TIME article - The 50 Worst Cars of All Time ???

[DavidP]

I still can't believe the list they came up with of the 50 Worst Cars of All Time !!!

I'd love the opportunity to own or just a chance to drive quite a few of the cars listed in the article !!!

Makes me want to check to see if it was an April 1 publication date ... ;-)

Please don't 'kill the messenger' ( me ), this is a link to the article in TIME ... it certainly is not my own opinion !!!

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/completelist/0,,1658545,00.html

[Mark Huston]

Do not read the Time article on The 50 Worst Cars of all Time if you have a weak heart or are on blood pressure medicine. It is very clear from the couple of car reviews that I have read in this article that the author is very biased and hates cars.

An example is this quote from the review of the Model T Ford “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.”

It is quite plain to see that this article is anything but informative journalism, it is at best a hatchet job on the auto industry and another biased attempt at promoting the environmentalist agenda.

I will not waste my time reading any of the other informative car reviews. In my opinion, this entire article belongs in the top ten of The 50 Worst Journalism Articles of all Time.

[Guest Leonard Shepherd]

Business Week also just compiled a listing of the 10 worst cars of all time. They considered style as well as design flaws. There were 3 AMC's (Pacer, Gremlin and Matador). Also included were the Vega, Corvair, Pinto, Edsel, Yugo, Chevette and Pontiac Aztek.

[Mike Cullen]

This author likely thinks that the Prius is the greatest car of all time. He slams the rear engined, air-cooled horizontally opposed four cylinder corvair, OK skippy, you tell us all about it. I liked his slam at the ford explorer and the model T, totally bizzare! it's a shame that people who think in such a convoluted fashion get paid to opine. Pulitzer prize winning author? they must not have any meaningful standards anymore.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Well, it'll ruffle some feathers, I'm sure...

It is worth reading, out of morbid curiosity, if no other reason.

I think the author (Dan Neil - Pulitzer Prize-winning auto critic for the Los Angeles Times ), is out-of-line for his inclusion of the Model T Ford, at least for the year he exemplified: 1909.

Regardless of the philosophical issues he takes with Ford and his Flivver "putting America on wheels" and forever changing our socio-economic existence, he suggests that the Ford of 1909 was a bad car, poorly designed, of questionable build-quality, and under-appointed...

I would ask: how many other car makers had anything better to offer the motoring public in 1909 ? And how much did those better cars cost ?

Yes, folks, the Model T was SO awful that Ford Motor Co. only kept it in production for a mere 19 years, selling only some 15-million of them, and the public kept buying them(though in declining numbers by 1927)...

Ford was one of the first major manufacturers (after Henry Leland) to insist on precision measurement and standardization of the parts used to build his Fords... and while Old Henry certainly wanted to minimize his production costs, he did not believe in offering a shoddy product.

(making the distinction between "shoddy" and "eventually antiquated, yet still in production").

Okay; now that I've gotten that off my chest, go read the article and see what you think about "the list" !

[FomocoService]

This is unreal. Are you sure this guy doesn't belong to Greenpeace? LOL

The Model T is one -- if not the best car of all time.

It was designed well, altho the technology was outdated by 1916 or so people kept buying.

The article mentions William Klann. But what about Walter Flanders, Charles Sorenson, Ed Martin? They did more than Klann did. Sorenson pulled the rope on the first trial chassis!

The T body panels were stamped out- by presses not some Blacksmith shop taking a break from making horseshoes as this guy makes it out to be.

The Airflow-

While styling back then was not it's strong point. These are extremely well built cars as well as solid mechanical design. I'm doing a '34 Airflow for a customer right now.

The others I can't comment on as I don't know much about them.

I'm surprised he didn't mention the Model A for being a poor man's car or the Early Flathead Fords for being an oil burner.

This guy has an axe to grind!

[Guest Skyking]

I won't even comment on this idiotic list..........

Maybe he's Al Gores brother.

[MCHinson]

OK, for morbid curiosity I did read a little. Now I remember why I don't subscribe to Time Magazine.

[Mike Cullen]

If his opinion on the T is based on the 09 year, he got it wrong, Ts were available in several colors, the black only Ts were after several years of production. He got so many facts wrong that his opinion is worthless, if he cares so little for technical accuracy why should we care what he "thinks" (using the term loosly) about cars in general. Time Magazine on line? CNN? is it a shock that they are clueless? Most car people worldwide, like them or not would likely list the Model T Ford one of the top 3 best and most influential cars of all time.

I think I looked at 6 or 7 specific cars, he had incorrect facts as a basis for his opinion in over half of them. He also mentioned that Corvairs had a habit of spearing drivers because of the solid steering column, I sure remember the trouble I had removing the steering boxes from series 01 and 10 Ramblers,(American and Classic) as late as the 67 model year because the steering shaft was one piece, from the nut under the horn button all the way to the worm inside the steering box. They were fine cars, and sold well. Almost any car could make you a shish-kebab in a front ender back then. (not just a 61 corvair)

The 87 Yugo was a far better car than the 86, why the 87 not the 86? the 87 had a rear window defroster that would keep your hands warm when you were pushing them home in the winter. (very valuable feature!)

It would be fun to have a good e-mail addy for that putz so we could send him some helpful information for his next masterpiece

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Well, he's credited as being an auto-reviewer for the Los Angeles Times, so we should be able to reach him through that august organization...

("Let's round- up a posse of T-Model Fords an' go git 'im, boys !" )

[Mike Cullen]

We will have to start a new thread with the list of cars in it. Post to the thread when you "lay claim" to one of his selections, then edit your post with the corrected information you send him. Edit again if you get a response. We could milk it for weeks! Maybe I'll post the list in the morning if I don't get beat to it by an insomniac car junkie here.

[Guest Leonard Shepherd]

Some of these car weren't regular production cars, which I wouldn't think should be on the list

1933 Fuller Dymaxion

<span style="font-style: italic">Only 3 were made by Buckminister Fuller. One did kill someone in an accident, but they were never a real production car, Just a concept.</span>

• 1957 King Midget Model III

<span style="font-style: italic">Give me a break! This wasn't a real automobile, just an overgrown go cart with a body!</span>

• 1957 Waterman Aerobile

<span style="font-style: italic">I think I have seen pictures of this car/airplane, but still not a real production car.</span>

• 1958 Ford Edsel

<span style="font-style: italic">Of course this was a real production car and every writer loves to put it in the "worst car" column, but it wasn't any worse that any other 58 car, except maybe for the Tele-touch. It was just a huge marketing failure.</span>

1958 Zunndapp Janus

1966 Peel Trident

<span style="font-style: italic">I have no idea what these are.</span>

1975 Trabant

<span style="font-style: italic">Even the Eastern Europeans joke about how bad there "Tribbies" were, but the Communist Party thought this was all their citizens deserved.</span>

1985 Mosler Consulier GTP

<span style="font-style: italic">Have no idea what this is either.</span>

[FomocoService]

The Edsel was based on an already existing chassis & drivetrain.

Mechanically it was a good car with exception of the Tele-Touch drive as posted above.

[Mike Cullen]

dan.neil@latimes(dot)com

[DavidP]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skyking</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I won't even comment on this idiotic list..........

Maybe he's Al Gores brother. </div></div>

I think your starting to get pretty close Skyking ...

I was thinking he could of been Jimmy Carters brother ... sometime when he was sober ...

Any list that includes the Model T and AirFlow in the worst category has to be seriously flawed!!

Seems like someone driving around in a Red Honda with a BIG Shiny Muffler thinking all other cars are inferior ...

[Guest edalfa]

Gee whiz! It's amazing how many of his worst are collectibles now. I shudder to think what would be on his "best" list.

Ed

[Dave@Moon]

There are at least five statements made made on this thread already regarding the Democratic Party and a few environmental groups that if similar statements had been have been made about the Republican Party or the NRA this thread would've been placed on the poof pile within minutes.

That said, a few things should be mentioned.

The overuse of cars <span style="text-decoration: underline">is</span> killing the planet, period. To come to any other conclusion is to deny science. You don't have to pretend alcaholism doesn't exist to like wine, so I don't see when it was that pretending all environmental science is bunk became the prerequistie to like cars.

Most automotive historians believe that Robt. McNamara deliberately sabbotaged the Edsel to help promote his Falcon and Fairlane. "Unique" looks may well have been a part of this effort. In part this also may have been done by assigning its construction to plants with the worst quality records already, and by insisting it be built alongside other FoMoCo products instead of at dedicated production lines. It did set records for poor quality control when new, something that did not go unnoticed. Buick sales were tanking at the same time because of a recent spate of poor quality. Once again we're pretending that there are no problems with the cars we love just because we love them.

Anyone who could even name all the cars on this list, let along form cognizant opinions of them, must be a fairly learned automotive historian. I doubt there's one poster here who didn't have to look up at least one of the cars listed.

How in the world anyone could look at this list and think it's pro-environmentally biased is beyond me. Most of the cars listed are among the most fuel efficient of their age. He even picks on the EV1, for crying out loud!

As for the Corvair's steering collumn, try <span style="text-decoration: underline">actually</span> reading <span style="font-style: italic">Unsafe at Any Speed</span>, instead of just the semi-informed criticisms of it. It had a uniquely dangerous design in addition to being solid, and it lacked the protection of an engine beside it to absorb most of the energy. It was a bad car, get over it!

Another thing. <span style="font-weight: bold">The Prius <span style="text-decoration: underline">is</span> <span style="font-style: italic">"the greatest car of all time".</span></span> Having driven one for the more than 2 years <span style="text-decoration: underline">and</span> as an automotve enthusiast let me assure you of one thing: <span style="font-weight: bold">The Prius' technology will permit our children and grandchildren to enjoy the benefits of driving their own cars <span style="text-decoration: underline">much</span> longer than they will otherwise have had the chance.</span> Again, to come to any other conculsion is to deny science. How <span style="text-decoration: underline">that</span> cannot be considered rightful qualification for automotive immortality is likewise beyond me. But then I tend to look at this hobby in terms beyond my own lifetime. I guess if your world is going to end in 2015 you can pretend pretty much anything you'd like.

Finally, these lists are for fun and not the edicts of Big Brother. I have two books on this subject in my library, <span style="font-style: italic">Crap Cars</span> and <span style="font-style: italic">Lemons, The World's Worst Cars</span>. There are several cars in both books I'd love to own. Notably the former book lists the MGB as #18 in it's list of 50 worst cars. The latter book lists the Triumph TR6 among the worst cars ever built on an even shorter list. I own the book, <span style="text-decoration: underline">and two TR6s</span>. I enjoy them both immensely.

[Amphicar BUYER]

I was going to dissappointed if the Amphicar wasn't on the list! It has always had a bad rap, but that's OK. We all have differing opinions and that's a good thing.

There are some VERY wrong things listed in the Times article, and that seems to be the norm. I try to get as many corrected as I can. Most are appreciatve of the correct info and some don't seem to be interested.

[imported_buick5563]

Yeah, when I read the list and the explanations there were a few odd comments I picked up on. To me, the way it was written was for the masses, he wasn't writing for car guys. It's hard to make a case against any car in small snippets. I knew the Model T comment on the environmental impact of cars as a whole was going to make this group grab the pitchforks and torches.

Instead of dragging this post down, why don't we replace some of the cars on his list that we don't agree with? And why. Or agree with him on other cars. Like adults.

Mike

[Ivan Saxton]

It most certainly is a curious list, and probably unfair in the way it is superficial rather than considering basics. Any car has to be seen in context of its period and competition. And its intended purpose should not be overlooked. The Lotus Elite did well what it was intended to do; but that just happened to be not what most people wanted. You cannot justly criticise it for that. The Amphicar is similar. Being amphibious does limit what it can be and do, no doubt, in a conventional way. ( I must admit that my experience was with an amphibious jeep which was used in the bush and on the farm as a 4 wheel drive in the late 40's and through the '50's).

It is hard to understand why the first full year of T model Ford was singled out. The very first few hundred cars which had two pedals and two levers ( the second lever to operate reverse) were apparently not a good concept and most modified by retrofit; but these were probably all made the previous year. The T Ford was probably the most outstanding example of a car that spectacularly fulfilled its intended purpose. It was easy to own, easy to drive and service; and service and repair were within the capability of any owner who had a mind or need to. The car could be driven almost anywhere, and it was commonsense design. And it was really a high quality car, in the service it gave partly because of the vanadium steel that was used. And people forget how many T Ford buyers had never driven a car before. One man I spoke to who had been a car dealer in country Victoria Mallee region in the 20's told me that he typically sold Fords to farmers who drove into town with their horse buggy. They would buy the car, he would give them a 20minute driving lesson sufficient to get their licence form the local policeman, and they would drive home. More particular and experienced customers might buy a V63 Cadillac from him. The T could (and still can) be hotrodded and raced; and it could serve as a farm tractor and power unit. If would be more correct to list it as one of the most successful cars of all time, practically, socially, and economically.

The V12 Jaguar, the Ferrari Mondial, the Maserati Biturbo, and the listed Lamborghini indeed had problems or idiosynchracies, which may have been insuperable or unaffordable for anyone incapable of doing their own work. I would be only too happy to gather and maintain and use any of these if given the opportunity.

Milton Reeves' three and four axle conversions of Stutz and Overland were ill-considered and mis-concieved. (His later variable-speed V-belt drive has been a very useful device for many decades). And the "Horsey Horseless Carriange" was a very temporary conversion of a Haynes Apperson due to the cognitive malfunction of a snake-oil salesman.

My lasting memory of Pinto was a hire care I had to use it 1980, in absence of public transport when I needed to get from Ft Wayne to Auburn; being 35 hours without sleep on flights from Melbourne. The first car of the description the keys fitted had someone's belongings in it, so I had to be shown the right one. Then when I stopped I couldn't get the beep key out of the ignition. Otherwise it seemed to be basic transport, but not exceptionally bad.

A Hummer is probably ego-enhancement for those who need it.

I wonder why the writer did not include the friction drive cars as a class.

Dave, I was most impressed with a Prius belonging to a colleague on shire council when we shared transfort to a conference recently. Another councillor, a lady, drove for about 100 miles on the way home; and the fuel economy it returned for her was better than the owner got. Nevertheless, next time you change over, have a look at a turbo diesel FIAT Punto. A friend of mine has two. He used his hot sporting version recently in the Targa Tasmania rally. He said it is capable of about 130mpg; but not quite as economical as the lower range but similar version his wife drives, which he says gives 70mpg around the city. These are usefully cheaper than a Prius here; and I was most impressed.

Time must have been short of copy, or worried about lack of correspondance to run a list like that.

Ivan Saxton

[Guest BJM]

My take is that this author had a down moment and had to come up with an article by deadline. 50 worst cars is hard to do, 50 BEST cars is not, because inherently, the manufacturers tend to 'homogenize' their efforts so as not to be on the afformentioned worst list.

On some on the worst list would get there by being innovative - ala the 34 Airflow.

In a good week, the impact from this 'list' will fade and it will be just one man's opinion with the goal to titillate and sell a few papers, nothing more, nothing less.

Dave@Moon - I knew you could not resist this post and it's political overtones. The bottom line is few of us in the hobby drive our old cars enough to contribute to global warming, et al. The modern cars are much more efficient overall, no need to buy a Prius for that, yet there are more and more drivers and cars sold overall, defeating the mpg increase. My 2004 Bonneville with the 3.8L V6 easily gets 26mpg combined.

[Amphicar BUYER]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BJM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a good week, the impact from this 'list' will fade and it will be just one man's opinion with the goal to titillate and sell a few papers, nothing more, nothing less. </div></div>

Some 40+ years later, we are still dealing with many inaccurate statements made in the early 1960s about the Amphicar. I would suspect that other makes have the same problem.

His one VERY wrong comment "<span style="font-style: italic">It's single greatest demerit — and this is a big one — was that it wasn't particularly watertight. Its flotation was entirely dependent on whether the bilge pump could keep up with the leakage. If not, the Amphicar became the world's most aerodynamic anchor</span>" ... couldn't be further from the truth! I have no problem with the Amphi being on the list, but at least get the facts right.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

This article was the first time I've ever heard of Airflows being plagued by "the engine falling out"...

As for issues with the Edsel & its build quality ( and the infamous Tele-touch), someone mentioned Buick having quality-control issues in the late '50s, and 1957 was a particularly notorious year for poor quality control at my own beloved Chrysler Corporation... must've been a bad time in Detroit, period.

As for the market forces dooming the Edsel before the first one ever hit a showroom, Ford found-out the hard way that they already had just about all of the market "brackets" covered by existing models. Pretty much the same situation that caused Chrysler Corp. to eliminate the De Soto Division after the '61 models.

I owned a '59 Edsel Villager wagon ( I think of the '58's as the only "true Edsels", as the later models were less individual cars; mostly faclifted Fords); and it was a decent and serviceable car. As good as any other 1959 FoMoCo product. Whether or not it was an unattractive or redundant car is another matter. I miss my Edsel.

Whether or not this columnist is a learned car guy or not, I still think he is dead-wrong in his assesment of the Model T, except for its world-changing impact.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I knew you could not resist this post and it's political overtones.</div></div>

All I did was say they shouldn't be there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The bottom line is few of us in the hobby drive our old cars enough to contribute to global warming, et al. </div></div>

And very few fine wine connoissuers drink to excess. Thus that part of my point is the same. However <span style="text-decoration: underline">they</span> are generally the <span style="text-decoration: underline">first</span> to decry the misuse of alcahol, and are generally <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> the defenders of drunks.

For some people here it seems that every opportunity is taken to beat down whatever the slightest suggestion might be that there could be any negative aspect to the use of motorized vehicles. There <span style="font-style: italic">might</span> be some extremists who would throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to automobiles. There are <span style="font-style: italic">definitely</span> extremists <span style="text-decoration: underline">here</span> who can't separate the two and want to cherish both like heavenly gold.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The modern cars are much more efficient overall, no need to buy a Prius for that, yet there are more and more drivers and cars sold overall, defeating the mpg increase. My 2004 Bonneville with the 3.8L V6 easily gets 26mpg combined. </div></div>

My car is nearly the same size (functionally--It's actually the exact same size as a Grand Prix sedan) and I get 45+ mpg combined, contributing 42% less per mile to the earth's degradation than the Bonneville. Guess which one represents the future. Guess which one is prepared for 2012 fuel prices!

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nevertheless, next time you change over, have a look at a turbo diesel FIAT Punto. A friend of mine has two. He used his hot sporting version recently in the Targa Tasmania rally. He said it is capable of about 130mpg; but not quite as economical as the lower range but similar version his wife drives, which he says gives 70mpg around the city. These are usefully cheaper than a Prius here; and I was most impressed.</div></div>

Unfortunately Fiat has been absent from the American market since about 1982. If the Punto were imported here, which would be very difficult as it would need to comply with U.S. safety standards (a near impossibility for small European cars), it still would not be a practical car for my uses. It has a much smaller interior volume vs. the Prius (88 cubic feet vs. 96 cubic feet, or 2.49 cubic meters vs. 2.72 cubic meters). However with the coming fuel crisis similar cars will be appearing here shortly, I'm sure. A hybrid-diesel drive VW Rabbit (Golf) or Honda Fit can't be too far down our collective pike at this point.

American Honda is supposed to be launching a hybrid-dedicated car line likely similar to the Prius for 2009. Hopefully it will be a another family-sized sedan to provide competition to the Prius. However if it is a true hybrid minicar with 70 mpg potential, that would make for a very interesting prospect as well!

[Steve Moskowitz]

I was just alerted to this problem. Things have been quiet and I have been busy so I did not view this thread.

Dave is right, guys let's leave the political comments out of threads. We took the step to blow-up the Misc Chats over this type of thing. Hopefully, our moderators are not still sleeping since you guys have been so good for quite awhile.

As to Dan Neil, yes he is well known and an accomplished writer, he has been interviewed on TV and radio extensively. However, he like you and I has a right to his opinions (you all know the story about opinions). Normally he does not venture into the collectible car area and keeps to writing about new cars. One thing I am certain of is that we could get 50 of the most known and experienced people in the antique car hobby and we would have 50 different lists.

I personally find his list strange and almost that he was reaching in some respects to try and show how much he "knows". I am totally incredulous at some of his picks (but you all know the story about opinions)!

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

I have a hard time comming up with with more than 10 or 12 worst cars of all times. I suppose Audi would be at the top of the list, perhaps followed by renault, simca, peugot,fiat, mercedes (relative to cost), vega, K-car versions of the New Yorker. What's that???? Eight???

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

"As to Dan Neil, yes he is well known and an accomplished writer, he has been interviewed on TV and radio extensively. However, he like you and I has a right to his opinions ..."

Yeah, but he gets paid for his opinions. WE DON'T!

Time magazine???? Isn't that kind'a like reading one of those Chic or Tony Lama publications or maybe an infomercial????

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

Dave Moon:

Instead of the accusing people of denying science, why not investigate WHO PAYS the scientists???

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PackardV8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave Moon:

Instead of the accusing people of denying science, why not investigate WHO PAYS the scientists??? </div></div>

Almost universally, you do (public universities, government agencies, Federal research grants, etc.). The extreme minority you don't pay (or more correctly you pay indirectly through corporations) are the ones paid largely to make you believe that all the other ones instead are paid by the International Conspiracy for Fooling Everyone with Imaginary Wealth that Doesn't Exist, or NAMBLA.

[Ivan Saxton]

Renault, Peugeot, FIAT, and Mercedes have been continuously part of the motor industry since its beginnings. I am not sure how that coincides with being among the few worst cars.

And all have been notable in Grand Prix racing at various times: Peugeot almost unbeatable with the innovation of twin OHC engines. And I am not sure how Audi fits among the worst, either, when they have dominated the LeMans 24 hour race for a while. They must be quite good to handle. Two or three years back, Audi invited a motoring journalist to drive during practice in one of their cars as had won the previous LeMans. His times would have placed him on the front row of the grid. Paul Frere was in his early 80's. He was a former Grand Prix driver and LeMans winner in younger days. It is worth searching out a copy of his book on driving technique, because anyone could learn from it.

(I apologise for occasional typographical errors in my posts, which are usually obvious in intended meaning. There was a "g" in place of an "h"in my previous post on this thread, which slipped through a couple of minutes to midnight.)

Ivan Saxton

[Mika Jaakkola]

The Time Magazine article is based on one mans opinions, who - apparently doesn't know anything about the past of automotive industry.

The real experts he should have interviewed for his article are HERE on AACA.

Or what do you think? It's hard to imagine anyone else who has more knowledge than people in OUR club. (Yes, ours now - I finally received my member card!!! )

Am I crazy or why there's some many cars on the list I would love to own - especially an Edsel or Airflow??

[Guest Leonard Shepherd]

Mika,

Since you are in Finland, you might be interested in these old newspaper ads that someone in Finland has posted on Webshots. He has an album of Studebaker, and also one of Auburn, Reo Royle, Buick, Brockway and old accident clippings. They are very interesting to me, but I can't read what they say.

Here is the link:

http://rides.webshots.com/album/295358971ndcHTv

[Mika Jaakkola]

Leonard - thanks for the link. Nice finnish ads. Never seen them on papers - Never looked though. The guy has done a BIG job scanning all those.

The jewel of my collection is definetely a 30's MoPar service manual in finnish! That's very cool !!

[Guest AntarcticDave]

Having owned a Triumph Stag I have to say he's pretty spot on about that vehicle. Mine ran for maybe 2 out of every 12 months. Even my friends from the UK had to conceed the Stag was a disaster.