Thread: What is the worst car you have ever driven?

A friend in North Queensland won't hear a bad word said about Camiras. They bought one of the first as a Mum's taxi, shopping, school, sports, etc. It performed flawlessly for 300.000 k's and was only pensioned off as scrap about 4-5 years ago. In turn it was passed to each of their three children who each took it off to university in Townsville. By the end of its days the interior was hanging in tatters and there was barely an undamaged panel but it started and ran and only ever needed routine maintenance and replacement of wear parts. They would cheerfully buy another if still available.

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

...

I've never understood how the standard family sedans did so little ... with so much. Eg: the XE V8's ....a staggering 5.8litres of V8 is a lightweight car.... And they barely did 0-100 in 9seconds. my daily driver, a wheezy old Citroen from 1985...yeah the one in my profile picture.. (that are reknowned for being the slowest things on the roads) does it in 7.5 seconds from 2.5litres.... and cruises at 220km/h and returns 34mpg on the highway ... not the 12mpg of those V8's.

....

I think you are being a bit economical with the truth...

XE 5.8L Falcon is listed as 8.2s 0-100 km/h.
Citroen CX 2.5L Turbo 8.6s 0-62 mph.

The falcon only has a slightly better power-weight ratio.

I agree the 5.8's output doesn't match the engine size, but I suspect a lot of that was related to the controversy around the GTHO. The GTHO did 0-100 in ~6s.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I think you are being a bit economical with the truth...

XE 5.8L Falcon is listed as 8.2s 0-100 km/h.
Citroen CX 2.5L Turbo 8.6s 0-62 mph.

The falcon only has a slightly better power-weight ratio.

I agree the 5.8's output doesn't match the engine size, but I suspect a lot of that was related to the controversy around the GTHO. The GTHO did 0-100 in ~6s.

Wow 8.2 ... that's not bad the road test I found said 8.9 0->60mph (le: not 100km./h). You'd be over 9.0seconds to 62mph. I think the issue was they were probably pollution spec cars.

I grabbed the spec's from here:
0-60 mph (0-97 km/h):
8.9 seconds (5.8 litre)
Standing Quarter Mile (400 metres):
16.3 seconds (5.8 litre)


Ford Falcon XE Specifications | Unique Cars and Parts

Really incredibly slow for something that's supposed to have so much power!

As always my mind wanders.... Just imagine what the Range Rover classic would be like with that engine in it

Capacity: 351 cubic inches (5.75 litres)
Type: Conventional, watercooled four stroke, reciprocating piston type with 8 cylinders in vee
Configuration: Front mounted, longitudinal, inline
Head: Cast iron cross-flow with hydraulic valve actuation
Fuel System: Two barrel carburettor
Bore and Stroke: 102 x 89mm
Power: 149kw at 4300rpm
Torque: 415Nm at 3000rpm
Compression Ratio: 8.9:1

Yes they list the old CX at 8.6 generally. Mine is one of the demonstators.... They road tested a stack of the CNAN (CNAN defined dealer owned) of them when new and found they all did 0-100 in 7.5 seconds. The factory specs state 8.6. They also "spec" them as 168hp. Apparently there over 180hp 300Nm if you put a standard car onto a dyno (if you can find a standard one someone hasn't screwed the boost up on). The french tax cars on there engine size and power. SO you want them to not have much in the way of capacity

Mines one of the demonstrator used in these tests:

New acquisition is coming - Page 2

You know it's nearly 30years old, and it's never had anything done to it other than oil changes and several clutches (my old man bought in in the UK in 1995). A bit like the big old V8's they just go forever if you don't mess with them. The synchros are getting weak these days.

These are cars are NOT fast by current standards either. Grab the V8's or high performance cars from the 80's/70's and a granny driving a current base model automatic Falcon (plastic window winders and all) will blow you off the road. Those things do 0-100 in about 7.5 seconds all day every day, just by pushing the "go" pedal. I'd have to near bloody destroy my car to try and get a run anywhere near that quick.

That is of course if you ignore the "racecars for the roads" ... the hero cars eg: XY GT's, Group A brocks etc... Man those things fly (I've driven a couple of 80's brock commadores .... They sure don't lack power LOL).

seeya,
Shane L.

All this is a bit unfair to the XE as they were introduced when a leaded low emission tune was called for before 1985 when unleaded came in.
This was unique to Australia as the USA had unleaded.
So the engines were detuned enormously to meet the emissions.
The difference between an XB 351 ( even 2 barrel in GS ) and XC 351 ( with Carter Thermoquad noise maker) was enormous and this tune went through to 1985.
One of the guys in the Queensland Ford office ran an XB in for the cops trials and got really nervous at 250Kmh as the bonnet started to look like lifting.

Best of all was the XA /ZF with the 4 barrel Cleveland motor. They kicked ass. Of course the XT /XW/XY/XA/XB GTs weren't slow for their time.

I had a pretty quick XD 351 GS wagon which I had the Ford techs use for technical training schools, and set up the carb for power. Used to chirp into second but I ran out of petrol a couple of times going to work as it did 9.9 MPG whatever that is in Lper100., maybe 35?

So really it was the emissions regs that mostly made the local 6s and 8 slugs in the period 1977? to 1985.

Post 85 there were some good engines like the 12 port Holden 6 then the Nissan 3 litre 6 and the Ford 6 started to be acceptable. V8s were out of favour by then, but I don't know much about that as I was overseas.

BTW there were some real European slugs like the BMW ETA which initially was the only engine that BMW certified for Australia in 1981? We were really ****ed off on that until the MD threw multiple tantrums and BMW AG certified some better engines like the 2.5 and 3.5.
Regards Philip A
BTW, the reason that Australia had big inefficient engines wa sthat by then Aussies overwhelmingly liked automatics and automatics work FAR better with high torque low revving engines, like V8s and 6. Drive an 80s BMW 323 auto and you will realise what slugs they were.

Originally Posted by PhilipA

All this is a bit unfair to the XE as they were introduced when a leaded low emission tune was called for before 1985 when unleaded came in.
This was unique to Australia as the USA had unleaded.
So the engines were detuned enormously to meet the emissions.
The difference between an XB 351 ( even 2 barrel in GS ) and XC 351 ( with Carter Thermoquad noise maker) was enormous and this tune went through to 1985.
One of the guys in the Queensland Ford office ran an XB in for the cops trials and got really nervous at 250Kmh as the bonnet started to look like lifting.

Best of all was the XA /ZF with the 4 barrel Cleveland motor. They kicked ass. Of course the XT /XW/XY/XA/XB GTs weren't slow for their time.

I had a pretty quick XD 351 GS wagon which I had the Ford techs use for technical training schools, and set up the carb for power. Used to chirp into second but I ran out of petrol a couple of times going to work as it did 9.9 MPG whatever that is in Lper100., maybe 35?

So really it was the emissions regs that mostly made the local 6s and 8 slugs in the period 1977? to 1985.

Post 85 there were some good engines like the 12 port Holden 6 then the Nissan 3 litre 6 and the Ford 6 started to be acceptable. V8s were out of favour by then, but I don't know much about that as I was overseas.

BTW there were some real European slugs like the BMW ETA which initially was the only engine that BMW certified for Australia in 1981? We were really ****ed off on that until the MD threw multiple tantrums and BMW AG certified some better engines like the 2.5 and 3.5.
Regards Philip A
BTW, the reason that Australia had big inefficient engines wa sthat by then Aussies overwhelmingly liked automatics and automatics work FAR better with high torque low revving engines, like V8s and 6. Drive an 80s BMW 323 auto and you will realise what slugs they were.

You want bad ... try the 4cylinders from the late 70's (almost regardless of the engine/car type) ... driving bloody polution pumps One of my old parts cars here still has the original setup on it. 99.9999999999% of the pollution pumps and all that crap "fell off" not long after the cars were sold new from what I can tell.

Even with the emmisions stuff, read the spec's of the V8 in that XE .... 415Nm of torque!! Imagine that in a Range Rover Your average 3.5 with a slightly worn camshaft probably wouldn't make half that.

seeya
Shane L.

Back in the late 60s I drove some HQ Holdens as taxis and needed a weeks notice to turn or brake. Suspension? What suspension????
Early Hyundi Excell, as we had several in Luanda, Angola for our transport and there was always something falling off or breaking. I admit the roads were not much chop there until the Chinese fixed them. We also got Suzuki Vitaras after the Excells and they were a car more suited to Africa.
The 1948 Ford Prefect was very dangerous to drive on the road at any speed, even walking pace.

Originally Posted by Plane Fixer

Back in the late 60s I drove some HQ Holdens

No mean feat, were you a Holden test driver? The HQ wasn't released until mid '71.

1992 xf falcon ute. It seemed to have more emotional breakdowns than a menstruating woman. My god the worst car I ever had for sure. I used to argue with it like it was my ex girlfriend from the moment I got in it to the moment I slammed the door shut and went home. It was a real bitch!