50 worst cars of all time - the TIME list.

[Barry Wolk]

I take exception to the Pacer being on the list. We had two new ones. My wife wanted a Capri IIs, but I couldn't fit in it. I was doing some work at an AMC dealer and test sat the Pacer. It accommodated by 6'5" frame with ease and had great ingress and egress.

It was a terrific car in the snow as it's short wide track seemed to go through everything. Unfortunately, it was butt ugly. I didn't care, it's all I could afford that I could fit in.

Neither car owed us anything. I sold my '77 wagon to an employee and he made it fly. It was the landing that bent the car.

[keiser31]

I take exception to the Pacer being on the list. We had two new ones. My wife wanted a Capri IIs, but I couldn't fit in it. I was doing some work at an AMC dealer and test sat the Pacer. It accommodated by 6'5" frame with ease and had great ingress and egress.

It was a terrific car in the snow as it's short wide track seemed to go through everything. Unfortunately, it was butt ugly. I didn't care, it's all I could afford that I could fit in.

Neither car owed us anything. I sold my '77 wagon to an employee and he made it fly. It was the landing that bent the car.

We also had Pacers at the rental company...GREAT cars!

[Steve_Mack_CT]

MGA Twin cam, a horrible little car. Same for the later XKEs. Anyone in my area reading this list with one of these unfortunate beasts should pay attention and call me, out of the goodness of my heart I will take it off your hands...

[bhclark]

Not a single Buick on the list!!!!!

They got the YUGO right for sure!

Pacer, Pinto? What's wrong with those?

And the EV1 should not be on the list....the GM execs that killed the program should.

[THEHKP7M13]

I pretty much think nothing of Time magazine and cannot remember the last time I looked at one.

[Jim Rohn]

the Model T is on the list because the writer blames it for our dependance on fossil fuel ...

"Uh-oh. Here comes trouble. Let's stipulate that the Model T did everything that the history books say: It put America on wheels, supercharged the nation's economy and transformed the landscape in ways unimagined when the first Tin Lizzy rolled out of the factory. Well, that's just the problem, isn't it? The Model T — whose mass production technique was the work of engineer William C. Klann, who had visited a slaughterhouse's "disassembly line" — conferred to Americans the notion of automobility as something akin to natural law, a right endowed by our Creator. A century later, the consequences of putting every living soul on gas-powered wheels are piling up, from the air over our cities to the sand under our soldiers' boots. And by the way, with its blacksmithed body panels and crude instruments, the Model T was a piece of junk, the Yugo of its day."

[jdome]

Blaming the model T for a century of war & petulance. That's not tong-in-cheek humor.

"Blacksmithed body panels"? The 09 T has a wood body. Or is that the joke? Ha.

[Reatta Man]

This entire list is a flamin' stinkin' pile of poop! No wonder magazines like Time are loosing subscribers by the thousands!!!

Did any of these so-called experts consider many of these cars were THE RIGHT CAR AT THEIR TIME??? (No pun intended, time!)

Some of the cars that later were found to have major design or manufacturing flaws deserve to be on the list, but the vast majority of these cars are just the victims of an opinionated act of historical (histerical?) revisionism.

For example, how in the WORLD do you put the GM EV-1 on this list when the entire world is rushing to produce hybrids or electric vehicles?????

The writers of this list are so out of touch with the real automotive world, it almost reads as if it was written by a bunch of Washington Beltway bureaucrats.

Joe

[Skyking]

For example, how in the WORLD do you put the GM EV-1 on this list when the entire world is rushing to produce hybrids or electric vehicles?????



Joe

.......and how did this even get on the list when they only produced a small handful to people that ( literally) begged GM to let them purchase these vehicles?

[Reatta Man]

Excellent point, Bob. GM is still getting negative publicity over forcing the leasees to return those cars.

When WILL they learn????

[THEHKP7M13]

Excellent point, Bob. GM is still getting negative publicity over forcing the leasees to return those cars.

When WILL they learn????

Probably never. My mother worked there for 30 years and I still think GM can't get out of its own way. Hope it does.

[1948Lincoln]

Add the vega, 4/6/8 caddy, Caddy with Northstar, lincoln premiere, ford festiva, vw bus, hummer, vw bug, first gen. mustang, Daewoo cars, Chinese cars, first era hyundai, late chevy nova, ford probe

[West Peterson]

First, none of those cars belong on the list without some sort of backed up reasoning other than "uncle Ted had one and it was bad".
Second, I'll repeat what I said in the other "Worst Cars" post.

There is no good that can come out of printing a "Worst" list, because it ends up being an opinion piece, and only insults people who like and enjoy the types of vehicles being lambasted. Shame on Time magazine for printing such sensationalized drivel... all in the name of entertainment, I guess. If someone trips and falls and breaks their neck, and it's been caught on video, that makes it entertaining. This type of opinion should be best kept to oneself.

I made the mistake of mentioning the V-8-6-4, when I really meant to say the diesel. That's why any list like this should be based on fact, where even a person who owns the car would agree that it would be best suited to sit in a museum, such as the copper-cooled 1923 Chevrolet, of which only two of the some 600 built even exist because they were ALL recalled.

As far as the Edsel transmission, from what I've heard, the 1958 (I think) version is almost impossible to keep working. So if that's true, then even a 1958 Edsel owner would have to agree that it probably should be on the list. But if it's not true, then it shouldn't be on the list. Most times when you hear someone say the Edsel was a bad car, they really have no idea what they're talking about. It got a bad rap because it was poorly marketed, and was basically still-born product even as the first cars went into production.

I'm not even sure we could come up with a total of 50 "worst" cars, if the list were to be based on fact. Would the first Pinto be appropriately named because of how, during a rear-end collision, the gas tank would puncture and possibly explode? Not in my opinion. If that's the case, then we have to also put every antique (let's say pre 1920s) on the list, because if someone rammed into you, you have a slim chance of surviving, especially if it were an open car.

[jaxops]

Leave plenty of room on that list for the "new cars" that won't outlast the 6-7 year car loans!

• 2006 -2009 Chrysler Sebring: no visibility on the sides and rear
• 2006-2007 Buick Century: plastic, cheap, rides like a buckboard wagon
• 2006 - 2007 Ford Crown Victorias: can't get much rounder, plastic valve covers, plastic interiors, Expensive to buy, built cheap, cheap, cheap!
• 2006-2008 Dodge Magnum: again, no visibility, plenty of plastic!
• 2006-2008 Toyota Avlon: Just a pricier Camry with more legroom in the back. Buy the Camry, it's $10K cheaper with the same engine!
• Ford Fusion: Just like AMC, they pulled this one together off of the shelves. Cheaply built and relative inexpensive.

They are generally safer, but you don't get a lot for your money if you plan to keep the car over the long haul. Many just are made to be exchanged after a few years...helps the auto makers even more, doesn't it?

[LINC400]

Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Magnum have no side and rear visibility? My mom's 2006 Monte Carlo has no visibility. She thought about replacing it with a new Camaro or Challenger, but those also have no visibility. I sat in several new cars at the auto show, and none have decent visibilty. Apparently everyone likes to talk about airbags and antilock brakes and energy absorbing crumple zones which would not be needed if you were able to see that you were going to hit something before you hit it.

Very interesting that all the consumer magazines in the 1970's complained about the opera window in the Continental Mark IV and V, and how it reduced visibility. The Mark series has very skinny A pillars, no B pillar, and the C pillar has a opera window in it. Yet they complained about it. Now, apparently these same magazines find it unneccessary to see out of any car.

[keiser31]

The only vehicle with good visibility is the "Popemobile". Unfortunately, there are not enough to go around.

[Reatta Man]

Maybe we should start a list of the "50 Worst (so-called) News Magazines."

My suggestions (print magazines, not a blogger that calls itself a newpaper or magazine):
1. Time
2. Newsleak, er, Newsweek
3. Time
4. Consumer Reports
5. Time
6. New Yorker
7. Time
8.
9.
10.

[Skyking]

[QUOTE=LINC400;678339] Apparently everyone likes to talk about airbags and antilock brakes and energy absorbing crumple zones which would not be needed if you were able to see that you were going to hit something before you hit it.

QUOTE]

Good point! Pretty soon we'll be driving just air bags!

[poci1957]

The visibility issue bugs me and as Linc400 says the magazines never seem to mention it. I often drive new and late model vehicles at work and each new generation vehicle has more blind spots than the last. Ford, for one, started selling backup cameras for trucks and vans and now is offering it on cars. Give me a break, hold the camera and give people some glass area! Todd

[R W Burgess]

The visibility issue bugs me and as Linc400 says the magazines never seem to mention it. I often drive new and late model vehicles at work and each new generation vehicle has more blind spots than the last. Ford, for one, started selling backup cameras for trucks and vans and now is offering it on cars. Give me a break, hold the camera and give people some glass area! Todd

There are no such things as blind spots if you have two side view mirrors with spot convex inserts. My old raggedy '80 pickup had the rear view mirror fall off from the heat.......10 years ago. It has 2 side mirrors, haven't hit a soul yet.

It's important to note, though, that viewing both mirrors at short intervals prevents not "knowing the guy was beside me"!

It's another "soft spot" in our driver education programs, that and the lack of proper turn signal/lane change habits.

Wayne

[LINC400]

There are no such things as blind spots if you have two side view mirrors with spot convex inserts. My old raggedy '80 pickup had the rear view mirror fall off from the heat.......10 years ago. It has 2 side mirrors, haven't hit a soul yet.

It's important to note, though, that viewing both mirrors at short intervals prevents not "knowing the guy was beside me"!

It's another "soft spot" in our driver education programs, that and the lack of proper turn signal/lane change habits.

Wayne

A 1980's pick up is no comparison. Try backing a 2006 Monte Carlo SS out of a grocery store parking lot. You can't see anything out of the rear or rear side windows. Mirrors are useless as they only show you the cars parked behind you, not cars coming down the aisle.

[R W Burgess]

You are correct. I should have noted that my statement applied to driving ahead. All vehicles have blind spots when backing. There is no way to avoid that, although some are worse than others, as noted.

My biggest problem in backing is that my neck is a lot stiffer than it was, making it hard to see over my shoulder. I guess there is something to be said for blowing the horn while backing up.

Wayne

[1948Lincoln]

I have the carriage top on my MKV and visibility is bad, it took a few months to get used to it. Before that time, I nearly crashed into several cars! LOL!

[West Peterson]

You are correct. I should have noted that my statement applied to driving ahead. All vehicles have blind spots when backing. There is no way to avoid that, although some are worse than others, as noted.
Wayne

Wayne, perhaps you should get behind the driver's seat of a 1941-48 Lincoln Continental cabriolet with the top up. The optional right-side mirror can't even be seen by the driver, and the rear window is about the size of a letter opening in the front door of an old house. The blind spot is probably big enough to hid two cars, maybe three. In fact, if you look up the word in the dictionary, this car may be illustrated.
Does that make it a "worst car." No. Not in my opinion. Some other things about the car (especially the postwar cars) might, but not the fact that it has a blind spot.

[Dynaflash8]

QUOTE: Wayne, perhaps you should get behind the driver's seat of a 1941-48 Lincoln Continental cabriolet with the top up. The optional right-side mirror can't even be seen by the driver, and the rear window is about the size of a letter opening in the front door of an old house. The blind spot is probably big enough to hid two cars, maybe three. In fact, if you look up the word in the dictionary, this car may be illustrated.
Does that make it a "worst car." No. Not in my opinion. Some other things about the car (especially the postwar cars) might, but not the fact that it has a blind spot. UNQUOTE

All three of my old pre-war convertibles do have a significant blind spot when moving from the left lane to the right and I find it a bit scary. I guess I should hang a passenger side mirror on them. They're beautiful from the outside as they are, but it wouldn't be so pretty with the right rear quarter banged up.