Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

Ty's 93-TYPHOON

Ty's 93-TYPHOON

xxx BIG xxx
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

No matter, SyTy: We still love you and you'll always have a spot reserved in our fantasy garages.

Need i say more. Yeah i guess.......

Is it me or does that sould like a girl, always complaining about me. But yet still wants me:roll:
 
Chest Rockwell

Chest Rockwell

Active member
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

My little brother introduced me to SHOs. He had a 1991 "Plus", wich was apparently a rare car. It had the rear spoiler that wasn't widely available until the second generation, as well as a plastic hood from the factory. No faster than the other SHOs, but fast enough for a "family car". He got the window sticker with that car, too. Must've been hard to swallow the roughly $25,000 it cost new.
 
Baythan

Baythan

SY2TY2SY2TY
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

Captain Morgan said:
Aaron Klinger is also a big fan of SHO's if I recall. I think he's owned at least 2 of them.
Click to expand...

I also had a '93 automatic and owned it for exactly one year. Car cost me 6k and a year of repairs (including a transmission) cost me 4k :eek:. Rode nice, super comfortable, somewhat quick....but prone to breaking. :tdown:

Ty photo above is very nice.
 
turbodig

turbodig

Active member
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

This is basically an "article to start an argument", and nothing more. A blog Troll.

The very point of nearly all of these vehicles was an unconventional package; something different from the standard defined perception of performance.

Shouldn't any non-RoadRunner/Cuda/Superbee hemi-powered car fit this? What was more of a mismatched package than a Gramma's-car Satellite with a Hemi? Or, big-block Fairlanes and Comets? Big Block Novas?

If you open that can, finding a place to stop will be a difficult thing.
 
Six-is-Enough

Six-is-Enough

Use to do a little Boost
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

turbodig said:
This is basically an "article to start an argument", and nothing more. A blog Troll.

The very point of nearly all of these vehicles was an unconventional package; something different from the standard defined perception of performance.

Shouldn't any non-RoadRunner/Cuda/Superbee hemi-powered car fit this? What was more of a mismatched package than a Gramma's-car Satellite with a Hemi? Or, big-block Fairlanes and Comets? Big Block Novas?

If you open that can, finding a place to stop will be a difficult thing.
Click to expand...

X2 Great point !:tup:
 
tyndago

tyndago

New member
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

Take everything you read with a grain of salt.

Thats the first statement. The next is the John Neff, the editor of Autoblog is a SHO lover. They say a little scary in the way he loves SHO's. Everyone has their weakness. He was also mentioning recently that he was actually interested in a Typhoon. My girlfriend writes for Autoblog, and he put something out about looking for a Typhoon.

I actually do think that the GN should be on that list. The engine is good, the chassis sucks. I even love G-bodies. I think I still have a couple of them.

Anyway, everyone have a happy new year. I might even change the transmission in my Sy this year. If anything, the Sy/Ty was a weird combo that needed a transmission..
 
WannabaTY

WannabaTY

New member
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

Kind of funny.. A good friend of mine had a GLH-S given to him by his grandmother when he was 16.. He made that little car fast. He was known at the races as "Omniman".. And thats how he came up with the company name of Omni Power. They makes suspension products and others performance parts for Imports. But I would bet that he would be willing to make other makes and models too.
 
turbodig

turbodig

Active member
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

tyndago said:
Take everything you read with a grain of salt.

I actually do think that the GN should be on that list. The engine is good, the chassis sucks. I even love G-bodies. I think I still have a couple of them.
..
Click to expand...

Or, at the very least, the Turbo-T/Turbo Regals.

R1/R3 Studebaker Larks. Wicked cars in ugly packages, handled like a meat wagon.
 
sytyguy

sytyguy

Moderated User
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

sy2206 said:
I've never driven a meat wagon. But if I did, I would expect it to handle poorly....

;)
Click to expand...
28 and never "driven" a meat wagon?.....man, we gotta get you off the computer.

Handling often depends on the particular wagon, the number of miles on the wagon, and the type of surface you're trying to drive the wagon on.
 
Ty 1885

Ty 1885

New member
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

:rotf: Complicared suspensions ??? Leaf springs, air shocks and torchen bars, WoW REAL complicated
 
graham1524

graham1524

Well-known member
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

i saw a car while out today that should have been on there a saleen explorer at least the ty's were 2 door and low
 
leadfoot

leadfoot

Member
Re: Top 10 Cars That Don't Deserve Their Engines???

I have fond memories of watching the jaw drops of sport car owners when passing them in my R/T . Too bad the quirks on that Lotus designed head could not be resolved prior to production.

Sleepers rock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top