The REAL 50 worst cars

[Big Beat]

The article is two years old and has been criticised before. I think it will be much more interesting to have people who really know cars make their own "50 worst" list. Shall we?

1899-1939

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

1940-1959

8. 1949 Crosley Hotshot (this one stays - those stamped engines WERE bad)

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

1960-1974

16.

17.

18.

19. 1970 AMC Gremlin (also stays, it was a pretty miserable car)

20.

21.

22. 1971 Ford Pinto (questionable as to how much that "explodes-on-impact" stuff was just hype and paranoia, really, but...)

23.

1975-1989

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.1976 Chevy Chevette (another miserable car)

30.

31.

32.

33.1981 Cadillac Fleetwood V-8-6-4 (definitely)

34.

35.1982 Cadillac Cimarron (OK car as a Chevy, but as a Cadillac...)

36.

37.

38.

39.1985 Yugo GV (well, duh...)

40.

1990-Present

41.

42.

43.

44.1998 Fiat Multipla (yes, it's ugly)

45.

46.

47.2001 Pontiac Aztek (even uglier)

48.

49.2003 Hummer H2 (IMHO these bloated status symbols just have no valid reason to exist)

50.

Now let's fill in the blanks!

Edited August 21, 2009 by Big Beat (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

I have to disagree with you that just because a car is ugly, doesn't make it a bad car. I think you've fallen into the same path that the Time author laid.

[Big Beat]

I disagree. Something cute/ugly (the Pacer), or something with questionable styling (the Edsel), or something unusual but innovative ( the Airflow) is OK. But just plain ugly is still bad, even if a car is OK mechanically.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Big Beat (see edit history)

[Guest Skyking]

If you want to speak ugly, look no further than todays cars. 99% are butt ugly!

[Big Beat]

I don't find most modern cars ugly. Just utilitarian, bland and boring. They have become appliances. How can you make a list of 50 worst toasters?

[Guest windjamer]

IMHO you can add 58 ford to that list.Bigest pile of s*** I ever owned, and bought it almost new.

[West Peterson]

I disagree. Something cute/ugly (the Pacer), or something with questionable styling (the Edsel), or something unusual but innovative ( the Airflow) is OK. But just plain ugly is still bad, even if a car is OK mechanically.

Then you're just making a list like the Time author did.

[Big Beat]

OK, what are your criteria? How about an example?

[Guest Skyking]

I don't find most modern cars ugly. Just utilitarian, bland and boring.

Then we certainly have a different opinion.

[Guest windjamer]

Good example, bought it allmost new. Drove it 28 miles and lost the tranny. Shop repaired, drove it about 8 miles and the convert.top quit working. Drove it about 500 miles and the diff. went out radio quit and I lost a cyl. Swaped it for a 3year old Buick, God bless Buick.

[Guest Skyking]

IMHO you can add 58 ford to that list.Bigest pile of s*** I ever owned, and bought it almost new.

Dick, I bought a 58 Ford in 1969 off a friend for $25.00. It didn't look too pretty but it ran like he$$. I kept it for 3 years then sold it for $50.00. The only Ford I've ever owned.

[Big Beat]

IMHO you can add 58 ford to that list.Bigest pile of s*** I ever owned, and bought it almost new.

If we were to go purely by personal experience, I would have to name the '82 Olds Delta 88 as the worst car ever made. It broke down on me more often than any other car I ever owned, including some crazy issues I never had to deal with on any of my other 25+ cars over the years. But that's purely subjective, really. Just because a given example is a lemon, is no reason to include the model on a "worst" list.

[West Peterson]

I'd have to agree with you on that one. A lemon should not automatically blanket the whole lot.

I believe a 50 worst list should be based on fact. Not because it was ugly, not because of a lemon, and not because of opinion. Examples:

1923 Chevrolet Series M

1981~ Cadillac V8-6-4

[LINC400]

Many people in the Cadillac club remove the sensor/computer chip from the V-8-6-4 and they run just fine on 8 cylinders all the time. Many laugh about how they picked up a very nice car very cheap becuase the previous owner didn't bother to do that.

[CarlLaFong]

According to an article in Hemmings Classic Cars a while back, the V-8-6-4 wasn't as bad as popular myth would suggest. The problem stemmed from a lack of qualified technicians. They didn't know how to properly diagnose or service the cars, so they simply disabled the solenoids, which played hell with the transmission as well as other systems. The writer says that the cars, when properly serviced and maintained were very reliable.

I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a true "50 worst" list. Most of the cars would be based on anecdotal stories that don't apply to an entire line of cars. My friend in high school also had a 58 Ford He beat it mercilessly. It was a stick shift and he would lunch transmissions on a regular basis, but he couldn't kill the car.

I would, with hesitation, suggest the Renault Dauphine, the Subaru 360 and the Trabant

[poci1957]

After debating the 50 worst list (and apparently making controversial comments that got a few of my posts pulled) I thought about this idea--naming our own 50 worst cars. It seems impossible because the criteria for the worst could be all over the map. Would we rate looks and styling? Engineering and quality of materials? Sales? Impact on automotive history? The votes could go all over the place.

For example, my list would probably include the Chevrolet Vega. The aluminum engines were widely derided as lemons, they were notorious rustbuckets, and their built-to-a-price vibe and GMs treatment of the situation sent a generation of baby boomers to go Japanese. Not to mention labor issues at Lordstown. BUT they sold very well, their rust protection was really no worse than imports of the day, and they were frankly quite well styled for a subcompact. So what do we think?

[Guest Xprefix28truck]

#32...1981 Olds toronado, Diesel (the converted gas engine)!!

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

If you want to speak ugly, look no further than todays cars. 99% are butt ugly!

I don't find most modern cars ugly. Just utilitarian, bland and boring. They have become appliances. How can you make a list of 50 worst toasters?

I find a great deal of agreement with both statments. Maybe I can rephrase it to were you would both find a common ground. Todays cars lack any sort of styling originality. Outside of some of the insane power some of them produce I don't find much that I would deem collectible in the future.

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

...1981~ Cadillac V8-6-4

That engine was a joy compaired ot the 4.1 that followed.

#32...1981 Olds toronado, Diesel (the converted gas engine)!!

Yes any Olds diesel, with its cheap engineering...ROGER SMITH RUINED GM, YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

[Guest Skyking]

I find a great deal of agreement with both statments. Maybe I can rephrase it to were you would both find a common ground. Todays cars lack any sort of styling originality. Outside of some of the insane power some of them produce I don't find much that I would deem collectible in the future.

Guess which one I want!<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

I don't really find them attractive either.............Buick hasn't made a pretty car in 35 years.

[Dave@Moon]

8. 1949 Crosley Hotshot (this one stays - those stamped engines WERE bad)

Except (as I said in a now deleted post on the first thread) the COBRA engine was not in the Hotshot. It was discontinued a year before the Hotshot came out (with the cast iron CIBA engine).

The (first ever in a non-race car) disc brakes did fall off the car in salty snowmelt, however.

[Dave@Moon]

Here are 3 books that must be read to be truly knowledgeble in this subject:

Amazon.com: Crap Cars (9781582346380): Richard Porter: Books

Amazon.com: Automotive Atrocities: Cars You Love to Hate (0752748317871): Eric Peters: Books

Amazon.com: Lemons: The World's Worst Cars (9780831754938): Timothy Jacobs: Books

I recommend reading all three. Eric Peters' book is the most entertaining, and while Timothy Jacob's book is a bit arbitrary (like the Time magazine list) it is also the most historically comprehensive. (Yes the Airflow is in there, no the Model T isn't.)

[LINC400]

I disregard anything that lists the Edsel as a lemon. The only unique thing about it was its styling. Chassis and drivetrain was either Ford for the junior ones or Mercury for the seniors. So they could not possibly be any more or less of a lemon or reliable than the same year Ford or Mercury. As far as styling, the front end of the '58 was questionable, but the side and rear were not much different than any other 1950's car. As far as a flop, they sold 63,110 the first year, outselling DeSoto, Studebaker, Lincoln, Continental, Imperial, Metropolitan, and only trailing Chrysler by 550 units. Most of those brands had been in business for decades and Edsel outsold them in its first year. You can figure anyone unaware of these facts is just hyping myths about the Edsel and everything else they are listing on their "worst" list.

[West Peterson]

What about the dismal Edsel transmission? I forget which year, but I think it was the 1958.

[Guest Xprefix28truck]

I think the sexiest car on the market today, That I hope will be a future collector car....Cadillac STS "V" Bad A** in every way!! LOVE 'EM!!

[Guest dunnrl3272]

great examples and opinions. what about the amc javelin they where junk as well

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

Guess which one I want!<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

I don't really find them attractive either.............Buick hasn't made a pretty car in 35 years.

THEMS FIGHTING WORDS MISTER!!!

The Reatta was probably the last interesting vehicle Buick made. Not much I would own from buick after 1991. But to me nothing is prettier then a 1991 Reatta siting on those factory 16s.

[Guest Skyking]

What about the dismal Edsel transmission? I forget which year, but I think it was the 1958.

West, I don't know about their transmissions, but the buttons in the center steering wheel were pretty cool!

That's what's missing in todays cars..........Remember the little shift levers in the 55 Chryslers?

[West Peterson]

I really don't even like the idea of doing a "Worst" list, because it usually 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.

[poci1957]

I agree West, it is just too subjective. For every reviled car there are people who liked them fine. There are probably some who loved having an Olds diesel and getting 28 mpg in a big Ninety Eight. There are certainly lots of people who like Edsels for their unusual features, including my uncle who bought a new 1958 and really liked it. And the collision reference above is certainly true, you have to look at that in the context of the car's time. If performance on modern roads is a criteria then the beloved VW van would be one of the worst of all time.

Plus, as Dave's books show, there are so many "worst" cars in the rest of the world that we here cannot cover them all. Trabant anyone?

[Guest windjamer]

O K folks, I will admit Im still hurting from the beating I took on that Ford, took almost 30 years befor I bought another Ford,then it was a f150. GOOD LOOKING truck and dependable. Guess West is right. Hard to name 50 worst, but Ford has to be in there someplace, but ONLY after the flat head.;)

[LINC400]

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.

The only comments about the Edsel transmission I have heard is about the pushbuttons. Which I believe are no more or less reliable than Packard's. The problem was the Edsel was developed in 1955 when medium priced cars were really selling. It was marketed as an all new wonder car of the future. so people were disappointed to see an ordinary car with only a strange front end to differentiate it. It was launched at the worst time of the 1950's, recession year 1958. And both Ford and Mercury dealers and insiders wanted it to fail and go away because they were worried it would steal from their sales.

I don't think it is possible to make up a "worst list" because no criteria is ever mentioned. Is it mechanical problems, poor sales, ugly cars? Poor sales don't make it a bad car. Duesenberg didn't sell many cars. Mechanical failures? Many English cars such as Jaguars and Triumph were mechanical nightmares, but they are not considered worst cars, in fact they are quite collectible. Ugly is simply opinionated with no basis in fact. As far as new cars, I don't think you can really say they are ugly. Cars have to have styling and pesonality in order to be considered ugly or beautiful. For example some people love/hate the 1971 Buick Riviera. Today's cars are simply too bland to stir up any love it/ hate it controversy.

Edited August 22, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Rawja]

At least we can all agree on the Yugo GV.

[keiser31]

Dave...you hit the nail on the head about the Vega on that 50,000 mile thing, although I did like the "Kammback" sedan delivery style Vega with the panels at the rear sides instead of windows.

[Dave@Moon]

I really don't even like the idea of doing a "Worst" list, because it usually 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.

...and it should be taken as entertainment. People can't have skins this thin and survive in this hobby.

For example: What is the third car illustrated in Lemons, one of the books I recommended?

Mine.

I haven't set it or myself on fire over it yet.