Inspired by a thread on another forum I visit:
What is the worst car you've ever driven? "Driven" can be as broad or as narrow as you like–if you want to include a single-day rental, or a friend's car you simply pulled around the block, or whatever, have at it, as long as you actually drove the car (e.g., "My father's old Fiat he sold to the junkman when I was two years old" probably doesn't qualify unless you were a very unusual two-year-old).
For me, probably the first car I owned, a 1977 Ford Granada. The car had various issues, but the one I still remember most vividly was noisy belts that we couldn't seem to fix. Replaced them and the problem continued. We went through Belt-Eze by the case. The whole neighborhood would know whenever I was driving because it was so loud. I bought that car for $325 from a guy in my dad's office and sometimes I still think I may have overpaid. Sold it to my younger brother two years later with a new paint job and radio. He paid me $400.
Other possibility for me would be various air-cooled VW Beetle rental cars in Cozumel. The speedometers bounced all over the place and the trunk locks were all broken and replaced with padlocks. I recall I barfed in one of those cars and didn't get all of it cleaned out before returning it, but the rental place didn't notice.
Condition wise.... the 1987 Nova i learned stickshift in, junkyard runabout type car, two doughnut tires, non operational drivers side door.
Driving Joy wise.... MAG 4 door truck. a Low Speed Vehicle.
Worst car I ever drove was my brother's 1978 Chevy Monza when he was trying to teach me stick shift. Very deep clutch and a very sloppy stick (at one point, the shift knob came off in my hand trying to get the car in gear).
Learned enough that I could probably move a stick shift car in a real emergency, but that experience totally put me off manual transmissions.
Sometime in this past winter of 2014, my dad got a huge dent in his Acura MDX when someone backed into him, so we had to rent a different car for a few days while it was getting fixed. Unfortunately, before we even cranked it up, we could tell my dad was not happy with the rental car he got. I forgot the exact model, but it was a small, old, purple Honda. It had a terrible smell as well as a terrible drive. My dad did not like driving it at all, and during those few days he let me take it for a drive in the neighborhood. I didn't like driving it either. That's all I can say about that experience. :banghead:
Mine was 1998 Buick LeSabre. Biggest pos ever
1984 Camaro Z-28. Total piece of garbage.
Also, the 1971 Dodge Dart that my mom had that I drove in high school and part of my first year of college wasn't a winner. It had an electrical system that would do screwy things.
I had a boss who had an old Oldsmobile 88 diesel, and that thing was junk. The thing would randomly die and could not be restarted.
Late 1990s rental Ford Festiva. Totally gutless, uncomfortable seats, loud. Amazingly bad for a newish car. Was supposed to be a 4-day rental but I traded it in Day 2.
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.
It's a long story as to how I came to own it, but I had a 13-year-old Triumph Spitfire that failed inspection on everything. The clutch hydraulic system failed in Center City Philadelphia during rush hour.
2014 Chevy Spark...it was my gf's loaner/rental that she had me run a quick errand with when we were helping a friend move. Butt-ugly, no power, and no interior space for someone 6-ft+. Insult to injury, it had FIB plates on it. I promptly made a small side trip on the way back and picked up my car.
I had a loaner Toyota RAV4 earlier this year for a day when I had to take my car back to the dealer for some work. It was not only disappointing because the dealer called up a rental car shop (I later learned this is SOP there, which it's not at basically every other dealership in Omaha/CB), but it was noisy and uncomfortable. It's also a Toyota, a brand I do not ever want to drive.
Quote from: Doctor Whom on November 24, 2014, 04:02:32 PM
It's a long story as to how I came to own it, but I had a 13-year-old Triumph Spitfire that failed inspection on everything. The clutch hydraulic system failed in Center City Philadelphia during rush hour.
There's an old saying that the average British sports car can't make it across a shopping mall parking lot without requiring a complete mechanical overhaul.
Toyota Corolla. I don't know what year it was but it was post 2010.
My current car is a 2007 PT Cruiser and it sucks.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 24, 2014, 07:51:23 PM
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.
It's really everyone else's 'worst' car, but I enjoyed driving around my brown '79 Ford Pinto wagon for a few years in my early 20s. Terrible acceleration, good stereo rig up job and a cookie sheet under the floor mat to cover the hole. I came from a family of owners of terrible cars - we went through one clunker after another - Vegas, Aspens, Darts, Pintos, etc. We usually didn't resell - they just got driven (or towed) directly to the junk yard. I was one of the first in the family to actually buy a new car.
At the end of my senior summer in high school, me and a few friends chipped in to pay $200 for a 1976 Subaru some crackhead was selling, with the intent of just rallying it and jumping it and having a blast with it before destroying it.
That was a BAD car- had to be started by push-starting, couldn't hold a gear, the shifter was so messed up there was basically no space where neutral was supposed to be, backfired and stalled in the middle of the street while we were driving a couple times. It was fun to jump though, and we got our money's worth out of it. Clutch was actually okay, but the fenders were rusted through, bald tires, dirty as hell inside- it was what one would expect a $200 car that runs to be like.
Ended up having to tow it to the junkyard after our couple weeks with it, thanking the good lord we never got pulled over with it or towed (we left it at the high school parking lot so our parents wouldn't know- the day before it went to the junkyard it got the "we are going to tow you tomorrow" sticker.)
Also had a work truck at a hotel I was working at one year- a 1978 Chevy pickup with a straight six and an automatic, rusted through floorboards, automatic transmission barely worked- the next year when I came back they had swapped it for another 78 Chevy with a straight six and a 3 on the tree that was much nicer.
1966 Ford Mustang. It was a real beater with a hopped up 289 V-8 engine, 4-speed and a bad front end. Goose it and this car just wanted to get you killed! It was totally unsafe on wet pavement and it rains plenty on the Oregon coast. It was one of the many Mustangs we had on the used car lot back in the later Seventies but it was the only one that was so dreadful and dangerous.
I should have found someone I wanted to get rid of and given it to them...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: hbelkins on November 24, 2014, 01:29:21 PM
1984 Camaro Z-28. Total piece of garbage.
A college friend had a 1984 Camaro (not a Z-28) which was also junk. Among other problems, the heating/AC would discharge enormous amounts of water into the passenger compartment at random intervals, and the Chevy dealer(s) were unable to correct the problem.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 24, 2014, 01:29:21 PM
Also, the 1971 Dodge Dart that my mom had that I drove in high school and part of my first year of college wasn't a winner. It had an electrical system that would do screwy things.
If the Dart had the 225 cid Slant Six, then I am confident you did not have engine problems (those motors were almost indestructible).
Quote from: hbelkins on November 24, 2014, 01:29:21 PM
I had a boss who had an old Oldsmobile 88 diesel, and that thing was junk. The thing would randomly die and could not be restarted.
Those GM Diesels set the cause of Diesels in passenger cars and light-duty trucks back by at least 30 years.
As far as worst cars, probably the VW Microbus with the air-cooled engine in the rear (we had rented one while in Sweden).
Severely underpowered, almost impossible to accelerate it up to 90 km/h (about 55 MPH), not especially stable on high motorway bridges and not all that easy to shift.
Well some of the above worst cars would have been good if taken care of.
I have driven some beaters. One was a car my daughter's mother gave her, the only thing good she gave her. It was an 81 Dodge Diplomat with slant 6 and 727 Torque Flight trans. It had to have been a tough car at one time since neither my X nor my daughter ever figured out that the brakes are used for stopping, not other cars and poles. Gasoline was their only item on the maintenance list. My driving experience was after these two had abused it for several years.
My daughter lived on the opposite side of Dallas from me. She called me one night to come and get her. The car would start and the engine ran great even with 2+ quarts low of oil but it just would not move very well. It had two very worn out tie rods, bald with wire showing through on the tires. Well, I put two or three quarts of ATF in the trans and headed to my home via I-635. Oh, and the shocks were completely worn out but it ran great. 635 is life threatening on a good day with a good car. I made it home. I am not sure how. I did not realize how bad the tires were until the next morning.
This is the worst car I ever drove. However, it was a tough one. I later gave it to a guy wanting a bare bones dirt track car. He got it.
The worst car that was almost new I drove was a small auto trans Chevy in the 70s. It was a rental. It rode rough, no power, and felt smaller than either of my two VW old style Beetles. Running up I-44 I believe it never shifted to top gear for lack of power. It was a rental so I drove it with the petal to the metal from Lawton, OK to Cincinnati, Ohio and back.
I have to say my X wife's Monza she bought used before we were married was a piece of crap. Although she did not take care of cars it was a piece of crap before she bought it.
The worst new vehicle I owned was a 1975 Chevrolet (Isuzu) LUV pick up. It was great to about 18000 miles. Then for no good reason it would stop running like it ran out of fuel. I thought vapor lock but no. I thought fuel pump but no. I did add a secondary electric fuel pump which helped. I twice burned two valves in the same cylinder. I called a friend who had the same problems to find out how he cured it. He said he sold it so I did the same after about 28000 miles.
Quote from: bugo on November 24, 2014, 08:02:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 24, 2014, 07:51:23 PM
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.
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. :poke:
Quote from: leroys73 on November 24, 2014, 10:26:25 PM
Well some of the above worst cars would have been good if taken care of.
Very true. We had a lot of terrible cars while I was growing up, but we bought them for a couple hundred bucks after they had been abused for 10+ years. Some of them would've been fine if they had been maintained properly. When my Pinto finally died in the late 90s, I bought a mid/late 80s Corolla from a private owner based on Toyota's reputation and my brother's success with them. The car turned out to be in terrible condition and wasn't maintained by the previous owner(s), and didn't last a year. I finally had enough, and bought a brand new Corolla and it's been new Toyotas ever since. 'American' cars have made a lot of progress over the years, but I haven't gotten over the trauma of spending my formative years in Pep Boys waiting rooms or standing on the side of road.
Roadrunner 75, I completely understand. Pep Boys a good place to visit but not a good place to "live".
Quote from: leroys73 on November 25, 2014, 12:46:35 PM
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. :poke:
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.
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 25, 2014, 01:21:30 AM
Quote from: bugo on November 24, 2014, 08:02:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 24, 2014, 07:51:23 PM
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.
Quote from: formulanone on November 27, 2014, 08:02:03 PM
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.
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.
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.
QuoteMy 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 27, 2014, 09:37:06 PM
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.
Quote from: corco on November 28, 2014, 01:21:52 AMI 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.
Quote from: roadman on November 28, 2014, 09:28:57 AMAt 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 28, 2014, 11:03:33 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 28, 2014, 09:28:57 AMAt 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: roadman on November 28, 2014, 12:11:43 PMMy 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. :sombrero:
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2014, 11:58:28 PMThen 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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 02, 2014, 12:54:28 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 28, 2014, 12:11:43 PMMy 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. :sombrero:
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 02, 2014, 12:54:28 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: signalman on November 24, 2014, 03:52:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Fred Defender on December 05, 2014, 08:38:42 AM
Quote from: signalman on November 24, 2014, 03:52:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Fred Defender on December 05, 2014, 08:38:42 AMLet 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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 05, 2014, 09:41:29 AM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 05, 2014, 09:41:29 AM
Quote from: Fred Defender on December 05, 2014, 08:38:42 AM
Quote from: signalman on November 24, 2014, 03:52:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Fred Defender on December 05, 2014, 08:38:42 AMLet 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.
Quote from: Fred Defender on December 05, 2014, 10:34:45 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 05, 2014, 09:41:29 AM
Quote from: Fred Defender on December 05, 2014, 08:38:42 AM
Quote from: signalman on November 24, 2014, 03:52:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Fred Defender on December 05, 2014, 08:38:42 AMLet 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.
Quote from: Henry on December 05, 2014, 10:02:12 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 05, 2014, 09:41:29 AM
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
Quote from: Henry on December 05, 2014, 10:02:12 AMFor 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.
Quote from: Fred Defender on December 05, 2014, 10:34:45 AMLest 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.".
2010(?) Chrysler 200. It was a dog. :p
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).
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 08, 2014, 03:10:59 PM
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.
Quote from: leroys73 on December 15, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
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 (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/dishonorable-mention-the-10-most-embarrassing-award-winners-in-automotive-history) 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.
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.
Quote from: briantroutman on December 15, 2014, 04:48:26 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on December 15, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
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 (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/dishonorable-mention-the-10-most-embarrassing-award-winners-in-automotive-history) 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.
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.
Quote from: bugo on December 16, 2014, 11:12:47 PM
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).
Quote from: bugo on December 16, 2014, 11:12:47 PM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2014, 08:34:23 AM
Quote from: bugo on December 16, 2014, 11:12:47 PM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 17, 2014, 08:34:23 AM
Quote from: bugo on December 16, 2014, 11:12:47 PM
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.
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.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 17, 2014, 07:32:36 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 16, 2014, 11:12:47 PM
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.
Quote from: bugo on December 18, 2014, 02:17:30 PM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 18, 2014, 02:52:43 PM
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.
Quote from: briantroutman on December 18, 2014, 02:59:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 18, 2014, 02:52:43 PM
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.
Quote from: bugo on December 18, 2014, 02:17:30 PM
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.
There was also the Ford Corsair, sold at various times in the UK and Australia.
Quote from: Henry on December 19, 2014, 12:44:48 PMIt'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. :)
Quote from: Henry on December 19, 2014, 12:44:48 PMand 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.
Quote from: Henry on December 19, 2014, 12:44:48 PMhowever, 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.
Someone said that the Edsel looked like an Oldsmobile sucking on a lemon.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 19, 2014, 01:08:24 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 19, 2014, 12:44:48 PMIt'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. :)
Quote from: Henry on December 19, 2014, 12:44:48 PMand 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.
Quote from: leroys73 on December 18, 2014, 01:12:46 PM
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).
Quote from: bugo on December 07, 2014, 03:42:42 PM
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.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 19, 2014, 11:34:14 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 07, 2014, 03:42:42 PM
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
The Iron Duke was a reliable, if agricultural engine. Not the most efficient or powerful engine ever made but it did its job.
My ex gf had a 1988 Chevy Nova. It was the worst. I felt like I was driving a golf cart.
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.
Quote from: ajlynch91 on December 26, 2014, 11:45:56 AM
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'.
We drove a 2010 Chevrolet HHR as a rental on a trip to San Diego a few years ago. It was gutless.
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 29, 2014, 11:00:21 AM
Quote from: ajlynch91 on December 26, 2014, 11:45:56 AM
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.
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!