Just this morning read one of those ubiquitous "Top 10 worst cars ever" lists. How worst is defined varies widely across the list. Examples I can remember from the list: Dodge LaFemme - Attempting to create a market where none existed. A Dodge Lancer with features tailored to what was perceived would appeal to women. Not a bad car, poor marketing. Edsel - No vehicle ever made could live up to the hype of the Edsel. Basically a restyled Ford with some gimmicky features to try and justify the increased price. Not a bad car, but overly complicated, bad styling and not worth the money. Cadillac Cimarron - A Chevy Cavalier with leather seats and a different grill and wheels. Again, a huge price increase over the model it was derived from. Market misjudgment. Trabant - East Germany. What more needs to be said? A huge communist pile of excrement. This car deserves to be on every worst car list. Henry J - Dumpy styling and built to a price point. Wouldn't get out of it's own way, but that made it no different than many of the cars of the time. My point here is to question how listmakers define the term "worst" when it applies to cars. Reliability? Longevity? Sales numbers? Performance? Just my 1/50th of a dollar's worth.