By Robert Emslie
Yesterday I wanted to know which GTO got your goat bleating. You came up with some most excellent choices – a lot of you focusing on those coke bottle urethane-nosed machines of their heyday. No matter which one you picked, there’s no doubt that each earned its GTO badge by packing big engines, lots of horses, and a general sassy attitude. But not every car fitted with such a sporting appellation has so earned them.
GT, Si, GTi, AMG, IROC, STi, GTO, GTA, there’s a seemingly endless series of letter and number permutations indicating that their wearer possesses sporting pretensions. Sadly, there’s no guideline for these nomenclature appendages requiring that to don such promises, one must demonstrate that prowess. You might expect a car that talks the talk to likewise walk the sporting walk, but that’s not always so. Sometimes ‘sporty’ isn’t a physical manifestation, but a visual one, being only a tape and plastic addendum rather than mechanical upgrade.
One of the most famous of these was Ford’s Mustang II King Cobra, a veritable orgasm of plastic and additional weight, adding to the woes of a smog-strangled V8 which afforded no sporting capabilities to back the outlandish visual treatment – or even speed the car past onlookers so they would be spared its egregious graphics. That’s but one example of a car that gained an appellation portending performance, but which in action proved unable to back that up with actual prowess, but there are many more. What do you think is the worst offender among the cars that are badged sporty, but in reality, are not?
Image source: [Jay Leno’s Your Garage]
Jeff Glucker
Hyundai Elantra GT (my friend's quote) "those are by no means performance tires"
there are so many examples of this!
Elantra GT was my immediate first response to this question.
I think it's a toss-up between the Cavalier and Beretta Z34's. Most everyone that I met that owned one wanted to race everything (and fully expected to win). I finally raced one guy in college, not against my old Monte (400 sbc), but with my Toyota pickup (22R with a 4-speed). I soundly trounced him without putting forth much effort and he maintained that "something went wrong"… for months after the event.
Honorable mention goes to the Escort ZX2 Sport. Just typing that made me vurp a little bit.
In more positive news, I bought a 1981 Scirocco last night. For under a grand, I'm eager to see how long it will run (with 250k on the odo). I titled it today and its first stop will be the muffler shop. The college guy I bought it off of has a muffler that doesn't fit the car suspended with chain from the rear of the car. Even with a beater VW, I think you have to maintain some semblance of taste.
Congratulations. I envy your find.
Ah, but did you get the Scirocco S? I think they both have the 1.6L engine. My brother used to have a 1979 and wishes he still did. Those are fun cars and very economical to keep running.
Yes, it is a Scirocco S. It needs a couple of things sorted out, but it should be a fun little commuter after a bit of brake and exhaust work.
the 1977-78 Ford LTD II Sport 4 dr. Sedan is tops on my list. This scow motored along with a strangled 351 and gobs of fancy stripes to highlight it's "sporting heritage".
Ford Pinto Rallye is bad…
<img src="http://autopolis.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/win-pics-ford-pinto.jpg?w=450&h=276" width=400>
…but the winner has to be the Yugo GV Sport.
<img src="http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Yugo-GV.jpg" width=400>
Agree. Objectively speaking it was the worst car sold in the US. Other "sport" models may tie for the "zero added sportiness" but when you're starting that low, it makes all other competitors seem vastly superior.
In the words of Dean Wormer
Zero. Point. Zero.
<img src="http://funnycrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dean-wormer-2-ab072010.jpg" width="300">
Image courtesy of freerepublic
What could be less sporty? The answer is none. None less sporty.
<img src="http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR916L5NgIItM5NBE_q8PLkf_bTUyCMbFkZHzZt2ZB_gPCJQYXhNA&t=1" width="300">
image courtesy of imdb
No, that is not as bad as the Yugo GVX-complete with body kit, alloys and the same engine as the base Yugo. It's silly and stupid but yet I want one for some reason…
<img src="http://www.mirafiori.com/~courtney/128/scott1.JPG">
I nominate the Chevy Celebrity Eurosport.
It was neither European, nor sporty.
It wasn't European to be sure, but did you ever drive a Eurosport? It had a handling package that was very impressive – I remember tossing about a Eurosport wagon for a month and it had a really good balance of ride and handling.
All I remember was that as soon as they were more than six months old, the flat black paint GM added to the stainless window trim (the "Euro" in the styling department I guess) would start coming off in big flakes, making them really look like shit.
<img src="http://showcase.netins.net/web/ln7budking/photos/LN7.jpg">
<img src="http://showcase.netins.net/web/ln7budking/Group4.jpg">
The hair! The hair!
I'd recognize Kenny Bernstein anywhere. That smile of his is one-of-a-kind.
In this particular picture, the hair coupled to the nut-hugger shorts caused me to mistake him for Richard Simmons.
<img src="http://www.motorbase.com/pictures/contributions/20000410/std_1990_Dodge_Dakota_Sport_Convertible.jpg">
IMG from Motorbase.com
This:
<img src="http://www.dragtimes.com/images/21969-1997-Chrysler-Sebring.jpg"width=500>
Is named for this:
<img src="http://www.racingdentist.com/images/sebring%20track%20map.jpg"width=500>
Technically, it's named after Sebring, Florida, which is itself named after George Sebring, an Ohio pottery manufacturer who developed the city. I'm sure there are blander things than midwestern pottery, but those things would also be blander than a Chrysler Sebring.
Volkswagen Polo:
<img src="http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/volkswagen/polo/2010/ns/2010_volkswagen_polo_f34_ns_40110_717.jpg" width="500">
Actual Polo:
<img src="http://b5media_b4.s3.amazonaws.com/28/files/2008/04/polo-player-hitting-ball.jpg">
However, I will allow the VW Golf.
Next year Polo:
<img src="http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/uploads/polo-wrc-4.jpg" width="600">
from VW Vortex
Any S-trim compact car which shares the engine, transmission, and suspension with the non-S trim.
A cosmetic spoiler and different plastic wheel covers do not make anything sporty.
Equinox Sport (last gen) and anything Redline from Saturn. Sans Ion. That was a pretty fast, poorly built turd.
The Saturn Vue Redline is even funnier. I see one of those occasionally, on my way to work.
Hey, the Vue redlie has V-tec, yo.
Gen III Grand Caravan Sport
<img src="http://www.carsdesign-review.info/images/ford-explorer%20(5).jpg">
I mean, SERIOUSLY. Neither sport nor utility is present this POS.
The 1982 "Dodge" "Challenger"
<img src="http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q53/Froggmann/Misc/Junkyard%20Finds/82%20Dodge%20Challenger/f5d3d49e.jpg" width=600 /img>
<img src="http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q53/Froggmann/Misc/Junkyard%20Finds/82%20Dodge%20Challenger/e583cbf7.jpg" width=600 /img>
<img src="http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q53/Froggmann/Misc/Junkyard%20Finds/82%20Dodge%20Challenger/d6b1e1a3.jpg" width=600 /Img>
A friend of mine almost bought one of those, way back in '78. He looked at the Plymouth version, too (the Sapporo). What did he end up buying? A '70 Pontiac Executive 2-door hardtop, with a 400 2-bbl.
Sounds like he chose wisely.
Look like kah was first with the Caravan, but I'd nominate the gen 2 caravan 'sport' instead because it's boxy lines and k-car roots are even less sporty than the gen 3's jelly bean shape and updated chassis.
<img src="http://memimage.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/2776/3061/6939030011_large.jpg" width="500/">
See, it says 'Sport' right there, so it must be so.
I was blissfully ignorant that the gen 2 came in Sport trim, I'm with you on this gen 2 is even less worthy of the label
Yeah. I had a gen 1 and always wanted those 5 spoke wheels for it. Alas, it was a beater and not worthy of a wheel upgrade.
I thought the gen 3 sport package was good looking. Nothing 'sport' about it really, but attractive none the less.
At least with the second gens, you could get a turbo, though. A few have been tuned to run 12's in the quarter.
<img src="http://www.turbovan.net/bryburn2.jpg" width=500>
That's a first gen. Did the turbo carry over into gen 2?
I was tempted to respond with my automotive nemesis – the Corolla Type S. Then I realized there is also a Yaris Type S.
Tangentially, it's a shame the 9th-gen Corolla XRS is so obscure — the Celica GTS drivetrain (2ZZ + a 6 speed) is apparently a hoot, and a great sleeper that takes well to upgrades.
For the record, my beef with the Corolla S has less to do with the car, which I've never driven and know little about, than it does with the drivers who seem intent on adhering to prevailing speed limits while always traveling in the leftmost lane.
The XRS with the 2zz 1.8L Yamaha motor is actually a decent performer…the kind of car Hooniverse 8.2 will be covering on the hypernet in 20 years.
There's a Yar…
…oh, wow.
I suppose I can't knock the Yaris too badly, though. A Toyota Yaris sedan and my 740 wagon (sans boost, at that moment) were the fastest-moving things on the highway last night on my way home – I couldn't tell you how fast, because my speedometer stopped working earlier that day, but it was a hoot.
The Volkswagen SP1 (Sem Potência 1, No Power).
<img src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/03/Orange-VW-SP2-front-3-4-resized.jpg">
The looks are quite sporty though.
I don't care one bit how unsporting it is; it's ridiculously sexy.
Perhaps that needs to be a second Hooniverse Asks: "Which car can be excused for its absence of power because it's outrageously sexy?"
I do have to vote for the Karmann Ghia…
<img src="http://nsa19.casimages.com/img/2010/09/28//100928023323297009.jpg" width="600">
<img src="http://www.fvwa.sitefactory.fi/data/6131.jpg" width=600>
You're a strange boy, Sam, but I approve.
Lack of power does not prevent me from wishing for one. Brazil gets some interesting iron.
Luckily it uses the standard VW motor. It could use something like this 2276 quoted at 250hp
<img src="http://images.thesamba.com/vw/classifieds/pix/medium/1889634.jpg" width="500">
Oldsmobile Starfire GT. I could have almost as easily gone with the Monza Spyder or the Buick Nighthawk, too, but C'mon…
It's. an. OLDS. GT.
<img src="http://www.tanshanomi.com/temp/olds-starfire-gt.png">
While your selection is appropriate,
http://www.442.com/
These folks would probably disagree with your assessment of Olds.
Sure, there are fanbois for any make. The Olds lovers are conveniently forgetting 442s like this.
<img src="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/4/370/261/38422630001_large.jpg" width=400>
Pontiac wasn't far behind with the 1986 Grand Prix 2+2 with all of 160 HP and a 0-60 time of about 10 seconds.
<img src="http://media.motortopia.com/files/5519/vehicle/466c1f4717990/stuff_134.jpg"width=500>
There were even sillier Monza clones. Ever see a Buick Roadhawk? Those macho looks are backed by 115 rompin' stompin' horsepower from a 3.8 V6.
<img src="http://ned.ronet.ru/0/1979%20Buick%20Skyhawk%20%27Road%20Hawk%27.jpg" width=400>
I don't know, 115 HP in the late 70s with less than 2,500 lbs and, I think, available with a 4 speed? Sure, it sounds pathetic now, but you have to remember this is the era where I don't think even Corvettes made 200 ponies.
Ford Festiva Sport, it was just aluminum wheels, different seat covers and door panels, and a spoiler.
and though the caravan was nominated i also think the Ford windstar should be put on this list
i don't have time to post the pic. but Pontiac TransSport Sport, they had to put "sport" in there twice to make you think it wasn't just another dustbuster.
This probably wins. I was thinking there was a FWD Lumina/Monte Carlo Sport or SS, but obviously the minivan on the same chassis wins (or is that loses?)
I had a hatch with the 3.8. The best feature was the broken motor mount that allowed the air cleaner to bang against the inside of the hood when I revved in neutral. That really impressed the ladies.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Pontiac_LeMans_Hatchback.jpg">
Pontiac had a history of LeManses (Les Mans?), but this Daewoo wasn't renamed.
In North America. Elsewhere it was a Daewoo Racer, which is equally inappropriate in a generic way.
GM Canada really got into the silliness when it came to renaming Daewoos. They didn't stop with Pontiac. How about the Asuna GT? Yes, I know there's supposed to be an umlaut above the ''u" but I'm lazy.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Asuna_GT.jpg/800px-Asuna_GT.jpg" width=400>
Remember the Passport Optima?
<img src="http://autos.sympatico.ca/docs/4b2c29903e2f0/large/03_passport.jpg" width=400>
It's just that you guys got the bad part of the deal. We had the Kadett GSi with a 155HP 2.0L. Pretty sporty at the time.
<img src="http://www.motorbase.com/pictures/contributions/000121b/std_1984_opel_kadett_gsi.jpg"/>
'Mercan tuned suspention are not exactly improvement.
I thought they came from Opel…
Nothing says "Sport" like a 4000 lb body-on-frame 4×4 with a v6 and an automatic:
<img src="http://www.theautochannel.com/media/photos/mitsubishi/1998/98_mitsubishi_montero_sport_4wd2.jpg" width=500>
Unless it's a 5000 lb body-on-frame 4×4 with a v8 and an automatic. But in that case it's o.k. because it's a SUPER sport!
<img src="http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200708/2008-chevrolet-trailblaze_460x0w.jpg" width="500/">
My point above about the Explorer "Sport" also applies here. I think too many folks here are forgetting that the "s" in SUV stands for "sport," for some reason. They are neither sporty nor especially utilitarian.
The Trailblazer has 400 horsepower with 400 lb-ft, AWD, 0-60 in the low-5 second range…of all the crappy SS-badged vehicles, this isn't one.
It's no 2000 Monte Carlo SS, in other words. It actually backs up the badge.
At the risk of sounding fanboyish and crude…don't speak ill of the Trailblazer SS, they're fncking fast.
I really want a Saab 9-7X Aero. A Trailblazer SS without the flamboyant SS badges.
One of my friends loves his SS. He's put time and money into it and it'll pass like no other…still won't handle for shit(looks at own muscle car and hides in a corner).
That's kinda my point. A 409 impala was quick in a straight line, but you'd hardly call it sporty. Call me old-fashioned, but I like a little stop and turn with my go.
I wouldn't hide in too many corners- Johns been known to hit those occasionally.
<img src="http://www.swotti.com/tmp/swotti/cacheD2LUZHN0YXI=/imgFord%20Windstar4.jpg">
Windstar Sport. Because what says "Sport" better than a minivan?
I'm also going to throw it out there that the Cavalier pictured has aged way better than I expected. I thought it was ghastly as a little kid, but now it's sort of handsome, in a weird 80s kind of way.
George C Scott should commit ritual suicide for his part in the Renault Alliance. But the GTA sport model… really…
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2651/3899657102_9f465d02b8.jpg" />
It's a little late for Scott. He died nearly a dozen years ago.
Damn… I knew I should have checked my facts first…
I think there's a way to satisfy everybody here, it's been done before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Isuzu_Bighorn_201.JPG" width="500/">
"Handling by Lotus" Sure…
Seriously, that badge by the door =
<img src="http://www.delorean.com/store/images/PRODUCT/medium/108726.jpg" width="300">
Throwing it out there for discussion… but Jeep Wrangler Sport? Doesn't handle any better than the SE or Sahara… isn't going to be great in the twisties…
I love it, but in the frame of what we are talking about…
I think the "Sport" moniker on SUVs is supposed to imply off-road sportiness. They're more suggesting you'll be blasting down the beach with a peroxide blonde than blasting down the paved 2-lane twisties.
Of course, many of them are just as non-offroad-sporty as non-pavement-sporty, so I guess the criticism would stand, but I would not include the Wrangler in that group. It actually has the chops for any number of off road "sports."
Sport = 6 cylinder and 30 or 31 inch tires (at least on the TJs), which made it a hell of a lot more sporty than the 2.4L.
With lower gearing, they're decently quick up to about 40mph. When my YJ had a Mopar ReMan 4.0L, 4.56:1 gears and only 32" tires, it embarassed a few people light-to-light.
Love it when I'm flat wrong here, you feel smarter afterward…
Hey now, I have driven a Renault 9 TC (TC for Total Crap?) with the base model 1.1L and I can assure you that that the 1.7L model would have felt like a muscle car compared to it.
Yugo GV sport
But but but…. I Loooove King Cobras….
<img src="http://www.tomlaferriere.com/2009CarsForSale/1978KC/1978KingCobra%20007.jpg" width="500">
<img src="http://www.tomlaferriere.com/2009CarsForSale/TwoKingCobras%20004.jpg" width="500">
<img src="http://www.ford-mustangs.info/images/1978.jpg" ">
My little brother saw one in traffic and he said "wow that is bad ass."
I can hear the door rattles just looking at these…
Let's not forget the 1975 Chevy Caprice Classic Sport Sedan:
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/4979049612_65a7e5407d.jpg">
Back then, Chevy offered both hardtop and "post" versions of the full size sedan, and evidently the lack of a B-pillar was considered sporting enough to merit the name.
I had a friend in shop class in high school who had that same 2+2 Monza hatch with the big ugly spider graphic on the hood. In this case however, someone had shoehorned an SBC into it with a 4 speed manual. So while not quite as nimble in the corners, it sure hopped along in a straight line nicely.
190 horsepower and lowered suspension mean that this isn't the most ludicrous example, but… 'Xtreme'. Just, 'Xtreme'.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Chevrolet-S10-Xtreme.jpg/800px-Chevrolet-S10-Xtreme.jpg" width=600>
Well, it does have the dumbest, most dated label, at least. The Xtreme did have some handling upgrades (quicker steering and an anti-wheel-hop shock in the rear), so it's not completely stupid.
…and at one point, my dad leased a non-Xtreme 4.3L/5 speed S10, and it was more entertaining to drive than one might imagine. It could spin the tires handily in second.
I (obviously) guessed on the weight. I would have never guessed that overgrown Vega weighed the same as my 2005 Mazda3. That's nuts, especially considering how flimsy the things felt.
The base Vega hatchback went up in weight from around 2,200 pounds in 1971 to around 2,550 pounds in 1977.
Any "sport edition" of a bland, boring, plain vanilla, Toyota sedan. Worst offenders are the Camry SE and the Corolla S. Or maybe it's the people driving them…