inkafone
|
| posted on 24/2/13 at 04:51 PM |
|
|
The 50 worst cars of all time
It's an American site but makes interesting reading - http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/0,28757,1658545,00.html
|
|
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 24/2/13 at 04:59 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
atm92484
|
| posted on 24/2/13 at 05:29 PM |
|
|
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]
-Andrew
Build Log
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 24/2/13 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
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?
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 24/2/13 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
They've put the Model T on there because it was successful?
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 24/2/13 at 08:53 PM |
|
|
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!
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 25/2/13 at 12:51 AM |
|
|
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
Driving a big-ass 4x4 does give a really nice view of the road and if you're careful and don't drive it like a car it can give a distinct
advantage and a really nice ability to view much more of the road way ahead of the drivers around you. However most people seem to drive them like
cars and they don't stop/corner/go like cars! Out of the few cars I've been in accidents in (note, not "caused" , the
"best" were in the big old classic rangerover - stuff just bounces off if something immovable doesn't pick a fight with you. Twice
we were hit from behind while stopped at lights, both times the other party's car was a write-off and the RR had slight scratches to the bumper,
occupants bearly felt the impact. But likewise I've experienced the "oil-tanker" braking distance of the very same car. Had a near
identical rear-ending in a peugeot 205 (similar speeds, similar sized car) and ended up with whiplash.
Similarly I know someone who smudged the back of a faux-by-four with a hilux surf (faux-by-four out-braked the surf who was following a bit close with
mud tyres (not normally used on-road), in a situation caused by oncoming driver - surf bailed "through" the other car and up the empty
footway), the damage to the faux-by-four was fairly high and the surf had a new wing and a bit of filler on the bonnet. The child in the back of the
surf didn't wake throughout!
There's plenty of occasions where a 4x4 is a very handy car to have in a collision.
[Edited on 25/2/13 by coyoteboy]
|
|
|
