12 Classic American Cars That Are A Total Waste Of Money

The history of the American automobile is full of innovation, creativity, and state-of-the-art engineering and technology. Although many excellent vehicles are designed and produced outside the U.S., American cars seem to have their own unique character, driven by the demands of the buying public. Many of the cars built with high-quality materials and groundbreaking features become classics, maintaining their value for years and in some cases selling for many times their original MSRP. Rare and iconic sports and muscle cars such as the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Dodge Charger and Challenger, and Chevrolet Corvette are some of the most sought-after American classic cars by collectors and enthusiasts.

However, at times, American automakers have produced some of the industry's least innovative, problem-ridden, unreliable, maintenance nightmares. In some cases, the models suffer from a poor design with hideous styling, a propensity to rust, and substandard build quality. Some traditional high-performance cars became victims of the 1970s U.S. government strict environmental emissions mandates, losing the power that once made them great. Although a few classic cars with a history of high maintenance or poor performance still fetch a high resale price, often due to low original production and current limited availability, most are a poor investment. Either the maintenance expense is exorbitant, the value depreciates with time, or a combination of both makes them a total waste of money.

The early 1980s were rough on muscle car fans when the impact of tightening fuel economy standards and vehicle emissions took the punch out of performance V8s. Engines were detuned and, in some cases, big-block configurations were discontinued.

At General Motors, Camaro's chief engineer Tom Zimmer and his engineering team decided to focus on the third-generation Camaro's handling rather than power output. Instead of switching to a front-drive setup like many other GM vehicles, they kept the rear-wheel-drive and revised the suspension. The old rear leaf springs were replaced with coils, and the double control arms were substituted with a pair of struts and springs up front. The suspension improvements along with fine-tuning the F-car's unibody resulted in a 470-pound weight reduction and a 0.83 g on the skidpad. Motor Trend called the Camaro's dynamic handling about the best available in 1982.

Chevrolet's best-performing Camaro in 1982 was the Z28, equipped with a 5.0L V8 and four-speed manual transmission, producing 145 hp and a maximum torque of / 240 lb-ft. The high-performance Camaro accelerated to 60 mph in a lethargic 9.1 seconds, reached the quarter mile in 16.9 seconds, and achieved a top speed of 106 mph. While the 1982 Z28 performance was disappointing, the base model Camaro equipped with the smallest, least powerful 2.5-liter, four-cylinder "Iron Duke" producing 90 hp and connected to a low-tech three-speed automatic, offered an even more pathetic performance. The Iron Duke Camaro accelerated to 60 mph in about 20 seconds. Some critics questioned if the poor-performing car even warranted the Camaro nameplate.

Many automobile historians and car enthusiasts consider the 1964 Pontiac GTO the first "muscle" car. The formula of placing a large-displacement engine in a relatively small body gave the GTO (and other muscle cars to follow) exceptional performance in a straight line but with little attention paid to handling through the turns. In the late 1960s American car manufacturers produced a plethora of high-performance muscle cars with the same formula, such as the Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Plymouth Barracuda, and Pontiac Firebird.

However, during the early '70s, the energy crisis, stricter emissions standards, and steeply rising insurance rates for young drivers took their toll on U.S. muscle car sales. The Pontiac GTO was no exception. GTO sales declined from 72,287 in 1969 to 40,149 in 1970 and then plummeted to 10,532 in 1971. Only 5807 were sold in 1972 as a LeMans option package.

After declining sales again in 1973, Pontiac changed the GTO for 1974 to a platform based on the Ventura X-body. The automaker offered only a single engine, the L76 350ci four-barrel that cranked out 200 hp at 4,400 rpm and 295 lb-ft at 2,800 rpm. Pontiac offered buyers three transmission options: the standard M11 three-speed manual, the optional M20 four-speed manual, and the optional M38 automatic transmission. Motor Trend tests showed an acceleration to 60 mph for the 1974 GTO of 9.4 seconds and through the quarter mile in 16.5 seconds at 84 mph, hardly impressive numbers. Some enthusiasts still consider the car nothing more than a glorified Chevy Nova.

The Ford Mustang II is often described as symbolizing the Malaise 1970s era of the American automobile. Produced from 1973 to 1978, Ford offered the Mustang II with a body style typical of a generic sedan, a significant departure from the sporty coupes and convertibles of the previous generation. The automaker based the new design on the Ford Pinto, creating a smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle to compete with imports that had gained popularity stimulated by the fuel crisis.

Three different engine options included a 2.3-liter Lima I4, a 2.8-liter Cologne V6, and a 4.9-liter Windsor V8, none of which met the performance expectations of traditional Mustang enthusiasts. The four-cylinder and V6 engines cranked out a paltry 92 and 105 hp, respectively. The underpowered V8, generating 140 hp, accelerates the Mustang from 0 to 60 mph in a lethargic 9.6 seconds and reaches the quarter mile in 17.5 seconds at a speed of 78 mph.

According to CJ Pony Parts, "From its exterior to design flaws to its lackluster performance numbers, the Second Generation is a period of time that many Mustang fans view as a black eye of the otherwise riveting history of their favorite vehicle. With the wonderful amenities and technological innovations in the years that followed, it is common for classic automotive supporters and muscle car aficionados alike to cast a dark shadow over the Mustang II entirely." Although Ford built more than 1.1 million Mustang IIs over a five-year production run, today, it is nearly impossible to find one in good condition.

Introduced in the early '70s when auto buyers looked for subcompacts with excellent fuel economy, the Ford Pinto showed great promise. Initiated in 1971 by Lee Iacocca of Ford Mustang fame, the Pinto was the automaker's first subcompact car. The styling was a scaled-down variation of the Mustang and the name was meant to capitalize on the pony-car craze. Produced until 1980, Ford offered the Pinto in a 2-door fastback, a 3-door hatchback, and a 2-door station wagon body style.

During the early years, Ford fitted the Pinto with two four-cylinder engine options: a 1.6-liter generating 75 hp and a 2.0-liter with 100 hp. Although the power output was low, both engines gave the car that weighed only about 2,000 lbs reasonable performance and the fuel efficiency buyers were looking for at 20.6-24.7 mpg city/highway and 20.2 combined. Sales were strong for the Pinto from the very beginning, and with the 1970s energy crisis sales skyrocketed. Ford sold 544,209 Pintos in 1974, reached a total sales figure of 2.3 million units by 1976, and more than 3 million in total by 1980 when the car was discontinued.

However, numerous accidents in which Pintos exploded in a fire when hit from behind, resulting in an estimated 180 deaths, instilled fear in potential buyers. Ford was aware of the fuel tank flaw before the Pinto went to market. However, the company conducted a cost/benefit study that suggested it would be less expensive to pay liability for burn deaths than fixing the problem. The decision cost Ford millions in lost sales.

The appeal of an affordably priced novelty car ran high when the Chrysler PT Cruiser was first released, but its popularity wore thin quickly. Although the miniature minivan seemed innovative at the time, buyers lost interest in the retro-styled design. Powered by a naturally aspirated 2.4-liter DOHC inline-four with balance shafts producing 150 hp proved just adequate performance for the "hatchback" weighing 3,120 pounds. Chrysler offered the PT Cruiser with a five-speed manual or four-speed automatic transmission, and the miniature special-purpose vehicle accelerated to 60 mph in a respectable 8.6 seconds. The fuel efficiency of 20/26 mpg city/highway combined with a 15.0-gallon fuel tank made city driving and cross-country cruising economical.

Perhaps the most impressive feature of the PT Cruiser was the available interior space for such a small vehicle. The rear twist-beam axle with a Watts linkage design helped create the spacious cargo area. All the seats (except the driver's seat) could be folded or removed, opening up a maximum volume of 65 cubic feet in the cargo area and a total volume of nearly 120 cubic feet, not unlike a typical SUV.

When Chrysler released the PT Cruiser in 1991, the automotive media were impressed. Motor Trend awarded the mini truck its Car of the Year award. Car and Driver placed it on its "10Best Cars" list, praising the car's style, handling, and versatility. However, by 2009, the glimmer of the new Cruiser design had faded, and sales plummeted from a peak of nearly 145,000 to 18,000 and then just 9,400 in 2010.

Like so many muscle cars of the 1970s, the Camaro became a victim of the oil crisis. In 1975, Chevrolet reduced the number of engine options to three, a six-cylinder and two 350 CID V8s. The L22 I6 250ci produced 105 hp at 3800 rpm and 185 lb-ft of torque at 1200 rpm, while the L65 350ci generated 145 hp at 3800 rpm and 250 lb-ft of torque at 2200 rpm. The automaker also detuned the top performing mill, the LM1 4V 350 CID V8, and added a new catalytic converter to the Camaro's exhaust system, reducing the output to a disappointing 155 hp. Chevrolet's hottest Camaro LT trim with the 350 CID V8, accelerated to 60 mph in a disappointing 11.0 seconds and reached the quarter mile in lackluster 17.4 seconds at 77.6 mph.

With the energy crisis still a recent memory, in 1975, car buyers maintained their adjusted priorities when selecting a new car. Fuel efficiency superseded power output. As a result, the Camaro six-cylinder models became best-sellers. While the total production of Camaros reached 145,770 units in 1975, Chevrolet produced 29,749 six-cylinder models, many more than it had in the early 1970s.

Although Ford reacted to the energy crisis by converting the mighty Mustang into a downsized economy car, the Mustang II, General Motors stuck with the classic look of the second-generation Camaros. The 1975 Camaro still looks like a muscle car. However, how many of today's classic car enthusiasts want a Camaro with a muscle car appearance but the anemic performance of a fuel-efficient engine inside?