Worst car you've ever driven?

[formulanone]

And to think when the PT was about to hit the showrooms in the Dallas area dealers were charging about $2000, some more, above MSRP to pre order.   

There was actually a tremendous demand for them in the first two model years. The form factor was nearly perfect because there were almost no hatchbacks available at the time, they had four doors, and they weren't perceived as SUVs (although technically, the interior dimensions of the PT classified it as a "light truck", according to the EPA). The problem was that it shared Neon's engine and transmission, which was acceptable for a 2300-pound car, but sluggish for one with another 500-700 tacked on.

As for the Neon, the three-speed auto turned a nimble car into a bit of a boat anchor, having driven them both side-by-side. The engines were known for head gasket issues, which I'd resolved for a little more cash during the first timing belt replacement.

My least favorite car is the previous-generation Chevy Impala (2000-2013). Steers like a truck, rides too dull, handles rather imprecisely, overweight and barren of amenities. Blah.

[J N Winkler]

The worst car I owned was a 1978 Chevy Impala base model, with two doors and the inline six instead of a V-8, which had 14 years and 5,000 miles when it fell into my hands.  It was hard to start cold or warm, hard to park, hard to get in and out without having the stiffly sprung door trying to leave marks in adjacent cars, and hard to drive at highway speed for any length of time owing to the lack of cruise control.  It was built in one of the difficult model years in the late 1970's when the domestic automakers were on a foolish quest to meet Carter-era emissions requirements without resorting to fuel injection and computer control, so it was impossible to tune for driveability, though I tried hard to do so, even going so far as to buy a battered copy of the factory service manual from an auto parts store that was unloading its collection.  I eventually got rid of it at 20,000 miles.

My grandmother's next-to-last car was a 1984 Mercury Grand Marquis with the landau roof.  At the time I liked the way it looked (though my tastes have since evolved), but it was too softly sprung, had too much body lean when cornering, and the steering was grossly overboosted.  Her last car, which she parked at the supermarket immediately before she dropped dead at age 92, was a 1997 Buick LeSabre.  Its handling was deficient in the same ways as the Grand Marquis, though to a somewhat lesser degree.  It was three years newer and had far fewer miles than the 1994 Saturn SL2 I was then driving, but I did not ask to buy it from the estate since I felt the Saturn was a much better fit for me.  It later went to one of my cousins.

These were all cars that had been carefully maintained and were in a reasonably good state of mechanical repair when I drove them.  I have test-driven a few used cars over the years, both at dealers and with private sellers, and have found some of them to be in far worse mechanical condition.  Probably the worst was an almost rusted-out late-1970's Mercury with shuddery brakes, which a fellow KSU student was trying to unload.  I have bought only one used car over the years and while I knew it had problems which would have prevented it from passing a required annual inspection, it was in good enough mechanical condition for several thousand miles of comfortable roadtripping.

[Stratuscaster]

My current car is a 2007 PT Cruiser and it sucks.

I've heard bad things about the PT Cruiser. They're based on a Neon platform. My sister had a '97 Plymouth Neon and it was a great car, other than having the timing belt snap and ruining the engine. It drove well, had good power, and was comfortable.

Can't speak to the Neon, but the Cruiser has practically no power, hesitates when you floor it, downshifts to go up the meager hills here in Oklahoma (I'd hate to see how it does in actual mountains), and gets terrible gas mileage (I can get 30 mpg out of it on a highway if I do 50 with a tailwind downhill). The cabin is nice though.

PT shared SOME things with the Neon, but not all (if they did share more, they would have been built in the same plant, and they weren't.

That Neon (actually that 2.0L I4, it was also used in the Stratus & Breeze) head gasket issue was a bean-counter decision, and they paid for it big time. Easily fixed with a new MLS gasket if caught in time. 2.0 was a crash motor though, so when the timing belt went, boom. The larger 2.4 used in the PT (and the Stratus/Cirrus/Breeze, minivans, and a few rare Jeeps) weren't crash motors, so that was a bit better - but it was very thirsty.

Most Neons used the 3-speed auto (it got the 4-speed later in the early 2000s), while the PT (and just about everything else FWD) used the 4-speed auto. The 4-speed had it's issues - the biggest one being that many shops and owners would put the wrong fluid in them. Anything other than ATF+3 or ATF+4 and you were guaranteed to destroy it.

2006 model year was when the PT was refreshed under Daimler's excessive penny pinching, and that didn't help matters.

I loved the '98 Dodge Stratus I owned - drove and handled great, got 34MPG on the highway, plenty of interior space and visibility. And I've owned several minivans and rank those pretty high - you aren't going to autocross in them, but they eat up highway miles, haul people and cargo, and ride decently. My current '02 Caravan is just crossing 435000 miles on it and it's biggest problem right now is that it has a fuel EVAP leak somewhere and won't pass emissions and I think it's burning coolant.

Hard to pick a "worst car" - I've never driven a car that I didn't know was already a piece of crap beforehand. Even the cheap-as-can-be '84 Chevette I owned wasn't all that bad.

Toyota's are (mostly) great appliances. They still require regular care and feeding - some people think that Toyotas (and Hondas) are somehow magical and never need to have anything done to them - like changing fluids or wear items.

[briantroutman]

My least favorite car is the previous-generation Chevy Impala (2000-2013).

Not quite previous generation, yet. GM is continuing to crank them out for fleet customers until 2016.

Any time a car is held over a few extra years for fleet customers only (Impala, Malibu "Classic" , Crown Victoria, and Escort come to mind), it's not usually because they're cars you'd want to own.

[Takumi]

Most disappointing car I've driven has to be the 2010 Civic Si I test drove last year. On paper it looks good, but just felt lifeless. Electronic throttle and steering isn't my thing. My friend uses a Mugen Si (an extremely limited-edition version of the car) as his daily driver/winter beater because, although it makes nearly as much power with just minor modifications as his Prelude makes with a supercharger and major mods, it isn't as much fun to drive.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

We rented a Chrysler minivan (post-2010 model) to go to a college conference. It had the handling of a goddamn tank. Just felt insanely heavy and impossible to control properly. And my primary vehicle is a pickup so I even had prior experience with difficult-to-handle vehicles.

[corco]

My least favorite car is the previous-generation Chevy Impala (2000-2013). Steers like a truck, rides too dull, handles rather imprecisely, overweight and barren of amenities. Blah.

I actually like the W-Body Impala. Yeah, it's not a pretty car. No, it's not a sporty car. Sure, the interior is pretty damn boring. As far as a car you can beat to death and never have die on you though, it's about as good as you can get. Those W-Bodies are like cockroaches- they will run badly forever.  There's a reason fleet buyers and police forces love them- they're dead reliable even when driven by people who aren't driving to take care of them and in the event that something does go wrong, parts are cheap and plentiful. They're inexpensive, reliable cars to operate.

If I had a kid in high school or college right now that needed a car, that's what I would get them without hesitation (with the sole caveat that I would prefer they drive stick), because it would be just about the cheapest car I could get that I would absolutely trust. In terms of maximizing both depreciation and reliability, it's hard to beat a W-Body Impala. I've thought about getting one as a roadtrip car once my current roadtrip car dies, and it's still definitely under consideration.

[roadman]

The worst car I owned was a 1978 Chevy Impala base model, with two doors and the inline six instead of a V-8, which had 14 years and 5,000 miles when it fell into my hands.

At 14 years old, are you sure that wasn't 150,000 miles?  Remember that odometers of that era didn't have the sixth digit.

[formulanone]

I actually like the W-Body Impala. Yeah, it's not a pretty car. No, it's not a sporty car. Sure, the interior is pretty damn boring. As far as a car you can beat to death and never have die on you though, it's about as good as you can get. Those W-Bodies are like cockroaches- they will run badly forever.  There's a reason fleet buyers and police forces love them- they're dead reliable even when driven by people who aren't driving to take care of them and in the event that something does go wrong, parts are cheap and plentiful. They're inexpensive, reliable cars to operate.

Pretty much true - however, many cars will deal with 150,000 miles if kept up, and most will handle 200,000 if you're willing to deal with a few minor issues. Some just get a lot more expensive to keep up for longer distances.

To me, it feels like the type of car that makes driving a chore.

[J N Winkler]

At 14 years old, are you sure that wasn't 150,000 miles?  Remember that odometers of that era didn't have the sixth digit.

Quite sure.  The previous owner, my maternal grandmother, drove it only to church and the supermarket, both of which were within a mile of her house.  It therefore had probably several thousand trips on it during which it would not even have come close to warming up fully (cast-iron block, belt-driven radiator fan), and that would not have helped engine performance either.

[roadman]

At 14 years old, are you sure that wasn't 150,000 miles?  Remember that odometers of that era didn't have the sixth digit.

Quite sure.  The previous owner, my maternal grandmother, drove it only to church and the supermarket, both of which were within a mile of her house.  It therefore had probably several thousand trips on it during which it would not even have come close to warming up fully (cast-iron block, belt-driven radiator fan), and that would not have helped engine performance either.

Hadn't thought of that scenario - thanks for the clarificiation.  My parents had a 1977 two-door Impala that I would ocassionally drive.  Generally a good reliable car that wasn't too bad to drive, but I hated those large doors.

[Duke87]

I had to drive a Chevy Tracker (probably early 2000s model year) for work once back when I was an intern. The combination of it being high off the ground and having a near vertical windshield was really awkward for me. It felt like driving a hovering box.

Then there was my mother's 2004 Nissan Quest, which I drove a few times when I was newly licensed, and scraped up the side of it trying to get into and out of a parking space on two separate occasions. Granted I was a novice driver at the time but man that thing was just way too huge and bulky to be practical. To this day I hate driving large vehicles.

[Henry]

The worst car I ever drove was a stripped-down Aveo when my Tahoe was in the shop for minor damage a few years back. Too small, very uncomfortable, and was hesitant to keep up with the rest of traffic on the highway. To this day, I have sworn off rental cars forever.

[PHLBOS]

My parents had a 1977 two-door Impala that I would ocassionally drive.  Generally a good reliable car that wasn't too bad to drive, but I hated those large doors.

You would have certainly hated the doors on a '70-'79 Lincoln Continental/Town Coupe (or any '69-'78 full-size Ford or Mercury coupe for that matter).  Those doors were wide & heavy enough to be used as a lethal weapon. 

Then there was my mother's 2004 Nissan Quest, which I drove a few times when I was newly licensed, and scraped up the side of it trying to get into and out of a parking space on two separate occasions. Granted I was a novice driver at the time but man that thing was just way too huge and bulky to be practical. To this day I hate driving large vehicles.

If you consider a Nissan Quest to be a large vehicle; you certainly wouldn't have survived driving big Detroit iron from the 50s through the 70s.

Back to the topic at hand: worst car I drove was a friend of mine wife's '89 or '90 Ford Festiva.  I felt like I was literally driving a tin can.

[roadman]

My parents had a 1977 two-door Impala that I would ocassionally drive.  Generally a good reliable car that wasn't too bad to drive, but I hated those large doors.

You would have certainly hated the doors on a '70-'79 Lincoln Continental/Town Coupe (or any '69-'78 full-size Ford or Mercury coupe for that matter).  Those doors were wide & heavy enough to be used as a lethal weapon. 

When I moved to Wakefield in 1990, my next-door neighbor had a 1978 two door Lincoln Continental.  Never drove it, but I know what you mean about the size and mass of those doors.

[Duke87]

If you consider a Nissan Quest to be a large vehicle; you certainly wouldn't have survived driving big Detroit iron from the 50s through the 70s.

Keep in mind that this was one of the third generation Quests. It was bigger than its predecessors, 77.6 inches wide and 204.1 inches long.

I see your point that larger vehicles have been made but it's the biggest thing I've ever driven.

[renegade]

A tie.  I drove a 1973 Chevrolet Vega station wagon.  New transmission at 37,000 miles, followed by total engine failure at 39,000 miles.  I did not learn my lesson.  My next car was a 1974 Ford Pinto station wagon.  That one made it to 67,000 miles before it was towed for scrap.

[catch22]

Worst car for me was my first new car, a 1972 Ford Pinto hatchback with the 2.0 OHC engine.  The clutch and valve guides didn't last 10,000 miles.  The engine burned through points like crazy, to the point that I could grab the exact set of tools (including the goofy u-shaped distributor wrench) needed to change and time them without thinking.  The timing belt went at 21,000. It would snap alternator brackets so often that I kept a spare one (and the wrenches to change it) with the car at all times.  At 47,000 the valve guides were replaced again, under a Ford extended warranty program but that only slowed down the insane oil consumption.  Turned out the rings were going too. I nursed it along for a few more months, and at 53,000 I considered it dead and traded it in on another car.  The dealer gave me $800 for it, the poor saps.

[Roadrunner75]

Ah, good - more Pintos.  Mine always started good conversation - usually something like "I better not follow you too closely...".  Fortunately for my '79 that problem was fixed.  Before that I had an '81 Citation that I beat up pretty good before it was towed away.  It was missing a tooth in the rack and pinion so that randomly the steering would jam up - usually when I was making a quick turn.  Good times.

[Fred Defender]

The worst car that I've ever driven was probably a Ford Escort that I got as a rental many years ago.  It was underpowered and uncomfortable.  I was happy to turn that shtibox back in.

I might have to concur. I worked for a company in the late-80's that had me driving one.

Let us not forget the Chevy Citation which, in addition to being a colossal POS, may hold the dubious distinction of being the FUGLIEST car ever.

[PHLBOS]

The worst car that I've ever driven was probably a Ford Escort that I got as a rental many years ago.  It was underpowered and uncomfortable.  I was happy to turn that shtibox back in.

I might have to concur. I worked for a company in the late-80's that had me driving one.

Having family members that owned three 1st-generation Escorts ('83, '86 & '87) the main issue we encountered with one of our Escorts (my mother's '87 model was the only one equipped with the automatic in our family) was the rough & jerky shifting of the automatic.  The '91 and later models w/automatics, thankfully did not have this problem.  My mother has since owned a '94 and a 2001 Escort. 

Performancewise, the '85-1/2 and later Escorts with the 1.9L engine did better than the older 1.6L engine that my father's '83 Escort had; though, granted it was still considered slow, but what economy car (outside of a performance-oriented or turbo-charged model) wasn't back then.

Let us not forget the Chevy Citation which, in addition to being a colossal POS, may hold the dubious distinction of being the FUGLIEST car ever.

While the Citation was certainly not a sexy glamor-puss by any stretch of the imagination (I actually liked the look of the notchback Club Coupe); truth be told, today's hatchbacks IMHO are a lot more uglier than the Citation hatchbacks.

[Henry]

While the Citation was certainly not a sexy glamor-puss by any stretch of the imagination (I actually liked the look of the notchback Club Coupe); truth be told, today's hatchbacks IMHO are a lot more uglier than the Citation hatchbacks.

Ah yes, the infamous FWD X-cars of the early 80s...IIRC, only the Citation (which replaced the Nova) and Phoenix (the Ventura's replacement) were available in hatchback form, while the Omega and Skylark were notchback only; and until you pointed out the existence of the extremely rare Citation Club Coupe, I always thought the Phoenix was the only one available in both hatchback and notchback styles. For the record, I'll say that their 70s RWD predecessors and FWD N-car successors were much better-looking, and it didn't help matters that Chrysler's K-cars (Aries/Reliant) were running circles around them either.

[Fred Defender]

The worst car that I've ever driven was probably a Ford Escort that I got as a rental many years ago.  It was underpowered and uncomfortable.  I was happy to turn that shtibox back in.

I might have to concur. I worked for a company in the late-80's that had me driving one.

Having family members that owned three 1st-generation Escorts ('83, '86 & '87) the main issue we encountered with one of our Escorts (my mother's '87 model was the only one equipped with the automatic in our family) was the rough & jerky shifting of the automatic.  The '91 and later models w/automatics, thankfully did not have this problem.  My mother has since owned a '94 and a 2001 Escort. 

Performancewise, the '85-1/2 and later Escorts with the 1.9L engine did better than the older 1.6L engine that my father's '83 Escort had; though, granted it was still considered slow, but what economy car (outside of a performance-oriented or turbo-charged model) wasn't back then.

Let us not forget the Chevy Citation which, in addition to being a colossal POS, may hold the dubious distinction of being the FUGLIEST car ever.

While the Citation was certainly not a sexy glamor-puss by any stretch of the imagination (I actually liked the look of the notchback Club Coupe); truth be told, today's hatchbacks IMHO are a lot more uglier than the Citation hatchbacks.

Lest we forget that GM also gave us the Pontiac Aztek.

[signalman]

The worst car that I've ever driven was probably a Ford Escort that I got as a rental many years ago.  It was underpowered and uncomfortable.  I was happy to turn that shtibox back in.

I might have to concur. I worked for a company in the late-80's that had me driving one.

Having family members that owned three 1st-generation Escorts ('83, '86 & '87) the main issue we encountered with one of our Escorts (my mother's '87 model was the only one equipped with the automatic in our family) was the rough & jerky shifting of the automatic.  The '91 and later models w/automatics, thankfully did not have this problem.  My mother has since owned a '94 and a 2001 Escort. 

Performancewise, the '85-1/2 and later Escorts with the 1.9L engine did better than the older 1.6L engine that my father's '83 Escort had; though, granted it was still considered slow, but what economy car (outside of a performance-oriented or turbo-charged model) wasn't back then.

Let us not forget the Chevy Citation which, in addition to being a colossal POS, may hold the dubious distinction of being the FUGLIEST car ever.

While the Citation was certainly not a sexy glamor-puss by any stretch of the imagination (I actually liked the look of the notchback Club Coupe); truth be told, today's hatchbacks IMHO are a lot more uglier than the Citation hatchbacks.

Lest we forget that GM also gave us the Pontiac Aztek.

There is a thread somewhere in the off topic section about ugly cars. The Aztek is most certainly mentioned there. I can't search the archives from my phone via tapatalk, but I know that it exists. 

[PHLBOS]

While the Citation was certainly not a sexy glamor-puss by any stretch of the imagination (I actually liked the look of the notchback Club Coupe); truth be told, today's hatchbacks IMHO are a lot more uglier than the Citation hatchbacks.

Ah yes, the infamous FWD X-cars of the early 80s...IIRC, only the Citation (which replaced the Nova) and Phoenix (the Ventura's replacement) were available in hatchback form, while the Omega and Skylark were notchback only; and until you pointed out the existence of the extremely rare Citation Club Coupe, I always thought the Phoenix was the only one available in both hatchback and notchback styles.

To clarify, the Ventura became the Phoenix several years before the FWD X-bodies.

X-car Bodystyle availability break-down:

Chevy Citation: 2-dr notchback (Club Coupe), 3-dr hatchback, 5-dr hatchback
Pontiac Phoenix: 2-dr notchback, 5-dr hatchback
Buick Skylark: 2-dr & 4-dr notchbacks
Olds omega: 2-dr & 4-dr notchbacks

For the record, I'll say that their 70s RWD predecessors and FWD N-car successors were much better-looking, and it didn't help matters that Chrysler's K-cars (Aries/Reliant) were running circles around them either.

I agree with only part of your above-statement.

While the K-cars had greater sales success than the X-cars; they weren't without issues of their own.  Plus, while other compacts offered optional V6 engines; the K-cars only offered 4-bangers.  Such would become an issue later on with the K-car as well as the Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz (prior to 1992).

GM's N-bodies were originally intended to replace the RWD A/G-Specials (Monte Carlo/Regal/Cutlass Supreme/Grand Prix); but, again, lower gas prices and increased demand for the larger vehicles as a result of such made them reconsider.  Such was the reason why for the first year or two of the N-bodies were only offered as coupes.  Once the sedans rolled out; the altered mission of the N-bodies was clear.

Lest we forget that GM also gave us the Pontiac Aztek.

True, but its more sensibly-styled Buick Rendezvous sibling (both were one of the first cross-over (aka CUV) vehicles) sold much better.