Another worst top 50 cars.

[JIMJAM]

http://autos.aol.com/photos/50-worst-cars-all-time/?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl10%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D121466

With a surprising absence.

Maybe if you only made one car it doesnt qualify?

At any rate some real stinkers in this bunch.

[jackb]

I like the comments describing each car, very witty.
Why is the 2012 Civic on the list though? That's the only one I didn't "get".

[Cory W]

After the radical improvement from the previous generation with the 2005 model, not only was this one just a mild do-over, but they dumbed it down and cheapened it up. It looks blander, and feels like a dull knife compared to the previous one.

All that said, it's not that it's a "horrible" car. I think it just didn't meet expectations.

[Farrar]

I only found a few of those cars to be truly unattractive, but I understand snark is the new sex appeal, so maybe that's what they were going for.

Nice to see no gullwings on the list.

Farrar

[jackb]

After the radical improvement from the previous generation with the 2005 model, not only was this one just a mild do-over, but they dumbed it down and cheapened it up. It looks blander, and feels like a dull knife compared to the previous one.

All that said, it's not that it's a "horrible" car. I think it just didn't meet expectations.

Ha that's funny. I have an 05 (the drastic change was the 06-11 models) and I think the Civic began to look like crap after the generation change.
But who's kidding who here? All Delorean owners know model years are a scam, a gimmick, used by car companies to sell more cars....:shhh:

[pezzonovante88]

-Aston Lagonda may be terrible, but its also AWESOME!
-The later Ferrari Mondials are really nice.
-The Rambo Lambo isn't a bad car, its just ridiculous.

There are some real shitters on there, but there are some that don't deserve to be on that list.

[Cory W]

Ha that's funny. I have an 05 (the drastic change was the 06-11 models) and I think the Civic began to look like crap after the generation change.
But who's kidding who here? All Delorean owners know model years are a scam, a gimmick, used by car companies to sell more cars....:shhh:

Aw, ya got me there. 05, 06....close ;)

[dvonk]

i think the '66 Riviera is pretty cool.

[DMCVegas]

Step 1: Create "Top 5/10/50/100 List of the Best/Worst X", and ensure it's written by people who don't know anything about subject "X" so that it's so ignorant it becomes inflamitory.

Step 2: Allow the link for the list to circulate around message boards related to subject "X".

Step 3: People click on said link to view it and either validate their own opinions, or get pissed off and complain about it. Either way, it keeps getting forwarded.

Step 4: Profit! People generate traffic for the website hosting the link, and thus advertising revenue for the people who wrote it.


Bottom Line: I already know what my tastes and preferences are when it comes to any of the subjects that these "Top Best/Worst Lists" address. Not once have I started nor stopped liking something because of them. More power to them for knowing how to make money off people, but I'm not going to be one of them.

[Kenny_Z]

I love those old Postal Jeeps. I think that's the only car from the list I liked.

[Mike C.]

I agreed with almost the whole list. Lot of shitty cars on there.

My mom had a Cadillac Cimmaron. What a p.o.s.

[08087]

I owned a postal jeep, what a pig! Not that she didn't serve a purpose, but a small six cyl. that got 10 MPG in the city and maybe 15 on the open road is pretty bad for a 2 seat jeep that wasn't fast or strong. I could flip a bunch of morning newspapers out that sliding door though!

[Jonathan]

Yea, when they said if that Lambo SUV thingy had come out about the time when everyone was ape-sh!t over Hummer's it would have been a hit. I think I liked it back then anyway just cause I loved the whole Countach era and everything about the company.

[Karin]

I personally never cared for Hummers because they are gas guzzlers and this Lambo SUV seemed to be no exception. Nowadays, with the way gas prices have been bouncing up and down and increasing insanely at the same time, only rich people can afford gas guzzlers.

When I did notice the Prius and the Smart car on the list, I can see why. The Smart cars are undoubtedly little deathtraps. For the Prius, I do like the way it makes people care about the environment and I do wish I have one for that reason, but at the same time, the technology is still young. Too bad the thought of electric or fuel efficient cars wasn't dug up very much many years ago until Japan thought up of it ten years ago. We'd probably have really good technology on those category of cars by now if that happened.

Just my two big cents there. I sure am glad our beloved car wasn't on the list either.

[Dracula]

Nowadays, with the way gas prices have been bouncing up and down and increasing insanely at the same time, only rich people can afford gas guzzlers.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I've been driving around a 1976 Cadillac with the 500 cu. in. motor, or 8.2L for those who are more concerned with the metric measures. It's de-tuned from 400HP in 1970 to 210HP by 1976 due to emissions and I'm getting around 10 mpg out of it. Gas may be expensive, but my insurance premium for 6 months on that car is $160.00. Less than 3 tanks of gas. I also service the car myself, so that tremendously saves me money on maintenance costs.

The kicker is that I paid $1,000.00 for this car, with 39,000 miles on it. Say that I'll drive it 5,000 miles this year. At 7 MPG, that means I'll use 715 gallons of gas. Averaging $3.20 per gallon, I'll spend $2,288.00 in fuel. Including purchase price, the car would cost me $3,288.00 to operate for the season if nothing goes wrong.

Were I to buy a car that cost $3,000.00 and got 20 MPG with my winter mostly-city driving, then I'd go through 250 gallons of gas, instead, and only spend $800.00 on gas for the 5,000 miles. Without insurance, which would be an additional expense, it would cost me $3,800.00 to operate the fuel-efficient vehicle for the same distance.

Repairs, should something fail, would only help the Cadillac, since I can fix it easier and cheaper in most cases.

There are many other factors than fuel mileage to determine the economic feasibility of a car that most people don't take into consideration.

[stevedmc]

Maybe I am missing something but every car on the list looked like a sweet ride except for the smart car and prius.

[Jonathan]

I personally never cared for Hummers because they are gas guzzlers and this Lambo SUV seemed to be no exception. Nowadays, with the way gas prices have been bouncing up and down and increasing insanely at the same time, only rich people can afford gas guzzlers.


Part of this and what Chad mentioned, but missed part of the point on, is that it's not about you the individual only saving money... it's about changing our energy and fuel consumption habits in an effort to help the environment. If it takes taxing the gas guzzlers and hitting someone in the wallet to make people rethink how much we're abusing our resources, then so be it. But eventually there won't be any more oil rich lands to take over and we'll be forced to change.

[stevedmc]

I personally never cared for Hummers because

I never cared for the civilian Hummers because they suck. Military Hummers are bad to the bone though.


Too bad the thought of electric or fuel efficient cars wasn't dug up very much many years ago until Japan thought up of it ten years ago. We'd probably have really good technology on those category of cars by now if that happened.

This thought is nothing new. Back when I was a little kid in the 80s there were several companies with plans to make solar/eletric cars. It never happened.

As for hybrid cars, most people don't realize it but hybrids technology is the scam of the century.

"The Prius registered an energy-cost average of $3.25 per mile driven over its expected
life span of 100,000 miles. Ironically, a Hummer, the brooding giant that has become the
bête noir of the green movement, did much better, with an energy-cost average of $1.95 over its expected life span of 300,000 miles. And its crash protection makes it far safer than the tiny Prius."
(information retrieved from http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Hidden%20Cost%20of%20Driving%20a%20Prius%20Comment ary.pdf)

According to AAA most regular vehicles cost well under $1 per mile to operate. http://www.aaaexchange.com/main/Default.asp?CategoryID=16&SubCategoryID=76&ContentID=353

[Karin]

I can tell I learned too much from that Ray and Tom episode on Nova. I only learned a little bit of the law thing in the '70s that made car companies improve the fuel efficiency. Then it got better over time.

Maybe someday technology will be better and eventually we will start to have flying cars. Kidding. Still though, there are many other factors to focus on first.

[Chris4099]

"The Prius registered an energy-cost average of $3.25 per mile driven over its expected
life span of 100,000 miles. Ironically, a Hummer, the brooding giant that has become the
bête noir of the green movement, did much better, with an energy-cost average of $1.95 over its expected life span of 300,000 miles. And its crash protection makes it far safer than the tiny Prius."
(information retrieved from http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Hidden%20Cost%20of%20Driving%20a%20Prius%20Comment ary.pdf)


When I read this, my first thought was "What modern car produced today only lasts 100K miles???". Something about that sounded familiar and sure enough the commentary you linked to referenced the Dust to Dust report. Here's a much better report that shows the flaws and errors in the Dust to Dust report (note how it actually gives references on all statistics, something the Dust to Dust report doesn't do). It's basically the Hybrid owner's equivalent of coke smuggling that us D owners have to deal with. Sounds scandalizing at first, but just doesn't hold up to reality.

As for the SmartCar, it's actually very safe (only a few fatalities in the US since it's release). However, that article is correct. It has the world's worst transmission ever produced. I drove one briefly and after a few miles, I was very glad I didn't own it. I was constantly being jerked forwards and backwards with each shift.

[hassyfoto]

As for the SmartCar, it's actually very safe (only a few fatalities in the US since it's release). However, that article is correct. It has the world's worst transmission ever produced. I drove one briefly and after a few miles, I was very glad I didn't own it. I was constantly being jerked forwards and backwards with each shift.[/QUOTE]

I agree on the Smart car, my sister bought one about a year ago, I did get a chance to test driver it and found exactly the same issues with the tranny. My sister has had this car in the shop more that she has driven it. Yeah it's under warranty, but if you waste time & gas to take it back to the dealership, what is the piont. Needless to say, she has had the car for sale.
:thumbdown:

[Mike C.]

I dont know, i'd take an H1 any day. I reject the urban pacified H2 and H3... but i'd definitely take an H1.

I understand the concept of cars such as the smart car, but honestly I could NEVER own something so damn small. There are much more GOOD and practical small cars you can buy used for the price of a smart...

[stevedmc]

When I read this, my first thought was "What modern car produced today only lasts 100K miles???".

The Prius.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYpIjnBGL-E

[Mike C.]

That's scary! God bless the alternator!

[Chris4099]

The Prius.

You do know the first gen Prius makes up less then 2% of all hybrids sold, right? So what you are saying is there's a CHANCE of a 8 year old first gen car running into a mechanical issue that may be cost prohibitive to fix (but is still fixable). While disappointing, not the end of the world for the technology. It's also recommended to replace the transmission fluid more frequently to reduce the risk of this happening.

As for my previous post, I just realized I completely forgot to post the link to the report about how flawed the Dust to Dust one is. Here you go:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf

[Totally 80s]

Part of this and what Chad mentioned, but missed part of the point on, is that it's not about you the individual only saving money... it's about changing our energy and fuel consumption habits in an effort to help the environment. If it takes taxing the gas guzzlers and hitting someone in the wallet to make people rethink how much we're abusing our resources, then so be it. But eventually there won't be any more oil rich lands to take over and we'll be forced to change.

So Chad should be punished harshly with excessive taxes because he wants to drive an older car? Where does this taxation punishment end? Free markets should determine prices and changes in attitudes not some dirt-bag politician or kill-joy who thinks others should be punished because they don't agree with them.

Perhaps Deloreans should be taxed excessively because they are unsafe compared to new cars? Perhaps people who fly more than 2000 miles a year should be punished with a tax because they are burning more fuel? Maybe a high tax on any brand new product because it burns fossil fuels to create. This kind of "punishment" never ends. It reminds me of this quote.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

One more thing, does anybody know how much resources it takes to build a brand new Prius vs Chad driving/keeping his old Cadillac on the road. Maybe we should tax the prius buyer for not recycling an old car?

[stevedmc]

You do know the first gen Prius makes up less then 2% of all hybrids sold, right? So what you are saying is there's a CHANCE of a 8 year old first gen car running into a mechanical issue that may be cost prohibitive to fix (but is still fixable).

I think the AAA numbers speak for themself.

[Jonathan]

blah blah blah

The point I was trying to make was not to highlight any particular example, it was only to highlight that until the general population gets over this entitlement thinking that they can do whatever they like, it's their money, don't tell me what to do, etc., etc. no matter what consequences it has for their generation or future ones to come... that it will take some "incentive" to make people change their behaviors and habits. Since hitting someone in the wallet is about all anyone cares about, that's why I mentioned it.

And you seem to have that very idea right there in your signature... the excessive part. Until we start living smarter instead of excessively, things will continue down this same path. Good on you for recognizing the importance of it.

[Dracula]

One more thing, does anybody know how much resources it takes to build a brand new Prius vs Chad driving/keeping his old Cadillac on the road. Maybe we should tax the prius buyer for not recycling an old car?

My Cadillac, when made, was built with 100% existing parts and required no additional manufacturing to create parts or environmental changes due to it being created and its 100% recyclable. The Prius, with its new batteries that become bio-hazards of sorts and the mining it took to create them in the first place has a fairly massive ecological impact from the initial creation to offset.

That's why, whenever I can, I park in the "Low Emission Vehicle Parking Only" space because I drive a car that had next to no environmental impact to create and far less when you consider that its 42,000 miles are spread out across 35 years.

[Michael]

no matter what consequences it has for their generation or future ones to come... that it will take some "incentive" to make people change their behaviors and habits. Since hitting someone in the wallet is about all anyone cares about, that's why I mentioned it.

Your whole premise is flawed...why must people change their behavior? Just because Al Gore thinks that the polar bears will die should not dictate our tax laws. You are operating under the cloak of a political agenda. If and when this type of thinking does come to power(and it will, just a matter of time) there will be no personal freedoms for anyone except those alloted to us by our "Dear Leaders"

it's about changing our energy and fuel consumption habits in an effort to help the environment. If it takes taxing the gas guzzlers and hitting someone in the wallet to make people rethink how much we're abusing our resources, then so be it.

That statement is so warped in it's logic I don't even know where to begin. What you are proposing is an additional tax(above what we are already paying) based on one faction's calculated amount of energy they think you should be using. One entity will determine what they think you should be allowed to use, and tax you heavily on anything above and beyond your alloted amount of resources. This type of thinking will quickly lead to a totalitarian state.

Your home thermostat will only be set to a government approved temperature to keep you from wasting too much heating oil or too much electricity...am I in the crazy tree?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIvmJ8xenc
I wonder what the temp. in the White House stays at?

Once the energy czars have their way, the precedent will be set and the food/health czars will try to control every other aspect of your life. You can only have so many sodas, Cheeseburger, and so many fries per week as we want you to stay healthy. And if you think I'm being far fetched:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/michelle-obama-obesity-restaurant-menus/comments/page/16/

The obvious problem is illustrated, but there is another problem that story highlights...the further intrusion of government into a private business! Here we have the proposal of a private business's menu being dictated to them by an outside entity. That should be the owner's call to make how to best run his business..imagine how many bars went out of business during prohibition. The only way to encourage the free market is to leave it the hell alone.

[Ikeaboy1]

I agree with Michael 100%. What is the 'right' amount of energy consumption? Calories? Fat content? As soon as this decision is taken away from individuals, the 'benevolent' leaders who have been entrusted to decide will be influenced by those who stand to gain by manipulating the regulations. We'll all be punished through increased taxes, prices, lower quality and less available goods, and less freedom. If Chad wants to burn gasoline by the barrel, smoke a carton of cigarettes a day, eat nothing but big macs, that's his business. I'm not endorsing any of them as preferable, but the benefit to society by agreeing that we all should have freedom to choose(and freedom to err) far outweighs the costs of inefficient individual decisions.

[Jonathan]

So you're basically saying that the individual is going to be smart enough to make the right decisions which have a positive impact for all of us as a whole? And that they'll stop thinking about only themselves long enough to do something that benefits someone other than just them? And all of that without some sort of incentive? Ok, ya, I got it.

Yaaaaa, that's going to happen.

You must be living in some sort of dream world where everyone is super considerate and always makes the right choices, even if they are the difficult ones. You honestly think that Average Joe knows well enough what are the right choices to make other than just the easy ones?

I'm not suggesting some sort of controlling-alter-ego political set-up, but what I am saying is that the people that have the ability to make changes, need to force the people to make those decisions when they never would themselves. Do you think people would drive 35 mph or 55 mph or stop at intersections if there were no rules or laws in place to make it financially painful if they choose not to obey those laws? The average individual is typically only concerned with themselves and if there's no consequence to their own livelihood, they won't change their behavior.

And your anti-Al Gore soapbox heard several times before is getting old. Do you think that everything always has to have a political agenda? Or that maybe, just maybe, there might actually be some science behind it? Can you find scientifc studies that say we're negatively affecting the environment? Yes. Can you find studies that say we aren't? Yes. Does it take a genius to look around and see that the world's dependancy on oil and energy can't continue the way it is? No. But as long as there are people like yourself that are only concerned with what is good for themselves, then we need governments to make decisions for us, because clearly we're not smart enough to make them on our own.

[Michael]

So you're basically saying that the individual is going to be smart enough to make the right decisions which have a positive impact for all of us as a whole?

Personal choices are a basic right, and you will take them away over my dead body. And what is this positive impact for us all, sounds a bit like the "common good"


You must be living in some sort of dream world where everyone is super considerate and always makes the right choices, even if they are the difficult ones
You're right, the government(or the collective) should make those choices for me. So I hear Tony has a V-12 Countach...did he make the right choice?, please tell me oh wise one.

You honestly think that Average Joe knows well enough what are the right choices to make other than just the easy ones?
I will just let that nugget stand on it's own. BTW...I'm an average joe, and so is most of America.

I'm not suggesting some sort of controlling-alter-ego political set-up, but what I am saying is that the people that have the ability to make changes, need to force the people to make those decisions when they never would themselves.
And I will let that one stand on its own too. Normally contradictions are at least two paragraphs apart. Give them enough rope....
The rest of your response tries to draw a weak parallel between basic human rights and traffic laws, which I will not even waste the readers time on.

But as long as there are people like yourself that are only concerned with what is good for themselves, then we need governments to make decisions for us, because clearly we're not smart enough to make them on our own.
I honestly thought you were being sarcastic at first, but I realized you were serious....you really want governments to make our decisions if they do not coincide with your own beliefs

[Jonathan]

Does it take a genius to look around and see that the world's dependancy on oil and energy can't continue the way it is?

You missed one smart guy. What are your esteemed thoughts on this particular comment?

This entitlement mindset is what differentiates what you see in your local day to day life from the rest of the world. If you look around without your rose coloured US of A glasses you might see it. But, hey, that's another arugement all together.

[Michael]

Since you asked:
Does it take a genius to look around and see that the world's dependancy on oil and energy can't continue the way it is?

No...It takes an idiot to think things will stay the same. Cars are becoming more fuel efficient with each passing year(thanks free market), and drilling technology has allowed us to reach oil deposits that were considered "un-reachable" just a few years ago...that is when our government allows us to do so and lifts their drilling moratoriums....that's where our problem is! If we were allowed to drill our own offshore deposits, we could completely change the balance of power in the middle east. As much as the media tried to make the Deep Horizon tragedy sound like an environmental disaster, it just was'nt....and thats a worst case scenerio. I remember the reporters searching the beaches for a oil blob so they could shout "Ohhh the humanity!" I hope they don't ever look in an Advance auto parts parking lot...they would be terrified.

The electric/alternative fuel car is going to be what your grandchildren drive. I drove a Nissan Leaf a few weeks ago and I was very impressed. The electric car is not there yet, the technology is still in it's infancy, but once batteries become lighter and more efficient,(thanks again free market) we will have a viable method of personal transportation that doesn't keep us dependant on hostile states. personally I think hydrogen power is where it's at.

Your argument is still flawed beyond belief.


If you look around without your rose coloured US of A glasses you might see it. But, hey, that's another arugement all together.
I would hate to see this world if the "US of A" never existed.

[opethmike]

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?116-No-political-religion-posts-or-threads-PERIOD!

[Jonathan]

http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?116-No-political-religion-posts-or-threads-PERIOD!

Well said Mike, thanks. Merry Christmas to you all :)

[sean]

Well said Mike, thanks. Merry Christmas to you all :)

And to all a good night.