50 Worst Cars of All Time

bumpy

Supposedly, the Neon's platform couldn't handle the extra torque of the 2.4 engine.

One wonders what they did for the turbo 2.4 in the Neon SRT-4, then? I used to see those around, but they've pretty much vanished in the last few years. I suppose the fall-apartitis that claimed the more pedestrian Neons got to those, too.

andre1969

What year is her Neon? My understanding is that it was only the first few years that the cars were really crappy. I know with bigger cars, like the Intrepid, it was the 1993-95 models that were really crappy, but they started getting their act together in 1996. Then when the redesigned 1998 models came around, they were improved considerably. The transmission was still a weak point, especially when mated to the 3.2 or 3.5, while the 2.7 was prone to sludging up if you let it go too long between oil changes, let it run low, cooked it, etc. But overall, they were leaps and bounds ahead of the earlier models in reliability.

And heck, I even knew someone who had a 1994 Eagle Vision, who got about 160,000 miles out of it, original engine and tranny, before giving it to her kid. I think he ultimately wrecked it. She was always griping about it being a piece of crap, but she and her husband weren't exactly religious about maintaining their cars. Plus, I think that whatever the issue was, the dealer just wasn't fixing it properly. So sometimes, there is a good one in the bunch I guess.

But anyway, my guess is that with the Neon, after a few years they started improving them, as they got the kinks out. And when the 2000 came out, I don't think it was a horrible car, when it comes to reliability/durability. It's just that it didn't do anything else all that well. It was bigger than the 1995-99 model, which hurt performance a bit And they got rid of all the fun engines. And didn't bother to put a 4-speed automatic in it. It's like they just did the bare minimum to get the car built and out the door as fast as possible, without any real effort.

The last time I rode in a Neon was a few years ago. A friend of mine, who has a 2004 Crown Vic, had his car in the shop and he had a Neon as a loaner. It seemed competent enough for the most part, but was no great shakes. I'd personally rate it more desireable than a Civic or Corolla of the time, simply because it felt roomier inside and fit me better...so it would be a more useful car, for my needs...but not necessarily the majority who buy these types of cars. Really though, all they would've had to do was throw maybe 50 bucks more into the interior quality, and it would've been a respectable car. One thing I remember about it was that it had cloth inserts on the door panels, which I normally like. However, they were so rough to the touch and so thinly padded, it was like why bother?

isellhondas

When our son first started driving we bought a 1991 Plymouth Acclaim that an old lady had been driving. It was in great shape and we kept it until it had something like 135,000 miles. It never gave us a bit of trouble.

Aren't those the same 4 cylinder engines the Neons used?

PT Crusers are nothing more than a Neon with a retro body.

Are those ever dogs to sell now!

andre1969

One wonders what they did for the turbo 2.4 in the Neon SRT-4, then? I used to see those around, but they've pretty much vanished in the last few years. I suppose the fall-apartitis that claimed the more pedestrian Neons got to those, too.

I had totally forgotten about that. However, wasn't that the 2nd-gen Neon? The 2nd gen was based on the same architecture as the PT Cruiser, and was beefy enough to handle the 2.4. However, I don't think the first-gen was. I guess it's always possible to beef them up though. Heck, I saw a PT Cruiser with a 426 Hemi in it once! I wonder what all they have to do to accommodate that? :surprise:

lemmer

She is the original owner, but she seems like the type that could have forgot if they replaced something major under warranty. She also seems like the type that is happy as long as the ac and radio work and the car moves under its own power. I can pretty much vouch that she hasn't had any troubles that have sidelined the car in the past 2.5 years.

hpmctorque

Maybe I'm just not noticing them, but for a car that was in production only a few years ago, and was produced in large numbers, you don't see too many Neons on the road anymore.

andre1969

When our son first started driving we bought a 1991 Plymouth Acclaim that an old lady had been driving. It was in great shape and we kept it until it had something like 135,000 miles. It never gave us a bit of trouble.

Aren't those the same 4 cylinder engines the Neons used?

The Acclaim used a 2.5 4-cyl that was a slight enlargement of the old 2.2 that debuted in the 1981 K-cars. It had around 100 hp I think, and was a good, simple, sturdy engine. Easy to work on, cheap to fix. I think it was designed by the same guy who did the slant six. Now the turbo versions had considerably shorter lifespans. Especially that hot 224 hp engine that Spirit R/T used, I imagine. But the regular engines were pretty durable, if uninspiring.

The Neon 2.0, as well as the 2.4, were derived from the old 2.2/2.5, but they cut corners here and there, cheapening them no doubt. Plus, I'm sure upping the hp probably put some stress on them.

Mr_Shiftright

A 2000 Honda Civic is worth MORE THAN 2X a 2000 Neon. That tells you all you need to know. The American public has voted.

hpmctorque

Yeah, and justifiably. The market is very efficient on pricing. And to think that in the 1920s through the 1960s the world's best cars were American. They may not have been the most advanced, in terms of suspensions, brakes and engines, but they more than compensated on value. Detroit was also innovative in many ways, examples being A/C, automatic transmissions, power steering and brakes, over-square high-compression engines (no OHCs, though), and convenience power equipment. In financing, buying on time was an American innovation. Then the domestic manufacturers got complacent, arrogant, and insensitive to the consumers' priorities. If that had been a short term phenomenon, it might have been excusable. It's inexcusable, though, when it goes on for decades.

Mr_Shiftright

The book value on a 1996 Neon 2D coupe is $680.

hpmctorque

It wasn't a good values when new, but, hey, if you can buy a decent one for <$1,000, it's a terrific value.

Allowing for a few exceptions, a good rule of thumb to follow is this: For new, buy Asian; for used, buy American or European.

Mr_Shiftright

I wouldn't take one if you gave it to me. I'd be afraid to drive it around the block. This $600 car would be a $6000 car in 6 months.

andres3

And as non-competitive as the Neon was, considering where fuel prices went, I bet they would've done better if they just kept it in production, rather than bringing out the Caliber.

The Neon didn't get good gas mileage anyway, especially with the 3 speed auto. I averaged about 25 MPG in mixed/mostly highway driving with it, and as you said, it had 132 HP, I averaged the same mileage in my V6 Accord that had 240 horses, and again, the same mileage in my Audi A3 with 200 horses and 207 lb/ft of torque.

The Neon did have good numbers, but in real life it didn't live up to the numbers.

andres3

A 2000 Honda Civic is worth MORE THAN 2X a 2000 Neon. That tells you all you need to know. The American public has voted.

Being as most 2000 Civics still look really good and run like new, and most 2000 Neons are already in the graveyard/junkyard or a mechanic's shop, I'm surprised the Civic is only 2x more valueable then the Neon of the same year. Should be 10X if you ask me. The point of a car is to get you from A to B.

andres3

I wouldn't take one if you gave it to me. I'd be afraid to drive it around the block. This $600 car would be a $6000 car in 6 months.

AMEN! Ain't that the truth! :lemon:

However, what is your life worth? That "FREE" '96 Neon might cost you 6,000 dollars in repairs the first 1,000 miles you have it, but when you get in an accident in it, it might cost you your LIFE. You couldn't get me to take one IN MINT condition with 1,000 miles on it for FREE!

isellhondas

In 1995, we bought a new Intrepid. It was the top of the line model with te 3.5 engine. We only kept it a couple of years. IT wasn't a bad car by any means and I don't remember it causing any trouble in the 30,000 plus miles we had it.

It had two glaring problems that had I know about, we would have never bought it.

The top of the dash reflected horrible on the inside of the windshield makeing the car almost impossible to drive if the sun was hitting it from the wrong angle.

And the headlights were the WORST! I remember when we first got it I once got out of the car and looked to see if they were on! They had no solution.

I remember driving most of the time with the fog lights on which helped very little.

texases

"And the headlights were the WORST! "

That seemed to be a problem with many of the Chrysler products of the time. That article somebody posted explained everything - cutting corners to save money at the expense of the car/customer. For example, I rented a 300C AWD, and, while it was plenty fast, there was lots of loosness/clunking in the driveline. Not something I'd buy. Close, but close doesn't cut it in the world of Japan, Inc.

toomanyfumes

I remember hearing that the headlights on those models were awful, too. If you look at them, they are tiny. The original Intrepid, and Concorde were good looking cars in that era, though.

One of our neighbors kid has an old Neon he parks in the street. Engine has sounded like it's gonna blow for at least a couple years, but it keeps going. There is also a huge puddle of oil underneath it at all times. :lemon:

dave8697

I rode alongside one today on the way to work. Red with two wide white stripes and a hood scoop. It was in great shape. Even the headlight lens' were clear.

After 10 years old you know your trade-in value is about the sales tax on a new car. Your probably not going to spend as much on it. Hence, fallapartitis is possible to go unchecked.

dave8697

All $600 cars can become $6000 cars at age 14.
My friend took his '98 civic to the dealer for a 150,000 mile checkup. Nothing was specifically known to be wrong with it other than hardness to start. It cost him $1100 and after that the windshield was still all cracked up and the drivetrain was still very loosely hanging onto the chassis and the a/c and speedometer still didn't work. Doesn't that make a $1200 Civic into a $6000 car too? I could put $6000 into my '96 and still find a nicer one for sale for $4500 somewhere. $ put into a car does not always undo age or miles. Usually everything has wear and tear on it. My experience is more expensive cars hold up better but cost a lot to keep perfect. Neons were $7999 new in the mid 90's. The Civic mentioned above went for $20k with manual trans and hand crank windows.

chetj

i think the first 3-4 years of the neon were subpar but after that they were ok...i hear the powertrain is actually pretty good...my neighbor has run neons the last 10 years with no problems...he is pretty cheap too, he wouldnt buy one if they werent reliable...another guy i worked with had a neon get flooded by a river and car still runs after some repairs, you cant say that about every car

chetj

i hear asian cars are real exp for parts compared to domestics

chetj

so detroits money was good enough for you but not their vehicles?...to me that is a cardinal sin buying foreign when working at a domestic automaker...i work at a supplier in NH and have bought 5 new Detroit cars over years with good results...i know the big 3 had a bad 15 years or so in 70s and 80s and werent given a 2nd chance by customers

ace3587

was a 1997 Neon. We ended up selling it for $150 one day when it had 215,000 miles on it. Regular oil changes and belt changes, never had a single problem.

Mr_Shiftright

I think the reality of it all is that if a car starts out with a bad reputation, then it never lives it down, no matter how much it improves. To use a rather clumsy analogy, if your employee steals from you, goes to prison, finds God and works with orphans for the rest of her life, you are still not going to let her manage your bank account.

hpmctorque

True, and that creates opportunities in used cars.

letsgetmikey

I can't believe the "Thing" missed this list. What a mess. I have a hard time believing it passed highway safety tests and was allowed out on the roads.

Also, the Isuzu Amigo is not on the list. It may have been ok mechanically, but looked awful. The final straw was the commercial jingle. One vehicle that was killed by its advertising.

I don't like the Honda Ridgeline because it reminds me of the Amigo.

andys120

I certainly wouldn't put the VW Kubelwagen/Thing on a worst cars list, it was after all a VW Beetle underneath and those were certainly good, reliable cars, if not the safest.

Mr_Shiftright

Maybe worst creature comforts, but mechanicals were tried and true.

Not sure why motorcycles don't suffer the same fate, but apparently Harley can make a motorcycle as bad as the worst American cars, but get away with it for decades.

Which leads me to conclude that some of the "worst" cars are as much about marketing failure as about mechanical failure. Harley Davidson is a marketing superstar.

isellhondas

I don't understand...did you expect the dealer to replace a broken windshield as part of a 150K service?

Did you expect them to make the car like new?

This car sounds rougher than a night in jial as a result of neglect and lack of attention.

And, no, it didn't sell for anywhere 20,000 in 1998.

cimbriano

My sister bought a new Honda Civic in 1998 with ac, auto and power windows for 14k. It still runs like a dream and I see tons of them on the road. She says it is not worth it for her to getr rid of it.

dave8697

1998 LX msrp $15145. add dest charge, +550, floor mats, +350, and dealer markup for being an efficient commuter in the expensive DC area, +2500. Then add tax and you have $19,658 total. If it wasn't an LX, then the dealer markup was higher by the difference.

I bought an Astro the same model year. Msrp $24,000. Rebate, -1500, GM card earnings, -1750, GM card earnings rebate, -1750, nego discount, -800, sales tax +1488 and you have $19688 total.

Not both at $20k exactly, but close.

Both vehicles had a/c, cloth seats and a radio.

Astro also had: alloy wheels, auto trans, rear a/c, cd, cassette, PW, PM, PDL, remote entry, rear wiper, deep tinted windows, roof rack, towing capability, and dealer add ons like undercoating and pin stripes.

The civic went out the door for same price with none of these items. The Civic has been driven about 60,000 more miles and the two biggest repair items on the Astro are for features not even on the Civic.

dave8697

red, ex cond, no racing stripes on this one.
that is 2 in 2 days

lokki

Dave -

Not both at $20k exactly, but close.

Trying to be nice about this -

The fact is that people were willing to pay $2500 over sticker for the Civic plus $350 for mats (I have a little trouble believing $350 but let's say it's another form of dealer markup). The car was in high demand.

Now to sell you an Astro, GM had to offer people a rebate, -1500, GM card earnings, -1750, GM card earnings rebate, -1750, and still had to negotiate a discount, -800

This should tell you something.

andre1969

Some friends of mine bought a 1994 Civic EX in 1994 for around $16,000. I remember thinking that was a lot of money at the time, but that was also a fully-loaded car. It didn't have leather, which I don't think you could get in a Civic back then, but it had power windows, locks, nice stereo, and I think it had alloys and a sunroof.

They had beat-up 1978 Malibu Classic with well over 200,000 miles on it that they used as a "trade". I think they got $75 for it. Basically the dealer did them a favor by taking it off their hands. I think one of their mechanics ended up using it.

hpmctorque

Look at how successful DOS was in the '80s, compared with Apple's operating system. This is an example of where Microsoft's clever marketing and promotion triumphed over a superior product.

corvette

In the late 1980s/early 1990s, there was no Internet, and it was very hard to find software for Apple machines. Also, Macs were not as affordably priced as they are today. This made the PC an easy choice for the middle class consumer who had a budget of $2,000 or less.

Mr_Shiftright

I think it was more that MS got in cahoots with computer manufacturers and packed each machine. More machines out there, more MS users. MS used sheer horsepower to dominate the market. Ruthless capitalism at its best. Cornelius Vanderbilt would be proud.

High price may have inhibited MAC but not Harley. Not only are they mediocre bikes, they are very expensive mediocre bikes. That's a neat trick and a tribute to superior marketing. Something like the $75 pair of designer denims made in Indonesia.

Even more remarkable is that they are marketed as a "buy American" motorcycle when they are loaded with foreign technology and parts.

You really have to take your hat off to H-D, like 'em or not.

isellhondas

" Not only are they mediocre bikes"

Ah, but NOTHING sounds like a Harley!

fintail

I am thankful for that :shades:

corvette

Ah, but NOTHING sounds like a Harley!

What really gets me are the jerks who install straight pipes--most of them wear earplugs every time they ride, so they can kind of hear their bike's engine through the earplugs, at the expense of everyone else's hearing and sanity...

Mr_Shiftright

Oh I dunno...some bowling balls stuffed into a clothes dryer perhaps? A diesel locomotive with a bad transmission? Ten longshoremen doing meth and pounding on a garage door?

andres3

Neons were $7999 new in the mid 90's. The Civic mentioned above went for $20k with manual trans and hand crank windows.

Neons might have been $7,999 in pre-release marketing campaigns from Chrysler, but once it was finally released in 1994 as a 1995 model, they cost between $10,000 and $15,000 before taxes and license/registration.

Civics were about $2,000 more similarly equipped. Chrysler stole $15,000 regularly from people buying more "equipped" Neons.

isellhondas

I think the sound is potato potato potato potato.

Except for Dan Qualye's Harley...Potatoe potatoe potatoe potatoe....

martian

I saw one, years ago. It had extra-glossy black paint, and special ACR badging. I also think it had a high output engine and a better clutch.
I never heard much about them-anybody know more?

andre1969

According to Wikipedia, the ACR started in 1995 as a competition-only car, available to SCCA members but not the general public. However, due to demand, it was released to the public in 1996 and sold through the end of the first generation Neon in 1999.

Chrysler rushed the 2000 Neon into production because they wanted to be able to claim it as the first new car of the new millenium. I don't know if it actually WAS the first 2000 release, but I do remember it came out in April of 1999. Anyway, because it was rushed, they dropped all the high-performance models and the coupe, leaving only a 4-door sedan with a 132 hp 2.0 engine and choice of 5-speed stick or 3-speed automatic.

The ACR was reinstated for 2001-2002, though. I think it had a 150 hp DOHC 2.0. I could have sworn there was a Neon model that had a turbocharged 2.4 under the hood, but Wikipedia doesn't mention it.

bumpy

I could have sworn there was a Neon model that had a turbocharged 2.4 under the hood

Neon SRT-4. They used to be all over the place back in the early-mid 00s, but I haven't seen one in close to 2 years now.

Mr_Shiftright

You won't see them unless you are looking for salvage auto parts.

The Neon was a great disappointment to me. When it first came out, here I thought:

"Wow. Finally. An American version of the delightful Alfa Type 101 Sprint. Clean, inexpensive (in their day), fun to drive, modify-able for track days!"

And THEN, the reports from the field starting trickling in (head gaskets, etc) and THEN, Chrysler started to delete performance options year after year, and made the car WORSE as time went on.

I was bummed about this for some time.

andre1969

The Neon was a great disappointment to me. When it first came out, here I thought:

"Wow. Finally. An American version of the delightful Alfa Type 101 Sprint. Clean, inexpensive (in their day), fun to drive, modify-able for track days!"

It was a disappointment for me, too. When it first came out, my first thought was "FINALLY...a little car I can actually fit in comfortably, and has decent performance even with the standard engine!"

I liked them well enough that when my '68 Dart died on me one night in 1996, in the rain, while delivering pizzas, I got fed up enough that I seriously thought about buying one. Probably best I didn't, as those early Neons could be especially troublesome.

hpmctorque

I thought similarly. When I first saw a '95 Neon and looked at the specs in Fall '95, I though "Wow, finally a worthy domestic competitor to the Civic."