It's an American site but makes interesting reading - http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/0,28757,1658545,00.html

A bit rich, the yanks even coming up with a list that could contain entirely american tin given the utter shite they (still) produce.

Eg Morgan Plus 8 propane, yep stupid idea but why was it done - er, american emmissions I suspect. So even that, when you get down to the basics, was their idea

ATB

Simon

Picking on cars prior to the mid-50s isn't really fair. Technology then economics really limited what could be done world-wide.

The U.S. alone has built enough pure crap since then to fill an entire list of 50. The fact that "muscle cars" from the late 70s and 80s had less than 200 horsepower is pathetic. Then there is the mini-van my parents had when I was a kid; it was less than 5 years old when they sold it and it was on its third automatic transmission (nice work Chrysler). To this day Ford is the only domestic company I'd consider buying anything new from; GM and Chrysler products are abominations.

I can't take that list seriously since the MGA and the Elite are both on it and both are excellent classic sports cars. Heck I would even defend the Corvair (even though it is a GM product) since it was a move in the right direction. If people were not ham-fisted drivers, understood the simple laws of physics, and knew how to properly inflate tires it never would have been an issue.

[Edited on 24/2/13 by atm92484]

Do you think they made this list really contravertial on purpose? I mean there are some truely brilliant and revolutionary cars on that list, I mean the multipla is an excelent example, they even say the car worked really well and that it's there because it's ugly.

I didn't read them all but from what I did most of these cars have never been driven by the journalist and some seem to be judged with no account being take of their intended purpose. And why isn't the Beetle on this list? That was ugly, drove badly and old fashioned at point of release?

They've put the Model T on there because it was successful?

The one that makes all the lists is the Edsel. I find that highly odd, because it looks very similar to every other large tank of the era. It just didn't sell, so people assume the "commercial" failure equaled an "overall" failure, which to me is a very different thing. Have to say, I hated the Bricklin and the Delorean, but full marks for trying. They look terrible in the flesh by the way.

The SUV came along because it, and all the like vehicles, are classified in the US (and Canada) as "trucks", therefore do not have to meet the same safety standards as all the "cars". This makes money hand over fist for the companies involved, so are promoted before and more heavily, than anything else. They also tend to give the drivers a birds eye view of the road, with the illusion of safety (absolutely false of course, when you look at accident statistics and injuries) which women, particularly, seem to like. What do you know, they are the most popular vehicles sold!

Nice to see nothing bad produced between 1986 and 1995. Was that the hay-day of automotive engineering?

quote:

---

They also tend to give the drivers a birds eye view of the road

---