50 worst cars of all time - the TIME list.

[Peter Gariepy]

The 50 Worst Cars of All Time (Time Magazine)

1899-1939

1. 1899 Horsey Horseless
   
2. 1909 Ford Model T
   
3. 1911 Overland OctoAuto
   
4. 1913 Scripps-Booth Bi-Autogo
   
5. 1920 Briggs and Stratton Flyer
   
6. 1933 Fuller Dymaxion
   
7. 1934 Chrysler/Desoto Airflow
   

1940-1959

1. 1949 Crosley Hotshot
   
2. 1956 Renault Dauphine
   
3. 1957 King Midget Model III
   
4. 1957 Waterman Aerobile
   
5. 1958 Ford Edsel
   
6. 1958 Lotus Elite
   
7. 1958 MGA Twin Cam
   
8. 1958 Zunndapp Janus
   

1960-1974

1. 1961 Amphicar
   
2. 1961 Corvair
   
3. 1966 Peel Trident
   
4. 1970 AMC Gremlin
   
5. 1970 Triumph Stag
   
6. 1971 Chrysler Imperial LeBaron Two-Door Hardtop
   
7. 1971 Ford Pinto
   
8. 1974 Jaguar XK-E V12 Series III
   

1975-1989

1. 1975 Bricklin SV1
   
2. 1975 Morgan Plus 8 Propane
   
3. 1975 Triumph TR7
   
4. 1975 Trabant
   
5. 1976 Aston Martin Lagonda
   
6. 1976 Chevy Chevette
   
7. 1978 AMC Pacer
   
8. 1980 Corvette 305 "California"
   
9. 1980 Ferrari Mondial 8
   
10. 1981 Cadillac Fleetwood V-8-6-4
    
11. 1981 De Lorean DMC-12
    
12. 1982 Cadillac Cimarron
    
13. 1982 Camaro Iron Duke
    
14. 1984 Maserati Biturbo
    
15. 1985 Mosler Consulier GTP
    
16. 1985 Yugo GV
    
17. 1986 Lamborghini LM002
    

1990-Present

1. 1995 Ford Explorer
   
2. 1997 GM EV1
   
3. 1997 Plymouth Prowler
   
4. 1998 Fiat Multipla
   
5. 2000 Ford Excursion
   
6. 2001 Jaguar X-Type
   
7. 2001 Pontiac Aztek
   
8. 2002 BMW 7-series
   
9. 2003 Hummer H2
   
10. 2004 Chevy SSR
    

[Peter Gariepy]

I've owned 4 of these!

Crosley Hotshot, Ford Pinto, King Midget, Corvair.

You?

[1937hd45]

TIME Magazine ???????????????????? They can roll up that issue and...........

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

TIME Magazine ???????????????????? They can roll up that issue and...........

My thoughts too.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Wonder what their criteria was. Looks like personal choices.

[West Peterson]

As I started, I thought perhaps it was marketing "worst flop" kind of list, but then I realized it had to be made by someone who doesn't know anything about cars.

[Guest Robin Coleman]

I can only speak as to my personal opinions, but if most here do not agree the Pontiac Aztec is the ugliest thing ever made I will eat my hat. What was GM thinking? I can't believe this nightmare made it out of the design stage.

[West Peterson]

"On the 50th anniversary of the Ford Edsel, TIME and Dan Neil, Pulitzer Prize-winning automotive critic and syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times, look at the greatest lemons of the automotive industry"

[Dandy Dave]

1899 -1939 The Model T ford was one of the better cars of the era. They were tough and durable.

Now a Friction drive Metz on the other hand.....Seems quite a few Metz autos survived because they were always in the back of the shop. Dandy Dave!

[Guest bkazmer]

This group certainly recognizes the technical advances of the Airflow. The Lotus Elite is likewise a technical coup - first structural composite body (earlier fiberglass like Corvette and Kaiser was unstressed body panels).

[keiser31]

Man...Time magazine has it way wrong. Just because a car was "before it's time" it is supposed to be the worst car? I DON'T THINK SO. Someone has their head in the clouds or somewhere unearthly.

[mrpushbutton]

No copper cooled Chevrolet?

[keiser31]

Oh yeah....the Chrysler Airflow was such a poor design that Ferdinand Porsche stole the design and made a zillion on the VW with the same design.

[CarlLaFong]

One off and experimentals shouldn't be on any list of best or worst. Appearance shouldn't be a criteria either. The Airflows were considered by many to be funny looking, but there was nothing wrong with them from an engineering standpoint. Same with the Aztek, Pacer, Edsel (what's a Ford Edsel?) and the other quirky looking cars. Why select the Zundapp Janus? There were a bunch of odd little Euro scootercars that were as bad or worse than the Zundapp, if in fact it was a bad car.

The "author" of this drivel picked up a few coffee table books and looked for cars that he didn't "like", looked up a few urban myths, mixed it all together with a healthy dose of ignorance and presented his irrefutable facts to a gullible readership. Pulitzer prize journalism at it's best.

[Peter Gariepy]

Are they off base on many of the selections? Sure.

Regardless, I love that a high circulation magazine is talkn about antique cars!

Remember the old saying: "There is No Such Thing as Bad Publicity".

[poci1957]

I agree and said when I first saw the list recently that it is obviously made up by someone who knows nothing about cars, probably exactly in the manner 58Mustang describes above.

What rankled me the most was including the Model T. The writer made his argument saying the Model T was cheap and harsh and the Yugo of it's day, or something like that. I think we all can agree the T was utilitarian, especially at it's peak in the early 1920s. But unlike the Yugo the quality of it's engineering, manufacture, and materials was state of the art in the early days. Plus, the early cars were not the cheapest on the market but represented great value. One could buy a cheaper car but not find a better value circa 1909. The writer should write about something else and be embarassed with his ignorance here. Of course, we all know such lists are usually handled in this manner, but once again factual errors about old cars are dispensed to the public and they will not know the difference.

[mrpushbutton]

Oh yeah....the Chrysler Airflow was such a poor design that Ferdinand Porsche stole the design and made a zillion on the VW with the same design.

Are we talking VW bug? I thought the engine was in the rear and was air cooled? or are we just talking basic body construction? that was different too, the Airflow was body-on-frame. A huge, hard to build, even harder to crash-repair body at that.

The Airflow turned out to be a wonderful, revolutionary car, but only after a very rough start-up period, whic is probably where Time based their judgement.

Between the problems launcing the Airflow and the public rejection (in large numbers) of the styling the car almost killed Chrysler Corporation, Were it not for the traditionally designed Plymouth and the incredible value it represented at the time. Plymouth sales kept the company afloat.

[poci1957]

On the Airflow, I would contend the Time writer only knew that part--that the styling was controversial and poor selling. He likely knows nothing of it's revolutionary nature.

I would like to mention the listing of the Explorer and Excursion SUVs of the 1990s. I hardly find the Explorer to be one of the worst vehicles of all time, and FOR IT'S PURPOSE the Excursion was probably the very BEST. That purpose being a 3/4 ton SUV with room for 8 or 9 and capability to tow a 10,000 lb trailer. In that use it was an absolutely great vehicle.

Edited August 21, 2009 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[keiser31]

On the Airflow, I would contend the Time writer only knew that part--that the styling was controversial and poor selling. He likely knows nothing of it's revolutionary nature.

I would like to mention the listing of the Explorer and Excursion SUVs of the 1990s (which should give you an idea where this article is coming from mentally and politically). I hardly find the Explorer to be one of the worst vehicles of all time, and FOR IT'S PURPOSE the Excursion was probably the very BEST. That purpose being a 3/4 ton SUV with room for 8 or 9 and capability to tow a 10,000 lb trailer. In that use it was an absolutely great vehicle.

Yep....the exterior design of the Airflow was the part that did not buy the public's praise. That is what I meant to say. The average buyer out there knew only that they did not like the looks. They had no idea about the technology or construction of the cars.

[Guest Skyking]

1997 Plymouth Prowler???????????????????? The idiot probably never drove one.

[TG57Roadmaster]

A friend regularly forwards Dan Neil's L.A. Times column to me, and, after the first paragraph read (I started with the '71 Imperial, eventually reading them all), there was no doubt as to the TIME piece's authorship.

I love his wordsmithing, and certainly don't agree with all his choices. Few writers today can match his wit and style, but to say he doesn't know cars is baseless and mean-spirited. The only glaring red herring I found was the Airflow/Airstream gaffe, as we all (should) know they were two vastly different cars.

Given the challenge of creating a similar list (Best or Worst) wouldn't we all be subjective? Enjoy it for what it is, one very talented man's take, with plentiful doses of tongue-in-cheek.

TG

[keiser31]

We all have our opinions as to what is the worst made car. I mentioned Chevy Chevettes once in the same context and got a ration of.... by some guy who had one and said that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread (to him). We used brand new ones where I worked at Budget Rent-A-Car in San Diego in 1976 and the radiators sprung leaks at about 75-100 miles on the odometers. Then they got worse from there. I am sure that all makes have lemons in the bunch.

[keiser31]

I drove a DeLorean once. It rode like a lumber wagon, but so did 1965 Mustangs. That does not mean they should be on the "worst car" list.

[poci1957]

Well, no chance of me debating Chevettes, that is for sure.

[keiser31]

My dad told me once that he thought the 1929 Chevrolets were horrible cars because "they had weak axles that would snap like a twig." Now, does that make it the worst car? No, but you could not convince my dad of that.

[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.

Edited August 21, 2009 by bhclark (see edit history)

[Guest 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."

Edited August 21, 2009 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[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.

Edited August 21, 2009 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[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

[Guest 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????

[Guest 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.

[MarkV]

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.

<!-- google_ad_section_start -->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.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

[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.