Worst car you've ever driven?

[cpzilliacus]

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.

IMO, in spite of the front grille "decoration," the 1958 Edsel was a much better-looking car than the 1958 Chevrolet (starting the first of three years of really ugly Chevys) and its GM stablemates.  It was also nicer-looking and more "modern" than the 1958 Ford and 1958 Mercury offerings (though Merc had the Turnpike Cruiser, a really cool-looking vehicle).

[cpzilliacus]

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.

All of what you state above is consistent with my understanding of the GM of the late 1960's and early 1970's.  As for manufacturing, most (all?) Vegas were built at a new plant in Lordstown, Ohio (you can see it from the Turnpike), which was (I think) the first plant to be designated as a GM (not Chevrolet) plant. 

Do you know who built the so-called Iron Duke engine that came after several years of Vega engines self-destructing?  GM touted it widely and loudly (as nearly indestructible, which I suppose it was when compared to the aluminum block units that they started out with) in its advertising for Vegas and the Pontiac "twin," the Astre.

I must disagree regarding vehicle emission controls.  They were not more difficult for GM to comply with than they were for Ford, Mopar and an assortment of non-U.S. auto companies, especially Datsun (Nissan now), Honda and Toyota. 

[catch22]

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.

All of what you state above is consistent with my understanding of the GM of the late 1960's and early 1970's.  As for manufacturing, most (all?) Vegas were built at a new plant in Lordstown, Ohio (you can see it from the Turnpike), which was (I think) the first plant to be designated as a GM (not Chevrolet) plant. 

Do you know who built the so-called Iron Duke engine that came after several years of Vega engines self-destructing?  GM touted it widely and loudly (as nearly indestructible, which I suppose it was when compared to the aluminum block units that they started out with) in its advertising for Vegas and the Pontiac "twin," the Astre.

I must disagree regarding vehicle emission controls.  They were not more difficult for GM to comply with than they were for Ford, Mopar and an assortment of non-U.S. auto companies, especially Datsun (Nissan now), Honda and Toyota. 

The Iron Duke was based off the Pontiac 301 V8 design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Duke_engine

[bugo]

The Iron Duke was a reliable, if agricultural engine. Not the most efficient or powerful engine ever made but it did its job.

[J Route Z]

My ex gf had a 1988 Chevy Nova. It was the worst. I felt like I was driving a golf cart.

[ajlynch91]

I bought a '94 Taurus off craigslist for $400 and drove it for less than 400 miles before the water pump burst while I was at a Burger King drive-thru. Given there was nothing right with that car whatsoever, I chose not to fix it.

[PHLBOS]

I bought a '94 Taurus off craigslist for $400 and drove it for less than 400 miles before the water pump burst while I was at a Burger King drive-thru. Given there was nothing right with that car whatsoever, I chose not to fix it.

Did it have the 3.8L engine?  Ford's 3.8 V6, especially in FWD configuration, was one of Ford's worst engines and likely doomed (along with several Taurus & Sable models through '95) most Windstar minvans, the '88-'94 Continentals as well as the '90-'95 Police-Packaged Taurus'.

[jrouse]

We drove a 2010 Chevrolet HHR as a rental on a trip to San Diego a few years ago.  It was gutless.   

[GCrites]

Ya'll would have hated the mid- late '70s when every car did a 19 or 20 second quarter mile. All these complaints that these 90s and 2000s cars have no power fall deafly on these ears. Many of them would outrun the 327 versions of legends such as the Impala SS or Chevelle SS. Give today's smaller engines some RPM and they'll reward you.

[ajlynch91]

I bought a '94 Taurus off craigslist for $400 and drove it for less than 400 miles before the water pump burst while I was at a Burger King drive-thru. Given there was nothing right with that car whatsoever, I chose not to fix it.

Did it have the 3.8L engine?  Ford's 3.8 V6, especially in FWD configuration, was one of Ford's worst engines and likely doomed (along with several Taurus & Sable models through '95) most Windstar minvans, the '88-'94 Continentals as well as the '90-'95 Police-Packaged Taurus'.

The very same. But hey, driving a beater is a rite of passage! I'm a lot happier with my '13 Hyundai Elantra GT.

[place-saint-henri]

I would have to say my first car. a 1925 Chevrolet Superior I bought for $45 when I first got my drivers license in the summer of 1941. Had a 26hp straight 4 engine and a 3 speed that was so hard to drive, I dont even think a fish on a bicycle could figure it out.

One time it broke down on me in a snowstorm and I had to push the conflab thing FIFTEEN miles to the nearest Esso station only to fix it with some tinfoil, a pair of knit stockings and some dapper dans pomade.

By the time the war ended and I had my sons, Drew and Stu, I had gotten an Edsel, now that was a beautful car!