The Worst 10 Performance Cars of 2009

Top Ten lists are a longstanding tradition with automotive journalism outlets. And why not?  People love a Top Ten list (it gives them something to argue about!), and man, they're not exactly hard to throw together.  The issue is that the vast majority of them are fluff, crap, really just a slap on the back to whichever manufacturer schmoozed that rag the most that year.

('’)

Well we here at CarThrottle don't subscribe to that happy, shiny version of things.  To be honest, a large number of the cars on our roads are complete, total junk.  This has always been obvious.  The world's full of Chrysler Sebrings and Kia Amantis.  But there are even cars trying to pass as performance vehicles (which is a heavy focus of this site, if you've noticed) that really can't cover the checks they write.  And despite a consumer market that continues to get pickier and pickier, it still seems that some makers think they can get away with putting a Monroney on a turd and trying to sell it.

So, yeah, it's a top ten list!  But with a twist.  This list aims to point out the performance cars still sold in 2009 that fall below the mark, that leave a lot to be desired.  These are the bottom of the barrel.  Let us know what you think in the comments!

10th Place: Mitsubishi Eclipse

It's almost 2010, and Mitsubishi still exists in America.  Which in and of itself is surprising.  What's even funnier is that they're still selling the Eclipse.  It's awful in a way only Alfa GTV owners (of the '90s variety) would appreciate.  The bulbous, grotesque styling looks like a melted Audi TT - or maybe a pregnant 350Z.  Your choice of engines is pretty dismal, too: you can either have an iron-block 2.4L buzzer that wheezes out 162 thundering horsepower to motivate 3260 lbs of Galant 2-door, or if you're really stupid you can get the GT, which has an iron-block 3.8L 24v V6.  Which is, as you'd imagine, quite heavy.  And of course the Eclipse is FWD-only - has been since the third generation came out in 2000 - so that means a few things.  Mainly understeer, torque steer, wheelspin, and a number of other problems associated with trying to route 265bhp through the front wheels of what is, really, a Galant.

This wasn't even an appealing car when it debuted a few years ago; today, you can pay roughly the same amount of money for a Hyundai Genesis Coupe 2.0T, which is, you know, actually fun to drive in addition to  being actually, you know, good to look at.  So, yeah, Eclipse - you fail.

9th Place: Chevrolet Impala SS

I think everyone already knows how much I hate the Impala SS.  But, just to recap: What GM did was develop an absolutely fantastic motor (the LS4, a smaller-displacement version of the Corvette-derived LS series), and proceeded to stick it in a whole bunch of chassis' that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of coping with all the power.

303bhp and 323lb-ft of torque are respectable numbers these days, but the W-body GM midsize platform has roots dating back to the early eighties.  And back then, they pretty much stayed away from high-horsepower FWD cars with the technology of the day.  Do you wonder why?  Things like unequal-length high-angle half-shafts, loose and floppy steering, and useless brakes end up making the SS seem more like "Seriously Scary" than whatever it used to stand for.

8th Place: Dodge Caliber SRT-4

The original SRT-4 was a hoot: a big hunk of turbo four under the hood of the cheap, plastic Neon.  It was refreshingly performance-centric; it had chunky, grippy seats, a thick steering wheel, a great shifter and a nicely integrated boost gauge.  And almost nothing else; it even had roll-up windows in the back, which is still pretty funny.  But it was impossible to not have fun in an old SRT-4.  It spooled and ran like it got rear-ended by a dump truck, it would spin the tires clear through second on a wet day, and it was easy as pie to get 300whp out of it.

Then Dodge replaced the Neon with the Caliber, and what was a pretty bad car became a truly awful car.  I'm not sure Dodge ever really knew what the Caliber was supposed to be, but at the same time I'm pretty sure they got it wrong.  It's got SUV proportions- all high and narrow and tippy - but sad little gravel-mixer engines.  Except the SRT-4, which packs a monsterous Mitsubishi-derived 2.4L Turbo motor, which cranks out 285bhp.

Which is fun!  It really is.  But in a Caliber, what that equates to is homicidal weapons-grade torque steer, turbo lag that 80's Saab owners would find uncomfortably long and dramatic, about 300lb/ft of resistance in the clutch pedal, and a ride that only your chiropractor's accountant could love.

Is it fast?  Yeah, in a straight line.  But hustling an SRT-4 Caliber feels strangely like work, which means that Dodge missed the point of the whole hot-hatch thing.

7th Place: Toyota Corolla XRS

Another fall from grace here.  The previous Corolla XRS may not have been a looker, but it did have the same engine as the Lotus Elise under it's hood.  The Yamaha-designed 2ZZ-GE is one of my favorite engines, and even in detuned Corolla form it was a hoot.  Astronomical redline, banzai VVTL-i cam lift changeover, tight six-speed manual, four-wheel discs...  It wasn't a land-based rocket, but it was real, genuine fun to drive.

But like most other things Toyota, it's gone from boring to "please shoot me."  The high-winding 2ZZ was replaced with the 2.4L 16v motor out of the Camry. Because nothing says exciting like a Camry motor!  Now, it's got enough torque to buzz the tires through first gear with the five-speed, but with 158bhp, that's about all it can do.  There's the possibility of adapting the TRD blower from the Scion tC, but would you even want to bother?  If anything, the Corolla's gotten less interesting and more plastic-feeling than the previous generation, and that's saying quite a lot.  Big thumbs down to this regression step.

6th Place: Buick Lucerne Super

More GM drivel here - act surprised.  The Lucerne is the final demonic incantation of GM's sub-par W-body, which should have died with the Grand Prix.  But instead of dying, GM continues to crank it out because stupid people continue to buy them.  And you can even get the hot-rod Lucerne Super, which is perhaps the most ironically named car I can think of.

What, exactly, is "Super" about a 4.6L 32v V8 that only puts down 292bhp?  Especially when GM's got a lighter 3.6L 24v V6 that makes 304?  And, again, as we've discussed there's no such thing as a good FWD transverse-V8 GM car.  But for the "honor" of having a 16-year old engine under the hood of your ancient Buick, GM would really like you to give them $39,000 and change.  And, as I've said a million times before, that kinda money could get you a real car.

5th Place: Ford Taurus SHO

I know, perhaps a dramatic decision.  After my recent SHO experience though, I'm ready to call this one a disappointment of a large caliber.  (No pun intended.)  The SHO has all the right ingredients on paper:  modern, attractive styling, tons of gizmos, Twin-Turbo DI 24v V6, Haldex 4WD, a paddle-shifted 6 speed automatic, tons of power and immense low end torque...

But as you learn, things that sound great on paper don't always translate into the real world.  Especially when you're getting into a car expecting it to be an SHO.  The old SHO was all about the howling Yamaha V6, it was a budget  BMW or Audi for those that wanted to be different.  The new SHO is just an EcoBoost motor (which is admittedly awesome) in a loaded Taurus.  It feels overweight and underexcited about the prospect of propulsion.  It's quick, but it's like a quarterback that would rather watch the game on TV.  One for the 300C crowd, then...

4th Place: Mazda 6

Mazda's previous 6 (Atenza in Japan) might not've been the most dramatic-looking vehicle out there, but it was one of the most entertaining steers in the mainstream family sedan market.  There was also the elegant wagon and the nifty five-door hatch version.  But the appeal laid in the ability to get either the four or the bent-six with a 5-speed manual and tight suspension.  Sure, the new 6 might have way more power - it's 3.7L 24v V6 has 272bhp, compared to the old 3.0L Duratec with 220 horses - but it's also quite huge (think Impala) and rather unfortunate looking.

The problem is that Mazda tried to both push the 6 more into the mainstream (more space) and make it more individual (pregnant RX-8 styling.)  It just doesn't work, really.  And the saddest bit is the demise of the MazdaSpeed6 - that old AWD, turbocharged, 6MT-equipped rally weapon they used to sell.  Sure, the V6 has almost as much power (272 vs. 280) but there's no way that heavy-nosed V6 FWD automatic-only 6s can hold a candle to a lightweight 4WD sedan stuffed full of boost.  Very sad.

3rd Place: Volvo "R-Design" Cars

Remember the Volvo S60R?  It looked like this:

And, to back up the huge intakes and large wheels and brakes and all the other visual pizzaz, it had a 300bhp turbocharged straight-five that sounded like a pissed-off Audi Quattro.  Oh, and Haldex AWD.  And a 6-speed manual.  And an instantly variable three-mode chassis setup, and huge brakes, and twin intercoolers, and it went like stink...  you get the point.  Compared to most things, it was visibly subtle (c'mon!  It's a Volvo!) but if Mustang GT drivers weren't careful with the launch, all they'd be seeing were some Volvo tail-lights.  Very satisfying, and even moreso in the mechanically identical V70R wagon version.

Sadly, Volvo decided the S60/V70R were way too cool to exist, people didn't want fast Volvos, blah blah blah.  So now they'll sell you a Volvo that looks fast.  Like this V70 R-Design, which has the same boring engines as a regular new V70, only it's got a totally sweet bodykit and wheels.  This is an improvement?

2nd Place: Porsche Cayenne

Beating a dead horse here, I know.  But I'm sorry: If it has a Porsche badge, it should be fast.  So why, then, is a V6 Cayenne slower to 60mph than a Honda Odyssey?  And also, why can you get a Porsche Cayenne with a 3.0L Diesel?  What is the world coming to?

1st Place: Ford Mustang V6

And we get to the ultimate performance poser!  While the Camaro boasted a nifty 3.6L 24v DI V6 this year, which cranked out a no-joke 304bhp, the Mustang continued to stay on course with it's fabulous 4.0L V6.  Which manages to cough up 210bhp.  So despite the new, super-sexy bodywork, the 2010 V6 Mustang was still a three-legged pony.  Or, wretchedly slow and awful - it's up to you!  And while the V6 Camaro managed to surprise and delight, the V6 Mustang gets beat up by... of all things, the Eclipse GT!  Oh dear, we've come full circle.

The good news is that Ford is answering your cries of pain next year.  As you may have heard, the ancient 4.0L is getting the heave-ho, and a new Mazda-derived 3.7L 24v V6 is taking it's place, which promises 305bhp and something other than meatgrinder noises coming out of the tailpipe.  Hurray!