These Are The Most Overrated Performance Car Ever Made

Here at Jalopnik, we love cars with a bit more oomph under the hood. Just look at our glowing reviews of things like the all-new Integra Type S and the Bronco Raptor – both excellent in their own special ways.

But not every performance-minded car can be like that. In fact, some offer considerably more style than substance. So to sort the wheat from the chaff, we turned to you and asked for your picks for the most overrated performance cars of all time.

And from Fords to Ferraris, you did not disappoint in your responses. So sit back, relax and enjoy the Jalopnik readers' picks for the most overrated performance cars ever made.

"The Hyundai N models for sure. Are they fast? Yes. Do they drive really well? Yes. But they made them too hardcore, they have punishing rides, seats that, umm, don't fit taller people well, scaffolding just behind the back seat in the Elantra that makes the trunk useless, they didn't take daily life into mind with them.

"A Civic Si handles just as well, a GTI is nearly as quick, and the Type R does all of these things better than any of these cars. I am not saying that the Kona/Elantra/Veloster N are bad cars, they're fantastic if you can live with some serious compromises. What Honda/Subaru/VW do so well in the sport compact space is that they use restraint and make these cars livable and practical."

This one got scorn from our own Lawrence Hodge, who is a big fan of the Veloster N – as long as you can pick it up without sky-high dealer markups.

Suggested by: btdubbin

"I like Skyline GT-Rs, they're great cars with superb engineering, but I still have to say the R34 GT-R, as it's actually not that different from the R32 and R33 mechanic wise, I mean yes I understand the hype because I'm also Paul Walker's fan, it's still too overrated for a performance car that's not that much better than its ancestors."

The R34 was a very popular pick today for the same reasons this poster summarized here. It looks awesome, but isn't the giant leap forward many hoped for.

Suggested by: 徐嘉駿 (Facebook)

"The Lamborghini Countach. Absolutely horrible to sit in, let alone drive. I just cannot imagine driving any kind of distance in one of these without wanting to push it off a cliff (or sell it on BaT) at the end of the journey."

By now, we must all be of the opinion that the Countach is an art piece to look at, but not drive.

Suggested by: bluelines2021

"The Alfa Romeo 4C. So hard to understand what is happening with the front wheels."

Counterpoint, look how gosh darn pretty it is.

Suggested by: Guilherme Costa (Facebook)

"Mustang II King Cobra. All show, no go.

"139 hp from a 5.0 liter V8. Granted it was the malaise era, but COME-ON!!!"

Some argued that if you called this the Pinto King Cobra it might have gotten a better reception.

Suggested by: earthbound-misfit-i

"The Monte Carlo SS of the mid 80s, with it's weak V8s that made less than 200hp."

Definitely a car that lacked the bite to match its bark.

Suggested by: Patrick Gattafoni (Facebook)

"This entire slide show could be nothing but Big Three performance cars from the 1970s.

"Take the 1976 Trans Am LE that was the 3rd star in Smokey and the Bandit.

"200 hp, 112 mph top speed, Over eight seconds zero-60 and nearly 17 second quarter.

"And SADLY, this thing was a Beast for 1976. I think the Big 455 was dropped soon afterward and the hp dropped down to below 150 for a 3,800 lb car that still somehow rated the Screaming Chicken."

I think that just about ticks off all the Big Three marques now, right?

Suggested by: yeardley68

"The answer has to be the Mk 4 Supra right? A fine sport coup of its era with competitive capability , and a design that was pretty modern. That said, its mass appeal was all about what you *could* do to it, not how it was."

Another popular pick was the MK4 Supra, which Toyota sold between 1993 and 2002.

Suggested by: @AirheadedAviatR (Twitter)

"Every single supercar or hypercar ever.

"I'm just going with the law of diminishing returns on cost. When I was in high school I drove an 80's Caprice with a gutless V6, only AM radio, and an ultra floaty suspension. It was slow and handled about as well as a waterbed. It was a blast. Flooring it around corners on rural gravel roads was awesome. The full range of performance of that gutless Caprice was accessible with just regular behind the wheel training. I believe that car cost $500. Inflation adjusted, that would still be under $1,000. You can definitely spend more money for a better car in terms of fun, comfort, performance, etc. and honestly probably should, but that is only true to a limit.

"I'll pick Ferrari to talk about, but the method would probably work with literally every other supercar maker. I'll take the bottom of their range and the top of their range as examples, but the same thing works throughout all of their models.

"Ferrari Roma. $250,000. 612 hp. 0-60 in 3.1 seconds. Top speed of 199. Gorgeous styling. BUT, is this really $249,000 better than my '88 Caprice? That would pay off the entirety of my mortgage. Drop that in a basic index fund and it would almost certainly fund my retirement with no additional contributions. That could fund a lifetime of always having a fun car and flipping every few years just for fun—and I'd have money left over to fund my other hobbies too. Not only that, but those performance numbers are unusable by anyone on any public road and inaccessible safely by 99% of drivers on a race track. Wildly overrated. In reality, probably driven at normal-ish speeds by a lady with a designer yorkie and a permanent botoxed rictus grin.

"Ferrari Daytona SP3. $2,226,935. 829 hp. 0-60 in 2.6 seconds. Top speed of 211. Kinda looks like a jet fighter. Kinda looks like a melted jolly rancher. Is this really $2,225,935 better than my '88 Caprice? Is this really $1,976,935 better than the Roma? Nearly $2 mil for a gain of 12 mph on the top speed? Performance stats that would require F1 level driving skills. $2.2 mil, with basic ass investments, could fund my current, pretty enjoyable, lifestyle basically forever and still have leave generational wealth for my kids. $2.2 mil would buy me a literal ass mansion in my solid midwestern city AND a second home with acreage on Lake Superior and I'd still have $400,000 of fun money. Insanely overrated. Absolutely destined to be a garage queen."

Well, when you put it like that.

Suggested by: connors83

"#1 Plymouth Prowler

"Runner ups:

"E30 M3

"Countach

"Energy crisis Corvette/Camaro/Firebird."

Built between 1997 and 2002, the Prowler was the epitome of the retro styling we all fell in love with at the turn of the millennium. Shame it managed just 115 mph.

Suggested by: Tony Kasser (Facebook)

"All those Buick Regals from the 80s like the Grand National, GNX, or whatever else they called them."

Now, this one really split opinions today. Is the GNX a car that's all-go and no-show, therefore exceeding its expectations? Or, was it "stupid" with the build quality of a "toy," as others argued?

Suggested by: szerlagm

"Any RS4.... underpowed, compared to M3 or MB from the same era. (Excluded the new C63 4 banger 🤦)"

The question remains, why would you pick an RS3 over an M3? Is it just so you don't have that ridiculous grille?

Suggested by: Rok Božič (Facebook)

"The looks and price tag of a supercar coupled with the performances of a super-ordinary car."

But we all know what happens when this baby hits 88 mph, right?

Suggested by: marginoferror

"DC2 Integra Type-R. I had one and it was a fun car, but nowhere close to my FD RX-7."

In the battle of '90s imports, which would you choose?

Suggested by: William H. Bonney (Facebook)

"Was it made in the eighties or early nineties? Then, it is runner up to the Challenger Hellcat, which will always be the most over-hyped and overrated car in every applicable category. But any 'performance' car of the eighties or nineties is a close second."

But, America?

Suggested by: skeffles