Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars 50 Worst Cars of All Time
298 messages, Last post on May 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: lemko (May 07, 2009 9:52 am) They probably did, but recall that GM had just gotten burned for billions on a clever engine design for the Vega... That experiment just didn't go well. I doubt if there was a lot of desire to go out and try something else really complicated in those days, and -for that matter- a lot of money available for developing a new engine. I seem to recall that it's a very expensive proposition compared to designing a new car overall, although I couldn't quote a figure. Additionally they were spending a lot of money redesigning cars to meet the 5 mph bumper rule. The J3 (Honda, Toyota, and Nissan) really didn't have very many cars to redesign, compared to the D3. Probably only 2 models or 3 each if I recall correctly. So, although I believe that it would have been the wisest course of action for the Big D3, I can certainly see why I'd have probably voted against it if I were at the table when decision time came.
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (May 07, 2009 9:52 am) |
|
|
Replying to: lemko (May 07, 2009 9:52 am) And unfortunately yes, even if the domestics had gotten CVCC on their engines and could have evaded the catalytic converter for a few years, the engines would have still been pretty anemic. I imagine the biggest advantage would have been better emissions and slightly better fuel economy. Probably a few more hp, but not enough to make a huge difference. And you might have had to adjust the valves every 15,000 miles!
|
|
|
Replying to: lokki (May 07, 2009 10:24 am) |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (May 07, 2009 10:29 am) This seems to say the cats were the cause. I think cats (plus computers and fuel injection, as Shifty mentioned) were the solution to the performance nightmare we found ourselves in.
|
|
|
Replying to: texases (May 07, 2009 10:33 am) Oh, I just meant that in the sense of how Honda was able to evade the catalytic converter for a few years, because of their CVCC...not necessarily that the converter was the root of all evil. Sorry if it sounded that way. |
|
|
Either way, you don't need the worst 50 cars of all time. I have the NOMINEE for THEEE worst CAR of all-time. Not just the worst 10, or worst 5, or even worst 3, but the worst one (1)!!! The Dodge/Plymouth Neon. No doubt about it, it is inarguably in worst vehicle ever produced. Here is my logic and reasoning process: No doubt, there are lots of lemons from many manufacturers that all had tons of design and durability flaws throughout the years. We could argue endlessly about which cars cost the absolute most to run per mile and keep running and functioning over time. Or which were the slowest and most gas guzzling, most uncomfortable, and most ugly. The Neon is bad in all of those categories, and especially pathetic in terms of quality, build, fit & finish, and reliability. However, what cannot be argued is that the NEON was an all new DESIGN and car from the BRAIN TRUST at Chrysler as recently as 1994!!!! The car was BRAND NEW never before released in 1994 as a 1995 model!!!! That is recent history, and recent effort of what Chrysler is capable of only little more than a decade ago. Not to mention the fact that they showed little improvement until their discontinuation about 5 years (?) ago? You can go around town today and see a bunch of 2000+ late model Neons still on the road, but with faded mismatched colored bumpers, and trust me, it's not from an accident that the paint isn't matching. Chrysler used a defective primer and paint on the bumpers, which didn't work on plastic as well as on sheetmetal. They refused to cover this under warranty, and that refusal is a good walking and running advertisement all over town!
|
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (May 07, 2009 11:42 am) Hondas and cat converters - I do know that starting with MY 80 they required them to run on regualr unleaded. There was still not a catalytic converter on them that year. I had one and no cat but it had the narrowed filler neck so you couldn't put leaded gas in it. The service guy at Honda would tell me ways around it but I never took him up on it. |
|
|
This guy has an interesting take on what happened with the Neon. He was a Chrysler engineer on the project. Designing the Neon at Chrysler and why it can't happen any more He's quite proud of the design and damn furious about the execution.... and what the Germans did to the design staff. Unfortunately, Eaton had replaced Iacocca before the launch of the Neon, and demanded several changes that were the undoing of the car in the public eyes including the exhaust donut and head gasket. About $2 saved per vehicle (over $2,000,000 total), but more was lost in customer value. Interesting reading. When the Neon first came out I thought it was an interesting design. A little coarse, but -finally- a fun-to-drive made-in-America small car. Later, of course, things starting leaking, peeling, and falling off in traditional Detroit fashion and my interest faded below zero. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lokki (May 07, 2009 10:24 am)  NEON--my biggest disappointment in a decade. I had hopes for this car to be the next Alfa Romeo Sprint--an inexpensive, *really* fun to drive sport coupe for the common man. But noooooooooo--Chrysler suddenly forgot how to make a head gasket. ARGHHHH! And then they took away the larger displacement engine (oh, swell). Well that was the end of Shifty's dream.... |
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars 50 Worst Cars of All Time
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
