I can't say I agree with you on the Civic. The low end models aren't what you'd call fast, but they are certainly competitive with what else is out there. Where they excel however, is in reliability. The powertrains on those thing last a LONG time. My aunt (who doesn't know a thing about maintaining a car, and probably had the oil changed twice a year) had a 95 Civic that just died last year... with 325,000 miles on it. You can't call that a bad powertrain.

You guys have to realize that power isn't everything. Not everyone is looking for a car that can do a 0-60 time less than 7 seconds, and those that are aren't going to buy a Civic for their first choice. It's supposed to be a reliable daily driver for the masses and reliable as can be, that by no means makes it a poor powertrain. If you want to pull out biases I could argue the mustang you want has a terrible powertrain in it because it is a design that has not been changed in 40 years, unnecessarily large displacement and a low power output for the displacement it has. The transmission is uninspiring, the live-axle rear end is as modern as a rock, but you don't see me listing this car in this forum for anything beyond an example.

I think we should stop thinking of biases and give some reasons as to WHY you post the car you do, you can't say a car is terrible unless you can back it up. We aren't here to pick on people's automotive choices.

__________________
2001 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SuperSport

Well said Mesarius. I agree.

if all it can do is save gas why would you want it??? i mean seriously... what fun is that.... and its one of the slowest cars around.... my moms odessy beat my dads civic in a race!!! both stock... and again my grandfather and moms friend are the same way... they got old fords :-P i still don't think the civic has a good drive train.. i think they suck... but thats me.. and we all have a right to our own opinion.. :-)... my neighbor owns a GMC... he always pushes it right above its tow limit just for fun... it is still working.. he has had it for 15 years... its really nice.. :-)

I used to have a 90 Jetta diesel. This was before they started putting turbos on them. In 90 it was factory rated @ 52 bhp. It was the wolfsburg edition w/the upgraded factory suspension, so it was descent in the corners. This was good seeing as how it never had enough hp to pull away from anything. I know power isn't everything, but it also had the cheapest feeling gearbox I have ever personally used. I have driven quite a few manual trans vehicles over the years and that's the only one that felt like it was made by Mattel. It also had a serious problem with starters and alternators for some reason. Used to go through a starter about every 1 1/2 years and an alternator every 6 months or so. They were always under warranty, just a pain in the a$$ to change.

I'm nominating the Lamborghini Uraco as one of the worst-built cars, period. Anything that could go wrong with it, did. Neat looking car, reminiscent of the Espada (which really was a decent car), but definitely falls short.

As far as the Pinto, they're drivetrains were decent. What plagued them pre-73, is that the gas tank was on the driver's side, right next to the battery, and at a really terrible crash-point. In '73 they moved the tank, and solved the problem. My dad and I are hotrodding a '73 Pinto. Old-style 302 out of a '71 Mustang, C4 3 speed tranny with a high-stall shift kit, and gonna be in need of wheelie-bars.