50 worst cars

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:31 am

found this while looking at Time on line. Some very inventive thinking, some of it sucked, but very inventive. You decide....

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/ ... 86,00.html

Michael Westerfield · **Posted:** Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:44 am

I'm glad someone called the prowler out for the POS it is.

Les Davis · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:04 pm **Posts:** 2059

Quote:

Interestingly, in a car where "carpet" was listed as a standard feature, the Yugo had a rear-window defroster — reportedly to keep your hands warm while you pushed it.

That made me LOL.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:11 pm

I read them all and the writer had some really funny lines. With very few minor exceptions, I agree with the list. I never knew of the 1980 Corvette 305 California... how awful

- AB

Dustin Fredrickson · **Posted:** Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:02 pm

Aaron Buckley wrote:

...I never knew of the 1980 Corvette 305 California... how awful

- AB

Castrated car, yes. But next to nothing is sexier. mmmmmmmm

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:03 pm

The Maserati BiTurbo was dead on. My uncle had a new '85. Thankfully it wasn't his only car, for it left him stranded numerous times. - AB

clinehall · **Posted:** Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:57 pm

Good List. My dad's business partner in a car lot bought two renault Dauphenes that been cut in half and welded together so it had two fronts. It could be driven from either end.

Graham Jagger · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:53 am **Posts:** 1718

Dustin Fredrickson wrote:

Aaron Buckley wrote:

...I never knew of the 1980 Corvette 305 California... how awful

- AB

Castrated car, yes. But next to nothing is sexier. mmmmmmmm

I like the first few years of the C3. 68-71. Best looking body style ever. Starting in 72 the castration process started. It went clear through into the C4 in the mid 80s... I had an 84 and I thought it was a POS.

Btw; That "Land of Fruit and Nuts" version happened once. In 1980 only and they only built ~3,000 of them. If you find one it's a collector car.

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:22 pm

My Dad had both '69 and a '71 and he would agree with your thoughts Graham. - AB

RobLupella · **Posted:** Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:02 pm

Graham Jagger wrote:

Dustin Fredrickson wrote:

Aaron Buckley wrote:

...I never knew of the 1980 Corvette 305 California... how awful

- AB

Castrated car, yes. But next to nothing is sexier. mmmmmmmm

I like the first few years of the C3. 68-71. Best looking body style ever. Starting in 72 the castration process started. It went clear through into the C4 in the mid 80s... I had an 84 and I thought it was a POS.

Btw; That "Land of Fruit and Nuts" version happened once. In 1980 only and they only built ~3,000 of them. If you find one it's a collector car.

I actually like the C2 versions the best as far as looks. Those the E-Type Jags (6 cyl), the Ferraris of that era and Mustangs were my favorite cars as a kid.

Pete Guthrie · **Posted:** Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:25 am

even today. things like a stereo, nice wheels.. cup holders.. are all extras on the new lada priora in russia. very basic. 74 hp. very cheap though. new car for used price. maybe heat too. On some russian buses heat is a option.
he said the trabant was reinforced with wood. I donot believe that to be the truth. I think it is wool and things like that, reinforced with a resin.Almost like fiberglass insulation really, and a resin.. to plasiticize the material. It was chosen as a building material to minimize steel usage. which in those days was expensive post war. the nazis sort of made a mess out of the western soviet union. i dont know if the prowler is a crap car.. but it was not what i expected it to be, that is for sure. if it was my money, i would buy a panoz aiv roadster instead.

Arthur McDonald · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 1:54 am **Posts:** 2052

I'm pretty sure the author is the Dan Neil that entered a bile green Mitsu Mirage in one of our Morrisville autocrosses when he worked for the N&O.

Anyway, I take exception to his #2 pick:

"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. "

Kind of hard to imagine the rest of the technological innovations and increases in the standard of living worldwide over the last century without the automobile (or the internal combustion engine). For the sake of argument, let's say we achieved all of the other advances, but instead of automobiles, we still rely on horse and ox drawn buggies, coaches and wagons. How deep would Los Angeles county be in manure?

Comparing the Model T to Yugo is way off base. The Model T was the right car/truck for its time, with the right level of capability and serviceability, and the right price. While the Yugo was probably appropriate to its home market (if only because the government that manufactured it said so), it fell short of the expectations and requirements of the U.S. market in all ways except price.

MartynWheeler · **Joined:** Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:30 pm **Posts:** 303

What I remember about the Triumph Stag is not what he states. I don't know how he could miss the most well-known "feature" of those cars.

All it took was a fairly small tap on the rear quarter, not enough to do much damage even. The frame would flex just enough to drop the motor neatly onto the road.

Yes, the motor was kind of a cobbled together thing too, but it was so easy to remove accidentally that it made the decision to put a real engine into it a no-brainer. Once you did that, you had a really cool car(*).

(*) If you even considered a Triumph, you already knew how to handle the electrics and avoid the body rusting out in the garage when you split the salt at the dinner table.

Pete Guthrie · **Posted:** Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:49 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7q8lWE ... 1&index=42

the british leyland challenge episode of fifth gear. rather amusing.. they are as bad as some old ladas. you turn right and the radio comes on. stop and the trunk opens. rather funny stuff.

MartynWheeler · **Joined:** Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:30 pm **Posts:** 303

Pete Guthrie wrote:

the british leyland challenge episode of fifth gear. rather amusing..

I actually owned the "winning" model of that one, which actually held out pretty darned well in the challenge. An Austin 2000, it was called, right before they gave the range the Princess name. I still have the Haynes manual. Mine was very comfortable and ran well, provided you sprayed the ignition cables and distributor with WD-40 whenever the humidity was noticeable.

I recall it for two things: my introduction to torque steer, and the occasion when I unexpectedly and quite suddenly caught air on a high speed yump in the middle of an otherwise normal road through a forest. It turned out that my "friend" had deliberately omitted to tell me about that feature when he told me about this great route he'd discovered...

THSCC Forums

50 worst cars

Who is online