Worst Cars

moparbad

PRIUS is the ugliest vehicle. Much, much worse than the Aztek. If the Aztek was sold by Toyota or Honda it would have been a hit. The ELEMENT is proof of that!

chicagodrive1

Why am I not surprised the Aztec was mentioned so early in this thread.

The only in car in auto-history to make warrior chief Montazuma spin in his grave. The Aztec now appears to be disowned by Pontiac, "newer" ones I've seen don't even have Pontiac or Aztec badges.

However, these badges could have been removed by owners to trick others into thinking their Aztec is a kit-car project gone horribly wrong.

chicagodrive1

For years the YUGO exemplified shoddy construction and poor design.

Wasn't a dash-mounted fire extinguisher a popular dealer option?

fintail

I'd say an Element has much more homogenous styling than an Aztek.

When launched, the ugliest Poncho ever was on those tiny little wheels too. I mean, what the hell? As if we needed more proof of GM incompetence and arrogance.

From a vehicle standpoint the Aztek might not be the worst - I am sure it is as reliable and durable as other behind-the-pack GM offerings relying on yesterday's tech...but dealing with styling, it is indeed one of the worst in modern times.

andre1969

one trend that the Aztek did usher in was, for lack of a better word, the era of un-homogeneous styling! At the time, it looked like they took 3 or 4 different vehicles and just slapped them together, and then went over the result with a fine toothed comb to see whatelse they could stylistically throw out of whack.

Were it not for the Aztek, I think cars like the '02 Camry, '03 Accord, '04 Maxima, ES330, RX330, '05 Avalon, etc, would not be so easy on the eye! And the Element and xB would definitely be more ridiculed than they are.

So I guess we have something to thank the Aztek for.

nippononly

we're THANKING the Aztek for something? Have things gone horribly wrong?! :-P

There's a guy in my town with one of those original Yugos, dark blue, seems to run fine as I see him cruising around all the time.

I remember Car Talk had an east coast caller one time who had a Yugo that went something like 150K miles before it got hit. He swore by that car.

Of course, that car was about $4K in the late 80s, which would put it close to $8K if sold today. And for $8K you can just about buy base Aveos today, which seem to be a big step up, even when put in their proper context in the market.

fintail

I see lots of shades of Aztek in the current RX, which IMO is also quite hideous. If it wasn't for ostentatious bored well to do housewives...

Toyota still doesn't have the styling thing down. The 07 Camry has an unattractive front clip and a weird grille...the whole car reminds me of what a 50s customizer would have done to a 2003 Accord. Odd random changes here and there, but it still looks similar.

emmanuelchoke

Somebody spending hours detailing an Aztek and then looking back at it as they walk into the grocery store thinking "Beautiful car...beautiful, and it's mine."
It reminds me of aging celebrities, with their squinty eyes and fat, flappy lips, who would rather look grotesque than old.
Worst car for me was a 74 AMC Ambassador, mechanically it was a beater among beaters. It wasn't bad looking though, unlike the mid 70's Matador. Their tag line was "What's a Matador?" Even now a difficut question to answer.

kyfdx

The Ford/Merkur Scorpio.. I had the opportunity to drive a couple of these, and really liked them.. Insanely overpriced for the US market, though.. Were they really that bad?

Porsche 924... Yeah, yeah.. I know it is front engine, unrealiable, relatively slow in non-turbo form.. Wallet-emptying repair bills... But, I always found them a hoot to drive... Probably one of the best handling cars of the late '70s (sort of a back-handed compliment).

Beetle.. A great car for the times... when it was first built... by 1965, it belonged on the list..

nippononly

proof that "cute" can go an awful long way in selling cars.

Look at the New Beetle - aircraft carrier dash, a back seat that only small children could sit in without bashing their heads on the roof, dog slow, some of the worst reliability ratings in the entire industry.......but it is also c-u-u-ute, and so for several years it sold like hotcakes.

andre1969

are they really that slow? It's been ages since I've sat in one, but I was actually under the impression that they were kinda roomy inside. And I thought they did really well in crash testing?

Or is it more of a matter of what was considered good way back in 1997 or so is just sub-par today?

nippononly

until this year had the 115 hp 2.0 as the standard engine, with the thirsty, expensive, trouble-prone turbo as the optional engine after '02 or so. The turbo is fast enough, although still not a good handler (Beetle is p-o-o-o-rky). But 115 is the same rating as the last-gen base-trim Civic, which many considered slow at a weight a good 500 pounds or so LESS than the Beetle.

Yes, you could say the Beetle was slow! :-P

For '06, the Beetle has the same 2.5 for the base engine as the new Jetta. I am sure it is peppy now.

As for roominess, the front seats were like sitting in the aircraft carrier's hangar (mixing metaphors there!) - wide, spacious, with the roof about 4 yards over your head. It was just the rest of the car that was tight in all the wrong places. Including the cargo area, which had room for almost nothing unless you fold down the rear seats. A classic case of a big-looking car actually being small inside.

prosa

And I thought they did really well in crash testing?


Far from it. The New Beetle flunked the IIHS side-impact test even with side air bags. That's especially disturbing given that the '06 Jetta and Passat both got the highest scores on that test.

andre1969

okay, I did a little digging and now I know why I was under the impression that the Beetle was a good crasher... http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=100

Turns out that in the frontal offset impact, it actually does very well. Way back in the late 1990's, I don't think anybody had thought to do side-impact testing yet, so those results were uncharted territory.

I just remember a guy in my Mopar club, who drove a '65 Imperial, was actually thinking about getting a New Beetle at the time! His daily driver back then was a '93-94 Concorde which wasn't aging too well. Last I saw him though, he was making do with a '70-71 or so Duster as is daily driver.

lemko

...have you ever seen any of those flashback episodes of the Simpsons when Homer is in high school or just out of school where he drives what appears to be a dented and Bondo'd Duster?

I recall when they tried to recreate the Duster in the late '80s using the Plymouth Sundance.

fintail

I recall Homer in what looks like a Superbird, too.

My brother has a 93 Duster coupe, with the V6 - which for the time was quite sporty. He's done some suspension mods to it and claims it's a decent little car.

kiagal

Probably the Jeep Liberty is one of the dumbest designs I have seen. Kinda looks like a cartoon character.

andre1969

but I do kinda remember seeing Homer Simpson driving around in a pink :surprise: Superbird, singing along with the radio which was playing "The Joker" by the Steve Miller Band.

Now I remember one of the local bullies, Todd, on "Beavis and Butthead" driving a beat-up Duster that was jacked up in the back. He locked them in the trunk and then went off-roading with it.

As for those 90's Dusters, I'd imagine something that small with the 3.0 Mitsubishi V-6 would be pretty quick. It's a shame that they never bothered to put a turbo or V-6 in the original Aries/Reliant K-cars. They were actually the lightest of the bunch, although the P-cars (Sundance/Shadow/Duster) were smaller.

nippononly

I think Liberty kinda has the "small but sincere" look going for it. Not a head-turner, but not stand-out bad either. They sell an awful lot of those things each year. Miles better than the Cherokee in so many ways.

moparbad

Which cartoon character?

anythngbutgm

How about Eagle? Suedo Mitsu/Chrysler kind of partnership that produced cars like the Vision, Talon, and Premiere? I recall their final efforts as being not so so swift...

Although, contrary to that belief I had a buddy in College who put about 150k trouble free miles on a '91 Eagle Talon Tsi AWD. And he DROVE that thing, no babying to be found. And there is a kid here at work who has something like 267k on a 94 Eagle Vision. It is a daily driver (he hates buying new cars)

But, I believe the Premiere aspecially was abysmal in the reliability rankings... And the brand wasn't very well regarded either.

lemko

...the Sterling 825 - Japanese styling and British craftsmanship?

anythngbutgm

I'll admit, I actually wanted one when they were available. My neighbor at the time (since moved) had one for his wife. They moved to Florida, took it with them and that sucker had something like 175k on it with no problems. Take that back, I think the stock stereo had to be replaced.

But that car was quick. At the time, a buddy of mine had a '87 (?) 442 Cutlass. We got smoked by that Sterling twice at a friendly stoplight drag race. The motor in the Olds had the grunt off the line, but once that 2.7 (Acura V6?) spooled up, forget about it.

glenford

We had an Eagle Premier. How can you say this stuff?!!!
:mad:

Probably because it is all true. Reliability was horrible. But it wasn't bad to drive, and the paint (the only thing I remember fondly about this car) was beautiful.

I can't believe I just admitted to owning one of these.

explorerx4

too bad your friend didn't use that 'out of the hole' adavantage to swerve in front of the sterling to slow it down.

210delray

First one I had seen in several years. I guess it helps that cars don't rust in SoCal.

The one before that was white and apparently owned by a restaurant worker in Chincoteague Island, VA. I took a picture of it, figuring I was unlikely to see another drivable one.

tour4sure

What about the Porsche 944, I was planning to buy that car, I mean, It seems like a good car, it older model Porsche, Kinda hard to find in New York, I known a dealership trying to get rid of one for $2,388, I mean it seem like a good car, it got 190hp (?) 4 cyl. engine leather seats, air/con, and CD Player (?), but the 'jutting' weirdly designed front bumper, have seemed to be easy damaged, every person I've met selling 944 had some kinda of damage to the front bumper. The rest of the car could be excellent condition except the front bumper. The sellers boast a quick shifting manual trans. and how great the car handling is... But what about them small [non-permissible content removed] wheels, I practically know bicycles with wheels bigger that. The design looks eye-pleasing (especially those flip-up lights -- I'm a sucker for flip-up lights), but only in red paint, when you look at the car at a certain angle. Then next minute, you look at angle at a different angle, it looks like crap...

jrosasmc

So why do you say that the Liberty is miles better than the old Cherokee in a lot of ways?

kev604

The current Subaru Baha is a weird looking car/truck. I'm not sure what to make of it. Everytime I see one I scratch my head wondering who's driving it, and what is it suppose to be. Can't remember the last time I saw one though.
In my book the Aztek has to be the worst looking vehicle that I still see around. Personally I wouldn't be caught dead in one of those. The ride and handling of the Aztek must be horrible.

jrosasmc

Another comment here from me- I think two of the most abominable vehicles on the market today have to be the Honda Ridgeline and Saab 9-7X. The Ridgeline is just too out of proportion and it's obvious that the 9-7 is just a glorified Chevy SUV.

nippononly

Well, the Cherokee was almost outdated the day it hit the market, much cruder and ruder than everything else in its segment, then ran on WAY too long, becoming such a dinosaur it was a real standout, and not in a good way. Yes, it did have a few advantages in terms of a certain sort of crude durability (except for the automatic transmissions), but it was ancient tech. And as an offroad beast, it was outshined by the Wrangler in the same lineup, so what was the point of it?

Then the Liberty replaced it, a thoroughly modern small SUV of the sort that competes in the market today: moderately rugged offroad yet thoroughly driveable and comfortable as an everyday commute car, if need be.

jrosasmc

Those are good comments about the Cherokee, Nippon. I had a '92 Laredo once and I thought it was one of the most poorly-built vehicles I ever had. The way it could keep running, though, reminded me of the old Volvo 240s (remember them?); kind of crude but real durable.

Also, do you get the Hemmings Sports & Exotic Car magazine? A recent issue I have has an article about the 1st annual Japanese Classic Car Show somewhere in southern Cal...I was wondering if you attended the event.

lemko

The father of an old girlfriend of mine had two Volvo 240s - a 1986 model and a 1989. Anybody recall the Merkur XR4Ti and Scorpio? Actually, I heard they were pretty decent but weren't taken too seriously by the L-M dealers who were more interested in selling you a Town Car or Grand Marquis.

jefferyg

I remember seeing those cars when I was a Teenager. I thought they looked pretty sharp and as I recall, performance was much better than other small offerings from FLM. I think the car could have been a hit if they'd marketed it under one of their American badges.

john_324

"I remember seeing those cars when I was a Teenager. I thought they looked pretty sharp and as I recall, performance was much better than other small offerings from FLM. I think the car could have been a hit if they'd marketed it under one of their American badges"

Same here...I loved them in high school. Very Euro looking, esp. that front end. And I loved the bi-level spoiler on the early ones. The XR4Ti was the Mondeo in Europe, right? :confuse:

nippononly

No, I am way too cheap to get delivery of the likes of Hemmings, but I would have attended a Japanese Classics show if I had known of it beforehand. I wonder if it was well attended.

If I had had prior notice, it would have been easy enough to drive down and go to the show. Could have combined it with a visit to my folks. Too bad.

The Volvo 240s are a good analogy to what I mean about the Cherokee. I would add that the interiors of the Volvos generally held together better than those of the Cherokee, but apart from that they are fairly similar in their "crude durability". The problems with old 240s always seem to center around engine management, and can be expensive.

I am not sure the Volvo 240 should be on a list of worst cars of the 1990s, but if I had a vote I would include the Cherokee on that list, if only for the amazingly frequent auto-trans failures and its dinosaur-ish qualities.

andre1969

the little Cherokee come on to the market, anyway? 1984? Would it have realy been worse than something like an S-10 Blazer or Bronco II? I know one thing it would have going for it was the 4-door design. I don't think the S-10 got a 4-door version until around 1990, and Ford didn't get one until the Explorer came out.

They were also unitized, so that might have made them a bit more ridid and better in crashes than a Bronco II or S-10 blazer.

As for those XR4Ti's, I never liked 'em, because to me they looked too much like a Tempo that had been tortured by a Pontiac stylist!

andre1969

that buying a 1990's Volvo 240 would have been something akin to buying a 1976 Dodge Dart. Very outdated compared to its peers at the time, but that's not always a bad thing. Especially in the 70's, when many of the newer designs actually got worse! But, just as a Dart was pretty rugged and durable compared to something like a Nova or Granada (and the Apsen/Volare that replaced it), a Volvo 240 probably came off the same way. It would probably hold up better in parking lot scuffles and other minor accidents that would cripple a softer, safer newer car, and the interior might have more exposed metal and fewer plastic pieces waiting to break off than a newer car. The exposed metal isn't a good thing when it comes to occupant safety, though!

A guy at work had a Volvo 240, but I forget the year. I think he had it to well over 200,000 miles. It was white, so there was no metallic crow's-footing to worry about. Didn't seem like a bad car, just a bit crude and outdated. Like a 60's car with composite headlight grafted on.

prosa

Subaru sells the Baja in miniscule numbers, something like 300 or 400 a month for the whole country. Why Subaru keeps making it is probably because it's cheap to produce, using the prior-generation Legacy platform, and the fact that there's ample spare capacity at the Subaru plant in Indiana. Toyota soon will start using some of this excess capacity to produce Camrys, and it's quite possible that 06 is the Baja's last year.

fintail

The XR4Ti was the Sierra in Europe, the XR4 being the high trim level. They also made versions that were not sporty. For Europe, they had a 4WD version too.

The Mondeo was born in 1993 and was known as the Contour when it came here.

jrosasmc

Hey, the Japanese classic car show that I described in my earlier post was held last October in Long Beach, CA, near where the ship Queen Mary is located. I'll post the link for you:

www.japaneseclassiccarshow.com

Registration for this event was supposed to be capped at 150 cars, but 250 showed up and so many more pre-registered that they had to close registration early. They are promising next year's show will be bigger.

john_324

That's right...the Sierra. I always mix the two up.

nippononly

hey, got there ahead of you, and OH! The pictures! I love to see the Japanese oldies. I am already planning on attending the second show this year.

As for the Volvo 240, by the time it went away it was a dinosaur in its class, that's for sure. It hung around at least 5 years too long.

tour4sure

I'll agree on one thing, Pontiac make the ugliest looking cars ever!!! Off the top of my head I can name, The early Trans Am Van, the Montana(?), the Aztek, the sunfire, the sunbird, grand am, trans am, sunbird, Trans Am, and the new Solstice (which is so ugly compared to its beautifully styled saturn counterpart, the sky)... Pontiac sucks... Thats 3 periods!!! :P

tour4sure

The Vibe is disgusting.

iluvmysephia1

the Pontiac Solstice looks worse than the Saturn Sky? Not in this neck of the woods...I...man high desert.

I like the less complicated good looks of the Solstice better than the Sky from Saturn.

Both of them look way better than the Aztek, yes. That may be the most hideous looking rig in car history. :sick:

210delray

You must be too young to remember Pontiac's glory days -- the 60s. It was the style leader then.

Look at a 1965 Bonneville 2-door hardtop or a 1966 GTO... gorgeous!

210delray

I had a 1980 Volvo 240 that I bought used in 1982. I kept it for 21 years, selling it in 2003. It got up to about 245K miles (estimated, because the odometer started failing intermittently). Mine had the two round sealed beam headlights. Actually, there was no exposed metal inside, other than the gearshift lever, and I had the base model.

The biggest interior problem involved the add-on hard plastic map pockets, which were easily broken if your leg got in the way while closing the door. I used to find undamaged replacements in junkyards and spray paint them to match the dark blue interior of my car.

The car overall was pretty reliable, not like today's Toyotas and Hondas, but certainly much better than most of its contemporaries. That's why I kept it so long. Plus it had advanced features for its day like fuel injection, 4-wheel disk brakes, and rear shoulder belts, long before these became common on domestic cars.

Even today I still see ancient 240s running around (identified by their big bumpers and sealed beams) when Citations, Fairmonts, K-cars, etc. have long since disappeared.

kev604

I don't mind the Solstice, not that I would buy one or anything but the lines are pretty nice. Other then that though your absolutely right Pontiac's recent offerings are horrible inside and out .

Here's a couple more vehicles I'll throw out there for debate:

I'm not impressed with the looks of the Porsche Cayenne. In my eyes it looks like a juiced up boxster. The boxster looks fine as a boxster but not an SUV. I don't think Porsche should of gotten into SUV. They should stick to what they do best. It's like Range Rover all of a sudden one day coming out with a sports car to compete with the 911 Turbo.

Saw a Kia Amanti today. I guess its suppose to look like a Jaguar or something. It has to be one of the ugliest cars around. It's one of the cars I could truly say I would be embarrassed to be seen driving in one. :lemon:

lemko

...is a Buick LeSabre with a Mercedes E-Class nose wearing a Chrysler grille. I see very little Jaguar in its look. Hey, at least it gets noticed - not like a sea of bland CamCords.

Per Pontiac, their mid-60s cars were perhaps the most beautiful cars to grace the road. They need a lot of that magic today. The Solstice is a nice start. The G6 coupe doesn't look too bad.