Last month, I wrote an editorial suggesting that Car Of The Year awards were little more than an advertiser-pleasing circle jerk. After sharing my dismay, several diligent readers pointed out that none of the buff books or fraternal orders of automotive junketeers dared name their “worst car of the year.” RF immediately decided to create TTAC’s first annual Ten Worst Automobiles Today (a.k.a. the TWAT awards). The TTAC team felt strongly that you, our esteemed visitors, should play an important role in this infamous endeavor. We’re asking you to nominate vehicles that deserve a TWAT. Please read the rules and instructions before posting your selection or selections.
2006 TTAC Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) Award
Rules of Engagement
1. A nominee must be a vehicle that was on sale as a new vehicle in the US market between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006; regardless of price, builder, country of origin, production/sales numbers, domestic content or thinly-veiled threats from manufacturers.
2. Nominations may be deleted without prior warning or explanation for any of the following reasons: insufficient justification, excessively verbose or boring prose, foul language, patent absurdity or flame throwing.
3. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS ALLOWED Flaming or trolling is strictly verboten. Offending comments will be deleted. Persistent violators will be permanently banned from this site. No joke.
4. Poorly badge-engineered twins (or triplets) can be nominated for a joint TWAT if they all suck equally. If the twins or triplets qualify, they will enter the final selection and judging process as a single vehicle.
5. TTAC staff will select 20 finalists from the nominees, taking into consideration the number of nominations received, how well the nominations were justified, our personal opinions of the vehicles in question and how much we’ve had to smoke or drink beforehand.
6. Readers will vote (via an electronic survey) on the 20 final nominees to determine the top ten TWATs in America. Bribes and multiple votes are allowed and encouraged, as long as you don’t use a nominating software bot. (Anyone who crashes our server will be banned from the site for all time.) Although it’s highly unlikely, the selection committee reserves the right to throw out any winner and substitute another vehicle if we don’t like what you choose, or for reasons relating to personal payback.
7. We will present the 20 finalists for e-voting as soon as we can find the appropriate software, and think the time is right. Less specifically, the "winners" will be announced on this site sometime before the annual deluge of awards bestowed on some decidedly mediocre machines by the usual suspects. Winning manufacturers will not be notified of their nomination or award, and we will not create a goofy looking statuette to dishonor the winning TWATs.
Although we have no doubt that our highly informed and deeply passionate readers are fully capable of identifying automobiles that should have never seen the light of day, machines that often sit on dealer lots with ten foot pole marks littering their sides, here are some factors that may help your decision making process.
1.) An aesthetic affront. It would certainly help if the nominated vehicle is at least slightly ugly.
2.) An overall lack of quality in design and workmanship. Cheap materials, poor ergonomics and/or lousy fit and finish all increase a vehicle’s chances of victory.
3.) Technological insufficiency. An underpowered, harsh and/or noisy engine, outdated transmission, inferior brakes or fear-of-God handling will add to the vehicle’s overall undesirability.
4.) Despicable parentage. Your choice of automotive abomination could be the result of poorly executed badge engineering– slapping a new grille and a few body and trim modifications on an already mediocre vehicle and trying to pass it off as an exciting new model. Or it could be a vehicle that’s just a dumb idea, a market segment misfit or an answer to a question no one asked (or ever will).
Of course, an ideal TWAT would be a synergistic combination of all of these factors. Those are the miserable motors we’re looking for. If someone has already nominated your favorite, please don’t add a “me too” comment– unless you provide additonal reasons why the vehicle is a really good (bad?) candidate for a TWAT.
OK, go on now: tell the truth about cars. Thank you, in advance, for helping TTAC launch its TWAT.
Since this article was written, we've begun voting on the '06 TWAT awards.
Please click HERE to cast your vote on the final 10. You will be returned to the TTAC home page.
Jeep Compass
Aesthetic affront… check. It’s monstrously ugly, from it’s chipmunk cheeks to it’s inexplicalby trendy d-pillar kink.
Lack of quality… check. One of the worst interiors on the road.
Technological inefficiency… check. One of the worst transmissions on the road.
Dispicable parentage… check. Poorly thought out badge job of the Caliber reeks of a lazy money grab.
This insult to a legendary brand’s image has got to be one of the dumbest and poorly executed vehicles out there, and will eventually prove to be Jeep’s biggest mistake.
Chrysler Aspen.
Any request for explanation should be viewed as an admission of stunning ignorance.
Can someone else complete this DCX hatrick?
Dodge Sprinter. Nuff said.
Mind you, I nearly retched saying it.
DCX hatrick complete.
all Saturns they're so cheaply made their damn fenders feel like they're made of plastic!!
Toyota Prius
Aesthetics . . . looks like it was designed by the gastrointestinal tract of a small mammal.
Quality . . . fine, I guess . . . if you don’t mind occasional stalls while driving at highway speeds.
Technological . . . don’t believe the hype. Online reviews report 20-25% lower fuel economy than the reported EPA rating (Edmunds.com, et al).
Overall annoyance factor . . . seems to be the vehicle of choice for self-important Hollywood types as they drive from their 15,000 sq-ft mansion to the private jet idling on the runway.
Let the beatings begin . . .
The Saturn Ion…I test drove one and couldn’t believe how bad it was.
The electric steering seemed to be barely connected to the wheels.
The plastic exterior panels looked as though they were slapped together by a bored high school shop class.
The interior plastics must have been sourced from Rubbermaid.
The design of the interior door panels and dashboard made them look as though they were lifted straight from a children’s book about cars.
I actually felt sorry for the earnest Saturn sales associate riding with me who had to sell this clunker against a Civic, Corolla or Focus.
To top it off, the S-Series had been out for a decade, so the General couldn’t say that it had rushed the Ion into production as a replacement.
Chrysler Aspen. Although I’ve already written 800 words on the topic, here are the salient bits…
1. It’s ugly. Wow, is it ugly. Chrysler’s ‘trying to sell it as bling, but bling-savvy customers ain’t buying it. Literally.
2. Who needs it? America needs another poorly packaged, gas-hungry SUV like Tom Cruise needs a presidential citation.
3. It’s cheap inside. Nearly $40k and the Aspen has the cheapest, most poorly-fitted carpet I’ve seen outside of a college dorm room.
4. It’s slow, even with a Hemi. Well, it would be given its weight, but that’s no excuse, given the near single digit mileage.
5. The brakes are dead, the steering’s dead, the suspension eliminates body roll (which is not good since everything else is dead).
6. It’s a badly barely badge engineered Dodge Durango, a model that’s poorly packaged (obviously) and long overdue for update.
7. I can’t think of one compelling reason to buy one.
My nomination?
The Chevy Aveo/Daewoo Kalos/whatever other names GM is using to peddle this thing
– Transmission hunts gears when under load
– Very underpowered – don’t try passing anything going uphill
– Bargain sub-basment materials inside and out
– In the hatchback, the rear bumper is well below the bumper height of the average pickup/SUV, making the rear passenger compartment into the rear crumple zone
– Doors sound like hollow tin cans when you close them
– Putting the automatic tranny in gear requires negotiating the stubby shifter (it’s barely 6 inches long from where it comes through the floor to the tip) through three plains simultaneously
– Spindly cup holders that pop out of dash can’t hold anything larger than a soda can
– Many other design/engineering problems. See my review of this vehicle for more reasons it deserves the top TWAT award.
I don’t know if your American readers know what “TWAT” means in English english, but I assume you do?
we do.
Chrysler Crossfire.
Ugly? You bet. Looks like they took a 1967 AMC Marlin and put it in the hot-wash for too long, then into the dryer for too long, badge-engineered a Chrysler grill, slapped ‘er on there and shazam, y’all. Lookidad! Wow, UGLY. The hood still has wrinkles in it from being in the dryer for too long, too.
Plus the engineering, while probably fine, is cast-off last-generation Mercedes. Memo to Daimler-Chrysler: if you are going to rip yourselves off, at least grab the good stuff. May as well get economic benefits from screwing yourselves, by producing more of the latest-tech components instead of two generations of parts in fewer numbers, guys. “Duh.”
Then, make sure to have Karmann build it as expensively as possible so you cannot possibly make a profit with it in the United States and it is priced uncompetitively.
Job done. Yet another Chrysler nominee.
While I’m at it, let me throw in another Chrysler nominee.
The Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum badge-engineered triplets.
Take one 1954 Hudson Hornet, with virtually no glass area. Open the wheel wells, throw in a fake-Hemi and toss on a cross hatch grill ripping off the memory of the fine 1950’s Chrysler 300’s which actually did have real Hemi’s, and built it in a foreign country (marketing it an “all American” car). Oh yeah, build the fake Hemi engine in Mexico with a transmission and chassis based on a German car. Yep, “all American”, all right. NOT.
Now of course the people who “love” the 300 will trash me but so be it.
As for the Charger, well, what can one say, Chrysler? Take a name which carries cachet with millions and then put 2 extra doors on it? Is EVERYBODY totally without brains in Auburn Hills? Maybe you could have gotten away with rear hinged Saturn type rear doors and make it a 2+2 door coupe… but that would have been smart, and that is reserved for your tiny Frogmobiles the Smart. No smarts allowed in other Daimler-Chrysler efforts, obviously.
As for the Magnum, well. Reincarnated AMC Hornet rear roofline added to Hudson Hornet does not make for a very glamorous look, now, does it? I want to hurl every time I see one but thankfully, so few are sold, I generally don’t have an upset stomach while driving.
OK here’s my third nominee. 3 for 3, Chrysler. Well done!
Chrysler Sebring sedan.
Need I say more? Just look at it. Then of course, it can be had with the “wondrous” 2.7 Chrysler V6 and “marvelous” out of date and “marvelously reliable” Chrysler automatic transaxles, plus it can use E85 in the 2.7 engine (I think) so the thing can obtain 15 miles per gallon and we can let much of the rest of the world go hungry so we can feed our oversized cars and “steamroller utility vehicles”! What a hat-trick.
The only way the Chrysler Sebring could be “improved” would be to bring back the Neon 4 cylinder engines (“kaBOOM – there goes another head gasket”).
Too bad Chrysler didn’t deem it necessary to bring back the AMC Pacer as the Dodge Citation (play on words using Edsel model names? – get it? – also the Citation was a “wondrously great” GM product – NOT). Then they could have had 4 for 4!
And someone said my Prius was ugly?! Wow.
Taking into account the other Chrysler nominees, they already have 6 nominees vs. 1 for Toyota and 1 or 2 for GM thus far (depending on whether you count Saturn twice).
Hey, Robert, time for a Chrysler Death Watch!
ah, the new Sebring… finally a sedan so ugly that it makes my Subie look amost presentable.
My nomination is any of the GM minivans. They are butt-ass ugly! It looks like the designers could not figure out if they wanted to design a minivan or a SUV. So they took the worst parts of both and stuck them together. I cringe every time I see one on the road. Just thinking about it gives me the willies.
GM CSV's (that the Aztek is based on) – Chevy Uplander, Buick Terraza, Pontiac Montana SV6, Saturn Relay, mediocrity on wheels. Class-trailing engineering, safety, styling. Ford Focus, because it could have been a class-leading vehicle based on the C1 platform, and Ford USA decided not to bother updating the platform. Instead, it's just getting a Shick razor grille, but not until next year. Isuzu Ascender, a bad example of badge engineering, shares the GMT-360 platform. Makes one wish for the days Isuzu made their own mediocre Rodeo and Axiom. Saab 9-7x, a bad example of badge engineering, shares the GMT-360 platform, not born from a jet. Makes one wish for the days Saab actually existed as an independent entity.
Audi Q7
The proberbial answer to a question no one asked. A “me too” reaction from a company trying to keep up with Mercedes and BMW. Why?
The front end styling makes the the Jeep Cmpass look sedate in comparison.
The interior styling is a knockoff of the A8 and A6, perfectly acceptable for a less expensive car, but not at this price point.
Audi’s multimedia interface is only a little less confusing than BMW’s I-drive.
The third row seat (one of the few reasons to consider this vehicle) is not adequate for anyone over the age of 12.
At over 5500 lbs. aceleration is not good and neither is gas mileage.
As for hanldling TTAC put it best “drives like an Audi sedan on stilts”.
Just goes to show you that not all the dogs of the auto world are at the bargain basement end.
Another vote for the Isuzu Ascender. Just think about that name for a bit. Slow it down and really draw out the syllables. Asc-ender.
Mainstream Toyotas; Camry, Corollas.
They’ve succeeded in removing any passion from driving and apparently, the driving talents of most of their operators too.
Also: Buick Rainier, another GMT-360 clone that inherited the worst of the Oldsmobile Bravada which was its immediate predecessor. Beyond precision? how about no precision whatsoever.
Pontiac G5, answering a question no one except a couple of Pontiac dealers asked, a stellar example of badge engineering.
Re: Pontiac G5 – it wasn’t requested by the engineers, but by the dealers. They couldn’t stand losing sales to their Chevy compatriots.
Chevy Aveo.
It is too small, too weak, too Daewoo, and it gets crappy mileage for a such a tiny vehicle.
I think an examination of the roots of the name, Aveo, is appropriate.
Ave, from the Latin, meaning “hail”, and “o”, which could be representing a zero or nothing. In other words, Aveo is Latin for “Hail nothing”., which is appropriate in this case.
Alternatively, the “o” could represent the last letter in “Daewoo”, giving the meaning “Hail Daewoo”. Is GM that impressed with a company that can’t even make a decent VCR???
vw rabbit 2.5
absolutely most ridiculously named, ridiculously bad engined, ridiculously priced car which is 3 years late. Ah lest not forget the german idea of funny ads.
“dons flame retardent suit”
Chevy Cobalt
It’s not very pretty, the seats are less comfortable than the metal blechers at a high school football stadium, the car is noisy pretty much regardless of the road, the engine is anemic and the interior is bland.
Or I’ll just second the Audi Q7…
Infiniti QX56 – a badge-engineered attempt at a blingmobile of poor build quality and reliability.
Just checked out Chrysler.com – odd seeing the 2005 Crossfire still listed. Guess they didn’t bring over any 2006 models, reason to second the nomination. Also, it looks like the 2007 Sebring will be going on sale in time to qualify! A shoo-in!
1. The Chevy Uplander/Saturn Relay (and any other clones).
The front of the Uplander looks like a school bus. What kid would want to ride in that?
And what is this crossover crap? It’s a minivan and a bad one at that.
Extra penalty points for cheesy motors.
2. The Chrysler Crossfire.
First, it’s more throwback ugly from Chrysler.
Second, it’s not even approachable for tall people. I’ve checke out some cars that weren’t friendly to tall people but this is the first one that’s openly hostile.
Third, the dash looks like crap.
the chevrolet monte carlo. explanation unnecessary. beyond hideous.
I’m not sure why the chrysler pile on happened so early… I’ll toss another vote towards the jeep compass… poorly badge engineered, ill fitting to the jeep brand, hideous… nothing redeaming.
Others that should be nominated:
1. Chevy HHR (GM’s late attempt to cash in on the fading PT Cruiser image)
2. Chevy SSR (Too expensive to be so slow)
3. Ford Freestar/Ranger/Focus – All sufering from lack of attention, rotting on the vine.
4. The entire Pontiac line (this is GMs performance division??)
5. The new Camry – weird lines, weird fender flares, bulbous nose… just hideous.
The Monte Carlo gets my vote as well. That thing could handle like a lotus and wail like a ferrari and it still wouldn’t be able to get past its looks. Let’s not forget, though, that it in fact handles like a wheelbarrow and wails like my lawnmower.
This is just going to be a brand unpopularity contest.
I’d rather you guys used your own judgement on this one.
Unpopularity contest? Camry got nominated twice already.
Were you guys thinking of the 2000-2005 Monte Carlo? That was the one seriously beat with the ugly stick, the 2006 at least had its nose cleaned up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Monte_Carlo
I’ve got to go with the Lincoln Zephyr. Its so bad even Ford knew and changed it after only 1q
I’ll second the Prius.
Here’s why:
A) it IS ugly. Tiny wheels on a huge body bother me the most, especially after the supersize-me thing they did in 04′. Style? None. Quoting the guy who works on the Tesla Roadster, exterior designers of most electric cars believe that driving one should feel like punishment. It just has “Geek” written all over it. Nothing more than a fashion statement, like those colored armbands people used to wear a couple years ago (Ehh, save the plastic and stop wearing your heart on your glove, poseurs).
B) It’s so immature, it’s laughable. A turbodiesel Jetta from mid-80’s onwards gets better real-world mileage. Honda Insight goes further per each gallon you put in, and does so using simpler technology (and you can get one with a manual transmission, too!). Regardless, the right answer to which car will get you better mileage is, WHO CARES? Here’s how you save on gas: don’t waste money. My poor old Sentra (RIP) made 20,000 miles in the last 7 months and ate… ~$2000 worth of gas. I could have gotten extra 500$ by driving a butt-ugly, slow, ill-handling Prius, but instead, I chose to save 20k by not actually buying one. Talk about gas savings – I just saved the world from wasting 30 metric tons of gasoline.
C) It killed the electric car :) Yup, just like those GM converted SBC diesels from the 80’s, Prius forever impacted our image of hybrids and electric cars. Every time I think electric, I think “ugly, slow cocoons”.
D) It’s fails to do what it was made to do. Come on, it has batteries, it has electric motor, but I can’t plug the damn thing in so that I could do my 10-mile commute in an all-electric mode? What about that time when I need to move the car to the other side of the street, when I have to burn a half-gallon of “startup and warmup” fuel to drive, oh, 100 feet? That thing is supposed to save money for me, and the environment for my future grandkids, right?
E) It’s dangerous. Front and rear visibility sacraficed on the altar of fuel efficiency and butt-ugly looks.
F) Is the grade it recieves in following Toyota’s heritage. Poseur cars belong to other brands. Think Del Sol vs MR2. Both cars have mid-engined compact sports car looks, only one of them is a front-engined Civic, and the other one is a… Mid-engined compact sports car.
Toyota was always a smart man’s car. You know, the guy who paid the extra at first, and then laughed at everyone ever since. Camry, with its comfort and reliability. Tercel, with its ultra-low upkeep. Supra, with it’s infinite performance potential and (for the last generation, at least) sky-high resale value.
Unfortunately, Prius joins the late string of Toyota’s poseur cars (Like Corolla S). The brand erosion has started, and Prius is a part of it.
What does SAAB mean to you?
For me, a SAAB is different. Yes yes, they put the key on the floor. GM has certainly latched on to that haven’t they. But SAABs of old have always gone their own way.
Back when adjusting the seat in a Chevy meant the driver and passenger sliding forward as a team, SAAB was more like being inside a jet fighter. The “cockpit” was tight and driver oriented. The guages were military in design. SAABs were different.
As hatchbacks dissapeared from the American roads, SAAB understood this mistake and persisted at the cost of sales. They understood what a SAAB was and were not going to change.
SAABs had turbos that worked and didn’t wear the engine out in 3 years. Tons of power driving the wrong wheels. Reasonable economy and the ability to say “I drive a SAAB”, with the same panache as you might say “I did my MBA at Harvard”. European scoot without being mainstream German.
SAABs are different.
Before I bring myself to tears, I will simply say: I second StarLightMica. Banish the 9-7x to Badge Engineered hell and call a TWAT a TWAT!
-Ford Freestyle
-Toyota Camry and Corolla
Are these 2 shamedly British cars over here at the moment?
-Morgan Aero 8
-Noble…
if so i do apologise!
I guess a lot of people already forgotten about this vehicle, which says enough really, but still I’ll say it…
The Hummer H2:
-too heavy
-too slow
-offensive interior plastics
-CAN’T go around corners when driving faster than 5 mph
-needs more oil for gas than China
-automotive personification of SUV craze
-ability to sport 30″ rims
Well for the all new “things” in 2006:
DCX has had an exceptional year ( i would certainly nominate them for the most uneven corporate performance in 2006). Mercedes had a good numbers results except for the no-minivan-but-minivan-nevertheless R-class (note that this one could be a nominee for the most odd introduction for 2006, although not a bad vehicle at all)…
On the american branch, i would disagree on the fact that the triplet are bad (they are not even 2006 all- new so nevermind). Magnum/charger/300 are actually pretty good offering, although in the need for an update.
Chrysler has put up some pretty ugly duckling: Sebring
Dodge has an interesting approach: the macho econobox (Caliber)
But i think the price for the abomination goes to Jeep:
Compass and Aspen are 2 dangerous cases of tactical corporate shortsightness that will damage the image of Jeep (the Hummer before Hummer, the epitomy of the off-road and military vehicles!)
…1 model year. The tail lights that look like they were torn off a Hundai and glued onto the back provide an uglification of this vanilla, badge engineered bastard. The sizeable price hike over an equally spec’d Fusion adds insult to brand incoherence. The coming of an AWD, 3.5L V6 engined, renamed replacement speaks for itself.
Does the Subaru Impreza get automatic nomination or would that only apply to the “Airborne TWAT” awards.
That word is just so… satisfying. I think I’ll use it in a meeting this morning.
TWAT. Y’all owe me a keyboard.
All of these offend my eyes. Please eliminate.
1. Monte Carlo – suddenly, it’s 1978!
2. Subaru WTF half-pick-up – fugly
3. Infinity QX56 – fugly, cheezy
4. Honda Element w/o painted fenders – much better with paint
5. Chevy HHR – cheap (inside) imitation (outside)
6. Buick Rainier – uh, why bother?
7. Pontiac Gran Prix – rented a brand new one. I was insulted at how cheap a $30k+ car could be
8. BMW Z4 – puked while looking at one yet again today. What were they thinking?
Hummer H2:
Slogan is “Like nothing else.”
Engine shared with Chevy SUV’s
Transmission shared with Chevy SUV’s
Frame & Suspension parts shared with Chevy SUV’s
Looks a little bit like a tacky version of a certain military vehicle.
Seems to be a lot like something else: a Chevy Suburban dressed up like an army Hummer.
BTW,
I though this was for all-new 2006 nominations:
so H2, Prius, Cobalt, Zephyr,… out those are already history of yesteryears.
Camry is all new generation though but i would hardly think it as a bad car. It is by far the best, mightiest drone vehicle ever made. Piston-head’s Anathema: yes! Bad car: absolutely not!
Hummer H2:
Slogan is “Like nothing else.â€
Engine shared with Chevy SUV’s
Transmission shared with Chevy SUV’s
Frame & Suspension parts shared with Chevy SUV’s
Looks a little bit like a tacky version of a certain military vehicle.
Seems to be a lot like something else: a Chevy Suburban dressed up like an army Hummer.
The frame and suspension are modified, however. I would challenge anyone to take a Suburban where the H2 can go (both in stock form). I agree that it is big and slow, but it is not supposed to be anything else.
Chevrolet Impala SS, Not only is the car riding on a 20 year old chassis. Its a 300 HP FWD “large” car with 4spd auto. Those things just don’t go together anymore. Remember Cadillac finally got away from that on their STS (ignore the DTS for a spell) because they wanted to be a compete with BMW’s. So what is this Impalas mission. I guess its competition would be the Ford 500, but that has AWD available, and i think i a 3.1L W-body was faster. I guess the Impala SS lets you know who the big man at your company is, as its probably pretty sweet for a fleet car.
The Mustang is the biggest TWAT. Ford utterly blew an opportunity to reinvent the pony car genre when it gave the Mustang its first complete redesign in a quarter century.
Ford could have come up with a pony car that had the size and engineering sophistication to compete in European and Asian markets. Instead, the Mustang epitomizes the vulgar American: embarrassingly big, fat and crude.
The Mustang’s styling is cartoonishly retro, the interior looks cheap and tacky, and the lack of standard rear-wheel independent suspension and disc brakes is really quite unforgivable in this day and age.
Sure, the Mustang’s got old-fashioned, big-block V8 power, but watch what happens if gas prices go back up to $3 per gallon after the election (ahem). The Mustang and forthcoming Dodge Challenger will be dismissed as the automotive equivalent of sleazy, middle-aged lounge lizards trying to pass themselves off as young studs.
The Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky…
It’s like that beautiful supermodel who has to ruin it by opening her mouth, at which time you realize she has a less than room temperature IQ.
The top is an utter joke, a painful exercise that an old Triumph addict would refuse to countinence. Top up its claustrophobic. Top down, the wind will kill you and the trunk becomes full. And “open trunk, get out, put up top, get in, latch top, get out, latch down butressese, get in, drive off” is just pathetic!
The trunk is painful: if you can’t store a case of wine in it with the top down, if you have less cargo room than a Lotus Elise, you can’t call it a “car”. The backward hinging would be an additional insult if you could ever put anything in it in the first place.
The ergonomics are an insult: A giant squid can operate the controls, a human can’t. Open the door to adjust the seat? A huge high drive tunnel but no cupholders in it? (Instead, the cupholedr is designed to be elbowed. Heck, Porsche makes better cupholders, at least the Porsche limits the coffee spilling to the passanger!) Window controls mounted on the back part of the door?
Finally, there’s too much lard to be a good roadster.
I so wanted to like this car. I so wanted one when I saw the pictures. Yet the result is not good enough to be a car, and not fast and agile enough to be a toy. If someone GAVE it to me, I’d gladly trade it for the girliest Pink miata I could find! At least the Miata has a great top, solid ergonomics, less weight, and an actual working trunk.
A couple of others.
The Crown Vic/Marquis/Towncar.
A boring car in 1979. An atrocious car today. That the 300/magmun/charger havent’ completely killed the Ford triplets in the fleet/taxi/police market says that Ford must be giving the things away.
can we get some kind of grouping
ie worst car under 20k, under 30k, under 40k under 50k. over 50k. SUV, Truck, sports car, Worst of Show.
yeah the new Camry is disgusting…in a funny way i guess? i laughed when i first saw it then cringed. regardless of how well it sells or how nice it drives, no one should be forced to share the road with something that hideous.
Jeep Compass for all the same reasons. It almost makes the Aztec look good. Caliber too, sure it looks acceptable, but the interior plastics are a joke in both.
Chrysler Sebring…maybe the clever cup-holders will be enough to make it sell but again… like the camry… i laughed when i saw how ridiculous it looked. Saturn Ion/Chrysler Crossfire love child on growth hormones.
It’s almost better to be bland than ugly.
Chevy Uplander, Buick Terraza, Pontiac Montana SV6, Saturn Relay.
No work in differentiating models. Poor quality. Manages to be strikingly ugly yet bland.
Here are some more for discussion:
1. Jaguar X type
2. Pontiac Torrent
3. Cadillac BLS (not sold in the US, does that count?)
4. Mercury Montego
5. Mercury Mariner
6. Jeep Commander
7. Jaguar Taurus…I mean Jaguar XK
Speaking of XK, who can think of more high-dollar cars? We need to include them too.
TWAT. You guys kill me.
I for one vote for the creation of a goofy looking statuette.
Jeep Compass.
World car with 3rd world build quality. Could also be a model for the statuette.
…but watch what happens if gas prices go back up to $3 per gallon after the election (ahem).
Please…
I think that one has been run into the ground already.
Sajeev –
Can you give the rationale behind your nominations? We need to know what makes them TWAT-worthy Also, the BLS isn’t eligible. The cars have to be sold in the US during calendar year 2006. (Read the @#$% rules!)
Frank
Ssangyong Rodius anyone? This thing has to be ugly beyond anything a human mind should be ableto imagine.
Jeep has rightfully been criticized for diluting their brand equity with the Compass, but they’re no means the first automaker to do so. Prior to this, Porsche brought out the Cayenne, a blatant attempt by a respected sports car maker to cash in on a popular trend. Keep in mind the Cayenne shared a platform with the Touareg and Q7. Not to mention, the V6 Cayenne is the first slow Porsche since the 70s.
nweaver, faults notwithstanding, do you actually believe that the Solstice is one of the TEN WORST Cars?
Come on.
Ford Focus hands down.
Once a proud contender for the most recalls on record award, now a forgotten out-of-date bargain basement sedan/hatch. The only pratical model, the wagon, has been shelved.
For shame Ford, for shame…
A nominee must be a vehicle that was on sale as a new vehicle in the US market between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006;
Tom, would you kindly point me in the direction of the nearest Ssangyong dealer? Thanks.
Nominee: Jeep Compass, for all the reasons listed above and probably more.
jchennav,
Yeah, not to defend the Porshce truck, but even though it’s an SUV, they at least tried to infuse it with as much Porsche-ness as would be possible.
The Compass, however, contains no Jeep-ness, and makes no attempt at Jeep-ness.
Too many companies have the misguided notion that the entire character of their brand is contained within a grille.
That’s something that bothers me about alot of cars.
The Saab 9-2x Aero:
I’m going to challenge myself, since the WRX platform this car is based off of is almost universally praised.
The Saab 9-2x is the bastardized child of a 20% stake GM owned in Subaru. In other words, GM wouldn’t walk down the aisle with Subaru…it was more a one night stand. Subaru was left feeling dirty and used, vulnerable to the advances of Toyota when GM sold it’s stake.
In a drunken stupor, Saab said “We need a entry-level model capable of attracting young buyers to Saab’s sporting nature, but we don’t want to actually develop anything.” That’s verbatim, or so I’ve heard.
So, they took a Subaru WRX, replaced alot of the body panels and put saab symbols on it. Increased sound insulation, revised suspension, and an STi steering rack completed the mechanical changes. Oh, and the interior now featured DOWN-graded seats (the WRX seats are far superior in comfort and support) with a coarse canvas material in white and dark gray tones.
And the Saabaru was born. For 3k more than a comparable Subaru WRX, you can get an uncomfortable, heavier version
Now, your probably saying “but it’s a WRX”. But no, for 2006, it’s even more sub-par! While the WRX received 17″ wheels and improved brakes, the Saab 9-2x, always the outcast, received neither. Apparently, being produced in the same facility and sharing all the same parts was too inconvenient; they had to reuse last years braking system, and stay with 16″ wheels.
Ahhh the Saabaru. Subies scorn you since your an entro-luxo brando….Saabists don’t care for your uncouth upbringing. Your more expensive, less capable, and your rear end…welll…sorry baby, you don’t got back.
Destined to never again be produced after 2006….an whopping 2 year run for a new car….surely there has never been a more scorned bastard than the Saab 9-2x.
Joe O.
The Solstice and Sky are the new dumb blondes of sports cars…
It’s no contest…the Toyota Echo. It makes my eyes hurt.
The few buyers can’t all be professional circus clowns, can they?
You guys are awfully rough on the Camry. While I’m not personally a fan (what car-guy is?) I don’t think it is one of the 10 worst cars sold. You have to give it some props for reliability, resale value, quality, etc.
You could do worse than have a Camry in the garage when the Boxster, 2002 and/or Elise just won’t start on a cold January morning…
I would like to second every car proposed by starlightmica. Dead on.
The mustang is an American car therefore it should be the size of an American car. Just because some people don’t have depth perception or good parking abilities and can’t pay a few bucks for gas does not mean the rest of us should suffer. There is nothing wrong with the materials compared to others in its price, and you can’t go faster or be more stylish for less.
The 1979 Lincoln town coupe was the pimpmobile of pimpmobiles. 20 ft long and diamond patterned leather seats.
My ten worst cars:
Toyota yaris: slow, foul, small, parrot fish with a tumor styling, personality of a Nebraskan accountant.
Toyota Corolla: see yaris
Suzuki forrenza: These people need to stick to making bikes, only offered with I4 worst car in its class
Saturn Ion: Example of why GM is where its at today, Go away and die please.
Scion XA: the XB is funky (ugly) and the TC is great, why does this bland slow thing exist
Pontiac G5: badge engineering at its worst.
Buick LaCrosse: Lutz’s first baby should’ve been aborted. Generic beyond all reason, ancient tech and an insult to an elegant, once proud badge.
Cadillac STS: Nowhere near as Blingy, big, well crafted and powerful as it could’ve been.
Impala SS: A good Lumina, yes, A good Impala, Hell no, another insult to a great badge and legacy.
Honda Fit: Jonny likes it, end of story.
My second vote is for the Suzuki Verona.
This vehicle was a dead duck from day one.
It’s expensive for what is it, underpowered compared to competitors and was never sold in sufficient quantities to even make it a used car steal.
Two thumbs down..
The Saabaru is pretty funny, as it’s further evidence that GM has no clue about branding or positioning or their customers.
Saab should be competing with Subaru.
Saab shouldn’t be an upmarket Subaru, or an upmarket anything. They weren’t ever luxury cars. Or near luxury cars. They were quirky and Swedish.
Rich people bought them. GM thinks that means Saab should make luxury cars. Because GM thinks rich people want luxury cars.
Actually, middle class people want luxury cars, and rich people want what middle class people aren’t buying. That used to be Saabs. Now it’s Subarus. (For proof, just try to find your Forrester in a parking lot full of Forresters in a wealthy area of New England.
And then there is the Saabaru. Which is somehow ironic. I think.
I nominate the Pontiac GTO.
The exterior styling is boring, boring, boring. Say what you want about the 4-door Charger having 2 doors too many, at least they got the styling right.
It’s supposed to be a “muscle car”, but a manual transmission costs $700 extra.
The interior is cheap and uninspiring for a $33,000 car. Granted, that’s true of American cars in general, but still!
And on that same line, it’s $33,000! You can get a Mercedes or a BMW for that! You won’t get 400 horses, but you’ll get a much nicer car that actually feels solid and capable, and looks like the people that designed and built it had some pride in their work.
And in the final insult to our collective intelligence, they’ve soiled the good name of the original GTO with this (not so) cheap imitation. It’s a sterling example of how to completely miss your target audience.
I think the award statue should be a 1/8th replica of the B9 Tribecca’s grill.
The Hummer H3, nothing more than a cynical attempt to cash in on Hummer’s ever-fading image. Furthermore, it’s significantly overpriced and underpowered (seriously, for that much money, couldn’t they at least drop in the I6?).
And, the Solstice deserves to be considered for this. It may not actually be one of the ten worst cars, but it’s one of the biggest disapointments, and that’s probably worse. All it has going for it is its looks.
The Chevrolet “Impala”
1) I understand retro is in, but styling a car to evoke memories of the 1998 Lumina is kinda overdoing it.
2) A 300 hp transverse-mounted small block in a front drive car?????? Do the letters WTF mean anything?
3) True Impalas are rear drive, use big block V8s, small block V8s, stovebolts or small block-derived V6s. Not Buick engines.
4) True Impalas have six taillights. They do not have different trim levels. If you want a cheap True Impala, you get a Biscayne or a Bel Air (with four taillights). If you want a top line True Impala, you get a Caprice. None of this LT, LX, whatever, crap. At least the “Impala”‘s mutant sibling looks like a Monte Carlo from the rear.
5) This car, while it looks somewhat better than the Y2K Abomination Before All That Is Holy which preceded it, is still a desecration.
hutton: In terms of being an actual car, that is, something that functions AS INTENDED, YES. The Solstice/Sky are bad cars. Really bad cars. Top 10 bad cars.
The Chevy Malibu and Chrysler Seabring are better family cars than the Solstice is a Roadster.
The Saab 9-7x and Hummer H3, for all their badge enginered stupidity, are a better SUVs than the Sky is a roadster.
The Solstice/Sky design target can be described as “Me and my GF”.
We have a “big” car when we need to haul stuff (Mazda6 hatch), so the second car can seat just two people, handle like a dream, and look really cool. But we still demand a CAR. Something we can take on a weekend trip. Something that has decent ergoromics. Something we can live with.
The Sky, with a decent top, a real trunk, good aerodynamics, and right minded ergonomics would be that car. Instead, you got a toy which is less practical than an Elise while still not being fun enough.
As I said, its a supermodel who had the misfortune to open her mouth, and reveal to the entire world that she’s less intellectualistic than the Commander in Chimp.
Ok, first, for Cavendel, you can nominate my Impreza when you pry it from my cold dead hands. The Scooby has better driving dynamics than 95% of cars out there. Also, the nose was “fixed” for 2006, and now, while looking slighly generic, is not ugly. The drivetrain is world class, and the handling is comparible to cars costing 3x or more. Also, insert some comment about WRC victories somewhere.
Anyway, for TWAT, I’ve got a few nominations
Dodge Stratus – If I need to explain this, go drive one.
Subaru B9 Tribeca – I may love my Impreza, but Farago was right on when he compared the nose of this SUV to a flying vagina
Chevy Aveo – Already covered by others, so I won’t repeat
Hyndai Tiburon – This is out of spite, for the car being 300lb overweight and wrong-wheel drive
The Chevy Impala SS. Wow- a 303 hp V8 with Front Wheel Drive! YAY! quite the combination for America’s bumble-headed consumer of this type of domestic “performance.”
Man o Man, DCX is really taking some heat here. But for the Chrysler brand.
How about Mercedes-Benz.
The criminal R-Class. The worst and ugliest beast of a car to plague mankind and automotordom since the 80’s AMC Eagle.
Its Alabama manufacturing base assures that only the cheapest plastics that MB can possibly get away with are used. And that the quality of construction will remain right up there with the first ML320.
A glorified, 5,000 lbs minivan that at $40K -$90K, stands ponderously as the world’s priciest “crossover – it -thing”.
It’s the culmination of an ass-for-every seat mindset that is selling the world’s most venerable marque down the proverbial Rhine.
On the basis of ugliness:
1. Dodge Caliber. I want to toss my cookies every time I see one. The dorky little Neon that the Caliber replaces actually has some artistic integrity. The Caliber looks like they randomly picked out a bunch of different stuff from the bin for throwaway styling parts and stuck ’em on. I LIKE the Magnum. How did the same people who did such a good styling job on the Magnum mess up the Caliber so badly ? (I still think putting styling over driver vision is stupid, but at least the car actually looks good.)
2. Subaru Tribeca. Looks like a couple of ten year olds who prefer baseball to cars designed the thing. (My brother prefered baseball to cars, and he has absolutely no sense of visual aesthetics.)
Pontiac G6: the first ever to suck so much.
– circa 1985 transmission
– wheezy ecotech + 4 speed transmission.
– harsh 3.5 (gm calls it High Value, I call it cheap)
– Most Uncomfortable Seats Eva ™
– Generic sea of plastic interior
Toyota Camri:
– Straight line acceleration queen in V6, but handling (what handling?) suck. Softish and numb.
– butt ugly. And I do mean butt.
Toyota Prius:
– smug factor.
– they all drive in the left lane @ 57 MPH.
On October 17th, this guy had this to say:
windswords:
October 17th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Audi Q7
The proberbial answer to a question no one asked. A “me too†reaction from a company trying to keep up with Mercedes and BMW. Why?
The front end styling makes the the Jeep Cmpass look sedate in comparison.
The interior styling is a knockoff of the A8 and A6, perfectly acceptable for a less expensive car, but not at this price point.
My response:
Now I’m not a fan of the Q7 because I think SUVs in general are ridiculous–especially in the typical environs of SUV owners–but the above comment does not make any sense.
The Q7 with a V8 starts under $50K, the A6 with the same engine starts at $55K and the A8 starts at $68K. So, isn’t it nice that a cheaper vehicle has the same fit and finish as cars at least $5K more expensive? And, are interiors made by the same company really knock-offs? I wish my A4’s interior were as nice as an A8’s, but since I paid $30K less for my A4, I understand why it doesn’t.
The argument that a utility vehicle should have an interior nicer than luxury sedans priced higher–and made by the same company– holds no logic.
And, since Audi is often considered the benchmark for interiors by the industry, I wouldn’t complain that a vainglorious station wagon like the Q7–or any other SUV–is lucky enough to have an interior remotely as nice as the A8’s.
The Camry has to have my vote. In every form it has taken, it has progresivly destroyed the the soul of anyone who dares sit behind it’s rudder. The thing is a horror to behold. The people who buy them are mouth-breathing zombies. The driving experience is exactly the same as it has been for 20 years; dull and lifeless. Not only is the Camry an insult to anyone who enjoys driving, it is a disease that has infected the entire Toyota lineup. I have driven every single Toyota that is currently available for sale, and they all make me want to vomit. I’m convinced that the Japanese are going to invade again. They have blugeoned the american people into a state of apathy with their 4 pot gremlins, and we are once again weak and ignorant. I can see it now. When asked how we feel about our Japanese overlords cruel treatment, some schmuck from Toledo will say “Eh, at least my Camry is still running”. Oh, and the fact that a disproportionate number of them are sold in beige does nothing to quell my rage.
I submit to the TTAC royalty….the Honda Element.
The element is an answer to the question nobody asked…or even thought of. The Element is the only current vehicle to register at the obscene rating of “David Hasselhoff” on the Atomic Ugly Scale…and that is thanks only to the Pontiac ceasing production of the Aztek.
The Element is the Wagon Queen Family Truckster of the modern automobile googloplex. No single vehicle shamelessly tries to be cool, smart, AND trendy…yet manages to define “craptacular” quite SO exquisitely.
From its underpowered mill, pathetic mpg, plastic body cladding (to rival even class leading Pontiac), to the dashboard gear lever, uberplastic interior, and Suzuki Samurai flat windshield, this engineering triumph is more maytag-chic than an Econoline delivery van (whick looks positively sexy by comparison!). The Element’s utter disdain for any kind of spizzarkle renders it the modern day polyester leisure suit in that it too repels picante sauce and can be washed with a garden hose (classy!). If you’re lookin to take your mojo cross country on a visionquest of patchouli rejection, this is your automobile!
I’ll nominate two cars that I wanted to like, but just couldn’t.
Subaru B9 Tribeca. TWAT is right. Hideous front end – that Fuji wanted to apply to the entire line? The rear lights are awful, the rear winshield, the entire rear view offends. Under powered. Bad mileage. Handling doesn’t inspire the whole helps you from using your airbags thing.
Jeep Commander. I’ve always had a thing for the Jeep Cherokee. The Commander shares the profile, but misses on so many elements. You want bolt on fenders, then bolt the freaking fenders on. Don’t fake it. Fake bolts on the steering wheel? Lame. Hideous gas mileage. Nice timing there. What’s up with the rear end grab handles? Is that a design element or functional element?
Eitan:
October 17th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Ok, first, for Cavendel, you can nominate my Impreza when you pry it from my cold dead hands. The Scooby has better driving dynamics than 95% of cars out there. Also, the nose was “fixed†for 2006, and now, while looking slighly generic, is not ugly. The drivetrain is world class, and the handling is comparible to cars costing 3x or more.
Eitan; per my post on the Saab 9-2x aero…I owned one for 8months and 9000 miles. GM employee pricing put it at 18000 dollars….9k off. My point is, I’ve owned an impreza, and got rid of it quite quickly.
It’s drivetrain is at best described as agricultural, and that may be an insult to John Deere. The engine’s are not well balanced, despite being of the boxer layout. The manual transmission is a broken-nosed thug….unwieldly, unsmooth, but admittedly tough and gets the job done.
The interior is spartan; and not in the good “it’ll make you focus on driving” spartan. Tin can is a good description for it’s propensity to amplify the sound of debris hitting it’s underside.
On the upside, it has good steering and it’s AWD system does the job right. But it’s not a class leader…it’s more of the class clown; fun at times, but gets on your nerves on an everyday basis.
But hey, I’m an opinionated guy when it comes to cars.
:)
Joe O.
Sorry, but the Element is the answer to the question EVERYONE was asking, and is STILL asking…
A cheap, practical, reliable, useful vehicle that’s not a minivan and not a macho-poser SUV.
Everyone is building them now, and calling them crossovers.
I nominate the following SUVs for very similar reasons:
1) The Hummers H2 and H3. Superior off-road capability notwithstanding (which 99% of the owners will never use and the 1% that do will do so 0.05% of their total driving time), they are essentially uglier, heavier, slower, less fuel-efficient, more expensive versions of the Chevrolet Tahoe and Colorado, respectively.
2) The Subaru B9 Tribeca. The TWAT grille makes it an automatic entry. The uglified BMW X5 ripoff styling adds to the case. The bizzare interior, poor performance and semi-useless rear seat round out its qualifications.
3) The Jeep Commander. Whoever thought that an 8/7ths-scale 1988 Jeep Cherokee was what the public wanted was clearly ingesting some mind-altering substance. Even more so than the Tribeca, the Jeep Commander’s ‘3rd-row seat’ is only suitable for infants or amputees.
4) The Mercedes-Benz G-Class (nee Gelandewagen). Sure, let’s spend $80k+ on an Austrian military truck with a leather interior and high-performance summer tires (thereby negating any off-road capability). Be sure to get the “gold trim” package and the ‘spinner’ rims.
Well, now that the Aztek is no more…
Chrysler Sebring
The new Sebring is a confused mess of a car. The Spirit of St. Louis-inspired corrugated hood theme has to go. Quickly. It looked awful on the Crossfire, and it looks twice as awful on anything else. Get rid of it.
The rest of the car is a disorganized blend of creases, cutlines and styling queues from Mercedes-Benz (the upward-sweeping deep crease below the beltline) and various other sources, ranging from Toyota (the rear light treatment looks like it was lifted off a Corolla or a Camry) to Saturn (the Ion roofline). The long overhangs make it look like it was resurrected from the 1980s.
Chrysler has completely lost its way in its design. Back in the ’90s, its “cab forward” architecture pushed the wheels out to the corners and made their production cars look better than other companies’ concept cars. Now even Chrysler’s concept cars fail to inspire. Their design language is completely unfocused and incoherent. They need a new Design Director to go in there and shake things up.
Dodge Caliber
If the Honda Element and Scion xB are Rubbermaid bins on wheels, the Caliber is vintage Tupperware. It’s an ungainly-looking beast, with more bulges, creases and folds than an overweight linebacker in a cheap suit. The ridged and folded hood looks like it’s trying to be a Jeep, but that’s okay, because Jeep has given up and restyled the Liberty to look like a 1984 Cherokee.
In attempting to make something look “not cute” to replace the Neon, they’ve succeeded only in making something that looks like, well, an overweight linebacker in a cheap suit. Driving this ugly duck around town is the automotive equivalent of a pity date.
Buick LaCrosse
Sold in Canada as the Allure, this car’s only saving grace is that it’s made in one of the best-quality plants in North America. Buick designers must have really liked the mid-’90s Mercury Sable. The same could be said about the Lucerne.
The Subaru Flying Vagina (aka the B9 Tribeca). Should get a bonus award for the stupidest name.
The new Camry, ditto. My old ’90 Camry was a perfectly functional, decent car, esp. with a stick shift. The new one is a giant bloated boat full of bland.
The new Sebring is spectacularly hideous. It may grow on me…nah. Another vote for that one.
Finally, the Chevy Aveo I’m renting this week. Puny engine, noisy, utter lack of handling, comfort, or refinement. For such a hairshirt experience it could at least deliver amazing mileage, but a new Corolla gets much better highway mileage. Compared with the Fit it’s not even a contest – GM wonders why they lose money…
I’ll nominate the vehicle that offends me worst – the Cadillac Escalade. Oversized for those with undersized original equipment. If you drive one, you’re making a statement that you have no real intelligence and are just an a**hole who needs to make an impression – which you are – just not what you think.
Ford Five Hundred
Because it cut my hand with the incredibly sharp plastic flashing on the door panel map pocket. Maybe a first aid kit would be more appropriate to store there?????
The Hummer H1 is great – a military vehicle and nothing else. The H2 and H3 are awful, wannabe, poser hunks of junk that only get in the way of the people unfortunate enough to be behind them.
The Subaru Baja. Is there a more stunningly ugly & perplexing car made? I don’t see them all that often, so I’m guessing they don’t sell many, but each time I see one I am floored all over again at how frightful they are.
M
We have rented a number of cars recently and the biggest offender was easily the Dodge Charger. Among its sins:
1) pretending to be a sports car when the sportiest thing about the car is its design
2) claustophobic interior due to tiny windows even though it is not a small car
3) huge blind spots
4) 21st century interpretation of 60’s styling done VERY badly
5) mediocre brakes, acceleration and handling
6) Design so bad, you cannot go all the way up to the stop line at any light and still see the traffic light!!!
7) cheap interior
Need I go on???
Joe O, I test drove the Saab 9-2x, and it is an Impreza missing some of the natural upgrades that come with it. My 2.5l boxer is smoother than any other car I test drove, including Accords (i4 and v6), Camry (i4) and tC (i4). I was suprised to measure that the 9-2x had a louder interior than the Subaru, but it did.
Joe, please don’t judge Subaru on that badge engineered Saab, I would suggest trying an STi if you want a good time behind the wheel. Though the interior is still cheap, but it is because you get a $90,000 drivetrain with a $8,000 interior for ~$30k or so, most people don’t care about cheap plastic on something that they don’t toutch. STi owners do like the fact that these “cheap” plastics are also very light.
The Impreza is by no means a perfect car. However, it is a pure drivers sports car. If you want something more comfortable yet still sporty, get a BMW 3 or Infiniti G35, as those cars have nice interiors and handle well. However, on the track, a stock STi will still beat 95% of other unmodified cars, and thats the point. On Rally, Subaru is still dominant with that platform.
Oh, as one more note, the one thing that bothered me in my Impreza was the stereo, to which I built a custom (NO video screens, audio only) setup. (One sub, no rattleing the brains of other nearby cars thank you).
The car is redicuosly easy to take apart and reassemble for that purpose, and solid to boot in the process. I’ve built quite a few stereos, and no car comes apart as easily while being so solid as the Impreza.
With that stereo, the Impreza was still less out of pocket for me than any other car I wanted, so I’ll take the cheap interior, and have fun with the drivetrain.
I nominate the Ford Taurus. I rented enough cars in the last year that I was able to run the full Ford gamut from the Focus to the Taurus to the Fusion and Five Hundred and even the V6 Mustang. The Focus was fine, the Five Hundred was ok, the Fusion was surprisingly nice and then there was the Taurus.
I don’t think I need to enumerate the faults of the 2006 Taurus- no handling, squishy brakes, bench seating, etc, save to say It is the exact same car as my Granny’s 1998 model.
Yes, the Taurus is a rental only car. But I suspect that like me, most only get to experience a wide range of cars via the rental counter. I would never drive a Chevy or a Ford were it not for Hertz (or whomever else). Thus the one week that I have that car in my possession is the ONLY chance Chevy or Ford will have to make a lasting impression on my mind. The only chance for me to evaluate their cars outside of glossy magazine ads or annoying TV commericals.
When that week spent driving a Taurus is complete, what kind of impression has Ford made? Is “hey, that was a decent car that maybe I would like to own someday” or is it “geez, I have to get after my travel secretary for not booking me a better car.”
So for leaving a sour taste in my mouth on the flight home, I nominate the Taurus.
Hyundai Accent- didn’t get the memo that there shouldn’t be such a thing as an econobox anymore.
Chevy Aveo- ditto
Suzuki Aerio- double ditto
Ford Freestyle – special award for worst execution in my book.
This car should’ve been a home run or at least a solid double. Functionally speaking this vehicle makes a ton of sense for the minivan crowd and those seeking refuge from SUVs. But the styling, while not ugly, is just as bland and generic as you can possibly make a car. It would be an excellent illustration to accompany the definition of “station wagon” in a dictionary.
I can’t believe i overlooked the Jeep Compass. Why do they need the Compass and the Patriot in the lineup? Wasn’t one road-bound Jeep vehicle enough of a disgrace? At least the Patriot has a tiny shred of dignity in its Cherokee-esque flanks. The Compass looks like somebody tried to graft Jeep fenders onto a Mazda 3 in their garage using bondo, some sheet metal, a pop-rivet gun and some tin snips.
BMW 7 series. (Current 5 and 3 seires too).
Butt ugly, mediocre quality, overengineered wastes of technology, and a bloated abonimation to what BMW once had: a reputation for tight, sexy sporty cars.
Hutton,
Cheap? Reliable? Not a minivan and not a poser SUV? That is called a car. The element is a HUGE marketing SNAFU for Honda and they continue to have seriously disappointing sales figures. And NOBODY is copying them or building them. The closest is the FJ and even the BORG, I mean Toyota, had the cojones to make that a reasonably serious 4WD vehicle.
Want MPG?-Nope. How about payload?-Sorry. Comfort?- Sorry. Power and handling?-Look elsewhere. Wanna be different and look stupid in the process?-Step right up! You think you hate it now, but wait till you DRIVE it!
Someone beat me to the Pontiac GTO.
What the hell were they thinking? The mere name “GTO” brings up memories of a monster muscle car, ferocious body styling, horsepower and torque! The word “GTO” is almost, nay, is synonymous with the muscle era, defining a golden age of driving. One word: Heritage.
So they stuck a small-block into the most bland, generic, anonymous body they could find, and then spent a lot of time tuning the exhaust. Whoop-da-de-do.
Inconceivable.
OK, as a long time viewer but one who never dared to desecrate a post with an inane comment, I can stand it no longer. First, rebuttals:
1. Toyota Camry: Yes, it is the side by side refridgerator of cars, bland, boring, as sexy as Janet Reno, but it is the number one selling car in the U.S. That alone should qualify it for an exemption. And this is from someone who absolutely detests Toyota. And I mean hate with a passion.
2. Chevrolet Impala SS. It seems pretty damn obvious to me that no one here (with maybe the exception of our esteemed leader) has ever driven one. I own one. This car is amazing. Yes, it is front wheel drive. Yes, it goes forward in one of four ratios. Yes, it is bland. However, it keeps the tradition in many, many ways. Blashphemy, you say! Not so. The original Impala was a car that was meant to be a higher-level car that was affordable for the ordinary man, while having a high level of features. The new one does just that. And, if anyone cares to remember, the great, high holy 1960’s boats weren’t about about handling, they were about big engine and big space. Again, mission accomplished. And there ain’t nothing like pulling up to some 16 year old kid in a Jetta with a Folgers coffee can exhaust and blowing his doors off. This is one fast car. Flame away, gents!
More to follow….
From:
jay60622:
October 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
On the Audi Q7:
“The argument that a utility vehicle should have an interior nicer than luxury sedans priced higher–and made by the same company– holds no logic.”
You missed my point entirely about the interior. I didn’t say that an SUV should have a BETTER interior than the sedans. I meant that for 50 large it should have a DIFFERENT and UNIQUE interior from the sedans. If it was a cheaper priced vehicle I would understand them reusing an interior to save money and keep the price down but this is an Audi we’re talking here.
i have a few nominations
I am not offended so much by the Rainier – it is a nice enough car – as the Saab 9-7x, which i find to be the most offensive new car on sale. Saab is a brand that basically sells cars on it’s iconoclastic reputation. GM thinks that taking a mediocre mid size SUV, puttying a pretty front end on it (and admit it, the 9-7x’s front end is pretty. Well, prettier than Bravada, Rainier, Trailblazer, Envoy, Ascender… did i miss any?) and sticking the ignition switch in the console makes it a Saab. They forgot that Saabs are safe (as in, able to avoid accidents and protect occupants in case of one… neither of which the GMT360 is good at), nimble (haha!), Fuel efficient (your choice of a 4.2L or a 5.3L engine!) and sensible. The 9-7x doesn’t really have any common characteristics with real Saabs at all. And it’s expensive, much more than a Trailblazer but without any obvious benefit. I wish i had more hands, so i could give it four thumbs down.
I am not however offended by the cheap badge job 9-2x. I’ve always thought that Saabs and Subarus were cars with similar goals in mind, and i think the 9-2x makes a VERY fine Saab, albeit too narrow for people like me with big shoulders.
Moving on;
The Pontiac Solstice, just for the sheer disappointment of driving one. Admittedly, I haven’t gotten behind the wheel of the turbo, direct injected GXP model – but man, the base Solstice makes baby jesus cry. It’s such a GORGEOUS body – i don’t think anyone will argue with that – but it’s just so, so… i don’t know, so GM to drive. The shifter is vague and notchy, clutch takeup is too high, steering is overboosted, brakes are overboosted, and that engine – oh why bother? It’s just no fun at all – much like the Scion tC being ruined by having a dull Camry motor. I just wish they would have spent more time developing this car mechanically, because it’s SO good looking.
Ahh, speaking of GM – how about the Torque Steer Twins? The Impala SS and the Grand Prix GXP. Give me a BREAK! The Impala in particular is worst since it’s heavier and doesn’t have the reverse offset width tires that the GXP does… there just isn’t enough traction for all the power, but even when you put the power down they’re not that fast. I suppose GM should be applauded somewhat for shoehorning in a V8 on a small budget, but it’s still a crap chassis. First car I’ve driven where the V6 (well, the 3800 S/C series III) is more fun than the V8. Disappointing.
The Caliber is my third appointment. What a lackluster effort from DCX; ruff, thrashy engines, useless CVT’s, the ugliest body in recent memory (It’s too tall and narrow – reminescent of the Toyota Echo, which would be on my list if it had been in production during this period.) The entire car is disappointing. Ditto the Compass, although it’s LESS ugly. But really, that’s just not saying much.
And finally, the Suzuki Verona. What a joke of an automobile. A transverse mounted straight six? You’d think they would drive a Volvo S80 and learn their lesson. not a dig on the Volvo, it’s a nice car, but dang… these cars have the turning circle of a small boat. But the Verona only has 155bhp? Why bother installing a six? As a result it’s quite ugly, poorly proportioned (it looks about 4 or 5 inches too wide), slow, and just generally terrible.
There are so many more bad cars out there. These are just what come to mind initially.
Ok, to continue…
3. Pontiac GTO: 400 HP for the market adjusted price of under 30K. This is unquestionably the ultimate Q-car. Of course it’s not perfect. But what do you expect when you blow all all of your money at the powertrain shop and you still have to put the rest of the car together???
4. Lincoln Town Car: Someone mentioned this earlier and felt that this is a hazy area. It does qualify for many of the offending categories (inadequate engine power, old old old Jimmy Carter old chassis, exhorbitant price for whacha get), but nominating this old girl would be like nominating the Statue of Liberty because it’s big and old. That’s not the point. The point is this creaky old war horse supports nearly every limo company in America and for good reason. More rear room than an aircraft hangar, absolutely divine highway manners, and reliability and ease of repair that few if any cars can match. I routinely seen LTC’s in NYC with 300k+ miles on them, and they are loved. Vote for this one and you’re a pinko commie!
Now, for the nominations:
1. Chrysler Sebring. I haven’t driven the new one, but of the 30+ cars I have rented so far this year, this is unquestionably the worst. Slow, noisy, ungainly, horrible ergonomics, thristy (and it’s a four-banger!), and ugly. My first pick by far.
2. Subaru B9 Tribeca. I haven’t driven it. I haven’t sat in it. But I have seen the front grille. ‘Nuff said.
3. Jeep Commander/Chrysler Aspen. Even though they aren’t technically on the same platform, they are essentially the same vehicle. Big, thirsty, ugly, ungainly 3 row SUV’s that nobody wanted and that noone is buying. The public is voting with their pocketbooks on these two.
4. Chevrolet Colorado. This one surprises me because no one else has nominated it. Chevy really shot a blank with this baby. Nasty interior, nasty engines, alright looks, ridiculous price. Buy a Silverado and eat the extra grand or two.
pfingst said: I nominate the Pontiac GTO. It’s supposed to be a “musclecarâ€, but a manual transmission costs $700 extra.
You sir/ma’am are a bit misinformed (understandably, I was as well at first). The manual was a $700 option because the automatic had the gas-guzzler tax, making it significantly more expensive.
400HP LS2 in a car that looks like a Cavalier? Ultimate sleeper? Yes please.
My vote for TWAT goes to the Mitsubishi Raider. Didn’t care for the new Dakota, so the Raider is like salt-dipped burning shards of glass in my eyes. Ugly.
The Porsche Cayenne, ugly, totally betrays the Porsche brand, and the VW Toureg looks and works better.
The GM minivan line, the only good things that can be said about them is they look better than a Pontiac Aztek and work better than the “dustbusters” they replaced, OTOH even a Kia Sedona is a better minivan.
I disagree with seldomawake about the Dodge Sprinter. It may be lousy car, but it is an excellent truck and if you don’t like the DCX badge engineering you can pay a little more to buy the Freightliner, or get a Mercedes grille and badges like some Mercedes dealers do with their service and courtesy vans
Ok Frank, here’s the rundown on why I nominate these.
1. Jaguar X type: A four-wheel drive Contour does not a Jaguar make. Nicely styled, some interior flaws, but overall a brand damaging product that shouldn’t exist.
2. Pontiac Torrent: Usual GM interior woes, but its claim to fame is badge engineering. Pontiac doesn’t need the Torrent, it needs high performance cars. Plus, they have the Vibe.
3. Mercury Montego: boring, slow, and badge engineered from the also boring Ford Five Hundred. A car that shouldn’t exist.
4. Mercury Mariner: another badge engineered case. To make it worse, its engineered from a seriously long in the tooth design. (Escape)
5. Jeep Commander: Nobody wants a Jeep this big, damages the Jeep brand. And its interior looks even cheaper than it is.
6. Jaguar Taurus…I mean Jaguar XK: less than thrilling performance (compared to BMW and MB) and zero British charm in the styling department. This one’s gotta make the list. :-)
Yeah in regards to the Audi Q7 arguement…regardless of what you think about the design, the interior quality is way better then a BMW or Mercedes. I own a new Benz, I am not being biased but the Q7s I have sat in were way better quality then the corresponding BMW or Merc models. Also MMI might only be a little better than I-Drive but you know what? It’s still better. Better design, better engineering. YOU CAN’T BEAT THE CRAFTSMANSHIP IN AN AUDI.
Dodge Caliber. Not only is it ugly (styling looks like it was “inspired” by cheap Transformer lookalike toys).
1)Chevy Aveo…..needs no explanation
2)Toyota Yaris 2 door…no power, ugly as sin
3)Chevy Uplander…ewww
4)Mazda B series truck…why do they make this?
Eitan:
I rented a Ford Taurus recently, under protest. It was the best car they had at the time. I was NOT happy and my weekend with the car did nothing to change my mind.
The Taurus is the most bland car I’ve driven in memory. NOTHING was anything other than mediocre or mildly irritating. It wasn’t bad enough to stir hatred, certainly there was nothing to love. The Taurus raised no emotions at all within me. It was just SO forgetable.
#1 dodge caliber-cant get any uglier
#2 the pt cruiser-my god who invented this p.os.
Hey Guys:
We are talking the worst of the worst here. The Audi Q7 design is ugly, the market segment is stupid (I pretty much dislike all the cars in this segment, be they Cayenne, BMW X5, whatever), and the timing of Audi’s entry into this segment seems a day late and a dollar short.
Audi does not make truly bad cars; none of their cars are in the same league with the truly despicable cars mentioned here. The sad part is that the majority of truly horrible cars mentioned here are domestic (US) or re-badged domestic models. A quick glance at the models listed and you can see why we are nearing the 100th Chapter of the GM Death Watch and several Chapters into Ford’s Death Watch.
I think this should be the Ten Worst Automobiles and Trucks This Year award, TWATTY.
Here are my nominations for the Twattys (like Emmys, Grammys):
SaturnBuickChevyPontiac minivan thing – so many names I can’t reel them all off, I can at least name it as a Terraza and a Montana. Anyway these things are all 99.9% the same across makes and acheive new ugliness in the minivan segment with their unforgiving uncalled-for snout and the manner in which it in no way matches the rest of the body. Surely the interior is as bad.
I nominate the Envoy but not the Trailblazer. The Envoy just has that extra mark of ugliness that sets it ahead of the more traditional SUV of the Trailblazer. The back end of the Envoy, with its height and those lights in the bumper, it gives me shivers.
The 2006 Camry, because of its higher standards. While still a decent car I imagine, Toyota took a car that is supposed to be plain and unassuming and gave it a stupid bulbous nose like a 96 Taurus with an overbite. I can’t explain it totally in words – but if the fascia of the car is supposed to remind me of a human face, I think the Camry is a retarded (in the birth defect sense) person, possible fetal alcohol syndrome.
Also, the Jeep Compass. Sure the Caliber has some flaws and weird plastic rials etc, but the Compass is a bloated hog and makes the Caliber look sleek by comparison. It looks like a Liberty that is about to pop. When I saw one on the round last week I couldn’t believe a 4cyl powers something that big. Factor in the total absolute misalignment with its Jeep branding and the Compass has to be my #1 pick.
Okay some of you guys are confused
Suzuki Aerio= Underrated Econobox with odd looks
Suzuki Reno=Chevy Aveo=Daewoo Lanos= Utter Crap
Suzuki Forenza= Daewoo Nubria= Pontiac LeMans= Total Crap
Suzuki Verona=Daewoo I6=No longer available in US for 2007
1) GM Minivans (Crossover Sport Vans? Are you people on dope?)
2) Subie B9 Tribeca (For the name alone it should be nominated)
3) Chrysler Aspen
4) BMW 7-Series
5) Hummer H3
6) Mercedes ML-Class
7) Chrysler Sebring
8) Chevy Monte Carlo
9) Chevy Impala (So bland it’s a crime)
10) Jeep Compass
Ford 500/Mercury Montego,
I think the serious dearth of nominations is exactly why these twins should be nominated. They fly so far under the radar, you need sonar to see them. Bu-bu-bu-BLAND!!!
Ford had the chance to do with the 500 what was done with the 300, bring back the bad-ass full-size sedan. I was so excited to hear that Ford was coming out with a new full-size sedan, with visions of the Ford 427 concept in my head. When I first saw the 500, my heart sank faster than a rock. I literally wanted to punch Bill Ford in the gut and ask him, “WTF were you thinking?” AND on top of it, it suffers from asthma (underpowered engine)!
I even read a Ford official say that they decided to be “safe” about the styling, to appeal to the broadest chunk of the public they could. In the end, they appeal to NO ONE!
What the hell does J. Mays do all day! Was castration a condition of employment?
In short, Ford 500/Mercury Montego:
They are so #%*!@#) bland,
They are so #&@*(#@^ underpowered,
They are so #@&^*&#$^ stylistically heartbreaking
Does anyone know they exist?
I’ll second the nomination of the Toyota Prius for the simple reason that it is the type of car that will make a HS senior cry because her dad made her drive it to school.
How about the International MXT? International’s take on a consumer pickup truck. The point of this vehicle is what? It’s 20’8″ long, 7’6″ tall, 8′ wide and weighs in at 14,000 pounds making it impracticacle for just about everything.
Their marketing guys deserve some credit…they don’t even pretend that it’s useful for anything.
Their words “Roll out. Game on. It’s a VIP club on wheels. A machine among boys. Climb in, and you’re not just checking out the scene. You are the scene.”
My words, “It’ll get you looked at! Just like if you stuffed a potato in your Speedo”
Oddly, it appears that there are people on the planet who think that is a good thing.
Lincoln Zephyr. I don’t dislike the car, except for the kindergarten-blackboard sized letters proclaiming its name to those who happen behind it. It was just stupid to (try to) sell it for one year before renaming it as the MKZ. They could have used the year to really polish it and differentiate it from the Milan/Fusion.
The latest BMW 7-series gets my vote. I always imagined it was dreamt up one night when a couple of BMW staffers had a little too much Oktoberfest …
“Hans, I bet if I designed the next 7 to look like the smelly end of a donkey, it would still sell to pompous middle-managers”,
“Ja, and I will engineer all the controls into one knob so they can play with their knobs all day long while trying to tune the radio.”
“Ha ha ha, and they say we Germans have no sense of humor”.
Given that most of the posters have probably not driven, or even sat in, most of the vehicles they are nominating, perhaps the award should be renamed the “Cars that Least Interest us Today”.
I’m too shy to shorten that into the acronym.
While I don’t feel qualified to nominate some vehicles, I must admit I’m puzzled by some of the nominations, such as the Camry. As has been mentioned by others, while it is exceedingly bland it is also very competent at what it does.
And if you read Jonny’s review of the Ford Freestyle, it is also a very competent vehicle. If it were the Blandest cars award, maybe…
I agree with a lot of the posts here, but am suprised to see one very special TWAT left off the list:
Licoln Mark LT.
First, $50K for a pick-up is, well, wrong. But it’s a “luxury” pickup. Strike two. Luxury and Pickup shouldn’t be in the same sentence. But, hey, people can waste their money however they want.
The number one reason I despise this vehicle??? Those damn little glued on rear-taillight add-ons!!!
WTF? If you’re going to glue some reflector looking things to make the taillights look different, why don’t you, um I don’t know….make them function as tail lights!! If you are too lazy to run a wire to your tailgate, you can at least make the reflectors!!!! sheesh.
So another one for fo-mo-co.
After reading the sheer number of listings, recommendations and ideas (and agreeing with a vast majority of the comments), I was amazed at the volume of CRAP we are subject to here in the US auto market. I think I read somewhere (P. Delorenzo, I think) that we are living the “golden age†of automotive choice. More like we are neck deep in the “CRAP-ola” age. All this choice and nothing worth buying.
Compass, New Sebring, Cayenne, GM CSV Minivans, Commander, Monte Carlo, Yaris / Echo / Saturn Ion interiors, Ford Five Hundred / Freestyle, Domestic Compact Pickups (pick one), Element, Aztek, G5 rebadge, Nissan Armada / Infiniti Q barge / Titan, Lincoln Mark LT etc…
Despite being a Domestic / GM product proponent, I suppose therein lies the case for the rise of Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, etc… Their vehicles, while nothing special from styling and performance aspects, really don’t offend. Even when their styling is out of whack they either fix it quickly or have a ton of extra features or aspects (e.g. MPG, reliability or resale) to make them desirable.
However, I must put in a vote for a very unlikely to be mentioned make, the current Honda Civic Sedan. Now before everyone jumps in to bash me, I am not talking about the sleek, stylish and performance oriented Si Coupe (I actually like the coupe, much like I am okay with the Scion Tc). I just hate the sedan’s droopy – a$$ styling, stalky door mounted side mirrors, overwrought front bumper jowls and the overdone eggplant rear end with wack-a$$ budget BMW knock off tail lamps (All in pursuit of aero and fuel economy, I would assume, but UGH if that’s what it takes I’d rather settle for a 30 mpg Cobalt / Focus or the ancient Corolla, thank you). I don’t care how many auto critics line up to prostrate themselves a the altar of VTEC with stiffies in their pants, I would rather have the last gen Civic (or the gen before last, much better even). Sure the engine is world class, but to look at it each day – YUK. The Star Trek interior doesn’t do anything for me either. The fact that auto critics the world over went so nutz over the Civic makes me hate it even more, and is likely the main reason it has my vote for the TWAT.
Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky
not only is it ridiculously heavy for such a little car (thus losing every performance comparison test vs. the almost as ugly Miata), with a cheap interior and hideous exterior, YOU HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE CAR TO PUT THE CONVERTIBLE TOP DOWN!
What idiot designed this feature?
Toyota Camry.
For its clitorial front, hideous lines separating the parts of the body (e.g. line between hood and grille, z-shaped line separating rear bumper cover and fender), lame sides, monochromatic nightmare, and best of all, the highpoint of Japanese engineering= ripping off what Americans and Germans do: the Toyo-Bangle butt .
You have this all wrong …
A more reasonable and accurate approach would be to nominate decent autos worth buying. By and large most of the autos currently littering the car lots are crap ass P.O.S. that are uninspired, ugly, boring and poorly made.
What is the solution to this problem you ask?
I’m glad you asked …
Take all of the marketing folks who drive the development of these crap ass autos and hang them from the nearest telephone pole. Put the techies who love cars in charge for once and see what they can do.
You sure couldnt do any worse than whats out there right now.
Can someone explain to me what aspect of the latest-generation Toyota Camry turns drivers into aggressive jerks?
I’ve found Camry drivers to be average to slightly-slower-than average over my driving career, but it seems this latest version brings out the “Mr. Wheeler” in its owners.
Does the wacko styling cause brain damage?…:-D….
How could I forget! Two more nominees:
Honda Ridgeline with its Fisher Price Interior that would not even adorn the worst GM interior offender of yesteryear. Not to mention FUGLIEST exterior styling, EVER. That handy in-bed truck in great for upchucking your lunch after being subject the the Ridgeline’s exterior. The Aztek was bad, but at least they stopped production after sales bombed. Honda had a chance to learn after the Element, but chose to send us version 2.0. “… step on up everyone, its both UGLIER and MORE EXPENSIVE”
… and the Toyota FJ Cruiser, taking ridiculous broco-busting Hummer styling cues (that everyone here seems to sneer at) and makes them even more cartoon-y with an Anime binge of protruding bulges, color contrasting panels and mile wide C-pillars. If a domestic automaker dared to attempt something like this, the auto critics and media would still be shrieking. I suppose their equally cartoon-y Prius hypnotizes the auto critic intellegencia and dulls the public’s senses by putting us into the Toyota patented warm & fuzzy green-jean stupor. How else could they allow the FJ with all of its juvenile styling, lack of passenger space, awful MPG and blind spots slide thru without a hint of criticism?
Lotsa good nominees here, though the brand names are a bit predictable at times. My two cents:
– Suzuki Aerio. It’s ugly. It’s not well made. In fact, there’s nothing to recommend it to any market segment.
– Ford Focus. A vehicle my wife and I found vaguely appealing on paper (mostly due to the heavy discounting). Then we sat inside one. It was actually not horrible to drive, but the interior build quality was wretched. As my wife put it, “it feels like driving a toy car.” Cheap plastic everywhere.
– Subaru B9 Tribeca. I can’t decide which is worse, the vaginal grille or the fact that the fight over the name ended in a draw and so they had to give it two. Either way, it’s ugly and fails to appeal to anyone who would find themselves in a Subaru dealer.
– Hummer H2. Plenty has been said already. Bad mileage + worse visibility.
– Toyota Corrola. Reliable? Sure. But other than that, just abotu the most boring, unremarkable car on earth. We looked at a lot of vehicles. Some were so outstandingly bad they were amusing. Some were very fun to drive. Some were extremely inexpensive. The Corolla? What was remarkable about the Corolla is that it was so wholly, completey unremarkable. There’s just nothing to say about it. It’s just a car. Not fast, not slow, doesn’t handle well or badly, isn’t ugly or attractive… it isn’t ANYthing. And that’s awful.
In defense of the Saab 92-x, I bought one for my wife.
Yes, we know it is a rebadge subie. But for $16K = AWD, 53 cubic feet of storage, 5-speed, superb handling, we couldn’t beat that. A Versa, Yaris, Caliber, Fit, Matrix cost way more than what we paid and none of them have the handling characteristics, AWD and boxer rev that the Saab 92-x had.
Again, you cant touch it for price. No one I know paid MSRP for theirs. The 92X has always been discounted with heavy incentives.
Jeep Compass: How can a Jeep be FWD?
Ford Fusion: Honda called and they want their tail lights back.
General Motors CSV minivan frankensteins: These really are the low-hanging fruit of GM’s brain trust. No fair. It’s like picking on the neighborhood kid who was the product of two cousins…
SAAB 9-7x: A better SUV than Volvo’s station-wagon-on-air- shocks XC70/90, a better re-badge than Infiniti’s vainglorious QX56, and an unworthy recipient of the Kotex award.
My nominees are:
Acura RL: This vehicle has the uncanny ability to suck the soul right out of my body in the same way as a trip to Costco. This is Acura’s flagship, and nothwithstanding its generic Japanese styling, it is sitting up on its hind legs begging for a V8.
SH-AWD you say? Let’s be honest, this is really a VHS v. Betamax argument. Sure it’s ultimately better – but that doesn’t mean it’s capturing the market’s imagination. And just like DVD, someday something better will come around – Audi’s Quatro for example – and SH-AWD will join four wheel steering in the Wikipedia where are they now file.
As for its high-tech – Friday night in Tokyo – interior, all that I can say is look at the RL’s keyless ignition. While others, including the S2000, have elegant engine start buttons, the RL has a vintage Honda, steering column mounted, key-in-ignition, switch… modified to cover up the slot where the key has inserted for the past 20+ years. Now that’s some really innovative thinking!
NVH? Well Acura hypnotized the first two out of this machine, but they forgot about the H. The RL that I drove had the harshest ride of anything that I’ve driven since my brother’s then new 1979 Chevette with F40 suspension.
Exhale…
Ford Ranger: Besides suggesting that this truckette will soon appear as one of Car and Driver’s 10 best cars from third world countries, I think that this one speaks – or mumbles – for its primitive self.
While the new Camry is a Japanese take on the 300C, it is not a TWAT.
Y’all is nuts.
The King Ranch and the Harley Davidson F150 should each come with their own Village People blowup dolls. Total TWATs.
I have to agree with the Infiniti QX56. With that roofline it looks like it was bent at the end.
Third pick for me.
Nissan Sentra. Thank God a replacement is on the horizon.
So to recap
1)Ford Focus
2)Suzuki Verona
3)Nissan Sentra
While the new Camry is a Japanese take on the 300C,
What?
I will limit my nominations to SUVs. Even if there were not an energy crisis and tremendous political instability and wars in the places from which we obtain oil, they would still be hideously stupid vehicles. Ugly, uncomfortable, and miserable to drive. Future generations will think us mad, when they study the numbers in which we have purchased these abominations.
1. Porsche Cayenne–looks like an automotive version of the Hulk. $100,000 to drive a 5 passenger truck that has a 500 hp engine and no hitch for pulling double bottoms.
2. Mercedes-Benz G-Class. It is a jeep folks. Even with the 3 pointed star, it’s a jeep. The cheap one is $80K. What is the point? That you have more dollars than sense. Somewhere in the underworld, Gottlieb Daimler is resting uneasy.
3. Cadillac Escalade ESV. 19 feet, 3 tons, and the upholstery is too nice for you fit 80 bags of manure inside. Who buys these things. Do we let them vote? breed? Should we? Mencken said: “No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people.”
4. (I do not know when they stopped selling this beast) Ford Excursion a/k/a Ford Execration a/k/a Ford Excrement a/k/a Ford Exxon Valdez. So big, so ugly, that no one would buy it. A stunning feat, given the crap that Americans have bought as SUVs.
5. (I do not know when they stopped selling this beast) Lincoln Blackwood. A Lincoln pick-em-up truck. What were they thinking. Cadillac did something similar as a rebadged Chevrolet Avalanche. hideously stupid. But I do not remember the model name.
Worst Car: Ford Freestar! It’s just horrible. Do I even need to say why? lolllll Unlike some people who nominate a car for the Worst Car Award solely on looks (which is like saying Picasso was a bad painter because he was ugly), I think the Ford Freestar is like horrible in every aspect! I had to ride in one from school and everything was just hard plastic and the sliding door literally just clanked shut and rattled the whole cabin! The engine was loud and abrasive to the ears even at idle! And one can see the lack of refinement just with one glance. The metal parts and whatnots underneath the car were jutting out at weird, oblique angles! And even though I’ve only witnessed the Ford Freestar as a passenger and not as a driver (thank you jesus) I can say with confidence that I’d rather ride in a ’92 Toyota Camry.
The Ford Freestar is a piece of crap that should have never been created. I pity anyone who actually wasted money buying these things.
Oh…
Saying that the Japanese are merely copy-cats of the Americans and Germans is just outright nonsense!!
Germans copy other Germans much more explicitly! MB, BMW, and Audi all have those little knobs in the center console (iDrive, Comand, etc.) and don’t get me started on the new S-class tail! I remember when the LS460 debuted everyone said it had a BMW tail. I don’t see it at all! It looks more Honda Odyssey than 5-series.
And Japanese copy Americans? Please. American cars are usually a model-cycle behind in technology, and the style of them are really questionable (Compass, new Sebring, Aspen, Uplander, etc.)
Yeaaa. Ford Freestar and Mercury twin. I forgot the name. Montego or Mariner or something trying to sound classy. All the chrome in the world could make that thing attractive!
Freestar!! yayyy!
“seldomawake: Dodge Sprinter.”
It is a purely commercial vehicle, very functional. Federal Express is buying thousands of them.
philbailey: “I don’t know if your American readers know what “TWAT†means in English english, but I assume you do?”
Only if it means the same thing in English English as it does in American English.
Excursion went out of production last year, and Blackwood a couple of years previously, so they don’t qualify. There’s always the Lincoln Mark LT, already nominated.
In defense of the G-class, it’s all gussied up for the US market, not really indicative of what it is in the rest of the world. Sort of like the Toyota Land Cruiser, which comes without independent front suspension outside North America.
—
Wow, there’s a lot of CRAP chasing TWAT here in the USofA, much of it from the Detroit 2.5. I don’t know if the Taurus qualifies as it was a fleet-only vehicle this year.
Kia Rio…one of the ugliest cars currently in production
Mercedes R-Class..a pointless minivan with a short snout and a long curving tail…the import successor to the Aztek
Escalade: lashings of chrome just waiting for more aftermarket chrome, a giant grille like a demented Wurlitzer, low profile tires..(I ask you..why does this thing have 4wd?..whats the utility part?)..garish pearlescent paint…
For my first round of condemnation I’m going to start with the long due for the grave automotive division of Mitsubishi.
The Galant… The ass end is uhm… devoid of anything memorable, hmm yeah that kinda sums up the entire design of the car, blah^3. Actually the ass end seems like a really early Nissan Skyline, one of the hideous pre-R32 ones. Not familiar with the car… doesnt matter it was boxy in a Max-headroom kind of 80’s super happy fun time way.
I dont even know the details of the Galant… but my crapolio dowser twitches hard and fast when I see pictures of it.
The Eclipse…. holy hell is it ugly. The bauhaus TT design tossed with blatant disregard into a toaster oven… is the foundation for one of the most repulsively styled interpretations of the coupe I’ve had the misfortune of sharing the same nitrogen rich atmosphere with.
DSM (diamond star motors) took the TT styling to a new low… so why stop there? Why not give it enough weight over the front wheels to make it plow through turns and while the G1&2 DSM’s had AWD… who needs it we’ve got a V6! A great BIG one too! Did we mention its got an ass like J-LO! Bulbous like Jobba the HUT and not in the prequels when he was just a talking worm.
I really would like to test drive the eclipse… a nice long test drive with an over-zealous giddy to be breathing kid of a salesperson. The sort of guy that would buy the forementioned uh… mode of transportation.
The Eclipse really is just that… it eclipsed its prececessors which may not have been high quality, but at least they had potential and as such there are a lot of spikey haired DSM tuner kids strumming their stalks to the thought of a 4G63 powered Eclipse… Mitsubishi has turned a deaf ear to this lot… and while the EVO is now here the Eclipse is laying dead in a gutter somewhere ten years back.
2006300C:
If you were to show an Alien both your German/Canadian gangsta ride and a new Camry, the alien would think the two are related.
Same slab-siding, tiny windows, short trunk, obnoxious front, etc.
The Honda Element and Ford Freestyle (when equipped with the CVT which is, as I recall, the only way it comes packaged). Honda is a company which generally knows what they’re doing; and in terms of sales, maybe they do with the Element. I seem to see a lot of them running around. However, they wanted to sell them to people in their twenties but it seems only Baby Boomers buy them. The Element seemed underpowered, when I drove one three years back. But more likely, the absolutely terrible aerodynamics, which led to a lot of noise on the freeway, just can’t be overcome on the freeway without a V8 – and then, the mileage would be terrible.
Which leads to the Freestyle. That CVT hunts all over the place when you put your foot into the accelerator. The build quality is about average; but it is that transmission and engine combination that really makes this machine so poor. A friend, who is an auto service technician, told me last summer that he had heard on National Public Radio, the day I came by with the loaner I had, Ford was going to quit building the Freestyle. For Ford’s sake, I sure hope so.
Talked to the Freestyle Marketing Guy last night, er drunkenly shouted at him.
They are absolutely NOT stopping the Freestyle.
And as it is one of FoMoCo’s best products, I say good.
Though… all CVT’s suck.
I enthusiatically nominate the ungainly Jeep Compass, the antiquated Monte Carlo, the oddly styled and unproportionate Honda ridgeline, and last, but certainly, certainly, certainly not least…………the ill conceived and down right hideous B9 Tribeca………………………….YUK.
Come on guys, seriously. The Camry? As a Ten Worst Auto of All Time? While it might not excite our enthusiast souls, there’s absolutely no way it can be included on the same list as the ass-ugly Pontiac Aztec, the smoke-belching Dodge K Cars, the godawfully cheap Renault Le Car, the infamous Chevy Vega and the life-threatening Ford Pinto.
You might personally despise the Camry for its blandness, its suburban ubiquity, even its typical owners’ dangerously inattentive driving habits. But because of its mastery of reliability, its top-selling title and its acceptance by mainstream America as a transportation appliance, I think the Camry gets more than just an exemption.
The Jeep Compass, on the other hand, fits the TWAT definition much better. It’s blatantly the wrong product for the Jeep brand, has lower-than-expected (even for Chrysler products) interior quality, has hardly any appealing exterior aesthetics and a really stupid ad campaign. It’s astounding Jeep managers and fanclubs allowed this affront to Jeep sensibilities to make it on to dealer lots.
There’s a TON of garbage out there, obviously more of it coming from US brands than others. I absolutely hate:
1. Dodge Magnum: a hearse with a hemi is still a hearse. Either that, or someone stepped on a model of the Caravan and manufactured the result.
2. H3: the commercials alone are sufficient reason.
3. B9 Tribeca: I dont even know how to describe its shape in words.
4. Cadillac XLR: evidently the design team only had rulers, although some people dont see a problem with paying $70k+ for a caddy.
5. Range Rover: the only reason people own one is to brag that they own one. Typically, they even manage to brag with their driving.
some responses here: I can’t believe people are nominating the LS2 powered GTO. I thought it was the best GM vehicle in a LONG time. It’s got a Corvette motor, serious world-class performance, a VERY nice interior (i wonder if the previous posters have actually SAT in one?
This thing has the nicest seats EVER!), IRS, good brakes, and did i mention a Corvette motor? For 33k? And it can actually comfortably hold 4 people? I don’t know who would pick a 325Ci over a GTO, except for those only interested in badge appeal – except for better steering feel, i fail to see the immediate advantage of a comparable BMW or likewise. (There, Robert.) I could see chosing a G35 Coupe 6MT, but they are a lot more cramped and not nearly as fast. I didn’t find the GTO to be unattractive either; it was slightly anonymous but it had good proportions and neat styling. Also remember, the original GTO was just a Tempest with a big motor – not really that exciting to look at, back in the day – just like the current GTO.
I am surprised at how many people nominated the Camry. It’s not pretty, but what is most disturbing is all the things we keep hearing about recalls and reliability issues.
Reliability issues with a Camry? What is the world coming to?
Chevy Trailblazer. The contest is over, the rest of you may go home.
The fairly conservative styling of this vehicle, much like an Armani suit on Mel Gibson, simply wraps the ugliness, idiocy, and dangerous unpredictability underneath. Witness:
1. The 4wd system renders the vehicle incapable of operating on normal streets. Any owner trying to make even a cautious turn on wet pavement will find that the steering wheel merely provides a general sort of left/right control, not actual directional control of the “vehicle”.
2. Handling. It has none. Really. None. A Radio Flyer red wagon has more stability. At speeds above 30mph, the first thing that goes through your mind is “didn’t they have anything else at the rent-a-car place?”
3. Suspension. My 85-pound son used one hand on the front bumper, and had the car bouncing up and down a full four inches. When I asked him to stop, he pointed out that he already had – the hideous turd was simply bouncing up and down on it’s laughable substitute for struts.
4. Brakes. They’re not especially bad, but the unpredictable handling makes those side airbags a very, very good investment.
5. Engine and drivetrain. How the f**k did they get torque-steer out of a nominally rear-drive vehicle??
6. Interior. The only redeeming aspect of the Trailblazer is that it uses the same cheap, unfinished plastic parts that are found in almost all GM vehicles, allowing the driver to pretend, at least until he starts the engine, that at least he’s driving a paid-off 20-year-old beater, instead of a brand-new vehicle with six years of payments assuring that he’ll be paying for the piece of crap long after it’s been totalled or donated to some charity for salvage value.
Jonny: If the alien was retarded and suffering from cataracts than perhaps you would be correct.
As for German Canadian: I’m not getting into that with you again.
As far as the Camry goes, it has a lot of problems, but visibility is not one of them, those windows are huge. The front end of my car, in addition to looking cool as hell, also does a nice job of scaring minivans and hybrids out of my way.
Someone also said the Magnum is un-cool because it looks like a hearse. Hearses are cool, whole gothic, menacing thing, and besides the rears of hearses slope upward, the Magnum’s rear slopes down.
Scion_xB – hideous design.
Cadillac Escalade – the ultimate poseur vehicle.
Lincoln Mark LT and Cadillac Escalade EXT – A luxury pickup truck? Say what? Only in America.. also see above.
Leave the Escalade alone people, with the demise of the Fleetwood and the stagnation of the Deville/DTS the Slade is the only way Caddy fans can have a properly sized, V8 RWD, soft riding car. The CTS and STS are far too small, hard riding, plasticky, and, ugh… subtle to fill the void. If GM ever produces a great and true Cadillac S class and A8 competitor the escalade will all but disappear.
qfrog is correct. Mitsu wins.
How else would everyone in this thread have completely forgotten/ignored their existence.
Lancer it is..
Ford Ranger – Still serves a purpose, but left to rot for so long.
Jeep Compass – Badge engineering so cynical it hurts.
Infiniti QX56 – Big, ugly and without any merit.
Suzuki Verona – Made by people who seem to hate cars.
2006300C: You wear your biases on your sleeve.
Also, where do you live? Because I could point a bazooka at the damn mid-80s Dodge Caravans that go out of their way to get in front of me and they would not budge an inch.
I live in Pittsburgh where the road budget does not allow for painted lines and everyone kind of drives wherever they damn well please. The road hogs signal and switch “lanes” when I’m in my 300 but not when I drive my Volvo S90. Those 80s caravans used to be a problem but in the last couple years they’ve all but rusted away.
Also if you mean I’m biased because I like automobiles with style, passion and soul and not transport appliances than yes I’m biased as hell. The reason why I hate the two main darlings of the ecofreaks, the insight and the prius is because the cars are nothing more than wrappers for the hybrid systems. Those systems are engineering marvels, but the shells they are wrapped in are horrible. I would love it if my car would shut down at stops or when coasting, I have no issues with hybrids and prefer them to diesels, but the car must be, well, a car.
I think we are supposed to pick one nomination so I’ll focus on the worst one this year: Jeep Compass / Patriot
1.) Aesthetic’s – a very poor jack job rebadging of the Neon Wagon (now called Caliber). The interior/exterior receive minimal changes and new badges – with the smallest effort.
2.) Quality – Well what can we say…most Jeeps are cheap on the inside (the Grand Cherokees have the worst resale values of almost every SUV b/c at 90k miles the entire engine/drivetrain/interior should be replaced as routine maintenance). But in this case this is just a Dodge with Jeepy’s grill and minimal attempts to distinguish it from the Neon Wagon (and we all know the crappy quality the Neon affronted its poor owners / suckers).
3.) Performance (lack thereof) – I got to drive a Caliber a month ago R/T model with the big 2.4 with the CVT (no manual) and was gob smacked at how slow this car could be with such a light weight and such a big tractor engine in it (read Neon engine). I know I don’t have to actualy drive a Jeep Compass / Patriot as the drivetrain / suspension / brakes are all the exact same and all have poor performance for a small “sporty” wagon.
4.) This car is a glorified Neon Wagon…DCX gave up on trying to recover from the Neon (sales have tanked as it’s sucker owners realized being cute is not so cute when the car breaks down all the time – calling the car a Cappucino doesn’t make it so either).
5.) Destroying a Brand – Jeep makes fantastic (crappy reliability) off roaders and that has been it’s core heritage…all Jeeps were supposed to be able to tackle the Rubicon trail. Now Jeep is becoming a badge knockoff of DCX – the Compass / Patriot knockoffs of the Neon/Caliber are just the start. The Doge Nitro is now rebadged Liberty (but Dodge put in a big engine into it) – Liberty’s are painfully slow and the Diesel is pretty abysmal. This car is the centerpiece of what will slowly dilute the Jeep brand and people’s respect. As said Jeep sold on its “ruggedness” and it’s lack of quality and reliability was always overlooked due to this. But now that they are becoming mainstream rebadged versions I see the Jeep following Eagle into oblivian.
What an interesting idea. The comments above have be a hoot to read. So, I figure I’ll add my list of nominees.
1) Like so many before me, the Jeep Compass hits the list first. It almost seems like this award was made for this vehicle. It pretty much satisifies all the requirements to be a strong nominee for this award. It is not only ugly on the outside, but the interior has got to be one of the cheapest in the industry. CG’s current interiors remind me of the old GM interiors of the 80s and 90s. Just aweful. On top of that, you have the unrefined powertrains and performance. To put salt on the wound, the Compass doesn’t even do much positive for its brand. The Germans struck out on this vehicle.
2) Chrysler Aspen/Dodge Durango – I couldn’t stand the redesign of the Durango from its first generation design to this. While the 90s Durangos weren’t the best engineered, they looked pretty good. This new Durango just wrong when it came out. Not only that but the interior isn’t worth too much either. Combined with the gas guzzling V-8s engines at a time when people want fuel economy, it is no surprise dealers have to throw $8,000 or more on the hood to move them off the lot.
The Aspen isn’t as bad looking I guess, but it is the answer to a question nobody was asking. Throw some chrome here and there with some fake wood in the interior of a Durango and call it luxury? Ok, sure, whatever. I hear these aren’t flying off the lots either.
3) Subaru Tribeca – I can’t say I’ve seen too much of these thing, but that front end is just horrible in my opinion. I thought Subaru was coming around gaining some serious momentum and then they bring this thing out and implant its nose theme on some of its other vehicles.
4) Scion xB – I will say it right now that I am not a fan of vehicles that look like a box. There may be some people that like the different look, but this isn’t for me. I just can’t get excited about its engine or even care what kind of performance it offers.
5) Dodge Dakota – Like the Durango, I liked the previous version much better. The current one look so odd and weird. The interior also isn’t anything to hold up in admiration. It may have a couple of V-8s, but it seems this is not as big of a selling point as it used to be for the Dakota. Another Daimler product that isn’t selling all that well.
6) Ford Freestar/Mercury Monterey – Ford just had to screw up in the minivan market after its Windstar did a pretty good job keepping up with the competition. This and the Mercury version will go down as probably one of the most forgetable vehicles in this era. This was not one of Ford’s better ideas.
7) Chevy Malibu – Too boxy and too boring to compete with the Camry, Accord, and Altima. Interior and engineering still not up to those levels, but I will cut this car a little slack. It was done during the Pre-Lutz era – an era when Robert Lutz’s philosophy wasn’t in full swing at GM. I understand the next Malibu is supposed to be a stunner, so I guess we’ll wait and see.
8) Honda Ridgeline – Honda’s first effort that appeared to be a good idea, but just wasn’t fully completed. A truck for those that didn’t really need a truck most of the time seems like a good idea. However, Honda could have given it better style, a higher quality interior, better gas mileage, and a lower price tag.
9) Dodge Charger – I remember the cool, coke-bottled shape of the Chargers from 1968 to 1970. Man, what cool cars. When the modern boxy sedan came out, I was stunned. It maybe had a name and a V-8 engine, but in my books it became the Dodge Dynasty for the 21st Century. It may have a “muscle car” theme to it, but it sure looks clumsy and heavy to me. I don’t see anything sporty about it and the interior, like all current CG vehicles, isn’t anything to brag about.
The Nissan Armada – what happens when you cross a 1959 Rambler wagon with a no-name SUV.
I didn’t weight the list to the number of copies sold…it might have changed the order.
1. Chrysler Crossfire
2. Honda Insight
3. Chrysler Sebring
4. Chevy Cobalt/Pontiac G5/Saturn Ion
5. Jeep Compass
6. Nissan Maxima
7. Toyota FJ (piss-poor design in every way)
8. Dodge Durango/Chrysler Aspen
9. Jaguar X-Type
10. Chevy Impala
There isn’t a spot for the #@!*-ing Chevy Monte Carlo! Arghh, the humanity.
Chrysler Aspen
Jeep Compass
Nissan Armada
Infiniti QX56
Subaru B9 Tribeca
Chevy Monte Carlo
Honda Element
GM minivans
Phil Angelides
Here’s one not nominated so far: LINCOLN NAVIGATOR. An obsolete, irrelevant pile of crap that now sports the most ridiculous ugly grille imaginable, which, highly unfortunately, is presumably some sort of retro desperation referring to the beautiful ’61-’65 Continental. A total loser in every respect: obsolete mechanicals, obsolete image, no relevance, and, I assume, lousy sales.
1) Toyota Yaris: In nearly every review and comparison, it has been a disappointment. It’s styling is frumpy, American’s don’t get the 5-door hatch, and the sedan makes little sense, as it’s close in size and price to the superior Corolla.
2) Chevrolet Malibu: It offers a fair drive and powerful engines, but it’s as ugly as sin and the interior fit/finish is lacking. The Pontiac G6 is far better-excecuted.
3) Jeep Commander: The styling leaves a lot to be desired, and the interior plastics are roughly the same in quality as those used to make Rubbermaid garbage containers. Totally unacceptable in this class of vehicle.
4) Jeep Compass: It lacks power, it’s as ugly as sin, and has a dime-store interior. On top of all that, it isn’t even trail rated.
5) Honda Element: It’s heavy and unattractive. The only redeeming factors are the high quality and decent fuel consumption.
6) Chrysler Sebring: Just look at it. Unless you’d like to keep your dinner down…
7) GM Minivans: Three different versions, all equally unattractive, underpowered and incompetent.
8) Ford Minivans: Even worse than the GM minivans, which is quite a feat.
9) Lexus SC430: It is quite possibly the frumpiest roadster in production, and is about as thrilling as a pound of tofu. The Mercedes-Benz SL-Class puts it to shame.
10) Saturn Ion: It’s unbelievably ugly and the interior is atrocious. The Astra cannot get here soon enough.
I think we are all ignoring a crucial aspect of what makes a particular car a genuine TWAT: the kind of folks who generally drive it. With this criteria in mind, I would like to nominate the following autos:
1) Mercedes Benz ML
With trophy-wife/soccer-mom inevitably at the helm
2) H2
Why don’t you join the Army, big man?
3) Mini Cooper (or New Beatle)
The car should come with a matching dildo
Lincoln Zephyr
mostly on design.
Nominations, in rough order of demerit:
1) Scion tC: Handles like a Camry, accelerates like a Camry, is stodgy like a Camry. It makes up for this by failing to equal a Corolla XRS on any of the above or any of the practical stuff. 160 hp sports coupes are not supposed to weigh 2900 lbs.
2) Suzuki Forenza and Reno: I just plain don’t get why Suzuki cannot build a competent car. They’re not a weak sister in the Honda/Suzuki/Yamaha/Kawasaki motorcycle battle royale and never have been. It’s plainly obvious from the Hayabusa and GSXR1000 that they know enough about four-stroke engines to play Honda’s game and beat them at it sometimes; but they had to call in Porsche to help them with a 2.5 liter six that made 155 ponies? That should be what they get from a base-model 1.8 liter four, with a 200 hp 2.0 version of the same engine above it. Taking others’ engineering as your own reflects badly on your company; taking Daewoo’s is Dennis Green inexplicable. These are the cars I suspect will win the “Least likely to make it to 100k miles without major overhaul” award.
3) Mitsubishi Eclipse: Like a Pacer, the photos make it look considerably smaller than it is. It’s bigger than an Accord and several hundred pounds heavier; the CG height must be in the SUV range.
4) Toyota Solara: Everyone seems to have forgotten about this one. If you’re going to have the float, roll, dive, and steering feel of a Camry, don’t bother giving up the practicality.
5) Mitsubishi Lancer (non-EVO): The trouble with the Evo looking so much like a garden variety Lancer is that the Lancer looks too much like an Evo. Its legs can’t match its mouth – with 120 hp from a 2.0 it’s 40 horsepower behind the domestics in power output.
6) Ford Five Hundred: The 1996 Taurus showed up with a 200 horsepower 180-CID V6. Eight years later, this full-size car showed up several hundred pounds heavier with the same motor. The problem with domestic cars is that the cars arrive before the engine made for them does. I suspect that a 3.9 liter, 265 horsepower Five Hundred would be everything Ford envisioned it was; and if the car were launched with that motor for the 2007 model year it would be considered at least up with the Camry, but three years in the slow lane gave it a reputation that no amount of ability now will erase.
7) Volkswagen Rabbit: Economy cars are supposed to be economical. This isn’t. A 150-horsepower 2.5 liter hot hatch should be a thrill to drive, with a hint of musclecar and a chassis that can translate that into serious punch from midcorner on. There’s so much flab here that there’s no punch left.
8) Saturn Relay/Buick Terraza/Chevrolet Uplander/Pontiac SV6: There’s still a bunch of TranSport/Lumina APV in these vans. There are kids running sub-4:30 miles that were born after the Lumina APV was launched. The Citroen DS lasted 20 years on the market, and that’s how good and how far ahead of the game a car should be to be on sale that long. The Olds Silhouette was a slow, ugly Caravan wannabe then.
9) Hyundai Tiburon: It would come out of a matchup against a new, similarly priced Civic Si with turds in its trousers. It was a good styling exercise a few years ago, but the chassis and engine development that it needed never got here.
10) Mercedes C-Class: How can Mercedes justify sinking so low? The 190E was at least close to invincible – built to Mercedes standards. The engineering on this car is terrible and it’s all down to some shitty-ass cheapskating that DaimlerChrysler did. Mercedes and Chrysler were the most engineering-led companies in the business; they’re behind Honda in this regard now, but there’s still some serious engineering firepower at those companies – see the Neon SRT-4, MoPar Hemi V8, Mercedes dash-63 V8 and dash-65 V12, all without parallel in their classes.
Now, for a few remarks on previous posts:
– What in the world has anyone got against the Aussie GTO? Have you forgotten that the original was but a Tempest? What merit does a BMW 645Ci have over the latest 400-hp version of this car? Don’t answer “steering feel” because that hasn’t been a BMW asset for years. What’s wrong with a car that the cops won’t notice, that’ll do 30+ MPG on the highway, and will keep an Impreza STi close enough in the turns to be able to beat it on the straights?
-Aside from the interior, the Chevrolet Cobalt is the equal of the up-price compacts (VW Golf, Honda Civic et al), and price-wise it’s down with the Hyundais, Focuses, and Corollas of this world. Drive $20,000 worth of Cobalt (that’s a supercharged manual SS) against $20,000 worth of Golf (that’s a Rabbit). One of these cars will get beat deep. It’s not the Chevy. Drive $14,000 worth of Cobalt against its $14,000 competitors – remember, you’re still a grand shy of a Fit Sport or the desireable version of the Yaris…
– I don’t think anyone will get the point of the Caliber until the SRT-4 version arrives. Enthusiasts wondered what was up with the second-generation Neon; turns out that the bigger, stiffer chassis was what was needed to cope with an engine capable of shoving it to 265 km/h. For the record, a buck-sixty still takes some pretty serious equipment to reach – a Mustang GT won’t do it, an Impreza STi or Lancer Evo won’t get within 10 MPH, a 350Z might get close, a Boxster S is on the bubble, and enough German machinery to make it once the limiter is removed costs over $50,000. This was, by the way, a $23,000 four-door American midsize sedan that got 30 miles to the gallon on the highway… Let’s not forget that the Neon SRT wasn’t exactly lost in the corners, either.
The wagons that seem to stack up closest to the Caliber SRT-4 are the Forester Turbo and the $90k+ Cayenne Turbo. The SRT will annhilate a Forester Turbo. Side-by-side reading of the time charts for the Cayenne and Caliber will make interesting reading.
When you drive a 2000 Volvo V40, as I do, you have to be careful when you talk trash about almost any other car.
However, I believe that this gives me extra credibility when it comes to identifying terrible cars. I am the person who is still driving a TWAT six years from now.
1. Jeep Compass. I drove an ’86 Grand Wagoneer for two years after college. Oh for an AMC 360 that gets 8 MPG. The Compass is proof that the old days are definitely over. Who said anyone wanted that to happen?
2. Lincoln Mark LT/Cadillac Escalade Pick-up. Lincolns and Cadillacs used to have class. These vehicles are the opposite of class. Again, who said anyone wanted that to happen?
3. Volvo S60. A hallmark of another quality brand is ruined, thanks to Ford. You would be crazy not to buy an Audi or Mercedes for the money you pay for an S60. Super-boring, too.
4. Ford Windstar. I drove one this summer. The sound the engine makes is a loud, droning, beehive sound. Bzzzzzzz! It made me long for the swashbuckling style of the Aerostar. That minivan actually had a distinctive look to it, at the time.
5. Saab 9-7X. I hadn’t seen one of these up close until a couple of days ago. I thought, “what is that strange badge on the back of that GM SUV?” This vehicle is a truly strange sight from behind, if only because it is so boring. Saab was always a distinctive brand. Now GM owns it.
6. Chevy Impala SS FWD. I had a ’95 Chevy Caprice 9C1 a couple of years ago. It took me almost a year to figure out that I could produce enough smoke from the rear tires to create total whiteout conditions any time I wanted. Left foot: brake, right foot: gas. Press as hard as possible. Also, I could buy parts for it from any major chain grocery store.
7. Any Suzuki vehicle. As someone said earlier, they appear to be made by people who hate cars. (A better warranty than my V40, however)
8. Honda Ridgeline. This vehicle is much better than a typical half-ton American pick-up in so many ways, but it is so ugly, ONLY because of the weird, angled fenders that seem to go in a straight line all the way from the rear bumper to the roof.
9. Nissan Murano/Infiniti FX45. A design style clearly reminiscent of the AMC Gremlin.
10. Chrysler P/T Cruiser. I would always think about refusing to drive this car, even if it was the last one on Earth, every time you asked me. My car looks fast parked next to one of these.
From an european perspective:::
1. Chevrolet Aveo: Shameless piece of badge engineering. Outdated and low quality Daewoo origin
2. Ford Fusion: Ugly, boring and pointless. Marketing sham.
3. Audi A3: Overpriced, snobbish and boring.
4. Peugeot 607: Big and dull
1. The Nissan Versa/Honda Fit/anything that looks like them
What a terrible design unless you own a delivery business in Manhattan.
Young people from my generation would puke before being seen in one of these. I hope the guy in the commercial drops the cake. The Corvair Monza Spyder still has more appeal than this. (Long live the 2-door coupe) These vehicles are terminal ugly!!
2. The Honda Element
Another very ugly vehicle, though being a Honda it is of excellent quality.
3. Toyota Highlander
Very bland and unimaginative, plus I know three people who own one and each has had its problems.
I guess the Ford 500 does deserve a nomination for it’s styling alone. It’s not ugly, but people who wanted that design bought it TEN years ago when it was a ’97 VW Passat. And at least that car had a benchmark interior. Talk about being behind the times.
I haven’t driven it, but I hear it’s no pleasure.
SCION Xb
Since when driving a shoebox is hip? Does the car come with box-frame glasses and a black emo t-shirt, too?
It’s just a style venture, on the same level with HHR and Crossfire. Let’s slap a funky weird body on one of our bread’n’butter compacts, and see if it sells. Didn’t strike the mother lode here, but depressed teenagers striving to be different certainly gave that poor abomination a statistically significant market share.
SCION Xc
A very big engine that couldn’t. There’s a reason why the thing is marked as HS-class SCCA Solo II stock class table, together with 4-pot Camry – because it’s about as nimble and fast, I mean, slow. It has the meanest body of all asian makes, and gets beaten by an auto V6 Camry in driving enjoyment (drove both). Doesn’t get any more boring than this.
I get a feeling that Scion was made to dump vehicles that Toyota felt ashamed of slapping its badge onto.
Jeep Compass, for when Marketing triumphs over everything else. And for all the reasons already stated here.
artsy:
You are needlessly offensive and you COMPLETELY missed my point. We both agree that the Camry is a dull boring soul-less car. In your opinion, that by itself, is sufficent to make the Camry a TWAT car.
I counter that a car that gives people what they want should not be on any TWAT list, no matter how boring or lifeless it may be. The Camry makes no pretensions at being other than what it is, unlike some of the other cars on the TWAT hit list. It is also well executed for what it is designed to be, unlike the other cars on the TWAT list.
We just have a difference of opinion on what merits a place on the TWAT list.
Has anyone mentioned the Mitsubishi Eclipse GT ? My brother was selling these at a dealership in Virginia and begged me to take it for a test drive. I will say Mitsubishi nailed the target audience…all the wiz-bang over the top styling that haunts the wet dreams of the post Hot Wheels generation…with gobs of torque steer ! Perfect for every 20 something mashing the pedal while changing the c/d and text messaging their friends at the same time .
claude,
(yawn) Whatever.
Let’s talk about cars, shall we?
I haven’t gone through all the comments, but here are two that I think deserve the “dis-award” (or should that be “diss-award”?)
Lincoln Zephyr: This is an insult to the Lincoln brand. It may make a passable Ford, but a LINCOLN? So they kill the LS and almost kill the Town Car, but somehow this abomination gets into the lineup. It’s ugly, especially in the rear with those nonsensical oversize taillights. It’s fake, as for example the plastichrome on the rear view mirrors. I thought the thing would never sell, but no, it has gotten a fair amount of takers. I guess it just goes to show you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Chevy Uplander and clones: These are hideously ugly with the new “snout.” Crossover sport vans? GM has to be joking.
Second row seats: they’re narrow and butted right up against the doors, with a boatload of space in between. What’s up with that? To keep the brats from slapping each other silly?
In the lowline models, there’s no outboard armrest. In the highline models, when you order the optional 2nd-row side airbags, the seat latches are disabled so you can’t remove the seats. Bet Joe Consumer won’t know that until he tries it. Obviously, GM doesn’t want owners disconnecting the wire to the SEAT-MOUNTED side airbag. Dumb design — they couldn’t spend some of Lutz’s salary on proper curtain airbags?
Okay, I gotta weigh in-
-the new Camry, with its overabundance of electronic nannies, borderline-Lexus pricing (V6 Camry at or over 30 large? yeesh), stolen-then-mutated Mazda 6 styling (they should have stolen it without modification or left it alone) is my first choice. I’m no import hater, but Toyota’s been on a campaign to fatally baore me since the Celica, Supra, and MR have all fallen by the wayside.
This car continues that trend, in spade.
Honorable mentions:
The Hummer H2-hey, dressing up a Chevy truck just proves that a fool and his money are a godsend to GM.
The GM W cars-these dinosaurs apparently hoped to be the new “Panther” in terms of longevity. Problem is, the Crown Vic makes a pretty good cop acar and/or Taxi. The W cars don’t do ANYTHING well.
I haven’t bothered to read any of the comments yet, but I would like to nominate the Honda Element (tupperware car as my wife calls it). I suppose the rear seating is nice for those who have a strong stomach and enjoy looking down on those around them. They have made improvements? to the exterior appearance, but I still hark back to a comment i read on another site: “What element would that be Buttuglium?”
And in the final insult to our collective intelligence, they’ve soiled the good name of the original GTO with this (not so) cheap imitation. It’s a sterling example of how to completely miss your target audience.
Me thinks that you’ve never driven one.
For all the criticizm the GTO styling gets, I don’t understand what those critics were looking for, fake hood scoops and retro doodads?
The GTO had the best GM interior and represented a real value at its price point.
The Hummer H3, nothing more than a cynical attempt to cash in on Hummer’s ever-fading image. Furthermore, it’s significantly overpriced and underpowered (seriously, for that much money, couldn’t they at least drop in the I6?).
Uh….. it doesn’t FIT.
The criminal R-Class. The worst and ugliest beast of a car to plague mankind and automotordom since the 80’s AMC Eagle.
Here, here!
A few more;
The Cadillac Escalade – Excess at its revolting worst without even the merit of competence.
The Jeep Commander – Who wanted this thing built?
The Lincoln Navigator – An ugly Escalade.
The Lincoln Blackwood (or whatever they call their pickup truck) – I mean, isn’t a luxury pickup an oxymoron?
The Range Rover – overpriced SUV for people that need to spend too much much for a car. Wouldn’t be a bad ride…if it cost $40,000.
Porsche Cayenne – the answer to the question that nobody asked.
Hummer H2 and H3 – particularly offensive vehicles while brave soldiers are dying in REAL ones.
Any BMW that charges $1000 for PAINT. That goes for Porsches and Mercedes too.
While I’m at it;
Nissan Armada/Infiniti QX56
Toyota FJ Cruiser
Chevy SSR (can’t carry a load, can’t tow, doesn’t handle)
Suzuki Aerio (can’t they just put bigger wheels on this thing?)
Toyota Solara Convertible (the coupe is slightly better, so I’ll let it slide)
Chevy Malibu Maxx (I really love the concept, not so much the execution)
I’ll raise my hand for the Jeep Commander.
The thing looks like the box a Jeep comes in.
Is this poll entirely based on personal styling preferences or does it just seem that way?
In order for any such a survey to have any meaning, i recommend that the nominees of the 2007 version of this poll be filtered by our esteemed automotive journalists as fitting two or more real scientific, objective, easy-to-verify criteria.
Each TWAT nominee must be in the lowest 10% of all new production vehicles offered for sale in North America in ANY two or more of the following:
– any measure of dynamic performance
– fuel economy
– total cost of ownership
– reliability ratings
– highest mass, or
– a worst-in-test finish in any automotive journal’s multi-car comparison test.
There is no room in the TWAT awards for subjective price judgements, because while some people (like Walmart customers) will sacrifice anything to save a dollar at the cash register, even as the sh!t they buy falls apart as they leave the store, true quality is measured with objective measures. And true quality should, IMHO, trump petty cheapness and subjective measures of current styling tastes and trends.
As it is, BS like people claiming that the Saab 92X is inferior to a WRX because Saab installed higher quality materials inside and out, plus a lot of subtle refinements no one seemed to write about in their auto reviews, and then Saab actually charged customers for it, does not make it a worthy TWAT nomination. Both the WRX and 92X are far, far too good to even be listed in the TWAT awards.
That is all.
Your suggestions would certainly create a more scientific award process, but that was not our intent. If you look at the eventual winners, you will see that there were a number of reasons we chose any one "winner." Many of these justifications were not scientific (i.e. brand betrayal). I think the most important aspect of our selection process was/is its transparency. We stated the criteria and selection process in its entirety, including the role of subjective bias. It's also worth noting that many of our selections have been removed or are about to be removed from the marketplace.