Over the past few weeks, I was surprised by the responses to my “Weekend Head Scratchers” (WHS). It seemed that you lot liked them, a lot. This is why I kept writing them. Throughout the week, I’d be sitting at my desk or asking myself for ideas, trying to get inspiration for the next WHS. I felt like a priest trying to tie something in the news to his next sermon. Then, I did something bad. I jumped the shark. Last week, I created a game for the week WHS, where we played “Fantasy Car Maker” whereby you had to create your own car company by buying car brands from around the world and justify why you bought them. It flopped, big time. I bet you don’t even remember seeing it. But that’s what happens when you believe your own bullsh*t! Well, for this week, I’m going back to basics and keeping it simple.
For this week’s WHS, I’m taking inspiration from a previous WHS. Namely, the “most complete car” question (back when it was known as “Question of the Day”). In that article, I asked that taking into account fuel economy, driving dynamics, price, reliability, quality, practicality, dealership service and repair cost; which car does it all the best? Well for the week, the question is very simple:
Taking into account the same criteria (fuel economy, driving dynamics, price, reliability, quality, practicality, dealership service and repair cost) which car was the worst at all of them?
In short, what is the most incomplete car you can think of? Right, off you go…
Simple, Maybach. Maybachs have hopeless fuel economy, not a good handling car, questionable build quality and reliability, overpriced and do you still have to ask about the repair cost? Okay, the dealership service might be good im not sure but practicality? I don’t think so.
I’m torn between Dodge and Chevrolet. Caliber with a CVT or Aveo in any trim? Although perhaps the G3 was a more apropos example given that G3s were priced higher than Aveos. Although I’ve been hearing that the local Toyota dealer is getting a little more surly in his service. Perhaps that puts the Yaris near the top of the list. At least the previous one’s I mentioned are cheap to buy. (Dodge 27mpg highway/Chevy 34mpg highway/G3 34mpg highway/Yaris 35mpg highway.)
For comparisons sake a current gen Impala gets 29mpg highway with the 3.5V6, a Malibu gets similar mpg and should be a hell of a lot more pleasant to drive day to day. That’s why I’m not impressed with the fuel economy of those little tin boxes.
I drove a Yaris rental last year from Abuquerque to Durango and Ouray. Talk about the wrong car for the job – a complete penalty box. I won’t go into details.
If I had to do it again, I’d gladly sacrifice the 6 mpg on a Malibu or Fusion for the extra comfort, safety and oomph when you need it.
Suffering the misfortune of having driven both for a long distance and also being a fan of neither, I can still say that the Yaris could use the G3 for toilet paper.
+1 on a loaded Aveo.
Also:
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Toyota FJ Cruiser
These Toyotas make the list primarily because of how outrageously overpriced they are, not only in base MSRP but mainly for the option ‘packages’, for what you get in return in comparison to the rest of the market.
Many other, current examples of ‘pigs’ seem to be even worse versions of already mediocre vehicles, such as:
Dodge Nitro (worse version of Jeep Liberty)
Jeep Compass (worse version of Jeep Patriot/Dodge Caliber)
Ford Explorer Sport Trak (worse version of Ford Explorer)
Of all time:
Plymouth Prowler. As someone else pointed out, the Prowler was outstandingly bad in that its outré, fifties’ hotrod, exotic appearance did not justify any of the extreme compromises you had to live with (poor ergonomics, limited range, poor performance, expensive insurance due to expensive aluminum body, etc). It is the best example of a design that didn’t deliver what it promised in spades.
Although if it weren’t for the Prowler’s exhorbitant price, I must say the following are all serious contenders for ‘total’ pig:
Mustang II Cobra II 2.3L
DEW98 Thunderbird
DeLorean DMC-12
Chevrolet HHR
I have to disagree on the HHR. I’ve driven a relative’s a few times, and it’s a good little package, practical space, a decent 4-banger that’ll cruise I-10 10 mph above the post 80 mph (in TX) all day and get nearly 30 mpg doing it.
The SSR should be on the list, though.
Ah, sorry, I meant SSR (and not HHR). Maybe if GM hadn’t monkeyed around with the alphabet soup naming system for those two vehicles (and given them real names), consumers would have had a clearer idea of which vehicle was which (and they’d have sold more).
At least that’s my excuse.
Dan, the fuel economy differences between small and large cars show up in city driving rather than highway.
The Aveo or Yaris will approach 30 mpg even in 300 miles looping around on Manhattan island, while the V6 Malibu or Impala might not break 15 mpg. The reality of most American driving is that, despite our mythology of wide open spaces, for most people, it is closer to Manhattan island than wide-open Texas or New Mexico.
As far as service goes, Toyota dealers have always been miserable. Something I learned firsthand when I was treated better by a Volvo dealer after buying a used car with a short time of warranty left from a private owner than I ever had by the Toyota dealers I bought two new cars from.
Patrickj, I do live in the wide open spaces of NM. Very few of us can afford to just have a “city” car. I actually do alright because of my driving habits, I don’t “jackrabbit” away from traffic lights ect. If I was going to fly into a major city and rent a car, the compacts and subcompacts would be an easy choice. But here in the real world, a mid to full size makes much more sense. Actually interior wise the smallest one that makes sense is a G6 or an Aura.
@Dan
Given the population of large passenger vehicles with bad drivers in rural, suburban and urban areas, I don’t think that subcompacts make sense in the U.S. beyond a few moderate-speed urban enclaves (SF Bay area, a few college towns).
Compacts have good urban mileage and adequate size without cost getting out of hand.
I’m thinking compromises, something in the neither/nor category. Every car is a compromise on some plane, but succesful cars seek the optimal equilibrium between the far ends of the spectrum. A succesful solution may be plain jane, but at least it performs its task satisfactory all over the board.
The most incomplete car may then logically be something that is neither suited for its intended use, nor perform that task satisfactory in any case, by a number of other factors.
SUV:s may be gas guzzlers, but at least they are practical, and some of them performs their tasks very well in the outbacks, though perhaps their suburban use is rather compromised.
But think of a CUV that is neither good for use on the trail, nor is good for use in the city. And on top of that is small, cramped, unpractical, frail, unreliable, and of poor quality. Do we have any contenders in that category?
I’d say all compact to mid-size CUVs. At least the full-size CUVs have become glorified minivan’s with available AWD (The GM Lambdas being the most obvious example of this) and minivans are extremely practical.
A unibody, FWD CUV is essentially a car with a station wagon body. Ground clearance is usually under 8″. With one or two exceptions such as the 2000’ish Suzuki Vitara – they are not trail rated.
Check your local Craigslist – you’ll see a few CR-Vs or RAV 4s with over 200,000 miles on them.
My future MIL owns one of the last Pontiac Torrents produced. (She’s a huge Pontiac fan, it replaced the G6 V6 she owned.) It’s a FWD model and I told her quite honestly that I consider it to be a “station wagon in hooker heels.” I’m glad she has a good sense of humor. She did not get the AWD model because she was concerned about fuel economy. I told her if fuel economy was a concern than a CUV was her worst choice. The woman once owned a V6 Celebrity wagon, it may have been a bit of a POS but at least the space inside was practical.
If you need a new vehicle larger than a compact with a rear hatch, as opposed to a trunk, in the U.S. market, your choices are minivan, CUV, traditional SUV, or $50,000 unreliable Eurowagon.
While I’d rather have a station wagon, I’m stuck with a CUV and its bread truck aerodynamics–a consequence of CAFE regulations.
Plenty of good sedan choices, but then I’m in the market for a used cargo hauler to keep next to it.
The Jeep Compass.
It’s slow, doesn’t get good gas mileage for how slow it is, has possibly the worst CVT available, can’t go off-road, can’t tow for sh*t, doesn’t look like a Jeep, tarnishes a legendary brand, is an obvious soft-roader no-effort cash-grab, quite often goes over $20K, and the recent interior upgrades gave minimal improvement over the original plastic trashcan materials.
There is one car that checks the boxes on every single criteria you listed, the Plymouth Prowler:
Price: It had a starting price of 38,000 back in 1997.
Practicality: The prowler was so impractical that they sold a $5,000 Prowler trailer option so you could actually fit stuff in your car.
Performance: Remember that up until 1999 the Prowler was only available with the miserable 3.5L V6 producing just 215 HP. They eventually replaced it with a V8 but for our purposes the 3.5L V6 is the engine of choice! Top speed of the 3.5L: 112 MPH!
MPG: 15 City / 21 Highway on premium!
For reliability and Quality I’ll simply link to consumer reports: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1997-to-2002-plymouth-prowler-2.htm
As for dealership service, my family owned a dodge spirit beater car and used the dealership frequently… however, the dealership was excellent. I think that dealership quality really differs widely though.
Did the Prowler ever actually offer a V8?
I know there were a few concepts/one-off customs using the 4.7L, but I think the production Prowler kept the 3.5L as its only engine for the entire model run.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Prowler yup, the V6 was the only factory choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_SSR at least the SSR was eventually available with a 6.0 and a six speed manual.
Ah you’re right. I was thinking of the concept car.
Don’t forget that the Prowler also made a lot of people mad at Chrysler–deservedly or not–for encroaching on the traditional market of independent mom-and-pop hotrod shops.
Any pickup. Dumbest and most awkward things ever put on the road. Hard to load and unload, items fall out or bounce out or blow out so pickup owners almost always drive around with empty boxes. If they have heavy duty springs to carry heavy loads then they have to slow to 7 mph to go over speed bumps. If they have light springs then they can’t carry anything safely. Have to have trailers in order to be useful.
Gas mileage is generally terrible. Aerodynamics – what’s that? Several reviewers have told owners to put up their tailgates to improve their mileage but owners still remove tailgates or install plastic tailgates with large holes thinking they will get better mileage.
Owners with diesel motors in their pickups love to sit around idleing thinking they are impressing bystanders with their potential power – meanwhile those who have to listen to the poor quality diesel motors think the fool bought a truck assembled with a shovel.
I think this summary of pickups is missing out on the inherent practicality (that I’ll admit most pickup drivers never utilize nor need to utilize) and on the fact that they are frequently very comfortable.
However, the ‘modern’ pickup is simply 3 sizes too big.
However, the ‘modern’ pickup is simply 3 sizes too big.
As the owner of an F150 I concur. Why didn’t I buy a Ranger? I could only afford used and all the Ranger’s were well over 100,000 miles and had been used as God intended, which means they had been beat within an inch of their lives.
Any pickup. Dumbest and most awkward things ever put on the road.
Trying to explain America’s love affair with the pickup would take up to much space here. Would probably be easier explaining freedom to the Taliban.. although they seem to have a certain fondness for them… And last time I checked, full size V8 trucks give you the same MPG as mid size V6 SUVs.. despite aerodynamics and extra weight. Oh and um, Don’t hate us for our freedom.. hate us for our Hanna Montana.
BS6
Landwind
Nano
Anything offered by ZAP.
I’m surprised the Cadillac Allanté and Chryserati haven’t reared their head as past pigs (though an Allanté still holds an odd appeal to me, I don’t know why). Hummer should probably take the crown as past Pig of Pigs. It’s the automotive equivalent of a dunce cap.
Currently, it’s hard to argue against the Maybach’s place on the list.
Automotive dunce cap! Bravo, had me LOL.
Pray tell, what is the automotive eq. of an Ass Hat?
The late, unlamented Hummer H2 and H3. These were just stupid. The H1 was at least unique. the others were just Chevy trucks for blowhards.
<chuckle>
H1 = I’m compensating.
H2 = I want to compensate so I bought the scaled-down poseur-mobile of the compensate-mobile.
H3 = I really want to compensate but I couldn’t afford the poseur-mobile.
Huh? Those HUMMERs are solid trail trucks. I’d have no qualms getting a H2 for trail duty – all I think I’d really need to add would be a spotter and a couple of heavy-duty winches fore & aft.
The H2 itself is a sound vehicle, being driven more for show than go. Very similar to a Porsche or F-150 in pretty much all cases. How many Porsches see competition track time? How many F-150s haul more than 1000 lbs on a daily basis? Right.
The big difference? Those suburban moms probably get decent use out of the sheer interior volume of the H2s.
I should clarify- I don’t dislike the H1/2/3, quite the contrary. I improve my own highway mileage by drafting off of them! :)
Interior space? I’ve been in minivans with better interior space.
I have to concur with Consumer Reports: Range Rover.
Expensive, thirsty trucks with cramped interiors and abysmal reliability and maintenance costs.
It’s like a Hummer, but with more snob appeal, less modernity and room. Atrocious.
The Prowler was never meant to be practical, sporty or efficient. It’s exactly what it looks like, a one off show car that made it into — handmade — production with every foible that that entails. If you were expecting something else, more fool you.
My pig is the generation previous to the retro look Mustang, particularly the 4 cyl. Classic Ford engineering, if you couldn’t make it precisely, you made it simple, if you couldn’t make it strong, you made it thick and if you couldn’t make it well, you made it cheap. Heavy, slow, bad handling, poor mileage – either gas or longevity, and lard it down with options to disguise how bad the basic package was. This is the type of vehicle that got Ford into the mess that it was and created the renaissance under Mulally.
Why yes, I had one, how’d you guess?
I remember there was quite a bit of controversy when this car was featured as a Deadly Sin Curbside Classic, but here’s my pick: The 1980s Chrysler Fifth Avenue. Let’s go over the criteria. Fuel Economy: Terrible; you’d be lucky if you managed 20 mpg, and the 318 with its 2 barrel carburetor wasn’t exactly quick, either. Driving dynamics: Like a boat, even by 1980s American luxury car standards. Price: Nearly $20,000 in the 80s was a chunk of change, especially compared to the price of the Diplomat and Gran Fury. Reliability: It’s essentially an Aspen/Volare, one of the least reliable cars of all time. Plus, everyone knows that 70s-tech Chrysler products don’t start in the rain. Quality: It was only a matter of time before all of those “luxury” items failed and/or fell off the car. Practicality: Very little interior space for a car of this size and class. Dealership service: Most Chrysler/Plymouth dealers weren’t up to the same level as Buick, Cadillac, or Lincoln/Mercury dealers. Repair cost: Okay, this is one area where I don’t think this car was really that bad, what with all the shared parts with police cars.
Back in the 80s, my grandparents had a 1986 Buick Park Avenue, while the old man down the street had a Chrysler Fifth Avenue of a similar vintage. I know many people didn’t like GM’s downsized FWD luxury cars, but I thought the Park Avenue was far superior in every way. Good power and economy with the fuel injected 3.8, decent handling (relatively speaking), roomy, clean and tasteful styling compared to the Chrysler, tidy size, and although it wasn’t exactly trouble-free, the local Buick dealer wasn’t a bad place to spend time. And if you wanted to go the traditional vinyl-roofed RWD V8 route, the Chevy Caprice Brougham or Mercury Grand Marquis were roomier, better in just about every way, and around the same price.
I would argue that Chrysler’s M platform is a good starting point for modifications. (Cop parts, remove lean burn, ect..) But I’m also intelligent enough to say that I have that luxury of buying one and modifying it if I so chose because of how old and cheap they are NOW. As a new car? I can agree with your points.
Somebody mentioned the Jeep Liberty. Having been subjected to one by a rental company I must agree. Cheap interior, not particularly roomy or comfortable once you climb into it, both thirsty and gutless, and a ridiculously high cargo floor.
Honorable mention, vintage edition, 1977 Lincoln Town Car. Could not get the gas mileage into the double digits no matter what. That was when the thing was running; the electronic ignition was possessed. Going around corners was not in the playbook. The only saving grace was the interior, but you can find plenty of nice interiors in Panther-era Town Cars too, and go farther than across town on a tank of gas.
Smart 4two or is it for2? Too expensive (in Canada). There are so many good cars
available for less that are almost as good on gas or better.
I’ll go with a Chrysler Sebring convertible.
Horrible interior, horrible wind noise, poor fit & finish, lousy engine power, lousy fuel economy.
It’s like Chrysler tried to make a bad car, and succeeded.
These are definitely on the short list. They also happen to be quite popular on Florida used-car market parking lots.
I”ll make my call a car a see rotting away in my neighborhood all the time. A Maserati Biturbo Spyder.It was overpriced W/ horrible resale value .Unreliable, impractical, And even finding a dealer to pay for its high cost parts would have been a challenge from day one. And for its exotic price it still looked average @ best.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658531,00.html
Now that Panther Masterbation Week is over, am I allowed to mention the Marquis?
Please don’t. Some of us are still enjoying the afterglow.
VW Phaeton? Ideally the V12 version.
I guess we’ll have to see if Baruth shows up to verify.
Range Rover’s, especially supercharged ‘sporty versions’. Supposedly offroad capable, but abysmal reliability and ultra low profile tires that would deter all but the stupid from really going offroad. Spend most of their lives shuttling Conner and Caitland to private school and off to some frou-frou coffee shop.
Followed closely by the Porsche Cayenne especially the turbo. Does a douchebag attorney need an SUV with over 400hp? Can he navigate properly when jabbering into his cell phone?