#1: 1986 Ford Tempo Diesel – 48.5 lbs/hp
2522 lbs; 52 hp
Technically, this is the winner. But how many Tempos diesels were sold? A few dozen? A couple of hundred, maybe? It wins on its stats, but the 1975 Granada, which was built by the hundreds of thousands and has a gasoline engine, is still the winner in my book.
Obviously, I didn’t get into all the imports, for a number of reasons. One was just the sheer number. And there’s the fact that for the most part, their power to weight ratios didn’t drop as much during the Malaise Era as American cars did. But I decided to check a few random ones to see how they would compare:
1981 Peugeot 504 diesel wagon: 3410 lbs; 71 hp = 48 lbs/hp. Right up there with the Tempo diesel.
1974 Mercedes 240D: 3080 lbs; 62 hp = 49.7 lbs/hp. A winner!
I’m hard pressed to think of two imports during this era with a less favorable power-to-weight ratio, but perhaps you can. And if you can find other American cars with better stats, let’s see them and get this updated.
Pages: 1 2
I have a Mercedes 200D from 1970 with 55HP. That car would have 54.4lbs/HP but it was not imported to the US. But I think the 220D was imported which had 60HP and that would have 49.9lbs/HP.
Heres the picture. The weight is 1360kg or 2995lbs. 0-60mph in 31 seconds (manual transmission). With automatic it would be 37 seconds.
In the early 80’s I was working in Montreal and one weekend we decided to go to Vermont. My brother-in-law offered us the use his Mercedes, but unfortunately it was a 300D (definitely non-turbo). There is a reason it is called the Green Mountain State. We had a great weekend, but that car was so slow. It had cruise control but every time we hit a slight hill it could not keep the speed up, so it clicked off. The final blow was getting passed by a Lada when we were going up a hill. Not a car for a hilly country.
I had a ’74 Datsun 710 (Automatic) in Shelburne (’76-’80). I think the automatic sapped a lot of power back then, the specs on the 1.7 liter 4 aren’t too bad, but it wasn’t anything to write home about. The only time it seemed “too” peppy was in slippery weather at a stoplight before it warmed up, it would “crab” and change directions unless you put it into neutral (once it warmed up it was fine). I had the alternator go out and until I got it fixed, it seemed like a huge boost of power was added to the engine (of course couldn’t keep it that way). My Dad had a ’59 Beetle when we lived up in Burlington about 1967-1968, but it of course had the standard. I’ve had VWs ever since leaving Vermont (40 years now) and each has been a standard, even though automatics have gotten better, I think the standard makes a given engine feel a bit peppier. Most of our driving was in the valley, so lack of power wasn’t such a big deal, and of course with slippery traction you can have too much power for conditions.
My Mother had a ’88 Tempo automatic for many years, she let me borrow it when my car was down for servicing, and I often thought of it being low on power..but I never drove the diesel version. I’m really kind of a grandpa driver, not one to drive too fast (have only gotten speeding ticket in Europe, and one of them was really an “decelleration” ticket where I didn’t slow down fast enough for quickly changing speed zone. I got stopped twice in one day, and my Father who was with us on the trip really got angry with me, but it isn’t typical for me to speed, I’m usually the one that everyone is passing.
Yeah, and Like the W123 and W124 200D’S, they are called “Wanderdüne”, the “Barchan Dunes”
I drove that Granada! In high-school Driver’s Ed. With the instructor and two or three other students. Yes, it was sloooowww.
Let’s train teenagers to floor it!
What could go wrong?
Saw the ’50 mph’ for taking the exit ramp right, did not see the ’30 mph’ for the curve on the outside of the trumpet. (old 158 & I-94 in Kenosha. It was an odd trumpet, with the frontage road merging, and the curve ’30 mph’ warning was kinda far off to the side.) Took the turn at 50 mph. Instructor didn’t even flinch, didn’t say a word.
Funny there was a Pacer post here too. The other driver’s ed crew got to drive a Pacer.
The Ford 250 *did* make more torque, probably at lower rpm, so *should* make the cars pull with slightly more alacrity in lower speed driving conditions… in theory. Still hard to figure out how it managed to make at least 30 less horsepower than other American sixes of similar displacement.
Sort of reminds me of a friend’s 1974 Ford pickup, which had a 390 with 2bbl and 2in single exhaust… which was good at rapidly turning gasoline into heat and noise, while producing very little forward progress. It was quite a departure from the FE’s of just five years earlier.
It’s not too difficult to figure out if you look at them. The Falcon six had a super restrictive log intake that was cast onto the cylinder head. Coupled with a one barrel carb and cast log exhaust manifold, these engines simply couldn’t breathe.
The Falcon six’s output was quite adequate and competitive until Ford bungled the emission control systems. That’s where the problem was.
I had a ’70 Mustang with a 250 automatic. It was rated at 120 hp @4,400 rpm and most impressively, 190 ft. torque at only 2,400 rpm. I couldn’t complain about performance because it would go over 90 mph. But I couldn’t get over 15.5 mpg. on the freeway at 60mph.
Ford OZ used those engines for years I dint know the hp/torque ratings but they got along ok and would tow well untill the transmission failed, I owned several, good cars they dont handle all that well but as cheap wheels they did a fine job.No emission equipment as such in OZ/NZ though that helped
I couldn’t find a reference that listed torque for 1975, but I did for 1976. Ford bumped the power up a bit for 76. The 200 made 81hp/151lbft, The 250 made 87hp/190lbft. Assuming the 75 had similar proportional torque, that is enough of a difference to be able to be felt. So maybe there was some value in the optional engine.
I owned a 1982 Mustang with the 3.3 litre 6 cylinder. Plenty of room, under the hood to work on it. Not, an engine to rev above 4000 rpm. No point.
I would love it if somehow a fuel efficiency rating could be factored somewhere into the equation. This would probably remove the diesels from the picture and produce a pure picture of vast, inefficient and underpowered vehicles?
My most underpowered car was a Volvo 343, with (according to Wikipedia) 70hp for 2407lbs, leading to a weight to power ratio of 34. That was an appalling sluggish lump of pig iron masquerading as a car, so in comparison the numbers in this article are terrifying. How would you even keep up with traffic?
Just thinking about it – one aspect of that Volvo that made it so slow was the DAF CVT transmission. Maybe a further refinement of the malaise equation would include the horses disappearing into the slushbox behind the engine?
The 1982 48hp diesel VW Vanagon trounces this entire list.
3,287 lbs for the NON-camper version, which gets you 68.48lbs/hp
The Westfalia version would get an even worse rating.
Ah, beat me to it. My first thoughts also went to a diesel Westfalia.
Good one! My parents had a succession of Bay window Westfalias. They had more horsepower than the diesel Vanagons, but still amazingly slow. I imagine the diesels had a torque advantage, so maybe a wash off the line. Love to see that drag race!
I imagine the diesels had a torque advantage
You imagine incorrectly, as gas engines intrinsically make more torque than non-turbo diesel engines:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-tech-why-gasoline-engines-intrinsically-make-more-torque-and-power-than-diesel-engines/
I’m not absolutely positive, but I think the Vanagons came with the 1588 cc diesel, with a whole four (count ’em) extra screaming horses.
I want that Tempo Diesel. Bad. It’s quite the looker. Engine was Mazda if I’m not mistaken.
After driving a 190 D 2.0 I have a real soft spot for underpowered Diesel cars. Every drive turns into an exercise in meditation.
Although the Tempo diesel technically wins (loses?), I wonder about the torque firgues. Horsepower in a diesel is always low compared to gas counterparts, but the torque is where they come into their own.
So, in that context, the low-po Malaise Granada trumps the Tempo.
Makes me wonder if we need a separate list for lowest torque per pound of vehicle, just for kicks.
Horsepower in a diesel is always low compared to gas counterparts, but the torque is where they come into their own.
You’ve forgotten this important CC lesson:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-tech-why-gasoline-engines-intrinsically-make-more-torque-and-power-than-diesel-engines/
Yes-Mazda 2.0 “RF” diesel, about 60HP. I owned a 1984 Escort L diesel…it never seemed underpowered in any way. The contrary: it willingly pulled highway hills that challenged most economy cars and would happily hold 70-75MPH. Mileage was superb, high 40s to 50MPG.
Very weird car, though…it used a 1000 amp truck battery (group 31) mounted under the hatch, had 2 oil filters, and an electric vacuum pump for the brake booster.
I had a 1990 Toyota Corona wagon with 2C NA diesel it was definitely gutless the top speed was around 120kmh but I could load the back with bin boards for firewood untill the towbar was almost on the ground hook my trailer also laden and make it home at about 60kmh, empty it could stay with traffic until the torque converter locked at 70kmh then any semblance of acceleration was over, handling on what was left of its JDM suspension was zero but for utility it was awesome, a log back axle and cart springs meant it was meant for work and I found the model number in Toyotas commercial section not the passenger car list, awesome cars and not many left here.
Those were excellent, 2 liter Mazda diesels. Nearly bought one in an Escort Wagon. 52 mpgs also!
A friend of mine had a ’68 Charger with the slant-6 in it. I remember driving it one time and trying to merge onto the Vegas freeway at 5pm. I thought my friend’s Nova was slow, but that Charger was just scary slow. Horns honking and people flipping us the bird was just the beginning, A semi riding my ass the whole time we were on I-15 was what made me decide to never drive it again. I did have to take him to the ER later on in it, and I don’t know how, but it seemed even slower than it did a few months before.
Sounds like it wasn’t running right…there were three slant six Chryslers in my family (a 1972 Satellite, two Plymouth Furys) and while not at all fast, none had any trouble keeping up with traffic, including the loaded Fury III with the A/C on.
FYI: that Charger is rarer than the same car with a Hemi…less than 1,000 built!
I always assumed that 30 pounds per hp was an unofficial limit since many of the bigger cars with the pre smog-era 6s got about that. I’m surprised that some of these models were even street legal.
Though my ’63 beetle with the 34 horsepower sewing machine in the trunk was about 47 pounds per horse. It never occurred to me that I could have raced a mid 70s Buick.
I regularly drove a 25hp beetle while at highschool it was tragically slow 0-60 needed a downhill run and a good hourglass the eggbeater in the back was tired I think but I could outdrive the headlights at town speeds the pair of glow-worms in the front fenders were pathetic so its probably a good thing performance was strangled
RE: the Maverick. 4.1 Litres pushing out 72 HP. What would a modern 4 litre gas engine produce today? Easily 250 HP? What were they building in the 1970s, 1940s technology?
Just wow.
Wasn’t the theory that American automakers deliberately made their base engines super crappy so buyers would shell out the extra money for the better trade up engine? No idea if that’s actually true but sure seems like it.
CAFE played a big roll in the existence of many of the cars on this list. The manufacturers wanted to sell as many cars with the engines that had the best EPA fuel consumption numbers as they could. If there was a time when they wanted people to upgrade to more powerful engines, it would have been previous to the late ’70s. Early reports on the FWD X-cars noted that GM was following their late ’70s police of pricing engine upgrades “off scale” in order to encourage people to take the four cylinder instead of the six cylinder option. “Off scale” meant that the option price was well over a price determined based on the GM’s costs or marginal cost curves to maximize profits by selling more cars with the desirable engine options.
If there was a time when base engines might have been intentionally feeble to encourage upgrading by buyers, it would have been prior to the energy shocks. The problem with that theory is that usually the first step up from the base engine wasn’t expensive at all. Even big V8s with two-barrel carburetors and hydraulic lifters usually were pretty cheap compared to something like an AM radio with two speakers.
I always assumed it was so that dealers could advertise a cheap car to lure people in, and then be able to upsell them to something else without too much trouble because few would actually want to buy that slug of a vehicle once they realize how slow it is.
Of course, there’s also the market where the purchaser isn’t the same as the person who has to drive it – fleet sales.
Good guess, Moparlee. The 250’s ultimate ‘descendent’, the Aussie Barra, made 266 without a turbo. By that time though, I think it probably had little in common with the 250 except the bore centres! Still…..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Barra_engine
Barra with turbo is amazing the sky is the limit putting the power to the ground is the only issue, you simply cant and if it rain get the bus.
The three litre V-6 in 2003 generation Honda Accords makes 244 hp. A modern four litre would make 350 hp or more. However, it’s all turbos now.
These are some impressively low numbers.
My friend had a ’76 Mercury Monarch with a straight six. While it was slow, I don’t remember it being super awful. I think we once got it up to around 85 mph on the freeway.
I think his ’86 S-10 with the 2.5L 4 cylinder Iron Duke was worse. That one would hold up traffic merging onto the freeway and couldn’t keep up with traffic in below zero weather until it was fully warmed up. At least it had a 5 speed; I can’t imagine what it would have been like with an automatic.
I wonder how many of these got the taller gearing most of their more powerful brethren had after 1973. IRL, they may not have gotten much better mileage since they had to be flogged.
It’s hard to tell by looking at the brochures (and it’s really outside the scope of this post, which is about passenger cars) but it seems like all of the Big 3 sold 1-ton pickups with straight/Slant sixes during the Malaise Era.
And again, the brochures aren’t clear, but if it was possible to build a 1-ton, 6-cylinder truck with an extended/crew cab and 4WD, you’d start go get some really high lb/hp numbers, I would think.
3/4 and 1 ton trucks had more lenient emission control systems, so their sixes were not nearly as badly strangled.
As to the availability of sixes in 3/4 and 1 ton trucks, I don’t have time to look it up, but it was declining during this period.
Not just 1-tons…medium duties! You could get an F-600 or C-600 with a 300 six, or a Chevy C-50 with a 292! I took my class B CDL road test in a Ford L8000 with a 370…probably about 180-200hp.
And now zero to 60 in 9 seconds is said to be slow in most auto reviews that I watch on line.
We own two mid sized SUVs both 175 hp 4 cyl non turbo engines that achieve that number weighing in at 3600 pounds. They average 32 mpg on HWY. A pleasure to drive daily.
The Fiat 126 in the previous post was 1280 lbs 23 bhp, 55.65 lb/hp. Although I’m not sure if US horse power were the same as European ones.
In 1978 the new Citroen Visa Special was 1620 lbs and 36 bhp 45 lb/hp, the last German made Beetle 1900 lbs and 34 bhp 43.18 lb/hp.
I’m surprised that my painfully slow Citroën 2CV6 was 37.33 lb/hp, it was slower than the Mini 850 at 41.21 lb/hp, but the Mini had a smaller frontal area and more torque, so more sensible gearing.
I also have a 2CV6, so I also did the calculation. There seems to be a bit of variation in the curb weight stats, but I have a book (Schiffer Citroen 2CV) that gives stats for various models and it shows 560 kg (1235 lbs) for 2CV after 1970. With 29 hp that gives 42.6 lb/hp. In any case it is remarkably slow.
Many apologies, I was using a Citroën English language brochure from when the 2CV was reintroduced to the UK in 1974. It gives weight of 1232 lbs and 33 bhp SAE at 7000 rpm.
I think the power quoted had been inflated in translation.
A French language Citroën brochure gives 560 kg and 26 ch DIN @ 5500 tr/mn.
Which is an even worse 47.5 lb/hp.
A 1978 English brochure shows 1235 lb and 26 bhp, with 1323 lb and 32 bhp for the Dyane weekend.
As the Ami and Dyane got a twin barrel carburettor they were rated as more powerful but I don’t remember my Dyane being any less slow than my 2CV.
As the saying goes ‘Built for comfort not speed’.
I’m actually surprised to see the Pinto on that list. Just a few years earlier (before the 2 liter OHC) the cross flow Kent was considered quite a motor. But 54 HP? Obviously far better HP/liter than a 72 hp 250 six, but still that’s sad. At least it got great gas mileage in return, right? 45 mpg like a Honda Civic, which in 1500 CVCC form had 53 HP? Yeah right …
The small, pre-emissions Pinto engines weren’t all that bad. Some reviews even thought they were enjoyable.
Like all of the engines/cars on the list, the Malaise-era, post Oil Crisis cars were bad. It just depends on which ones were the worst.
The 1971-1973 Pintos came standard with the old pushrod 1.6 and the new OHC 2.0 was optional. Having had a fair amount of seat time in both versions (1971 MY) the difference was quite substantial. The 1.6 with the 4 speed was just barely adequate if flogged; the 2.0 with the four speed was quite lively, and genuinely fun to drive. There was a big difference between the two.
I guess Henry Ford II and Edward Lundy refused to allow Ford to invest in its inline sixes in the 70’s to get power and efficiency at the same levels as GM or to manufacture the 2.8L V6 in the U.S. The Essex V6 of the 80’s and 90’s had head gasket problems, I believe. I don’t think Ford had a competitive six cylinder engine for cars until the Duratec in the 90’s. I would not have wanted a Ford in the 70’s and 80’s that did not have at least the 302.
It was all about the emission control systems. Ford really bungled them for a few years. The output of the sixes improved some after 1975.
I read slowly through this one, fearing my beloved ’75 Granada would be #1, and so was relieved to find it at #2—even if, yeah, the Tempo diesel hardly existed.
I don’t remember my 250 Granada as especially slow on on-ramps, nor one I hesitated to pass with on the Interstates. Lots of cross-country cruises in mine in the early 1980s, and western-state cruising all day at 85mph.
But, the stats are the stats. I see Popular Mechanics’ Granada/Monarch owners wanted more oomph from the Six, and were disappointed with gas mileage, but we owners did get some quiet comfort—article says car had 90 pounds of sound deadeners applied, “more than the Thunderbird.”
Thanks for revisiting this one, Paul—-it was an autommotive era all its own.
So that 90 pounds of sound insulation added 1.25 pounds per horsepower. Perhaps another question would be about what cars had the most sound insulation per horsepower. The ’75 Granada could likely be competitive in that, also!
Thanks for a fun way to bring that statistic into the equation, Jason. The PM article confirms that Ford’s decision to keep Maverick around a while longer prompted them to “upmarket” Granada a bit, and I do remember mine as feeling notably plusher (i.e., quieter) than a relative’s Maverick did. Next thing you know, you’re going to have me scouring Hemmings for a survivor Granada!
Jason, I got curious about weight comparisons, and realized that even a Fairmont *wagon* is barely 2900 pounds—way less than the Gran Torino, the Granada sedan, or even the Maverick 4-door. Funny, I wouldn’t have guessed…
I had 2 slow malaise cars; my parents 82 chevy cavalier 1.8 4spd. and my grandparents (then mine) 82 chrysler newport slant six torqueflite. You could simply stand on the throttle in that newport and it would gradually, smoothly, hit 65 on level ground. Other than a hill i dont think it would break into the 70s. The cavalier was not quite as bad, but after about 70 it would barely accelerate. Probably topped out less than 80. Both durable reliable cars, but oh so slow.
I guess they thought that technically 65 was illegal, so top speed was irrelevant. From what I’ve read, many customers would have disagreed.
One aspect of the Malaise-era cars that always gets me, though. How many would-be customers simply decided to just sit the season out and see what next year would bring? If your old car was better than the new one, why buy? Especially given the interest rates.
I lived in Colorado during this time and I clearly remember how awful so many cars were trying to climb over the Rockies. Thank god for manual transmissions, or some of these cars would have been impossible to reach the Eisenhower tunnel on I-70.
Worst car I regularly drove was the VW bus. Even with a manual, I was always leading a long line of honking cars behind me and pulling off to let them pass in utter embarrassment. Worse was when I caught a head of steam on a decline, but had to brake for another VW bus that was struggling. Those vehicles were awful and I used to refuse to take them if there was another vehicle available.
The 1970s were awful. Ugly cars, ugly colors, ugly engines – there was a reason Detroit lost its world title during this time.
At least you could buy that ugly, poor-performing car in colour.
Today’s cars have a whole new dimension of ugly, incredible performance (to those of us who remember the Malaise era), but lack colour. Greyscale cars for greyscale lives?
It’s odd that they were so slow to add a fourth gear to most trans, then this century it went from 4 to 6 to 10 in no time, but after high power had returned and the marginal utility was small. Now it’s just bragging rights. I guess in the 70’s, they were too busy and financially stretched with emissions and downsizing.
Good use of the multi page feature! Somehow it’s fun to look at such amazing malaise!
I’m still partial to the V6 LeSabre. Good looking car with astounding what-in-the-world-were-they-thinking power.
I wonder how severely these numbers might worsen if the engines were rated using the present-day, more realistic horsepower rating system.
These are all post-1972 net hp ratings.
I know, and those numbers were somewhat less unrealistic than the previous gross ratings, but I meant what if they were rated under the somewhat-additionally-less-unrealistic 2005 SAE “certified” (J2723) protocol.
It appears that the older J1349 protocol had only quite limited variables that could possibly be tweaked, resulting in maybe 2-3 hp difference for a healthy V8 engine. So for these feeble sixes and fours, maybe one, possibly two hp. Not enough to make a meaningful difference.
The main thing that comes to my mind is what I think is (or was) the relatively high octane rating of the standardised indolene fuel that was used for emissions and fuel economy type-approval tests and, if I’m not mistaken, engine power rating tests. Columnists like Smokey Yunick repeatedly groused along the lines of “I can’t figure out why they’re allowed to build cars we don’t have the fuel for” when people would write in complaining about awful driveability and incurable spark knock. Certainly a standardised test fuel is absolutely necessary, but it’s easy for me to imagine plenty of engines running relatively well and efficiently on 93-AKI indolene versus with the retarded timing that would be necessary to avoid ping on 87-AKI pump gas.
I have driven some close to these, but none of these top ten champions.
The closest I came was a decent amount of time in a 77 LeSabre with the V6 – which I calculate at the sprightly (for today) figure of 34 lbs/hp. I also remember a 76 Mustang II, probably 2.3/auto that I recall as being one of the slowest things I had ever driven to that time, but it was far better than any of these.
Yes, Ford often lagged in output/displacement anyway, and the early emission control era hit them particularly hard.
I bought a used ’71 Pinto HB with the 1.6L and 4 speed. Once I put some decent radials on it I found the lil car to be quite adequate for the time, even running LA freeways!
OTOH the nu ’76 CHUVette I made the mistake of buying with its “modern” SOHC 1.6L 4 and 4 spd……..complete POS! Live and learn; the CHUVette was the WOR$T car I’ve ever owned. Slow, unreliable and less mpg than the pushrod Pinto! I definitely regretted trading my Pinto for the Chevy. 🙁 DFO
I would like to add the 1973 Super Beetle Semi-Automatic that I owned in 1985 to the list.
According to this website (about half way down the page
https://blog.consumerguide.com/10-slowest-cars-1973/
Curb weight 1938 lbs
45 Horsepower
That gives (if I did the math right) 43.06 pounds per horsepower.
I can’t imagine the 0-60 time. All I know is that I was once beaten away from a stoplight on a slight uphill grade by a big yellow school bus full of jeering children. I had the car tuned up after that including adjusting the infamous left side front valve and changing the plugs, but I still avoiding school buses after that.
My Mothe had one of those. Her brother’s Fury III was faster, hauling its 4500lbs with a mighty…slant six.
What were the specific mechanical changes in early 70s that reduced the power of engines? I recall that smog issues came first followed by the gas crunch, so by the mid 70s automakers were facing dual (and, if I recall, competing) objectives to reduce emissions and increase fuel efficiency. So, were the smog controls the main culprits?
So, were the smog controls the main culprits?
Yes; the only culprits, actually. In fact, the early primitive smog controls almost invariably made the engines less efficient. Spark advance was substantially reduced to improve NoX emissions, among other things.
Ford “smog controls” were laughably simple. The retarded spark was controlled by a little box driven by the speedo cable. When it reached a certain speed, it allowed vacuum advance. All you had to do is reroute the vacuum line to bypass it. The EGR valve was just a matter of taking off the line and plugging it.
It was easy to richen the mixture and do a plug reading until you get it right.
Doing this made your Ford run waaaay better.
EGR doesn’t cost any power unless it’s not working correctly…it is 100% inoperative at WOT.
As crudely implemented in the ’70s and into the ’80s, EGR reduces part-throttle output and worsens driveability.
(nobody drives at WOT anywhere near all the time)
Without the EGR, you might need to either run 93 octane gas to prevent part-throttle pinging, or pull timing way back.
One of my grandmother’s friends drove her ’60 Chevy by keeping the throttle open and using the clutch to regulate speed. After several clutches, they put in a truck’s. She was from Vermont, so maybe that had been necessary in the mountains. Her family sent her to NC in the 20’s because they feared she wouldn’t survive another winter. She died at 108 in 1992.
Paul’s right, and what counts as a “smog control” is more than just the crude, cheap de-tuning (retarded timing, ragged-edge-of-too-lean fuel-air mix, strangulation-spec undersized carburetors) and the big pile of hang-on-and-pray devices added to enable that de-tuning—many of which worked only just barely, and only just long enough to squeak through the new-vehicle emissions type-approval tests, then doomed the vehicle’s buyer to a car that couldn’t be (or stay) fixed.
Also included in the “smog control” category are internal engine modifications: lower compression, meeker camshafts, retarded cam timing. All of these take a giant bite out of engine performance and efficiency, but they also lower emissions.
Ford products were just like that. 78 ltd landau got 9 to 11 mpg with 460. removal of spark control. cats. corrected valve timing. no egr and timing bump got it up to 14 to 18 mpg and way more power
slowest cars i ever drove. 4100 cadillac fleetwood brougham and a 4 cyl beretta. i drove a 76 granada with 250 engine and it was not that bad though very uneconomical. like worse than ltd 460 economy.
Daniel is correct. many smog era V8 motors had different heads, intake manifolds, cams, distributor advance curves, and of course carbs. If you bought one of these from the wrecker for a swap, it was probably not worth the effort to try to hop it up.
A surprising number of late 70s engines actually got good heads. The Mopar 360 head wasn’t BAD. The 400/440 452 castings were actually excellent. The 74-8 Poncho D-ports were as good as anything not a Ram Air.
Raced Lemons against a diesel Chevette, he claimed it was rated at 28 HP. Turns out it was actually rated at 51 HP but in a 2035 # car that’s 39.9.
The Chevette’s Isuzu diesel was rated at 65 hp.
No way! Really! The 1.6 liter gas was 60hp, if my memory is good. The base 1.4 had 52, I think–and it was offered with optional auto!!!!
I forgot about that…
I was going to say a Granada with the 200 six was slowest…
240D slow too, but they had (and have even more now) class
There was a diesel AWD Tempo in my neighborhood. Never had the chance to talk to the owner to get his opinion on the car.
Some of the powerless units I drove, 71 Pinto sedan 2.0L 4 speed, 73 Pinto wagon 2.0L 4 speed, 80 Chevette 1.6L 3 speed automatic with A/C, 88 Tempo 2.3L 3 speed auto.
Lowered compression ratios were a big factor in horsepower drop and fuel economy drop.
EGR, retarded cam timing and the first catalytic convertors were a bit of a restriction in the exhaust.
The main thing with driving the gutless cars was traffic awareness. If you were going to pass someone you had to plan it, run up on the car in front of you and slingshot around him. The other thing was you needed to FLOOR it. I ran into to many people that drove their car like grandma with a 396 Impala. They were usually in high gear about the time I shifted into second. The pinging from them lugging the engine was nerve racking to listen to. Lack of rpm and lack of gears didn’t help either.
Having a auto trans behind any of those would reduce performance anyway but most of them make my four cylinder turbo diesel hatcback look like a rocket ship it isnt but it has adequate performance in the real world its driven in,
We had a 1980 or so Chrysler Newport in driver’s ed. That’s probably the most lethargic car I’ve ever driven.
Ever the closet rebel, I would gradually accelerate harder and harder–I finally floored it (inconspicuously of course–no TROMPING) and….it was sloooowww…, made my family cars feel …quick (FYI, Fairmont 4 cyl, 4sp and especially the Ventura (aka Nova) 260 110hp Olds V8).
That car may well be the slowest vehicle I’ve ever driven. Other malaise mobiles I drove a Horizon 1.7 auto, a Fairmont wagon with the 200-6 auto were not as slow as the Newport.
I wondered if it had an emasculated 318 or slant six. Never found out.
The ’78 Zephyr I bought was from Colorado Springs. Part of why I got it cheap was that it ran poorly in Indiana. I got the timing advanced and it was a happy little 200/6.
We went to Wyoming with it and it really struggled up at the mountain peaks. Did not like the altitude at all.
During the trip it blew its rear main seal and was going through a LOT of oil. Every fuel.stop I needed to add 3-4 quarts. At highway fuel-stop prices. The reason we were going was to fetch a Jeep Wagoneer for “flipping.” Even in the 90s they were pretty nonexistent in the rust belt. But we had to leave the Zephyr behind in Wyoming.
The irony is we left a rust free car from Indiana and returned with a slightly rusty Jeep from a place where nothing rusts.
Only in a Jeep!
The upside of those 1970’s Fords is that the power to weight ratios improved as the bodies rusted away.
My 1984 Suburban C2500 with the normally aspirated detroit diesel 6.2L weighed 5,700 pounds empty and the DD put out a whopping 130hp/240 ft of torque. Between the motor being weak with over 100,000 miles and a leaky transmission, It would hold on a slight incline at 60, but the top end was 68-72. I got 23 mpg on trips in the era of the 65 mph speed limit and with the a/c on.
It “achieved” over 45 pounds per hp if you added a 200 pound driver to the weight. It would have made #3 on the list. Road & Track said the 0-60 was 15 seconds. I can verify that was an optimistic number.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/a25683438/1986-chevy-suburban-diesel-an-economical-giant/
My daily driver had 39.5lbs/hp when new. I suspect it has lost a few ponies in 50 years, but still keeps up with traffic. In fact I’m usually being held up by 300+ hp vehicles…
I had a 1980 Chevy Chevette automatic. An inexperienced knitter could knit a pair of socks faster than that turd could get up to the 55 mph national speed limit.
Ford products were just like that. 78 ltd landau got 9 to 11 mpg with 460. removal of emmissions got it up to 14 to 18 mpg and way more power
slowest cars i ever drove. 4100 cadillac fleetwood brougham and a 4 cyl beretta. i drove a 76 granada with 250 engine and it was not that bad though very uneconomical. like worse than ltd 460 economy wise.
slowest i ever experienced 82 Fleetwood Frougham 4100 Cadillac
feeblest of all I experienced. 83 Caddy 4.1 v8. slower than a transit coach
The slowest car I have ever driven is an automatic transmission Mercedes-Benz 220D. It was so slow I considered it dangerous. During my shady used car days, everybody and his dog wanted a diesel Daimler. The naturally aspirated 300D was okay in city driving but even it didn’t have enough power for the hilly country around here.
I was doing this around 1988 and at this time, the W123 wasn’t very old and still commanded pretty high prices during the Great Diesel Craze, so most of the stuff we got was the older 220D and 240D W114 cars. A 220D automatic is a very unpleasant ride in my opinion. It was more of a taxi model in Europe where speed doesn’t matter much.
Most 80s Berlin taxis were,ready for this 200Ds. i think no one brought a ” “civilian” ” 200D.Your right who needs speed in congested traffic.
I’ve never owned any of the featured models, but have driven several of them. A family member purchased a Granada 200 six max-brougham in ’75 or ’76. It was barely capable of ascending any hill. A thread on the Bobs the Oil Guy forum a while back welcomed posts on the slowest car that you’ve ever driven. A fellow loudly claimed that no one’s suggestion could begin to compare to a Granada six that he had owned.
I did drive a ’73 Pinto 1.6 Kent as a rental for a week in ’73. I can still recall the terror of an attempted uphill freeway merge with 4 people in that car. Years later, I bought a new ’80 Ford Fiesta with a 61 hp. Kent. That actually accelerated pretty well with an 1800 lb. weight.
Wow…these make our old ‘78 Cutlass with the 3.8 sound like a hot rod in comparison. In the early ‘80’s, a friend of mine was working for a farmer who owned a couple of the Ford diesels – a Tempo and a Ranger pickup. I never rode in the Tempo, but I rode in the Ranger a few times, and it still got the job done…slowly.
I’m surprised the Chevy Chevette wasn’t on this list. My family had OLD foreign cars by the time I was learning how to drive. Our high school had brand new (in 1985) Chevettes for Driver’s Education. Even after driving a 15 year old Datsun, the new Chevette terrified me. It was so slow, it felt dangerous. I couldn’t believe it wasn’t 25 years old with four flat tires the way it accellerated.
Comments from an European point of view:
#1: Mercedes Diesels 200D, 220D and 240D were quite common due to high gas prices over here already in the 70s. Nobody bought them for driving fun or the rattling engine sound! All gas powered Benzes were bad guzzlers, so what?
#2: Worst driving experience: 1953 VW Bus barn door “Ambulance”. 25 hp out of 1.2 liters is not much for a vehicle of that size, but what made it a hell to drive was the “lead heavy” full ambulance equipment, Following official proposals the car became heavier year by year and I remember one incident when we simply were unable to climb a hill with it. Upgrading to a 40 hp VW Beetle engine did help a little bit, but …
When I was an apprentice in the “80’s, the people next door to the dealer I worked @ bought a 2.3L Propane powered Fairmount wagon for their Girls to use for College. At least it had a 4 speed 🙂 . The Service Manager had a Tempo Diesel as a Demo. I remember it being OK to drive maybe because it had a 5 Speed??
I once owned a 1974 Mercedes 220D. I believe it had 59 horsepower and was over 3000 pounds.
However, I don’t remember it being underpowered. I attribute this to the healthy off-the line kick of torque, the manual transmission, and the sheer character and quality of the car. Thick, quality leather and an appealing interior can make a car a nice place to be as it sloooowly accelerates. It also wasn’t fast-looking and made no visual suggestion of power.
Something I recently learned that makes the lede photo caption incorrect. A horse, according to multiple sources, can have as many as 15 HP of output!
I’ve had a genuinely slow car. It wasn’t the acceleration that made the 240D seem underpowered. The noise and instant torque off the line made it feel reasonably urgent. It was the car’s complete inability to climb long grades on the interstate. I was stuck in the truck lanes, often drafting tractor-trailers that would have appeared stationary to me as I glided by in any number of other cars I’ve owned.
The cars I remember as being grossly underpowered were the ones that combined effective sound deadening with a lack of power. A V6 LeSabre from the early ’80s and a Fox-body Granada stand out as being cars that felt like they couldn’t pull a tiki torch out of the ground. The near-silence that accompanied flooring the gas pedal and having nothing happen made the cars seem far more feeble than something similarly slow but loud and coarse from Germany.
Good friend’s first car was a 240D…no turbo, automatic transmission. It was idling, or floored. And yes, it was the slowest car I have ever been in…my diesel Escort was faster. The 240 once went from Worcester to Albany and back on the highway…floored the entire way, I do not think it topped 75MPH at any point. (Unsurprisingly, 250,000 miles of being driven with the pedal on the floor did no harm whatsoever to the engine.)
He replaced it after a couple years with a turbocharged 300TD…what a difference.
My 240D had a Mercedes-rated top speed of 83 mph, IIRC. It would happily indicate over 90 mph on the speedometer though, provided the road stayed flat or downhill for long enough. Also, German speedometers are obscenely optimistic. A couple of years ago, I helped a friend revive her 1984 300D Turbo Diesel sedan and her 1991 300D 2.5 Turbo. I couldn’t believe how slow they felt. I dare say that they seemed at least as slow by 2018 standards as my 240D seemed by 1988 standards.
An old joke from the days of under powered cars was to make a reference to your Rolls Canardly to which someone would ask “You have a Rolls?” “Yep, it rolls down one hill and can hardly make it up the next.”
I drove one of those to get my CDL! 1983 Ford L8000 sideloader…about 20,000lbs empty, with a gas 370 engine, 5-speed, and 5.89 gears. It was built as bare-bones cheap as possible (no radio, manual steering, the windshield washers were not electric), top end was ~58MPH after a mile of flat road, 3000RPM was 55MPH. I don’t even want to THINK about driving it carrying five tons of soda!
I have no recollection of the Tempo even offering a diesel. I do remember the AWD model, a rare option back then that’s since become commonplace.
#7 should reference the deVille, not Seville. (those two names, like Volt and Bolt, seem designed to confuse shoppers).
Not exactly the malaise era, but others have expanded it so I’ll run with it. My beloved Simca 1204 was gross 60HP, so guesstimating 52 net would have been around 38, without me in it. But it would do in the high 80s with enough room, several miles. However it was an absolute hot rod compared to a VW bus, ’60 IIRC I drove as a parts chaser long long ago. It had a 36HP engine, but I think that was gross, not net which might have been 32HP. Those come out to be 65 and 80 depending on what number you use. One cold, windy day, uphill of course, a rapid transit bus won the drag race off the light. Easily. And I’m not even sure he knew he was being raced. Actually I rather doubt that he had any clue.
On the other hand, especially with the aforementioned Simca, which handled great, it can be great fun to drive a slow car fast, you can push it and stay on the very edge of the maximum it can do. I constantly drove that thing at not .9, but more like .97 or .98 of it’s absolute maximum. I drive a BMW now and I’d kill myself if I did that, I’m probably more in the .6 range.
But all of those on the list are hot rods compared to a 36HP VW bus. And that was empty, it was rated for 1500 pounds.