Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, even if there is a political bias in the article, it's right on in some places, the Cadillac Cimmiron, for example, or the TR-8. My wife had a TR8--fast and fun when it worked. That was a big "when". I've never seen such a car for electrical problems. I had to pry open the flip-headlights and drive with them open all the time. It leaked everywhere. If it was meant to stay out of the car, it leaked in. If it was meant to stay in the engine, it leaked out. Horrible execution.
When someone says "50 Worst Cars", I am thinking about cars that were poorly made or poorly designed. I am thinking about cars like the Chevrolet Vega with its terrible engine problems or the Trabant which was biodegradable. I am thinking of cars that would be a real PITA to own.
The Cadillac Cimmaron was a real marketing error for Cadillac but all in all, it was a solid car compared to vehicles of the era.
Some of the Renaults were great cars - if you lived in France where there was a network of dealers and sufficient parts.
Don't get me wrong. I drive compacts and don't care much for SUVs but when the author attacks the Ford Explorer which is a solid vehicle, you have to wonder about the rest of the article.
^Indeed. When Ford built the Explorer and the sold unbelievably well.....well.....that's just a company giving people a car that they actually want...no?
When someone says "50 Worst Cars", I am thinking about cars that were poorly made or poorly designed. I am thinking about cars like the Chevrolet Vega with its terrible engine problems or the Trabant which was biodegradable. I am thinking of cars that would be a real PITA to own.
The Cadillac Cimmaron was a real marketing error for Cadillac but all in all, it was a solid car compared to vehicles of the era.
Yeah, that's pretty well what I think when I think of "worst cars"--either poorly designed or made, or perhaps, just ugly.
But, if my memory serves my right, (and it may not), I seem to remember a lot of folks were unhappy with the reliability of the Cimmaron. I'd understood it didn't hold up well, and even want to go so far as to say that Consumer Reports had rated it below average in reliability.
I do remember for certain that you are absolutely correct in that it was a marketing disaster. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out is was a gussied up Chevy...and for Caddy in the day, a very small one. Seems like I heard the phrase "lipstick on a pig" more than once then...
Read some of the descriptions and you'll see how bogus this list is.
The Explorer makes the list because
"In its very success, the Ford Explorer is responsible for setting this country on the spiral of vehicular obesity that we are still contending with today. People, particularly women drivers, discovered that they liked sitting up high. Even though more fuel-efficient minivans do the kid- and cargo-hauling duties better, people came to prefer the outdoorsy, go-anywhere image of SUVs. In other words, people became addicted to the pose."
Is that really a reason to call a vehicle the "Worst 50 models" or is that a political statement from still another frustrated writer?
funny, that's the first one i read, too. what a crap list.
Yeah, that's pretty well what I think when I think of "worst cars"--either poorly designed or made, or perhaps, just ugly.
But, if my memory serves my right, (and it may not), I seem to remember a lot of folks were unhappy with the reliability of the Cimmaron. I'd understood it didn't hold up well, and even want to go so far as to say that Consumer Reports had rated it below average in reliability.
I do remember for certain that you are absolutely correct in that it was a marketing disaster. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out is was a gussied up Chevy...and for Caddy in the day, a very small one. Seems like I heard the phrase "lipstick on a pig" more than once then...
I vaguely remember the name Cimarron in the Cadillac line, and I know it wasn't around for too long, probably for the reasons mentioned, and for the poor reliability.
Another Cadillac model that made the list, which probably tarnished Cadillac's image at the time, was the 1981 Fleetwood V-8-6-4. It was an engine that used different number of cylinders depending on the driving conditions. I remember reading advertisements about it in a magazine, forgot which one, but Cadillac was boasting about their pioneering technology back then, which sounded good to the consumer. But unfortunately, it didn't stay around for very long. Here's what was said about it in the short article by Time:
These days, cylinder deactivation, or variable displacement, is relatively common — the 2008 Honda Accord V6 has it, for instance. And it's a beautiful idea. When the engine is running at light loads, it's logical to shut down unneeded cylinders to save fuel, like turning off lights in unused rooms. But in 1981, when semiconductors and on-board computers were still in their infancy, variable displacement was a huge technical challenge. GM deserves credit for trying, but the V-8-6-4 was the Titanic of engine programs. The cars jerked, bucked, stalled, made rude noises and generally misbehaved until wild-eyed owners took the cars to have the system disconnected. For some it was the last time they ever saw the inside of a Cadillac dealership.
I had a '75 Dart with the slant 6---it's still running today with no engine or tranny overhaul...of course, the rest of the car was falling apart around the engine and drivetrain when I gave it to my sister.
My slant 6 engine held up, but it was 50's technology in 1975. The manual transmission seized in the dead of winter near Cleveland on a trip from Chicago to Baltimore — the transmission oil had leaked out from an electrical switch plugged into the transmission wall.
Auto makers in Britain always had trouble with labor unions. An apocryphal story goes like this: After the end of a long labor strike, the union leader gathers his men on the shop floor and say: "Boys, we won a great victory. From now on we'll get full pay for only working one day a week on Wednesdays." And then a worker on the floor call out: "WHAT? EVERY BLEEDIN' WEDNESDAY?"
There was a movie, a comedy, made some while ago that had Danny Devito in it (among others) that took place in a town that was full of Yugos, even the cop cars. I was reminded of it by the post about the Yugo getting blown off the Mackinac Bridge...I think the movie takes place in Michigan, maybe the UP. The reason given for a town full of Yugos is that it was chosen as a market study site before they began selling them in America. The movie revolved around who killed a nasty lady (Bette Midler) by sabotaging her brakes. It was funny, everyone was always working on their cars, they wouldn't start, etc.
These days, cylinder deactivation, or variable displacement, is relatively common — the 2008 Honda Accord V6 has it, for instance. And it's a beautiful idea. When the engine is running at light loads, it's logical to shut down unneeded cylinders to save fuel, like turning off lights in unused rooms. But in 1981, when semiconductors and on-board computers were still in their infancy, variable displacement was a huge technical challenge. GM deserves credit for trying, but the V-8-6-4 was the Titanic of engine programs. The cars jerked, bucked, stalled, made rude noises and generally misbehaved until wild-eyed owners took the cars to have the system disconnected. For some it was the last time they ever saw the inside of a Cadillac dealership.
Yeah... however, once you pulled the plug on the cylinder deactivation solenoids you would once again have an engine that would run hundreds of thousands of miles. It was/is a GREAT engine, just that system often failed. I would love to get my hands on one and do my own electronic work on the solenoid system. The system itself DID WORK, however the components underperformed or failed quickly.
I had a 1980 Renault R-5 (Le Car) and it's shocking to me that it didn't make the list.
On the other hand, the Pontiac Aztek is ugly, but I've been told that people who wind up test driving them actually like them because they have a lot of utility. Never driven one myself, but it's important to keep in mind that not every ugly car is bad, and vice versa.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
