Worst car ever made
Discussion
morgrp said:
Zad said:
morgrp said:
My choices are:
AMC Pacer - Hideous, awful to drive and completely gutless:
AMC Pacer is a good call. It has some utterly amazing stats:AMC Pacer - Hideous, awful to drive and completely gutless:
Wiki said:
..when we weighed the test car (whose air conditioning, automatic transmission, power steering and so forth would not account for the full difference) it registered an astounding 3425 lb.
The 3.8 litre inline-6 made 100bhp (initially 90bhp)The 4.2 made 120bhp (initially 93bhp)
There was a 402cu in V8 (5 litre) which made similarly unbelievable power.
This meant that, at one time, you could get a compact car with a 4.2 litre engine that had 56bhp/ton. Wow!
Additionally, it was classed as a "compact" car but was actually longer than a Ford Granada
Another little nugget of info - it was supposed to have a wankel rotary when first realeased but the fuel crisis put AMC off and they fitted "conventional" engines
Think Motor Magazine sums it up best with their cover title of "We test the Pacer - and wish we hadn't."
morgrp said:
Zad said:
morgrp said:
My choices are:
AMC Pacer - Hideous, awful to drive and completely gutless:
AMC Pacer is a good call. It has some utterly amazing stats:AMC Pacer - Hideous, awful to drive and completely gutless:
Wiki said:
..when we weighed the test car (whose air conditioning, automatic transmission, power steering and so forth would not account for the full difference) it registered an astounding 3425 lb.
The 3.8 litre inline-6 made 100bhp (initially 90bhp)The 4.2 made 120bhp (initially 93bhp)
There was a 402cu in V8 (5 litre) which made similarly unbelievable power.
This meant that, at one time, you could get a compact car with a 4.2 litre engine that had 56bhp/ton. Wow!
Additionally, it was classed as a "compact" car but was actually longer than a Ford Granada
Another little nugget of info - it was supposed to have a wankel rotary when first realeased but the fuel crisis put AMC off and they fitted "conventional" engines
Think Motor Magazine sums it up best with their cover title of "We test the Pacer - and wish we hadn't."
It's described as 'the only compact car with a V8 option' (bear in mind they were genuinely aiming it at VW 411 buyers), and makes a virtue out of it being 'the widest and heaviest car in it's class' (apparently this was good for stability, although it says nothing of the handling).
philoldsmobile said:
Ford mustang 3.8 SN95
oh so slow, very poor handling thirsty, and unreliable (head gasket issues almost guaranteed up to 1996 model) and a cheeky habit of destroying the bottom end. 140 bhp from 3.8 liters? please......
. looked quite pretty, but that was all..
This was not my old car - to protect the current owner...
Had that same engine in my 1991 Mercury cougar.oh so slow, very poor handling thirsty, and unreliable (head gasket issues almost guaranteed up to 1996 model) and a cheeky habit of destroying the bottom end. 140 bhp from 3.8 liters? please......
. looked quite pretty, but that was all..
This was not my old car - to protect the current owner...
Edited by philoldsmobile on Tuesday 21st December 15:13
Worst engine I have ever personally owned... utterly gutless and not in the least bit frugal.
No, no, no, the Marina. It has to be 
I spent a large part of my youth trying to keep one running, it was appalingly unreliable and just about everything went wrong or rotted and I gave up at 78K having replaced most of the mechanicals (some bits several times) and some of the bodywork and at one point the entire engine. The basic quality of the parts was it's worst let-down. Every job seemed to involve nut-splitters, hack-saws, blow-torches, huge bars and impact hammers as everything was rusted. I was stunned when I replaced it with a VW and entered an alien world where everything simply undid as it should. The Marina was ecologically sound though, having already half rotted to nothing before reaching the scapyard.
The handling was shocking with slow turn-in and understeer of frightening proportions. It's kind of ironic that the Marina's B-series engine is still commonly found, where it should feel at home, in canal boats.
The Morris Minor set-up of cart springs at the rear with torsion bars and lever arm shocks at the front are probably to blame. Any attempt at a quick start just resulted in the car sitting still with the back axle hopping up and down whilst everyone drove away, laughing.
I spent a large part of my youth trying to keep one running, it was appalingly unreliable and just about everything went wrong or rotted and I gave up at 78K having replaced most of the mechanicals (some bits several times) and some of the bodywork and at one point the entire engine. The basic quality of the parts was it's worst let-down. Every job seemed to involve nut-splitters, hack-saws, blow-torches, huge bars and impact hammers as everything was rusted. I was stunned when I replaced it with a VW and entered an alien world where everything simply undid as it should. The Marina was ecologically sound though, having already half rotted to nothing before reaching the scapyard.The handling was shocking with slow turn-in and understeer of frightening proportions. It's kind of ironic that the Marina's B-series engine is still commonly found, where it should feel at home, in canal boats.
The Morris Minor set-up of cart springs at the rear with torsion bars and lever arm shocks at the front are probably to blame. Any attempt at a quick start just resulted in the car sitting still with the back axle hopping up and down whilst everyone drove away, laughing.Edited by FamilyGuy on Thursday 23 December 11:49
Tyre Smoke said:
Busa Rush said:
Think back to the 70's . . . forget what you know now . . . the first Mexico looked like a tarted up 1100L shopping car . . . which was in effect what it was. The Marina was a coupe - very stylish in those days, had an 1800 engine and could be had with twin carbs, again very modern.
We know now that the basic Mexico didn't handle that well either although slightly better than the Marina. The Marina was never used in anger for rallying which is where the Escort won its popularity. The 1.8 TC saloon was used for rallying for a couple of years but never with the budget that Ford had.
You're trolling right?We know now that the basic Mexico didn't handle that well either although slightly better than the Marina. The Marina was never used in anger for rallying which is where the Escort won its popularity. The 1.8 TC saloon was used for rallying for a couple of years but never with the budget that Ford had.
The first Mexico was not a tarted up 1100L it was a bespoke homoligated Mk1 Escort built by Ford AVO. The similarities in the two cars extend to their overall appearance and that is about all. The Marina was never used for rallying because it was made out of tinfoil and had utterly crap suspension. If the car had shown any potential at all as a rally car it would have been exploited. It handled like a three wheeled Tesco trolley on ice. There is nothing 'modern' about a twin carb set up, my dad had a VX/490 from 1963 with more HP that the wheezy B series engine put out. Twin carbs where needed to give a very tired and s
t engine a power boost to bring it up to (then) something approaching modern power output.Edited by Tyre Smoke on Tuesday 21st December 15:43
The amount of money Ford poured into Motorsport in those days eclipsed any other budget. Have a look here: http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/racrally.htm Spot the Marina The original Mexico was produced as a result of the success at Rallying and was way below the RS1600 and even the RS2000. It may have had a strengthened shell and different suspension but I don't think it was anything special. I could be wrong (won't be the first time
). . . do you have a link to show it's a bit more than that ?I reckon the Ital should just edge the Marina to be considered worse, simply because, with its restyle, it looked like a more modern car to go toe-to-toe with the likes of the new FWD Escort and Astra, when in fact, lurking beneath, was a Morris Minor (but not quite as well made or well-balanced in its handling).
Then to top it all, they claimed it had been designed in Giorgetto Giugiaro's ItalDesign studios, and made great play of this in their advert. Years later it transpired that they'd basically asked Giugiaro for some advice on styling, ignored it, and somehow managed to licence the name to use on the car.
Tellingly really, because in 1980, when ItalDesign supposedly designed this:
They were designing cars like this:
So, promised to be an all-new, modern, Italian-designed replacement for a car with a pretty bad reputation. Turned out to still be the car with the pretty bad reputation, with added lies.
Then to top it all, they claimed it had been designed in Giorgetto Giugiaro's ItalDesign studios, and made great play of this in their advert. Years later it transpired that they'd basically asked Giugiaro for some advice on styling, ignored it, and somehow managed to licence the name to use on the car.
Tellingly really, because in 1980, when ItalDesign supposedly designed this:
They were designing cars like this:
So, promised to be an all-new, modern, Italian-designed replacement for a car with a pretty bad reputation. Turned out to still be the car with the pretty bad reputation, with added lies.
Dracoro said:
Twincam16 said:
It's all angled towards the passenger. Twincam16 said:
I reckon the Ital should just edge the Marina to be considered worse, simply because, with its restyle, it looked like a more modern car to go toe-to-toe with the likes of the new FWD Escort and Astra, when in fact, lurking beneath, was a Morris Minor (but not quite as well made or well-balanced in its handling).
Then to top it all, they claimed it had been designed in Giorgetto Giugiaro's ItalDesign studios, and made great play of this in their advert. Years later it transpired that they'd basically asked Giugiaro for some advice on styling, ignored it, and somehow managed to licence the name to use on the car.
Tellingly really, because in 1980, when ItalDesign supposedly designed this:
So, promised to be an all-new, modern, Italian-designed replacement for a car with a pretty bad reputation. Turned out to still be the car with the pretty bad reputation, with added lies.
Good call....I agree, even worse than the Marina. A true joke car!Then to top it all, they claimed it had been designed in Giorgetto Giugiaro's ItalDesign studios, and made great play of this in their advert. Years later it transpired that they'd basically asked Giugiaro for some advice on styling, ignored it, and somehow managed to licence the name to use on the car.
Tellingly really, because in 1980, when ItalDesign supposedly designed this:
So, promised to be an all-new, modern, Italian-designed replacement for a car with a pretty bad reputation. Turned out to still be the car with the pretty bad reputation, with added lies.
The marina did have a little success in rallying, but with the 1300, I believe. A 1300 marina won the Cyprus rally overall one year, and it was with a similar car that a British crew scored the first stage win by a non-Scandinavian crew on Finland's 1000 Lakes Rally.
But there was no way the Marina could be described as modern. It was essentially a reshelled Morris Minor, using 1940's suspension and a 1950's engine.
I would defend the B series lump though. It was a tough, rugged and reliable unit which was able to be stretched from 1400cc to 1800 without blowing head gaskets every 5 mins. Indeed it takes being stretched to 2 litres+ for competition also. Hundreds of thousand of them were sold and they powered all sorts of vehicles throughout it's time.
It still is an engine to be reckoned with in competition. Here are the results of this years Spa Six Hours http://www.ris-timing.be/
An MGB finishes 13th overall, and I'm guessing that the Marcos 1800 in 15th is using an MGB engine. But look at the names that those cars finish amongst - look at the cars that finish behind 13th - that MGB has beaten all the Healey's and all the TRs and all but one 911. I gather that a 180bhp racing B series can be bought off the shelf. As we know, there's nothing exotic about an MGB so I reckon it's engine must be playing it's full part in the equation.
But there was no way the Marina could be described as modern. It was essentially a reshelled Morris Minor, using 1940's suspension and a 1950's engine.
I would defend the B series lump though. It was a tough, rugged and reliable unit which was able to be stretched from 1400cc to 1800 without blowing head gaskets every 5 mins. Indeed it takes being stretched to 2 litres+ for competition also. Hundreds of thousand of them were sold and they powered all sorts of vehicles throughout it's time.
It still is an engine to be reckoned with in competition. Here are the results of this years Spa Six Hours http://www.ris-timing.be/
An MGB finishes 13th overall, and I'm guessing that the Marcos 1800 in 15th is using an MGB engine. But look at the names that those cars finish amongst - look at the cars that finish behind 13th - that MGB has beaten all the Healey's and all the TRs and all but one 911. I gather that a 180bhp racing B series can be bought off the shelf. As we know, there's nothing exotic about an MGB so I reckon it's engine must be playing it's full part in the equation.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff