This week's Thursday Twister, is brought to you by Andy L who writes: In your hours and hours spent browsing through car ads, have you ever thought to yourself: why didn't this car maker put this engine or transmission in this model? It would have been amazing! For example, why was a 350 unavailable with a manual transmission in the 3rd Gen IROC/TransAm? Of course, the book answer is that the T-5 was too weak to hold the torque of the 350, and the real reason may have been that such a car would have come danger-close to besting the vette. Strangely, the GNX and 89 Turbo T/A more or less broke the GM "nobody beats the Vette" rule, and the Gen 4 Z/28 and Trans Am was on an even par with entry level Corvettes.
Perhaps the same forces kept the Fiero from getting the Quad 4 or hanging around and getting the 3.1 turbo found in the 89 MacLaren Grand Prix, but wouldn't they have been sweet options? There was no such protectionism going on at Ford during this time. Why, then was a world-beating Yamaha V-6 only found in the Taurus grocery getter? I am sure there are clearance and strength limitations that kept this mill out of a 2-door or AWD Tempo, even though Mazda was able to produce a run of AWD, turbo 323s at the same time. And imagine if the mid-engined SHOgun Festiva would have become a production vehicle!
Other examples of missed opportunities, or at least theoretical possibilities, seem to present themselves in hindsight. Why was there no Supercoupe engine available in a Mustang? Couldn't a Camry V6 fit into a MR2? Did the Neon SRT-4 have to be a 4-door? Porsche really couldn't fit a GT3 engine and limited slip differential into a Cayman? Can you think of any other examples of engine/chassis that could have come together like Legos to create a legend, or at least something more interesting?
So, for today's Twister, you (the reader) are going to help build a list of the best factory cars that SHOULD have been built. Comments below.
Standard Twister rules...don't apply. Have at it!