Worst car you've ever driven?

[cpzilliacus]

I mentioned the VW Microbus above, but I nearly forgot the car I learned how to drive a manual transmission in - a 1974 Chevy Vega!

By 1974, GM had corrected some of the worst ills of the Vega and even came out with a rebadged Pontiac twin, the Astre in 1975, but the Vega was still not much fun.  Felt very cramped, had uncomfortable seating, and it seemed underpowered, though it did not break down while I was driving it.

[bugo]

Speaking of the Vega, it was a GM corporate design. Chevrolet designed a subcompact of their own (this was back in the days where the GM divisions had large degrees of autonomy - attested to by the Chevrolet 350, Pontiac 350, Oldsmobile 350 and the Buick 350 - all completely different engines and the Chevy 454, Pontiac 455, Oldsmobile 455 and Buick 455 - also completely different engines) but GM corporate rejected it and foisted the Vega onto Chevy who didn't want to build them in the first place. That was one of the reasons the Vega was a failure - Chevrolet was forced to build the damn things when they didn't want to and built them with apathy. It was a half-assed car to say the least. The engine was another "wtf" design - an aluminum block and a cast iron head. This made the engine top heavy and caused certain bolts to work themselves loose which lead to all sorts of fun. It also caused the engine to idle really roughly, and GM compensated by using soft motor mounts to mitigate some of the roughness of the 140 (2.3L) engine. Coupled with the aluminum cylinder bores, the engine was a disaster. The sad thing is that Chevy had a reliable four cylinder engine - the 153 (2.5L) which was basically 2/3 of the excellent Chevy inline six that was introduced in 1962. Had they used the 153 the Vega would have been a much better car, even though the 153 was heavier than the 140. Also, the inner fender wells were notorious for rusting out in the Vega forcing Chevrolet to replace them under warranty. GM was at its peak when its five - six if you count GMC - divisions designed and built their own cars and engines. Some parts like transmissions were shared and some of the bodies were shared - look at the roofline of the '59 and '60 GM two door hardtops from the Chevrolet all the way to the Cadillac and you'll see that they're same. The roofline of the '55-'57 Chevy and Pontiac also shared the same roofline. GM's downfall was caused by a lot of things - the emissions regulations forced upon them by the government, CAFE, foreign car competition - but I believe the loss of autonomy was the greatest factor to its downfall. Now GM is building world-class cars once again. The newish Camaros and the new Corvette have rave reviews, and the Cadillac CTS is a better BMW than the current soft, cushy BMWs.

[roadman]

One of the other issues with the Vega was the foam they used for soundproofing - it easily absorbed condensation, which accellerated rusting.  The Vega also had a reputation for burning oil.  My sister had an early Vega - her joke about the car was that she'd pull into a gas station and ask the attendant to check the gas and fill the oil.

[PHLBOS]

Circa 1981-82, one issue Motor Trend had a used car overview article.  The first car listed under their Worst category (cars one would only recomend if a buyer's doctor told them that they only had two weeks to live; yes, the article actually stated such) was indeed the Vega. 

The caption read, "They rust, they overhead and that engine has the durability of a potato chip.".

[Molandfreak]

2010(?) Chrysler 200. It was a dog.

[JREwing78]

The two worst vehicles I've ever driven:

1986 Pontiac Sunbird 2.0T - The turbo had seized up, the transmission was a 3-speed automatic, and the floor under the back seat was rusted out. I've driven tractors that had better straight-line acceleration. Granted, I drove it through wet northern Michigan snowstorms; the lack of power was less of an issue than the wet back seat.

1978 Ford F-350 U-Haul moving truck - It had sat for a couple of years and was supposed to be an in-town only moving truck. The steering was dangerously sloppy; you could steer 45 degrees in each direction and have NOTHING happen. The 46th degree put you in the ditch.

Since it had sat so long, the motor needed a LOT of miles to wake up. When I first picked it up, it could only do about 45-50. By the time 600 miles had passed, it would easily run to 90. It's oil consumption (about a quart every 300 miles) was only marginally better than its fuel consumption (4-5mpg).

[lordsutch]

I rented a stripped down Chevy Aveo (I think) one winter in Roanoke and drove it to Blacksburg; the poor hamster in the engine under the hood could barely keep me above 60 climbing up I-81 out of Roanoke.

After that experience, driving a tiny Peugeot with the steering wheel on the wrong side around England for a week was a breeze.

Then again, I learned to drive in a Plymouth Voyager minivan and my first car was a used station wagon, so my bar for "good cars" is pretty low. I'd have no idea what to do with a Corvette, much less a real sports car.

[leroys73]

Circa 1981-82, one issue Motor Trend had a used car overview article.  The first car listed under their Worst category (cars one would only recomend if a buyer's doctor told them that they only had two weeks to live; yes, the article actually stated such) was indeed the Vega. 

The caption read, "They rust, they overhead and that engine has the durability of a potato chip.".

The same Motor Trend named the Vega "Motor Trend Car of the Year" when it first came out.  Interestingly I remember other "Car of the Year" as losers.  My cousin bought one new during one of Chevrolet labor unrests.  I think it lasted him a year.

Yep, the aluminum block had a steel sleeve impregnated with I think a form of silicon. 

Anyone remember the Cosworth Vega?  I almost bought one...wow am I glad I sobered up. Of course if I would have never driven it probably worth some $$ now.

[briantroutman]

The same Motor Trend named the Vega "Motor Trend Car of the Year" when it first came out.  Interestingly I remember other "Car of the Year" as losers.

A few years ago, Car and Driver published an article listing some car awards that proved to be embarrassing in hindsight. In addition to the disgraced Vega, Motor Trend also lavished "Car of the Year"  honors upon the equally disgraced Chevrolet Citation, the flaky Renault Alliance, and the entirely unremarkable '97 Chevrolet Malibu.

[bassoon1986]

2001 Pontiac Sunfire. I think it only had 120,000 miles on it when we finally got a different vehicle but it was pretty much falling apart at that point.

[leroys73]

The same Motor Trend named the Vega "Motor Trend Car of the Year" when it first came out.  Interestingly I remember other "Car of the Year" as losers.

A few years ago, Car and Driver published an article listing some car awards that proved to be embarrassing in hindsight. In addition to the disgraced Vega, Motor Trend also lavished "Car of the Year"  honors upon the equally disgraced Chevrolet Citation, the flaky Renault Alliance, and the entirely unremarkable '97 Chevrolet Malibu.

and the 1960 Corvair and of course I have my own personal opinion of losers like the Chev Monza; Mustang II and the beat goes on. I also remember the Edsel getting at least favorable write up but could not find it as Car of the Year although I thought I remember reading it in Motor Trend back then.  I was a subscriber long before I could drive then stopped many years ago.

[bugo]

The Edsel was a perfectly good car, it just didn't sell. It was no better or no worse than any other car of its era.

[PHLBOS]

The Edsel was a perfectly good car, it just didn't sell. It was no better or no worse than any other car of its era.

Edsel's demise was due to the timing of its release.  From what I've heard/read, a recession was going on back then (1958).

[1995hoo]

The Edsel was a perfectly good car, it just didn't sell. It was no better or no worse than any other car of its era.

Its appearance didn't help. The grille looked like a pussy.

[bugo]

The Edsel was a perfectly good car, it just didn't sell. It was no better or no worse than any other car of its era.

Edsel's demise was due to the timing of its release.  From what I've heard/read, a recession was going on back then (1958).

That is correct. The odd styling didn't help.

[leroys73]

The Edsel was a perfectly good car, it just didn't sell. It was no better or no worse than any other car of its era.

Edsel's demise was due to the timing of its release.  From what I've heard/read, a recession was going on back then (1958).

You are right 1958 sort of sucked for the car industry but I think the Edsel had its own problems.  Might have not been a bad car but as said, looks were not the strong point.  It was not a cheap car and in terms of luxury it competed to some extent for the Lincoln buyer.  In any case it was a big failure in sales. 

[bugo]

Another problem with the Edsel was the marketing. In 1958 Ford Motor Company's hierarchy of marques was Ford-"small" Edsel-Mercury-"big" Edsel-Lincoln-Continental. The Ford based Pacer and Ranger were cheaper than the Mercury while the Mercury based Citation and Corsair were more expensive than the Mercury. In 1959 this was changed and all Edsels were Ford-based. In 1960 the Edsel was obviously just a slightly redesigned Ford (and aesthetically the best looking Edsel.)

[PHLBOS]

The Edsel was a perfectly good car, it just didn't sell. It was no better or no worse than any other car of its era.

Its appearance didn't help. The grille looked like a pussy.

Ever see the original Subaru Tribeca?   When my brother saw first saw one of those; he commented that it had an Edsel grille.

IIRC, one magazine used toilet seat as an adjective describing the Edsel's (mainly the '58 model) grille.

Another problem with the Edsel was the marketing. In 1958 Ford Motor Company's hierarchy of marques was Ford-"small" Edsel-Mercury-"big" Edsel-Lincoln-Continental. The Ford based Pacer and Ranger were cheaper than the Mercury while the Mercury based Citation and Corsair were more expensive than the Mercury. In 1959 this was changed and all Edsels were Ford-based. In 1960 the Edsel was obviously just a slightly redesigned Ford (and aesthetically the best looking Edsel.)

It's worth noting that the first Mercury Comet, that rolled out for the 1960 model year, was originally intended to be branded as an Edsel.  That's one reason why no Mercury badging ever appeared on the Comet for the first year or two.

[briantroutman]

It's worth noting that the first Mercury Comet, that rolled out for the 1960 model year, was originally intended to be branded as an Edsel.  That's one reason why no Mercury badging ever appeared on the Comet for the first year or two.

And I remember reading that the Comet's key, which had a head shaped like a C (for Comet) was really the Edsel's E-shaped key with the center bar removed. I don't know if that's true or not.

[bugo]

It's worth noting that the first Mercury Comet, that rolled out for the 1960 model year, was originally intended to be branded as an Edsel.  That's one reason why no Mercury badging ever appeared on the Comet for the first year or two.

And I remember reading that the Comet's key, which had a head shaped like a C (for Comet) was really the Edsel's E-shaped key with the center bar removed. I don't know if that's true or not.

It is.

[Henry]

Another problem with the Edsel was the marketing. In 1958 Ford Motor Company's hierarchy of marques was Ford-"small" Edsel-Mercury-"big" Edsel-Lincoln-Continental. The Ford based Pacer and Ranger were cheaper than the Mercury while the Mercury based Citation and Corsair were more expensive than the Mercury. In 1959 this was changed and all Edsels were Ford-based. In 1960 the Edsel was obviously just a slightly redesigned Ford (and aesthetically the best looking Edsel.)

It's ironic that the names Citation and Pacer were recycled and used on other bad cars in later eras, and Corsair somehow, and magically so, turned into Corvair almost immediately after being dropped from the Edsel line; however, the Ranger fared much better, first as a trim level for the 60s and 70s F-series, then becoming its own model in the growing compact pickup field during the 80s.

[bugo]

There was also the Ford Corsair, sold at various times in the UK and Australia.

[PHLBOS]

It's ironic that the names Citation and Pacer were recycled and used on other bad cars in later eras

Personally, I was very surprised that Chevy decided to name its FWD X-body after an Edsel.  Man, talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

and Corsair somehow, and magically so, turned into Corvair almost immediately after being dropped from the Edsel line

IIRC, the Corsair name was previous used for WW2-era fighter planes as well as a diesel-electric submarine.  The mere fact that the Corvair and Corsair names are similar names is purely coincidental.  The Esdel was just introduced when GM/Chevy started designing the Corvair.  Later in the 60s, Ford would use the Corsair name for a British compact. Bugo beat me to the punch.

however, the Ranger fared much better, first as a trim level for the 60s and 70s F-series, then becoming its own model in the growing compact pickup field during the 80s.

That's largely because the then-new vehicle was a Ford Motor Company product.

[GCrites]

Someone said that the Edsel looked like an Oldsmobile sucking on a lemon.

[Pete from Boston]

It's ironic that the names Citation and Pacer were recycled and used on other bad cars in later eras

Personally, I was very surprised that Chevy decided to name its FWD X-body after an Edsel.  Man, talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

and Corsair somehow, and magically so, turned into Corvair almost immediately after being dropped from the Edsel line

IIRC, the Corsair name was previous used for WW2-era fighter planes as well as a diesel-electric submarine.  The mere fact that the Corvair and Corsair names are similar names is purely coincidental.  The Esdel was just introduced when GM/Chevy started designing the Corvair.  Later in the 60s, Ford would use the Corsair name for a British compact. Bugo beat me to the punch.

"Corsair" is an old term for a pirate.