The GRM readership proper and actual 'worst cars' list

In reply to frankenstangsghost:

Gonna have to be more specific. For example, the first gen MPV was a terd, but the second gen MPV is probably the best minivan ever built.

Slushbox 1st gen SL1. No power, horrible auto, and tiny inside.

It was my wife's first car, her Grandmother left it to her when she passed. The car died the morning she was to take her road test.

That being said, I'm not trying to be a Saturn hater. I had almost ended up with an '02 SL1/5spd. I like it well enough, but couldn't get a loan.

MG Bryan wrote: There was a clean Mk II BGT roller for sale down in this area not that long ago. I'm not sure how far north in PA you are, but, if you want, I'll shoot you the ads if anything pops up on my radar again.

Sue, if it isn't too much trouble - pass 'em along. I'm not much of a body/fender guy so basket cases are probably beyond me unless it is destined to be a tube chassis (which also means the car has to basically be free).

Tyler H wrote: 1984 Rabbit Diesel...ugh. Drilled holes in the airbox so the filter wouldn't choke on oil blow-by. Started reliably once I ran a hose into the cabin so I could give it a shot of ether to start it. Maybe not the best example, but no real redeeming qualities.

I owned one of those for a few years (too long). In 21 years of commuting, it was the only vehicle to ever leave me stranded... six times.

The Iron duke a turd motor? Really? As indestructible as anything I can think of.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

MG Bryan wrote: There was a clean Mk II BGT roller for sale down in this area not that long ago. I'm not sure how far north in PA you are, but, if you want, I'll shoot you the ads if anything pops up on my radar again.

Sue, if it isn't too much trouble - pass 'em along. I'm not much of a body/fender guy so basket cases are probably beyond me unless it is destined to be a tube chassis (which also means the car has to basically be free).

Come to california, I have seen 2 straight and rust free BGTs (even complete with wire wheels) in pick and pull recently.

OK, I got to drive a rental car in florida a couple of years ago, it was a midsize Kia. What a tin can, the motor wasn't very peppy, the stupid +- transmission wouldn't hold gear in high rpm, and wouldn't downshift when I wanted. Also the rental place sprayed the interior with some god awefull upholstery cleaner, yuck. Combine the car with the smell, with the hot and humid weather and I wasn't impressed.

My dad rented a dodge caliber and I guess the thing was a real pos. I can't verify how bad but I believe it.

Along with the Century add its badge engineered siblings, the Chevy Celebrity, Pontiac 6000, and whatever else GM slapped on it. My first car was an '82 Pontiac 6000LE. 4-banger, 0-60 in 7.5 billion years. I got it in '92 with 25k original miles. Replaced the whole front end in the first year I had it because the grease went bad from lack of use. Being my first car it was decent basic transportation (when it worked), but definitely the least fun car I've had. Even my AWD Grand Caravan had more redeeming qualities (snowy four wheel drifts in a minivan FTW).

In reply to White_and_Nerdy:

One of my best DDs eva was a '92 Century, 15 y/o, 125K w/ routine maintenance and no rust till some asswipe rear ended it at a stop and totaled it. I would own another.

Zomby woof wrote: The Iron duke a turd motor? Really? As indestructible as anything I can think of.

Yup, they are underpowered but they never quit running.

That was GM's go-to engine for a LONG time.

And they never need to be rebuilt. Anything that has a Iron Duke that actually wears the engine out, is'nt worth the price of a rebuild.

I love how many cars end up on a "worst ever" list are actually innovative vehicles or cars that saved the companies ass.

Like:

Ford Pinto: Fire problem in the first year demonised the poor car, in reality they were cheap, reliable transportation that made Ford a lot of money.

Fiero: The constuction methods in that car paved the way for all of GM's plastic bodied vehicles (note, I said plastic, not fibreglass, the Fiero is far different than the 'vette). They developed the systems they use now when they built the Fiero. The Fiero had one of the best, if not THE best side impact crash ratings in 1984. The fire problem was really an operator failure issue if you research it.

Aztek: It's ugly as sin but it basicly created the crossover SUV market.

Caravan: c'mon, if you don't realise what this and it's K-car siblings did for Chrysler, you're mad.

Corvair: 'nuff said.

Trans_Maro wrote: Aztek: It's ugly as sin but it basicly created the crossover SUV market.

I can't agree that that is a good thing.

Zomby woof wrote:

Tyler H wrote: 1984 Rabbit Diesel...ugh. Drilled holes in the airbox so the filter wouldn't choke on oil blow-by. Started reliably once I ran a hose into the cabin so I could give it a shot of ether to start it. Maybe not the best example, but no real redeeming qualities.

I owned one of those for a few years (too long). In 21 years of commuting, it was the only vehicle to ever leave me stranded... six times. The Iron duke a turd motor? Really? As indestructible as anything I can think of.

I killed one with 92,000 gentle miles. I made the horrible mistake of revving a Fiero to 4,000 rpm going up a hill. 3 pint oil pan and a start up procedure that zinged it to 3,000 rpm on fire up, upon reflection, might not have been good ideas.

My grandparents killed like six in their Citation.

noddaz wrote:

jrw1621 wrote: I will put forth the Sterling 825 for what it should have been vs what it was.

Say what you will... But THAT Sterling is outstanding in it's field.....

Say what you will...
But THAT Rover is Sterling in it's field..... Fixed

m

Curmudgeon wrote: 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.

It's amazing how much hate is heaped on these things by people who have never driven one. The PRV engine made 190+ BHP in Euro trim when it was chosen, it was also found in a few legendary French sports cars like the Alpine A310 (and later A610). It wasn't a bad engine, it just got whittled down to meet US smog regs which caught out a lot of other manufacturers too. Remember this was the era of the "mighty" 175 BHP, 5.7L Corvette... Fortunately you can wake the PRV back up with some breather mods (cams, intake, exhaust, some tuning) and get most of, if not more than, your 190 horsies back. The one in my profile has a "new DMC" Stage 2 engine which consists of said mods and it will just about keep up with a 944 Turbo. The "rear" placement amounts to moving something like 6 lbs from in front of the axle to behind it (Colin Chapman once quipped that was "the weight of a large sandwich" - where the heck was he eating lunch?) You don't even notice when you're driving it.

DMC handed the chassis over to Lotus to develop when their own ideas didn't work out, because Lotus were building the most advanced sports cars in the world at the time and they knew it.

The gullwing doors can be opened with about a foot of clearance on either side of the car, and unless your garage was made for midgets they aren't going to hit the roof either. The height of the whole car with its doors open is less than a 10-year-old F150. So maybe it's not as practical as a Honda Civic hatchback; I'm betting most Delorean owners don't care.

The chassis is actually a very advanced design for 1980; it shares quite a lot with the 1st gen Esprit, sadly including its rust-prone mild steel construction, but for some reason it's never criticized much in that application... It's really tight, the only thing I've ever driven which has a similar steering feel was an AW11 MR2. Suspension wise, the US lawmakers pulled a "minimum headlight height" regulation out of their black holes while the car was in development, so rather than redesign the whole thing DMC just put longer springs on to raise it. No, it wasn't an ideal solution, but the key point is it's easily reversible.

That said, I've autocrossed one on the stock springs (on a freaking banked oval with concrete walls of all places) and it wasn't ponderous or wallowy at all, so I don't know where those criticisms come from... It did want to swap ends at the limit, but not uncontrollably much. So are we writing off all sports cars with a bit of snap oversteer now? I don't think the Porsches, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis of the era were particularly easy to drive at the limit either.

So if you don't like the car because of the looks or because you think John Z. was the '80s equivalent of a douchebag (he may have been, but not for the reasons a lot of people think), fine, but go drive one before you call it "poorly designed". And remember where the blame for the compromises that had to be made lies.

Anything Pontiac built from, say, the late 70's until it died with the exceptions of the GTO, G8, and Solstice.

Especially the Grand Am.

fifty wrote: Holden Camira.

I didn't think you could make an 80's Cavalier any worse.

Jay wrote: The PRV engine made 190+ BHP in Euro trim when it was chosen, it was also found in a few legendary French sports cars like the Alpine A310 (and later A610). It wasn't a bad engine.

The cars it was in were fine but, based on my experience of having to work on one, those engines are a HORRIBLE design.

Lets see, a V8 design that's now a v6 so it's a 90 degree six and completely out of balance. Check.

The volvo version has a badly cast oil passage in left head that causes it to eat camshafts. Check.

Wet liner motor, designed so that when you remove the head, the stuck gasket disturbs the cylinder which causes coolant to leak into the crankcase around the bottom of the liner. Check.

People can stick their heads in the sand all they want, that engine is a garbage design. It's easily as bad as the Vega aluminum block / iron head engine.

As for the crossover SUV thing, we may not like it but I bet the automakers do.

Shawn

I had a Mercury Topaz with 210k on it. All original. Sold it to a guy in the PRB. I saw it around for the next couple of years too. Crappy car no matter how you cut it. 20 mpg out of a 4 cylinder on the hwy! Nice 3 spd auto... Oh well. Still more reliable than a Stag or Delorean...

pinchvalve wrote: Satan himself bestowed the mid 80's Buick Century upon the Earth. A cool map light was its only redeeming feature. Even scrap yards won't accept these things. I tried to trow it in a river and the river threw it back. And the Century remains cursed forever. Have you been stuck behind one of these in the left lane going 45 recently?

I had an '87 Century with the 3.8 liter SFI engine. I don't think too many had that engine. Most were 2.8 IIRC. It was not a slug. Had great throttle response. wasn't a great handling car with that solid rear axle and all but it did run good and averaged around 28-30 mpg. After having the trans rebuilt at 150k it made it to 195k before we junked it. Overall not a bad car at all. Second only to my Jeep XJ in terms of reliability.

Jay wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: 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.

It's amazing how much hate is heaped on these things by people who have never driven one. The PRV engine made 190+ BHP in Euro trim when it was chosen, it was also found in a few legendary French sports cars like the Alpine A310 (and later A610). It wasn't a bad engine, it just got whittled down to meet US smog regs which caught out a lot of other manufacturers too. Remember this was the era of the "mighty" 175 BHP, 5.7L Corvette... Fortunately you can wake the PRV back up with some breather mods (cams, intake, exhaust, some tuning) and get most of, if not more than, your 190 horsies back. The one in my profile has a "new DMC" Stage 2 engine which consists of said mods and it will just about keep up with a 944 Turbo. The "rear" placement amounts to moving something like 6 lbs from in front of the axle to behind it (Colin Chapman once quipped that was "the weight of a large sandwich" - where the heck was he eating lunch?) You don't even notice when you're driving it. DMC handed the chassis over to Lotus to develop when their own ideas didn't work out, because Lotus were building the most advanced sports cars in the world at the time and they knew it. The gullwing doors can be opened with about a foot of clearance on either side of the car, and unless your garage was made for midgets they aren't going to hit the roof either. The height of the whole car with its doors open is less than a 10-year-old F150. So maybe it's not as practical as a Honda Civic hatchback; I'm betting most Delorean owners don't care. The chassis is actually a very advanced design for 1980; it shares quite a lot with the 1st gen Esprit, sadly including its rust-prone mild steel construction, but for some reason it's never criticized much in that application... It's really tight, the only thing I've ever driven which has a similar steering feel was an AW11 MR2. Suspension wise, the US lawmakers pulled a "minimum headlight height" regulation out of their black holes while the car was in development, so rather than redesign the whole thing DMC just put longer springs on to raise it. No, it wasn't an ideal solution, but the key point is it's easily reversible. That said, I've autocrossed one on the stock springs (on a freaking banked oval with concrete walls of all places) and it wasn't ponderous or wallowy at all, so I don't know where those criticisms come from... It did want to swap ends at the limit, but not uncontrollably much. So are we writing off all sports cars with a bit of snap oversteer now? I don't think the Porsches, Ferraris, and Lamborghinis of the era were particularly easy to drive at the limit either. So if you don't like the car because of the looks or because you think John Z. was the '80s equivalent of a douchebag (he may have been, but not for the reasons a lot of people think), fine, but go drive one before you call it "poorly designed". And remember where the blame for the compromises that had to be made lies.

I've driven a couple. Tried to autocross one. I'm glad you have one and glad you like it, but that car was not anywhere near what John Z claimed it was supposed to be. Maybe it was the tires but it was an evil handling thing anywhere near the limit (as you mention). Also as you mention, the 911 Porsche of the time shared that same characteristic and yes I have driven more than a couple of those, one of which did its damndest to pitch me backwards into a drainage ditch. The fact that the Porsches did the same thing does not excuse Chapman and Delorean. There were many other much better handling cars available at the time.

We had one in the Mercedes shop I worked at. Amazing how much rot there was underneath. Esprits do the same thing, as you noted. At least Chapman had the good sense to put the Esprit's engine in the middle.

By the way, you might check a little further into Z and Colin Chapman's financial dealings before jumping up and down and hollering about entrapment. At the trial, the judge told Delorean that if there was any justice in this world he would be in prison. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/mar/21/guardianobituaries.usa

Chapman was known to like other people's money (and other men's wives) in a big way and when it all came down as is usual in these things his financial guy took the big hit. Chapman walked but the noose was tightening again when he died suddenly. John Z was a wheeler dealer too, they made a good pair.

Also, the 9xx engine's real world development (the most successful and profitable engine Lotus ever built, particularly if you include the V8 variants) was paid for by Jensen. How did that happen, you ask? Chapman sold the engine (as was the case with everything he built) with no warranties of any kind. So when the claims started piling up for all the things which were not done correctly in the first 18 months of production, he didn't pay a dime. (Other people's money, right?) The Jensen Healey was well on its way to being a sucess (the factory had a backlog of 10 month's orders at the end) but thanks to the warranty claims they did not have enough operating capital to build them. So Jensen approached the British government for a loan to cover the claim backlog so they could build cars, but guess what? John Z and Chapman had beaten them to it in order to build a car which was the biggest automotive fizzle of all time.

So a company which had been in business since the 1890's went down because of these two.

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

Zomby woof wrote:

Tyler H wrote: 1984 Rabbit Diesel...ugh. Drilled holes in the airbox so the filter wouldn't choke on oil blow-by. Started reliably once I ran a hose into the cabin so I could give it a shot of ether to start it. Maybe not the best example, but no real redeeming qualities.

I owned one of those for a few years (too long). In 21 years of commuting, it was the only vehicle to ever leave me stranded... six times. The Iron duke a turd motor? Really? As indestructible as anything I can think of.

I killed one with 92,000 gentle miles. I made the horrible mistake of revving a Fiero to 4,000 rpm going up a hill. 3 pint oil pan and a start up procedure that zinged it to 3,000 rpm on fire up, upon reflection, might not have been good ideas. My grandparents killed like six in their Citation.

Maybe the later ones were better. When I worked at the Buick place in the mid '90's, I found a tool set in the toolroom that was a little hard to figure out until I dug out the instruction sheet. It was a set of long drill bits, long broken bolt extractors and these machined sleeves. The deal: Iron Dukes would bust head bolts. When one came in the shop, you pulled the broken piece of the bolt out, slid the sleeve into the bolt hole, this aligned the drill bit which you then used to make a hole in the broken off part. You then took the sleeve and drill bit out, then used the extractor to remove the broken bolt, dropped a new one in the hole and retorqued all to specs. That way GM did not have to pay for labor to R&R the head. FWIW, in the '80's the Ford Vulcan 3.0 V6 (Taurus/Aerostar etc) would break head and main cap bolts.

The Fieros had that recall because the oil pan was made shallow to keep the engine under the rear cover, it held ~3 quarts. When the engine would use a quart between changes and had only 2 quarts left it would chuck a rod at highway speed. The catalytic converter was right behind the engine KABOOM. FWIW, I think the Fiero could have been so much more had GM's inertia and cost cutting not gotten in the way.

Curmudgeon wrote: By the way, you might check a little further into Z and Colin Chapman's financial dealings before jumping up and down and hollering about entrapment. At the trial, the judge told Delorean that if there was any justice in this world he would be in prison. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/mar/21/guardianobituaries.usa Chapman was known to like other people's money (and other men's wives) in a big way and when it all came down as is usual in these things his financial guy took the big hit. Chapman walked but the noose was tightening again when he died suddenly. John Z was a wheeler dealer too, they made a good pair.

Yeesh, I'm fully aware of that. Hence my comment about "but not for the reasons most people seem to think" - i.e. JZD did not launch an international cocaine smuggling business, and never went to prison for it. His (and Chapman's) treatment of their investors was another issue entirely. That doesn't change the fact that I think they built a pretty good car, especially for the time.

Feel free to chime in with any other "good" sports car from 1980 that doesn't have huge issues or flaws in our modern hindsight...

Keep in mind they only built 8000 of them. They were still tweaking things right up until the factory workers were let go and the final batch were put together by the management team (who by all accounts didn't do a spectacular job of it.) For any other model the first 8000 cars are practically a public beta test (see: early Corvettes, everything British ever, anything with a Wankel) but Deloreans get scorn heaped on them because DMC suffered the same problems as literally every other manufacturer.

Financial scandal and shady dealings have been a virtual tradition in the auto industry for at least the last sixty years, if not more. The fact that that blew up in JZD's face doesn't mean you get to consign one of the most advanced cars being built at the time to a "worst ever" list.

Maybe we should have a thread for "worst car companies ever", but that would just expand in the first five posts to include all the companies.

Let's change it from "worst", which is a harsh term, to "cars you have no desire to own for one reason or another".

As thread starter, I have full jurisdiction over title modifications .

John Z may not have gone to prison but he damn sure tried to sell some toot to keep the doors open, which he wouldn't have had to do if he and Chapman hadn't stolen the place blind. He hired a slick lawyer to try to get him off and the lawyer insisted on the title to a Southern California ranch before he would lift a finger, Z did his best to screw him out of that too. He was no angel.

The '80's definitely weren't the best of times for sports cars but there were alternatives to the Delorean which were better platforms. Let's move downscale for a minute: the 280Z/ZX. The 1979 NA motor made 145 HP. It was at least as fast as the Delorean, better handling and cheaper to boot. Then there was the Celica/Supra, same story only it wasn't as fast as the ZX. You are right, the Mustang/Camaro/Corvette were not worthy competitors at the time.

If we go upscale, Chapman's Esprit was released in 1976, which made it direct competition for the Delorean. The Esprit had a smaller engine at launch (still pretty punchy at 144HP with an astronomical for the time 7500 RPM redline) but by the time the DMC12 hit the market with its 150HP PRV the much lighter 9xx had grown to 2.2 liters/160HP and with a turbo made a heckuva lot more HP than the PRV engine.

So yes there were better alternatives available at the time.

I'm not arguing that I would hire John Delorean to run my business. I'm arguing that the car was actually pretty good. Yes, it was hampered a lot by regulations and its own development history, but the design was solid. There were some better alternatives out there, sure, but had the company persisted (with or without its rockstar-wannabe namesake at the helm) I think the ones that came a few years later would have been pretty damn special. Technology and production techniques were changing at warp speed at the time, and the early adopters always got the burden of sorting them out for the rest of the industry.

Compare a 1976 Esprit to a 1982 Esprit, just from a usability/quality perspective. World of difference.

Luke wrote: Let's change it from "worst", which is a harsh term, to "cars you have no desire to own for one reason or another".

Now that I've spent the rest of this thread defending the totally spectacular Delorean, I'll just chime in here and answer that question with the one it invariably gets compared to: the Bricklin SV-1.

No way in hell will you ever see me get behind the wheel of one of those. While I'm sure they have some redeeming qualities, the fact is that a car called a "Safety Vehicle" right there on its nose cone goes against everything I stand for. It's a matter of principle.