Interesting, cheap RWD cars

kevm14 · Post by **kevm14** » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:26 am

RWD or RWD based performance options from GM from 1990 to 2009:
- All Corvettes, including L98 C4, LT1 C4, LT5 C4 or LT4 C4, LS1 C5, LS6 C5, LS2 C6, LS3 C6, LS7 C6 or LS9 C6 - many of these are affordable now. These run between 245 and 638 hp. 245 was the MOST power available in 99.9% of 1980s vehicles. If you make the cutoff at 90s powertrains, the 92 Corvette had 300 hp. Probably only some V12 Lamborghini in the 80s had that kind of power. Unlike the Lambo, a Corvette is possible to maintain yourself on a budget.
- F-body from 90-2002, all of which are affordable and offer L98, LT1 and LS1 power. 230 to 310+ hp. 325+ in the case of the SLP cars.
- Syclone/Typhoon (not sure what years these ran...but it was early 90s). 4.3L V6 turbo. Not sure how affordable these are now. 280 hp? Tons of torque. AWD for your 0-60s.
- 94-96 Impala SS. 260 hp LT1. Every bit as legit as a family muscle car then as the Charger is now. Except more special then, than the Charger is now. I say that because there were very few affordable RWD-based sedans in the 90s, from anyone. And where it was remotely affordable (low end 3-series or 5-series), it was lacking performance.
- Chevrolet 454SS (90-93 maybe?). This may have started in 1990. Later iterations included an uprated TBI 454 at 255hp and also included a 4L80E. RWD only.
- Catera. Kind of weak for an enthusiast car. But it is RWD.
- CTS (03-08). Much better but still V6 only.
- CTS-V1 (04-07). LS6 or LS2 power (both 400hp). As I mentioned, I've owned mine for seven years, so it's hard to argue that a Cadillac V-series is prohibitively expensive to own. It's not.
- STS (05-11). A RWD STS with Northstar and FE3 is quite convincing as a sport sedan - frankly so is the AWD. 320 hp.
- STS-V (06-10?). We know what this is. 469 hp.
- SSR. Eh.
- Trailblazer SS (and Saab 9-7X Aero). Uhh...04-07? LS2 power (390 hp), AWD or RWD. Competed with Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8.
- 04-06 GTO. LS1 or LS2 power. 350 or 400 hp.
- Pontiac G8 and GXP (08-10). ~361 hp L76 or 415 hp LS3.
- CTS-V2 (09-2014). 556 hp.

Here's my main point: Today, and for some time, even years before today, just about ALL of the above are affordable to own. I do not accept that you don't find any of the above interesting or worthy of car enthusiasm. And the 5th gen Camaro did not invent performance at GM (a sentiment you have expressed) - they had it for 2 decades leading up to it.

kevm14 · Post by **kevm14** » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:44 pm

There are something like 18 engine RPO codes in my list above (almost one per year, average). Only 3 were V6s, and one of those was the 4.3L turbo.

kevm14 · Post by **kevm14** » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:38 pm

kevm14 wrote: - Trailblazer SS (and Saab 9-7X Aero). Uhh...04-07? LS2 power (395 hp), AWD. Competed with Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8.

My bad, these were also available in RWD.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:41 am

That 9-7X Aero is super rare! 442 produced in 2008 and 112 in 2009. It appears that all the Saabs were AWD. I think a RWD V8 Saab would have just been too much.

There are a few for sale:

https://hartford.craigslist.org/cto/d/2 ... 34086.html

https://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/cto/ ... 84548.html

https://norfolk.craigslist.org/cto/d/20 ... 21307.html

https://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/ctd/ ... 45655.html

They are actually holding their value better than I would have expected.

kevm14 · Post by **kevm14** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:59 am

This vehicle is such an abomination. I love it. The interior is about as nice as you could probably do on this platform.

Also, I lol'd at the mechanical fan. I guess that's where the 10 hp went. These do have a real tow rating though. Like 7,000+.

http://www.swadeology.com/2011/12/whos- ... cars-ever/

This guy comes at it from my perspective. Which means he is correct.

It wasn’t the most pleasant truck I’ve seen, but it was far from the worst. It had a pretty well appointed interior and was a comfortable place to hang out. The engine had a magnificent, sonorous note and the only thing that kicked you in the guts harder than the sound was the speed. It was genuinely fast for a vehicle of its size. The 9-7x had no major (or minor) systemic issues and as far as I’ve been able to trace, was subject to only one recall (which affected 850,000 GM vehicles).

So what was the problem?

Simple. The Saab 9-7x was the wrong decision, the worst decision, for the Saab brand.

Whilst the Saab 9-7x did sell well (it was the second best selling Saab in the US for each year it was available) and whilst it did expose Saab to some new customers, the vehicle was crucified in the press.

When the Saab 9-7x was released, the motoring press had only just finished laying into Saab over the similarly ill-begotten 9-2x, which was a rebadged, re-nosed and improved Subaru Impreza WRX. It didn’t matter that the 9-2x was actually a great car to drive and was genuinely improved by the changes made to the regular Rex. The makeup was thin and people saw straight through it. Moreover, all this happened at a time of huge growth in web based automotive blogging and reporting, complete with all of the acid-laced mockery that the birth of social media brought with it.

The Saab 9-7x simply added fuel to the fire.

The 9-7x had little other than the badge. It wasn’t that Saab didn’t try. Many modifications were made to make the 9-7x perform and handle better than its forebears. The bottom line: it just wasn’t a Saab.

Is the Saab 9-7x one of the worst 100 motor vehicles of all time?

Objectively, no. Not at all. It’s a reasonable looking vehicle with great performance and better-than-acceptable comfort. It’s probably the best vehicle GM ever made on that particular platform.

Subjectively speaking, however, it was a PR disaster and for some people out there, it was another reason to view Saab in a negative light.

I try very hard to point out that PR/public reactions and perceptions are not necessarily directly tied to the goodness (or badness) of the product itself. This guy makes that point with the 9-7X.

kevm14 · Post by **kevm14** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:03 pm

Wow!

The 9-7X Aero will go on sale this fall starting at $45,690. Those interested in a not-at-all-similarly equipped Trailblazer SS will find that vehicle available starting at $32,055.

A RWD Trailblazer SS started at $32k. That is amazing.

kevm14 · Post by **kevm14** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:07 pm

This would be a decent daily I guess. But performance is not the greatest. This is with RWD weighing 4,648 lbs.

14.2 seconds at 98 mph

I mean my STS isn't that far from that. And it handles waaaay better. The LS2 is also going to suck down fuel even worse than a Northstar.

Comparing EPA on the 2008 standards:
STS Northstar AWD: 14/21/16
Trailblazer SS AWD: 12/16/13

kevm14 · Post by **kevm14** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:12 pm

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/ch ... -road-test

At every new-car intro, one scribe or another always asks, "Who do you expect will buy this car?" It's a stupid question, like asking Henry Kissinger if he thinks the Tampa Bay Buccaneers will go all the way this year. But this time, a don't-use-my-name GM marketing type replied: "It's gonna be a mid-30s guy with a wife and two kids, and he'll tell the missus they need a practical, run-of-the-mill SUV that will tow the boat, and she's gonna like the sound of a Chevy, nothing fancy. And he'll come home with an SS and never once tell her it's a hot rod, and because of how the thing looks and drives, she'll never know. Bingo-everybody's happy." Go ahead and cry "sexist pig," but we think he's right.

The SS offers a lot of horsepower and utility per dollar spent. Know what? This is the SUV that should have become the Saab 9-7X.

The marketing guy quote is funny.

Also the final sentence is interesting. This article was published in the Oct 2005 issue. 2 years later, they made a 9-7X Aero out of the SS.

bill25 · Post by **bill25** » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:13 pm

400 Horsepower For Under $20K: Go Fast For Cheap
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/researc ... spartanntp

Interesting list. We mentioned a lot of these, including the 300. The GTO and Camaro were runners up. I think their estimated cost of a GTO is high, and it might not really only be a runner up.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:42 am

Redirected from the LT-5 thread since that isn't the right place to have this discussion.

bill25 wrote:We could talk about an RX-7 or Supra, but neither of those are really affordable/decent performance per dollar. That is why I have basically omitted that timeframe.

Repair-It

Interesting, cheap RWD cars

Re: Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

Re: Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

Re: Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

Re: Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

Re: Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

Re: Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

Re: Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

Re: Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

Re: Motorweek Retro: LT5 engine plant at MerCruiser

Interesting, cheap RWD cars