Worst car ever made
Discussion
plg said:
The Renault 5 at the end of it's production life.
Old engines, badly screwed together cars. Oh, and they added a routing kit after production to switch it from LHD to RHD. Went through clutch cables and accelerator cables like nothing else.
Old engines, badly screwed together cars. Oh, and they added a routing kit after production to switch it from LHD to RHD. Went through clutch cables and accelerator cables like nothing else.
Quite a nice looking car in 1988 but as you say, awful build quality and LHD to RHD components did it no favours.
I bought one new in 1988 and kept it a year, I replaced the clutch cable 3x in that period and it wasn't covered by the warranty after it had been replaced once. How times have changed and for the better
£7.5k for a new car back then was a fair chunk of cash too!
speedtwelve said:
The car was called the 'Saga' on the domestic market. Sums it up, really. Other Proton classics included the 'Putra' and 'Tiara'.
Did you know that they actually still sold that model in the domestic market up to 2008 (albeit facelifted a couple of times), with the carb fed engine tuned up to the heady heights of 83bhp?The Malaysians loved them for some reason
Snoop Bagg said:
In my opinion and in no particular order!
Why?Ignoring the looks, wasn't this the best (or one of) people carrier. What is wrong with it? It's practical, cheap, spacious etc. all the things that a people carrier should be.
I think any "worse" car is one that doesn't do well what it's designed to do.
e.g. a LR Defender is CRAP in so many ways, however it does what it's designed to so very well making it a great car.
Mr Dave said:
Ferrari F40.
Not as nice as the 288 GTO nor as special.
Apparently not as good to drive as the 288 GTO.
Not as well built or well engineered as the Enzo or F-50.
Over 1,300 built when it was supposed to be limited production.
Not a successful racer.
Proper Ferraris shouldnt have turbos (which is what everyone on here cries about when Ferrari talk about going turbo to cut emissions)
No creature comforts (it is a road car not a race car after all)
Has less power than a modern BMW 4x4
Yes absolutely. The F40 was an utterly dire car in no way evocative, fast, exciting or setting a benchmark for future supercars in terms of performance and handling.Not as nice as the 288 GTO nor as special.
Apparently not as good to drive as the 288 GTO.
Not as well built or well engineered as the Enzo or F-50.
Over 1,300 built when it was supposed to be limited production.
Not a successful racer.
Proper Ferraris shouldnt have turbos (which is what everyone on here cries about when Ferrari talk about going turbo to cut emissions)
No creature comforts (it is a road car not a race car after all)
Has less power than a modern BMW 4x4
Certainly far far worse than anything produced by the Russians, Americans, The Slav's or the Koreans.
An absolute bag of s
t that is clearly demonstrated by their truly awful residuals.And while we are on it - that Muhammed Ali - what a s
t boxer he was. Senna was worse than Maureen from driving school and the Beatles couldn't hold a tune in a bucket.Verrry subjective, this. I can’t help feeling that “cheap transport for the masses” cars get some sort of opt-out. FSOs etc., are rubbish, but they weren’t meant to be anything other than basic means of getting around. Objectively, lots of things that are much revered, like original Fiat 500s for example (fantastically slow, crash gearbox, the fuel tank is right in front of you, over your knees... etc.), are fairly terrible, but are also much loved, and expensive. Stuff which is at least trying, but maybe getting it wrong – Fiat Multipla, Austin Princess, etc. etc. – doesn’t really bother me; not my taste, but at least it isn’t identikit.
The things that are offensively bad (in my opinion etc.) are those that have pretentions and miss them by miles. I nominate a 2008 (-ish.. I forget exactly) Lincoln Town Car (especially a base spec., rented-from-Hertz one..):
Utterly awful.. wallowing, gutless, vague, sick making, not even comfotable. And no, I am not an American-car-phobe – the contemporary (-ish, again) Cadillac Seville STS:
is actually rather good, as big soft cruisers go.
The things that are offensively bad (in my opinion etc.) are those that have pretentions and miss them by miles. I nominate a 2008 (-ish.. I forget exactly) Lincoln Town Car (especially a base spec., rented-from-Hertz one..):
Utterly awful.. wallowing, gutless, vague, sick making, not even comfotable. And no, I am not an American-car-phobe – the contemporary (-ish, again) Cadillac Seville STS:
is actually rather good, as big soft cruisers go.
People, blinded by prejudice, are confusing pointless with bad.
The X6 is pointless. The Morris Marina is bad. Asked to drive four-up to, say, Lyon with a free choice of a Morris Marina, a well-spec'd Mondeo or an X6, few people would choose the Marina or even the Mondeo.
Pointlessness does not make the X6 a bad car. I'd never buy one, because I don't see any point to it. I'd buy a 5 Series or an X5 instead, but it is a quick, well-engineered, comfortable, well-appointed car. The Marina is none of those things.
The X6 is pointless. The Morris Marina is bad. Asked to drive four-up to, say, Lyon with a free choice of a Morris Marina, a well-spec'd Mondeo or an X6, few people would choose the Marina or even the Mondeo.
Pointlessness does not make the X6 a bad car. I'd never buy one, because I don't see any point to it. I'd buy a 5 Series or an X5 instead, but it is a quick, well-engineered, comfortable, well-appointed car. The Marina is none of those things.
[quote=NLB]
The things that are offensively bad (in my opinion etc.) are those that have pretentions and miss them by miles. I nominate a 2008 (-ish.. I forget exactly) Lincoln Town Car (especially a base spec., rented-from-Hertz one..):
Totally agree. Hertz Philadelphia quite often "upgrade" me to a Mercury Grande Maque (sister to the Town Car)and advertise it as the height of luxury motoring. Its Terrible.
The things that are offensively bad (in my opinion etc.) are those that have pretentions and miss them by miles. I nominate a 2008 (-ish.. I forget exactly) Lincoln Town Car (especially a base spec., rented-from-Hertz one..):
Totally agree. Hertz Philadelphia quite often "upgrade" me to a Mercury Grande Maque (sister to the Town Car)and advertise it as the height of luxury motoring. Its Terrible.
Edited by so called on Wednesday 10th November 11:26
Gad-Westy said:
Mr Dave said:
TommyBuoy said:
Mr Dave said:
Ferrari F40.
Not as nice as the 288 GTO nor as special.
Apparently not as good to drive as the 288 GTO.
Not as well built or well engineered as the Enzo or F-50.
Over 1,300 built when it was supposed to be limited production.
Not a successful racer.
Proper Ferraris shouldnt have turbos (which is what everyone on here cries about when Ferrari talk about going turbo to cut emissions)
No creature comforts (it is a road car not a race car after all)
Has less power than a modern BMW 4x4
And it is the most overhyped car in the whole wide world because it is trendy to like them.
Ferrari F-40 =/= BMW 335d mapped but at least the BMW335d mapped can take you to do your shopping.
Really though, the old Kia Rio was dire.
I always thought popular opinion was that the F50 was not as good as it's older conterpart?Not as nice as the 288 GTO nor as special.
Apparently not as good to drive as the 288 GTO.
Not as well built or well engineered as the Enzo or F-50.
Over 1,300 built when it was supposed to be limited production.
Not a successful racer.
Proper Ferraris shouldnt have turbos (which is what everyone on here cries about when Ferrari talk about going turbo to cut emissions)
No creature comforts (it is a road car not a race car after all)
Has less power than a modern BMW 4x4
And it is the most overhyped car in the whole wide world because it is trendy to like them.
Ferrari F-40 =/= BMW 335d mapped but at least the BMW335d mapped can take you to do your shopping.
Really though, the old Kia Rio was dire.
In comparison reviews now they always call the F-50 overlooked and seem impressed with it. I think its looks and peer pressure influenced the journalists more than actually driving the car.
Anyway, it's all a bit OT as clearly both the F40 and F50 are at wrong end of the spectrum for this thread.
Of all the cars I have driven, I'm going to vote for the mk1 vectra. Awful thing.
I do think they are over hyped compared to the F50 and other cars of their time but I think the same about quite a few cars. I think im going to start an F50 appreciation thread.
The Kia Rio is still my vote for the worst.
As has been noted, going for the Allegro et al is a bit lazy - they were average for their time. I'm not sure the Allegro was comprehensively worse than, say, the Talbot Horizon, or the Vauxhall Chevette.
So I'm going to go for a car that was reliable, well-made and dependable, but with no point to it whatsoever, and an insult to what the car it's claiming to be the spiritual successor to stood for:
Back in 1974, VW replaced the Beetle, which was a well-designed, high-quality, low-cost car that used aerodynamics to get the best out of its cheap and meagre engine. It was very easy to sell as a CKD project and as a result became a worldwide bestseller that worked its way into the world's cultural consciousness.
They replaced it with the Golf, which did all of the above, but in a more modern way.
Then they thought 'let's re-launch the Beetle!' So they took the Golf - effectively the Beetle in spirit - and made it less practical, less aerodynamic, more cramped and much, much more expensive.
Then they decided for some reason to add, as standard equipment, a dashboard-mounted flower vase with a plastic bloom in it, thus aiming it at the terminally twee and chronically easily pleased and over-excitable.
And to make matters worse, the modern re-interpretation of the Beetle's styling makes it look like a giant Fisher-Price toy, waiting for a 50-foot baby to pick it up and ram it repeatedly into a skirting-board gurgling 'Goo! Goo! Goo! Goo!' contentedly whilst the inflation-moulded plastic exterior pops back into shape to survive another day.
They're a rolling symbol of air-headed triviality and I want to see every last one of them (plus some of their drivers (the ones whose friends describe as 'really bubbly') consigned to landfill. Hateful things.
Unfortunately, being VWs, they'll plod on forever, a permanent reminder of how a firm once praised for its no-nonsense marketing forgot everything it stood for.
So I'm going to go for a car that was reliable, well-made and dependable, but with no point to it whatsoever, and an insult to what the car it's claiming to be the spiritual successor to stood for:
Back in 1974, VW replaced the Beetle, which was a well-designed, high-quality, low-cost car that used aerodynamics to get the best out of its cheap and meagre engine. It was very easy to sell as a CKD project and as a result became a worldwide bestseller that worked its way into the world's cultural consciousness.
They replaced it with the Golf, which did all of the above, but in a more modern way.
Then they thought 'let's re-launch the Beetle!' So they took the Golf - effectively the Beetle in spirit - and made it less practical, less aerodynamic, more cramped and much, much more expensive.
Then they decided for some reason to add, as standard equipment, a dashboard-mounted flower vase with a plastic bloom in it, thus aiming it at the terminally twee and chronically easily pleased and over-excitable.
And to make matters worse, the modern re-interpretation of the Beetle's styling makes it look like a giant Fisher-Price toy, waiting for a 50-foot baby to pick it up and ram it repeatedly into a skirting-board gurgling 'Goo! Goo! Goo! Goo!' contentedly whilst the inflation-moulded plastic exterior pops back into shape to survive another day.
They're a rolling symbol of air-headed triviality and I want to see every last one of them (plus some of their drivers (the ones whose friends describe as 'really bubbly') consigned to landfill. Hateful things.
Unfortunately, being VWs, they'll plod on forever, a permanent reminder of how a firm once praised for its no-nonsense marketing forgot everything it stood for.
so called said:
NLB said:
The things that are offensively bad (in my opinion etc.) are those that have pretentions and miss them by miles. I nominate a 2008 (-ish.. I forget exactly) Lincoln Town Car (especially a base spec., rented-from-Hertz one..):
Totally agree. Hertz Philadelphia quite often "upgrade" me to a Mercury Grande Maque (sister to the Town Car)and advertise it as the height of luxury motoring. Its Terrible.
Totally agree. Hertz Philadelphia quite often "upgrade" me to a Mercury Grande Maque (sister to the Town Car)and advertise it as the height of luxury motoring. Its Terrible.
Edited by so called on Wednesday 10th November 11:26
It's a crying shame really because back in the mists of time (we're talking the '30s and '40s here), the Americans probably did make the best luxury cars in the world. If only they put the dedication in today they could live up to those heights with a Rolls-Royce rival. But they won't.
Edited by Twincam16 on Wednesday 10th November 17:18
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff