Under-appreciated Cars

[DGS49]

As an avid reader of car magazines, I usually have a Head's Up on most cars that are coming down the pike (the Challenger SRT Hellcat caught me by surprise), and over the years I have often thought that many manufacturers shoot themselves in the foot by introducing cars that do not have all of the disirable components on Day One, and they are rejected by the buying public even when they later come up to speed (so to speak).

Consider the lowly Fiero. A nice-looking, unique car that promised to be a cheap sports car and disappointed the buying public mightily with its Iron Duke POS 4. It wasn't until the last year of its existence that the suspension was upgraded and it could be properly optioned out (2.8L V6, stick shift), by which time it was THE CAR THAT GM HAD PROMISED SEVERAL YEARS EARLIER! But by that time they had decided to drop the car in favor of a new minivan. 1988 Fiero GT's remain a nice choice for an inexpensive "classic" sporty car.

The Chrysler Pacifica was one of the best progeny of the M-B/Chrysler shotgun wedding, but there was no reason to buy one until the 4L V6 came along in 2007, by which time the public had already concluded that it was an expensive, slow, vannish-looking sort of not-really-an-SUV. But with that V6 and the shiftable 6speed trans, and some of the other forward-looking options it had (backup camera, integral nav centered on driver's instruments) it was a good competitor to the Murano and other cars that were eating its lunch in the marketplace.

Even the much-maligned Cadillac Cimarron was a decent car in its last year of production, outfitted with proper tires, the 2.8L V6 and a 5-speed trans. It was a comfortable car with lots of goodies, and by the end it was a nice car to own. If it had had those options available from day 1, there would not have been so much whining about the shared chassis and appearance with the Chevy Cavalier.

The late 80's-ear;y 90's Chrysler LeBaron coupe (or convertible) could be a pretty nifty car when outfitted properly, but it was completely off the radar screen of most enthusiasts. The VNY Turbo coupes came with a Getrag 5-speed, lots of performance hardware, and a turbocharged 2.2 that had more than 220 ft-lps of torque - very powerful for that time. Much fun to drive - and drive hard.

From Dearborn, the Ford Contour was a hell of a car in its SVT formulation. Car & Driver called it the best handling front driver they had ever tested. (For some reason however, the HiPo V6's did not hold up). It was available at a very reasonable cost, and with a stick shift the dealers couldn't give them away.

As a Cheap Bastard, I have made it my life's hobby to buy some of these "sleepers" very cheaply, used, and enjoy the hell out of them.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Your taste in vehicles differs from my DSG but I appreciate your passion. The Fiero rode too rough for me but then again I thought the same thing about the corvette. For a smooth ride without sacrificing the sports car experience, I prefer the Celica GT. ( the older years ) Still, sports cars are not my cup of tea.

My preference is a four wheel drive that can climb the side of a mountain. That vehicle for me would be the Toyota Land Cruiser. My preference would be the 1997 40th Anniversary Edition. I do not like any of the new vehicles and would not own one. 97' was a great year for the Land Cruiser.

 

[Jarlaxle]

As an avid reader of car magazines, I usually have a Head's Up on most cars that are coming down the pike (the Challenger SRT Hellcat caught me by surprise), and over the years I have often thought that many manufacturers shoot themselves in the foot by introducing cars that do not have all of the disirable components on Day One, and they are rejected by the buying public even when they later come up to speed (so to speak).

Consider the lowly Fiero. A nice-looking, unique car that promised to be a cheap sports car and disappointed the buying public mightily with its Iron Duke POS 4. It wasn't until the last year of its existence that the suspension was upgraded and it could be properly optioned out (2.8L V6, stick shift), by which time it was THE CAR THAT GM HAD PROMISED SEVERAL YEARS EARLIER! But by that time they had decided to drop the car in favor of a new minivan. 1988 Fiero GT's remain a nice choice for an inexpensive "classic" sporty car.

Oh, by the gods...the Fiero was available with a V6 and standard shift at least as far back as 1986. It was killed in large part because the Corvette team was having a conniption.

The Chrysler Pacifica was one of the best progeny of the M-B/Chrysler shotgun wedding, but there was no reason to buy one until the 4L V6 came along in 2007, by which time the public had already concluded that it was an expensive, slow, vannish-looking sort of not-really-an-SUV. But with that V6 and the shiftable 6speed trans, and some of the other forward-looking options it had (backup camera, integral nav centered on driver's instruments) it was a good competitor to the Murano and other cars that were eating its lunch in the marketplace.

Even the much-maligned Cadillac Cimarron was a decent car in its last year of production, outfitted with proper tires, the 2.8L V6 and a 5-speed trans. It was a comfortable car with lots of goodies, and by the end it was a nice car to own. If it had had those options available from day 1, there would not have been so much whining about the shared chassis and appearance with the Chevy Cavalier.

The Cimarron was a Cavalier with tacky wheels and a whopping sticker price. There was NO reason to choose one over a Cavalier...none whatsoever! It was an AWFUL car, one of the worst ever sold in the country.

The late 80's-ear;y 90's Chrysler LeBaron coupe (or convertible) could be a pretty nifty car when outfitted properly, but it was completely off the radar screen of most enthusiasts. The VNY Turbo coupes came with a Getrag 5-speed, lots of performance hardware, and a turbocharged 2.2 that had more than 220 ft-lps of torque - very powerful for that time. Much fun to drive - and drive hard.

The VNT (available in all turbo 2.2's, including the Shadow, Lancer, and Daytona) was very expensive to build and had some durability problems.

From Dearborn, the Ford Contour was a hell of a car in its SVT formulation. Car & Driver called it the best handling front driver they had ever tested. (For some reason however, the HiPo V6's did not hold up). It was available at a very reasonable cost, and with a stick shift the dealers couldn't give them away.

Because it sucked. Tiny, cramped roller skate with a fullsize sticker. The fact you could frequently get a Taurus for about the same money as a V6 Contour certainly didn't help!

 

[DGS49]

To the contrarian who goes by the name of "jaraxle:"

The Fiero could be had with the V6 and stick earlier, but the fastback body style (the only one worth owning) didn't come out until '87, and the suspension wasn't upgraded until the last year, '88.

On the Cimarron you literally don't know what you are talking about. Sheet metal does not make a car. The suspension, interior, accessories, wheels & tires, soundproofing, and transmissions in the Cimarron were far better than the Chevy. It was quiet, comfortable, and powerful (for the day and class), and was no more problematic than other comparable cars. Certainly it was not worth the huge premium as a NEW car, but as with all of the cars I've mentioned, buying it used was a good choice - and I did so.

I bought a LeBaron coupe with the VNT/Getrag combination for $12,000 (the sticker was $19,500). Expensive to built? WGAS? Durability was not comparable to same-era V6's, but those were nothing to write home about anyway. I sold mine with 80,000 miles and the only engine work was a water pump, replaced under warranty at 49000 miles.

I can say with total confidence that you never drove a Contour SVT. Tiny? Compared to what? An F150? And anyone buying a Contour SVT would have no interest whatsoever in owning a Taurus. Nor would I.

 

[Jarlaxle]

To the contrarian who goes by the name of "jaraxle:"

The Fiero could be had with the V6 and stick earlier, but the fastback body style (the only one worth owning) didn't come out until '87, and the suspension wasn't upgraded until the last year, '88.

Stop moving the goalposts! You said NOT ONE WORD about the fastback body style! (Which was first made in 1986, not 1987.)

On the Cimarron you literally don't know what you are talking about. Sheet metal does not make a car. The suspension, interior, accessories, wheels & tires, soundproofing, and transmissions in the Cimarron were far better than the Chevy. It was quiet, comfortable, and powerful (for the day and class), and was no more problematic than other comparable cars. Certainly it was not worth the huge premium as a NEW car, but as with all of the cars I've mentioned, buying it used was a good choice - and I did so.

No, I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. A Cimarron is a J-body. Like a Cavalier, it rode like an oxcart, handled like a truck, had weak reliability (especially the Cimarron's extra tacked-on electronic crap), and was very obviously a rebadged Crapalier (for twice the price). With the base 4-banger and automatic, the car was diesel-Rabbit slow.

I bought a LeBaron coupe with the VNT/Getrag combination for $12,000 (the sticker was $19,500). Expensive to built? WGAS? Durability was not comparable to same-era V6's, but those were nothing to write home about anyway. I sold mine with 80,000 miles and the only engine work was a water pump, replaced under warranty at 49000 miles.

The movable turbo vanes tended to stick and fail...this could lead to overboosting and (catastrophic) engine failure. 80,000 miles is nothing...and 49K on a water pump is dreadful! The 3.0 was much more reliable. (I have seen many over 300K in taxi service!)

I can say with total confidence that you never drove a Contour SVT. Tiny? Compared to what? An F150? And anyone buying a Contour SVT would have no interest whatsoever in owning a Taurus. Nor would I.

And you are (as usual) WRONG! I drove a V6/5-speed Contour I think was an SVT...handled pretty well...ride was stiff and jiggly, power was...OK. Interior was incredibly cramped, headroom was dismal, rear seat was uninhabitable for anyone over 4'8" tall.

 

[pismoe]

I don't know enough about cars but I do remember the FIERO and I met a guy recently that drives a Fiero all the time and its a nice car , kinda restored or at least well taken care of . --- LAND CRUISERS , I like the earliest from middle 70s I think when they still looked [to me] like a heavy duty , utilitarian jeep / truck .

 

[Missourian]

Dodge had the Polara.

Plymouth had the Duster (first iteration).

Ford had the Probe.

Buick Riviera and Skylark (late 60-1977).

Olds 442 and the Toranado.

The list goes on and on.

 

[pismoe]

442 and the Toranado , both late 60 early 70s I think . I liked the 442 but the Toranado was a rich guys [old mans] car I think . I liked MOPAR the best from the Roadrunner up through the Charger . just a comment

 

[Missourian]

442 and the Toranado , both late 60 early 70s I think . I liked the 442 but the Toranado was a rich guys [old mans] car I think . I liked MOPAR the best from the Roadrunner up through the Charger . just a comment

 

[Missourian]

 

[Missourian]

 

[Missourian]

 

[pismoe]

nice vids , thanks Missourian !!

 

[Missourian]

nice vids , thanks Missourian !!

My pleasure...sweet rides huh.

Thought of a couple more.

Late 60s early 70s Ford LTD and Dodge Monaco.

 

[Politico]

The Dodge Daytona. The Chevy X-11

 

[shart_attack]

The '86 Pontiac Fiero.

Thing would take curves en route to a Judas Priest concert like nobody's business.

 

[Toronado3800]

I beleive the late 80's Toronado's with thr CRT touch screen are under appreciated. They handled decent and the 3800 moved well at low rpms. I drove an 89 Trofeo between its 94,000th mile and 275,000th mile so I got pretty familiar with it.

 

[chikenwing]

I don't know enough about cars but I do remember the FIERO and I met a guy recently that drives a Fiero all the time and its a nice car , kinda restored or at least well taken care of . --- LAND CRUISERS , I like the earliest from middle 70s I think when they still looked [to me] like a heavy duty , utilitarian jeep / truck .

I have owned several Fieros currently have an 88 waiting for the SC3800 to get finished and installed,they got a bad rape right out of the box,with a few fires with the 4 ,they should have stuck with the car,look at what the miata success.

 

[jwoodie]

Nice OP and most comments. GM has a history of bringing cars to market too quickly and then fixing them later. As result, a lot of ultimately good cars were doomed because of the bad reputations of their early models.

 

[DGS49]

GM was the worst offender, but not the only one. In the 70's and beyond the company was run by bean counters, not car guys.