Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Worst Cars

lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
Here are the 50 worst cars according to the book by Richard Porter:

50. Lancia Monte Carlo
49. Porche 924
48. Ford Scorpio
47. Cadillac STS
46. Renault Safrane
45. Jaguar XJ40
44. Ford Escort MK1V
43. Yugo Sana
42. Mitsubishi 3000GT
41. Rover 800
40. Volvo 340
39. Delorean DMC-12
38. Vauxhall Belmont
37. Triumph TR7
36. Rolls-Royce Carmargue
35. Talbot Tagora
34. Suzuki Wagon R
33. Volvo 262C
32. Subaru XT
31. Nissan Sunny Coupe
30. Skoda Estelle
29. Renault 9
28. Maserati Biturbo
27. Daihatsu Move
26. Alfa Romeo Arna
25. Hyundai Pony
24. Fiat Strada
23. Subaru Justy
22. Austin Maestro
21. Toyota Space Cruiser
20. Fiat 126
19. Daihatsu Applause
18. Ferrari 400
17. Austin Ambassador
16. Yugo 45
15. Datsun Sunny 120Y
14. Aston Martin Lagonda
13. Susuki SJ
12. FSO Polonez
11. Seat Marbella
10. MGB
9. Trabant
8. Reliant Robin
7. Bond Bug
6. Nissan Serena
5. Lada Riva
4. Morris Marina
3. Suzuki X90
2. Austin Allegro
1. Volkswagen Beetle

This is the UK version. If anyone can find the US version of the list, I would love to see it.
«13456789

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,605
    maybe we could twist that list around as proof that domestic cars aren't so bad, after all! :P
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    I think the US version is littered with Gremlins, Lumina APVs, and the like, but yeah, those are some pretty crappy foreign cars.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,605
    when I was vacationing in Paris, I saw a Renault Safrane at a dealership. I thought it was a neat car. This was 1994. I wonder what was so bad about them? Now I know a Renault in this country would be a nightmare, partly because of a poor dealer network (nonexistent these days) untrained mechanics, scarce parts, etc. But in their own home country, where people are familiar with them, would the really be so bad?
  • bhill2bhill2 Posts: 1,275
    Well, we would have to define 'worst'. A lot of the cars on the UK list are truly bad cars, as in they didn't work very well. The Gremlin, for instance, was as ugly as sin and fairly primitive, but it was a pretty good grocery getter and all-around reliable beast of burden.

    2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv, 2001 Jaguar XK cnv, 1985 MB 380SE (the best of the lot)

  • 1racefan1racefan Posts: 932
    that by post #15, this will have become "Pro Korean cars vs. Anti Korean cars"....just like the "I would not want to be seen dead in" topic has become.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    Top Gear does annual satisfaction surveys in the UK. Unofficial, but widespread. Interpret "satisfaction" however you want, but dealer service was a large part of it.

    10 of the bottom 13 cars in satisfaction were French; mostly Peugeots, which are cool and handle well but are bad at many more things. The M-Class was one of the 13. The top 3 were Japanese cars, even though they don't sell in large amounts there. (The X-type was 4th or 5th, interestingly.)

    Citroen might finally be turning its quality problems around. If so, Peugeot will follow because they're the same company. But for now, they suck.

    In the US we use our cars more and take care of them less, so we have a higher bar for acceptable reliability. "Worse" has more to do with being painful to drive. But our tastes are so varied, that this is just going to become a shouting match. I can't wait.
  • mitsu 3000gt? it seems out of place on this list.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    It was a huge on the outside, cramped on the inside, stretched FWD Eclipse platform pig. All versions were poor handling, poor riding, understeering beasts. They were unreliable. They had various useless gadgets on the inside, hideous cladding and styling on the outside, and used the poorest materials they could find. The non-turbo versions were just plain slow. The AWD turbos were fast, but no fun to drive and even less reliable than the base models. By the end of their run, they were asking $70,000 for a convertible version of this flying turd.

    I test drove a couple of these and confirmed much of the above. It is the only car I have ever driven where bumps would cause me to smack my head on the windshield. Just a miserable excuse for a car.

    On the other hand, some people swear by them.

    Your opinion may vary.
  • I agree with everything except the MGB and the VW. The rest is as sorry a lot of badly engineered, misbegotten machinery as you could ever find.

    The MGB was a GREAT litle sportscarcar and he doesn't know what he's talking about in that particular case. As proof there are still many thousands on the road racking up huge mileages, and there's a formidable aftermarket industry built around them. Hardly something you'd find with a bad car.

    Perhaps he was referring only to the bastardized post 1974 mgb models---then I might agree with him.

    Ditto the VW Beetle. How could something so "bad" succeed so brilliantly? Makes no sense to call the bug "BAD".
  • 1racefan1racefan Posts: 932
    "On the other hand, some people swear by them"

    A lot of the cars on that list have a cult like following. The 3000GT, Delorean, VW Beetle, and TR7 immediately come to mind.

    I would add the VW Thing, Chevy Corvair, and Ford Pinto to the worst car list though.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    His quote for the MGB:

    "The MGB is the darling of the classic car scene. Which is odd because it is spectacularly rubbish. The only thing worse than driving one would be having your face pushing into a lawnmower. And come to think of it, that sounds quite nice."

    VW:

    "For some reason, beardy peaceniks and straggly-haired surfer dudes love the Beetle, thinking it is alternative and cool. Which is fine, although it does overlook the fact that it's also clearly bollocks."

    Surely he added some substantive comments in addition to his cutesy British quips.
  • navigator89navigator89 Posts: 1,080
    "By the end of their run, they were asking $70,000 for a convertible version of this flying turd."

    Wait, did you say $70,000?? That seems like a lot to ask! Are you sure about this figure?

    And to all of you out there: Why do you think the Cadillac STS made that list.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,605
    about the Caddy STS myself. Probably the worst STS was the one that was based on the small '86-91 Seville, but even there, there'd be much worse cars out there.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    I just found an R&T article online where their early model had an as-tested price of $68,766.

    I found it on a website devoted entirely to the Spyder version. There is apparently a cult for everything.
  • 1racefan1racefan Posts: 932
    I also read somewhere recently that in 1995, the 3000GT, VR-4 (turbo) AWD, hard top convertibles were selling for $65K and up.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    Didn't the early Northstars struggle to reach 100K miles and were easier to replace than rebuild?
  • bottgersbottgers Posts: 2,028
    Whatsamatter, don't you like the pro/con korean cars posts?
  • 1racefan1racefan Posts: 932
    I don't care...it's just every forum seems to be overtaken with that issue. Plus, they seem to get nasty and personal.
    It is the holiday season...that means I will already have to be subjected to enough nasty and personal comments with my family members!!!
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,077
    I've seen that book. Actually, it wasn't the STS, but the bustleback 1980-85 Seville that was panned. Funny, because that Seville had imitators in the Lincoln Continental and 1981-83 Imperial. I would nominate the 1986-91 Seville myself, but the Eldorado of those years was even more pathetic.
  • What good timing -- I got this book as a "Secret Santa" gift at work!

    Any typos/misspellings are my fault, not the author's/publishers':

    50. Porsche 924 / 76-85
    49. BMW 318i / 84
    48. Jaguar XJS-C / 88
    47. Cadillac ETC / 00-02
    46. Merkur Scorpio / 87-89
    45. Volvo 262C / 77-81
    44. Nissan NX / 91-93
    43. GM EV1 / 96-99
    42. Jaguar XJ6 / 87-94
    41. Oldsmobile Toronado Trofeo / 89
    40. Ferrari 400 / 76-79
    39. Sterling 825/827 / 87-91
    38. Rolls-Royce Camargue / 75-86
    37. Delorean DMC-12 / 81-83
    36. AMC/Renault Alliance / 83-88
    35. Chrysler Imperial / 90
    34. Maserati Biturbo / 84-94
    33. Triumph TR7 / 75-81
    32. Nissan 300ZX / 84-89
    31. Aston Martin Lagonda / 76-85
    30. Subaru XT / 85-91
    29. Chrysler TC by Maserati / 89-91
    28. Ford EXP / 82
    27. Hummer H1 /93-02
    26. Renault Fuego / 82-87
    25. Volkswagen Fox / 87-93
    24. Datsun B210 / 74-78
    23. Chrysler K-car / 81-89
    22. Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta / 79
    21. Pontiac Fiero 2M4 / 84
    20. Geo Metro convertible / 90-93
    19. Hyundai Excel / 86-89
    18. MGB / 62-80
    17. Dodge Dakota convertible / 89-90
    16. Chevrolet Citation / 80-85
    15. AMC Gremlin / 70-78
    14. Suzuki Samurai / 87-89
    13. Cadillac Cimarron / 82-88
    12. Renault LeCar / 72-85
    11. Ford Pinto /71-80
    10. Pontiac Aztek / 2001
    9. Suzuki X90 / 96-98
    8. Chevrolet Lumina APV / 90
    7. Cadillac Seville / 78-82
    6. Chevrolet Vega / 71-77
    5. Volkswagen Beetle / 45-79
    4. Dodge Rampage / 82-84
    3. AMC Pacer /75-80
    2. Yugo GV / 85-91
    1. Ford Mustang II / 1974
Sign In or Register to comment.