By Robert Emslie
Gather around kids, gather ’round. I’m going to let you in on a little secret: those classic cars many of us fawn over – the ’65 Mustangs, Ferrari Dinos, heck, even the Lamborghini Countach – weren’t very good cars. I say that, not from the perspective of each vehicle’s era, but from the safe and comforting Barcalounger of hindsight. You see, pretty much any car today would out perform most of those old farts, and even the Countach would get embarrassed by a lowly Mustang GT, such has automotive technology and build quality advanced.
It’s a plain fact that today there simply aren’t all that many truly bad cars anymore. Oh sure, the Chrysler 200 is a bit of a turd, but by almost every standard, it remains lightyears ahead of its class from pretty much any previous era. And look at the aforementioned Mustang. That classic ’65 Mustang, which represented the model’s first full year and introduced the iconic 289, well even with the optional front disc brakes, that car took an alarming 180 feet to stop from 60. A modern Mustang, fitted with advanced-compound radial tires and ABS? According to Edmunds.com its clampers will bring you to a halt in a mere 112 feet. The base engine in that ’65 Stang was a 200-CID straight six that pumped out a demure 120-bhp. Today’s rental fleet Mustang sports a V6 good for 305 horses. Do you get the picture?
The thing of it is, with so many really good and a few truly great cars out there the question remains, which is the least great, and by that I mean the worst car or truck you can presently buy new. There’s this old joke that’s also kind terrifying when you realize its truth. It goes: what do you call the guy who finished last in medical school? You call him doctor. With that in mind, take a moment to consider your new car choices and let me know, in whatever market you happen to live, what is the worst vehicle currently sold?
Image: Diseno-Art
Jeff Glucker
Let's just say the Jeep Compass starts from 27 392 €. Chryslers or Dodges aren't currently sold here new. That said, I haven't driven the Compass, and as such my comment is a touch populistic.
I've been thinking lately that we should have a "Hooniverse Asks- What’s the Ugliest Car or Truck Sold in Your Country Today?" thread. The Compass would definitely be on my list, behind this:
<img src="http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.2238559.1282839382!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.jpg">
The Q56 also belongs on the worst list.
It looks like a fat woman in yoga pants.
It's funny, because the Armada really isn't a bad looking truck at all. It's amazing what adding a few lumps will do to a design.
You know the current Q56 is based on the Nissan Patrol, not the F-Alpha platform that the Armada and Titan are on, right?
<img src="http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/0/341FBECE7936826ACA2577CF00163CBF/$file/Nissan_Patrol_large.jpg?OpenElement" width=600>
I guess I stopped paying attention, makes sense that it switched though as the Armada seems to be withering. Even the past generation was a fair bit uglier to pay extra for that badge.
I always thought it looked more like it was a badly iced cake. All the icing is sort of melting and falling off.
Okay, then it's a badly iced fat woman.
<img src="http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/thefw.com/files/2012/05/48-Sour-Cream-and-Other-Delights-The-Frivolous-Five.jpg">
They're even arranged in the rough shape of the JX, it's uncanny.
Thanks for giving me nightmares.
Bulletproof Bully.
If they call that color anything besides eggplant, they're lying. Just paste a green bow on the grille and call it done.
I also haven't driven one, because I sat in the driver's seat, and it was such an unpleasant place to be that I did not want to actually go on a test drive.
I drove a Compass for a week in Hawaii. Its only redeeming value was that it was in Hawaii. It's like the HHR rental I drove, only newer.
Ahh, the HHR.
<img src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4102/4862195789_bc85c93659_b.jpg" width="600/">
Each piece made a different noise, too.
You'd think those thousand-and-seven words would be enough, but no… it also needs to be mentioned that the seats were covered with tarpaulin and the lump in the roof – for the side airbag? – kept my six-foot self from comfortably wearing a hat.
I never drove it. I never had any desire to.
But if you drove it you'd be able to mention that the steering wheel seems to be connected to the actual wheels with a wet noodle.
I've heard from several sources not to buy a Nissan Versa. It's bottom of the barrel in many departments, and is only designed to be a low price leader.
<img src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130205044018-2013-nissan-versa-cheapest-cars-gallery-large-gallery-horizontal.jpg" width=650>
I drove a rental. It was exactly what you expect out of the cheapest rental available. It drove, got me from point A to point B, and that's about it. I had no complaints about it as a super cheap rental. There is no way I would buy one.
Which sorts pisses me off. It's not impossible to make a cheap car a good car. Nissan blew it badly with the Versa.
When I was looking at new cars last year to replace my wife's car. The Venza was the cheapest new car by a large margin. Also it might just be the ugliest in the 5 door style. I'm pretty sure I could apply a lot of "-est" to it.
Venza != Versa.
Yeah, my bad. I mean Versa. I think the Venza is pretty. It is also not very cheap at all.
The Venza's amazingly huge when you get close to it. Almost Ford Edge huge, but lower.
The Edge and Flex are deceptive from a distance.
I'm a long-time fan of the Geo Metro, which occupied the same cheapest-car niche twenty years ago. With a standard transmission, it didn't suck, and honestly, when the top end of a car's capabilities are relatively low, you can spend a lot more time driving on the edge of them. Given an open mind, the Metro was a lot of fun in the slow-car-fast school of thought.
My one five-mile drive in a standard 5-door Versa was not fun at all. Wallowy, sluggish, too tall and too squishy. I'd been excited to give it a try, but wow, it was disappointing.
I think the most fun I had driving was in my buddy's Chevette aka The Shitvette. It was a crapbox of epic proportions but you could wring it out on a trip to the store and most of the time you had to.
Squishy is possibly the most accurate description of the 5-door Versa you can get. It just defines the car, whether it's the good parts (I love the squishy armrests, dammit) or the bad (the squishy suspension, not so much).
I also had a Versa rental for a few days. It was stripped of any appreciable modern features including central locking and was as gutless as you would expect.
BUT
It was so light and simple that it was actually somewhat enjoyable to thrash about. If it had had a clutch pedal, I almost could have loved it for what it was. And that's the thing- it's not trying to be anything more than a cheap econobox. In that light, it has certainly accomplished its mission.
I don't know about the current car, but the previous generation did have the advantage of having a lot of rear seat room — more than some substantially larger vehicles.
I was looking to buy one for that very reason. I drove them and the interior was roomy. I can only drive about 14-19 mph in my bumper-to-bumper traffic, You sit high enough so you can see more than just the door handles of everything else. It had just the right amount of ugly so I would never care about it and was cheap enough (and small enough) to toss into a dumpster when I was done with it.
All I wanted was an automatic, a/c, AM/FM radio; the only other thing was bluetooth as I take a lot of calls while commuting. Didn't have it but all was not lost, until I saw the automatic was a CVT.
Still was considering it and was about to take it, but the salesman insisted on showing me Sentras and other cars. Then it hit me, this was the car to get people into the showroom with the low price. – PASS.
(Although if it had a different automatic, I was going to buy it, tint the windows, sand off the clear coat to a nice matte finish, mount brush guards front and rear and commute with absolute disregard for whatever was around me.)
Sure, it gets better than average fuel economy, but it requires premium fuel to do it (in the USA):
<img src="http://www.roadfly.com/new-cars/wp-content/uploads/gallery/smart-fortwo/fortwo.jpg" width="600">
If we had the diesel model available here, it would be a different story…
And for almost the same or less money you can get something the size of a real car with 4 seats and luggage space that gets the same or better gas mileage. I could sort of see a Smart if you lived in the city, but I see a lot of them on the road in the suburban/rural area where I live.
On that note, I had never seen a Scion IQ in the flesh until I went to NYC earlier this year, and saw several there. Makes sense, but as you said, it doesn't explain why I see plenty of Smarts everywhere else.
I have even seen a couple of IQs in my area. Is Aston Martin selling their version of the IQ here? I live in the type of area that could have one. (I live on the poor side of the tracks in a VERY rich area, so I'm just average.)
I drive past a Scion dealer regularly, and they've had the same iQ out front for months. I think I've seen one on the road.
I keep seeing one in my area.
I've never seen one, and it's not as though I don't go to Boston sometimes.
Saw an Aston Martin in Santa Monica last summer.
The suspension in these is brutal in the city, plus you cant really get a front wheel up on a curb for a u-turn either cause the thing sits too low. Gas mileage is meh. Practicality is awful, and you're still "that guy" with a Smart. And by now this thing is ancient.
I once saw one of these doing 75mph on I-95, flying over bridge expansion joints and potholes while being visibly buffeted by crosswinds, the sight alone made me queasy and I moved over a lane cause I was sure it would catch something in the road and tumble.
If one needs something this small, get a used Fiat 500. It's an actual car.
It's certainly among the worst, if not the worst, that's for sure.
Awful ride, extremely numb yet underboosted power steering, that awful transmission that likes to run the (not very torquey) engine at 1500 RPM and takes a good half a second to shift at least, mediocre fuel economy for a vehicle of its capability, Mercedes repair costs…
That's what I came here to mention. Unimpressive handling, sucky transmission, poor value for money, trouble-prone, not nearly as practical as people make it out to be.
If we got the diesel, it would be a different story altogether. But the fact is, it is built and sold as an economy car. And for all the stuff you give up for that economy (like more seats, or a trunk, or your dignity), it gets crap fuel economy. It is utterly pointless with the engine offered here, I don't know why people buy them.
I just wonder how far the resale value will eventually plummet. I could see a point in less than 5 years where people are cross shopping these with used Suzukis and Mitsubishis. Are the upkeep costs the same as every other M-B product? If so Pull-a-part will be full of these things in another 5 years or so.
My dad owned one, and ran into Mercedes maintenance costs left and right. And the typical German car issues.
Plus, because so many parts were weird and only used by Smarts (which aren't common) or Mitsubishi kei cars (engine parts, including things like spark plugs), you can't even get cheap substitutes.
Let's use spark plugs as an example… copper electrode, replace every 40k mi IIRC, and the dealer wants $40/ea, I found some for $16/ea back when he needed plugs. IIRC, they were ordinary NGK copper electrode plugs, too – as in, IIRC, they were the same series of plug that was $3/ea for my Miata.
Tires are quite expensive for what you get, again due to the economies of scale, although I think tire prices have gotten better here as more Smarts are on the roads.
$40 a spark plug?! That's ridiculous. Even the platinum/iridium/plutonium/whatever new metal they're using in new cars only cost $6-$7 a piece.
I think the smart mostly suffers from being misunderstood. It's a city car, full-stop. It's the four-wheeled equivalent of a Vespa. It fits in spots nothing else will (believe me, that's a merit), it has plenty of room for two people and a week's groceries, it's geared to be quick enough off the line, it doesn't feel bargain-basement cheap, and it does have character. Oh, and the city fuel economy (the number that matters here) is better than the competition, even accounting for the premium fuel penalty. People just get hung up on its less stellar highway economy (go figure that something too small to have meaningful aerodynamics is affected by drag) Is it flawed? Absolutely. But it's genuinely good at what it does, even if that's not the most relevant in North America, and it'd be a loss to see it disappear from our market.
<img src="http://images.gtcarlot.com/pictures/73933355.jpg" width=550>
If Lincoln still made its LT, that would be runner up.
Have you driven one?
I can't say I have had the pleasure. That said, I haven't driving an NSX, Raptor or CTS-V, either.
Give it a shot before you label it the worst vehicle sold in the US. While I can't personally afford to beat on a $60,000 truck, I can think of worse ways to spend it. An Avalanche 2500 is even on my short list. Considering it is a genuine BOF truck, I think there is one that should be a little bit ahead of it on the worst truck sold in the country. I just spec'd one of these to almost 50k.
<img src="http://www.powersportstv.com/editorial/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2013-Honda-Ridgeline-front-three-quarters.jpg" width=500>
Now that is impressive.
D'awwww, I likes the Ridgeline. If you think of it as a light-duty AWD utility vehicle with a cargo area for messy stuff, it works better than "truck." Being FWD bias and sharing various bits with the Pilot, MDX, and probably Odyssey, it drives nothing like a truck. More like a large, almost alarmingly nimble car.
Of course, I've spent thousands of miles behind the wheel of the 2007 RTL that belongs to my parents, doing everything from hauling a max load of concrete bags in the bed to towing a camping trailer and 20' I/O Bayliner, so perhaps I'm biased in its favor.
75k so far, and accumulating slowly because my dad is now retired. In true Honda form, it hasn't missed a single beat and drives exactly like the day it came off the lot new. I'd be surprised if it isn't the last trucklike vehicle my dad ever owns, because it does all he needs to and seems built to last.
Woo, a Halfalanche!
I will disagree with the Mark LT, because it really was just a slightly rebodied F150 with a nicer interior. It still retained its usefullness as a truck, and as it was essentially still a high spec F150, that makes it a pretty damn good truck. it was definitely overpriced, but that hardly makes it a bad vehicle.
I think its the same issue with the EXT. The packaging is a bit odd, but not a lot worse than other crew cabs with short beds. Still a better than half ton GMT900. If I had the money, I'd beat the hell out of one.
Hell yeah, so would I… if I needed a truck and was under the influence when I signed the paperwork and handed over the cash, I'd unquestionably go for it.
Of course, then I'd have to have a sober friend, who would inexplicably not have talked me out of it, drive me home. There's a flaw in this plan.
I think if I ever owned one, I'd have to hide it in a garage, and maybe wear a mask or something when I was out driving it, because I'd feel really self-concious to be associated with it, but really, anything GMT900 is a pretty nice truck.
Taurus SHO, Chrysler LX twins, Chevy SS.
Good looking, great cars. No manual transmission.
The Taurus SHO may not live up to the name, but there's nothing inherently bad about the car if you take it for what it is.
It is soooo close. They are all so close.
I figure next year I'll be looking for a sedan and if the SHO had that 6 speed, I'd be eating ramen noodles to save up. Not many options for a manual sedan that is a little sporting.
I do see that for 2014 GM has FINALLY killed the old 4.3L V-6. The base Silverado now comes with a aluminum block 4.3L V-6 that has direct injection, variable valve timing, and active fuel management. I guess this one is based on LS-X architecture instead of original old school Chevy Small Block. An engine that had root dating to either 1955 (v-8) or 1985 (V-6) is finally gone. It MIGHT be sticking around in vans for another year or two though.
This was long overdue.
The 4.3 put me off V6s in full-size trucks forever.
Other than a 0-20mph time that rates "might get you killed if you try to pull out in front of someone" I've been fairly happy with the 4.3 in my 2011 Silverado. I do regret not trying to find a 4.8L V-8 example, but I was looking for long term reliability and I think the 4.3L with Iron block and iron heads along with 26+ years of refinement will help.
Can someone explain to me why the 4.3L gets worse mileage than the 5.7L V8? I had two trucks – a Sonoma and a 1500 with the 4.3L pig and they both got 17-18 around town. They were both great runners, but thirsty.
In current form the 4.3L comes only with a 4-speed automatic. The 4.8L LS based V-8 gets a 4-speed auto too, BUT it has cylinder deactivation. The 5.3L and 6.0L V-8s get a 6-speed automatic and have cylinder deactivation. That's why the all have about the same EPA rating. 18MPG out of a full size truck around town is pretty good I WISH I got 18mpg around town, mine is more like 15-16mpg around town. I have a 2WD extended cab.
Because in order to keep up with traffic in a full-size truck with the 4.3 V-6, you are CONSTANTLY forced to cane it.
Gas pedal to the floor negates the fuel economy advantage of a V-6.
My dad had a '94 Silverado reg. cab/short bed with the 5-speed and the 4.3 V-6. Absolute pig.
Gotta convert the same amount of chemical energy to kinetic energy to do the same driving in the same truck.
It's just a question of which does it while making less noise and heat, which, not surprisingly, would probably be the most recently designed engine.
i know im gonna a lot of sh*t for this,, but for me it has been any toyota product, cars or trucks. now im speaking from 2000 down, anything newer i would not know, since i have not bought anything newer than a 2k. even the indestructable 22r/e, had a 4runner that would eat them for breakfast lunch and dinner.. went thru 4 engines in 3 months. 1st one i rebuilt died a week later, sure i said i did something wronge, had been 5 yrs since i built an engine.. last 2 went to a well repested engine builder, and $900 later ate that engine in 2 days. took it back and he replaced them 3 times.. on the 4th engine, i sold it before it died again.
you're supposed to put oil in them, dude
I like the angle you took to get to this question.
It's getting harder and harder for me to get fired up about a run of the mill classic. Maybe I'm just jaded or too logical, but it really has to be special for me to get excited. I'd rather have a used S4 than almost any muscle car. An old 911, a DS, or early M cars still make my pants tight but many of the cars I longed for just 10 years ago I couldn't give a damn about now.
New cars are just that good.
Sometime in the next 2 weeks there'll be a post you'll like…
There's still a "new" Aveo sitting on a lot where my parents live, does that count?
Pffff, hahahaha…. heeeee…..
Your parents live on a lot?
The tallest and largest man at my last job used to drive one of these… It was comical to see.
Did you find something comical about his appearance when he was driving his automobile? Everyone needs to drive a vehicle, even the very tall. It was probably the largest auto he could afford.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but if I truly believed that to be the case then I wouldn't have poked fun about it. Considering his position with the company and his vacations to Hawaii and Paris with his family, I think it's safe to say he could have gotten something a tad bigger. I never did ask him why he chose the car. I always assumed he just never cared about cars and got something cheap and cheap on gas.
Hee hee. I'm not the least bit offended. My reference comes from an old Simpsons episode.
I'm going to be ungalant and go with a car I've never driven – the Mitsubishi Galant. Really, Mitsu ought to just pack it in.
I am shocked that it took 26 minutes to get to Mitsubishi. The whole of their lineup (minus Evo, for sentimental reasons) are the worst cars sold in America. The Outlander, yeesh.
I've had 4 Galants as rental cars. Fit, finish second to EVERYTHING ELSE. One in particular had less than 500 miles on it, and stuff kept falling off inside while just driving down the road. The only car I've rented that was worse was a Cavalier.
I'm not sure about everything else. My wife and I rented one of those last-gasp, fleet-only 2011 Crown Vics. Ours only had about 400 miles on it. In the four days we had it, the remote trunk release never worked, the glove box door wouldn't stay shut, and the passenger door kick panel kept popping loose.
I like to play 'Count the Loose Trim Pieces' every time I ride in my friend's 2005ish Grand Marquis. He's never as amused as I am.
I drove a brand new one once, it would have been MTCOTY '90. It actually made me sad, cause I had fond memories of a first gen model.
I appreciated the original Diamante for all of its electronic features, even if the exterior design was a ripoff of the BMW 5-series. I remember thinking that Mitsubishi had a bright automotive future if they could improve from where they started and find their own design language. Instead, they chose to continue down the path of electronic gimmickry at a dog kibble price point. Contrast that with the absolutely brilliant evolution that Hyundai/Kia have undertaken.
I'm still going to go with the Smart ForTwo, although the Scion IQ makes a strong case as well. And the problem with both is their raison d'etre, that of a tiny city car, is almost completely unneeded here in America. Both are comically underpowered. This wouldn't be so bad if you could get them with a manual to make full use of what power is there, but both are saddled with the worst transmissions imaginable. The CVT in the IQ is bad enough. But the automated manu-matic in the Smart is the unholy spawn of Satan, unleashed upon this earth to sow misery and despair. And then we get to the economy. Both get very poor economy for their size and lack of power. You drive something this impossibly tiny and slow, you at least expect good economy. But both are handily outclassed in mileage by cars 2 classes bigger. The icing on the cake is the Smart requiring premium fuel for all that lack of performance! Unless you live in the most dense of urban centers and need to park in tiny spaces, these cars have zero point.
To this point, any car with CVT.
Those transmissions may come around. Seeing 8 and 9 speed autos coming, I don't see CVT as anything but the slushboxes of slushboxes.
I… I like my CVTs.
<img src="http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1393/4733417200_c246d1d1e2.jpg" width="400">
CVTs have their place… on scooters. Also, I'm sure they'll continue to be a cheaper option for <1.5L NA engines than the multigear automatics
And though I haven't driven one yet, everything I've read about Honda's new CVT, as found in 4-banger Accords, is an excellent autobox. Typical Honda. Late to the game (see: V6 availability in the Accord), but done well by the time they come to it.
It's just a shame that they seem to have designed the ideal CVT just as every other manufacturer has said "let's do a fuckton of gears instead." I'll be curious how it plays out for them, both in longevity, which has been an issue with new transmission designs in the past (see 1998-2002 accord and early full-size Odyssey) and customer acceptance.
I used to have a Nissan Murano with a CVT and I just don't understand the CVT hate.
I'll admit it was unusual and a little hard to get used to and, yes, flooring it and hearing a lot of sturm und drang without spinning tires was weird.
On the other hand, throwing it into its virtual "second gear" on long downhill stretches of I-70 was a lot more effective and dynamic at slowing it down than doing the same on my 5 speed auto equipped Pathfinder. Oh, and while I was driving a CUV with a 240HP V6 and a 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds, I also was getting, on average, 24 mpg, which is just a hair less than I'm getting in the manual Mini Cooper S I bought to replace it.
Honestly, I don't find a good CVT any worse than an auto. All the Nissans I've never really been bothered by the CVT, it felt like any other auto.
A bad CVT, on the other hand, say in a Dodge Caliber, that's the worst transmission ever devised.
So, by that logic, as an urban dweller who frequently has to park in tiny spaces (because some of the people I share the street with can't park for shit), can I nominate a megacab dually pickup?
Yes, especially when owners of those megapickups try to park in a compact spot.
I'd nominate Jeep Compass and Nissan CrossCabriolet. I drove the Compass and it was atrocious. I've never the driven the Nissan but I think the idea of a big honkin' pseudo luxury 4wd convertible is just plain silly. I think I've seen 1 so far outside of a dealership.
The CrossCabriolet is stupid, but, for what it is, it's actually not bad. The build quality is good, it's got a nice interior, sufficient power and all that. In fact, from the inside, it seems like a good idea. Like a minivan, it's all good until you get out.
Never have driven any but for sure does not show quality is the Effa M100
<img src="http://carplace.virgula.uol.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/effa-m100.jpg" width="600">
Limiting this to cars I have actually driven, it is with great surprise that I nominate the following:
<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RIpCpsZA1Xs/T5eaX0PUtRI/AAAAAAAAAgs/Fn9mxRWlcJ4/s1600/Toyota+Corolla+2012+%283%29.png">
Now, keep in mind that I haven't driven a lot of stuff that looks just awful (Nissan Versa sedan, Chevrolet Spark, upcoming Mitsubishi Mirage, Jeep ComPatriot, though I did drive the Caliber which was my former worst car on the market). I nominate the Corolla because, while it's probably functional, its kind of ugly, its engine sounds like a distressed cow, the interior is full of cheap and kind of awful materials and worst of all, it's numb and bland to drive. I rented one for three days, couldn't wait to give it back. Weirdly, the Matrix is based on many of the same parts but doesn't have the same problems.
The Corolla is automotive sweatpants. It's functional and low effort, but is the least appealing of all available options.
Automotive sweatpants – I like it…
My beef with the Corolla isn't the car itself but the drivers. Invariably hustling over to the left lane to maintain a constant 5 mph under the limit.
In my town there is a mini roundabout, it is between my old apartment and my office. Frequently, you would encounter people who would stop in the middle of the roundabout, even though that's not how such things work and if they did so they were liable to cause an accident. Eventually certain cars had my hand hovering over the horn button to remind them not to stop and cause accidents, because they always would. Corollas were definitely on that list.
There is a roundabout in St. Louis with a stop sign in the roundabout. Completely defeats the purpose.
Also pre-thumbs-upped by ID, this scary good fuzzy logic…
It's like the old (well, older) Corolla, but melted, and with hubcaps that are even more obviously hubcaps.
Come on, guys, it's obviously the Coda Electric.
You can still buy a new one, right?
[youtube bq1f3Hr03fQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq1f3Hr03fQ youtube]
I just rented a Mitsubishi Lancer ES. Not very impressive; lowish-power (surprised it was 148 because it felt like less), weird CVT, cheap-feeling interior. And it only got 29 mpg in mostly highway driving. Just a bit of a turd.
[IMG ]http://3-photos4.zibe.com/new-2013-mitsubishi-lancer-es-6087-9236646-3-400.jpg[/IMG]
Courtesy Embed. (Your BBCode is no good here, pardnah).
<img src="http://3-photos4.zibe.com/new-2013-mitsubishi-lancer-es-6087-9236646-3-400.jpg">
Oops.
<img src="http//3-photos4.zibe.com/new-2013-mitsubishi-lancer-es-6087-9236646-3-400.jpg">
<img src="http://www.dieselstation.com/pics/2010-BMW-X6-M-car-picture.jpg">
BMW X6M.
Not because it's a 2-1/2 ton, 5-1/2 foot tall car with the back seat room of a compact coupe. Not because it's a $93K, 555 horsepower, AWD SUV that's lucky to get 17 MPG if you baby the throttle.
But rather because I hate the way it tempts me, then seduces me, then mocks me, then laughs at my dreams of ever driving it.
I'm with you there. The X6 is oft derided and the X6M hated for what it did to the M badge. But think of it as a massive and ridiculously powerful Eagle SX/4 and it MUST be awesome.
2013 Chrysler 200
Yes, it's better than the Sebring, but so was every other car sold in the US.
<img src="http://static.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/images/Auto/izmo/353111/2013_chrysler_200_angularfront.jpg" width=600>
Wouldn't we have to rate the updated-not-so-much Dodge Avenger even lower?
Damn! Forgot they hadn't euthanized that one.
If this is the worst new car in the USA, then the saying "there are no bad cars anymore" has finally come true.
I honestly would put this car, or the Avenger on my shopping list if I needed a brand-new midsize sedan. (This is a class of car that I need an example of like I need a hole in my head, but hey it could happen.) They're a heck of a deal and then I get employee pricing too (working at the place that makes both the red & the blue tractors helps.) Resale isn't great, but I still own every car I've ever owned so it's not a big deal to me.
To be fair, the 200/Avenger's turd has been polished beyond what most people thought possible. The interior is now actually a pleasant place to be and the overall suckatude has been dialed way down from its original 11. The Pentastar V6 & sport suspension in the Avenger R/T moves the car from bad joke to borderline competitive.
Wait…Case New Holland builds the 200/Avenger? This explains everything!
I can see it now… “The new Sebring convertible… 23% less agricultural!”
I think this is worse. It's the same car, but because of the Lancia (LANCIA!) badge it's far worse as your expectations are much higher.
<img src="http://www.dieselstation.com/wallpapers/albums/Lancia/Flavia-2013/Lancia-Flavia-2013-widescreen-33.jpg" width="600">
Yeah, Mitsu Outlander. Rented one and hated it so much I drove foot to the floor to Calgary hoping it would blow up. It didn't, I guess it's not so bad after all?
I'm just going to put this out there – is there any reason whatsoever to buy a Nissan Titan?
Probably one of these:
<img src="http://www.cherymotors.com.au/images/chery/banners/Homepage-Banner-offer-2013.png">
I mean, when the lead image on the manufacturer's website is badly photoshopped, how good can the cars be?
Considering the stories I've heard from owners of these, I'd concur. One of my friends has had a J11 as a company car for about 8 or 9 months now – he listed problems with engine mounts, transmission failure, trim pieces falling off among other issues when we were talking about it around a month or so ago. Another acquaintance has had one for about the same length of time which has spent more time in the dealer's workshop than on the road.
I think the way the (oversized) image displays on my monitor is very telling: the headline is reduced to "Why would you pick anything".
Why indeed?
I've heard terrible things about Renault Koleos, but I have never driven it to prove it. Open Antara was epicly shitty, with it's Suburban-fighting mileage (with a 2.2 diesel or something like that) and Cruze fighting space. Toyota Urban Cruiser (some kind of Scion Stateside) was shockingly bad, especially considering the price. BMW X1 is terrible thing by itself, made only worse by price and the fact that BMW used to make nice cars. Chevrolet Spark made me want to pull over and set it on fire – probably the worst small car on European market. I made a dent in it just by leaning to it, it wasn't able to keep 75mph in a slight hill, it's unbelievably ugly and it does nothing well.
But I think that the Lancia Ypsilon wins. It's a Fiat Panda that was made much worse – smaller inside, uglier interior – and much more expensive. The thing looks fairly okay from inside, fucking ugly from the inside, the "quality" of the worksmanship and materials is unbelievable in the bad way, it had a two-cylinder TwinAir engine, which is interesting in theory, but made it gulp gas like a V6 whenever I wasn't driving like granny, and I think it even had some kind of stupid robotized gearbox. The few things that piece of junk does well were nulified by the existence of Fiat Panda (which costs about half as much) and existence of stuff like VW Golf (which costs the same).
Honorable mention for the Mitsubishi i-MiEV, Citroen C-Zero and Peugeot iON siblings. Besides being a truly shitty "cars" (they are more like golf-cart, really), cramped, slow, ugly and uncomfortable, they have average range of 70 miles, if you drive 40mph (made my 60 miles long trip about twice as long, as I couldn't use highways), they are expensive as hell and they are not even cheap to run – buying a CNG-powered family sedan costs about the same, both up front and in running costs.