15 Flashy Cars That Really Disappoint on Speed

Welcome to our candid exploration of cars that promise more than they can deliver. These are the vehicles that turn heads with their sporty looks, like the Toyota Celica and Mazda MX-30, but leave you underwhelmed when you step on the accelerator. They’re the automotive world’s equivalent of all bark and no bite. 

Toyota Celica

The Toyota Celica, despite its sporty appearance, was a disappointment in terms of performance. Its Yamaha-derived 1.8-liter VVT-I engine produced a mere 145 hp, which was underwhelming for a car with such a dynamic design. The Celica’s acceleration to 62 mph in a sluggish 9 seconds and a top speed of 127 mph were far from impressive. Although it was praised for its handling in 1999, being called the best-handling front-wheel drive car, this could not compensate for its lackluster speed. The small hood scoop and carved lines promised a thrill that the Celica simply couldn’t deliver.

Mazda RX-8

The Mazda RX-8, a successor to the iconic RX-7, was a letdown in terms of performance. It featured a unique 1.3-liter Wankel rotor engine, but with only 189 bhp and a lack of torque, it failed to live up to expectations. The RX-8’s 0-62 mph time of 7.5 seconds and a quarter-mile time of around 17 seconds were mediocre for a car with such sporty aesthetics. The lack of turbochargers, a common feature in performance cars, further diminished its appeal. Despite its 2+2 layout and sporty bodywork, the RX-8 was more show than go.

Toyota GT86/Scion FR-S

The Toyota GT86, also known as the Scion FR-S in the US, was a disappointment for those expecting a high-performance sports car. Its 2.0-liter Boxer engine, producing 200 hp and 151 lb ft, was underpowered for its class. The GT86’s 0-62 mph time of 7.7 seconds (even slower at 8.2 seconds for the automatic version) was underwhelming. Its stylish design, with aggressive headlights and a ground-hugging stance, wrote checks its performance couldn’t cash. The GT86’s lightweight body and 50:50 weight distribution were commendable, but not enough to make up for the lack of power.

Fisker Karma

The Fisker Karma, designed by Henrik Fisker of BMW Z8 and Aston Martin Vantage fame, was a letdown in the performance department. Under its sculpted bodywork, reminiscent of an Aston Martin Rapide, lay a mediocre 260 bhp 2.0-liter engine and two 201 bhp electric motors. The Karma’s 0-62 mph time of 8.0 seconds on battery power alone was disappointing for a car with such a stunning design. The long hood and wide stance suggested a much more powerful vehicle than what the Karma actually delivered.

Ferrari Mondial

The Ferrari Mondial, despite its Ferrari badge and iconic design, was a sluggish performer. Released in the 1980s alongside legends like the Testarossa and F40, the Mondial’s 3.0-liter V8 produced a paltry 214 bhp (205 hp in the US), resulting in a slow 0-62 mph time of 8.2 seconds. The Mondial’s top speed of 140 mph was unimpressive for a car with such a supercar presence. Its sloped front end and mid-mounted V8 couldn’t compensate for its lackluster speed, making it a disappointment for Ferrari enthusiasts.

DeLorean DMC-12

The DeLorean DMC-12, famous for its gullwing doors and sleek design, was a flop in terms of performance. Originally intended to be much more powerful, the production version ended up with a weak 130 bhp 2.85 Peugeot V6 engine. The DMC-12’s sluggish 0-62 mph time of 10.5 seconds and a top speed of 130 mph (with some sources claiming only 105 mph) were dismal for a car that looked like a supercar. Its heavy weight further hindered its performance, making it more of a novelty than a serious sports car.

Honda CR-Z

The Honda CR-Z, teased as a revival of the classic CRX, fell short in performance. Its 1.4-liter hybrid powertrain with only 124 hp was a letdown compared to the CRX’s 1.6-liter 8000rpm 160 bhp VTEC engine. The CR-Z’s 0-62 mph time of 10 seconds and a top speed of 118 mph were underwhelming, especially given its sporty design. While its stiffer front-strut and rear torsion-beam suspension provided a pleasurable drive on B-roads, it couldn’t make up for the lack of straight-line excitement.

Hyundai Coupe

The Hyundai Coupe, despite its sleek and sporty profile, was a disappointment in terms of performance. Its 1.6-liter engine produced only 104 hp, leading to a slow 0-62 mph time of 11.5 seconds and a top speed of just 115 mph. Targeted at a younger market who might have been attracted to its good looks, the Coupe’s performance was inadequate, making it more of a style statement than a sports car.

Ford Mustang King Cobra

The Ford Mustang King Cobra, a response to the fuel crisis of the 70s, was a letdown in performance. With an 88 bhp 2.3-liter four-cylinder or a 105 bhp 2.8-liter V6 engine, it was far from the Mustang’s legendary 5.0-liter V8s. The V6’s 0-60 mph time of 13 seconds and a top speed barely reaching 100 mph were disappointing for a Mustang. The return of the V8 in 1975 and the release of the King Cobra II in 1978 couldn’t salvage its reputation, as the 141 hp engine only managed a 0-60 mph time of nearly 10 seconds.

Chevrolet Camaro

The third-generation Chevrolet Camaro, launched in 1982, was a letdown with its 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine. Producing only 90 hp and 132 lb ft, the Camaro’s 0-60 mph time of just under 10 seconds was lackluster. Its aerodynamic lines and wide muscle car bodywork promised much more than what the entry-level engine could deliver.

Hyundai Veloster

The Hyundai Veloster, released in 2012 to compete with the Volkswagen Scirocco, failed to impress in performance. Its 1.6-liter engine with 140 hp resulted in a 0-62 mph time of 10 seconds. Despite its unique three-door layout and sporty design, the Veloster’s performance was underwhelming. Its great handling and grip were overshadowed by the lack of power, making it a disappointment for those expecting a sporty drive. Hyundai’s later introduction of a turbocharged version was an attempt to address the base car’s lackluster performance, but the damage to its reputation was already done.

Mitsubishi Eclipse Spider GS

The Mitsubishi Eclipse Spider GS was a classic case of all show and no go. Despite its aerodynamic bodywork and sporty stance, the car was bogged down by its convertible design, adding extra weight. The 2.4-liter engine’s 149 hp was insufficient for its 1589 kg (3505 lb) weight, leading to a sluggish 0-62 mph time of 8.9 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 17 seconds. The automatic gearbox version was even worse, with a 0-62 mph time of 10.4 seconds. The Eclipse Spider GS promised a thrilling ride that it simply couldn’t deliver.

Audi 100 Coupe S

The Audi 100 Coupe S, despite its elegance and sporty silhouette, was a disappointment in terms of performance. The 1.9-liter four-cylinder engine with 110 bhp was lackluster, especially when paired with a three-speed automatic gearbox. The car’s 0-62 mph time of 12.2 seconds and a top speed of 114 mph were unimpressive for a vehicle that looked more expensive and prestigious than it was. The 100 Coupe S’s attractive design couldn’t mask its underwhelming power and leisurely acceleration.

Pontiac Fiero

The Pontiac Fiero was a letdown, especially given its sharp Toyota MR-2-like bodywork. Marketed as a fast, small, light, and entertaining mid-engined car, it was ultimately hindered by GM’s cost-cutting decision to use a 93 hp 2.5-liter ‘Iron Duke’ engine. This resulted in a dismal 0-60 mph time of over 11 seconds and a top speed of 105 mph. The Fiero’s lack of revving ability and general absence of sports car vigor made it a disappointment for those attracted by its sporty appearance.

Mazda MX-30

The Mazda MX-30, an electric vehicle, failed to deliver the impressive acceleration usually associated with EVs. Its modest 143 bhp and 199 lb ft from a small battery resulted in a sluggish 0-62 mph time of 10 seconds and a dull top speed of 87 mph. The MX-30’s range of just 124 miles was another letdown. Despite its aggressive design and pushed-back cabin, the MX-30’s performance was lackluster, especially considering its weight of 1,645 kg (3626 lb). The MX-30’s slowness, while beneficial for range, was a feature that underscored its underwhelming performance compared to other electric vehicles.