Will the FR-S end up on the list of the "10 slowest sports cars of all time"?
 

Will the FR-S end up on this list? ;-)


http://autos.yahoo.com/news/the-ten-....html?page=all

The ten slowest sports cars of all time

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/N6V...nik_223608.jpgBy Raphael Orlove | Jalopnik – 21 hours ago

• Email
• Print

MORE AT JALOPNIK

• » DMV Revoked Anti-Arab Vanity Tags
• » The P4/5 Competizione Is The Fastest Ferrari Ever To Lap The ‘Ring
• » 10 Best Non-Car Shows For Gearheads

Take one look at these purpose-built sports cars and you'd expect them to be fast. You would be wrong. Even before we got used to powerful V6 Camrys, these ten rides chosen by Jalopnik readers were the slowest sports cars the world had ever seen.

Welcome back to Answers of the Day — the daily Jalopnik feature where editors take the best ten responses from the previous day's Question of the Day and shine it up to show off. It's by and for the Jalopnik readers. Enjoy!


10) 1980 Ferrari Mondial Suggested By: unhcampus
0-60: 9.4
1/4 Mile: 16.9
Why we want one anyway: The Mondial had the V8 from the sporty 308, but in a bigger, heavier, floppier body. In its first two years in the US, the Mondial had 180 horsepower and was over two seconds slower to 60 than even the crappy Corvettes of the time. Even though the back seats are for people without legs, it's a real Ferrari, with all the poise and panache you'd expect from the brand. And it's about a thousand times cooler than a chintzy 360 Modena.
Photo Credit: storem



9) 1973 Porsche 914

Suggested By: dogisbadob

0-60: 12.5

1/4 Mile: 18.1 (at 74mph)

Why we want one anyway: "The 914 is no sports car. Not enough power." This wasn't written by some jaded auto journalist, spoiled by the speed of modern family cars. This was written by Motor Magazine in 1973. It meant something to be underpowered back then.

Regardless of its lack of oomph, these little mid-engined ‘70s Porsches look like nothing else on the road, they're affordable, and they'll keep you entertained on a twisting road, just so long as there isn't too steep an incline.

Photo Credit: Alden Jewell



8) 1980 California Corvette

Suggested By: Cloud81918

0-60: 8.0

1/4 Mile: 16.3

Why we want one anyway: Instead of the regularly pathetic 5.7 liter, 190 horsepower car, the one-year, one-state-only California Corvette got a unique, smog-choked 5.0L V8 with a mere 180 horses. There were slower Corvettes in the ‘50s and the mid—70s, but by 1980, regular cars were catching up with Mr. Plastic Fantastic and his 3-speed automatic. Does it still look badass? Yes. Would we still buy one? Of course!

Photo Credit: Chevrolet



7) 1946 Triumph 1800

Suggested By: P161911 finally got a new password, and still hates the new layout

0-60: 34.4

1/4 Mile: Unknown

Why we want one anyway: You wouldn't expect a Triumph from the late 1940s to be fast, but you don't understand just how slow these things are. With 63 horsepower from their 1.8 liter engines, they were over a dozen seconds slower to 60 than even a rival MG. A half-starved WWII refugee on a Vespa could take it on in a drag race.

With its bosomy, wood-framed aluminum body and top-down charms, going fast isn't really the point anymore. We'd love to take one out to the country for some true motoring. Like a sir.

Photo Credit: Chris Sampson



6) 1990 Mazda Miata

Suggested By: Viperfan1

0-60: 9.0

1/4 Mile: 16.5.

Why we want one anyway: To put the Miata in context, you could buy a Ford Escort GT that was faster than a Miata to 60 mph. Even your creepy uncle's Chevy Beretta GT could out-drag an MX-5. Through the corners, though, the Miata is several orders of magnitude more fun than any of its contemporaries, and it's genuinely more desirable than most sports cars built since.

Photo Credit: Aidan Cavanagh



5) 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Suggested By: ForzaFanatic3

0-60: 10.6

1/4 Mile: 17.5

Why we want one anyway: Pontiac actually pitched the Fiero SE with its 98-horsepower "Iron Duke" 2.5 liter engine as a fuel-saving commuter before owning up to the fact that it was just a horribly slow sports car. Anyone with half a brain looking for a cheap, mid-engined ‘80smobile would buy an MR-2, but they'd be missing out on the orphaned car cool factor that you only get with the Fiero.

Photo Credit: Alden Jewell

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/YW...jpg_170646.jpg

4) 1958 Berkeley Sports

Suggested By: smalleyxb122

0-50: 30.6

1/4 Mile: Unknown

Why we want one anyway: Britain's Berkeley sports cars, from the SE322 of the 1950s to the B60 of the ‘60s, were an attempt at making an affordable sports car. How'd they do it? They gave their cars one of the smallest engines of all time, a 0.32 liter two-stroke, two cylinder. It put 18 horsepower to the front wheels in the early years, but a later three-cylinder bumped that up to 30hp. They're a joy to drive, unbelievably weird, and impossibly rare. We don't care that it chuffs out blue smoke and can't make it to 100 miles an hour. We love it.

Photo Credit: Brian Snelson



3) 1981 Delorean DMC-12

Suggested By: Ravey Mayvey Slurpee

0-60: 10.5

1/4 Mile: 18.0

Why we want one anyway: There's a reason why it took Marty McFly so long to get to 88 miles an hour. The Delorean shared an engine with a Volvo. The DMC-12 had every right to be a fast car – it had the looks, the engineering, and it was built by the guy who got the GTO off the ground. It just wasn't fast, and though that was a problem for buyers in the early ‘80s, it's not a problem for anyone now who just wants to cruise around with the gullwing doors open on the highway, soaking up its impossible cool.

Photo Credit: pyntofmyld

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Qb...jpg_170646.jpg

2) 1979 MG Midget

Suggested By: minardi

0-60: 14.3

1/4 Mile: 20.3 (at 70mph)

Why we want one anyway: For a few years in the mid-‘70s, the featherweight Midget was actually a bit faster than its brother the MGB. However, at the end of its 18-year production run, the Midget just couldn't keep up with the rest of traffic.

If somebody in '79 drove a Detroit land yacht off the lot, like a Ford LTD, and found you in a Midget at the stop light, they would absolutely dust you. When the road got twisty, the Midget would be hilariously fun, while the LTD would squeal its tires until you gave up or plowed into a tree.

Photo Credit: Laser Burners



1) 1950 Crosley Hot Shot

Suggested By: DannyBN - Same price as 4 Mustang V6's

0-60: 26.3

1/4 Mile: 23.4

Why we want one anyway: If I told you there was a small, light American sports car built from 1949-1952 that won the Index of Performance at the 12 Hours of Sebring, you'd think it was fast. The 26 horsepower, four-cylinder Crosley Hot Shot, aiming to be an affordable, fun sports car, was anything but. It tops out at 74. It takes longer to get to 60 than it takes to run a quarter mile. A standard Ford V8 would get to 60 ten seconds before the Hot Shot.

For all of you out there who might lust after a Caterham or any other lightweight trackday special, you should know that the Crosley was so bare-bones, so lightweight (1,175lbs), that it didn't actually come with doors as standard. We want one so bad it hurts.

Photo Credit: Crosley

Considering there's already a list ^ and it's faster than all of them, no.

since the 914 and the miata are on there its possible, but it would be the fastest on the list by a bit of a margin.

That was a pretty neat list to read. Makes u really appreciate how far we've come with cars!!!

Yep, sounds like it fits in this list perfectly

I may have a real problem here gentlemen,

I have considered the purchase of 6 of those cars at some point in the last 7 years...and it never bothered me that they are all anemic, I think I'm a glutton for punishment...(that's probably why I call SOA everyday looking for an update too)

:clap:

That was pretty creative there.

Even if it did make a list like this, we'd all still love it anyway

I have the same afflication apparently. Except for the Fiero (which I would replace with a MK1 MR2) I'd be proud to have all of them in my garage today!

It is amazing how much horsepower and torque vehicles have today. I have a Honda Odyssey that is faster than many sports cars I grew up driving in the early 90's.

Showing my age here, but back then 0-60 in under 8 seconds was pretty dang fast. Now we have many family sedans that can do it in 6 seconds or less....

Till they figure out how to objectively quantify "fun", I guess I'll just keep buying slow sports cars.

a little off topic ... but remember the 86 is the one win a cruel endurance 24hr Le Mans Nurburgring. Any other slowest sport cars out there can compare to reliable & performance of the 86 ? :)

Emilio ran a 1:58.9 in his 158 whp naturally aspirated NA Miata (and caught up to a modified Z06 in the video). Compare that to an 08 SRT-10 ACR with 600 hp running 1:55.7 in the hands of Car and Driver. The Miata is just 3 seconds off with less than a third of the Viper's power. I REALLY wish people could open their eyes and see that it really is all about the handling and that power is wayyy over rated. Not to say power isn't great though.

The FR-S did a 6.2 secs 0 to 60...it is not slow....there will be people who will get upper 5 secs in these cars...

Technically not a sports car since it has a back seat. None on the list have a back seat.

That's pretty old school thinking. Most people would consider cars like a Porsche 911 or a Lotus Evora to be sports cars.

The Ferrari has back seats.

Why would it? It's right on par with all the sports cars I owned/drove from the 80's and 90's:

1990 Mazda RX-7 Turbo II: 200hp, 182lb/ft, ~2800lbs, 0-60 in 6.3sec
1990 Mazda MX-5 (on the list, lol): 116hp, 100lb/ft, ~2200lbs, 0-60 in 9sec
1987 Toyota MR2: 112hp, 97lb/ft, ~2400lbs, 0-60 in 8.6sec
1989 Toyota MR2 Supercharged: 145hp, 140lb/ft, ~2500lbs, 0-60 in 6.5sec
1994 Toyota MR2 Turbo: 200hp, 200lb/ft, ~2900lbs, 0-60 in 6.1sec
1993 Nissan 240SX: 155hp, 160lb/ft, ~2700lbs, 0-60 in 8sec

I think that one of the biggest things that people misconstrue is the difference between "Fast" and "Quick" when it comes to cars. Fast deals with brute force speed and usually in a straight line. Sure it can be fun 1/4 mile at a time but I prefer the lingering enjoyment of lateral forces. I don't own a motorcycle for the straight line speed, I own it for the twisties. A "quick" car is one that responds without sluggishness and that is what we are all pining for in the 86/BRZ.

I don't see who it could be in the top ten when its faster than the current top ten...

lol @ this thread...

That's true. It should be removed from this list pointless list. While these cars are exotic, for the most part, none of them seem to fit the bill of being a "Sports Car" as there isn't anthing really "sporty" about them.

I'd drive half of the cars on the list willingly. :thumbsup:

But the Twins are waaay too fast to make the list. It's even faster than the '80 Corvette!

well we all know what the "S" stands for...
FR-Slow

We drive the modern equivalent to a 240z
Not that powerful (240 only had 150hp)
Kinda cheaply made (just saying)
And about as much fun you can have with your pants on!
It ain't about fast its about driving. So quit worrying about 0 to 60 and HP#s and enjoy these low cost fun machines .

I would drive about half the cars on that list so if it does I'm ok with it.

Goes back to the discussion of what a sportscar is? Back seats? Straightline speed? Excells on curves? Engine placement? RWD, FWD or AWD? Manual vs DCT(auto)? Nannies?

And for every criteria listed, I bet there's an example that most people would consider a "sports car".

I definitely agree that people need to stop trying to make the 86 a drag racer and enjoy it for what it is. Learn to drive well (I'm still learning for sure!) and take it on some good curves. 40mph can be a total rush if the corner is tight enough!

top 10 fastestunder 30k #6 FRS
 

this just about says it all


http://www.insidercarnews.com/10-of-...ars-under-30k/

The 86/BRZ is reminiscent of classic sports cars with its relative lack of power, simplicity, and yet fun to drive aspect. Performance wise, it is close to a Ferrari 246 Dino with 195 HP from 2.4L V6 and 0 - 60 in 7.9 secs. However, a Dino would set you back $400,000 if you want one today.