Page 2 of 2

Re: 50 Worst Cars of All Time

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:55 pm
by Rope-Pusher
IMBoring25 wrote:Most economical cruise should certainly be well below the torque peak. However, if you're interested in the car maintaining speed climbing hills without what, given the wide ratios of the gear box, is likely to be a pretty clunky downshift, torque peak might be a good compromise to strike.
I always heard that GM did an excellent job of matching their RWD drivetrain pieces for fuel economy. Yeah, at anything above peak torque rpm, it would be kinda getting strangled on airflow. Hey, when the volumetric efficiency starts to go down, can you just turn up the jams to help it out? Whatever GM did, It's kind of a mute point now. I haven't seen the car since I drove it there in '89 and Sis doesn't own it any more either - she'd driving a Dakota with a Magnum 5.2V8 and swears it's got a supercharger on it. Probably not getting as good of fuel mileage, right?

Re: 50 Worst Cars of All Time

Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:31 am
by theholycow
Rope-Pusher wrote:I always heard that GM did an excellent job of matching their RWD drivetrain pieces for fuel economy.
True once they were using 4 speed overdrive slushboxes with lockup torque converters...my Buick was just before that happened.
Yeah, at anything above peak torque rpm, it would be kinda getting strangled on airflow.
But, at least its carburetor is the Quadrajet, made for fuel economy and power by offering a basic cruise level of power through small venturi and power on tap through larger venturi. Who knows, maybe it will deliver good results and I'll keep it, learning to tolerate its carburetorness.

Re: 50 Worst Cars of All Time

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:23 pm
by Tinton
I'm real surprised the Fiero didn't make that list :lol:, it usually does, or maybe that was 5-10 years ago. The car seems to be a bit more...loved, now, or at least not hated on as much.

Most of the other cars, yeah, they belong on there. Especially the Iron Duke Camaro :lol:.