Most overhyped cars

In My Humble Opinion
21

I think the Top Gear track is a “power and raw grip” track more than anything else. It has one decent transition, the “hammerhead”, and it’s totally flat.

Let’s look at the 14 cars above it.

  1. Maserati MC12 - $800k plus car that was never sold in America.
  2. Ferrari Enzo - $700k. It got most of the time out of the Corvette on the straights - it’s two seconds faster than the Corvette in a quarter mile and there are several long straights on this course.
  3. Ariel Atom - Yep, this one really does beat the Corvette in the corners. I don’t think it’s built in sufficient volume that I’d ever see one. I think it’s SVA’d rather than Type Approved, preventing more than 500 from being made in any one year. As such, it isn’t a production car. An FSAE car will outcorner anything, too…
  4. Porsche Carrera GT - $450k, and much faster than the Corvette on the straights.
  5. Mercedes McLaren SLR - same arguments as the Carrera GT.
  6. Ford GT- $150,000. It’s built in sufficient volume to be reasonably considered a production car.
  7. Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale - $200,000. It’s also reasonable to call this a production car.
  8. Porsche 996 GT3RS - $125k car that does, in fact, handle better than a Corvette Z06.
  9. Lamborghini Murcielago - $200,000 and has a considerable power-to-weight advantage on the 'Vette.
  10. Pagani Zonda - $400k car built in the dozens per year.
  11. Koenigsegg CC8S - Claimed top speed of “over 240 MPH”, quarter mile in the tens. It beat the Corvette by three seconds. There are three straights on that course over 1/4 mile long.
  12. Noble M12 GTO3 - $70k, not imported to the US.
  13. Lotus Exige S2 - I said the Corvette handled better than anything but an Elise… the hardtop, hardcore version of the Elise counts as one.
22

My argument was that the Corvette was faster in the corners than any other US-sold production car. I define “production” as “over 2500 or so built”.

23

OK, revise your criteria, why dontcha. :smiley:

No beef with the Vette, I like it. Great value for money, even at the (STEEP!) Dutch sticker price. It’s just not the be-all end-all in my mind. In fact, I’m impressed that America has produced a proper sports car after all.

Yeah, I’m a Eurotrash snob. So? :slight_smile:

24

A Corvette is the fastest car in the straights and corners that I’ve ever actually seen on an American road.

25

OK then. All I can conclude is that you need to see more cars. :slight_smile:

Again, nothing wrong with that Vette. It’s a fin care from what I can tell. Just seems you’re a little obsessed with it, is all.

26

It’s as fin a care as you’ll find. :smiley:

27

DeLorean. DeLorean. DeLorean. First and foremost the car was a hunk of junk, which if they’d bothered to paint them would have sold much better, second, it was supposed to contain a lot of innovative features, be a “safety oriented car,” none of which was true, and third, DeLorean stole the company blind, then blamed the bankruptcy on Maggie Thatcher.

28

Look, if you don’t like the Honda Civic, fine by me. I’ve never owned one (I have ridden in them, though, and I’ll say this for the Civic: I’m 6’4 and 240 pounds, and I fit in it MUCH more comfortably than I do in many supposedly larger cars). Feel free to start a thread called “Cars That Suck.” Or “Popular Cars That Aren’t Really That Great.”

But overhyped? The Honda Civic? Since when?

NOBODY has ever treated the Civic as a glamorous car, or as anything but solid, reliable, economical transportation. Ads don’t portray it as exciting, or suggest that a guy in a Civic will have to beat off women with a club.

So, where’s the “hype” you object to?

29

Most overhyped car ever is the McLaren “SuperCar” thing. Second place is the F1 Ferrari from a season or two ago (been drinkin’, cant think straight) introduced mid-season that was astoundingly medeocre.

Did I spell that right?

30

My candidate is the Dodge Viper. Pretty enough, but even fans agree it’s miserably uncomfortable, with a bumpy ride. The Corvette Z06 has a tad more horsepower (505 vs 500), a bit less torque (470 @ 4800rpm vs 525 @4200), a bit less displacement (7.0L V8 vs 8.3L V10) and also isn’t assessed the $3,000 gas guzzler tax. MSRP for the Viper: about 86K to the Vette’s 69K. The 'Vette has the better suspension and road manners and going with the Z06 leaves you with enough money left over for the down payment on a house! Shoot, if you spent the difference on speed mods the Z06 would spank the crap outta the Viper, look prettier doing it, and STILL be comfortable enough to take a long road trip in (there’s a reason why new owners often opt to pick up their car in Bowling Green at the factory–just so they can break it in on the way home.) The 'Vette gets better mileage, has more room in all dimensions, more cargo space, has more amenities like driver AND passenger side airbags, cup holders, cruise control, power seats and traction control, none of which are available on the Viper. The 'Vette has a smaller turning radius (39 vs 40.5 ft) in spite of the Viper having a shorter wheelbase by about seven inches, and a more aggressive 3.47 rear axle ratio to the Viper’s 3.07.

Hands down, the Z06 is the best value for the money for any sports car in the world, and you don’t have to go to some overpriced repair shop to wait six months for parts, just drop in down the street at your local Chevy dealer.

Oh, and as for the Elise? I saw a cool video once shot from the cockpit of a Lotus taking a run around the Nurburgring–behind a Z06. The Elise could almost catch up in the corners, but as soon as a straightaway came up it looked like the Lotus was suddenly travelling in reverse–that’s how fast the Z06 pulled away. The commentary between the driver and passenger in the Lotus was a hoot, too…

31

I notice you’re in Austin, TX, which might account for the perceived difference. I live in an area that’s half yuppies and half asian-americans (I’m not exaggerating, my city has 44.5% asians according to the 2000 census, probably more now). Every 5th car on the street is a civic.

There’s ads on TV, radio, I get flyers on the street, there’s friggin Civic ads on the sleeves for my coffee cups for goodness sakes. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong crowd, but I’d say over half of the people I know would say the civic was the best car on the market. When I was car shopping last time, I have heard “Why do you want a convertible, just buy a civic! They’re awesome!” at least 20 times.

The latest TV ads are designed to show how innovative and fast the civic is! There’s people with customized civics everywhere and I’m willing to bet they outnumber all the other customized cars combined 10 to 1. About 10 miles from my house is a couple of spots where some asian gangs supposedly run illicit Civic-specific street races. And if you ignore the speed obsessed, there’s the Civic Hybrid.

Oh, the Civic Hybrid. A $22K car prized for it’s 50mpg gas mileage. You know, all the money you could save by buying this new and innovative technology! I’ve had one person actually tell me that by not buying the civic hybrid I was being a selfish jerk to nature. Completely ignoring the fact that Honda already made a car with BETTER gas mileage then the Hybrid in the late 80’s. Sure the CRX HF was underpowered, and was a two seater, but not only did it get better mileage then the civic, cost less, it actually POLLUTED significantly less ( Fuel Economy of the 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid vs http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml ).

Honda Civic is the most hyped up car in my area. Trust me.

Regards,

Groman

32

There’s a hardcore version of the Elise!? I tried one on last winter, and it made my Miata feel like a Lincoln Towncar.

33

For ‘most overhyped’ I’ll throw in a vote for the original PT Cruiser. The hype around these things was huge, and they sold like hotcakes. My wife was interested in one, so we test drove it. I thought it was an incredible piece of junk. It was way underpowered, had poor visibility, the seating was uncomfortable and awkwardly positioned, and the interior looked cheap. I absolutely hated the thing.

I recently test-drove a GT model with the turbo engine, and the power is now fine, but all my other criticisms were still there. I still have no idea why this car is so popular.

Another vote for most overhyped cars - most ‘muscle cars’ from the 60’s and especially 70’s. Remember those big Smokey and the Bandit Firebirds with the screaming chicken on the hood? None of them could beat a new Honda Accord in the 1/4 mile or 0-60. The Camaro Z-28 in 1977 had 185 horsepower, weighed 3800 pounds, and took 8.6 seconds to go 0-60. Today, that would be a poor time for the family station wagon.

Even the old muscle cars from the 60’s were a lot slower than people remember. The 1968 GTO with the 360HP engine still needed 6.5 seconds to go 0-60, and 14.4 through the quarter mile. They were slow for a few reasons. One was that we measured horsepower differently back then, so 360HP isn’t as much as you’d think compared to new cars. Second, the cars were traction limited by their tires, which weren’t nearly as sophisticated as today’s tires are, and third, their suspension wasn’t very good at getting the power onto the road.

And most of those old muscle cars were dreadful in the corners. Most modest sports cars today would absolutely crush one of those old muscle cars on any realistic road course.

34

Another one that’s been forgotten (which is a shame, since despite all of it’s flaws was a lovely car to look at): Plymouth Prowler. Woefully underpowered, not spectacular in the handling department and a bear to service.

35

Oh really, an Accord can do a 0-60 in 5.5 and has a 14 second 1/4 mile (1968 Firebird Convertible). I didn’t know that.

What you might be thinking is that in a given production run a lot of cars were made with smaller engines to allow for cheaper prices. Sure, SOME 60’s and 70’s “muscle cars” were slow as hell, but the same model with a bigger engine can still hold it’s own even today.

Honestly, I don’t know how feasible it is, but spending $5-7K to drop a supercharger/intercooler into a $2000 Trans Am would probably yield a much faster and cooler car than putting a Type R sticker on a $20K Honda. I mean even the real Type R’s that were never imported (or were they) got like 16 second quarter miles and 7 second 0-60 times, if I remember correctly. Basically barely faster than my old Saturn station wagon.

36

I feel a LOT of folks entering auto-related threads on the straight dope are bringing knives to the gunfight. The SDMB is not exactly the best place for informed automotive opinion.

That said. Overhyped is a misnomer. In this day and age, pretty much ANY car, reguardless of manufacturer, is a good car. A company wouldn’t be able to stay in business if that weren’t the case.

Second, the number of problems a car encounters is inversely proportional to the number of cars built. There are 30,000 Corvettes made each year, with very little parts sharing with other models. That’s just about the number of hybrid accords.

That’s 700,000 cars a year. 700,000 boring, dependable, low-depreciation cars. They’ve earned the reputation as an appliance, a car you don’t have to think about if you don’t think about cars.

Third: I don’t care who you are, or what you buy, a car is an emotional purchase. If it weren’t, we’d all be taking the bus and not have an insuance bill.

On the high end, comparing the current Viper to the current Z06 in purely performance terms, the average driver wouldn’t be able to make one out perform the other, that’s just how high the performance bar is set. Any person that can afford a $70k Vette would most likely be able to buy a $90k Viper if they wanted to bad enough. It’s an emotional purchase. Some folks will buy a Vette because they’re chevy people and think it’s the bestest thing ever, and some people will lease a Vette, then move on to a BMW 3 series, 'cause it wasn’t their thing.

Saying the cars of the past weren’t that fast dismisses the improvements in auto design and manufacture that’s occurred over the last 100 years. Cars today are SO quiet, SO stable at speed, and so utterly reliable that it doesn’t make ANY sence to compare them to anything in the 70’s.

Lastly, this is, thusfar, the bestest time ever for auto design. There are enough daring designers given the green light to build polarizing cars. Used to be if the committee didn’t sign off on a car, it didn’t get made. Now, there are enough people to purchase a PT Cruiser, Scion Boxcar, Aztec, Avalance, and Audi TT that if you don’t like 'em, DON’T BUY THEM! But don’t dismiss them cause they don’t speak to you.

37

Slightly off topic:

Have you seen this?

There’s only gonna be 12 made, so get your $427,000 check ready!

38

I was talking about the 70’s era Trans-Ams of the ‘Smokey and the Bandit’ variety. Those things were slow even by econo-car standards today. But most of the ‘muscle cars’ from the 60’s and 70’s were actually pretty slow. Sure, there are your LS7 Chevelles, and Hemi Chargers, and a small handful of low production, fairly rare cars that were fast even by today’s standards. But your ‘typical’ muscle car just wasn’t. For example, the 1969 Camaro Z-28 is a prototypical muscle car, and it did 0-60 in 7.4 secconds, and the quarter mile in 15.12. The 1967 Shelby GT-350 did 0-60 in 7.1 seconds, and the 1/4 mile in 15.3 seconds at 91 MPH.

In comparison, the Dodge Neon SRT-4 does 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, and the 1/4 mile in 14.2. A stock Subaru WRX was tested by Car and Driver at 5.4 and 14.1 respectively. And the ‘muscle car’ version, the STi, does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 13.4. That’s faster than a Boss 429 Mustang, a 440 Dart, or the Hemi Super Bee.

Only the rarest of the rare, and then only against stock cars and only in acceleration in a straight line. Any of those cars would be destroyed in the curves or in braking by even a modest performance car today.

Well, if we’re going to start talking about modded cars, and you’re going to compare putting a $7000 supercharger on one car vs putting a sticker on the other, then I’d say you’ve stacked the comparison a bit. But tell you what: You start with your muscle car of choice, I’ll start with a WRX STi, and we both get to spend $7K on performance upgrades. Which car do you think will be faster?

In fact, I’ll only spend $3500 for a Stage 3 kit for my Sti. Stage 3 STi’s run the 1/4 mile in just over 12 seconds and do 0-60 in under 4. And they do it while being wickedly good in the corners, or on dirt, snow and ice.

I love muscle cars, and they were great in their day. What annoys me are the people who claim that they are still the fastest things ever. They’re not. We’re much better now. Here’s the new muscle car. A Dodge Charger SRT-8. 425 conservatively rated HP, 0-60 in 5 seconds, the 1/4 mile in 13.

39

Awesome. In my opinion, the 60’s Camaros were among the best looking cars of the era. Much nicer than the Chevelles, GTOs, etc. I owned a '67, and I really, really wish I had it back.

Anyway, if you can’t afford half a million bucks, here’s another ‘new’ Camaro you can get from Sams Club. A bargain at only $198,000! And 620 HP.

You’d think that after the success of the retro-styled Mustang, Chevrolet would have been thinking, “We have GOT to bring back a retro Camaro!”. But nooo…

40

Bollocks, that is one fugly car. :eek:

Very impressive specs, though I will never truly understand the fascination with straight line speed. My ten year old 600 CC Yamaha Diversion outruns that Charger in the 0-60 run, and it has 61 BHP. Acceleration is fun, but cornering is what it’s about. Set that Charger up against an Elise on a mountain road, and it’s fricking doomed.

To each his own is the phrase, I suppose. :slight_smile: