Return to the garage
last updated: 4 March 2010
© 1997-2010, all rights reserved
Do You Remember Back When Things Were Rotten?
As we've mentioned elsewhere, the 1970s were a bad time for cars in general, and for performance cars in particular. In order to get an idea of just how good the Capri was in its day, you have to understand just how bad some of their competitors were. Here's a listing of some of them, with their respective problems. We're listing smaller sport coupes, and things that could reasonably pretend to be smaller sport coupes, so Firebirds, Camaros, Porsches, and early '70s Mustangs are not listed here.
The Vega should have been a serious challenger to the Capri, but somehow it went badly wrong. On the surface GM's "bow tie" brigade seemed to have the right idea: A small, lightweight two door sport coupe with styling patterned after Chevrolet's successful pony car, the Camaro. The powerplant was a new all aluminum single overhead cam 2.3 liter inline 4 available in base and GT versions rated at 90 and 110 HP, respectively. The Vega GT also included a full instrument package, which the US Capri did not get until 1972. Initial base price was a little over $2300 - about the same as the Capri 1600. It certainly looked promising, and at first sales zoomed upward.
Unfortunately the implementation left much to be desired. The Vega's "mini Camaro" styling was less appealing than the Capri's Mustang-like styling (at least in our opinion). Also, the 2.3 liter engine's power ratings proved to be rather optimistic. In reality the GT engine's output was about 93 HP (net) - less the 1971 Capri 2000, despite the 15% edge in displacement. To add insult to injury, the Vega's fuel consumption was about 20% higher than the Capri 2600! By 1973, its "official" rating had dropped to only 85 HP, or slightly less than the watered down 1973 Capri 2000. The 85 HP 1973 Vega actually had better acceleration than the "110" HP 1971 Vega, though it was still slower than the Capri 2000. The Vega's larger engine produced more torque at low RPM, but this advantage was negated by the Vega's taller gearing. When compared to the Capri V-6 - well, no comparison. Even the introduction of a Cosworth powered version in 1974 did not significantly alter the balance of power. They were potent (130 HP @ 6200 RPM, 116 ft-lb @ 5200RPM), but they were also difficult to obtain (none were actually available until the 1975 model year) and expensive (over $5900).
The 85 HP engine used from 1973 on at least brought improved fuel economy, roughly comparable to the Capri 2000 and Capri II 2300.
The Vega GT's performance was also hampered by a vague and balky shifter. It was never anywhere near as good as the Capri's shifter, even after it was improved in 1973.
Another Vega woe was annoying engine vibration at certain speeds, which certainly did not compare favorably with the smoothness of the Capri's V-6.
Vegas were capable of very good handling, but they were often hampered by factory shocks that wore out quickly. The steering ratio was also a bit slower than the Capri's. Braking was comparable to a Capri 2000 equipped with base 165R13 tires, but inferior to a Capri with the optional 185/70R13 tires. Road & Track achieved a cornering force of 0.731 G on their skidpad with a 1973 Vega fitted with BR70-13 radials on 13x6 in. wheels - an excellent figure in 1973.
The Vega's worst problems showed up a few years after its introduction. While the Capri's drivetrains were nearly indestructible, the Vega's was definitely not. The linerless aluminum engine block frequently suffered from rapid wear, which quickly led to the consumption of copious quantities of oil. The problem was so bad that Vega owners reputedly asked service station attendants to "Fill her up with oil, and check the gas!" One ex-Vega owner I (LHW) know told me he considered himself lucky to only need 3 quarts of oil every 1000 miles. A few other GM cars of the era also used the 2.3 for a time, but it was quickly replaced by a Pontiac cast iron, pushrod 2.5 liter inline 4. This engine was unspectacular from a performance standpoint, but at least it was durable. The Vega retained the aluminum engine until the bitter end. Another Vega malady was rust - they were even more rust prone than Capris!
Vega sales declined catastrophically as its shortcomings came to light, and it was discontinued in 1977.
| Vega pluses and minuses: |
| - Slower than Capri |
| - No reclining front seats |
| - Worse fuel economy than Capri |
| - Catastrophically bad engine durability |
| - More engine vibration than Capri |
| - More rust prone than Capri (!) |
| + Full instrument package available in 1971, not available on Capri until '72. |
| + Less expensive than Capri |
| + Lighter than Capri 2000, at least in 1971 |
| 2300 | 2300 GT | Cosworth 2000 | |
| 1971 | 90 HP | 110 HP | - |
| 1972 | 90 HP @ 4800 RPM 136 ft-lb @ 2400 RPM | 100 HP | - |
| 1973 | 75 HP | 85 HP @ 4800 RPM 115 ft-lb @ 2400 RPM | - |
| 1974 | 75 HP @ 4400 RPM 115 ft-lb @ 2400 RPM | 85 HP @ 4400 RPM 122 ft-lb @ 2400 RPM | 130 HP @
6200 RPM 116 ft-lb @ 5200 RPM |
| 1975 | ? | 87 HP @ 4400 RPM | 130 HP |
| 1976 | ? | 85 HP | 110 HP @ 5600 RPM |
| 1977 | - | 85 HP | - |
Vega vs. Capri acceleration graph
The Chevrolet Monza and its stablemates were introduced in 1975. Once again, GM had a good idea, then implemented it badly.
Probably the best thing about these cars was the nice body styling. Initially, they were only available as a handsome fastback/hatchback, with the first rectangular headlights legal in the US. In later years, an equally handsome "notchback" coupe became available, which had more conventional headlights and a conventional trunk. Although the Monza and its siblings were a bit larger and heavier than the Vega, they shared the Vega's chassis.
Initially they used the Vega's 2.3 liter aluminum engine. By this time the aluminum engine's problems were becoming all too apparent, and the aluminum 2.3 was quickly replaced by other GM engines, such as Pontiac's boring, but more reliable 2.5 liter "Iron Duke" OHV inline 4. The most significant powerplants were Buick's rugged 3.8 liter V-6, and Chevrolet's venerable small block V-8. (in the 5.0 liter size in this particular case....) The V-8 was a tight fit, and it was widely reported at the time that the V-8 engine had to be moved from its mountings in order to change the spark plugs. These relatively large engines were watered down heavily by Federal emission and fuel economy regulations, and straight line performance was not all that impressive.
The cars were also relatively heavy, and handling was unremarkable. Brakes were unimpressive, and genuinely poor on the low-end models. I (DRW) once test-drove a low end 2.5 liter Monza, and after being alarmed at the lack of brake power, (I thought the master cylinder had gone out!!) I checked the front brakes, and found the tiniest set of disks I'd ever seen.
Interior design was rather poor; one notorious feature was an annoying offset between the driver's seat and pedals. This was apparently done to clear the large transmission hump. On the bright side, a five speed manual transmission was available.
The Monza (and company) were able to compete well against the Mustang II, but they lacked the Capri's blend of handling, performance, and economy. The Monza and its siblings were replaced in 1981 by GM's front-wheel drive "J"-cars, (Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac J-2000, Olds Starfire, Buick Skyhawk, and Caddy Cimmaron) which are an entire sordid story unto themselves......
Monzas & siblings are fairly uncommon today, (1999) but they should lend themselves well to hot-rodding. A V-8 Monza could probably get a larger Chevy smallblock (5.7 liter/350 cid, e.g.) dropped into it, and there is an almost unlimited supply of performance parts for this engine. V-6 Buicks could theoretically get one of Buicks very powerful '80s vintage V-6 Turbos. We have never seen such conversions, but the potential is there. Capri owners should keep this in mind before engaging a Monza or Skyhawk in a Stoplight Grand Prix.
| Monza & Siblings plusses and minuses: |
| -Early models have disasterous Vega engines |
| -Somtimes difficult to maintain |
| -Weird ergonomics, especially pedals |
| -Heavier than Capri |
| -Inferior brakes, esp. on low-end models |
| +Nice looking body |
| +5-speed transmission on some models |
| +Conversion Potential |
The Opel Manta was comparable to the early Capri 2000. It was a four seat sport coupe, built in Germany, that was about the same size and weight as the Capri. The Capri had a better engine (Ford 2000 OHC beats Opel 1900 OHV every time) and sold better. Once the Capri got the V-6, it was all over for the Manta in the US. The Manta's only real advantage over the Capri was a larger rear seat.
The Datsun 510 was not really marketed as a sport coupe, so it was not a direct competitor to the Capri. Its boxy, upright sedan styling certainly did not indicate any sporting pretensions. In 1972 its 1600cc SOHC 4 cylinder engine produced a respectable 81 HP @ 5500 RPM, and 85 ft-lb @ 3600 RPM. These figures compare very favorably to the Capri 1600, but it was certainly no match for the Capri 2000. It did have a fairly good suspension, including an independent rear suspension. For this reason it became a popular low cost race car for the small displacement production classes. Even today Capris and Datsun 510s are occasionally seen competing against each other in SCCA competition.
| Datsun 510 plusses and minuses: |
| -Not a lot of power or torque |
| -Boring sedan bodywork |
| +Independent rear suspension |
One could easily argue that the Z car belongs to an entirely different category. The Z was a significantly more expensive (usually) 2-seat sports car, with a wheelbase 10 inches shorter, and an independent rear suspension. To argue this would overlook several things. First, from 1974 on, there was the "2+2" version, with a wheelbase almost identical to that of the Capri. Also, some of the six cylinider engines are similar in displacement to the Capri's V-6. There's also some of our own experience in blowing away Z-cars on the street. There's more to this rivalry than one might think.
At first, it doesn't look good for the Capri. The original 1970 240 Z put out 150 HP, on six cylinders, with an overhead cam and side draft carbs. A contemporary Capri 2000 only had 100 HP, but weighed about 300 lbs. less. The short-lived 260 Z suffered from emissions controls, just as the Capri did. Despite the displacement increase, power was down to 139 HP, and the weight went up to about 2600 lbs. Accelleration was no better than a '74 Capri 2800, maybe worse. In 1975, displacement increased again, and fuel injection was added to create the 280 Z, but added weight (now over 2800 lbs, heavier than a Capri II Ghia!!) negated the restored power. While more powerful than the Capri, the Z didn't have enough extra torque to make up for the extra weight. 0-60 times were about the same.
The Z-car was consistently more expensive than the Capri. Early Capri 2000s sold for about $2700, whereas the 1970 240Z was over $3500. The most expensive Capri II was about $4700, but the 1975 280Z sold for nearly $6300.
One thing the Capri and the Z had in common was rust. Z cars rust as badly, if not worse than Capris.
For all the favorable numbers, it has been our experience, (and that of most other Capri drivers that we've talked to) that Z-cars, (especially the 260 and 280) are not that hard to compete with on the street. (at legal speeds, of course!!) While their independent rear should give a certain advantage in rough corners, I (DRW) have out-cornered Z-cars on the infamous negative-banked turns on Rt. 23 in North Jersey in my '73 2000. I also have to believe that Capris lend themselves to engine modifications better than the Z-car. With it's multiple side-draft carbs, there's not that much more that you can squeeze out of the Z engine. Capris engines are pretty mild to begin with, and you can get more power easily with larger carbs, and this can put us well within range of the theoretically more powerful Z.
| Datsun Z plusses and minuses: |
| -More expensive than Capri |
| -More rust prone than Capri (!) |
| -Heavier than Capri |
| +Nice bodywork |
| +Independent rear suspension |
| +Powerful engines |
| Year | model | Power | Torque | weight |
| 1970 | 240 Z | 150 HP @ 6000 | 148 lb/ft @ 4400 | 2355 lbs. |
| 1974 | 260 Z | 139 HP @ 5000 | 137 lb/ft @ 4400 | 2605 lbs. |
| 1975 | 280 Z | 149 HP @ 5600 | 163 lb/ft @ 4400 | 2875 lbs. |
Source: Datsun Z Cars I suspect that the weight figures are for the 2-seater, not the 2+2.
If ever there was an unlikely competitor to the Capri, it is the American Motors Corp (AMC) Gremlin. The Gremlin was originally a pure economy car aimed at the same market as Ford's Pinto. Styling was, um, unique: [1] While the Capri and most of its competitors resembled scaled down "pony" cars, the Gremlin looked like a truncated AMC Hornet station wagon - perhaps because that's essentially what it was! Tiny AMC had very limited resources to develop new models, so the Gremlin was designed to share as many parts with the then-new 1970 Hornet as possible.
The 1970 models were equipped with inline 6 cylinder engines displacing 199 or 232 cubic inches. Both were tuned for economy rather than power. Three speed manual or automatic transmissions were available. Useful options included a handling package and a limited slip differential. Other features were rather archaic, however: Disk brakes were not available, even as an option, and the windshield wipers were an ancient vacuum operated type. This made climbing steep hills in the rain an entertaining experience! Fortunately the vacuum operated wipers were replaced by electrically operated ones starting in 1972.
The 1970 Gremlin was competitively priced compared to the Ford Pinto and most contemporary small imported cars.
The Gremlin took on a more sporting image in 1971 with the introduction of the Gremlin X. The "X-package" included special graphics with stripes and "X" emblems, and an upgraded interior. The reality did not quite match the image, however; there was little in the way of additional performance beyond wider D70x14 inch bias ply tires, however. A new 258 CID inline six was added as an option on all models, and the 199 CID six was discontinued.
By 1972 it was evident the Gremlin needed performance to match the "X" model's image. The first step was the addition of optional disk brakes. Someone then apparently realized that the Hornet's larger powerplants would still fit nicely under the Gremlin's long hood, and the V-8 Gremlin was born. The factory version was fitted with AMC's underappreciated small block V-8 in 304 CID size. This was a relatively tame V-8 fitted with a 2 barrel carburetor, rated at "only" 150 HP. This was still enough to pull the nearly 3100 lb. Gremlin from 0 to 60 MPH in 8.5 seconds. If that were still not enough, a special Gremlin XR was available. These cars were produced by Randall AMC, a tuner in Mesa, AZ. They were fitted with AMC's 401 CID, 255 HP V-8 and an optional 4 speed manual transmission. These cars were capable of sub 14 second 1/4 mile times right out of the box. [2] Very few XR's were produced.
The Gremlin continued with only minor changes until 1977, when the V-8 model was discontinued due to an oil-price-shock induced sales slump. To compensate the 258 CID six was given a 2 barrel carburetor, which boosted its power rating substantially. This long stroke pushrod engine was certainly no high RPM screamer, but with over 190 ft-lbs available at 2000 RPM it had plenty of low end torque! [3]A 4 speed manual transmission was at last available as an option. These Gremlins were still capable of respectable straight line acceleration, at least to the era's maximum legal speed of 55 MPH. The 1978 Gremlins were very similar, except that a 2 liter 4 cylinder engine of Audi origin was now available as an economy option; and a "GT" option package with a front air dam and fender flares was added.
Former Gremlin owners report that the six cylinder models handled respectably well. We never had an opportunity to drive one, but we did have occasion to drive a contemporary AMC Hornet. It was a stripped 6 cylinder model that probably weighed about the same as a Gremlin X, or roughly comparable to the Capri II 2.8. It was reasonably quick off the line. Handling was a pleasant surprise (though we must admit our expectations were low). The recirculating ball steering was light, reasonably quick, and had decent road feel. The body leaned a fair amount when driving quickly around constant radius Interstate on ramps, but the car seemed to grip respectably well. The drum brakes were certainly not in the Capri's league, though they were not bad.
Handling was reportedly significantly worse on the V-8 models, thanks to the additional weight of the V-8 in the nose.
Despite AMC's lack of market muscle the Gremlin sold reasonably well, especially in 1973-74. Sales did drop off sharply in the late '70s, however. Approximately 500,000 were sold overall, which is comparable to the number of Capris sold in the same period.
Editor's Notes:
| Gremlin pluses and minuses: |
| - Really ugly body |
| - 199 and 232 CID models slower than Capri 2000 |
| - Disk brakes not available until 1972, not standard until 1974 |
| - 4 speed manual transmission not available until 1977 |
| - Radial tires not available until 1975 |
| - Worse fuel economy than Capri |
| - Worse handling than Capri |
| + Less expensive than Capri |
| + Better acceleration than Capri (V-8 and 258 2-V only) |
| + Excellent V-8 power available 1972-1976, up to 6.6 liters |
| 1970 Gremlin |
| Engine: 199 CID I-6 |
| Power: 128 HP @ 4400 RPM (gross) |
| Torque: 182 ft-lbs @ 1600 RPM (gross) |
| Transmission: 3 speed manual |
| Brakes: Drum |
| Weight: 2600 (estimated) |
| Price: $1900 (approximate) |
| 1972 Gremlin X 5 liter |
| Engine: 304 CID V-8 |
| Power: 150 HP @ 4200 RPM |
| Torque: 245 ft-lbs @ 2500 RPM |
| Transmission: 3 speed manual |
| Axle ratio: 3.54:1 |
| Brakes: Front disk, rear drum |
| Weight: 3090 lbs. |
| 1972 Gremlin XR |
| Engine: 401 CID V-8 |
| Power: 255 HP @ 4600 RPM |
| Torque: 345 ft-lbs @ 1600 RPM |
| Transmission: 4 speed manual |
| Brakes: Front disk, rear drum |
| Weight: 3100 (estimated) |
| 1977 Gremlin X 4.2 liter |
| Engine: 258 CID I-6 |
| Power: 125 HP (estimated) |
| Torque: 195 ft-lbs @ 2000 RPM |
| Transmission: 4 speed manual |
| Brakes: Front disk, rear drum |
| Weight: 2800 (estimated) |
In the years leading up to 1974, the Mustang grew considerably in size and weight. This was mostly to accommodate ever-larger engines, up to and including the Ford 429 V-8. Ford realized that the car had gotten too big for its own good, and planned a smaller car as a successor, that would return the Mustang to its original scale. The Mustang II was the right size, and it coincidently came out at the right time. The first Energy Crisis hit in 1973, and in 1974 the public was screaming for smaller, more fuel efficient cars. From a body styling standpoint, the Mustang II was a success. It nicely echoed the classic 1964 1/2 Mustang. On paper at least, Ford-USA had the right car at the right time. However, much of the public bought Capris instead.
The Capri and the Mustang II shared the same powerplants: the 2.3 liter "Lima" inline 4 and the 2.8 liter "Cologne" V-6, so power and torque were essentially identical. The Capri's primary advantage over the Mustang II was weight. The 1974 Mustang II Mach 1 with a 2.8 liter V-6 tipped the scale at 3120 lbs., over 600 lbs. more than the 1974 Capri 2800 and nearly 300 lbs. heavier than even the most porcine Capri II 2.8 Ghia. Predictably, the Mach 1's performance was significantly worse than the Capri's. It's pretty easy to beat a 3120 lb. Mustang II V-6 with a 2509 lb. Capri V-6. Even the horribly underpowered 1970 Capri 1600 could stay even with the Mustang II Mach 1 for the first 500 ft. of a drag race, and the Mach 1 could only better the Capri 1600's 1/4 mile time by about 1 second! To top it all off, the V-6 Capri's fuel economy was about 15% better than the Mustang's.
The Capri also had significant handling advantages over the Mustang II. The Mustang carried roughly 58% of its considerable weight with the front wheels, which led to a very pronounced understeer. The high nose weight also made the optional power steering virtually mandatory, and this considerably reduced road feel. A Mustang II equipped with the optional "competition" suspension and wider tires could turn in respectable skidpad and slalom numbers, but the Capri was even quicker and felt better too...
The Mustang II also had a less efficiently laid out interior than the Capri. Front seating was cramped by a large transmission tunnel, and in the driver's case also by the awkwardly placed steering wheel. The back seats (believe it or not) were even more cramped than the Capri's. The Mustang also lacked Capri features like reclining front seats.
The Mustang II shared two of the Capri's powerplants: the 2.3 liter "Lima" 4, and the 2.8 liter V-6. The manual transmission was a Borg-Warner SR-4, which was nearly as good as the Capri's 4 speed. An automatic was also available.
Since the heavy Mustang II was significantly slower than the equivalent Capri, a 302 cubic inch V-8 was added in 1975. With emission control equipment of the day, it was badly watered down compared to earlier V-8s, It produced a meager 129 HP @ 4000 RPM in standard form. Torque was a more respectable 213 ft-lb @ 1800 RPM. The larger engine increased weight to 3185 lbs. With this relatively low power and high weight, even a V-8 equipped Mustang II was hard pressed to out-accelerate a V-6 Capri, at least to legal speeds.
| Mustang II plusses and minuses: |
| -Models without V-8 slower than Capri |
| -Worse fuel economy than Capri |
| -Worse handling than Capri |
| -Less interior space than Capri |
| +Less rust prone than Capri |
| +Cheaper than Capri |
The Pinto was a true economy car, and had few sporting pretensions. Despite this, its performance compared favorably to the Capri in many respects. The Pinto was significantly cheaper than the Capri, with an initial list price under $2000.
The earliest Pinto was powered by the same 75 HP 1600cc engine that was used in the 1970 Capri 1600 (the much superior 1600 GT engine may also have been an option, but this is unconfirmed). Gearing was significantly taller than the Capri's, so its acceleration was slower. The steering was a little slower than the Capri's; but handling, aided by the Pinto's low weight, was respectable if the optional A70-13 tires were fitted (6.00x13 bias ply tires were standard). Road & Track achieved 0.685g on their skidpad. The standard drum brakes were positively frightening, however; fortunately front disk brakes were available as an option.
The Pinto was improved by the introduction of the 2000cc SOHC engine, again the same one used in the Capri. Gearing was slightly shorter than the Capri 2000, so acceleration was actually slightly better and fuel economy slightly worse - an odd tradeoff for an economy car. Handling remained quite respectable: Road & Track achieved slalom speeds and skidpad figures only slightly worse than a Capri 2000 equipped with 165/80-13 radial tires.
Lincoln-Mercury introduced their version of the Pinto in 1975, when the increased price of gasoline led to an increased demand for smaller cars. The Bobcat was more "upscale", with better seats, improved sound insulation, and, um, distinctive front grille. This added about 200 lbs to the car's weight, so the Bobcat was significantly slower, worse handling, and less fuel efficient.
Pinto powerplants generally continued to mirror those of the contemporary Capri throughout its life. The Pinto did get the "Lima" 2300 4 cyl. engine before the Capri, in 1974. The Capri's 2.8 liter V-6 was later used, first in the Bobcat and later in the Pinto. V-6 Bobcats and Pintos were fairly rare though, and many were equipped with automatic transmissions. The V-6 was considered more of a luxury option than a performance option.
Some Pinto models, of course, had a literally fatal flaw: The infamous exploding gas tank. This problem was eventually corrected, but not before Ford took a well earned public relations beating.
| Pinto/Bobcat plusses and minuses: |
| -Worse handling than Capri |
| -Less interior space than Capri |
| -Explosive fuel tanks |
| +Less rust prone than Capri |
| +Cheaper than Capri |
The Toyota Celica was generally comparable to the Capri 2000. The initial version resembled a miniature Plymouth Barracuda; in the mid 1970s it was restyled to resemble a Mustang fastback, right down to the 3 section tail lights. In 1971 it was powered by Toyota's 1858cc 18R-C engine (108 HP @ 5500 RPM, 117 lb-ft @ 3600 RPM). List price was over $2600 in 1971, or about $100 more than the Capri 2000. The early Celica was about 110 lbs. heavier than the Capri 2000, and this adversely affected all aspects of its performance. In acceleration the Celica was two full seconds slower to 60 MPH; its quarter mile time was 0.1 sec slower than the Capri 2000, and its trap speed was 3.5 MPH lower. Fuel economy was also slightly worse than the Capri 2000. Handling suffered especially badly, since most of the weight was carried by the front wheels. The Celica's 59%/41% front/rear weight distribution produced much more understeer than the Capri's 54%/46% distribution. Early models also exhibited an alarming degree of body roll. Only in braking could the Celica top the Capri 2000, and not by much! Even this advantage disappeared if the Capri was equipped with its optional 185/70-13 tires. When the Capri 2600 arrived, the Celica was completely outclassed in acceleration, braking, and handling.
Early Celicas had a problem uncharacteristic for Toyota: A distressing tendency to burn valves. A cylinder head redesign for 1974 corrected this problem.
The Celica received a significant upgrade in 1975, when the 2.2 liter 20R engine was introduced. Celicas equipped with this engine had straight line performance superior to the Capri II 2.3, and little inferior to the Capri II 2.8.
The Celica Supra would have compared more favorably to the V-6 Capri, but it was not introduced until after the European Capri left the US market.
| Toyotoa Celica pluses and minuses: |
| - Poor valve train reliability before 1974 |
| - Slower than Capri 2000 (before 1975) |
| - Worse handling than Capri |
| - Worse fuel economy than Capri 2000 (at least early models) |
| - More expensive than Capri 2000 |
| + Braking slightly superior to Capri |
| + Faster than Capri 2300 (after 1975) |
| + Legendary Toyota reliability (1974 on) |
Graph comparing Celica and Capri acceleration
Some would say that this is a bit of a stretch, and that the BMW was in a different (higher) league, but the Capri RS-2600 raced quite successfully in Europe against the larger, more powerful BMW 3.0 CSi, so taking on the 2002 shouldn't be that hard.
The BMW had some advantages over the Capri, mostly the independent rear suspension. The 1972-1974 Tii versions had Kugelfischer mechanical fuel injection, much like that on the Capri RS-2600. (The Capri had it first, BTW....) The Tii produced about 130 HP, significantly more than the early Capri 2000 OHC, (similar displacement) or the 2600-2800 V-6. (107/105/109 HP) Torque is another matter though. A Capri V-6 will produce a nicer torque curve than any 2002 engine.
BMW 2002s also suffered from some head design problems. Some of them had a tendency to crack, and some tend to have leaky valve guides. Nothing's perfect......
The major disadvantage to the Bimmer is of course the price. They were pretty expensive at the time, and have gotten even more so in their old age.
| BMW 2002 plusses and minuses: |
| -Expensive, then & now |
| -Not a lot of torque |
| -Head problems |
| -Boring sedan bodywork |
| +Fuel injection on Tii models |
| +Independent rear suspension |
The Scirocco was VW's entry in the Sport Coupe market. It was based on their successful Rabbit (Golf in Europe) economy car engine and chassis. The Scirocco had sporty styling, (bodywork by Giorgetto Giugiaro of ItalDesign) an economical powerplant, and the front wheel drive that the public thought it needed.
While it was The VW Scirocco was not much of a threat to the Capri in a street competition sense, it was a very real threat in an economic sense. The Scirocco was major sales success, and it badly affected Capri sales.
The Scirocco's fuel-efficient engine was just what the market was demanding at the time. The handling "advantages" of front-wheel drive were highly touted in the media. Also, the Capri was getting heavier and less fuel-efficient by the mid '70s, so it seemed to represent old thinking.
In reality, there were some problems. Headroom was a real problem, at least for 6-footers like LHW and DRW. *BONK*
Power was another problem. While the VW powerplant was quite economical, it was radically smaller than the Capri's. The 1975 Scirocco came with a 1.5 liter SOHC inline-4 which produced only 71 HP. The Scirocco's light weight (a little over 1900 lbs. in US trim) helped offset this, but it still took nearly 13 seconds to get to 60 MPH.
Fuel injection was introduced in the 1976.5 model year. This increased power to 76 HP, but still not enough to beat a Capri. Early models had some serious problems with leaky fuel injectors.
| VW Scirocco plusses and minuses: |
| -Lack of headroom (BONK!!) |
| -Lack of power |
| -Faulty fuel injectors, in some cases |
| +Nice looking body |
| +Lighter than Capri |
| +Good fuel economy |
Return to the garage
last updated: 4 March 2010
© 1997-2010, all rights reserved