The Wimpiest Cars of 2006

[MNdudeswitz]

The wimpiest cars of 2006

As autos get more powerful, there are still some tortoises among hares
By Matt Vella
BusinessWeek Online

Updated: 12:49 a.m. CT June 19, 2006

At the highest echelons of the auto industry, a power war rages on. Even as gas prices soar, manufacturers large and small continue to up the ante, making engines bigger and putting more power under the hood. That's having an impact on cars of every type.


At the pinnacle of horsepower is the current Guinness World Record holder for speed in a production vehicle, the 245-mph, 806-hp Koenigsegg CCR. However, it will be soon be dethroned by the even more powerful 1,001-hp Bugatti Veyron, the current grand master of the auto universe.
Sure, both come with hefty price tags — anywhere from $700,000 to more than $1.4 million _ but there are also galloping examples in more affordable price brackets. The brand-new, 500-hp Ford Shelby GT500 costs a mere $42,975, and speedy 2006 power hatches from Honda and Volkswagen come in at nearly half that price.


In fact, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, over the past two decades there's been an 80 percent increase in average engine power relative to a comparatively minor 25 percent increase in weight. That means more performance-per-pound than ever before for average American auto consumers.


With more and more cars packing a titanic punch, performance-oriented competition has increased. So much so that models that can't keep pace run the risk of coming off, well, wimpy. BusinessWeek.com took a look at the 2006 models that could take inspiration from the CCR and Veyron, or even the relatively inexpensive models, and boost power to better compete.
BusinessWeek.com analyzed base models. Some of the cars on our list can indeed be optioned up into significant performers. But the models chosen have trouble keeping pace with other base-trim vehicles in their peer groups. Because "lackluster" isn't always simply about lack of horsepower, handling, ride, cabin quality, fuel economy, and intended utility were also taken into consideration.


Easiest to peg as power-lacking are vehicles now arriving on American shores as part of a new class of small, efficient subcompacts — intended, no doubt, to be the answers to nationwide gas-price woes. One prime example, and a model just introduced, is Toyota's minuscule Yaris, which comes with a paltry-sounding 106 horses. But in a class where most engines pump out around 100, the Yaris is capable of holding its own — especially given the up-to-date interior and forward-looking design.


Other models suffer competitively not because of their segment
characteristics but because auto companies have neglected to refresh them. Examples include the aging Chrysler Sebring convertible, Ford Ranger truck, and Volkswagen Golf hatchback. Some such models are getting relief soon, but only after power and handling gaps have widened noticeably.
The major auto manufacturers have also recently added performance trim lines to popular cars to drum up excitement and additional profits. But that can make basic models look like a poor value in comparison. Compare, for instance, the Chevrolet Malibu with the Maxx SS version, which, while more expensive, has 60 percent more power from a bigger V6 with more torque.
Granted, in certain segments competition is particularly tough. Jaguar's X-Type, for instance, has to go up against power offerings from legendary sport performers built by BMW, Cadillac, and Mercedes-Benz. Equally, the Mitsubishi Montero and Buick Terraza are in the crowded sport-utility and minivan spaces, respectively.
To see a slideshow of the wimpiest cars, click here.

Copyright © 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13419549/
© 2006 MSNBC.com


Link to list of cars:

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06...nbc_wimpyrides

[suckstobeyou]

straight up stupid. The whole list and article seem like someone needed to write an article in order not to lose their job. There is no subjectivity; instead there is bashing. The author apparently wants to write an article about engine power and ends up complaining about the car's interiors. Plain stupid.

[Murrow]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13419549/

BusinessWeek.com analyzed base models. Some of the cars on our list can indeed be optioned up into significant performers. But the models chosen have trouble keeping pace with other base-trim vehicles in their peer groups. Because "lackluster" isn't always simply about lack of horsepower, handling, ride, cabin quality, fuel economy, and intended utility were also taken into consideration.

Easiest to peg as power-lacking are vehicles now arriving on American shores as part of a new class of small, efficient subcompacts — intended, no doubt, to be the answers to nationwide gas-price woes. One prime example, and a model just introduced, is Toyota's minuscule Yaris, which comes with a paltry-sounding 106 horses. But in a class where most engines pump out around 100, the Yaris is capable of holding its own — especially given the up-to-date interior and forward-looking design.

Other models suffer competitively not because of their segment characteristics but because auto companies have neglected to refresh them. Examples include the aging Chrysler Sebring convertible, Ford Ranger truck, and Volkswagen Golf hatchback. Some such models are getting relief soon, but only after power and handling gaps have widened noticeably.

The major auto manufacturers have also recently added performance trim lines to popular cars to drum up excitement and additional profits. But that can make basic models look like a poor value in comparison. Compare, for instance, the Chevrolet Malibu with the Maxx SS version, which, while more expensive, has 60 percent more power from a bigger V6 with more torque.

[mrfunji]

That's a nice picture of the Malibu, with the SS option package, as in not base.

[stk]

Am I the only one to find that article total crap? I mean check at the Tiburon, they compare the I4 to the Ion red line... the ion red line is not the base model of the car. It would be the same as to compare it to the cobalt SS SC versus Tiburon base model. There's something wrong here. If they want to compare apple to apple take the base model of both car not the base of one and the higher version of another.

Then they talk about the comparison in torque for example in the Terraza and Zephyr but fail's to even mention the torque of the car they describe. Sorry but this totaly piss me off.

I find this article as free media bashing of product they don't like, nothing more then that. Just even look at the rating: 1Star for the article by 186 members... not a great average!

[BrickTamland]

I found that article wandered and was uninteresting. Free association is not a vital part of most publications.

[61695]

Boring.

[CobaltSScrazy]

waste of time reading that rubbish. it is rag writing, not magazine writing. lol.

[baloo]

Agreed on the quality of the article, and I don't really get what's so bad about having smaller engines available. I mean gas is expensive these days and most people rarely use 20% of the power anyway.

A midsize car needs about 25hp to cruise at 60mph and about 60hp for 90mph. A semi truck has a power to weight ratio of 10-15hp per ton and still manages to move ok. I enjoy fast cars as much as the next guy, but why are 200hp family cars or small trucks wimpy? How often do you really get to use it? Once or twice a month for 5 seconds?

The only thing 300hp in a family car is good for 99% of the time is bragging to your co-workers.

[cadillacpimpin]

Originally Posted by baloo

Agreed on the quality of the article, and I don't really get what's so bad about having smaller engines available. I mean gas is expensive these days and most people rarely use 20% of the power anyway.

A midsize car needs about 25hp to cruise at 60mph and about 60hp for 90mph. A semi truck has a power to weight ratio of 10-15hp per ton and still manages to move ok. I enjoy fast cars as much as the next guy, but why are 200hp family cars or small trucks wimpy? How often do you really get to use it? Once or twice a month for 5 seconds?

idk about u but i use all of my ponies on a daily basis. on ramps, passing, or any other merging, is a great place to use it all...
my biggest pet peeve is people not merging to the speed of existing traffic... it just causes unnecessary delays.

Originally Posted by baloo

The only thing 300hp in a family car is good for 99% of the time is bragging to your co-workers.

or taking on that ricer in the lane next to you at the next light

[D C]

Originally Posted by MNdudeswitz

In fact, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, over the past two decades there's been an 80 percent increase in average engine power relative to a comparatively minor 25 percent increase in weight. That means more performance-per-pound than ever before for average American auto consumers.

So are the Concerned Scientists concerned over the increase in power? I notice they neglect to mention the associated increase in efficiency.

[Ambynne]

I only skimmed the article, stopped to read about the Malibu and the Buick Terraza. About the Terazza: I'm not going to rattle any cages about the complaint on power. I've never driven one, I don't know if it's got enough power to get out of its own way with just a few people, much less enough to get around with a full load of people and their stuff.

But complaining about the turning circle of a minivan? Seriously weak.

Originally Posted by baloo

Agreed on the quality of the article, and I don't really get what's so bad about having smaller engines available. I mean gas is expensive these days and most people rarely use 20% of the power anyway.

A midsize car needs about 25hp to cruise at 60mph and about 60hp for 90mph. A semi truck has a power to weight ratio of 10-15hp per ton and still manages to move ok. I enjoy fast cars as much as the next guy, but why are 200hp family cars or small trucks wimpy? How often do you really get to use it? Once or twice a month for 5 seconds?

The only thing 300hp in a family car is good for 99% of the time is bragging to your co-workers.

I agree with this. They just keep boosting up the power more and more in generic cars of all type. Save the high output V6 engines for the pony cars, give the family sedans a better compromise between power and fuel economy. I'd really, much rather have a 40 mpg mid sized family hauler that I'm going to drive casually the majority of the time anyway. I'm not really keen on slashing my fuel economy for that rare occasion that I really need to get up and move, which is honestly pretty rare. It's even more rare that I really need to stomp the gas to get going anywhere with a stickshift. I'm getting a little tired of every moron on the road thinking that they're Mario Andretti and I need to get the f'ck out of the way because I'm only doing 10 over the limit, trying to save on gas when it's $3 a gallon. It's unfortunate because I am very rarely in a hurry. Seeing as how I plan ahead and give myself plenty of time to travel whenever I'm on a deadline, and I could very well improve my fuel economy by driving more slowly if I really wanted to.

People drive me crazy. It's very rare that I can actually drive casually around town even, and keep my shifts around 2500rpm. I always have to keep it up around 3500 - 4000rpm with a pretty heavy foot if I actually want to keep up with traffic. Even then there are always people flying off the line even faster than that, then people complain that those EPA numbers on the sticker are beyond optimistic. That's crap. Out of four cars that I've owned, two I4's, a V6, and a V8, I've done around 20% better than the EPA in every car. Whenever I look at that sticker in a car window, I usually look to the highway milage and figure that will be about what my average fuel economy will be.

Originally Posted by cadillacpimpin

or taking on that ricer in the lane next to you at the next light

That's nonsense. The last time I even tried to tackle a ricer (2003) I managed to overtake a Honda Civic with a 1991 Mercury Grand Marquis. That thing couldn't get out of its own way on a good day with the wind at its back, and it didn't have much of a problem there. It doesn't take much to overtake a compact car with an automatic and a wad of extra weight from stereo equipment and all of that cardboard body work.

[2005 Equinox LS]

Another example is my Equinox. They downgrade the enginebut for me the 180 horsepower 3.4 liter V6 does a the job just fine.

[baloo]

Originally Posted by cadillacpimpin

or taking on that ricer in the lane next to you at the next light

Well, if you consider these things important you probably would not opt for the smallest engine available then. Consider the Golf for example, which comes with 115-240hp engines. The article is criticizing the AVAILABILITY of the 115hp base engine, and I'm saying it's a perfectly fine engine for the vast majority of drivers. If you wanna go faster, just pick one of the more powerful models.

I agree that lack of more powerful engine choices can be bad, in the case of the Zephyr for example, but why criticize the fact that a car can be bought with a small engine? There are plenty of people that never use it, so why force them to buy needlessly powerful and thirsty engine?

[BobLikesBunnies]

for most people 100hp is just fine it will get you around town and on the freeway like the VW golf 2.0 has only 115hp and as a performance car it sucks but as a day to day driver its just fine as im sure the other cars on the list are hell we can only do 70mph on the freeway anyway and my 48hp rabbit could do that just fine.