15 Agonizing Automotive Atrocities

[Shop Rat]

This just showed up on Yahoo News.

15 Agonizing Automotive Atrocities | Autopia | Wired.com

:eek:

[Guest]

Wow, I would have thought the AMC Pacer would have been in there before Gremlin!

Don

[TG57Roadmaster]

Sheesh! Another, "Aren't these awful, ain't I clever" piece scribed by someone who wouldn't know the difference between a Citation and a Citation*. The Renault Dauphine, AMC Gremlin, Ford Mustang II (all amazing sales-winners) and the people who built them need to make apologies to no one.

I don't know who the contributor, Keith Barry is, but this quote on the astonishing Porsche Panamera is more than telling..."With four doors and room for four suitcases in the trunk (a trunk! In the rear!) the Panamera has already been ruthlessly mocked by 13-year-old boys and 911-owners alike. If, over time, it proves to dilute the overall brand for the sake of immediate sales, it will be enshrined as a true automotive atrocity."

First, I stop paying attention when brand is used in place of marque. Second, many grown ups may like the idea of a Porsche with a back seat and trunk, even some loyal 911 owners. Third, who listens to precocious 13-year-olds (other than their parents, who are obliged to do so)?

Methinks Mr. Barry doth protest too much (or listens to too many 8th-graders).

TG

*Edsel, 1958; Chevy, 1980

Edited May 13, 2010 by TG57Roadmaster (see edit history)

[Guest]

Well there are alot of VW and Porsche people who say if it's not air cooled it's not the real deal. It is only natural considering those people were subjected to all the VW- Porsche adds and TV spots showing driveshafts and radiators and coolent were a waste of money. Remember the VW add with a beetle with it's front hood up and the guy standing there scratching his head and steam is coming out and the capsion says "IMPOSSIBLE"

So all the things they said back then was stupid they are doing today.

Don

[poci1957]

Sheesh! Another, "Aren't these awful, ain't I clever" piece scribed by someone who wouldn't the difference between a Citation and a Citation*.

TG, you could not have said it more perfectly!

At first glance at the headline I groaned out loud at the thought of another "bad car" list like this--talk about being done to death!

It sounds like the writer is sort of the designated Auto Editor for Wired magazine. I should not pre-judge, but my thought is that such a title would be about as relevant as me being proclaimed the Electronic Technology Editor for our forum. Not exactly a service to the public for either of us. I am about to read the Yugo book though, Todd

PS--I also contend the Mustang II was a huge hit and profit maker for Ford and in 1974 Iacocca looked like a genius. And it was hardly a bad car, it just caused indignity for fans of older Mustangs by being Pinto based. Muscular=no. Nicely trimmed and good value compared to other small cars of the day=yes.

[Amphicar BUYER]

Some of the folks just don't get it! One example was "The Fascination" it never went into production, only 5 were built (in Denver, designed in Nebraska).

I have my doubts about ever being propellor driven. I have spoken with the owner of that very car when it was displayed next to my Amphi in Denver(currently on display at The Petersen museum in LA) and he told me the story of the cars from start to current day. He was best friends with the builder. He never mentioned anything about a prop. He did say they had to install a different engine last minute, but no props.

At least they didn't once again slam the Amphicar and the usual suspects... mostly. Yup another dead horse beaten to death.

The Peterson museum has a great display of the oddities. Some of these cars are there. I was there 2 weeks ago and you should go if you're in LA.

[poci1957]

At least they didn't once again slam the Amphicar and the usual suspects... mostly.

Yes, the Amphicar does usually make these lists, so I guess at least he tried to be slightly different.

I guess I should give the guy credit for not having an obvious agenda as these lists often do. He (expectedly) criticized Hummer but also criticized the Mustang II as being the result of "pollution and crash test laws..." putting "government regulations in the way of building a great car". A different take, considering that I do not think the Mustang II was developed for those reasons as much as to take advantage of platform sharing--just like the original Mustang (and the Hummer H2 and H3).

[Sweepspear]

I always thought the Aston Martin Lagonda was kind of cool looking.

Eye of the beholder as they say. :cool:

Edited May 11, 2010 by Sweepspear (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

I always thought the Aston Martin Lagonda was kind of cool looking.

Eye of the beholder as they say. :cool:

A good friend has one. Amazingly great bodywork and interior, with a typically superlative A-M engine kind-of wasted by the Torqueflite. However the digital dash is a disaster, virtually unrepairable and very short-lived.

I've been told by owners that very few of these ever saw 50,000 miles.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Dave@Moon
added last sentence (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

...A different take, considering that I do not think the Mustang II was developed for those reasons as much as to take advantage of platform sharing--just like the original Mustang (and the Hummer H2 and H3).

With roughly the same result (as the H2 and H3 at least), 25% more weight on the same chassis being used mainly as a costume for something it wasn't. If you've ever driven a 4 cylinder automatic Mustang II and a similar year Pinto (which was no rocket ship itself), you know what that difference meant.

[Sweepspear]

A good friend has one. Amazingly great bodywork and interior, with a typically superlative A-M engine kind-of wasted by the Torqueflite. However the digital dash is a disaster, virtually unrepairable and very short-lived.

I've been told by owners that very few of these ever saw 50,000 miles.

Doesn't surprise me.

Sounds typical of a lot of exotics.

[Dave@Moon]

Doesn't surprise me.

Sounds typical of a lot of exotics.

It's not typical of other Aston-Martin models. Every last one other than the Lagonda is a "driver's car", and relatively high-mileage cars are not unusual.

[Guest ken bogren]

The A-M Lagonda is one of the few cars I'd be perfectly happy to park in my garage and sit and admire even if it never went another mile under its own power. That car has gripped me since the first time I saw one in a car magazine. We recently saw one of those little micro car Peel Tridents both at the Micro Car Museum in Madison GA and the Lane Motor Museum in Nashville. My wife fell in love with it! The Lane has a video playing showing the car being driven on the streets around the museum, very, very cool! But they do say it's like an solar oven in the summer.

[Rawja]

Ever the outlier, I owned (and loved) an '88 Cimarron and an Aston Martin Lagonda is to my eye, stunning and had been on my "bucket list" since the mid-eighties. There's a guy up the road from me with one and I never fail to slow down and gawk at it when he has it outside.

[CarlLaFong]

I always thought the Aston Martin Lagonda was kind of cool looking.

Eye of the beholder as they say. :cool:

Perhaps my memory has flagged over the years, but when I was at Hollywood Sport Cars, we had one of, if not the first, AM Lagondas in the US. I recall that it was titled as a Lagonda, not a Aston Martin Lagonda. It was a RHD car that was displayed at The L.A Auto Show, so maybe it was a one off Lagonda. I don't think we ever sold one. Sorta like the Cadillac LaSalles we all hear about

[john2dameron]

If the Aztec could boast of 100 of the finest points of automobile reliability, it's styling, oops I mean it's lack of styling, would still make it one of the most undersireable cars ever built. I am convinced that Americans are the victims of a study to see how ugly a car we will buy. Other cars that did not deserve to see light of day were the Vega, Pacer (who wants to ride in an eggshell on four wheels, Honda Element, Toyota Scion X-Box, and the Smartcar. Surely people spending $20,000 or more on an automobile deserve something better looking than any of these.

[Guest mystarcollectorcar.com]

Sheesh! Another, "Aren't these awful, ain't I clever" piece scribed by someone who wouldn't the difference between a Citation and a Citation*. The Renault Dauphine, AMC Gremlin, Ford Mustang II (all amazing sales-winners) and the people who built them need to make apologies to no one.

I don't know who the contributor, Keith Barry is, but this quote on the astonishing Porsche Panamera is more than telling..."With four doors and room for four suitcases in the trunk (a trunk! In the rear!) the Panamera has already been ruthlessly mocked by 13-year-old boys and 911-owners alike. If, over time, it proves to dilute the overall brand for the sake of immediate sales, it will be enshrined as a true automotive atrocity."

First, I stop paying attention when brand is used in place of marque. Second, many grown ups may like the idea of a Porsche with a back seat and trunk, even some loyal 911 owners. Third, who listens to precocious 13-year-olds (other than their parents, who are obliged to do so)?

Methinks Mr. Barry doth protest too much (or listens to too many 8th-graders).

TG

*Edsel, 1958; Chevy, 1980

just another example of car sites that mock the past with little or no regard to perspective.It just makes these guys feel so smug to analyze decades old cars from a nice, comfortable 2010 perspective...Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

[Dave@Moon]

just another example of car sites that mock the past with little or no regard to perspective.It just makes these guys feel so smug to analyze decades old cars from a nice, comfortable 2010 perspective...Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

The Panamera he's talking about in this case is a brand new, just introduced 2010 model.

[TG57Roadmaster]

When it's my turn to create an "Ain't I Clever List," at the top of those facing my unholy

wrath will be the X-Box and Element. It'll go something like this...

"We have breadboxes in America, we just don't drive them."

Too-shay!

TG

[Guest mystarcollectorcar.com]

The Panamera he's talking about in this case is a brand new, just introduced 2010 model.

Most of them were retrospectives on the long ago- not 2010 models.

[Guest Skyking]

I'm sure the Nash Metropolitan would have been on that dreaded list if the writer Keith Barry had ever seen one..........:eek:

[Dave@Moon]

When it's my turn to create an "Ain't I Clever List," at the top of those facing my unholy

wrath will be the X-Box and Element. It'll go something like this...

"We have breadboxes in America, we just don't drive them."

Too-shay!

TG

My college roomate after college had a new silver 1981 Pontiac T1000 (Chevette). We called it "the toaster", and planned to paint 2 black rectangles on the roof to complete the image. Instead it was painted Caterpillar Yellow because people kept pulling out in front of it.

A "breadbox" would have gone well with "the toaster"!

[Rusty_OToole]

In the "epic fail" category should go the 1949 Austin Atlantic, a 4 cylinder car the size of a Rambler, selling at Buick prices.

Take a look and reflect that the top management of Britain's biggest car company thought this was just the thing to entice American buyers.

What could go wrong?

Austin Atlantic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LINC400]

If the Aztec could boast of 100 of the finest points of automobile reliability, it's styling, oops I mean it's lack of styling, would still make it one of the most undersireable cars ever built. I am convinced that Americans are the victims of a study to see how ugly a car we will buy. Other cars that did not deserve to see light of day were the Vega, Pacer (who wants to ride in an eggshell on four wheels, Honda Element, Toyota Scion X-Box, and the Smartcar. Surely people spending $20,000 or more on an automobile deserve something better looking than any of these.

Personally, I think attacking the Aztec is about the same as everyone listing Edsels on these lists. The Prius or Matrix, Honda Fit or Insight, or any number of imports have similar styling to it, except they are smaller. But they are never mentioned. In fact everyone thinks they are wonderful.

[CarlLaFong]

Personally, I think attacking the Aztec is about the same as everyone listing Edsels on these lists. The Prius or Matrix, Honda Fit or Insight, or any number of imports have similar styling to it, except they are smaller. But they are never mentioned. In fact everyone thinks they are wonderful.

I believe Stevie Wonder would tell you that the cars you listed, especially the Prius, share absolutely no styling cues with the Aztek. None have all the goofy angles, the oddly lopped off hatch or the overall ugliness of the Pontiac. Why do people flock to buy the other cars, yet the Aztek was soundly rejected by the buying public.

We happen to own a Scion XBox. I never see it as beautiful, much like I saw my old Basset Hound. We bought it because it fit into our budget at the time, it can haul the 2 of us around plus a surprising amount of stuff, it gets super mileage and, in spite of Toyota's recent problems, has been as reliable as an anvil.

I, at "only" 62 years old, have long since stopped caring one scintilla about what others think of what I drive or ride.I drive a silly looking car and I ride the most absurd and unnecessary motorcycle on the planet and I don't care what others think or say about it. I NEED 385 HP on two wheels:eek:

[jdome]

Actually the Prius and Aztek share several styling ques. I walked behind the two parked side by side in a parking lot a couple weeks ago and the rear windows caught my eye. They both have the same large, 2-piece rear window hatchback, separated by the deck line and vertical pane. From the side view; the roof lines are almost identical. And they both have the similar pointed beak noses, although the Azteck is more aggressive looking. Put 16 inch tires on a Prius and jack it up a couple more inches and even Stevie Wonder would do a double take trying to figure out which is which.

The Azteck would not be on my list of ugly cars because its not a car its a SUV. Some people think its ugly because it doesn't have the quote SUV look of a square utility box with a truck like nose. It is not my SUV of choice but they must appeal to some buyers because I see a lot of them on the road.

[Dave@Moon]

The Azteck would not be on my list of ugly cars because its not a car its a SUV.

The Aztek is not an SUV strictly speaking. It was the one of the first (and crudest) crossover vehicles. Like the Buick Rendezvous, under the skin it's really a minivan dressed-up to look like an SUV. It has effectively no off-road or truck-like qualities.

[TG57Roadmaster]

Spied this on the way to the airport this morning...

Gotta love a good sense of humor!

TG

[CarlLaFong]

Actually the Prius and Aztek share several styling ques. I walked behind the two parked side by side in a parking lot a couple weeks ago and the rear windows caught my eye. They both have the same large, 2-piece rear window hatchback, separated by the deck line and vertical pane. From the side view; the roof lines are almost identical. And they both have the similar pointed beak noses, although the Azteck is more aggressive looking. Put 16 inch tires on a Prius and jack it up a couple more inches and even Stevie Wonder would do a double take trying to figure out which is which.

Oh my God!!!

The Prius looks like an Aztek?!?!?!? What color is the sky on your planet? A split rear window does not an Aztek make. The Prius is a rather attractive, typical fastback automobile while the Aztek was designed either by a commitee or a chimp after a two week LSD binge. It has been roundly dismissed as one of the ugliest cars in automotive history, surmounting several Citroens and most Renaults. I'd like to go on a double date with you. You can have the fat one.

[Guest Skyking]

Oh my God!!!

The Prius is a rather attractive, typical fastback automobile

Attractive, are you really serious?:eek:

[CarlLaFong]

Attractive, are you really serious?:eek:

You will note that I prefaced attractive with the modifier, "rather". Perhaps I should have said typical instead of attractive. When I see a Prius, it doesn't jump out at me or stand out, like so many other abominations such as the Avalanche, a rolling Tupperware party or the, unfortunate, ass ends of many of the GM cars from a few years back. When compared to an Aztek, a Prius is comparable to an 810/812 Cord or a coach built European Classic.

What many fail to realize is that most of these, so called, ugly cars are purchased by people that couldn't care less about style, preferring utilitarianism, value, reliability and fuel mileage over, what is to them, fluff and useless bling. I remember my neighbor when I was a kid. Every couple of years he would buy a brand new Ford. My Dad always said, "Looks like Howard bought another Telephone Company car." It was always a white, bottom of the line 4 door sedan. Absolutely no options other than a heater. It was always a thing of beauty to him and he never had a problem with any of them, as far as I know. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I try to get what I want when I buy a toy car, but my every day driver just has to do what I want it to do, that's all.

[Rusty_OToole]

We had a neighbor like that but he bought a new Ford roughly every ten years, always the cheapest 2 door sedan always black because it is easy to match in case of a repair. He had a 50 Ford, a 61 Falcon and a 68 Falcon. Then he died.

He couldn't care less about cars but loved fishing. If the car took him to work and to his favorite fishing spots, that's all he needed.

I remember when I was about 7, sitting in his back yard watching him sort out his fishing lures and put them away carefully in a shiny new tackle box. His wife came out and asked how much the tackle box cost and when he told her, said "you would think you were rich!".

He looked her in the eye and said " I am rich" and went back to sorting his tackle. She shook her head and went back in the house.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)