{"id":60855,"date":"2023-02-23T17:47:54","date_gmt":"2023-02-23T22:47:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/motor-junkie.com\/?p=60855"},"modified":"2023-02-25T02:52:02","modified_gmt":"2023-02-25T07:52:02","slug":"save-your-money-1980s-muscle-cars-that-arent-worth-scrap-metal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/save-your-money-1980s-muscle-cars-that-arent-worth-scrap-metal\/60855\/","title":{"rendered":"Save Your Money: 1980s Muscle Cars That Aren’t Worth Scrap Metal"},"content":{"rendered":"

The 1980s were a defining time for the muscle car business as the industry shifted away from the big block V8-powered cars of the 1960s and early 1970s. Cars were more economical and new emissions laws were putting a damper on what automakers got away with. Nevertheless, there were quite a few exciting muscle cars that came out in the 1980s. These cars<\/a> were more advanced than anything that came before them, and although there was less power, the cars were still impressive.<\/p>\n

Ford was instrumental in the 1980s muscle car scene with its Fox Body Mustang, one of the most iconic cars<\/a> ever built. The 1980s are often frowned upon when it comes to reliability and performance, but in some ways, this was also the pinnacle of the new age of automotive design. But there were also a lot of lemons during this era. So we looked back at the muscle cars<\/a> that should be avoided. Many of these vehicles became instant rust buckets that you don’t even see on the road anymore.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

1980 Ford Mustang<\/h2>\n

The 1980 Mustang launched the car that we know today as the “Fox Body” Mustang. The major flaw with the 1980 Mustang was the lackluster four-cylinder engine. There was nothing “Muscular” about this pony car. The new generation of the Mustang<\/a> was the smallest model ever to carry the Mustang badge. The original Mustang GT that came long before the 5.0 had the 4.9-liter Windsor V8 under the hood (via Motor Trend<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Ford<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The 5.0 was introduced a short while later, but the first year was crucial in introducing the fox body to the public. The original models had shoddy build quality compared to other vehicles at the time. It’s not uncommon to see an early fox-body Mustang<\/a> in the junkyard, which is why enthusiasts try to skip these models. Although a fox-body Mustang is still a fox-body Mustang, you’ll want to steer clear of this one.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

1983 Dodge Shelby Charger<\/h2>\n

Before you get excited, don’t hold your breath as this was not the original Charger at all. The Shelby Charger was built in partnership with Carroll Shelby, but it failed<\/a> to garner the same kind of reception that the muscle cars before it did. There wasn’t even a V8 option which was wildly different for a Mopar muscle car<\/a>. The 2.2-liter engine was naturally aspirated but the performance was lackluster at best (via Barn Finds<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: W Super Cars<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Without the addition of a V8 engine<\/a>, the car wasn’t anywhere near the historical Shelby of the past. The Shelby Charger was a compact sports car<\/a> as opposed to a traditional full-sized muscle car. The fact that the Shelby name was chosen for this car was bad enough, but the design was nowhere near the muscle car<\/a> heritage of the past. The Shelby Charger was quickly one of the worst sports cars<\/a> that Chrysler ever built.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chevrolet Camaro Iron Duke<\/h2>\n

The Camaro Iron Duke was a novelty idea that hit the market to deal with rising fuel costs. The problem with the Iron Duke was that it was horrendously underpowered for the curb weight of the Camaro. Performance was lackluster at best, and in fact, the car barely had any acceleration time. The idea of a four-cylinder Camaro was novel, but the execution was so poorly planned that the car developed an awful reputation (via Hot Cars<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Auto WP<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Four-cylinder sports cars from the 1980s<\/a> were fun to drive and economical, but this Camaro was neither. The design was cheap<\/a>, and the development of the four-cylinder was about as lackluster as possible. General Motors<\/a> wasn’t known for advanced four-cylinder design around this period, and the Iron Duke was evidence of that. Few cars from the 1980s were as universally hated as the Iron Duke Camaro.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

1982 Pontiac Trans Am<\/h2>\n

The Pontiac Trans Am always shared a body with the Chevy<\/a> Camaro, but the two cars were distinctly different. When the third-generation Trans Am hit the scene, it was different from the Camaro in many ways. GM differentiated the car with a very different-looking body and design that was far more aerodynamic. The interior was also a lot more upmarket than the Camaro, with a lot of carbon fiber accents and a completely different dashboard (via Hemmings<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Auto WP<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But the Trans Am used a minuscule four-cylinder<\/a> engine in the first couple of years. The Iron Duke four-cylinder<\/a> wasn’t shared across the F-Body cars. The Pontiac got its engine, which was the 151 cu in (2.5 L) Pontiac I4. Utilizing such a small engine was unlike anything a pony car<\/a> did before, and the performance and reliability suffered greatly. The four-cylinder Trans-Am models were among the worst ever built<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Mercury Capri RS<\/h2>\n

Putting a turbo or a supercharger under the hood of a small car is nothing new. So when Ford crammed a turbocharged engine under the hood of the Capri RS, there was a fair bit of enthusiasm. But the Mercury Capri RS was largely considered a flop<\/a> and one of the biggest failures to come out of the fox body platform. The Capri was sold alongside the Mustang as an upmarket alternative, as most Mercury models were at the time (via Hemmings<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Ford<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But the measly turbo-powered engine only delivered 120 HP and the performance was underwhelming at best. The performance was the lowest in its class, and only 9200 of them were put into production. The Capri sold reasonably well in the 5.0 trim, which is why there are still many of them on the road today<\/a>. But the RS model was a failure and one of the most questionable 1980s muscle cars.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Car In My Life<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Plymouth Volare Road Runner<\/h2>\n

Many enthusiasts don’t know that Plymouth sold a Road Runner in the 1980s. Before you get all excited, it’s not the Road Runner that you’re thinking about. The Road Runner Volare was a small block muscle car geared towards the economy-minded consumer. The price tag<\/a> was affordable enough and the brand name was well-regarded. Unfortunately, it wasn’t well regarded enough to make the car a sales success for Chrysler (via Hot Cars<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Hot Rod<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Volare Road Runner was underpowered and that was a big drawback. Muscle cars were fun<\/a> back in the day, but the Volare was anything but fun. The Volare was a compact car<\/a> geared towards people who wanted something more stylish than the average car. The problem was that the Road Runner body style didn’t live up to the hype and the car was quickly discontinued.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

1984 Chevy Corvette<\/h2>\n

The 1984 Corvette was the newest generation of the famed sports car<\/a>. The C4 as it was called was completely revamped to fit with the changing fuel and emissions regulations. The body style was made from fiberglass and much lighter than the previous generation. The 5.0L V8 engine was designed to be more fuel efficient but was lacking in the performance department. The all-digital dashboard was also a completely different setup than before (via Car and Driver<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The C4 Corvette was panned by critics for its lackluster performance and the cheap<\/a> build quality of the interior. The new emissions regulations were hampering any kind of real performance that other muscle cars from that era<\/a> had. There were high expectations for the C4 Corvette and the next generation of the sports car<\/a> but it failed to achieve them.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Corvette California<\/h2>\n

The Corvette California was a special edition<\/a> of the C3 that was released to conform with the new fuel regulations. The C3 was perhaps the most underrated version of the Corvette because of the lack of horsepower<\/a>. The California edition of the Corvette was one of the slowest models on the market crawling to 0-60 in a measly 9.7 seconds. The yellow paint job that came on the California edition was bright and colorful (via Corv Sport<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The worst thing about the Corvette California was its lackluster 180 horsepower V8 engine, and the fact that it only came with an automatic transmission. There was nothing to like about the Corvette California and it didn’t sell very well. When it comes to the C3 Corvette, the California edition sold in the 1980s was best to be avoided. The 1980s were the worst decade for the storied Corvette.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: BAT<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

1986 Mercury Cougar XR7 Turbo<\/h2>\n

In the 1980s, it wasn’t so much about big V8 power as much as it was about turbocharging an engine. Ford was among the leaders in turbo technology and sold an array of different cars utilizing this setup. Perhaps the most confusing of these turbo-powered sports cars<\/a> was the Cougar XR7 Turbo. The Cougar was already a popular two-door coupe and shared a platform with the Ford Thunderbird (via Barn Finds<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: BAT<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The 2.3-liter turbo-fed engine wasn’t the most powerful thing on the market and the styling of the XR7 was downright ugly. Nevertheless, Ford pushed ahead with the lackluster design and performance of the car<\/a>. The Cougar XR7 Turbo was one of the most lackluster and critically panned performance cars of the 1980s.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chevy El Camino SS<\/h2>\n

The El Camino has a storied history<\/a> in the Chevrolet lineup. This car was just about as unique as can be. The problem with the 1980s models was the lackluster 5.0L V8 GM was stuffing into just about every vehicle in the lineup. The 5.0L V8 was dubbed the “high-output” engine but with all of the emissions gear strapped on it was anything but. Its styling was also a lot uglier than the previous generations of the model as well (via Hemmings<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The 1980s were unfortunately the end of the road for the El Camino and GM canceled the line by the end of the decade. There was nothing performance minded about the 1980s El Camino and it showed. The 1980s model was not the classic muscle car that drivers remembered and the polarizing body style didn’t catch on.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

GMC Caballero<\/h2>\n

Also known as the “Sprint,” the Caballero was the first “car” to ever have a GMC badge on it. The car shared its platform with the El Camino and most of the styling queues. The engine<\/a> was also shared between the two cars. The problem was that the performance of the El Camino was lackluster itself and there wasn’t a reason to offer a GMC version. The Caballero was one of the worst-selling GMC models of all time (via Silodrome<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

There’s quite a collectors market for these cars, although it pales in comparison to what the El Camino goes for these days. The Caballero didn’t offer much in the way of uniqueness to differentiate it from the El Camino. If GM offered more performance and unique styling, the Caballero might have done better.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Hot Rod<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

1986 Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2<\/h2>\n

Pontiac was successful in the NASCAR<\/a> racing world, but that success didn’t often translate over to a consumer vehicle. The Grand Prix 2+2 was based on the successful design of the NASCAR<\/a> platform, infusing an aerodynamic back window. The car also had a much different nose than the standard Grand Prix models. There was no denying that the Grand Prix 2+2 was a performance car, at least from the outward appearance (via Hot Cars<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The problem was when you got under the hood of it, the car had the same lackluster engine as other GM G-Body vehicles. The reliability and build quality of the Grand Prix 2+2 were also questionable at best. It wasn’t uncommon for interior<\/a> pieces to break apart right after leaving the dealership parking lot. The Grand Prix 2+2 was one of the most overrated vehicles to come off of a GM assembly line around this period.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Maserati Biturbo<\/h2>\n

Maserati wasn’t the first name that came to mind when drivers thought of a muscle car in the 1980s. But this was what drivers<\/a> got if they wanted twin-turbocharged power under the hood. The Biturbo was universally panned for its lackluster styling and questionable reliability but the basic design of the car was intriguing. The Biturbo was designed from the ground up with Ferrari engineering under the hood, but its performance didn’t feel like it. Expectations for the Biturbo were high, but the final product was a letdown (via Hot Cars<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Telegraph<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It seemed like more of these Biturbo models were spending their time in the shops than on the roadways. The Biturbo was an interesting concept car<\/a> for a performance car that didn’t look like anything else on the market. But the lackluster build quality gave the car a bad reputation even among Maserati loyalists. Sometimes paying for a brand name isn’t as important as the quality of the vehicle. Where the Biturbo was strong was the interior quality and the overall comfort of the car but it paled in comparison to the reliability issues.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

AMC Gremlin V8<\/h2>\n

Surprisingly enough, there was a V8 version of the AMC Gremlin still being sold in the 1980s. The car was utilizing the same ugly design that came along in the 1970s but that was about the only thing anyone noticed about it. The V8 engine that was under the hood was one of the most unreliable automotive engines of all time<\/a>. The lackluster build quality was evident in every portion of the car’s design<\/a> including the interior. AMC tried to paint a modern picture with the Gremlin but there just wasn’t anything likable about the car (via Hot Cars<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Gremlin V8 was not the car that enthusiasts<\/a> hoped for or wanted. The sales numbers were so bad by the 1980s that AMC was on the verge of collapse. The Gremlin wasn’t enough to save the struggling automaker from its demise and eventual sale to Chrysler Corporation<\/a>. Although the thought of a V8 engine in a subcompact hatchback was intriguing, the application didn’t go quite as planned.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

1981 Chrysler Imperial<\/h2>\n

The early 1980s were a strange time at Chrysler. The two-door Imperial had a big burly V8 engine under the hood but that just wasn’t enough to sell it. The first problem with the Imperial was the lack of build quality that went into the car. Everything from the interior pieces falling off to electrical shorts was far too common with this car (via Hemmings<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo Credit: Mecum<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Imperial wasn’t the most dazzling car and its lackluster performance only dragged down the reputation even more. Big V8-powered cars were in abundance in the 1980s but the performance was lackluster at best. The 318-cid (5.2-liter) V-8 engine was competing against the Cadillac<\/a> engines from the same period. The Imperial was a storied automotive line that originated in Detroit<\/a>, but the 1980s model was a complete letdown.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The 1980s were a defining time for the muscle car business as the industry shifted…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":59074,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[3016,490,817,372,358,3567,1114,400,611,370,2999,376,364,3914,3104,775,446,1434],"class_list":["post-60855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cars","tag-3016","tag-camaro","tag-charger","tag-chrysler","tag-dodge","tag-fast","tag-gm","tag-hemi","tag-monaco","tag-mopar","tag-muscle","tag-plymouth","tag-pontiac","tag-powerful","tag-road-runner","tag-trans-am","tag-v8","tag-volare","iab_keys-automobile-markets-of-germany","iab_keys-automobile-markets-of-japan","iab_keys-automobiles","iab_keys-automotive-equipment-manufacture-car-industry","iab_keys-car-parts-and-supplies","iab_keys-cross-country-vehicles","iab_keys-ford","iab_keys-manufacture-of-vehicles","iab_keys-motor-vehicles","iab_keys-premium-cars","iab_keys-road-transport","iab_keys-small-size-cars","iab_keys-sports-cars","iab_keys-traffic-and-transport","iab_keys-vehicles"],"lang":"en","translations":{"en":60855},"pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60855"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60855\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61030,"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60855\/revisions\/61030"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/59074"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dev.motor-junkie.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}