Calling Los Angeles-based car shoppers: Have you recently traded in (or plan to trade in) a car with negative equity (i.e. the amount you owe on your auto loan is greater than the car's value)? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 11/6 for details.
50 Worst Cars of All Time
Mr_Shiftright
Member Posts: 64,481
in General
Okay, here's a great way to spend lots of your time, rather than wasting it on family or work--have a look at the "Worst Cars of All Time" according to Time Magazine:
50 Worst Cars Ever
You can skip the early cars if you want by clicking on the various "eras" up above the article. I mostly explored the 60s thru 90s.
I have to say that there wasn't one car on their list that I would adamantly defend at the price of my credentials. I mean, there were a couple where I would "quibble" or would say something like "yes awful but historically worthy" but generally whoever wrote the article was pretty astute, IMHO.
50 Worst Cars Ever
You can skip the early cars if you want by clicking on the various "eras" up above the article. I mostly explored the 60s thru 90s.
I have to say that there wasn't one car on their list that I would adamantly defend at the price of my credentials. I mean, there were a couple where I would "quibble" or would say something like "yes awful but historically worthy" but generally whoever wrote the article was pretty astute, IMHO.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Now Chrysler was starting to cheap out with these cars. For 1969-73, they basically took the Newport/New Yorker body and slapped an extra 3 inches of wheelbase on. All of that was ahead of the firewall, giving the car a longer hood and fenders, but no more interior room. But that's really no different than say, a Cadillac Deville versus a Buick Electra or Olds 98. Longer car, but no bigger inside, all of the extra wheelbase in some useless area.
By that time though, big Mopars in general were starting to get sort of a generic look about them. You could get hidden headlights on the New Yorker, and I think they were standard on the 300. They may have been an option on the Windsor as well. You could also get them on the Plymouths, and Dodges some years. So all those clean, hidden-headlight front-ends did start looking alike, and the sides of the cars were sort of featureless. It really was getting hard to tell them apart. Even if they actually shared very little sheetmetal, the differences just weren't enough to notice.
Still, it's not a car I'm going to defend to the death or anything. And I'm not gonna lose any sleep over the fact that it made some hack's top 50 worst cars list.
I'm actually surprised the 1976 Volare and Aspen didn't make the list. They were a good idea, but the quality was horrible for the first year and a half. They were generally regarded as inferior to the Dart/Valiant that they replaced, but that's pretty much how the 70's worked with domestic cars...the new ones usually sucked worse than the ones they replaced!
Ditto the 1980 GM X-cars. They were a good idea at the time, just executed poorly. And by the time the quality was improved, it was too late.
I think I might quibble with the Cadillac V-8-6-4 from 1981. It was temperamental, but supposedly all you had to do was pull a wire or two and make it run on all 8 cylinders all the time, and it was a decent engine. If you want to pick on Cadillacs from that era, go for something with the little aluminum 4.1 V-8, or anything with a Diesel!
One question about the Chrysler/DeSoto Airflow...weren't those just body-on-frame cars with radical bodies? The article's description of "aerodynamic singlet-style fuselage, steel-spaceframe construction" makes them sound unitized. Did these things really have a habit of, literally, dropping the engine?
I suppose a case can be made for all of his picks too, even though historical significance can forgive some faults.
A good quote from the H2 blurb: "It all contributed to GM's emerging image as the Dick Cheney of car companies." ....indeed
Maybe the writer had the benefit of hindsight, since these clumbersome Chrysler cars were the cause of their near-demise a few years later.
But is a '71 Imperial any worse than its peers of the time? For example, a 1971 Lincoln or Cadillac? If nothing else, I think the Imperials were rather tastefully styled, although I'll agree that good style and good design don't always go hand-in-hand.
Maybe the writer had the benefit of hindsight, since these clumbersome Chrysler cars were the cause of their near-demise a few years later.
Actually, when that style came out for 1969, the Imperial was pretty popular. But Chrysler always did have trouble making the Imperial stand out from lesser Chryslers. And sharing the same bodies as they did in 1969-73 certainly didn't help. Other than the 3" longer wheelbase and hood, I don't think the car really gave you anything that you couldn't get on a New Yorker. It would get even worse for 1974, when the cars not only shared the same bodies, but the same wheelbase. The only difference by this time was that Imperials had hidden headlights and New Yorkers didn't. No longer was size used to differentiate the cars. The Imperial went away after 1975, but for '76-78 was replaced by the New Yorker Brougham, a car that was practically identical.
If anything, it was probably the fuel crisis that killed the first Imperial. 1974 was a horrible time to introduce an all-new full-sized car...especially one that looked more massive than the one it replaced, even if it really wasn't. All big cars did bad in 1974, and it was only inevitable that the weakest would get culled first.
FWIW, I was actually shocked when I found out how big a '69-73 Imperial really is. Something like 230-233", depending on the year (although most of that extra length was because of those big black rubber blocks they put on the cars...something that makes the cars longer, without making them LOOK longer. I mean, a car that's 230" of all car is going to look bigger than a car that gets puffed up to 230" by way of protruding bumpers or tacked-on bumper guards. I always thought the Imperial did a good job of hiding its size. Maybe the coupes are a bit extreme, because of the smallish passenger cabin and correspondingly longer rear deck, but I thought the sedans looked great.
As for the Model T, it did linger on way too long and gave Chevrolet the edge it needed to dominate Ford for most of the time after all (with some exceptions).
So maybe history's his angle, I dunno.
But then, why is the Yugo on there? Well, it did start a whole decade of Yugo jokes--maybe that's it!
OK (maybe) - but why the Chevette instead of the Vega? I'd claim the Vega did way more to convince folks that GM could not build a quality compact car, and that ToyHonDatsun were more deserving of their hard-earned $$$.
At least a Vega, when new, gave you a nice ride, rather attractive looks, and the promise of something better. The Chevette was enough to make you take anti-depressants after your first test drive.
And my problem with the Vega is that it incorporated the worst element of GM - release an apparently OK car with hidden major defect(s) resulting from incomplete development time. At least the Chevette was an 'honestly' cheap car, you knew what you were getting
What was the original source material for that design? The Opel?
To give you an idea. You got in and felt the back of your seat cave in a few inches. As you started the car, it vibrated so badly at idle that your mirrors buzzed. You placed it in gear and it went in with a THUMP. Starting out, the engine noise was deafening. As you hit a bump, the hood would oilcan up and down. The wipers sounds like little sirens and the switchgear would probably break off in a few weeks. ONce it rained, and water got in, the cardboard door panels would melt, but the rubber mats on the floor held lots of water.
Some of these 50 were more marketing flops than bad cars. I think most everything built in the 73/74 time period was shaky and every manufacturer has had their lemons. GM probably pushed a lot of new ideas too fast, but people forget their successes. The quick downsizing of their full size cars in 77 after the Arab oil embargo a few years earlier resulted in some very good products. The X car may have had its share of issues, but the subsequent A cars it spawned like the Ciera really moved Americans to become receptive to larger, fuel efficient FWD vehicles and likely paved the path to today's enormously popular Camry and Accord. Believe it or not, Chrysler used to be a leader in quality and engineering, but lost its way sometime back in the 70's and never seemed to get it back. It did have some subsequent styling victories though. Ford is more of a follower. It had the Taurus and developed some new market niches like Explorer and the personal luxury Thunderbird segment, but mostly it just seemed to copy GM. Early Toyota's and Honda's weren't all that good and tended to be rust buckets. I've always felt that European cars tended to be over-priced and overrated, but some of them were a lot of fun to drive.
I was in the audience at the Detroit auto show the day GM unveiled the Pontiac Aztek and I will never forget the gasp that audience made. Holy hell! This car could not have been more instantly hated if it had a Swastika tattoo on its forehead. In later interviews with GM designers — who, for decency's sake, will remain unnamed — it emerged that the Aztek design had been fiddled with, fussed over, cost-shaved and otherwise compromised until the tough, cool-looking concept had been reduced to a bulky, plastic-clad mess. A classic case of losing the plot. The Aztek violates one of the principal rules of car design: We like cars that look like us. With its multiple eyes and supernumerary nostrils, the Aztek looks deformed and scary, something that dogs bark at and cathedrals employ to ring bells (cf., Fiat Multipla). The shame is, under all that ugliness, there was a useful, competent crossover.
For a a 1908 design it was fairly sophisticated sturdy and well thought out.
Jay Leno says his is practical and comfortable on any road where traffic flows at less than 50MPH. Only someone with no appreciation of automobile would include the fable T on a list of Worst cars, what a bonehead. :mad:
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Actually it originated as a Chevy in Brazil (1974). By the time I got to Rio in '76 they were as popular as Beetles. Opel's version used the "Kadette" name.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
That and the Airflow could be deleted from the list, certainly.
Now the '61 Amphicar? One of the worse? Nah...
Model Ts are very cool, but it takes some practice to learn to drive one---they are pretty weird. I always wanted to build a Model T Speedster. You can modernize them with electric starter, weather equipment and I think even a water pump (it didn't have one).
I've seen a few Chevettes at classic car shows (shudder the thought) that have been nicely preserved. The dress-up package gave it some fairly decent cloth seats, carpeting in the hatch area and lower door panels, and vinyl trim on the upper doors, rather than hard plastic. And it was available in a few different colors, like red, blue, etc.
Now, would it be durable for the long term, compared to today's cars? Probably not, because hard plastic will wear better, and the fabrics they use for seats are probably treated, and simply more durable. But, when taken care of, it presents itself better IMO. Plus there are just other details, such as how exposed metal, when painted and shiny, looks nicer than hard plastic, even if it's more dangerous. And all that chrome-dipped plastic looks nice...until it starts to peel off! And colors like gray and putty just tend to make a cheap interior look cheaper, whereas the right shade of blue, red, etc can hid the fact that it's cheap.
Now, that being said, if forced to choose, I'd still take any modern subcompact over a Chevette! And probably most of the competition from its era! But still, seeing that package with the dressed up interior did give me a newfound respect for the
little piece of...car!On that note, I can't recall the last time I saw an early Tempo or Celebrity etc.
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
His car seemed bigger than mine...so we'd take his car more often... but the Civic was a much more refined product. We all called the Chevette (since it was red) the Russian Industrial Product, or the RIP (or the R-I-P). It wouldn't move away from the curb on an uphill grade with 4 people in it (automatic); we had to get out and move it to level ground. It roared, it shook, but it was cockroach-tough. It would run, no matter what we broke or tore. and Mario was trying to kill it out of hate.. None of us knew exactly what to think of the Civic. Most people didn't even know Honda made cars in those days. It was seen as something of a joke, in those years. A girl friend's brother smilingly told me that my Civic's tires were exactly the same size as those on a forklift where he was working that summer. He had a Chevelle. It would be several years before Hondas were viewed with any respect. Size, not quality was the issue. American cars were junk, and Japanese cars were better- That seemed to be common knowledge. However, it branded you as wierd to own a Japanese car - sort of like announcing at Christmas dinner that you're a vegetarian. People tolerate you and recognize that you have (in your own mind) good reasons for what you've done, but you're clearly not a normal guy and you shouldn't be dating my sister, Bud.
Still, the Civic was reliable, comparatively quiet, and -other than being more humbling to own than a Chevette, it was great. It used no gas at all, even during the horror-days of $1.00 a gallon gas. I drove it as fast as it would go, but usually alone since friends used to American mammoths found it too small for comfort. (Certainly my driving skills and speed were not a factor ). Looking up at Semi tires was.
But, back to the Chevette. We all felt that the Chevette was a disgrace to Chevy. Recall that it was during our high school years that the greats of the Muscle Car Era were on the scene. The Road Runners, the Chevelles, the Camaros, the Cuda's. When one saw a Chevette painted in the same red as a 69 Camaro, it made the strongest of American men want to cry. :lemon:
The starter kept failing so he had a remote starter button hooked up to house wiring between the seats--self-same seatbacks being propped up with a 2 X 4 by the way.
It did run every day though.
My stepdad's mother used to have a Chevette. It was red, and as I recall, was actually a REAL red similar to what's on my '85 Silverado, compared to that orangish stuff they would sometimes try to pass off as red. Now that I think about it, it may have been an '85 as well.
The real tear-jerker though, is the car that Chevette replaced. She used to have a Chevelle hardtop coupe! Either a '71 or '72, can't remember now. Now it wasn't anything fancy, no SS396 or anything erotic like that. But still, the disgrace of going from something like that to a Chevette!
I haven't seen her in years, so I don't know what kind of car she has now, or if she even has a car at all. For all I know, she might still have that Chevette. It would be a fitting punishment for her. She could be pretty...umm, let me not get started. :shades:
Oh, on a similar note, my stepdad's first car was a '69 Chevelle hardtop with a 396. His second? A 1981 Escort. That kind of stuff must run in their family.
doing daily driver duties.
It's not that unusual to see an old Maverick, Nova, Hornet or Fairmont being used as a DD, usually by someone who looks like he's had the same car for 3 or 4 decades.
There's a '65or '66 Valiant around the corner from here that has an auxiliary cooling fan mounted right on the front grille.
I can't remember the last time I saw a T-car around here.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Now in my opinion, no worst car list would be complete without mentioning the Yugo!
I knew someone that used it as a to and from work car, and it did serve that purpose, but the last time I saw any Yugos was at an art display at Union Station some 20 years ago. The theme was turning Yugos into art, so the front of one was done up as a mantle over a fireplace, and one was turned into a giant toaster.
At that same time my dad knew a guy who bought a new Chevy Beretta that was an absolute lemon, every electrical glitch known to man, and the drivers door hinges actually broke and the door fell off, when parked in a grocery store parking lot. This is why people started running to Camcords.
American manufacturers have pretty much produced what Americans want to buy - large SUV's while gas was relatively cheap - crappy little fuel economizers when it's not. It has to really frustrating trying to predict what a fickle public will be interested in a few years out.
A good example is the EV1, which many people demonize GM over now. GM jumped into it with there own money under the illusion that California would come through with their part of the equation and have public recharging stations available along with incentives for private industry to do the same, and the federal government would follow suit later on. None or very little of that ever materialized. I remember seeing maps in the LA Times of where these public charge stations would be located. Time moved on, fuel prices stayed low, which led to the outcome that is now history.
Unfortunately, the end result was essentially a $12,000 Cavalier. Eventually they started putting Chevy V-6es in them, which made them better performers, but it was still just a gussied up Cavalier.
Quality-wise, I wouldn't call them the worst car of all time. After all, it was 1982 and a lot of cars were horrible. Both foreign and domestic, truth be told, so it wasn't just the Big Three, although they certainly did take "horrible" to new heights in that era! But I think it was just a symbol of how far Cadillac had fallen.
Cadillac had started slipping in 1971, and I'd say 1982 was when they hit rock-bottom. The Cimarron was crap. Anything with the 4.1 V-8 or Olds Diesel was crap, and those two engines covered just about everything else. About the only saving grace was if you bought the factory limo. It still used a Cadillac 368 V-8, and I think it was still using the beefy old THM400 transmission. It's only flaw was the V-8-6-4 cylinder de-activation, but supposedly it wasn't hard to just disconnect that.
Overall, 1982 was just a horrible year for Cadillac's reputation (although at the time, they sold well in spite of the recession), and I think the Cimarron was just the "crowning glory" of that. :sick:
However, by the time I added in all the power stuff, cruise control, an automatic transmission, tape player, tilt wheel, and a sunroof, I come out with $14,103!
I wonder what a comparable BMW 3-series would have cost back in 1982? Now, no self-respecting 3-series should have an automatic, so to take the automatic out of the Cimarron and make it comparable, it's at $13,733. I doubt if a 3-series was much more expensive. I guess a Benz C-class would've been up in the stratosphere, though.
Cadillac did a much better job of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse, IMO, with the 1975 Cadillac Seville. While it was based on the Chevy Nova, they did a good job at hiding that fact. Plus, at least it had a bit of exclusivity with the standard fuel-injected Olds 350 V-8, something you couldn't get in any other X-car. It was also longer, had a roomier back seat, and was about 700-800 lb heavier than a Nova, so it was much more substantial. I'll have to admit though, that when I've sat in these first-gen Sevilles, I was a bit disappointed. I thought they'd be roomier and more comfy, but I guess being based on the Nova, they could only do so much with the seating position. I think all the extra room actually went into the back seat. I'd probably be happier with a '75 Dodge Dart Special Edition, although looks-wise, they're kinda dumpy compared to a Seville.
I agree the 75 Seville was a good job of repackaging, I suspect few realize its roots. It's the most elegant domestic of that era, for sure.
Worst 50? - my vote goes to that fish bowl on wheels - the Pacer.
http://www.microcarmuseum.com/tour/subaru360.html
I would disagree with that assessment. The Vega was a MAJOR flop and a big black eye not just for GM, but the entire American automobile industry.
It probably did as much to help Toyota gain a foothold in the American market as Toyota ever did for itself.
The Vega was initially announced with a gread deal of fanfare in 1968 by GM's top management as the American car that would beat the foreigners. Unfortunately, the car's design, execution and production were one disaster after another. The car was a huge disappointment at the time, and revealed that all was not well within GM.
The scary part is that when I hear the ballyhoo surrounding the Volt, and read the chapter in John DeLorean's book On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors devoted to the Vega, I get this nagging sense of deja vu...
I don't think that the General has yet learned its lesson...
The Yugo - a Fiat without he legendary Italian reliability. :sick:
Opel today has a lot more reputation for respectable products than what GM has made on this continent for the past 30 years or so.
What I remember most about the Vega was the ugly labor/union/plant problems they had around the car.
I think the biggest blow to GM was the 1980 Citation and its siblings. 1980 was the year that everything really changed. Suddenly, the midsized and full-sized cars weren't the heart of the market anymore. It was shifting to the compact. In that extra-long 1980 model year, the Citation sold over 800,000 units. Throw the Omega, Phoenix, and Skylark in the mix and you have probably another 700,000 units. So that's 1.5 Million cars total. Chevrolet sold 2.29 million total cars that year. Ford sold about half that, and nobody else broke a million, although Oldsmobile was probably close.
Well, the X-car went on to become one of the most recalled cars in history, and proved that GM was capable of burning customers not just on the low end, but right in the heart of the market. I think they're still reeling from that one. After all, everybody expected cheap domestic economy cars to let you down, but I don't think anybody thought it would come from the mainstream.