Ever drooled over a car for its jaw-dropping looks only to find out it’s more show than go? It happens to the best of us. Sadly, a sick design doesn’t always mean you’ll be flying through the streets.
Today, we’re taking a look at some of the biggest letdowns in the car industry. These cars promised a lot, and left us, well, disappointed.
Toyota GT86/Scion FR-S
The Toyota GT86, also known as the Scion FR-S in the US, was a disappointment for those expecting a high-performance sports car. Its 2.0-liter Boxer engine, producing 200 hp and 151 lb ft, was underpowered for its class.
The GT86’s 0-62 mph time of 7.7 seconds (even slower at 8.2 seconds for the automatic version) was underwhelming. Its stylish design, with aggressive headlights and a ground-hugging stance, wrote checks its performance couldn’t cash.
The GT86’s lightweight body and 50:50 weight distribution were nice, but not enough to make up for the lack of power.
Fisker Karma
The Fisker Karma, designed by Henrik Fisker of BMW Z8 and Aston Martin Vantage fame, was a letdown in the performance department. Under its sculpted bodywork, lay a mediocre 260 bhp 2.0-liter engine and two 201 bhp electric motors.
The Karma’s 0-62 mph time of 8.0 seconds on battery power alone was disappointing for a car with such a stunning design. The long hood and wide stance suggested a much more powerful vehicle than what the Karma actually delivered.
Toyota Celica
The Toyota Celica was a major disappointment in terms of performance. Its Yamaha-derived 1.8-liter VVT-I engine produced a mere 145 hp, which was underwhelming for a car with such a sleek design. The Celica’s acceleration to 62 mph in a whopping 9 seconds and a top speed of 127 mph were far from impressive.
Although it was praised for its handling in 1999, this couldn’t compensate for its unimpressive speed. The small hood scoop and carved lines promised a rush that the Celica just couldn’t deliver.
Mazda RX-8
The Mazda RX-8, a successor to the iconic RX-7, was a letdown in terms of performance. It came with a unique 1.3-liter Wankel rotor engine, but with only 189 bhp and a lack of torque, it failed to live up to expectations. The RX-8’s 0-62 mph time of 7.5 seconds and a quarter-mile time of around 17 seconds were mediocre for a car with such a sporty look. The lack of turbochargers, something common in most performance cars, made it even worse.
Ferrari Mondial
The Ferrari Mondial, despite its Ferrari badge and iconic design, was a sluggish performer. Released in the 1980s alongside legends like the Testarossa and F40, the Mondial’s 3.0-liter V8 produced a paltry 205 hp, resulting in a slow 0-62 mph time of 8.2 seconds.
The Mondial’s top speed of 140 mph was unimpressive for a car with such a supercar presence. Its sloped front end and mid-mounted V8 couldn’t compensate for its lackluster speed.
DeLorean DMC-12
The DeLorean DMC-12, famous for its gullwing doors and sleek design, was a flop in terms of performance. Originally intended to be much more powerful, the production version ended up with a weak 130 bhp 2.85 Peugeot V6 engine.
The DMC-12’s sluggish 0-62 mph time of 10.5 seconds and a top speed of 130 mph (with some sources claiming only 105 mph) were sad for a car that looked like a supercar. Its heavy weight further hindered its performance.
Honda CR-Z
The Honda CR-Z, teased as a revival of the classic CRX, fell short in performance. Its 1.4-liter hybrid powertrain with only 124 hp was a letdown compared to the CRX’s 1.6-liter 8000rpm 160 bhp VTEC engine. The CR-Z’s 0-62 mph time of 10 seconds and a top speed of 118 mph were underwhelming, especially given its sporty design.
While its stiffer front-strut and rear torsion-beam suspension provided a nice drive on B-roads, it couldn’t make up for the lack of straight-line excitement.
Hyundai Coupe
The Hyundai Coupe was a disappointment in terms of performance. Its 1.6-liter engine produced only 104 hp, leading to a slow 0-62 mph time of 11.5 seconds and a top speed of just 115 mph.
Targeted at a younger market who might have been attracted to its good looks, the Coupe’s performance was inadequate, making it more of a looker than a real sports car.
Ford Mustang King Cobra
The Ford Mustang King Cobra, a response to the fuel crisis of the 70s, was a letdown in performance. With an 88 bhp 2.3-liter four-cylinder or a 105 bhp 2.8-liter V6 engine, it was far from the Mustang’s legendary 5.0-liter V8s. The V6’s 0-60 mph time of 13 seconds and a top speed barely reaching 100 mph were disappointing for a Mustang.
The return of the V8 in 1975 and the release of the King Cobra II in 1978 couldn’t salvage its reputation, as the 141 hp engine only managed a 0-60 mph time of nearly 10 seconds.
Chevrolet Camaro
The third-generation Chevrolet Camaro, launched in 1982, was a letdown with its 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine. Producing only 90 hp and 132 lb ft, the Camaro’s 0-60 mph time of just under 10 seconds was lackluster. Its aerodynamic lines and wide muscle car bodywork promised much more than what the entry-level engine could deliver.
Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder GS
The Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder GS was a classic case of all show and no go. Despite its aerodynamic bodywork and sporty stance, the car was bogged down by its convertible design, adding extra weight. The 2.4-liter engine’s 149 hp was insufficient for its 3505 lb weight, leading to a sluggish 0-62 mph time of 8.9 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 17 seconds. The automatic gearbox version was even worse, with a 0-62 mph time of 10.4 seconds.
Audi 100 Coupe S
The Audi 100 Coupe S, despite its elegance and sporty silhouette, was a disappointment in terms of performance. The 1.9-liter four-cylinder engine with 110 bhp was lackluster, especially when paired with a three-speed automatic gearbox.
The car’s 0-62 mph time of 12.2 seconds and a top speed of 114 mph were unimpressive for a vehicle that looked more expensive and prestigious than it was. The 100 Coupe S’s sleek design couldn’t mask its “meh” power and slow acceleration.
Pontiac Fiero
The Pontiac Fiero was a letdown, especially given its sharp Toyota MR-2-like bodywork. Marketed as a fast, small, light, and entertaining mid-engined car, it was ultimately hindered by GM’s cost-cutting decision to use a 93 hp 2.5-liter ‘Iron Duke’ engine. This resulted in a dismal 0-60 mph time of over 11 seconds and a top speed of 105 mph. The Fiero’s lack of revving ability and general absence of sports car vigor made it a disappointment for everyone attracted by its sporty look.
Josh Clark