Is there a “bad” car on the market today? Not even ten years ago, over at TTAC we used to hold an annual “Ten Worst Automobiles Today” contest, and then there were still a number of stinkers on market, like the Chevy Aveo, Chrysler Aspen, Chevy Monte Carlo, Buick Rendezvous, and the GM U-vans. My experience with this Fiat 500L was a bit surprising, to think that there was a car being sold with such a deeply flawed drive train. So the question today is a big one: what’s the worst car being sold today? Preferably with some objective criteria, and not just pure hate. And for those outside of the US/Canada market, please note what market you’re referring to.
Update: the Fiat 500L was the most unreliable car in Consumer Report’s just released 2015 Reliability Rankings.
I’m not a fan of anything that’s sold today. My least favourite cars are the Infiniti cars. I’m not a fan of the Lexus vehicles. I’m not fond of any of the American cars that are sold today. The more I think see today’s cars, the more I prefer cars of 20 or more yrs. ago.
So what is your daily driver, Jason?
Our daily driver is one of three, 1995 Ford Taurus, 1993 Ford Escort or a 1987 Ford Escort between three drivers. All bought used, Did not start out to buy Fords but they were the best car at the time for the money. I don’t think I would ever buy anything newer. If I won the lottery all my cars would be 1969 back, the last year of cars I really desire.
My daily driver is a 2006 Toyota Corolla. Although it wasn’t my first choice of vehicle at the time, at the time I was looking for a 1990s Toyota Previa or Sienna, it turned out to be a good choice.
Thank you for answering the question. :/
You clearly didn’t read the second-to-last sentence of the last paragraph. Maybe none of the article. You offered no objective rationale.
VOLKSWAGEN! (Oh, not just hate? How about general unreliability, tons of pollutants, and utter failure to communicate?)
I would have thought Kia Rio until I read Len’s piece yesterday. An older Rio I rode in was a complete crapbox, just awful. Sounds like Kia got their poop in a group on this car.
How about that Fiat 500 L mentioned earlier today? Future clunker for sure. Also I recently sat in a new Nissan Versa, and the interior quality was definitely Japanese retro. Like a Datsun B210 for example.
The FIAT 500 L is NOT a future clunker, as most people who own the find them quite reliable. it is a brilliant design ergonomically, and it just simply takes a little getting used to if it has the dual clutch tranny. FIAT has rectified this by offering a conventional auto tranny for the 2015 model year. I own one and find it to be the most fave car I have ever owned
Then why is it the very car used to illustrate this QOTD? There’s someone who will defend any fuming pile. Usually the deluded owner who doesn’t want to admit their mistake ☺ I actually wanted to like this car, but, come on, made in Serbia?
Made in the former Yugo factory! They weren’t any good at building fake Fiats, so why would they be any better at making real ones?
Having driven one as a rental recently, Chevy Spark. Looks like Steven King’s idea of a clown car, accelerator works like the on-off switch for a wood chipper, transmission kicked down every.single.time I’d vary my speed slightly on a flat interstate, jouncy ride brought back (undesirable) memories of subcompacts from the ’80s. Ugh.
Dollar’s lot had three cars lined up to choose from: the Spark, a Nissan Versa, and a Kia Rio. Other renters literally ran ahead of me to snag the other two. That pretty much says it all.
I’d agree with you on the Spark. A hideous, cheap piece of crap. I haven’t seen many around Vancouver, so they must not be selling too well. We also have a Chevrolet Sonic up here, very similar but comes in a sedan. Ugg.
The Sonic is a size class up and is a much larger, completely different (and vastly better) car than the Spark. The sedan version is a bit ungainly looking, but the hatchback is a perfectly fine car. Not a fan of the rear door handle treatment, but otherwise they are ok looking and pleasant to drive.
Spark spelled backwards is “Kraps”.coincidence or truth in a name?
Keep in mind that you’re probably rating the Spark against much larger automobiles. It’s a city car, was never designed to be more than that, and its legitimate competition is: Smart ForTwo and Scion iQ.
At which point, the design actually looks respectable. Only a car rental firm would hand one of those out with the expectation that the customer is going to take it out on the interstate and drive serious distances. The car is not designed for that behavior.
I dunno. I rented a Spark at LAX at the end of February (flew in from Honolulu standby) and drove it up to Oakland/Alameda. Did just fine. On the other hand, A Spark I’d rented at LAX and drove to my son’s in Las Vegas was not fun. I believe it depends on how “driven” one Spark rental is against another. The not-fun experience could be blamed on the CVT, which I’m not a fan of. I rented one (a Nissan Altima) in San Antonio for a week two years ago and it felt like I was stepping on a plum. Ditto the Spark, but not the one I rented in February however.
it’s funny. i recently rented a spark from dollar and i kind of enjoyed it. i thought it was comfortable, handled ok and reasonably peppy even with the ac on. what i really liked is what it didn’t have: a distracting center console video screen. it just has a simple led pod in front of the driver. sort of reminiscent of an 80’s casio watch. my only disappointment was it only had one cigarette lighter and no usb. the cigarette lighter was broken so there was no way to keep our electronic gadgets charged while driving. also, the mileage wasn’t that great. a car that size should get close to 40mpg on the highway and i think we were getting in the low 30’s. give me one with a stick shift and a sunroof and i would grow to like it. but then again, i liked chevettes. 🙂
Microcars like the Spark and Fortwo are a little misleading: based on their size (smaller than a subcompact), one would not be amiss thinking they would get better MPG than a subcompact. But there’s a reason another name for the microcar segment is “city car:” their engines, transmissions, and shape are designed to maximize MPG in city driving, to the detriment of highway MPG.
This is a hard question as there are many bland cars but not really any bad cars. I guess the Smart car with it’s terrible transmission and far sub par mileage for what it is would be it. Even it is being replaced with a new one based on the small Renault, so at least the basics should be correct on the new one.
I think that our definition of bad has changed. I remember about 1976 when a friend of my Grandma’s got a new Dodge Aspen. I watched her try to start it, and it cranked for what seemed like 30 seconds before finally catching, with a cloud of black smoke billowing from the exhaust. Bad assembly, fast rusting and wouldn’t even run right when new – that’s a bad car.
Today, we have cars like this Fiat and Dart with odd, quirky powertrain characteristics. Frankly, I found a rental Dodge Grand Caravan to be a POS a couple of months ago, but it was decently assembled, started every time, and had put up with many, many rental miles. I hated the flexible structure, the awkward shifting transmission and the check engine light, but if this is what makes a bad car today, I guess we are all spoiled.
Agreed on the Dodge Caravan. A few years ago I rented one in Detroit, my choice was that or a Kia van. Being in Detroit with their anti-import sentiment, I opted for the Dodge.
That thing was a complete disappointment, there is no way I would actually ever BUY one of those. The old Caravans were way better.
I rented the Caravan after having a Sedona as a daily driver for nearly 4 years. I had always wondered if I had made a mistake by not considering the Chrysler. I no longer think about that. All of the Sedona’s problems would have been fixable by both Kia and I spending more money on the interior of the vehicle. Not so with the Chryslers. And this from a guy who really loved a 99 T&C.
Hmm, really? So I did make the right decision buying a used 2007 Caravan (last year of the old model before the squareavan). Oddly enough I was the parking lot monitor at Church this week (there’s faith in action, oh boy) and there was a new Caravan with the window sticker on it, $36,000. I thought wow, our used Caravan was $9000 6 years ago, that van will have to last 24 years to get the same value..
I haven’t been in any truly bad cars for years, the worst I’d say was a Ford Focus with dual clutch transmission which I found unsettling to drive but certainly not as bad as Paul’s Fiat experience.
So my official answer to this question is none of the above.
That Chevy Monte Carlo outlived all others on in some other forms, and Oakland County police is one of the followings. Most fleet consists of W-Body Impala. And after one decade, this design looks rather appealing and lasting, especially the headlights.
Dodge Dart. Horrid powertrain combinations are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg; the car also suffers from subpar ItalMopar “engineering” and indifferent build quality throughout. I’ve honestly never seen one without significant and obvious QC lapses.
Not to mention that the Dart screams “my credit sucks” more so than any other vehicle this side of a Mitsubishi. Some cars, you look at and wonder what the buyer was thinking; with the Dart, you know that was largely “pleezgitmedone.”
+1
Mitsubishi Outlander GT with the V6, low specific output but requires premium fuel to reach its full potential of >250 hp. This in what is supposed to be an “everyman” vehicle, not a premium marque that you might expect to require premium fuel.
Outlander is shared with Peugeot who fit their common rail turbo diesel powertrain which gets praised by the motoring press apparently it transforms it into a decent car, now I see Mitsubishi is selling them in diesel but their own engine.
I drove a 4007 (Peugeot’s Outlander) with the dual-clutch transmission. Really good feel, and if it hadn’t been for lingering fears about repair costs and depreciation, I would have bought it.
I suspect you would have been ok both motor and trans are shared with the Ford Mondeo and they appear quite reliable.
It just seems unfathomably weird, at least to this American, that Peugeot would rebrand a Mitsubishi.
Mitsubishi Mirage. Progressively dumbed down over the years from a lively, scrappy Civic-beater to a crude, dull, and marginal lump. Mitsu needed a home run in this segment and punted.
The alternatives are so much better and not much more money.
Where a friend of mine lives in the far north of NZ the latest Mirage/Colts are quite popular they cope well with the rough gravel roads that are shaking my friends Volvo to pieces, anything that survives the ill maintained back roads of NZ cant be really bad.
Mitsubishi Mirage – you beat me to it.
Mixed your sports metaphors there! Baseball⚾ is as big in Japan as football is in Texas, so I suggest “bunted.”
Gretzky has the ball, he passes to Tiger…he goes for a two-point conversion–no, he’s punting! Tebow’s running through the outfield, looking for an opening–juuust misses it, and the birdie drops into the corner pocket! GOOOOOOL! And with that, the Cubs have advanced to Game 7 of the World Chess Championship against Tokyo Verdy, next Sunday on ESPN!
Mitsubishi Mirage was my idea, too….
Just logged in to scream “Mitsubishi Mirage” from the rooftops, but you beat me to it. Glad I’m not the only one who sees those turds for what they are. I mean they’re ugly and allegedly hideous to ride in, but what makes me think they’re the worst is their cynical attempt to trade off the Mirage name which had a positive image (here in New Zealand anyway).
Off the top of my head I’d say Chevy Spark, Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa sedan, Toyota Prius C, Lexus CT200h, the Mini hardtop 4 door (it’s not a real hardtop and it’s more MAXI than Mini), and while they aren’t bad cars….the BMW X6. The idea of a 4 door hatchback that weighs 2 tons and who’s mere existance would seem to go against everything BMW stands for…..
You seem to have a mix of unreliable/indifferently assembled cars and bad concepts that may be executed well but still aren’t very useful…which are two equally valid but separate categories of Worst.
Agree on the MINI, had two and the novelty has worn off. Last one (Clubman) had a tendency for the rear barn door to pop open when unattended, usually when it was conveniently raining outside. This on top of a dramatically cheapened interior from the 1st-gen example we owned. A promising concept undone by greed and let’s-offer-a-model-in-every-segment-itis. We’ve moved on to a Subaru XV Crosstrek, which is not at all distinctive (especially in Portland/SW Wa) but a better vehicle.
I see validity in most of your list, but having recently driven the MINI Cooper S 4-door hardtop on a 9-hour roadtrip at highway speeds of 80-100 mph with no, I can confidently say it’s a very good car. Even at those speeds, the MINI had such incredible poise and pep, with very little NVH. Competitive powertrain and technology features (engines and infotainment system both coming from BMW) aren’t bad either. FWIW, 4-door hardtop models all weight under 3,000 pounds, so less than 1.5 tons.
Brendan, my mom bought a new MINI Cooper Countryman S in 2010, We still have the car, but for reasons that I don’t feel like delving into until I’m more comfortable, it now belongs to my dad. I can easily say, that next to my Dad’s 58 Chevy Apache, the MINI is my least favorite car my family has owned.
I’ll forget the styling and the fact that it’s a “MINI” in the loosest definition, and instead judge it on it’s objective merits. The car’s ride is not that great, it is the true definition of sports suspension and on the uneven SoCal roads, incredibly uncomfortable not helped by the addition of the bucket seats that offer no padding whatsoever. The car does have a lot of power and can go fast, but the sheer size of it makes taking a corner not as fun as it could be with a standard MINI model (the car has a taller roofline than most crossovers, despite being essentially a slightly bigger hot hatchback). On long trips, it’s just a nightmare, and I really would complain about my butt going numb on multiple occasions, feeling the road is something I prioritized avoiding when we bought my first car.
But the worst aspect? The general quality is terrible, there are some bits that feel really plasticky, but that’s not scratching the surface. The car has had multiple trips to the mechanic for everything, from seats not folding down, to radio and a/c buttons getting stuck, to tires losing pressure on their own. The worst though was when I was outside of my high school one day, and I had to be picked up by my Mom’s friend because she couldn’t be there. Why? The car’s clutch burned out. Now, my Mom has had experience with Stick-shifts before, so it wasn’t user error at all. But, apparently, the clutch that MINI put it was too weak to deal with the additional power of the turbocharged engine, so the clutch was slowly being destroyed bit by bit due to the engine power. This was when the car was only at 40K on the odometer as well. And that’s not even counting the expensive dealer service bills for even just minor fix-ups.
I’ve had plenty of bad experiences about that car and I have very little positives. I’m not sure if the new Countryman’s or really any MINI is better or worse, but having lived with one, I would not be eager to buy a new MINI anytime soon. These experiences, like any other ownership experience, are very much YMMV. But, I just have got very little to say about that car that can be chalked up as a positive.
My Dad’s Pickup has 20 inch rims with low profile tires, which leads to the most uncomfortable ride I’ve experienced thus far. You feel every single imperfection and bit of gravel on the road, and everything is just transferred in the worst way possible. It’s the kind of ride where you hit the road, and the entire cabin jutters and shakes from the huge jolt, where the suspension might as well be non existent. My dad has yet to replace the tires due to cost reasons and time, (he won it from an Ebay auction and those rims and tires where what it was on when it was delivered to our house) so suffice it to say, I dread having to be in that car when we travel to local car shows around my area.
Does that make it the worst car on the market today?
(But yes, anything bigger than 18″ on a truck is not a good idea.)
The standalone comment was meant as a reply to someone who asked me what I hated about the truck. The truck in question is a 1958 Chevrolet Apache, not a modern truck. I did not realize the comment that I wrote this reply to had been deleted, and did not have enough time to delete the comment in question. It’s not relevant, you can easily ignore it.
Understood. Hopefully he can get them replaced soon.
EDIT: Hmm, that was supposed to be in reply to you, not a new comment. Maybe the system’s acting up.
Now I understand. Your father is the idiot, not you. I apologize to you. If the pickup was shod in something as intended it would be a lot better. I agree with your description as to the PU with the 20″ wheels and tires being a POS to ride in. I don’t understand going back to the 1920’s tire-wheel aspect as a lot of people are doing. Reverting 100 years and paying a fortune for it.
My Mazda 3 with (factory) 18” wheels is no magic pillow either, and I am very interested in seeing what it will be like when it gets 16″ wheels for its winter tires next week. I think the urge to be seen as sporty and “cool” when fitting wheel/tire combos has gone way too far now – it does not work even with modern factory suspension (other than when you go canyon carving etc.). I can live with it, but it can get annoying.
I have a Mazda3 with 16s. I test-drove the option package with 17s before I bought the car and concluded that the bigger wheels mostly just made the ride crashier without any obvious advantage. (I think the section width of the tires with the 17s was about the same or only like 10mm more.) I decided the 17s would just cost more to replace and didn’t bother. The 16s don’t make the ride cushy, but it’s tolerable as long as the tires are in decent shape.
Thanks – that’s what I was hoping for. You say the 17s were bad? Now just imagine what it’s like with 18s…
The biggest wheels are actually on my avoid list for a late-model 3, not to mention some other cars,, where they jounce up the ride.
Given that I’m not going for a MazdaSpeed, I wonder if yours is with the 2L or the 2.5L. Can I get the big engine sans the 18s?
You don’t say what make or year of pickup, and from the gist of your comment it sounds like the truck has been modified so its problems are particular to the vehicle and not endemic to that model.
EDIT: This was supposed to be a reply to Joseph of Eldorado, but for some reason it appeared at the top level.
I’m sorry to hear about your bad experience with the MINI Countryman . I haven’t driven the Countryman (or Paceman) extensively, but from my brief time with them, I wasn’t inclined to drive them for longer periods, and agree with some of your statements such as cheap plastic and harsh suspension. The Countryman is easily my least favorite MINI. FWIW, I think all these not quite a car not quite a subcompact CUV vehicles are somewhat awkward and less than stellar in general.
The new hardtops, however I really like. Keep in mind that the Countryman is based on the second generation MINI hardtop, while the 2015-present hardtops are third generation cars, with a lot more BMW engineering and technology in them. Interiors are much better quality, with better plastics and switchgear. Engines are all BMW now, as is the MINI Connected (iDrive in different clothes).
BMW has an X6? Might be getting old, but for me that’s an Austin.
Yes, that came after the X5 and X3, but before the X1 and X4. Stand by for X2 and X7 or 8…
I last had a car-related job 5 years ago, and I’ve just realised that for probably the first time in my life I know very little about the new cars available today, and I don’t care.
Having said that, to those of you who think a Chevy Spark or Mitsubishi Mirage is cheapo, it’s apparently still possible to buy a Perodua here in the UK, and also a Great Wall.
I drove Great Walls in Australia in 2010, and I’m quite a cynical person, and I don’t think I’m finicky when it comes to cars, but the outrageous shittiness of these things genuinely shocked me. No two drove alike, and most were bad enough that if it were a used car test drive you’d walk away thinking it was on its last legs. I hope they’ve improved somewhat.
They still sell them, but you don’t seem to see as many around now as you did back then. They had quite an advertising blitz when they first came on the market, but maybe word of mouth has caught up with them.
I did wonder what re-sale values would be like too, as apart from stuff not working properly, the general build quality was very obviously appalling.
Yes they were cheap, but at the time I couldn’t help but think that a 5 year old Hilux was still a better deal, would depreciate less and be better to drive.
Not bad cars per se but I don’t care for CVT’s, especially as installed in Nissan products. I used to go to lunch occasionally in a co-worker’s Nissan Rogue and the CVT turned a perfectly suitable CUV into a crapmobile. It honestly reminded me of being in a mid-fifties Buick (or a motorboat); press on accelerator, slight pause followed by motor winding up, and then, eventually, the rest of the car catches up. Given the current high quality of torque converter automatic transmissions I can’t understand why manufacturers bother with CVT’s.
CVT’s have improved a lot in the last couple years. You should try driving one.
Honda and Nissan’s current offerings are superb. They have given normal 4 cylinder sedans the capability of near electric-car levels of smoothness, and almost 40mpg, out of sub-$20k midsize sedans.
When I get into one of my cars with a torque converter after driving one with a CVT all I think is how uncivilized, and slow, the geared cars feel.
I dunno about that, I had a 2015 Versa as a rental over the summer for the better part of 1,000 miles. I really didn’t like it. I found the transmission annoyingly unpredictable. Around town it had fake shift points programmed in — it ended up being a lot less smooth than the Focus I had rented for the previous couple weeks. On the Interstate, it didn’t jump, but it wasn’t very responsive unless you really nailed it, at which point there was some sound and fury. But my real question is why? The Focus got the same or better mileage with a much more pleasant powertrain (not to mention a much more solid feeling car overall).
You can run the Nissans with the fake shift points, or without. I’ve never understood the fake shift point, or “Sport” setting, it completely negates the reason for having a CVT in the first place, and makes the car feel terrible, as you described.
Subaru’s CVTs actually aren’t too bad. The only one I’d stay away from is the FB20/CVT combo in the Impreza and Crosstrek. From my experience test driving one there simply isn’t enough power. I think the FB in its current form would get along much better with a manual.
OTOH I’ve driven several SJ (current gen) Foresters with the CVT and other than having to get used to no discernible shift points it seems to work well. A little noisy at WOT or when trying to pass on a steep grade.
God, I hate CVTs, at least Nissan’s version. I once had a 2011 Nissan Altima rental that I utterly loathed. When accelerating, the engine was so loud and thrashy that I thought I was driving a Vega. All the CVT did was change the pitch from a shriek to a moan. Throttle response felt like pulling your foot out of the mud. Couldn’t wait to give that POS back to Hertz and get back in my Cadillac. I wouldn’t touch a CVT-equipped Nissan with a 39 1/2-foot pole.
I don’t care for CVT’s – they feel like automatic transmissions that are slipping; worn out.
Hear me out…the Audi A3. Not the S3, the normal 1.8-liter one.
If you define bad as the absence of good we have some candidates on the lower end of the market of course. But that’s more to do with the price point. I don’t even mind the mirage because it’s an answer to a question we asked (why don’t they make basic cheap cars anymore?)
But if you define bad by expectations in comparison to what you actually get it doesn’t get worse than paying 31 grand for a base A3 instead of the bigger and better options that don’t sell on badge snobbery (Example: the Fusion Titanium/Dodge Charger/VW Golf GTI)
The C/GLA250 is a close second, winning because there’s a smaller chance it’ll start falling apart at the seams as soon as the warranty expires
Agreed. The old A3 at least had the advantages of being a hatchback and available with a stick so that your European car would be, you know, European.
The new A3 is just a Jetta with an extra ten grand on the sticker.
Here’s an alternate view, from someone who liked the old one and also likes the new one, even the 1.8 version:
Thanks for sharing. (also thanks to the guy who decided to film it at 60 FPS)
The A3’s poor value-for-money proposition becomes even worse with the TDi models compared against the Jetta.
When I was car-shopping last year, the VW Jetta TDi was a strong front-runner. It basically ticked all the boxes (good fuel economy, drives well, reasonable performance) except for two: the interior and rear suspension. US-market Jettas couldn’t be had with leather and the plastics used were cheap; the rear suspension was a longitudinal torsion bar, whereas on the previous models it had been fully-independent. However, the car was priced – fully-loaded with sat-nav – at $28K. Not amazing, but still a decent amount of car for the money.
In the interests of indulging my sybaritic tendencies, I took a look at an A3 TDi. Starting price was around $33K, and that was for a model with cloth seats and basically the same trim as the entry-level Jetta TDi. After speccing it up to where I’d want it to be, I was at $42K.
While the A3 is arguably the nicer car, I can’t see where it’s $14K nicer than the Jetta. And $42K is a *lot* to spend on what’s basically an economy car.
The Jetta TDi did win out in the end, and I ended up buying a then-two-year-old CPO 2012 model, loaded, for $21K. Doing the math at the time, I realised that it could be brought up to near-A3 spec for around $4500 at my leisure (Passat sat-nav, leather, rear suspension, bushings, etc.) and still be close to $16K ahead of the cost of the A3. We’ll still be living with the interior plastics, but they’re a lot easier to swallow at that price.
Dieselgate aside, I’m really glad that I didn’t sign for the Audi. The impression I came away with was that it was one of the most cynical attempts at a car intended to prise money out of people who care what their neighbours think about what’s parked in their own driveway.
The proposition that the A3 is a bad car because it’s too much money for a vehicle that can be had for less in another brand….is nonsense. People want to indulge themselves. That’s like saying, “I can’t believe you bought those Levi’s when Wrangler sells you the same thing for less.” Or, “I can’t believe you paid for a Smart HDTV when you can get a HDTV without the Smart features for less.” The Audi is an upmarket vehicle, and it has features unavailable on the lesser VW platform-sharing models. Yes…they accomplish the same thing, but the person who paid more is happier with their choice. Unless you’re saying they made an uninformed choice and never tried the Wranglers on or watched the TV without the Smart features.
My argument is not, as you say, that “the A3 is a bad car because it’s too much money for a vehicle that can be had for less in another brand.” My argument is that the price difference between the VW and the Audi is too great for what the Audi offers overall in what is essentially an economy car package. In short, it’s overpriced.
I do find the idea that “the person who paid more is happier with their choice” amusing, however. Does this mean that it’s not possible to be just as happy with a less-expensive car?
Overpriced does not mean it’s a bad car, and certainly not the worst car. Your point, while valid, doesn’t fit the article.
And, no, my point does not mean it’s impossible for someone in a cheap car to be happy – that’s a straw man argument. My comment said the person who paid more is happier with their choice. That means…both cars could make them happy, but they’re happier with the more expensive one.
I could have been happy with a flat-screen HDTV, which was an upgrade from my 300-lb. 35″ TV. I’m happier having chosen a 3D Smart HDTV. I don’t look down on the other TV I didn’t want – I’m just happier with my choice. The same can be said for the Audi A3 owners. They need not feel bad about their choice – they justified it to themselves and they’re presumably happy with it.
I think you may have misconstrued the point that I was originally making, which was included as an addendum to the post above by Gerardo Solis regarding the 1.8T cars, *not* the main part of the article.
At no point have I made a dynamic judgement of the vehicle (and frankly, having driven it, I would not categorise it as a bad car, but certainly will stick to my guns on it being overpriced for what it is) – but I did choose to include it as an extension of his assessment of the 1.8T.
I really dislike the current Ford Escape because of the lack of door lock plungers for the rear doors which essentially turns it into a police car once the driver puts the transmission into drive because I cannot unlock the rear doors.
The Smart For Two has a crappy Automatic Transmission that drops roughly into the next highest gear during acceleration and makes the car feel like a buoy on a choppy bay. I just floor it up to thirty instead of being leisurly to avoid “whiplash.” The seats get really uncomfortable after 50 or so miles and I sometimes get a weird reasonance from the roof panel while on the Interstate Bridge between Portland and Vancouver.
>>I really dislike the current Ford Escape because of the lack of door lock plungers for the rear doors which essentially turns it into a police car once the driver puts the transmission into drive because I cannot unlock the rear doors.<<
Making the Escape, Escape-proof!
They probably think of it as some sort of child proof feature.
“Adult-proof packaging” 🙂
Many newer cars have this “feature”. The Ford Fiesta was the first one where it was widely criticized, but off the top of my head I can think of multiple Ford and VW/Audi products with no manual plungers in the door and only a central power lock button. My Jetta has this – you can either lock all of the doors or none of them, and if the power lock button breaks (which it probably will because: VW), you basically have to have it repaired. I guess it is supposed to be “slick” and “modern” to omit any sort of manual lock and just build a fully electric system with buttons, but I find it to be overly tech-y simply for the sake of being overly tech-y.
On the other end of the spectrum you have GM holding on to the archaic, clunky plunger-style door locks that should have died around the same time their last carburetor was built.
I remember my family renting an early 2000s Fiesta in Mexico where there were no door lock plungers – you pushed in the whole inside handle to lock the door. At first I thought the inside handles were broken sitting in the locked position, but no, that’s just the way they work!
“On the other end of the spectrum you have GM holding on to the archaic, clunky plunger-style door locks that should have died around the same time their last carburetor was built.’
But the tooling’s paid for, and it’s not worn out yet!
The escape I have ridden in unlocks the back door if you pull the rear handle twice. I guess the first pull is the same as pulling up the plunger
Yes just pull the door handle twice. It will unlock on the first and open on the second pull. The ‘child lock’ can be turned on or off in the door jamb using the key.
Oh, dear. Teddy must have driven one of those Car2Go rentals that I see desecrating the streets of Portland. I’d put the Smart for Two at the top of my craptacular car list.
That is what the Ford people tell me dominic1955, but I see nothing wrong with a switch on the door like what Minivan’s have on their sliding doors.
Good to know Bruce.
Car to Go, Gary!? Oh haaa, haaa, haaa, actually this Smart For Two is a rental car from a repair shop. I am really happy to get my Caravan back because that means it is fixed and I can get outta the damn “Smart!” It is amusing to see Car To Gos stack up and I think I have seen 5-6 parked in a row. I would consider buying a gas powered Smart if I lived in the middle of a cramped big city and I did not have access to an outlet.
Interestingly enough, even a mediocre car sold in 2015 is better then most “good” cars of 20 or 30 years ago due to better QC, reliability, comfort, safety and gas mileage. We have come a long way in regards to car making in the last 10 years
That said in my mind the worse car currently made and sold in the USA is the Smart Fourtwo. This is a car that was created for those folks that needed a car with a small footprint to drive in an environment that larger cars had issues in (such as driving and parking in a city) It also was created to leave a small carbon foot print and give good gas mileage. In the end it was a pretty pointless car and a real waste of materiel.
It dos not really return stellar gas mileage, is cramped and is slow. Its CVT transmission is jerky, lifeless and unpredictable.
Plus it looks ugly. Hardly anybody buys the thing. Why buy this when you can buy a Fiesta, Rio, Accent or Fit for ether the same amount of money or slightly more(and they look like cars)?
As I understand it, the 1st gen smarts in the U.S. did NOT have a CVT….they might have driven better if they had had one. The 1st smarts had a sort of automated manual transmission. I think the 2nd gen smarts, which are just now hitting showrooms, might have CVTs.
Interesting that a “similar” car, the Scion iq, has been pulled….somewhat quietly, from the marketplace. Toyota does make mistakes.
Sorry about that, I meant SAT (Semi- Automatic Transmission). I must have put CVT down due to reading prior postings on this post talking about CVTs
Smart switched to a twin clutch automated manual in the latest ones.
About 18 months ago, I had the misfortune of making a reservation for an “economy” rental car and showing up to find a Smart as my lone option. Not quite as terrifying on the highway as I had feared, but I made the mistake of trying to pull out into traffic quickly, and the transmission had a nervous breakdown trying to decide between gears. I’m used to having to make allowances when driving old cars, but I will not court death in a plastic clamshell package.
Well, the Smart car is “dumb” for the driving 99.99% of Americans do, and the transmission sucks (though a manual is now available)…but you can’t judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree. It has a niche, albeit a very small one.
The Scion iQ, by almost all accounts, was a much better car. I wonder how it did in Europe. Must not have done well, considering it has been discontinued.
I can see the appeal of such a small car in a city like Rome but even living in NYC I rarely saw any Smarts and didn’t much see the point.
The Toyota iQ was a tiny, yet expensive car. For less money you had an Aygo with rear seats, 5 doors and a decent place for some luggage or groceries. They both had the same 1.0 liter Daihatsu-based 3-cylinder, although the iQ was also available with a 1.3 liter 4-cylinder.
Cars like the current Toyota Aygo and Volkswagen Up are highly successful. But the (original) Smart ForTwo and Toyota iQ were just too small and too expensive. Niche-cars, unlike all other A-segment hatchbacks.
And the Chevrolet Spark puts them both to shame. Four doors, a real (albeit tight) rear seat, and a cheaper price than either. Its a city car that is unfortunately compared with all the larger alternatives due to the four doors, and comes off badly against the bigger stuff.
Keep it in its size class, and its the best of the bunch.
Both the Smart ForTwo and Toyota iQ were in a league of their own. Size- and price-wise. If the Wikipedia numbers are correct, the Chevrolet Spark is about 25 inch longer than the Toyota iQ.
Even for Europeans a car can also be TOO small, and both the ForTwo and iQ evidently were. So small that they were highly impractical.
A typical city car is in the cheapest price segment, preferably has 5 doors, real rear seats and a circa 1.0 liter gasoline engine. With or without turbo.
Like the Peugeot 108 below. Technically the same car as a Toyota Aygo and Citroën C1. They look different now, unlike the previous generation.
And since Fiat seems to be the trending topic right now, here’s the good old Fiat Panda. My first choice if I were in the market for a basic, cheap, yet roomy and practical small car.
It’s just a shame that it has compromised so many other things with today’s’ vehicle offerings like visibility, crap harsh cloth seat material that is all but impossible to clean, horrid interior colors or lack of color I should say with black lung or gray blandness or too light easily soiled tan, truly hideous styling like some of Nissan’s latest offerings or the Juke/Cube. And lets not forget tiny over stressed engines with far greater complexity, truly terrible transmissions (hello Ford Fiesta/Focus/Nissan CVT etc), far too many distraction oriented touch screens, electronic nannies, video arcade shifters or no shifter at all, shiny black annoying plastic that blinds the eyes when the sun hits it and so many more issues with today’s vehicles.
VW Beetle. A whole lot like a Golf but less roomy. Add in the finest Mexican build quality and cheater Diesels (not that the gas engines are very good, either).
The worst is any V8 4×4 that will only- or mainly- serve as a solo commuter vehicle.
And why might that be?
You have the right to choose your vehicle, I have the right to choose mine. For the record I solo commute in a Ford F150 as I need it for my business, but I guess if you were in charge I’d be driving an econobox with no choice of my own.
If you need it for hauling, you need it for hauling. You and I and everyone knows many if not most pickups rarely if ever have anything in the box.
That’s true, I don’t often have much in the box just like most 5 passenger cars rarely are hauling 5 passengers. I just pull 8,000 pound trailers with mine. It’s the most versatile vehicle I’ve ever owned and anything less would be unacceptable.
Good for you. Now what part of my statements do you take issue with, really?
What makes you think I took issue with what you said? I agreed with you. Yet after thinking about it, I realize that seeing any vehicle not fully utilizing its potential is only a snapshot in time. I’m worried I may have jumped to false judgements based upon this snapshot, and this may not reflect actual use.
[citation needed]
[go outside and watch]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Fiat 500L is produced in my homeland, so I’ll vote for him as “The worst new car” 🙂
I would rather drive 10-15 year old Toyota Yaris Verso or Scion xB, than this rubish, new…
The FIAT 500L is a well built car from a state of the art manufacturing plant.
When I Fest drove it, I was impressed with its fit and finish, and it’s well thought out design. I have found it a delight! So as a citizen of Serbia, you ought to be proud. it is very Eco friendly, and even the Pope finds favor with it!
There are indeed other cars way more worthy of the being the worst!
The FIAT 500L is a well built car from a state of the art manufacturing plant.
When I test drove it, I was impressed with its fit and finish, and it’s well thought out design. I have found it a delight! So as a citizen of Serbia, you ought to be proud. it is very Eco friendly, and even the Pope finds favor with it!
There are indeed other cars way more worthy of the being the worst!
I would agree with David G., I was blown away at how nicely assembled the 500L was. I fell in love with the interior of the car, comfortable and quite versatile. Plenty of people space and clever rear seats that make a lot of storage room when necessary. A very well thought out design. The DDCT killed it for a lot of people, but the Aisin transmission should be pretty reliable.
Where else can you get the power train from an Abarth in (essentially) a minivan?
If Consumer Reports is to be believed, the vehicle that consistently ranks at the bottom of their reliability surveys is none other than the Jeep Wrangler. This actually makes sense being as it’s not really designed to be operated exclusively on paved surfaces (which is how something like 90% of them are driven) and it’s the most ancient and archaic vehicle still in production.
Unless one is ‘turfing’, I don’t think the Wrangler is all that much fun to drive, either.
Funny, I know quite a few people that have Wranglers and they love them. Whether or not they are not telling me when they break is another thing. Being archaic it should be THE most reliable vehicle as there have been years to perfect it – just look at the Olds Ciera/Buick Century!
People love them because they’re toys. Jeeps are only reliable if you’re comparing them to ATV’s, which is all they should be cross-shopped with… The build quality is appalling. I’ve seen a new Wrangler still in the showroom with visible surface rust on exposed, untreated bolts. I’d still like to have one one day, but only to use as an offroad toy. People who commute in them are delusional.
Everyone I know who has a Wrangler loves it, agreed, and the one person I know who had one and sold it (traded it on a Civic Si) is considering going back to the Wrangler. By most objective measures they are *not* good cars–slow, thirsty, expensive for what you get, poor highway manners and NVH. They *are* good off-roaders but that’s not the criteria.
But it’s not really about the car. It’s about the lifestyle. Two kinds of people buy them–One, those who love the off-road ability and will put up with its flaws as a “car” as a fair trade. And Two, those who buy them because of the image. Driving a wrangler gives you a certain image, a certain credibility, and it’s a desirable one to many people. They want to be a “Jeep Person”. And the actual virtues of the vehicle are irrelevant.
Both of those parties will say they love their Wrangler. Other folks don’t bother buying them, or don’t get past the test drive.
“Lifestyle” is exactly the problem with Consumer Reports car ratings. Their assumption is that the entire carshopping population is composed of effete Easterners like the drones played by actors in Subaru commercials. Of course…they are wrong. But you can’t tell by the way they pose as “authorities.”
To the folks at CR the greatest car ever built (at least before the Camry came along) was the Type 1 Beetle. They test cars so objectively that in the end a Corvette is judged by the same criteria as an Accord, not taking into account that a Corvette and an Accord have completely different missions in life.
Mark: Do you even read it? Because that’s just not true.
I’ve subscribed on and off for years. For pretty much any product other than cars CR’s testing methodology is the gold standard. With the exception of one camera, when I’ve bought something where CR’s test results weighed heavily on my decision I’ve always been satisfied with the product.
Then there’s the car reviews. Some of them over the years have made me cringe. To them a motor vehicle is more of a necessary evil than something to be used and enjoyed.
I’ve read and subscribed to Consumer Reports since the 1960s. Even back then, their car ratings had a lunatic-fringe aspect to them. Perhaps in the East, and to some people who seldom drove on highways, a six-cylinder engine with Powerglide was a sufficient power plant for a full size Chevrolet. But it would be woefully inadequate for someone driving between, say, Sacramento, CA and Reno, NV; or between Denver and Grand Junction, CO. Consumer Reports, however, never took that into account. If it was OK for grocery shopping in suburban Connecticut, that was enough.
Mark mentions the seemingly never-ending Consumer Reports love affair with the Toyota Camry. That may go along with their mild-mannered milquetoast personality when it comes to cars, but there were at least a few occasions when a competing American car was judged equal or better. One was in 1992 when the newly-freshened Ford Taurus was rated just as highly, along with the Honda Accord (the Chrysler offering…I forget now whether it was the Plymouth Acclaim or its near-clone Chrysler LeBaron…came in behind, but not far behind…still fourth out of four in that issue’s test report). Two years later the 1994 Dodge Intrepid, and by association its LH-sedan siblings, tested as “every bit (the Camry’s) equal…maybe a smidgen better.” It happened again, more recently, when the Chevrolet Impala outpointed the Camry. But those three times were just about all, infrequent enough to appear as aberrations, mere patches of choppy water in a seemingly endless ocean of Camry-worship.
I still remember the day I finally lost all respect for Consumer’s Reports automobile reviews. Sometime in the late 80’s. They were testing a Mercedes-Benz 190 sedan (what you’d call base line C-class today). Gave it a reasonably good writeup, impressed with the quality, etc.
And then suggested you go out and buy a Camry instead.
Seriously. They weren’t testing a Camry alongside it. In fact they hadn’t tested a Camry in about a year (and gave it the usual damned-close-to-perfect score), but seriously suggested that someone who wanted the M-B snob appeal should buy a Camry instead.
when they gave the tesla model s the highest rating ever, consumer reports jumped the shark. and now they’ve flip-flopped and don’t recommend it because of it’s complexity and poor reliability. as my daughter would say, “duh!”
it’s only a matter of time until there is horrendous crash caused by it’s new autonomous driving update.
That’s not a flip-flop. Plenty of examples out there of nice-when-new rigs that score well onaroad test, but which fall apart too much in a couple of years.
I was reminded of the above by rereading some of the vintage car rviews posted here. The GM X bodies got raves, but five years after publication of that in R+T…
Everyone I know who has a Wrangler loves it
Same here. Plus, really, it’s one of the few niche vehicles in existence today that hasn’t suffered from severe mission creep, that’s something to be admired, not chastised.
CR admitted that Jeeps rank among the highest in customer satisfaction surveys despite low predicted reliability. Mustangs also got higher satisfaction than their reliability implied. Harleys, likewise: Not as reliable as Japanese, but highest in satisfaction. Victory rated the highest reliability among domestics.
Jeep stands for “just empty every pocket” according to the techs at my dealership who worked on them. They are notoriously shoddy in their construction. Mopar quality has never been anything to write home about, and since Jeep owners are so darned loyal, DCA can continue to make them as crappy and as cheap as possible. There is huge profit in Jeeps since the tech is at the crowbar level. Loads of them come back to dealerships for work, too, so it’s a huge money maker.
Jeep owners are not known for disclosing all their Jeep maladies.
Paul, there is nothing flawed about the 500L. it’s just that folks in the US aren’t used to this kind of transmission setup. You have to drive it like it is the manual transmission that it is. The nice thing about it is that you don’t have to wrestle with a clutch, especially in heavy traffic. Yes, there were a couple of glitches in the first batch of 500Ls but they have all be rectified. I have had mine now for nearly a year, making a 85 mile round trip commute in all kinds of conditions, and it has been stone reliable. It is In Fact the most charming and fun car I have ever owned. yes the looks are quirky, but that is what I love about it!!
That was the same excuse put out about the Focus’ clutch-less transmission, the difference there is the Focus didn’t also have to have their engines replaced en masse, like the Fiat. Or suffer from repeated bouts of not starting, like the Fiat.
The fact remains, the 500L is statistically the least reliable new car sold in the US. Less than a year of ownership isn’t even good as far as anecdotal evidence goes, at this point you’re still well within the post-purchase rationalization phase. Talk to us after 3-5 years of 500L ownership and let’s see what your tune is then. Statistically speaking, there’s a good chance it’ll be different….
How exactly does one drive an automatic transmission like a manual? Unless I’m choosing my own gears and controlling the engine and transmission’s connection to each other with a clutch, I don’t really see how I could drive it like a manual. The entire point of an automatic is to do things, um, automatically, and if the transmission can’t do that correctly under the stewardship of an average driver, then it’s a bad transmission.
I’m of the opinion that someone else has posted here already–that there really isn’t any bad cars made anymore but a lot of them are for people that really don’t car about cars, they just need a car. We have Nissan Versas for delievery vehicles and both are at about the 90,000 mile and other than the stuff thats going to wear out–brakes and tires–they start up every day and don’t give any problems. Having said that I would never own one, they are a cheap unexciting car and live is too short to settle for that. I’m sure they make great first new cars and I see a lot of retired folk driving them but that don’t make them a bad car-just not one I would recomend.
I mentioned the Versa for the reasons you mentioned and because I think that any car that small should only be a hatchback. And the sedan Versa looks frumpy bordering on ugly.
The Versa hatchback, on the other hand, would seem to be a decent car…..if for no other reason than it comes in a decent range of colors instead of the currently “fashionable” 2 shades of siver/grey and 3 of black/charcoal and a red.
Yeah, bottom-feeder cars like the Spark, Versa, Mirage, Rio, and Accent are only ‘bad’ if the prospective consumer can afford something better (like a Honda Fit). If one’s budget only allows the purchase of the very cheapest of new cars, they’re just not that bad. Compared to years past when the cheapest cars really were horrible (Yugo), today’s are actually pretty damn good at providing basic, reliable, A-to-B transportation on the cheap. In fact, the last truly bad new car was the Chevy Aveo which has since been replaced by the Sonic, a car that actually gets decent reviews.
The Aveo was NOT replaced by the Sonic, and I realize you are not the only person here at CC who says (believes?) that is the case. The Spark replaced the Aveo, I believe both the Spark and Aveo were/are built in the same factory in Korea. The Sonic, to it’s and GM’s credit is built in the U.S.
Yes, the Sonic IS the next generation Aveo. The Spark is a whole class smaller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Aveo#T300
And not just because wikipedia says so.
The Aveo was a subcompact (B-segment), as is the Sonic. The Spark is the next segment down a four-door minicar (A-segment). Basically a competitor to the Smart Forfour if it was sold in the U.S.
The Sonic is definitely the Aveo replacement, you are incorrect, the Spark is a size smaller.
Amazing how offering four doors puts the Spark in a larger class in the eyes of a lot of people. Which makes the car come off worse than it is.
I’ve driven the Smart FourTwo, the Scion iQ, and the Spark. If I needed to pick between the three, I’d take the Spark hands down. Less expensive and offers more. And for city commuting, does the job well.
Don’t have very much experience with recent cars, but here’s my two cents’ worth…
I wasn’t very impressed with the 2014 Dodge Avenger we rented on vacation in Florida this spring. True, in red, it was a looker and it ran fine, but the interior was yesterday’s news. Cheapo appointments, mainly. In its defense, I think it was pretty much of a base model.
Worst for a driver (who likes cars and likes driving): Prius of any flavor/vintage. These are cars for people who hate cars, hate driving, and probably hate life.
Worst as in being terrible: based on the sampling of this year’s rentals, the Hyundai Tucson. I returned it a day later because it was horrible, slow, noisy, cheap, awful, and gross. Tucson is a nice town, too bad Hyundai swiped the name.
Ironically, the Prius falls on the 180 degree opposite end of the spectrum as the Jeep Wrangler. While the Wrangler might be the most toy-like of any new vehicle, the Prius is the most appliance-like. And, just like Jeep owners who love their lifestyle vehicles to the point of overlooking/accepting their myriad flaws, people who value reliability and fuel mileage above all else would swear by their Priuses.
I think a lot of people are rather enamored with the fact that the Prius looks like it rolled off the set of your choice of ’80s and ’90s syndicated science fiction TV shows. The point where the popularity of the Prius really took off was with the second generation, which introduced that look; the first-generation car looked sort of like an oversize metal gyoza and was as far as I’ve ever seen a niche item. It probably helped that the second-gen car was also bigger, but it has a definite appeal to the sort of buyer who set all of their computer, smartphone, and tablet to have sci-fi sound effects instead of ringtones and alert beeps. (In this regard, the fourth-generation car, of which I first saw pictures this weekend, may be perilously close to losing the plot — it’s more than a little overwrought.)
Furthermore, at least in California, the Prius definitely makes a statement. It’s probably the only really fuel-efficient vehicle wealthy celebs can drive without people thinking they’re slumming. Everyone knows what it is and what it means, even if you hate it or even if you can’t tell one car from another.
In the States, at least, having that kind of identity has made a big difference. There are lots of other hybrid cars that just look like regular sedans or CUVs, but a fair number of those have flopped. If you’re just looking for an all-around transportation appliance, a Camry Hybrid would probably be tempting — it’s not as fuel-efficient as a Prius, but it’s a big, reasonably comfortable, invisible family sedan that gets better gas mileage in nightmarish stop-and-go traffic than my considerably smaller car manages in conscientious highway cruising. Obviously, a lot of people take the Prius instead.
How is this not a lifestyle vehicle?
The way the hybrid choice went for my wife is, if you want low operating costs, why go for 2nd best with a Camry Hybrid or Prius V, which are otherwise much roomier & more comfortable?
She’s very happy with 50+ MPG in her hatch Prius. And she has no sanctimonious bumper stickers, either.
Toyota offer an incredible warranty on Camry hybrids for Taxi use here, it put the Falcon dedicated taxi virtually off the market, my way of thinking is that hybrid powertrain must be pretty tough.
We own a 2nd gen Prius. As a hard-core car buff – compulsive CC reader now, compulsive R&T reader from about 1966 to 1990, former SCCA National Leo petition license holder, current Ducati owner – I find it quite satisfying. Roomy, economical, easy to drive, and dead reliable so far (102K miles). Maybe the statement Prius owners are making is that they appreciate those attributes. Back on topic, the most disappointing car I’ve driven in the last few years was a previous-gen Impala. Most surprisingly good was a Sonic. The Impala was OK but just not as nice to drive or ride in, except interior space, than the Sonic.
I’m a driver that loves cars and loves driving. I consider getting a Prius every now and again for probably the same reasons that most others that buy them do: It is extremely cheap to run, it does not use much gas, it is exceedingly reliable, they seem to be able to rack up tremendous mileages without complaint/fail, and when you know your journey is going to consist of driving on suburban roads laid out on a grid with speed limits, sitting at red lights, waiting for trains to cross, it often seems like a total waste to pull my 911 out of the garage. So I’d say the Prius is a fantastic car for anyone who is beyond worrying about what others may think about them and I know several other people that love cars and driving that have them. But if there could only be ONE car in the stable, then yeah, it’d not be my first choice either.
“probably hate life”. LOL
What do you drive, Forty2?
I have always disliked the Prius, and I love driving (on curvy country roads) but I can identify with Jim Klein’s comment. In a few years I will in all likelihood be living in a city/suburb in the Midwest, and I can’t see myself desiring the type of car I would like to be driving now, as I’ll just be trundling between stop signs, hating life…
Still won’t get a Prius though 🙂
I also love cars and driving (but live in a congested urban area where I seldom get to see empty roads – I have to take trips to Eastern WA for that).
My opinion on the Prius keeps flip-flopping. I don’t own one, but have to admit that it would probably be the perfect car for me for 99% of my driving.
I have several cars, one of which is a 1996 Passat TDi. This is the funnest car to drive that I have ever owned (has been slightly lowered by the previous owner and it handles like it is on rails), with fantastic steering feedback. With that said, it is simultaneously the most unreliable car that I have ever owned (although the 2001 Lesabre sitting in the driveway with packing tape covering tha half-open window due to the THIRD broken window regulator is rapidly catching up).
And I have two small children that I want to spend time with. And I work on my own cars . . . so logic would tell me to ditch the Passat (and the Lesabre too) and to get a Prius. But . . . would I enjoy driving it?
Switching gears to the Chevy Sonic discussion above – I have rented a few recently and wow, for a “cheap” car it is really impressive!
I put the Prius on the low end of the acceptable scale mainly for it’s off ugly shape, poor rear visibility with that rear spoiler that obstructs vision and makes it look like your seeing out of a mail slot, poor interior ergonomics carried over from the previous versions with the of center dash, big hunk of boring plastic facing the driver and poor fitting and cost cutting interior materials. Used examples of 2-4 years of age show much wear with worn buttons, painted surfaces and often loose wobbly center consoles etc.
“Worst” in what sense?
Poor quality? Lousy to drive? Poorest judgment of the market by its manufacturer?
The first two have been discussed extensively, but for the last – the Cadillac ELR. GM apparently thought they could poach Tesla buyers, but instead ended up with a car that literally sat on the lots for years, whose price had to be slashed at least $20,000, and that sold in numbers that makes Bentley Continentals look like Corollas.
The latest J D Power dependability study suggests that the Fiat is worst with Land Rover only a bit better. Jeep is next, but better. see results here – scroll down for chart
Well, first off, how do you define worst, and by what group of enthusiasts are we letting define the term “worst”? Is it a question of what’s the worst driver’s car? Worst car for the price? Worst car in terms of intended function and actual function?
As a car enthusiast, I tend to not call vehicles “the worst.” I try to appreciate all cars, as best as I can.
The Smarts seem to possess every feature I dislike about compact cars, yet also to be fairly inefficient for their tiny size, so I think that wins. Other than that I find a tedious sameness in appearance throughout the brands (except Buicks, which I think are handsome) but nothing objectively “bad”.
This is a very subjective question, but here is my s-it list
Fiat 500L
Any Mini
Any VW-Diesel or not
Spark
Buick Enslave….errr Enclave.
My list of “modern cars”
2007-2010 Chrysler Sebring/Dodge Avenger
2005-2009 Chevrolet Aveo
2001-2005 Hyundai Accent
2007-2012 Dodge Caliber
2013+ Chevrolet Malibu
2008-2011 Ford Focus
2001-2005 Hyundai Accent
+1. Thinnest sheetmetal I’ve ever seen on any car and an interior that was half a step above an early ’70s Japanese car. The current ones are MUCH better for what they are.
I am absolutely exasperated by the constant barrage of 2013 Malibu hate. Tight rear seat aside, it is absolutely competitive with the Camry, Altima and Accord. Well-equipped, fuel-efficient, a high-quality interior, refined. Those who criticize need to actually drive one. I had one as a rental for a week and I came away very impressed.
I think a lot of the flak that people give the 2013-up Malibu has to do not so much with its flaws in a vacuum, as with its failings compared to the previous generation car. The 2008-2012 model was such a quantum leap in style, substance, reliability, dynamics–it was hailed as the first legitimate contender from GM in a long time against the likes of Camry/Accord. Instead of building on that car’s strengths, though, the 2013 was kind of a letdown. Interior wasn’t as nice (at least on higher trim levels), styling was fussier but less successful overall (even if it had a stronger family resemblance to the new Chevy idiom), back seat room was probably worse.
*Caveat: I haven’t driven either so I cannot give any firsthand driving impressions.
Oh I hear ya on the styling. It doesn’t look as nice, plain and simple. And the interior, while even better-quality and better-equipped, is less distinctive. Back seat room definitely shrunk too.
But the number of people out there who blast it constantly infuriates me. Yes, criticize it because it’s not as bold or it’s not another quantum leap (although it is still improved in many ways over its predecessor). But don’t criticize it as being a “bad” car or one of the worst cars on sale. It’s not even the worst car in its segment. And to those people who still believe GM is still some bad, unrepentant manufacturer of bad cars, consider this: the Malibu was still an above-average entry in the segment, and still Chevy is replacing it with an all-new model after just THREE model years.
But no, it’s another GM junker like the Vega, Cimarron, Aztek, etc etc blah blah blah. Bloody nonsense. If the Malibu is a “bad” car then this is just more proof we are in an automotive golden age.
The Malibu was rated best in the J D Power survey referenced above. However, this was probably the 2012 Malibu. I think you are right though, it can’t be worst.
The current Malibu, as with the versions from 2008 and 2012ish, aren’t bad cars per se. The trouble is, they don’t stand out at all. Their styling is not distinctive, but not offensive. Their engines are not barnburners, but not anemic. Their interiors are not exciting, but not ugly or uncomfortable.
Malibu is good at everything a car in that segment is meant to do, but it is GREAT at nothing. It commits perhaps the greatest automotive sin of all: It is absolutely incapable of raising any passion, or for that matter any strong emotion at all, toward itself. The default reaction to Malibu is “meh.”
Same here. It was much better save rear legroom than a 2014.5 Camry 2.5 SE rental we had over a weekend last Summer that left me stranded right in my own driveway with a mostly dead battery despite being a 12k mile new car!
I rented a Mitsubishi Galant in Tampa FL in 2013 that was just a cheap piece of junk. I actually went back to the airport and exchanged it after a few days, it was that bad. They gave me a Chrysler 200, which wasn’t bad at all.
In 2010 I rented a Corolla in Denver, and I had to floor the thing to make it up the Front Range foothills. And like the Galant, it was just cheaply built, all plastic, etc.
I rented a Dodge Caliber back in 2007 and liked it.
The Chrysler 200 I rented recently was awful. Bad ergonomics, horrific visibility, and annoying drive train. Total sh*t show.
What year? There’s a difference over the last three years.
We rented a Chrysler 200 – the current generation – for our family vacation last year.
It wasn’t a great car, but it was hardly a terrible one.
i agree. rented one for a week this summer. it wasn’t to my taste but it worked fine and was very comfortable. it also got good mileage.
Chrysler 200-the new rental car king.
2012+ Nissan Versa sedan. Not a stripped down car that started out decent, but rather built to be the cheapest car and it shows through and through no matter how many extras one adds.
Also there is too much rear overhang so it looks like it has a badonka donk and not in a flattering way.
Now that the Evo and Ralliart are no more, Mitsubishi’s entire US product line gets my vote. Even then the only thing the Evo had going for it was its powertrain and suspension. The rest of it was still an ugly, poorly built Lancer with styling dating back to the Clinton years and an interior to match.
Sadly Mitsubishi’s freefall in the US market is hitting close to home. The former DSM plant in Normal, IL (about two hours north of here) is permanently closing next month due largely to poor Outlander sales. Other than State Farm’s massive corporate HQ and Illinois State University there really isn’t much else in the Bloomington-Normal area.
If Mitsubishi left NA would anybody really notice, especially with it’s current craptastic small lineup?
No one outside of McLean County, Illinois. MMNA must have given one hell of an employee/family discount because Mitsubishis of all sorts are everywhere in Bloomington-Normal.
Chrysler-Fiat are supposed to be the worst cars currently being produced, according to popular opinion. I have no personal experience with them. The most recent MOPAR I’ve driven was a 1993ish 2door Plymouth Sundance, owned by a former girlfriend. The car was a year or two old when I drove it and it seemed respectable for a basic commuter. Felt very solid.
… Oh one can add to the list any car produced in Russia, China and India at the moment. They have a long way to go before they reach even Fiat standards.
You have to wonder about the sanity of the FIAT board. The reason for their small market share in the UK is poor residuals due to a reputation for low quality. They leave the US market, tail between legs, due to same reputation.
Fate hands them the chance to re-enter this crucial market, and what seems to be bottom of their list of priorities? Reliability. Do they not even know the history of their own company? I thought it was a family business.
+1.
I’m frankly astonished they returned with such shoddy products. Sure, they sold some 500’s to some college students who don’t care/know better, but that’s no long term strategy.
The 500L should have never been brought over, it’s going to single-handedly run FIAT back to the continent, they should have just waited for the probably unreliable, but at least handsome, 500X.
Fiats are great cars. Once the UK figures out dentistry, and teeth brushing, they can start commenting on the Fiat board. JD Power is a popularity contest. Fiat’s problem is marketing. VW suffered the same problems as Fiat in North America during the early 1980’s. They did not leave the market, but they where completly destroyed by the japanese & now koreans! Why? Marketing. If horrible brands like Kia & hyundai can be turned around, then Fiat with all their history & past glory can become the greatest car company in the world. Lets not forget that in 1965 the 3 Biggest car companies in the world, 1-GM 2-Ford 3-Fiat all fell from grace. They must rise again, for the sake of the automobile.
i love fiats but what you’re saying just isn’t true. caring for a 70s era fiat is like tending too a hot house orchid. they are just so easy to break. vw’s were never that bad.
As sold in the UK currently, Id nominate the Ssang Yong Rexton and Turismo SUVs, possibly the MG6 (basically built in China).
Good pint shave been raised here about value for money and suitability for purpose, and then you get into very subjective territory. What does an Audi A3 do that Seat Leon or Skoda Octavia doesn’t for example? What is the real purpose of the Range-Rover Evoque – off road or sports coupe?
While probably not the “worst” car on the market, supposedly the new Chevy Trax is quite a disappointment…both Car and Driver and Consumer Reports were rather unimpressed, to put it mildly.
I can’t believe they are still making the Jeep Compass and Patriot, uncompetitive even when they were released 8-9 years ago. They might be a consideration.
The aforementioned Mitsubishi Mirage and Fiat 500L are probably the most reasonable candidates I can think of. But I think either one is an okay buy. The Mirage is sort of a throwback to the days of truly basic transportation, and there’s something endearing about that in our gadget-obsessed era. And the 500L is a neat, versatile package, and stands out in a world of boring, monotonous vehicles (for better or worse). Ultimately, there’s really not a truly bad car on the market….just some with some annoying characteristics that do not befit our 21st century expectations.
Biggest ding against the Trax (and Buick Encore) to me is that the money it costs over a Sonic gets you…nothing of substance, really. A worse car, in some ways. AWD, if you want it, for even more extra money. The same applies to the Honda HR-V; in base form it costs $3000 over a base Fit, for which you get a few extra inches of ride height and the right to say you drive a “crossover” not a “hatchback”.
I’d rather have the right to say “it’s paid for” a year sooner on the same downstroke and monthly.
From all reports from the so-called “experts”, Fiat followed by Chrysler products generally rest comfortably at or near the bottom of the charts.
Whether that’s true or not, I won’t buy either although I see lots of new 200s on the road, and they’re not rentals, so what’s true or false about car reviews/evaluations? I know they influence buyers, me included.
My W-body Impala was panned for years by many, but I did my research and discovered fleet buyers like them for their durability, so who do you believe? I bought two of them and love ’em.
Zackman: my brother just bought a fleet 14 Impala. I thought it was great. People love to bag on these things because that’s what the mob does. “It’s dated”, “It’s cheap”. “It’s stripped”. “Rental Queen”. Never ends.
What I found is it’s fully equipped just sans any trendy gadget and extraneous junk, quiet, roomy, rides well and had us up to 90 before we knew it on the trip to Logan we were making. Without strain or effort.
I find it better looking than the new one and since Chevy won’t break out fleet and new Impala sales, I suspect the Limited is the one sustaining Impala sales numbers.
But current groupthink says if it’s old [or inexpensive] it’s bad, regardless of what the actual truth of the matter is.
My first Impala was a 2004 base model w/sport appearance package. Bench seat, column shift. Exactly how I would have ordered one from the factory, but found it on my local Chevy lot. Even the color was right – Cappuccino Frost! Owned it for over 8 years, no problems except an occasional rear rotor replacement. 3.4L – a wonderful little motor. Added mirror chrome IMPALA side scripts as god intended. I did my best to replicate my dad’s 1966 Impala, and this was the closest I could come to that.
I currently own a 2012 LTZ, Ashen Gray. Over 3 years, not one single issue – 78,000 miles due to my stupid long commute. 3.6L, fastest, most powerful car I have ever owned, even if the tranny takes its time downshifting, but once it does, hold on!
Both cars were bought new.
I have no idea what I will replace it with when that time comes.
I love my 2013 jewel red LT with moonroof. It is nearing 40K miles with zero issues and I often wonder what will replace it. I was very turned off by a 2014 Taurus I spent a weekend with, would never consider an overpriced Avalon, still have my doubts about Kia and Hyundai products after seeing loads of issues with owners of the Amanti and the price on the new Cadenza is insane. Ditto a loaded 2015 Impala LTZ. It seems us traditional lower priced but comfortable car buyers have been left out with today’s lineup.
I wouldn’t associate issues with the Amanti with the current Kia/Hyundai lineup. That car debuted in 2002 and lasted a single generation (with mid-cycle refresh) until its cancellation in 2010. So it was decidedly not a product of the company they are now–Kia really got their act together 10-ish years ago (or, should I say, Hyundai got Kia’s act together) and has been on a roll since.
As to the Cadenza being overpriced, maybe. I haven’t priced one. I was rather more enamored with the sharp styling and reasonable size of the outgoing generation of Optima, though it seems to have lost its edge with the 2016 redesign. Maybe if it and the top-end Impalas are overpriced new, you’d be well served by a CPO example at 1 or 2 years old? That’s the direction I’m leaning in when it comes time to replace our Forte.
Just the lack of a stupid console would interest me in that Fiat 500L. But it would have to be a manual.
Worst, I think would be any automated manual car in Dart, Fiat, or Focus/Fiesta form. The Dart 2.0 offers a traditional automatic sourced from Hyundai. Ford offer no such out if you want an automatic in a Focus or Fiesta.
Many seem to think inexpensive automatically means bad. That doesn’t meet the “worst” car standard.
The thing I like the most about the Mirage is that someone is actually building a basic car and at least making a stab at going against the feature bloat and high pricing of so many cars offered today. Too bad the only dealer close to me is in Phoenix, about 100 miles away or I’d have at least tested one by now.
And it’s been a bright spot for Mitsubishi. Their sales have been increasing rather than declining.
Jeep has been at the bottom of CR’s ratings for decades according to the old Buying Guides I have collected over the years, whether under AMC’s management or Chrysler’s. This is nothing new. Your experience may vary, but that’s CR’s data arc over time, not mine.
I’d be interested in a Patriot now that it’s got a decent transmission in it. The World Engine is strong, it’s a long lived design, it’s been in production for years, looks like a Jeep and has tall seating and plenty of leg and headroom front and rear.
But it’s cheap, so I must not be able to afford “better”.
The Mirage has been demographically interesting, Mitsubishi’s moved upscale by moving downmarket – where for years nothing said “I just barely qualified for dealer financing” like a Lancer, the Mirage seems to be attracting a considerable chunk of the simplifying-by-choice market.
I think Consumer Reports lag time makes their lists of unreliable cars very misleading to consumers. As an Acura salesperson I have not had any customers have serious issues with their new cars. In fact, when I speak with them they all tell me how much they love their cars. True, there were some recalls with the transmissions in the TLX that were straightened out early this year and now the cars have no issues at all. Consumer Reports newest list says “2016 new car predicted reliability” and now Acura is on the least reliable list for 2016? Give me a break. I know a lot of people would say that because I sell Acuras I would of course defend them, but I am being honest in saying that they are truly good cars with a huge following and one of the safest (all of our cars are five star rated with the NHTSA) most reliable products on the road.
In the CU article Paul posted, note that several carmakers’ ratings, including some Japanese, were hurt by infotainment glitches ●alone●.