23rd May 2002, 03:49
The 92 gls has a 5 speed, and will do 0-60 in 7.8 seconds stock. that's fact, you can go check car and driver. small car + V6 + beefy 5 speed = you figure it out.
13th Oct 2004, 11:17
"...zippyest little 2cyl" eh?
Just think how fast it would be if all four cylinders were working. Might even be able to beat a 3-cylinder Geo Metro.
20th Nov 2006, 20:09
My girlfriend's Tempo is NOT A FAST CAR. Sorry, when she goes on the highway at 65, she feels like the car is going to come apart--it vibrates. She's afraid to go any faster in the state its in. But, it a reliable car with 180,000 miles on it.
23rd Jan 2008, 10:29
The engine as far as acceleration sucked. And it was noisy. Its only claim to fame was that it accelerated better on the highway than the GM 4 bangers, and you could actually pass on a 2 lane road. Despite all the horrendous noises it made it seemed to be durable though.
Though don't kid yourself the better Japanese 4 cylinders of the day were a gazillion times better engines.
21st Jan 2009, 03:25
Used Tempo (or similar GM car) will cost 1/2 of what a used Honda Civic of the same age and condition would cost. If you like Civic, buy it, but don't pretend it is in any way a comparable alternative.
29th Sep 2001, 11:04
This is John, the original poster:
The '94 4 cyl I had was plenty fast with the K&N. Around town, it was nothing, but 70+, it was great. The car would bury the speedometer SO quick, it wasn't funny. Now I own a '92 LX V6, and its top speed is 127.
Yes, my 4-cyl Tempo was fast compared to the Tercel, Civic, Sentra, and yes even the heavy Taurus I owned before. The Tempo is lighter and therefore quicker. I could easily outrun a 3.0 Taurus (non-SHO) in either car. Don't get me wrong, I like the Taurus, but I think the Tempo is better.
My parents have a 1997 Mercury Sable and I KNOW my '92 Tempo is faster. The Sable is governed at 112, the Tempo at 127. Same engine, one less gear in the Tempo. If the Tempo had overdrive, I'd bet it'd be even faster.