with MANUAL transmissions. Also the 70s civics and accords had 0-60 times of 20 seconds. But again, that's with a manual transmission. Give those cars an automatic transmission and it's significantly slower. A 1996 Honda Civic DX/LX with a M/T can get a 0-60 in 8.5-9.5 seconds while the A/T is somewhere around 10-11 seconds. The automatic transmission is a huge drag.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

They talk about buying it as an investment.

Here is the return on that investment:

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.j...ission=&max_price=&cardist=591&standard=false

oh, what price dignity?

 

[exdeath]

One could probably say the same about a Mk2 MR2 non-turbo automatic.

5SFE + automatic = get out and push it faster

Dodge Shadow hmmm brings back some memories. Checked out and de-riced one for a friend who bought one. Previous owner was in the process of adding a gauge pod when she bought it, and had a A/F LED sweep gauge installed on the factory O2 sensor so all it did was hunt back and forth rapidly and looked retarded. First time I'd seen a reverse flow head on a relatively modern car also.

One concern of hers was a loud "leaking" sound whenever you stepped on it and let off abruptly, it was the turbo bleeding back into the plastic inlet

 

[LTC8K6]

Those 0-60 numbers are for the cars with MANUAL transmissions. Also the 70s civics and accords had 0-60 times of 20 seconds. But again, that's with a manual transmission. Give those cars an automatic transmission and it's significantly slower. A 1996 Honda Civic DX/LX with a M/T can get a 0-60 in 8.5-9.5 seconds while the A/T is somewhere around 10-11 seconds. The automatic transmission is a huge drag.

You said 30 years ago. That would be 1980.

The older AT's might indeed be a huge drag, but it's not an 8 second drag I wouldn't think. 3 seconds is more realistic.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Nissan should just bring back the 240sx and solve everyone's problems. $15k, 150 horse, we're done.

 

[punjabiplaya]

it was 15k years ago. more like 25ish now. so ms3, wrx, gti territory.

 

[alkemyst]

get with the times...the US is crowding out the poor.

 

[zCypher]

The swift/metro were pretty awesome for cost/mileage, but obviously people weren't buying those cars for the fun factor. The newer (round instead of square) ones were fairly smooth riding cars for the price though, and usually got close to 50mpg which is pretty impressive.

Also another thing you might want to add is that "fun" can mean a lot of different things, depends on the people really. For some people, you need a lot of power at low rpms and rear wheel drive. Other people just want that sudden jolt of power at the high end, others just like to have the roof off and don't care about their 0-60 or 1/4 mile...

In short, I don't think "cars forgot to have fun" at all.

 

[ShawnD1]

One thing to point out is that cars like the Geo Metro still exist. I'll use Canada's fuel efficiency ratings since the EPA ratings were completely changed a few years back; EPA now rates cars at least 10-20% lower than what the car will actually get. From experience, Canada's ratings are fairly accurate. I'll pick automatic or manual based on whichever gets the best gas mileage since the automatic sometimes is more efficient.

1.0L 1992 Geo Metro = 55HP, 43mpg combined (manual)
1.5L 2010 Honda Fit = 117HP, 38mpg combined (auto)
1.5L 2010 Toyota Yaris = 106HP, 37mpg combined (manual)

Also another thing you might want to add is that "fun" can mean a lot of different things

Driving a small car always feels exciting because it feels like you're going twice as fast. 80mph in a truck feels a lot slower than 50mph in a Honda Civic.

 

[alkemyst]

Some dubs and you ballah.

 

[obamanation]

One thing to point out is that cars like the Geo Metro still exist. I'll use Canada's fuel efficiency ratings since the EPA ratings were completely changed a few years back; EPA now rates cars at least 10-20% lower than what the car will actually get. From experience, Canada's ratings are fairly accurate. I'll pick automatic or manual based on whichever gets the best gas mileage since the automatic sometimes is more efficient.

1.0L 1992 Geo Metro = 55HP, 43mpg combined (manual)
1.5L 2010 Honda Fit = 117HP, 38mpg combined (auto)
1.5L 2010 Toyota Yaris = 106HP, 37mpg combined (manual)

There is a problem with what you've posted..

Firstly I'd like to point out a feature of the government's fuel economy website..

What you do is you choose any 2007 Model year vehicle. When you do this, it will bring up the "old" and "new" fuel economy numbers. Then choose the vehicle you desire to see its fuel economy numbers. It will then show you the fuel economy numbers both in "old" and "new" for the vehicle. What's weird though is that even though they technically don't calculate based upon the "old" formula for MY 2008+ vehicles, for some reason, they added that calculation again to 2010 MY vehicles. So basically for all MYs except 2008 and 2009, you can see the fuel economy numbers both "old" and "new".

Alright, so why is this relevant? Well, if you feel so inclined to compare a 2010 vehicle's "old" fuel economy numbers with another vehicles "old" fuel economy numbers, then you can do so, but in order to see the "old" fuel economy numbers, you must have a 2007 Model year vehicle in the mix.
Here is an example of what I am talking about:

So anyway, back to what you were saying.. You said that the following vehicles get this mileage, and therefore there "are" still vehicles like the metro.
1.0L 1992 Geo Metro = 55HP, 43mpg combined (manual)
1.5L 2010 Honda Fit = 117HP, 38mpg combined (auto)
1.5L 2010 Toyota Yaris = 106HP, 37mpg combined (manual)

Problem is, you compared with the wrong "metro".

Here are some numbers that are more "interesting" and will poke a hole in the argument of a vehicle that gets good mileage without being a hybrid.

2007 Toyota Yaris
29 City, 36 Highway, 32 Combined. (New EPA MPG)
34 City, 40 Highway, 37 Combined. (Old EPA MPG)

1986 Chevrolet Sprint ER
44 City, 53 Highway, 48 Combined (New EPA MPG)
55 City, 60 Highway, 57 Combined (Old EPA MPG)

1992 Geo Metro XFI
43 City, 51 Highway, 46 Combined (New EPA MPG)
53 City, 58 Highway, 55 Combined (Old EPA MPG)

1995 Honda Civic VX (Federal)
39 City, 50 Highway, 43 Combined (New EPA MPG)
47 City, 56 Highway, 51 Combined (Old EPA MPG)

2007 Toyota Prius
48 City, 45 Highway, 46 Combined (New EPA MPG)
60 City, 51 Highway, 55 Combined (Old EPA MPG)

So if you want to use the "old" EPA way of calculating fuel economy, you still end up with the fact that vehicles made in the last 15 years can't match the fuel economy of vehicles made 20-25 years ago. The "high mileage" vehicles died around 1996 with the only one left being the 1 litre Metro. From 1995-1998 this 1 Litre metro got 40MPG combined (NEW EPA) but in 1999 that dropped to 37MPG combined and 36MPG combined for the 2000 MY.. Don't ask me why this happened but it did..

So, the point about cars that are very fuel efficient but require few expensive parts is correct, those vehicles no longer exist unless you consider the "smart fortwo" to be "worthy" which I certainly do not.

 

[Jzero]

I think a big problem with some of these "fun" cars was that the convertible increased the price. You'd see $8000 for a new Metro coupe (don't remember the actual MSRP) or $11000 for a Metro convertible.

And you'd say "I'm gonna spend $11000....on a Metro...with no roof? Maybe I don't want a convertible *that* bad."

Same with the Del Sol...got a good reception by critics and owners but a lot of critics mused that people wouldn't pay extra for a Civic with half the seats missing just to get a targa top. The sales bore that out.

 

[Pantlegz]

Nissan should just bring back the 240sx and solve everyone's problems. $15k, 150 horse, we're done.

this, I would love to get my hands on a legal S15

 

[PlasmaBomb]

That sounds incredibly dangerous and nerve racking. It would be virtually impossible to get onto a freeway at a safe speed. I'm shitting my pants because I'm only going 50mph when pulling into a lane where everyone else is going 70. How slow would that VW be merging? 30mph in a 60 zone?

edit:
google search says 53HP VW would take 22 seconds to get to highway speed. That's damn near suicidal.

Morris Mini Minor 1959 stats

Length: 3.1m

Width: 1.2m

Height: 1.4m

Kerbweight: 626kg

0-60mph: 29.7 seconds (stats courtesy of auto express)

34.0 BHP

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Some random cars:
year-make-model-0 to 60-1/4 miles
1968 Triumph Spitfire 13.6 19.3
1973 Volkswagon Super Beetle Convertible 23.8 22.5
1980 Toyota Corolla Two-Door 16.0 20.5
1993 Subaru Impreza L Wagon 12.7 19.0
1967 Plymouth Barracuda 225ci 13.6 19.4
1982 Pontiac J2000 16.3 20.6
1968 Porsche 911 Sportomatic 10.3 17.3
1977 Datsun 200SX 14.6 20.8
1972 Opel Wagon 16.1 20.7
1973 Oldsmobile Toronado 455ci 10.6 17.7
1980 Mazda 626 Turbo 10.5 17.7
1983 Mercedes-Benz 380SL 10.9 18.4
1977 Mercury Monarch 302ci 14.4 20.1
1976 MGB 18.5 21.0
1987 Mitsubishi Mirage 12.0 18.6
1989 Jaguar XJ6 10.0 17.5
1996 Jeep Cherokee (4.0L H.O.) 10.6 17.7
1996 Kia Sephia LS 10.7 18.0
1996 Lexus LX 450 10.4 17.8
1973 Lincoln Town Car 460ci 10.4 17.6
1970 Lotus Europa S2 11.2 18.2
1993 Geo Metro LSi Convertible 13.8 19.4
1973 Honda Civic 19.3 23.6
2002 Hyundai Accent 11.7 18.4
2003 Hummer H2 10.7 17.6
1990 Infiniti M30 Coupe 10.0 17.4
1983 Isuzu I-Mark Diesel 19.9 21.7
1968 Fiat 850 Idromatic 25.5 23.3
1973 Ford Grand Torino Squire 400ci 11.1 19.0
1980 Dodge Colt RS 11.1 18.1
1993 Eagle Vision ESi 10.4 17.7
1975 Cadillac Coupe DeVille 500ci 11.9 18.1
1985 Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta 10.0 17.0
2003 PT Cruiser 10.9 18.2
1968 BMW 2002 11.3 17.9
1974 Buick Regal 350ci 11.9 18.0
1996 Acura SLX Premium Pkg. 11.1 18.1
1977 AMC Gremlin X 17.9 20.8
1986 Audi 5000S 11.6 18.4

What do they have in common? None of them managed to break into single digit 60's, yet a number of them aren't regarded as slow cars. I think I managed to ding most manufacturers and got a pretty wide spread in years.

 

[alkemyst]

this, I would love to get my hands on a legal S15

They weren't $15k though...even our last 240SX (I own one) in 1998 was base priced at $18k for a stripped car...most were dropping mid $20k on them which priced them out of the competition at the time.

I am going to probably buy a C5 Vette next year debating Z06 or building up a hatchback.

 

[EightySix Four]

They weren't $15k though...even our last 240SX (I own one) in 1998 was base priced at $18k for a stripped car...most were dropping mid $20k on them which priced them out of the competition at the time.

I am going to probably buy a C5 Vette next year debating Z06 or building up a hatchback.

Build the hatch, you'd be amazed at how nifty all the space is.

 

[LTC8K6]

I remember a buddy of mine having a Chevy Sprint Turbo. Thing was a blast. I think it was 70hp. It was a rebadged Swift, iirc. About 8.5 to 60.

 

[TehMac]

Regardless of performance, you just can't beat these looks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59voKreB2j8

I'd love to put GM's new twin turbo four banger into the rear, it'd really take off and still live up to its innovative turbo image!

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

it was 15k years ago. more like 25ish now. so ms3, wrx, gti territory.

There's no reason for that though. They've made out RWD to be some magical thing that only $40k cars and luxury sedans can have anymore. There's no reason to not have a single car out there that's well under $20k that has a stupid little 4cyl inline motor, unibody, RWD. Just take whatever piece of shit FWD car you make, copy the interior to keep idiots happy and the cost low, and just build the stupid unibody with a tunnel for the driveshaft. I realize they'd have to put an ounce of effort into it unlike every FWD car made since the original mini, but why not?! Do it once, make a lot of people very happy with your company. Now to make a car, they come up with a basic shape or style that they think stupid people will buy based on the basic shape or style. Then they plug in their shit FWD system in the front of the car, and their shit solid rear suspension that they plug into all their cars, and they're done. The hardest part is setting up their injection molding machines to pump out the different interior parts and the gas tank which is pretty much the only non-cookie cutter part of the whole car. Just figure out how you want to lay out the rear suspension, drivetrain, and exhaust, and pump those suckers out. Imagine if the Cavalier was exactly the same shit, except RWD. They'd still be using that name out of pride today, and people with brains would buy them. And people with brains often tell their friends what brand of cars to buy.