Help understand the appeal of a few cars

There are some cars out there that I see some of you guys showering with praise that I just don't get it. I'm not saying that you shouldn't, I'm saying I want help understanding the appeal. Here is the short list

1) Volvo, I have almost no first hand experience with these. Whats the big deal?

2) 80s chryslers, I do have first hand experience with these and I've never seen a bigger bucket of suck.

3) Yugos, these were the joke of the car world, why do I hear their praises on here?

4) 80s chryslers, worth mentioning a second time.

So what am I missing?

1) No experience either. Legendary reliability in the older cars. For older cars, I also assume it falls into the "brown, manual, diesel station wagon" category: a car so unloved by the general masses that the GRM crowd just has to love it and keep it and call it George.

2) '80s Mopars: turbo 4-cylinders with a well-documented path to cheap scary speed. It begins and ends there, at least for me. The plain-jane cars are just crappy penalty boxes, but like all things, have their fans.

3) Yugos: super light, super cheap, simple as a stone axe, FIAT history means they can be built into interesting little weapons, at least by late-'70s terms. See also #1 above.

1. They're good DDs (reliable, comfortable, practical) and can take lots of boost. Also some are RWD and have plenty of lock angle for dorifto action.

2. Don't know

3. They're weird, small, simple, and can be made very fast with heavy mods.

4. Really I don't know. Anyone know?

For the chryslers, look at some challenge results. We think the Miata is a great 4 cyl car, but for the most part, the 4 cyl turbo Chryslers have done better than Miata's over the years.

Can make some big power for very little money.

^that. Several 10 second examples have run in the GRM challenge.

Having first hand experience with Yugos, as already stated, they are simple. They ARE as reliable as any 70's/80's Italian car, because they are essentially a Fiat 128.

If they are meticulously maintenanced and taken care of, they will be fairly reliable and return fantastic fuel mileage. The fuel injected cars are even better.

If my wife wasn't such a stickler, I'd have a '90 GVX in my garage.

I have owned cars from almost every manufacturer under the sun and can say without exception NOBODY has more comfortable OE seats than Volvo.

They are pretty good and entertaining cars overall, comparable to the other Europeans, and the turbos can be made extremely straight-line fast for not a lot of money, but "Volvo" and "incredible seats" are permanently associated in my band.

I've owned them all.

1- very solid chassis, good styling, great structure (safe= strong), and easy to boost to the moon.

2- I'm not a fan, but the cheap power some people get out of them is really impressive. Pretty sure there has always been a turbo Dodge in the top 10 at the Challenge.

3- Most fun I've ever had. Incredible predictable chassis, extremely lightweight, engine LOVES to rev high, most Fiat performance parts will bolt on, long racing heritage (in Fiat form).

4- More top Challenge finishes than Miata. :-P

Also, lots of older Volvos have massive parts interchangeability, which makes building a junkyard monster relatively easy. The turbobricks community was founded by cheap bastards, for cheap bastards.

Can't speak to the other two, but you'll find plenty of Volvo love here, having owned four between myself and my dad.

Volvos are, in short, just thoughtfully designed and well built cars that will last forever with minimal care (particularly the old RWD cars.) They are mechanically solid and seemingly impervious to the tin worm. They're kind of soft and cushy, but don't feel lethargic and imprecise the way a FWD Buick, for example, does. Seats are second to none. Most are pretty slow from the factory, but any time the word "turbo" is mentioned in conjunction with these bricks the term "sleeper" quickly comes into play. Adding turbo hardware to an N/A red block is relatively easy to do using cheap, factory parts (+T in Volvo parlance), while the high pressure turbo white blocks will do close to 300hp on bolt-ons. They're also, generally, just quirky and dorky enough to have some appeal for that sake, in a kind of ironic, hipster-ish way.

calteg wrote: Also, lots of older Volvos have massive parts interchangeability, which makes building a junkyard monster relatively easy. The turbobricks community was founded by cheap bastards, for cheap bastards.

Also this. The turbobricks dudes are genuinely kindred spirits.

1) Volvo - They're Boxy but Good.

2) 80s Chryslers - Fine Corinthian Leather.

3) Yugos - Built with Pride in Yugoslavia

4) 80s Chryslers - Kahn!!!!!!

My parent's last car was a 1986 Dodge 600, the only car they ever bought brand new. It was certainly an appliance as far as enthusiast driving goes, but it served them well. It was reasonably attractive for the time, comfortable and dependable (at least while they owned it, I don't know how it was after it got sold), got decent mileage, and it did what they wanted it to do.

gearheadmb wrote: There are some cars out there that I see some of you guys showering with praise that I just don't get it. I'm not saying that you shouldn't, I'm saying I want help understanding the appeal. Here is the short list 1) Volvo, I have almost no first hand experience with these. Whats the big deal?

They have European feel without BMW/Mercedes expense or VW crapitude. Everything on them is simple to work on. The rear drive ones have hell-for-stout engines, too.

2) 80s chryslers, I do have first hand experience with these and I've never seen a bigger bucket of suck.

Engines take a lot of boost, automatic transmissions take a lot of power, easy to get good handling, Mopar Performance supported them heavily in amateur and professional road racing and also autocross, similar to how Mazda is helpful to racers today.

3) Yugos, these were the joke of the car world, why do I hear their praises on here?

They're cheap Fiats. Everything that makes a Fiat go works on Yugos. Light, simple, fun.

pointofdeparture wrote: oney, but "Volvo" and "incredible seats" are permanently associated in my band.

I'd advise you to not drive my car, lest your worldview be destroyed. Worst seats I've had to suffer with.

Rest of the car makes it worthwhile, though. Been looking at Recaros every time I go to Summit Racing.

Lets add the weird infatuation with P71s. I've never driven a bigger POS in my life. (OK, that's a lie)

I do not get the attraction of a big, heavy stupid car with terrible handling, numb steering and almost enough power to overcome it's weight with 5 years minimum of cop farts built in. At all.

In reply to Knurled:

Must be something up with the NedCars then. My 740 and 960 were incredible despite their miles of use by heavy-set previous owners, and the few S60s I've driven were just sublime.

gearheadmb wrote: 1) Volvo, I have almost no first hand experience with these. Whats the big deal?

They seem to be tanks. Kinda like 80s Mercedes diesels. I don't have the love for them, but I can kinda understand why they are loved

2) 80s chryslers, I do have first hand experience with these and I've never seen a bigger bucket of suck.

So much agree. Personal taste (and I know there are some K-lovers here) but they are floppy piles of tinfoil IMO

3) Yugos, these were the joke of the car world, why do I hear their praises on here?

I think that is part of their catch. I also think that many of the classic Brits are massive piles of dung (MG, Triumph, some Jag) but I really love them. In that case, they are a terrible vehicle that I love for some unexplainable reason.

Huckleberry wrote: Lets add the weird infatuation with P71s. I've never driven a bigger POS in my life. (OK, that's a lie) I do not get the attraction of a big, heavy stupid car with terrible handling, numb steering and almost enough power to overcome it's weight with 5 years minimum of cop farts built in. At all.

I love big cars. Nothing like floaty suspension. Nothing like a couch on wheels. Sometimes it's just nice to cruise and not feel every bump in the road.

As for P71s, they're stupid cheap and damn near bulletproof. That's why there is an appreciation here.

Huckleberry wrote: Lets add the weird infatuation with P71s. I've never driven a bigger POS in my life. (OK, that's a lie) I do not get the attraction of a big, heavy stupid car with terrible handling, numb steering and almost enough power to overcome it's weight with 5 years minimum of cop farts built in. At all.

I agree. However I kinda get the fact that they are essentially modern, reliable Cadillacs for the lower classes. Just get in them and cruise across country, bash them and slam them and they'll just keep on trucking. I still wouldn't buy one, but to each their own.

Then again, I'm a recovering Turbo-Dodge fanatic, so I'm already a bit "touched" apparently.

As to the desirability of the 80's Chryslers, think of it like this: In 1984, the Dodge Omni GLH was built to outperform the original GTI by 10% in all measurable categories, it did this and then some (8.7 second 0-60 in 1984). Then Chrysler added a turbocharger to it along with Bosch EFI and upped the power from 110 to 146hp. Then Shelby came along, added an intercooler and better intake manifold and made 175hp/175lb-ft, dropping the 0-60 to 6.70 seconds and the quarter mile at 14.7. At the time, there wasn't much that could touch it that was within reach of the common person, let alone with 4-doors and a hatchback. Go look at some 0-60 lists of the time and find things that can beat that at $11,000 in those days.

Sure the cars were cheaply built and relatively crude, but so are Jeeps and those are well-loved. The subsequent derivations just added different levels of functionality and styling. That said, this love only really extends to the 4-cylinder 2.2 and 2.5 Turbo powered cars. The same cars with the Mitsu V6 are generally considered crap since there isn't much that can be done to make more power, let alone keep the valve guides from leaking or the 4-speed automatics from blowing up. If you were a sadist you might consider swapping in a later Mitsu V6 engine with dual cam heads and/or larger displacement, but you'll be out on there on your own.

When the Neon came along, it was based on all of the work Chrysler did in the eighties on 4-cylinder development, so the Neon DOHC motor made the same power with less displacement and no turbos that the original 2.2 turbo motor did. In fact, the bore spacing and cylinder head bolt patterns were the same. The steering racks and some of the suspension parts interchange with the earlier L and K-cars. Later they added a turbo to the 2.4L displacement version of this motor and made a ton of power and slapped it into the Neon and PT Cruiser.

Older Volvo: cheap, comically overbuilt, comfortable, RWD.

The Yugo is a shortened Fiat 128 derivative, everything mechanical (engine, trans suspension, brakes, etc.) interchanges and is mostly identical to begin with. Makes the same noises, handles the same, most fun you'll probably ever get from 50hp if you can keep the damn thing running. I liked mine even though it spent far more time broken than it did running, a lot of that stemmed from PO hackery though. It also rusts less than a real 128 (galvanized). The 128 was good enough for Enzo Ferrari, so a knockoff built in a country that no longer exists is good enough for you.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/GThbYeRKIt0

Huckleberry wrote: Lets add the weird infatuation with P71s. I've never driven a bigger POS in my life. (OK, that's a lie) I do not get the attraction of a big, heavy stupid car with terrible handling, numb steering and almost enough power to overcome it's weight with 5 years minimum of cop farts built in. At all.

I get these. But when I was a kid the family car was always a caprice classic, mom and dad had several through the years. The P71 is definitely not a sports car, what it is is a big ole dad sedan. No more, no less, and they can be had for almost nothing. I would drive one, with my short sleeved plaid shirt tucked in to my jeans, while listening to talk radio, and telling my kids why my generation is superior in every way.

So people love 80s chryslers because they could be made fast. But if you say on here that you want a foxbody people are jumping out of the rafters to tell you how they are so terrible. I've been in a K car. 1,000 hp wouldn't make it not a POS.

I do now recall seeing youtube videos of people crashing volvos repeatedly to see how much abuse they can take, pretty impressive. But I did find their achilles heel. A customer hit a big fat raccoon with one, the tranny fill tube that goes in to the side of the pan was snapped off dumping all the fluid on the road, also undercoating the car. It sat for a few days while I waited on a new tranny pan and tube. A few days on an asphalt parking lot. In august. The drippy raccoon chunks were pretty ripe by the time i started on the repair. It was incredibly gross. That really doesn't add anything to the thread, its just a gross story I like to tell.

gearheadmb wrote: 1) Volvo, I have almost no first hand experience with these. Whats the big deal?

Some interesting engineering, good seats, somewhat upscale and different.

gearheadmb wrote: 2) 80s chryslers, I do have first hand experience with these and I've never seen a bigger bucket of suck.

Cheap with performance potential.

gearheadmb wrote: 3) Yugos, these were the joke of the car world, why do I hear their praises on here?

Cheap, light, "Who cares if you mess it up?" factor = GRM fodder.

gearheadmb wrote: 4) 80s chryslers, worth mentioning a second time.

Minivans, minivans, minivans. Family guys could pull seats and haul stuff without borrowing a pickup.

gearheadmb wrote: So people love 80s chryslers because they could be made fast. But if you say on here that you want a foxbody people are jumping out of the rafters to tell you how they are so terrible. I've been in a K car. 1,000 hp wouldn't make it not a POS. I do now recall seeing youtube videos of people crashing volvos repeatedly to see how much abuse they can take, pretty impressive. But I did find their achilles heel. A customer hit a big fat raccoon with one, the tranny fill tube that goes in to the side of the pan was snapped off dumping all the fluid on the road, also undercoating the car. It sat for a few days while I waited on a new tranny pan and tube. A few days on an asphalt parking lot. In august. The drippy raccoon chunks were pretty ripe by the time i started on the repair. It was incredibly gross. That really doesn't add anything to the thread, its just a gross story I like to tell.

When you say K-car, which variant? Even though they were the same basic chassis underneath, which combination of parts used makes a huge difference. They also don't have horrendously bad suspension geometry that makes them up and jump sideways on you, unlike a Foxbody 'stang which likes to bind the rear suspension and go slideways.

You have to look at context: The Fox body is often compared to the Camaro and Corvette and similar when people are trying to go autocrossing or road racing with them. This usually means that the flawed suspension needs to be addressed one way or another as they'll be severely out-classed. This isn't cheap or easy unfortunately. Or the idea of using the Fox chassis dropped altogether and another solution found (swap motor into Miata or 2nd gen RX-7 for example).

With the Turbo-Dodge's they are quick FWD cars that can be made to go quite a bit faster on the cheap and you can make suspension improvements on the cheap or leave them alone and have fun without the goofy handling aside from understeer. Compared to Rabbits that like to rip the rack out of the firewall, etc. they are pretty safe bets provided they aren't rusty. They are like Yugos with a ton more power, just stupid fun wrapped in a flimsy box.

How many Turbo Dodges have run quite well at the Challenge, especially the autocross portion, compared to how many Fox-body Mustangs and their derivatives?