- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
The biggest joke were those 4 banger Camaros and Mustangs. A bicycle would out run those things!
The 100 worst cars of all time
- Thread starter Cujet
- Start date
- Status
I'm surprised this bozo didn't include the Corvair. It's been a perennial whipping boy for the uninformed list maker for years. But...
Vega - agree
Chevette - agree
1953 Corvette - agree. It couldn't get out of its own way and was a "sports car" only because GM called it one. GM nearly killed the car because of horrible sales numbers the first two model years.
Overall, though this is like many lists is see on the internet - function and research take a back seat to flash and quips.
Vega - agree
Chevette - agree
1953 Corvette - agree. It couldn't get out of its own way and was a "sports car" only because GM called it one. GM nearly killed the car because of horrible sales numbers the first two model years.
Overall, though this is like many lists is see on the internet - function and research take a back seat to flash and quips.
The Corvair was on the list.
There was flat out very little wrong with a number of cars on that list other than they were ugly or didn't sell well. There are some genuinely terrible cars represented on that list, but a lot were just fine.
There was flat out very little wrong with a number of cars on that list other than they were ugly or didn't sell well. There are some genuinely terrible cars represented on that list, but a lot were just fine.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: urrlord
Ford BroncoII what a joke.
You got that right! Everytime I`d see one of those things they sounded like a bumble bee or something. Did they even have enough power to climb a hill?
Ford BroncoII what a joke.
You got that right! Everytime I`d see one of those things they sounded like a bumble bee or something. Did they even have enough power to climb a hill?
My first car was a 1981 chevy citation. It looked just like the one in the pic. 2 tone brown. My dad had it and gave it to me. Had a 2.8 6 cyl. and man what a pain to change those back spark plugs!! The front rack and pinion went out of it but it still worked and was only hard to steer when going left at a slow speed, I delt with it. I used Arco Graphite 20W50 all year long in PA winters w/o problems. Like a stupid kid, I raced whoever I could to and from work. Used it as a 4X4 off road, beat the chit out of it too. I sold it to my uncle when I put 140,000+ on it. He had it several more yrs., then gave it to his girlfriend, who ran it a few more yrs. She then sold it again to someone else. So much for being unreliable huh!
This same list or various arrangements of it has appeared in many various forms the last few years. I always wonder, how many of these cars has the author actually driven? None, usually, when the author is a 22-year-old fresh out of journalism school, but in this case author John Pearley Huffman has been around since dirt and if he hasn't driven them, at least he's probably written about many of these cars before. The point remains, though: usually these articles sound like they're written in a closed and locked room with just the author, his laptop and Google.
Ford Escort! My sister bought one new, took care of it like any normal person...and it was dead and in the junk yard by 55k miles. Those junkers broke everything when you look into people who have owned them. I have head of timing belts going way premature which in turn smacked the valves, head gaskets burning, trans going bad, etc. That would be my vote for cares I have seen or dealt with in my lifetime.
I disagree with the 58 Edsel, 80 Seville,& Aspen-Volare. All were good cars that gave me years of service at bargain prices.
This author is a bit overdramatic isn't he? "It's undeniable that the Aztek's utter hideousness drove the biggest and last nails into Pontiac's heavily side-clad, plastic coffin." On the other hand, he seemed to peg the Olds Cutlass Diesel correctly
I agree with the citation , chevette, eagle premier , cavalier , and pinto and maybe the aspire they were reliable but god awful. We had a premier it has like 300,000 miles the motor ran good but everything else sucked. Also had a cavalier what a cheap piece of [censored]. I hated that car .
Originally Posted By: chevyboy14
I agree with the citation , chevette, eagle premier , cavalier , and pinto and maybe the aspire they were reliable but god awful. We had a premier it has like 300,000 miles the motor ran good but everything else sucked. Also had a cavalier what a cheap piece of [censored]. I hated that car .
See, I had a cavalier. Sure, I replaced half the engine in the year I owned it, but other than that it wasn't that bad. Gas mileage sucked (due to the 3 speed auto), but the highway ride was good, it wasn't the slowest car I've ever driven, and the seats were comfortable.
I agree with the citation , chevette, eagle premier , cavalier , and pinto and maybe the aspire they were reliable but god awful. We had a premier it has like 300,000 miles the motor ran good but everything else sucked. Also had a cavalier what a cheap piece of [censored]. I hated that car .
See, I had a cavalier. Sure, I replaced half the engine in the year I owned it, but other than that it wasn't that bad. Gas mileage sucked (due to the 3 speed auto), but the highway ride was good, it wasn't the slowest car I've ever driven, and the seats were comfortable.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Given the Mercedes wagon, the Aztec is a beauty - just a little to "fashion forward" for its time. I actuall LIKE it and Ive done high end mechanical packaging design and have sophisticated taste. Now that MAzda five minivan makes me regurgitate along with the hideous mercedes R class.
wow.
one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on here in a long time, and that's saying something...
and to remind you how 'fashion forward' Pontiac was, they spelled it 'AZTEK'.
I'll take a picture of my cinnamon red Mazda5 next to my neighbor's pea green Aztek and see if anyone agrees with you.
Given the Mercedes wagon, the Aztec is a beauty - just a little to "fashion forward" for its time. I actuall LIKE it and Ive done high end mechanical packaging design and have sophisticated taste. Now that MAzda five minivan makes me regurgitate along with the hideous mercedes R class.
wow.
one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on here in a long time, and that's saying something...
and to remind you how 'fashion forward' Pontiac was, they spelled it 'AZTEK'.
I'll take a picture of my cinnamon red Mazda5 next to my neighbor's pea green Aztek and see if anyone agrees with you.
Originally Posted By: urrlord
Ford BroncoII ,Suzuki Samaurai on that list...what a joke.
I don't agree with those being on that list either.
The Bronco II was good at being what it was...a small 4x4. Not so great to weave in and out of traffic with, but that doesn't make it a bad vehicle. The original Explorer was only a slightly refined version of it, and that's one of the best selling vehicles in history.
And I don't know what tires filled with rocks feels like, but my 2 door Explorer rode like a Town Car on 31s.
Ford BroncoII ,Suzuki Samaurai on that list...what a joke.
I don't agree with those being on that list either.
The Bronco II was good at being what it was...a small 4x4. Not so great to weave in and out of traffic with, but that doesn't make it a bad vehicle. The original Explorer was only a slightly refined version of it, and that's one of the best selling vehicles in history.
And I don't know what tires filled with rocks feels like, but my 2 door Explorer rode like a Town Car on 31s.
This list with the descriptions is pretty good IMHO.
The writer has more than a basic knowledge of the subject and at least he took the effort to look for even obscure cars that fit the bill (Bristol, Stag, Lotus M100) as opposed to the tired Pinto/Vega/Pacer flogging seen in similar articles.
These articles are what they are and, if nothing else, they spark conversation.
I've owned and would still like to own several cars on the list but overall it is pretty good summary of some true 'misses'. Emotions aside, by any number of measures a lot of these cars were bad..
The writer has more than a basic knowledge of the subject and at least he took the effort to look for even obscure cars that fit the bill (Bristol, Stag, Lotus M100) as opposed to the tired Pinto/Vega/Pacer flogging seen in similar articles.
These articles are what they are and, if nothing else, they spark conversation.
I've owned and would still like to own several cars on the list but overall it is pretty good summary of some true 'misses'. Emotions aside, by any number of measures a lot of these cars were bad..
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: urrlord
Ford BroncoII what a joke.
You got that right! Everytime I`d see one of those things they sounded like a bumble bee or something. Did they even have enough power to climb a hill?
I think he meant its a joke that the Bronco II was on the list (and I agree). They had a 2.8 V6, and later a 2.9 V6 which had 115 hp and 140 hp, respectively.
Originally Posted By: urrlord
Ford BroncoII what a joke.
You got that right! Everytime I`d see one of those things they sounded like a bumble bee or something. Did they even have enough power to climb a hill?
I think he meant its a joke that the Bronco II was on the list (and I agree). They had a 2.8 V6, and later a 2.9 V6 which had 115 hp and 140 hp, respectively.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: urrlord
Ford BroncoII ,Suzuki Samaurai on that list...what a joke.
I don't agree with those being on that list either.
The Bronco II was good at being what it was...a small 4x4. Not so great to weave in and out of traffic with, but that doesn't make it a bad vehicle.
The Bronco II earned it's place on that list.
The 60° 2.9 V6 had a nasty habit of cracking cylinder heads. Later versions (ie: the Explorer's 4.0) were better.
Many a Bronco II owner went into shock when they went in to replace a $10 U-Joint and got an estimate for a $500 CV driveshaft. I think those CV driveshafts are still $200 to $300.
Then there was that weird non-transfer case/transfer case thing on the 2WD models. It looked like a transfer case but nothing went to the front wheels. It seemed to exist just to create another place to leak.
The Samurai was at least reliable. It was slower than Christmas...Mercedes Benz 240D automatic drivers laugh at how slow Samurais are. Completely useless on the freeway, but the cylinder head didn't crack regularly and it had regular $10 U-joints.
Originally Posted By: urrlord
Ford BroncoII ,Suzuki Samaurai on that list...what a joke.
I don't agree with those being on that list either.
The Bronco II was good at being what it was...a small 4x4. Not so great to weave in and out of traffic with, but that doesn't make it a bad vehicle.
The Bronco II earned it's place on that list.
The 60° 2.9 V6 had a nasty habit of cracking cylinder heads. Later versions (ie: the Explorer's 4.0) were better.
Many a Bronco II owner went into shock when they went in to replace a $10 U-Joint and got an estimate for a $500 CV driveshaft. I think those CV driveshafts are still $200 to $300.
Then there was that weird non-transfer case/transfer case thing on the 2WD models. It looked like a transfer case but nothing went to the front wheels. It seemed to exist just to create another place to leak.
The Samurai was at least reliable. It was slower than Christmas...Mercedes Benz 240D automatic drivers laugh at how slow Samurais are. Completely useless on the freeway, but the cylinder head didn't crack regularly and it had regular $10 U-joints.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
You know, of all the "best ever..." and "worst ever..." car lists, I probably AGREED with more of this one than any other I've seen.
Just a few notable exceptions. The first Corvette, the Thunderbird SC, the Bronco II. They all had their flaws, but they aren't worthy of the "100 worst" by any means.
As for my favorite maker (Chrysler) I think every single one on that list deserved it.
And the Mustang II should have been number one simply due to the depth of the insult to the name "Mustang." Back in the early 90s when I first got involved in the fledgling internet automotive mailing list/ discussion group scene, there was the Mopar Mailing List (MML- still around last I checked), the Fordnatics List, and a Mustang mailing list among a few others. The intro letter for the Mustang list pointed out that there were two actual mailing lists, the "Classic" list for 1972 and below and the "Modern" list for 1979 and later 'Stangs. It closed with: "Don't even ask about the Mustang II because nobody cares."
If it wasn't for the Mustang II, there WOULDN'T BE a Mustang at all.
Most Mustang owners are too stupid to understand that basic, factual truth.
You know, of all the "best ever..." and "worst ever..." car lists, I probably AGREED with more of this one than any other I've seen.
Just a few notable exceptions. The first Corvette, the Thunderbird SC, the Bronco II. They all had their flaws, but they aren't worthy of the "100 worst" by any means.
As for my favorite maker (Chrysler) I think every single one on that list deserved it.
And the Mustang II should have been number one simply due to the depth of the insult to the name "Mustang." Back in the early 90s when I first got involved in the fledgling internet automotive mailing list/ discussion group scene, there was the Mopar Mailing List (MML- still around last I checked), the Fordnatics List, and a Mustang mailing list among a few others. The intro letter for the Mustang list pointed out that there were two actual mailing lists, the "Classic" list for 1972 and below and the "Modern" list for 1979 and later 'Stangs. It closed with: "Don't even ask about the Mustang II because nobody cares."
If it wasn't for the Mustang II, there WOULDN'T BE a Mustang at all.
Most Mustang owners are too stupid to understand that basic, factual truth.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
If it wasn't for the Mustang II, there WOULDN'T BE a Mustang at all.
Well, its not like the 1965-72 Mustangs would have slipped into another dimension and never existed. What would have been wrong with that, really? The current Mustang would still exist, it would just have another name. People put too much into car names.
As for the years after the Mudstain II, the Fox-based Mustang might not have been called 'Mustang' and it might have taken a long time to bring the name back, but I'm sure they would have. The Challenger's back, the Charger's back, the GTO came back, heck, even the Taurus came back! They'd have brought the name 'Mustang' back SOME time or other. No matter how you slice it, even with a fairly potent 302 under the hood in the abomination called "Cobra II", its hard to see anything positive about the Maverick-stang.
If it wasn't for the Mustang II, there WOULDN'T BE a Mustang at all.
Well, its not like the 1965-72 Mustangs would have slipped into another dimension and never existed. What would have been wrong with that, really? The current Mustang would still exist, it would just have another name. People put too much into car names.
As for the years after the Mudstain II, the Fox-based Mustang might not have been called 'Mustang' and it might have taken a long time to bring the name back, but I'm sure they would have. The Challenger's back, the Charger's back, the GTO came back, heck, even the Taurus came back! They'd have brought the name 'Mustang' back SOME time or other. No matter how you slice it, even with a fairly potent 302 under the hood in the abomination called "Cobra II", its hard to see anything positive about the Maverick-stang.
- Status
