PDA

View Full Version : Crappy TV & movie cars...


Valentine One Radar Detector

Eric
08-18-2010, 10:32 AM
Steve McQueen's Highland Green "Bullitt" Mustang is a pop culture icon. But how about the automotive Omarossas? Which movie and TV cars were the worst ever?

Here's a list of possible nominees:

* "Magnum, PI" '83 Ferrari 308

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBVHKwf5mSc

One of the very few slow - and cheap - Ferraris. Though it looks fast, the 308's little V-8 produced just 205 hp - about 60 hp less than a Camry V-6 and about 200 hp less than a current Ferrari.

Now you know why Magnum was reduced to doing burnouts on the grass. The 308 may have a prancing horse on the fender - but there's a Gerbil under the hood.

You can buy a nice one these days for about $20,000 - and that ought to tell you something.

* "Smokey and the Bandit" '77 Trans-Am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZZPalUHlxc

A great movie - about a once-great car. There's a reason why they speeded up the film in several driving sequences to make the action at least look fast. The '77 T-top Trans-Am driven by Burt Reynolds may have been menacing in its black paint with gold trim - but all Burt had to work with was a low compression 185-hp 403 V-8 pirated from an Oldsmobile Delta 88 - and a sloshy three-speed automatic transmission.

The stunt scenes - and sound track - were done with a modifed car equipped with a much-massaged 455 Pontiac V-8 - an engine not offered in a Trans-Am since 1976 - and a real-deal 4-speed manual gearbox.

* "Charlie's Angels" '78 Mustang Cobra II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OtvSLLOx6g

This sheetmetal cousin of the "hit me - and we die together" Pinto remains the undisputed Most Embarrassing Mustang Ever Built. It's amazing Farrah was able to chase down any criminals in this tarted-up, toothless faux muscle car. They probably slowed down - so she could catch up.

The one admirable design feature of the Mustang II was its tendency to rapidly dissolve from rust - like an old soup can left out in the yard. So few are left in existence to blight the roads.

* "Starsky & Hutch" '76 Ford Torino

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2en-Ihaxn0

This car ("Zebrathree") was an even bigger load than David Soul and Paul Michael Glazer. Like a washed-up jock in a baggy sweat suit, the customized '76 Torino was a typical mid-late '70s overweight, underpowered smog machine. Its 200-something horsepower 460 V-8 was a low performance boat anchor of an engine better at sucking gas than hauling ass.

A loud paint job and white stripes only called attention to its mediocre performance.

This unfortunate Ford was the el cheapo equivalent of a Chrysler Cordoba - only without the "rich, Corinthian leather" to class it up a little.

* "Back to the Future" '82 DeLorean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosuvf7Unmg

It'd be hard to get to the next stop light - let alone 1985 - in this stainless steel road toad. With a feeble Renault-sourced 2.8 liter V-6 under the hood - and all of 130 hp on tap - Doc Brown would have had to stuff a lot of bananna peels into "Mr. Fusion" to get the car to 88 mph - the "magic number" for time travel.

Even with a ""flux capacitor," Biff's old Chevy would've blown its Gullwing doors off.

* "Corvette Summer" 'Vette

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr_yxNf1Cxk

Take a perfectly good mid-'70s Corvette - and ruin it with a couple hundred pounds of slapped on fiberglass pontoons, wings and oversized hood scoops. Then spray thoroughly with garish metalflake paint and prisma. Put Mark "Luke Skywalker" Hamill in the lead role - and you've got all the makings of a first-class stinker of a movie about Corvette mutilation and '70s stoner anomie.

The movie is all about finding the car after it got stolen by thieves - but the smarter move would've been to cash the insurance check and send the crooks a thank-you card.

* "Hardcastle & McCormick" Manta kit car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIMAfwJSfKw

The music and intro were pretty cool - especially the part where the car cuts under the tractor trailor - but the VW-sourced kit car Lola GT/Lotus wasn't.

Even if it did have a Porsche engine (no one knows for sure; some say it was Corvair-powered) a fake exotic sports car is about as classy as Potomac River caviar.

You're not foolin' anyone, son. Put those gold chains away, tuck in your shirt - and buy a real car.

chiph
08-18-2010, 10:43 AM
88mph was the magic number for the DeLorean.

The Peugot-Renault-Volvo V6 in it was recently voted one of the worst motors ever, by Jalopnik readers. Along with the GM almost-a-diesel V8 and the Chrysler 2.7 liter V6

Chip H.

Eric
08-18-2010, 10:45 AM
88mph was the magic number for the DeLorean.

The Peugot-Renault-Volvo V6 in it was recently voted one of the worst motors ever, by Jalopnik readers. Along with the GM almost-a-diesel V8 and the Chrysler 2.7 liter V6

Chip H.

Fixed!

Gotta love a shitty car...

Adam
08-18-2010, 11:25 AM
One of my favorite T.V. shows of all time was Columbo. I loved his old Saab. That was a great show too.

misterdecibel
08-18-2010, 03:25 PM
88mph was the magic number for the DeLorean.

The Peugot-Renault-Volvo V6 in it was recently voted one of the worst motors ever, by Jalopnik readers. Along with the GM almost-a-diesel V8 and the Chrysler 2.7 liter V6

Chip H.

How did the Cadillac V8-6-4 rank?

misterdecibel
08-18-2010, 03:27 PM
How about the Citroen 2CV in "For Your Eyes Only", or the Renault 11 in "View To A Kill"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRoiIf2A3s

chiph
08-18-2010, 03:56 PM
You mean the V8-6-4-0 ?
It's in there.

Chip H.

Eric
08-18-2010, 04:40 PM
How about the Citroen 2CV in "For Your Eyes Only", or the Renault 11 in "View To A Kill"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRoiIf2A3s

And the Condormobile!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g-TkGM4nKI

dBrong
08-18-2010, 08:39 PM
* "Starsky & Hutch" '76 Ford Torino

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2en-Ihaxn0

This car ("Zebrathree") was an even bigger load than David Soul and Paul Michael Glazer. Like a washed-up jock in a baggy sweat suit, the customized '76 Torino was a typical mid-late '70s overweight, underpowered smog machine. Its 200-something horsepower 460 V-8 was a low performance boat anchor of an engine better at sucking gas than hauling ass.

A loud paint job and white stripes only called attention to its mediocre performance.

This unfortunate Ford was the el cheapo equivalent of a Chrysler Cordoba - only without the "rich, Corinthian leather" to class it up a little.

I had a 1969 Torino GT 428 SCJ with Ram Air and a Detriot Locker rear and an oil cooler. It was a drag strip car. It could do a quarter in about 15-16 seconds.

But really the car was an engineering POS. Over 100 mph and the front end was sooo light, you thought you might go airborne. It was 335 hp. My wifes 2.8 liter, twin turbo, Volvo S80 is 285 hp. I've had that car up to 140 mph, and it hugs the road like a vacuum cleaner. :)

So much for the 'bad old days.'

At college (Penn State 1970) I met a guy from Georgia that had a Talladega with a Boss 429. I think the Talladega is now collectible. It drove much like my GT.

Eric
08-19-2010, 09:23 AM
I had a 1969 Torino GT 428 SCJ with Ram Air and a Detriot Locker rear and an oil cooler. It was a drag strip car. It could do a quarter in about 15-16 seconds.

But really the car was an engineering POS. Over 100 mph and the front end was sooo light, you thought you might go airborne. It was 335 hp. My wifes 2.8 liter, twin turbo, Volvo S80 is 285 hp. I've had that car up to 140 mph, and it hugs the road like a vacuum cleaner. :)

So much for the 'bad old days.'

At college (Penn State 1970) I met a guy from Georgia that had a Talladega with a Boss 429. I think the Talladega is now collectible. It drove much like my GT.

Similar experiences!

In their defense, the 335 hp rating of your Torino was under the old "gross" system, which was wildly optimistic. Using the current "net" (engine installed in the car, with full production exhaust and all accessories, normal production tune, etc.) that 335 hp rating would likely fall to around 270 hp... about the same as the Volvo, but in a much heavier, far less aerodynamic car.

My '76 Trans-Am has a modified 455 and has the power to do probably 140 or so... but I would never attempt it. The car is scary above 100, just as you describe.

But I routinely drive new cars - including economy cars - at triple digit speeds, because they are so much more stable and comfortable at such speeds!

Mase
08-19-2010, 01:33 PM
Well, how about Columbo's car?

http://www.ericpetersautos.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=447&d=1282235590

Mase
08-19-2010, 01:37 PM
Don't forget the "Mentalist's" wheels.....

http://www.ericpetersautos.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=448&d=1282235823

Eric
08-19-2010, 03:05 PM
Well, how about Columbo's car?

http://www.ericpetersautos.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=447&d=1282235590

He had a Nash Metropolitan, right?

Eric
08-19-2010, 03:06 PM
Don't forget the "Mentalist's" wheels.....

http://www.ericpetersautos.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=448&d=1282235823

I have never driven one of these, but for some sick reason I am attracted to them...

tcolby
08-19-2010, 04:05 PM
He had a Nash Metropolitan, right?

See:
http://eurocarguy.blogspot.com/2007/11/peugeot-403-columbos-car.html

Eric
08-19-2010, 05:09 PM
See:
http://eurocarguy.blogspot.com/2007/11/peugeot-403-columbos-car.html

That was a really well-done article; I enjoyed reading it very much!

misterdecibel
08-19-2010, 08:42 PM
Well, how about Columbo's car?



That Peugeot 403 convertible is more rare than hen's teeth. Probably a decent car too, although this one could use some time in the body shop.

MikeHalloran
08-19-2010, 09:56 PM
I have never driven one of these, but for some sick reason I am attracted to them...

I am, too, but not enough to buy one.

I have driven a Citroen DS__, more or less as pictured. It was amazingly comfortable, thanks to thick foam seats and hydropneumatic suspension. ... and pretty fast once you got it rolling, thanks to a tiny but willing engine. The brakes, operated by a button on the floor, took some getting used to, but worked very, very well.


I have also driven a Citroen SM, with the Maserati V6 engine, and a conventional brake pedal, much faster but otherwise much like the earlier model, with super-fast steering and steering range like a London taxi.

grouch
08-19-2010, 11:22 PM
Similar experiences!

In their defense, the 335 hp rating of your Torino was under the old "gross" system, which was wildly optimistic. Using the current "net" (engine installed in the car, with full production exhaust and all accessories, normal production tune, etc.) that 335 hp rating would likely fall to around 270 hp... about the same as the Volvo, but in a much heavier, far less aerodynamic car.

My '76 Trans-Am has a modified 455 and has the power to do probably 140 or so... but I would never attempt it. The car is scary above 100, just as you describe.

But I routinely drive new cars - including economy cars - at triple digit speeds, because they are so much more stable and comfortable at such speeds!


Actually, the way engines were rated changed but power dropped a little later than the rating change. The old gross h.p. rating was the bare engine with no accessories, like a water pump. The rating was also dependent on where in the power curve the rating was taken. The 426 Hemi for instance was rated at 426 h.p. but everybody was sure that Chrysler was "poor mouthing" the numbers. A few years ago, the Canadian TV show "Dream Car Garage" took several of the old time muscle motors and tested ones that were rebuilt to factory specifications. The Hemi was over 800 h.p., but the engineers took a rating at a lower engine speed.

The gross rating did not have any kind of exhaust, other than a fan pulling it out the wall, outside cooling, outside fuel supply, etc., etc., etc. The net rating had the wate pump, alternator, fuel pump and anything else that went on the engine in the car. Each small accessory had a large impact on the final numbers. Just adding a larger alternator and then adding a bunch of electrical things will decrease your fuel mileage. The big drop in engine power from lower compression was about a year after the rating change.

A lot of the increase in engine power in new cars comes from the accessories. A lot of vehicles are losing the belt driven fan for an electric one. Electric power steering, rack and pinion steering and anything else that lightens a car will increase fuel mileage and available power.

I help a friend from time to time with his race car and one major increase in power to the wheels came when he dropped the mechanical water pump and cooling fan. The water pump frees up some power and when he's doing a run down the strip, a toggle switch shuts off the fan.

Any small thing on the engine will have a greater impact on power after it goes through the drivetrain and torque multiplication. So when they added all the doodads onto an engine, it really sucked the power down.

Eric
08-20-2010, 07:07 AM
Actually, the way engines were rated changed but power dropped a little later than the rating change. The old gross h.p. rating was the bare engine with no accessories, like a water pump. The rating was also dependent on where in the power curve the rating was taken. The 426 Hemi for instance was rated at 426 h.p. but everybody was sure that Chrysler was "poor mouthing" the numbers. A few years ago, the Canadian TV show "Dream Car Garage" took several of the old time muscle motors and tested ones that were rebuilt to factory specifications. The Hemi was over 800 h.p., but the engineers took a rating at a lower engine speed.

The gross rating did not have any kind of exhaust, other than a fan pulling it out the wall, outside cooling, outside fuel supply, etc., etc., etc. The net rating had the wate pump, alternator, fuel pump and anything else that went on the engine in the car. Each small accessory had a large impact on the final numbers. Just adding a larger alternator and then adding a bunch of electrical things will decrease your fuel mileage. The big drop in engine power from lower compression was about a year after the rating change.

A lot of the increase in engine power in new cars comes from the accessories. A lot of vehicles are losing the belt driven fan for an electric one. Electric power steering, rack and pinion steering and anything else that lightens a car will increase fuel mileage and available power.

I help a friend from time to time with his race car and one major increase in power to the wheels came when he dropped the mechanical water pump and cooling fan. The water pump frees up some power and when he's doing a run down the strip, a toggle switch shuts off the fan.

Any small thing on the engine will have a greater impact on power after it goes through the drivetrain and torque multiplication. So when they added all the doodads onto an engine, it really sucked the power down.

If I recall correctly, the big fall-off in power (generally) came after the 1971 model year. Only a few muscle motors were still putting out more than 250 hp by 1974. Compression ratios were dropped and cams got a lot milder.

On the Hemi: I agree it was under-rated. But 800 hp is way far-fetched. 500 is believable, given the ETs of stock production Hemi cars.

misterdecibel
08-20-2010, 03:34 PM
If I recall correctly, the big fall-off in power (generally) came after the 1971 model year. Only a few muscle motors were still putting out more than 250 hp by 1974. Compression ratios were dropped and cams got a lot milder.



There were two reasons - smog regulations and the sudden rise in insurance rates for performance cars.

Eric
08-20-2010, 04:43 PM
There were two reasons - smog regulations and the sudden rise in insurance rates for performance cars.

Yep.

By 1974, only the Corvette L-82 350 (240 hp) and Trans-Am SD-455 (290 hp) had any balls at all.

Big-inch engines died off completely after 1979 (Pontiac 400) and V-8s generally didn't get back over 200 hp until the mid-1980s!