Ask the Car People.SM


Worst Cars

174 messages,  Last post on Dec 21, 2012 at 7:00 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Car Buying

Messages Page 1 of 18

#1 of 174 Worst Cars by lemmer

Dec 21, 2005 (12:40 pm)

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.

#2 of 174 Wow... by andre1969

Dec 21, 2005 (12:44 pm)

maybe we could twist that list around as proof that domestic cars aren't so bad, after all!

#3 of 174 Re: Wow... [andre1969] by lemmer

Dec 21, 2005 (12:45 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 21, 2005 12:44 pm)
I think the US version is littered with Gremlins, Lumina APVs, and the like, but yeah, those are some pretty crappy foreign cars.

#4 of 174 Years ago... by andre1969

Dec 21, 2005 (12:47 pm)

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?

#5 of 174 Re: Wow... [lemmer] by bhill2

Dec 21, 2005 (1:25 pm)

Replying to: lemmer (Dec 21, 2005 12:45 pm)
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.

#6 of 174 I will wager by 1racefan

Dec 21, 2005 (1:29 pm)

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.

#7 of 174 Re: Years ago... [andre1969] by carlisimo

Dec 21, 2005 (1:34 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 21, 2005 12:47 pm)
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.

#8 of 174 hmmmm by acura_el2000

Dec 21, 2005 (3:19 pm)

mitsu 3000gt? it seems out of place on this list.

#9 of 174 Re: hmmmm [acura_el2000] by lemmer

Dec 21, 2005 (3:38 pm)

Replying to: acura_el2000 (Dec 21, 2005 3:19 pm)
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.

#10 of 174 Re: Worst Cars [lemmer] by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Dec 21, 2005 (6:15 pm)

Replying to: lemmer (Dec 21, 2005 12:40 pm)
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".

Messages Page 1 of 18

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement