Top Ten Cars That Were As Bad As Their Engines

[RichardJensen]

You can't talk about ersatz lux on the Granada without mentioning the Versailles!

Yeah, but the Versailles didn't come with with a crappy crappy motor.

 

And FWIW, neither did the Probe.

[Edstock]

Even the legendary 5 liter struggled to make much more than 120 hp.

And the 150 hp 5 liter Vette. The nadir of carburetor tech. Foul, gutless cars.

 

Interesting observation on the August spy photo set...the one with the jumper cables?? Notice the logo on the engine cover?? Isn't that the "twin force" logo??

It sure is.

[matthewq4b]

The Granada at the time was a far better vehicle than alot of the stuff coming out of Detroit. Even consumers Report of the day listed it as slightly above average. In 77 it was available with the 200 I6 the 250 I6 the 302 and the 351W.

In 78 the 351W and the 200 I6 were dropped. The 250 I6 staying in the car till 1980. The 200 was and is bullet proof little motor and the 250 was the 300's little brother. The engines used in the Granada and Monarch were for the most part bullet proof.

 

All in all the Granada was not the best in it's field but was not the worse not by a long shot.

 

That award goes to the Lebaron Aspen and Volare. Rust Prone some of them were rusting before they even left the dealers lot. They would not start if you walked by them with an Ice Cream cone. The interiors fell apart and the suspension sagged within the first year. The lean burn system was hugely trouble prone. Fitted with the 360 the were fuel pigs and had terrible reliability routinely consuming enough oil to the fill Exxon Valdez after 30K . They were just about the crappiest vehicles of all time. The only thing that was was worse from Chrysler in the era was the Dodge Challenger & Plymouth Sapporo 2 totally awful vehicles built by Mitsu for Chrysler. 77Hp In a 3000Lbs vehicle (with fluids) It was a poor successor to the Arrow.

 

The Aspen and Volare are typical of the exact reason Chrysler needed the billion dollar bail out by the feds in 1980. That reason alone puts them on the list and bumps the Granada off it.

 

The 500 CID Eldorado was rated at 190 HP(it was actually much higher) had well over 350FT Lbs of torque For 75 and 76 and was the last year of the 500. The 425 had the 180 hp. In 75 the 500 Cid Cadillac engine was the first NA engine to sport EFI.

 

Upon it's release the 500 had 410HP (gross) and over 535Ftlbs of torque (gross)

The 500 Cid had gobs and gobs of torque over a wide range. Exactly what was needed in that land yacht.

 

The 500Cid Eldorado is the best example of 1970's Hedonism. A worst car probably not. But it is a good example of the 1970's wastefulness and excess. The 500CId Edorados were excellent Hyway cruisers with gobs of torque for passing. And the interior room with the lack of a tranny hump was well above industry standards of the day. The interior was not the usual 1970's baroque hedonistic finish but was quite tastefully done for the era. It was far better done than the Lincolns of the era.

 

The Cadillac Cimmeron was a far worse vehicle over all than was the 500cid Eldorados at least the 500cid Eldorados fullfilled their purpose even if it was with wretched excess.

 

With the 88HP 1.8L I4 in the weighted down glitzed up Cavilier it was a gutless car with all the issues if the early Cavilers compounded by more added on electric gizmo's to bring up to Cadillac standards. They had no power handled horribly had more problems and issues than any vehicle built to date, and to think this was supposed to be Cadillac's answer to BMW makes them even more laughable. It truly was one of the worst vehicles built ever at any time in history. Even the tarted up Vesailles looks good in comparison.

 

 

Matthew

Edited January 5, 2009 by matthewq4b

[StevenCaylor]

The Granada at the time was a far better vehicle than alot of the stuff coming out of Detroit. Even consumers Report of the day listed it as slightly above average. In 77 it was available with the 200 I6 the 250 I6 the 302 and the 351W.

In 78 the 351W and the 200 I6 were dropped. The 250 I6 staying in the car till 1980. The 200 was and is bullet proof little motor and the 250 was the 300's little brother. The engines used in the Granada and Monarch were for the most part bullet proof.

 

All in all the Granada was not the best in it's field but was not the worse not by a long shot.

 

Also, the Granada was one of the first vehicles of it's size to offer 4 wheel disc brakes and ABS.

 

To be technical, the 250 was the big brother of the 200. It was the 240 from the big Fords that was the little brother of the 300.

[matthewq4b]

Also, the Granada was one of the first vehicles of it's size to offer 4 wheel disc brakes and ABS.

 

To be technical, the 250 was the big brother of the 200. It was the 240 from the big Fords that was the little brother of the 300.

 

 

Yup your right Steve. My bad

 

Matthew

[351cid]

Upon it's release the 500 had 535HP (gross) and over 410Ftlbs of torque (gross)

The 500 Cid had gobs and gobs of torque over a wide range. Exactly what was needed in that land yacht.

 

 

Not to pick on ya, but those specs are reversed. 400 hp and 535 lb ft in 1970

[matthewq4b]

Not to pick on ya, but those specs are reversed. 400 hp and 535 lb ft in 1970

 

 

Error on my part Post has been corected

 

 

Matthew

Edited January 5, 2009 by matthewq4b

[suv_guy_19]

They would not start if you walked by them with an Ice Cream cone.

 

Matthew

 

Where do you come up with some of this?

[Paul Selby]

That award goes to the Lebaron Aspen and Volare. Rust Prone some of them were rusting before they even left the dealers lot. They would not start if you walked by them with an Ice Cream cone. The interiors fell apart and the suspension sagged within the first year. The lean burn system was hugely trouble prone. Fitted with the 360 the were fuel pigs and had terrible reliability routinely consuming enough oil to the fill Exxon Valdez after 30K . They were just about the crappiest vehicles of all time. The only thing that was was worse from Chrysler in the era was the Dodge Challenger & Plymouth Sapporo 2 totally awful vehicles built by Mitsu for Chrysler. 77Hp In a 3000Lbs vehicle (with fluids) It was a poor successor to the Arrow.

 

It was very common in the rust belt to have torsion bars on Dart/Dusters tearing through their rotted K-frames.

[Mark B. Morrow]

The Granada was the right car for the times. Ford sold a mess of them, and Chevy's Nova Concours never equalled the Granada's popularity.

 

 

If you're not old enough to remember the Granada when it was new, you just won't understand its appeal at the time. Try comparing it to the Volare/Aspen, Nova/Omega/Ventura/Apollo. These were the Disco Years of automotive design with such advances as "Loose Pillow Look" seats, "Opera" windows and wide color keyed body side mouldings. There were a lot of places in America in 1977 where Saturday Night Fever would have been a documentary. Detroit couldn't sell horsepower so they went for what passed as luxury and class at the time.

 

There were few cars from '73-'80 that have stood the test of time and are still considered good looking. I will also point out that Mercedes-Benz of the time were hideous in their own way with lots of plastic and huge rubber bumpers.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Also, the Granada was one of the first vehicles of it's size to offer 4 wheel disc brakes and ABS.

 

To be technical, the 250 was the big brother of the 200. It was the 240 from the big Fords that was the little brother of the 300.

 

 

4 wheel discs were available on the Granada and Monarch but they weren't common. They were standard on the Versailles. The Versailles rear was a 9 inch and it is a direct bolt on for '64-'66 Mustangs and will fit a '67-'68 with minor alteration. They are a real find these days.

[retro-man]

If you're not old enough to remember the Granada when it was new, you just won't understand its appeal at the time. Try comparing it to the Volare/Aspen, Nova/Omega/Ventura/Apollo. These were the Disco Years of automotive design with such advances as "Loose Pillow Look" seats, "Opera" windows and wide color keyed body side mouldings. There were a lot of places in America in 1977 where Saturday Night Fever would have been a documentary. Detroit couldn't sell horsepower so they went for what passed as luxury and class at the time.

 

There were few cars from '73-'80 that have stood the test of time and are still considered good looking. I will also point out that Mercedes-Benz of the time were hideous in their own way with lots of plastic and huge rubber bumpers.

I have a clear memory from those days of a guy I saw driving a Continental Mark IV, who looked just like Huggy Bear from Starsky and Hutch. The Lincoln was red, with white top and interior. The guy had his big Huggy Bear Floppy hat and smoking jacket on. The rear shelf in the car was lined in white fur, the rear window was draped in crystal beads, and smack in the middle of the rear shelf was fixed a cut crystal punch bowl with a stemmed base. Class! Ah, the 70s. Pity the fool who doesn't have those memories. (Especially now as we slide into an economic funk - you want to know what funk is.)

 

p.s. Excellent Versailles on e-bay - it's actually quite attractive to me...... link And so far, affordable too!

Edited January 5, 2009 by retro-man

[syrtran]

4 wheel discs were available on the Granada and Monarch but they weren't common. They were standard on the Versailles. The Versailles rear was a 9 inch and it is a direct bolt on for '64-'66 Mustangs and will fit a '67-'68 with minor alteration. They are a real find these days.

And the 'sporty' version Granada got the exact same rear axle. I know 'cause my brother has the axle (plus discs) sitting in his shed right now, waiting for better weather and some money to fix up the '67. BTW, his Granada also had the 302, but it didn't have the 'small-chamber' heads. He got those somewhere else.

 

No, I'm not going to tell you where he lives.

[RichardJensen]

Okay-- here's the deal:

 

The Granada came out shortly before its replacement (the Fairmont) and had pretensions to luxury that were suspect at best.

 

What would you guys collectively suggest as a better instance from Ford of a vehicle soaking in pseudo-luxury with a thoroughly inadequate motor?

 

As I've said before, the Versailles doesn't cut it because the motor wasn't awful.

 

Also, as I've said before, it has to be a Ford product from the Iacocca era, as Lido (more than anyone else) is responsible for the ersatz luxury movement (landau bars, vinyl roofs, coach lights, opera windows, etc.)

 

So, what are your suggestions?

[goingincirclez]

Okay-- here's the deal:

 

The Granada came out shortly before its replacement (the Fairmont) and had pretensions to luxury that were suspect at best.

 

What would you guys collectively suggest as a better instance from Ford of a vehicle soaking in pseudo-luxury with a thoroughly inadequate motor?

 

As I've said before, the Versailles doesn't cut it because the motor wasn't awful.

 

Also, as I've said before, it has to be a Ford product from the Iacocca era, as Lido (more than anyone else) is responsible for the ersatz luxury movement (landau bars, vinyl roofs, coach lights, opera windows, etc.)

 

So, what are your suggestions?

 

 

OK I'll bite.

 

The 75-76 Ford Elite.

 

 

Which was formerly just a sub-model of the Torino in 1974, then elevated into its own pseudo-line for "Luxury in Thunderbird tradition". WTF does that mean? It's not a Torino? But it's not a Thunderbird? But it looks like both and could be either? Talk about no reason for being!

 

 

 

So you basically had a Torino with all its mid-70's mandated crappiness, adorned with more ersatz lux than the Torino, plus not one but TWO opera windows per side (!!)... and yet by Ford's own admission, it may or may not have been a Thunderbird?

 

You bash the Granada for being unnecessary. Yet in 1975 you could go to a Ford dealer and get brochures for the Torino, Elite, and Thunderbird - which practically all looked the same.

 

Remember, the Granada was developed with full intent to replace the Maverick. But Ford, as so many here today wish they would still do, listened to the changing market that suddenly commanded more smaller cars, and decided to keep the Maverick around while trying to move the Granada upscale. Grandas were near-infinitely customizable. You could indeed get a stripped-down Granada - a boxy Maverick if you will (and end up with a truly ugly car, I'll grant you). Or spiff it up with trendy faux lux. Or sport it up to one of the more respectable sleeper performers of the day (the 351 cars were some of the fastest Fords of the smog-decade). The possibilities were nearly endless. It was virtually a blank canvas.

 

If you say "But the Torino / Elite did not have a crappy motor" well, pay attention to what the near-dozen others here have said about the Granada... the majority of Granadas were equipped with motors that were as adequate as could be hoped for (or better), and generally stayed together. Of course, history has shown that the Torino's motor was just as choked off as any other of the day. Durable yet underpowered.... There was hardly a 70's Ford that wasn't. "Starsky and Hutsh" was a grand fantasy as the Torino (say nothing of the heavier, "lux" Elite) had performance that was a mere shadow of its former self.

 

As for the Granada's alleged redundancy: The Fairmont was developed for Ford's revolutionary new Fox platform, as a way to get out of the 70's doldrums. It was not so much a replacement for one car as it was an entirely new way to go about building them. The Fairmont came in 78 with a new styling direction, yet the Granada sold well enough still to last for 78, 79, and 80 in its traditional Form. In 1981, the Granada was finally Foxitized just like virtually every other damn car Ford was selling (Fairmont, Granada, Cougar, Thunderbird, Mustang, LTD...). Only then did it truly become redundant, because it looked the same as every other damn kleenex-box car in Ford's lineup. But the name still had value for the time, so it was used... and even deemed worthy for the first return of the Blue Oval badge in 1982.

 

The Granada was not replaced by the Fairmont. The Granada was sold alongside the Fairmont for 5 years. It was replaced by the fairmont-based LTD in 1983. The Fairmont was replaced by the Tempo a year later, just before the LTD became the Taurus. It could be argued that the original 70's Granadas outlasted the Fairmonts that came later. Crap car? Hardly. No purpose? Hogwash.

 

 

But what was the point of the Elite besides Emperor's Clothing?

[RichardJensen]

Thought about the Elite, but discarded it because the motor wasn't crappy enough.

[Paul Selby]

Thought about the Elite, but discarded it because the motor wasn't crappy enough.

 

Maybe the 200 I-6 was underpowered for the Granada but I don't see how that makes it a crappy engine. Fords I-6's were tough. I drove a '75 model with the 200 and a manual trans but I don't remember it being that bad for power, but I do remember not liking the clutch at all. The Granada I had along with most I've seen had a 250.

 

Any late 70's Ford I have driven with the 351M-400 was a gas swilling, spark knocking dog. IMHO out of all the engines Ford had in the late 70's these engines were the worst. Give me the 351W or 302 during this time frame.

[Hemiman]

Okay-- here's the deal:

 

a thoroughly inadequate motor?

 

As I've said before, the Versailles doesn't cut it because the motor wasn't awful.

 

 

????????????/

 

The 200 was the BASE engine. However, as already stated, the Granada could be had with 3 options. The 250, 302 & 351. Wow, what a novel idea! Offer more than one engine choice!!!

 

PS the Versailles motor that "wasn't awful" was the same as one of the optional Granada engines.

 

The 200 wasn't so bad either, it had potential. Had one in a Fairmont wagon. Had fair power after some "adjustments".

Edited January 5, 2009 by Hemiman

[Mark B. Morrow]

If you are listing Bad Cars with Bad Engines, my vote goes to the '80 LTD CV with the variable venturi carb.

[NickF1011]

Bad SUV with worse engine:

 

1984 Jeep Cherokee with 105 HP AMC 2.5L 4 cylinder. My parents had one of those way back when. Not only could it barely get itself over a hill, but it usually managed to swing an impressive 12 mpg in the process. A true turd amongst turds.

Edited January 5, 2009 by NickF1011

[matthewq4b]

Where do you come up with some of this?

 

 

Remember I lived in the era. Chryco products of the era were notrious for not starting in cold weather and espcailly in cold damp weather. There was a reason the Chyrslers had a gear reduction starter they need all the cranks you could get in the hopes that it may start before the battery died.

 

Matthew

[matthewq4b]

Okay-- here's the deal:

 

The Granada came out shortly before its replacement (the Fairmont) and had pretensions to luxury that were suspect at best.

 

What would you guys collectively suggest as a better instance from Ford of a vehicle soaking in pseudo-luxury with a thoroughly inadequate motor?

 

As I've said before, the Versailles doesn't cut it because the motor wasn't awful.

 

Also, as I've said before, it has to be a Ford product from the Iacocca era, as Lido (more than anyone else) is responsible for the ersatz luxury movement (landau bars, vinyl roofs, coach lights, opera windows, etc.)

 

So, what are your suggestions?

 

 

Richard you are conveniently forgetting the era the car was built in. In the hedonistic 70's Luxury is what sold.

And any vehicle that could imply any kind of Luxury connotations only boosted sales.

Just as being Green fuel efficient and High Quality does today. Hell Ford even tried to pass the Excursion as clean pushing it's ULEV status. Ford was only trying top put the Granada in the best possible position to appeal to the public desires whether it was a luxury car or not is not really an issue. The Excursion is not really a green vehicle either no matter how you cut it ULEV status or not. They were just trying to best position the product.

 

 

And why does it have to be a Ford product ? To be honest there were far far worse vehicles on the road. The topic was "Top Ten Cars That Were As Bad As Their Engines" not Top ten cars from each manufacturer that were as bad at as there engines.

 

 

You can not fault the car or Ford to playing up to consumer desires of wishes of the era.

 

 

The 360 Volare gets my vote. The Cordoba or Magnum comes a close second. If the Granada had to be chosen cause it was a Ford and for no other reason then change the topic title.

 

And if you have to have a Ford pick something with the 351M It would qualify most undoubtedly one of the worst engines Ford ever made period. it was an engine that had NO redeeming qualities. At least the 400 could have the distributor recurved a cam and 44BBl carb added and you would have decent HP with gobs of torque. There was nothing that could be done with the 351M it had no saving graces.

 

 

The Elite it's self was a decent car and bridged the gap between the Torino and the T-bird. It was the Cougar with a different front end. Was designed to go to head to head with stuff such as the Monte Carlo and the Cordoba. Both vehicles well under the T birds pricing range. But above the Torino. The Elite pulled in customers that other wise may have bought Monte Carlos and Cordoba.

The car sold well all 3 years it was made and added hundreds of thousands of sales to Ford bottom line.

 

Again we have to remember the era and pricing. The personal luxury car at the time was the hot segment.

 

The 73-76 Tbirds were very very expensive vehicles of the era. The 77 T bird was way cheaper to buy than the 73 or the 74 T-Birds were.

 

 

The T Bird was way out of price range of the vast majority of the population. The car was over $7K base in 74. The Elite on the other hand was under $5000 attainable for most people.

A big step above the Torino but not any were near T bird pricing. The 77 T birds were over $2000 cheaper to buy than the 74's And Almost $3000 cheaper then the 76's

 

When the lower priced 77 T bird hit the scene the Elite was dropped as the price was low enough it was hitting Elite pricing levels. The 77-79 T birds could be optioned up to and over 10K.

 

 

So there was a place and a need for the Elite it was NOT a useless model. The Elite was a more affordable personal luxury car than the Thunderbird.

 

 

 

Remember folks you have to take the era in to consideration before making judgments on stuff.

 

Look for the worst of the era in the context of the era. You can not use todays standards to judge them. A good reverse example is the original AMC Eagle By todays standards it was a hell of a car full time awd with a viscous center diff, and is actually being copied by the CUVs and the other AWD sedans on the market today.

 

But in the era it was near a complete flop with sales under 180k over it's 9 year history less than 20K a year averaged out. Remember this is an era when the domestics counted sales in the 100"s of K for models per year. it did not hit home with consumer it was as big as full size staition wagon but did not have the room of one. It was AWD but was not as cabable as a true 4x4 so in the eyes of the public at the time it did nothing really well. And the sales reflected that.

 

But nowadays this car is considered revolutionary and the forerunner to the current crop of CUV's and large AWD sedans.

 

 

Matthew

[matthewq4b]

If you are listing Bad Cars with Bad Engines, my vote goes to the '80 LTD CV with the variable venturi carb.

 

 

The car it's self was not bad, And the VV was trouble prone mostly due the fact very few Techs knew how to tune them properly. The VV stayed in production till the 1991 Model year. And could deliver Fuel milege on par with EFI.

 

Not worst one.

[Paul Selby]

And if you have to have a Ford pick something with the 351M It would qualify most undoubtedly one of the worst engines Ford ever made period. it was an engine that had NO redeeming qualities. At least the 400 could have the distributor recurved a cam and 44BBl carb added and you would have decent HP with gobs of torque. There was nothing that could be done with the 351M it had no saving graces.

 

That's two votes for the 351M.

 

Like matthewq4b was saying about the era, below is an example of why the decade was known as the long, lame, dark 70's.

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2009 by Paul Selby

[RichardJensen]

I wanted to hang the pseudo-lux albatross on someone, and Iacocca is, of course, the logical choice.

 

Now, I suppose I could dump the TC by Maserati, and replace it by the marvelously awful talking Chrysler New Yorker, and replace the Granada with, perhaps, a Volare (might as well go with a Plymouth) from the 70s.

 

That way the awful pseudo-lux stays with Iacocca and lands on a vehicle that was even worse suited for the times than the Lincoln Versailles.

 

Plus, unlike the Lincoln Versailles, there was a stretch New Yorker made as a presidential limo for Richard Nixon.

 

Although, dagnabbit, I hate taking the TC by Maserati off the list. Maybe I can come up with another top ten list in which it can appear (Top Ten Automotive Hermaphrodites, perhaps?)

 

---

 

So, please, consider these alterations:

 

5. Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen w/318 Lean Burn engine

Motor Trend's car of the year in 1976. In case you thought that the COTY award used to be legitimate

 

4. 1983-1989 2.2L Chrysler New Yorker

With less than 100hp, K-Car roots, excessive amounts of button tufting, and a creepy robot voice, this vehicle was everything status conscious people weren't looking for back in the 80s. The cherry on top of this sundae? It was the official ride of Richard Milhous Nixon!