Top 10 Slowest American Cars of the 1980s

When buying a new car, many factors come into play to help make a decision: price, fuel economy, reliability and, of course, performance. I would say that these four factors are some of the most common when looking for a new car for any family. a priority and for other performances wherever you are on this spectrum. I think we can all agree that having a car that is incredibly slow is terrible, sometimes even dangerous in 2024, the

slowest

car on sale is the Mishi Mirage with 78 horsepower converted to CVT. transmission now im not a mechanic but all i hear about cvts is that they are horrible, horrible, unreliable garbage, all of the above anyway 0260 for these

cars

comes in around 12.8 seconds, the next

slowest

car goes to the Nissan, kicks in at 9.7 seconds to 60 and the third goes to the Subaru cross Trek with 9.5 seconds for those of you who grew up in the 70's and 80's, these numbers aren't that bad, in fact, having a sub 10 second car was generally rare and decent especially in the early 80's in 2024. we have the Camry that hit 60 in 6 to 7 seconds in the 80's. 6 to 7 seconds was really super impressive e.g. a 1982 Camaro Z28 with automatic transmission reached 60 in 8.6 seconds and, interestingly, in this case the car was faster than if it was manual, a Mustang GT 82 reached 60 in 8 seconds and a Corvette 82 in 8.1 seconds As the 80's progressed, things started to improve again around 8586 when I say I'm not talking about

cars

like a Festivia or a Silverado of course.

Those vehicles aren't performance oriented, so cars like a Crown Vic or 98 were still pretty slow. I mean things like the Mustang Camaro Daytona turbo Z Shelby ghs etc. back in the early 80's however it had some of the slowest cars they have ever made. The video of half the cars on this list takes 19 to 20 seconds to get to 60 and most of these cars are from 1980 to 1984. Listening to me talk for the first few minutes, you would realize that I go from 0 to 60. 60 times or 0. to 100 km anywhere else in the world when I was making this list, that was the only factor I considered when determining the ranking system.

I think that's a pretty fair way to go about it, of course, when comparing sports cars against each other, many other factors besides 0 to 60 times play a big role in this case, seven of the 10 cars are normal family sedans and, having said that , it seems fair to me, these numbers are not 100% accurate for many reasons on different websites, there may be a full 1. second difference between each other and there will probably be cars that I will miss, for example, finding a 0 to 60 for an early 8 year old Ford econol line, the E350 with the extended chassis, the smallest engine offered, which was an inline 6 , did it in a three-speed Auto is almost impossible to find.

I'm sure 0 to 60 is terrible but I don't have any numbers because no one tested things like this, one more thing, commercial vehicles and heavy duty trucks like an F700 or a G30 pickup truck will not be included for obvious reasons ok With all that said, here are the 10 slowest American cars of the

1980s

, 1984 and 1985, Lincoln Continental Diesel. If you were like me, then you had no idea they came with a diesel. The engine is partly due to the fact that only about 1,500 units were sold in 1984. GM diesel engines have already lost their reputation. Ford, being the fly on the wall, saw everything falling apart, so the idea was to partner with BMW, which had a much better reputation.

To build diesel engines and slap it on a continent, this partnership seemed like a much better alternative than building small-block diesel engines in-house. Under the hood was a BMW 2.4 L 6 turbo diesel inline converted to a ZF-built 4-speed automatic, so all of the Trin power came from BMW's 114 horsepower and 155 PBT of torque for a car that weighs over 3500 lbs. Well, you'd quickly realize that that's not enough power. 0-60 in about 14.5 seconds, the Mark 7 also had this diesel and on-screen option. It's a pretty good matchup with the Mercedes 500 SEC. I think that's what my European knowledge is dog water anyway. 24 gallons MP compared to 16 with the V8 is definitely an improvement, but at a cost. 1981 and 1982 Ford Granada wagon and sedan with Ford Lima 2.3L inline 4 engine Honestly any car on the fox platform with this Dreadful 140 cubic inline 4 could be on this list unfortunately I don't have 0 to 60 times with this specific engine, however, a 1982 Granada four-door with the 3.3 L Thrift power 6 did 0 to 60 in 16.4 seconds those engines produce 87 horsepower and 154 lb-ft of torque, the Lima engines during This time they made about the same power but 118 lb-ft of torque so it's safe to assume 0 to 60 would be worse, the Thunderbirds didn't come with the inline 4 engine but they did have that inline six, they actually weighed 100-200 lbs more than a Granada, having around 90 horsepower with a car that weighs over 3000 lbs is crazy even with the 4.2L V8 in a Thunderbird 0 to 60 in over 15 seconds, also the Granadas, Thunderbirds and Fairmonts with the 3pe automatic performed the worst.

I mean, these transmissions were introduced in the '60s. I could spend even more time on this, there's so much going on. information, basically the base model engines with the base transmissions performed terribly in terms of numbers. I really don't know, so these Fords might rank even higher on this list with those 198 80 Chevy LUV inline-fours if you've never heard of these. I hadn't either until I made this video, these were rebadged Isuzu fasts sold in the United States from 1972 to 1980 so they just made the cut Luv means light utility vehicle and it wasn't uncommon to have rebatch Imports during this time.

The truck that comes to mind is the Dodge D50, a lowered Misubishi. I think Ford had their own version too, anyway, consumers could buy a two or four door configuration and these trucks were pretty basic, although there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If anything, I think some of the trucks today are too fancy and heavy, serving a completely different role than they did in the past. Most US-spec Luvs came with an Isuzu 1.8L 4-cylinder that makes 80 horsepower with 95 lb-ft of torque from 0 to 60 in about. 19 seconds while editing the footage for this video apparently for 2 years the states received the second generation Luv, one of the engines offered was a 2.2 L diesel engine and 55 horsepower 0 to 60 and well, let's discover the Cadillac Fleetwood of 1985 with the 4.3 L. diesel when I was talking about Ford and its collaboration with BMW I mentioned that GM diesels had a terrible reputation and they did, however, the V6 diesel alternatives were not horrible in terms of reliability, at least in comparison With those 57, in 1982 the first V6 diesel appeared.

It was called lt6 and then lt7. Well, apparently by 1985, GM thought to try again and the LS2 variant was released. It's funny because it was discontinued that same year. 86 horsepower and 165 lb-ft of torque, which was about the same power as the previous one. V6 diesel engines were only available in GM bodied cars, so the Fleetwood Electra 98 Etcs of this generation and every generation are very heavy cars, 35 to 3900 lbs with 86 horsepower, again crazy . 0 to 60 in around 19.8 seconds. 1981 Chrysler Newport with the 3.7 L slant 6 as were the Fox bodies, these engines were in some of the Chryslers at the time the New Port was on the Chrysler body platform along with the Grand Fury and St reges.

The Fifth Avenue and the New Yorker were also on this platform, but it did not receive this engine, the reason being that those variants had more abilities compared to the others. Chrysler during this time struggled compared to Ford and Chevy. What changed, to be honest they didn't really have the funds to create new platforms like the others, this body was sort of an attempt to downsize, they shared similarities with the B bodies but were still giants for 1979 in Dodge and Chrysler , they sold quite well, but in 1980, less than 10,000 Newports sold under the hood was Chrysler's 3.7 L slant. 6 which had been around for a while at this point 85 horsepower and 165 lb-ft of torque 0 to 60 in about 19.9 9 seconds Chevy Chevette with the 1.8L diesel.

I'm sure many of you watching They remember these things during their 12 years of production. More than 2.7 million Chevets were sold. Anyone who has owned one of these or driven one will tell you that these things were not built to last. Same story with the Pinto and the Vega, just super cheap and affordable if you have one. Just know that I'm not criticizing you in any way, my first car was so rusty that the driver's door would cave in if opened in 1982, a few years after this model was introduced, a 1.8L Isuzu diesel was now optional, the only transmission paired with this engine.

I was in a 5 speed manual Isuzu and it was not available with air conditioning, speaking of air conditioning, I'm sure with the times I've been giving it, I added even more time if the car's air conditioning was on as far as to power and I'm sure you've noticed a pattern with these early 80's American diesel engines, well there aren't any other than the BMW diesel in the Lincoln, most of them weren't turbocharged or direct injected. That said, these chetes made about 51 horsepower, from 0 to 60. In about 21.1 seconds, the employer drives a diesel car because he can afford to save money on diesel fuel and maintenance costs are lower. .

I drive a diesel car because I know it will get better mileage per gallon and requires less maintenance. I drive a Chevet diesel car because I want all the things the rich want, but I don't want to pay status prices. You could have six shets for the price of a Mercedes or three for the price of a PUO 1981 Cadillac Fleetwood brome with the 5.7 diesel that GM put in them. There are many different models between brands, so it doesn't really matter what car it is, if it had this engine, it was super slow. The Fleetwood Brome is one of the heavier models, weighing over 4,000 lbs and that's what I chose.

The design of this engine was based on the old 350 V8 and was introduced in 1978, of course V6 options were introduced later, unlike those V6 alternatives, although they were very unreliable. GM took a lot of shortcuts when designing this gasoline-to-diesel conversion. I really want to get into these details because this is a list video and I have to keep moving forward anyway. The Fleetwood Brome is such a beautiful luxury sedan from this era, it is one of my favorites, however with 105 horsepower and 205 lb-ft of torque 0 to 60 in 21.5 seconds is horrendous and even dangerous. The people who bought these Cadillacs weren't trying to go fast or anything, but there's a fine line between getting there and not.

I never had a chance to drive anything with the 57 diesel given its popularity in the past. I look forward to reading all your personal stories. It's one of my favorite things to do after uploading a video. 1985 Ford Tempo four-door with another diesel, in which the old first-generation Ford Tempo was introduced. 1984 and lasted until 1987, the standard on these cars was a 2.3 l 4 cylinder, but there was an optional diesel engine, you probably guessed it, it was not built in-house, but was from Mazda. I have noticed at least during the 80's each of the big three had their own designated import manufacturer - GM had Isuzu, Ford had Mazda and Chrysler had Miss Aishi for the most part, the Ranger and Escort also had a diesel option and, in fact, the escort and Tempo had the same two Mazda ignitions as the ranger.

So if anything the Ranger should have been on this list as they were a bit heavier than the others, the Mazda 2L diesel was good for 52 horsepower and 82 lbs. of torque from 0 to 60 and about 21.8 seconds with the manual. I don't have any information on the Ranger because they were only out for a year, but I guess another 3 or 4 seconds on top of that, most consumers didn't go for the diesel because it was an extra charge, so with the second generation already there was no diesel option, but if you opted for it in the first generation, expect to get a super impressive 45 MP gallons even by today's standards 1987 Cadillac Fleetwood Brome Limousine Apparently in December 1987 Car and Driver decided to put the president's limousine to the test Reagan.

I know it's a bit of an OB entry. I was debating whether I should add it, but I guess it spices things up more. I'm going to quote the car and driver directly because this is pretty fun, making the dirt move is something the Oldsmobile 5L V8 under the hoodIt simply can't do it, no matter how hard it accelerates with three tons of road-holding weight, which practically negates the presence of an engine. The little V8's humble 140 horses can't begin to cut the mustard, in fact, it can't even unscrew the lid. 0-60 for the limo was tested in 23.5 seconds with an average fuel economy of 11 MP per gallon inside. of the limousine had nothing of Elegance and luxury with a sticker price of over 200 Grand in 1987 1982 Pontiac 1000 with 1.6 L became a 3-speed Auto it is crazy to think that this gasoline engine is slower than a Chevette with diesel.

I'm not going to beat around the bush here, this was the slowest car of motor week ever featured, are you ready for 0 to 60 0 to 60 in the Pontiac 1000 is 30 seconds from 40 mph to 55, which took 12 .8 seconds, this Pontiac 1000 set several weekly engine records, including the slowest 0-60 time we've ever recorded, nearly 30 seconds under the hood was a 1.6L good for 65 horsepower and ​​85 lb-ft of torque, the biggest flaw with this spec is the automatic transmission, which would have a hard time downshifting with the manual, although 0 to 60 took about half the time and there you have it in the top 10 American cars slow of the world.

1980s

, as I said earlier in this video, I'm sure I'm missing a lot of possible entries again.

Finding 0-60 times for these cars wasn't easy, so keep that in mind. I hope you enjoyed this list of videos. It's usually a lot of fun to do, there's just more variety and I can learn a lot more. I wasn't born in the 80's. I couldn't even imagine what it must have been like to drive in these cars. They show me a completely different perspective with all that said. I hope everyone has a great week and I will try to see you all next week.