Random Thoughts... [Automotive Edition]
- Thread starter CrzRsn
- Start date
CAPT_Howdy
Forum Addict
The funny thing is, that was the optional engine.
The base engine was a 3.3 litre I6 with 76hp.
The base engine was a 3.3 litre I6 with 76hp.
argatoga
Can't Start His Wank
I'm guessing emissions. If that is a gear timed engine the engine is unkillable.
Leadfoot866
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,429
- Location
- Southwestern PA
- Car(s)
- '12 Ford Focus hatch, '06 Nissan Sentra sedan
What the...? Was the optional engine honestly WORSE than the base engine??
How does that work?!?
CAPT_Howdy
Forum Addict
In some ways that is a huge achievement, I wasn't aware it was possible to get such low power out of an engine that large...
I imagine the power to weight ratio would actually make me cry. :lol:
47.1 lbs per hp. 0-60 in 22.8 seconds. (Felt more like 25 seconds, though.)
The 4.1 had less power, but more torque - 180 lb-ft compared to the 145 of the 3.3L engine.
IceBone
Blue Wheel Hipster
I doubt those torque figures if it took 23 seconds to get from 0-60.
CAPT_Howdy
Forum Addict
It's a car that weighs just under 3400 lbs with a 3 speed automatic transmission that has a final drive ratio of 2.79:1. It was never geared for acceleration.
IceBone
Blue Wheel Hipster
What WAS it geared for?
CAPT_Howdy
Forum Addict
Like everything else in the mid Seventies, it was geared for fuel economy. The OPEC oil embargo was just 2 years ago and the quickest way to increase gas mileage in your cars is to give them very tall gearing. And it worked - the car got up to 20 mpg on the highway!
Dr_Grip
Made from concentrate
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 15,207
- Location
- HEL
- Car(s)
- 79 Opel Kadett|72 Ford Country Sedan|03 Volvo XC70
The way I read it the American carmakers deliberately made shit cars for a few years because they hoped they could bully Washington into relaxing environmental requirements again before they finally started to actually make an effort to produce good cars with decent economy.
Aston Martin
Proudly supports terrible french cars
first car?
1992 Toyota Corolla Touring 4WD, with welded rear diff, nothing stopped it ...... well I say nothing, rust was its main flaw.
So i just scrapped it.
Now im looking for a 4x4, alot of my coworkers go regularly on trips, cant wait to go with them.
1992 Toyota Corolla Touring 4WD, with welded rear diff, nothing stopped it ...... well I say nothing, rust was its main flaw.
So i just scrapped it.
Now im looking for a 4x4, alot of my coworkers go regularly on trips, cant wait to go with them.
CAPT_Howdy
Forum Addict
They may have tried that at first, but when companies that were already making fuel efficient cars like Volkswagen, Toyota and Honda (And, to a lesser extent, AMC) started cutting into their sales, they had to respond. Which is why Chevrolet got the Chevette in 1976, Ford the Fiesta in 1977, and Chrysler the Omni/Horizon in 1978.
rickhamilton620
has a fetish for terrible cars
o
I'd love a Chevette Diesel, or one of the last Omni's
I'd love a Chevette Diesel, or one of the last Omni's
captain_70s
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,532
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
- Car(s)
- Three Triumphs and a Volvo estate
Bearing in mind the car I have in mind for myself is from the same era, gets a STAGGERING 91bhp from a 1850cc in-line 4 and manages 35mpg that doesn't impress me! :lol:
Although it be fair it only weighs 2200lb or so and torque is much lower at 100lb/ft or something like that.
rickhamilton620 said:
areyoufuckingkiddingme.jpg
CAPT_Howdy
Forum Addict
This is the only Omni I would consider:
Dodge Omni GLH Turbo.
And a Chevette Diesel? Rick, I've indulged this thing of yours about liking crap cars, but enough is enough. You need help, man.
And Captain, your cars from that era didn't have catalytic converters - ours did.
TC
aka TomCat
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 11,432
Personally, I think it was just a different style of cars that were being produced. Like nowadays, trying to compare Toyota with Aston Martin on fuel economy standards. It doesn't work. Aston builds high end super-luxury-performance cars with big engines and lots of power. They don't get good fuel economy, but they're held to the same standard as Toyota, so they're forced to rebadge Toyota iQ's as Astons just to get past those regulations. American cars back in the day were the same way. They built almost entirely big huge cars with massive engines, not tiny little 4pot tin cans. When the regulations changed, the American companies were hit much harder than others, since they never focused on small efficient cars to begin with.
Last edited:
NooDle
Ik ben niet alleen lekker met kaas!
The up! GT matches those two criteria, but isn't in production yetmaybe they'll even make a GTI
funnily enough the new Up! (and the Skoda and Seat sister cars) have sparked my interest from the first demo cars...
Sad they dropped the Rear Engine RWD layout, but it was for the best probably
All they need now is a GTI version or even better, a GTD one (for me and my diesel fetish)... one can only hope
Mybrainisfulloffuck.jpg
*notices the user name*
Oh, that makes sense actually.
rickhamilton620
has a fetish for terrible cars
Whhaattt?! I wanted to see how crap they are for myself!
I even have a book on crap cars:
http://img847.imageshack.**/img847/9020/111211171531.jpg
It has a section on the Chevette:
http://img197.imageshack.**/img197/4365/111211171517.jpg
Apparently the Diesel had a 51 horsepower Isuzu engine. About 19-20 seconds 0 to 60 the book said.
They also covered the omni as well.
EDIT: Sorry for the sullen look in the pictures, I was trying to angle the book right to eliminate glare and was concentrating hard. :lol:
Last edited: