The GRM readership proper and actual 'worst cars' list

I would non-ironically include the DeLorean. Maybe if it had come with any of the engines it was supposed to it would've been a decent car, but with that gutless V6? I think it has the lowest stock points rating of any car in Forza, and there's a reason for that.

In the real world, they're expensive to buy into and don't share parts with anything else on US soil (that I'm aware of), so it's not like you can just stroll into your local pick-a-part and snag a new Fetzer-valve actuator when yours goes out.

I'd also like to contribute any early '80s domestics claiming to be performance oriented. From 454s in pickups to 302s in Mustangs, they all were miserable.

MG Bryan wrote: "Worst" without qualification is too broad and subjective for us to actually agree on.

And that is exactly what will make this thread interesting!

Another craptastic offering in America. The Eagle Medallion.

Ford Tempo gets position 1 to 10 in any worst car list.

Anything else, I can do something to make it fun.

I know someone who had several eagle medallions and they said they were good cars. Btw, at least 4 different cars were sold here with the same engine as the delorean ( Citroën xm, Peugeot 505 stx, Volvo 262c, and a Volvo wagon with the same engine.) I don't think you can make a worst car list (vs just a list of cars people don't like) without it being limited only to cars people have owned or at least driven and disliked for a specific reason.

I can find a silver lining in almost any car. I owned a '88 Tempo 2dr and it was reasonably fun with the 5spd. The engine was a bit tractor like and are generally quite robust.

Of the cars I've owned my least favorite was a fwd, automatic Corolla. I preferred riding my (non-motorized) bike to driving it ... in the winter.

For the least reliable it would be a tie between the 1988 Ford Bronco II and and 1998 Honda Civic I owned. Both had 5spds and some character too them though.

Just saying.

Also, wasn't the 3.0 Tempo GL pretty peppy for it's time? I had a friend that had a friend that owned and obsessed over one, and considered it the [really] poor man's SHO.

Does this thread just have people set to prove that no matter how maligned and universally despised a car is, SOMEONE can love it and think it cool?

TEMPO?! My grandparents had one, and it made CAMRYS look exciting!

jrw1621 wrote: Another craptastic offering in America. The Eagle Medallion.

Doesn't that car share parts with the DeLorean? Or maybe it was the Premier. I know there was one Eagle where the engine was a bored, stroked, and even fire version of the DeLorean motor.

I've got to wonder with the DeLorean - given what was available in 1981, is there really any good choice in engines? American V8s were pretty smog choked, a BMW straight six wouldn't have fit, a Ford Cologne V6 wouldn't pass US emissions requirements without being horribly detuned, the Ford 2.3, Chrysler 2.2, and Mitsubishi 4G63 hadn't acquired much in the way of good turbo / EFI setups...

Premiere has the same 3.0L engine as DeLorean (i think)
The real dig on the Medallion was the confusion. The car was sold here one year under Renault/AMC ownership and then the next year under Chrysler/Jeep ownership then discontinued.

The Premier (and tons of Volvos) had the same PRV engine as the Delorean. The Medallion was smaller and had a 4 banger.

If you guys actually get a "10 worst cars ever" list together. I hereby predict that within a year we will have all 10 of those cars at the challenge.

and it will be awesome.

I will proffer the Triumph TR7. Worst car EVAR!

Now, my free Ford Aspire, is another story. It was such an awesome little beater.

Satan himself bestowed the mid 80's Buick Century upon the Earth.

I had one, with the 2.8 v6. I liked the thing, until the steering went bad. Then I moved up, meant to do something with the car, and finally scrapped it.

Deloreans were not well designed cars (and I know I'm going to get bitch slapped for saying that). The rear engine setup was not a real good idea, even Porsche was having a lot of problems with it (trailing throttle oversteer). The gullwing doors made it impossible to park in the average garage. John Z claimed it was faster than a Corvette or a 911, uh no it wasn't and to pin all that on poor available engine choice doesn't work because there were other powerplants available such as the 9xx Lotus, which was pretty well debugged by that time. To top it off, the Lotus backbone frame is full of all kinds of water traps but to save $ unlike the body it was made of mild steel and they rust horribly because of that. No, thank you. Pass.

BTW, that Century: the GM A body in all its versions was a cookie cutter grandma mobile. Its steering and brakes were numb as novocaine, the drivetrain had all the power and refinement of a Trabant. (Gawd, I hated the way they shifted; it 'oozed' from gear to gear and the engine did not make much oomph at all for its displacement.) They are so conservatively styled they are invisible, there is no thrill ride there. But for its intended purpose (basic transport), it's hard to beat and they are pretty damn reliable. Look around and see how many are still on the road. In a lot of ways the Tempo fell in that same category, the HSC pushrod motor didn't make enough power to hurt itself and in all the other categories it was the equal of the GM A body. Not that that's something to brag about. But for some reason there's not as many Tempos still running around.

They were both crappy cars to an enthusiast but to Gramma they were perfect.

Woops, forgot my offering for worst car: the 1981-1984 Escort. It had the Fiesta's big shoes to fill, and Ford did their damndest to make the anti- Fiesta. The 1.6 motor cracked heads if you shone a sunlamp on it, the front suspension was poorly designed which caused it to eat right front tires (this design was carried over to the Tempo, BTW), the doors bonged when closed because they had no sound deadener, the timing belt was to be replaced at 30,000 miles (yes, 30,000 miles), they would fail early and completely grenade the motor. (Look up the M30 program.) That was inexcusable; the 2.0 German Ford motor was a belt design, it was put into production in 1968 and that was followed by the 2.3 Lima engine so it can't be said Ford did not have timing belt experience. They leaked water like a sieve, it was really bad around the taillights.

I offer up the Vega, especially those with the aluminum engine. Yes I had one. 22 mpg, no AC, 4 speed, and AM craptastic radio. I bought into the BS hype from GM and even then waited for the second year of production. But, I still like the styling of the car, especially the wagons with a split RS type bumper.

My 10 worst: 1986 Ford Escort, in 90k miles went through 2 water pumps, 3 clutches and 4 timing belts. The carb was a nightmare. Any Fiat X 1/9 an example how not to engineer a car. Any 84-87 Pontiac Fiero. This is what you get when you cross a Citation with a Chevette. Any GM X body car. Any Corvair from the midwest, you can hear them rust. Ford Aerostar van. Any 80's GM G body car. Mid 80's Ford Taurus, try removing the heater core and not the dash. Any Caddy with a HT4100 engine. They would either blow a head gasket, throw a rod or the cam would break after 100K. Any Chrysler LH series with a 2.7 V6. Garbage engine. Finally a Dodge Mini van with either the Mitsubishi 2.5 four or the 3.0 v6.

I'll go against the grain here and say "MIATA"

The Miata is a great car for many things. The Miata is a great car for pretty much everything I like to do in a car, actually (other than snow, and things that require a...ahem...backseat).

But the Miata is the worst because it's such a great car, and Mazda has consistently given it the appearance of a teenage-girl-mobile with happy pop-up eyes, or a happy smiling grille, and happy rounded trunk.

If Mazda made the Miata look aggressive.....let's say in the neighborhood of the 2nd gen MR2, or S2000, or BRZ?.....I'd have owned three of them by now. Because I want a car that drives great. But I also want one that looks great (or at least aggressive), if I'm going to drive around in it. I know some here don't care what their cars look like (and indeed, some probably WANT an ugly car just as a middle finger to the "automotive establishment")....

I have alot of opinions on what looks great - and I think alot of ugly cars are cool as hell and I would drive them. WRX, for example. But I just can't drive a Miata. I'm plenty secure in my masculinity, and my heterosexuality. That's not it. I just think it looks stupid.

Now....of course the Miata would have sold 20% as many units if it looked aggressive - since (let's face it) the majority of Miata owners are not racers or autocrossers, and many of them are females..

But one of the best cars ever can still be the WORST car ever.

If only because it could have been absolutely THE best car ever with better styling.

flame away...

Where's the Chevette hate? Sure, they had a three link and A-arms up front, but the quality was atrocious and I'm not sure the geometry was right. The brakes were dangerously prone to failure. They've disappeared from the roads even in California.

I hate Chevettes. But only secondhand. In high school my friends all had crappy cars (and I had a minivan). I think the list went "high miles base Escort," "Ford Monza in bright orange," "Ford Tempo," and "4-banger autotragic Fiero" so the two guys with Chevettes weren't much worse off than any of the rest of us...

Dodge Neon. Owning my ACR made me finally understand where all the arguments against American cars come from. As a matter of fact, most Chrysler products are junk.

DoctorBlade wrote:

Satan himself bestowed the mid 80's Buick Century upon the Earth.

I had one, with the 2.8 v6. I liked the thing, until the steering went bad. Then I moved up, meant to do something with the car, and finally scrapped it.

Boring as dishwater, comfy as a recliner. And you couldn't kill the damn things. Sure it was an appliance but they still rank HIGH in my "what do i wanna spend 200$ on so I don't have to drive my good car in the winter".

mndsm wrote:

DoctorBlade wrote:

Satan himself bestowed the mid 80's Buick Century upon the Earth.

I had one, with the 2.8 v6. I liked the thing, until the steering went bad. Then I moved up, meant to do something with the car, and finally scrapped it.

Boring as dishwater, comfy as a recliner. And you couldn't kill the damn things. Sure it was an appliance but they still rank HIGH in my "what do i wanna spend 200$ on so I don't have to drive my good car in the winter".

I've gotta disagree there......they are plenty killable. My mother had a very unlucky 83 Century when I first got my driver's license. It blew a tranny at 30K miles, developed rod knock at 60K and needed new rotors at 35K or so. None of this was because it was a bad car. The damage was due to an "over exuberant" 16 year old who had a penchant for jumping things, and playing high-speed car tag with his buddies.

not a great car, but not the worst. It did prove very killable though. When Mom brought the car in for brake work the service guy asked " do you have teenage boys?"

enough said...

Like a lot of these the survivors are pretty hardy now as the lemon ones are long off the road.