In a Question of the Day post earlier this month, Matthew Guy inquired about the manufacturer which had the greatest number of great cars in their company’s history.
Today we’re going to flip it, and talk about all the awful things. Prepare your fingers for the incoming salt.
Reading the request for greatness, my mind went to the segment from Top Gear all those years ago where the trio from Guildford, Oxfordshire, or wherever named Lancia as their winner. Commenter Notapreppie had the same thoughts, though he pointed out that most Lancia models were never available in the North American market. Perhaps the negativity should be honed and distilled for today’s question.
Our basic question is thus: What single auto brand has foisted the greatest number of bad cars on its unsuspecting customers? To this we’ll add in a single provision — only models available from new in the North American market qualify. Don’t offer up some random Lada models as worst contenders today.
I suspect there will be mentions of Malaise, of platform sharing, of head gaskets, and perhaps of faulty electronics. At least those are a place to start.
Prepare your lists — the broken plastic plaque for Worst Models Overall is at stake.
[Images: Ford, General Motors]
Well the Yugo comes to mind immediately, but it’s such a poor car it’s almost a joke that it was ever sold here. Daewoo also fits, especially those early-oughts Nubiras and such.
But let’s get to the heart of it- which of the big 3 is the answer to this question? Even though I come from a Mopar family, I must admit that during and after the Malaise Era they put out some truly awful iron. GM has had bigger flops but less as a percentage than Chrysler, and Ford is just mind-numbingly mediocre on every level. I’ve owned three late-70’s Chrysler M-bodies and they are about as bad as anything ever foisted on the American public.
I had a Yugo for a year or so. It was really a Fiat.
We removed the primitive emission controls (massive air pump and a carb leaned out hard), dumped the eastern bloc tires for Michelins, and changed the suspension bearings to urethane, which made a huge difference as the front sway bar also located the front wheels.
Not as bad as advertised, a small car with some pep. Getting the carb properly tuned made the biggest difference after tires (although that applies to any car…my current Ace of Base Jetta S came with some miserable Bridgestone Eco tires…I had a set of DWS 06 in the garage from another car-massive improvement).
I can’t ding the Yugo, it was sold on price. Worst of the worst has to have some pretention and the makers had to charge “real” money for it.
I nominate any mid 80’s GM with the odd fire 6.
Although I think the first gen fox body Fairmont was pretty bad, despite the worthy spawn of the mustang…..
Dear God, the Fairmont was a terrible car. The steering lacked precision, feel, and feedback. The acceleration was measured in lifetimes. The structure felt delicate.
We forget what an absolute revelation the first good modern sedans were. The first new-look Mercedes-Benz 300 showed that you could lightweight a sedan without sacrificing structural integrity. The Audi 5000 showed that you could also make it stylish and good to drive. And then the Ford Taurus showed that you could do those things at a popular price. The Fat Camry and Pontiac Bonneville soon underscored the point.
Too bad they exorcised the Buick odd-fire 231 V-six back in ’77 and made it even-fire. That left only the half-reformed semi-odd fire Chev 200 and then 229 V6’s for a few years through ’84. Chevy went even-fire for the 4.3l and even added a balance shaft later.
What I’m getting at is – which odd fire V6s was GM producing in the mid ’80s beyond the 229 (which nobody remembers anyway because they were thin on the ground)?
We had an 84. It had that miserable engine. Whoever signed off on it is probably still employed by GM, shaving tenths of a cent off wheel bearings.
Yugo GVX fixed all that. Bosch electronic fuel injection, a little more displacement, 5-speed instead of 4, upgraded wheels & tires, top-level interior, even a body kit. The Suzuki Swift GTi of the Eastern Bloc. IIRC this trim added a couple grand to the price, was only offered at the end, and they sold approximately none. I’d love to have one.
—–
What single auto brand has foisted the greatest number of bad cars on its unsuspecting customers?
—–
Yugo doesn’t even qualify, here.
Mike, I have to disagree with you. I owned a 1987 Chrysler 5th Ave (M Body). While it was improved from the late 70’s, it still was basically a 1970’s car. But it was one of the most bullet proof cars I’ve owned. I has to be in the top five cars. (I’ve owned over 20)
I’m going with FoMoCo:
-Current idiots in management
-The high repair aluminum trucks (if hit, etc)
-Some ugly vehicles (MKT, Edge (modern day Pacer), Taurus/MKS, etc.
-Lack of difference in vehicles (MKZ/Continental, MKC/Escape, etc)
-Lack of a RWD premium/luxury car
-Styling in general is mostly dull
I have to sort of agree with you, Ford had some amazingly ugly designs in the past 40 years or so, but I like, not love, a lot of their cars now. Dull is an improvement compared to some of the past horrors.
My top vehicle was my 82 Blazer. A tiny little piece of trim fell off day one, and a headlight went out about six months later. We had it 4 years and that was it. I replaced it with a Caravan that had endless A/C issues, all covered by warranty. It was replaced with my second best vehicle, an ’88 S-10 Blazer. A few minor issues, and it was basically bulletproof. That little SUV went almost a half million miles on the original 4.3 shortblock. It finally rusted to the point it had to be scrapped in 2010 at 22 years.
Kia may be almost out of this doghouse now, but they probably qualify with the longest string of crapcans from their entry into the NA market until the introduction of the 2005 Optima.
I would agree based of my run ins with several from 1996-2002. My wife had a KIA sportage from brand new that fell apart after it was paid off- not enough room here for the problems we went through (it was her second but she only had the first for 2 years).
If not Kia then I would vote for DAIHATSU – only they didnt last long enough to do serious dmamage.
What was bad about Diahatsu besides them entering a saturated market space with vehicles that had a small dealer network and were slightly overpriced? By all accounts they are very well screwed together vehicles with comparable performance to their contemporaries.
Hyundai entered a saturated market with small dealer network, not overpriced but hardly well screwed together and survived. Later Kia managed to do the same thing. Daihatsu could not pull it off – and from my limited experience from the few people I knew who had them suggests they were not well made cars – two didnt get paid off before they were junked, and not from being wrecked.I cant agree with the ‘by all accounts’ statement, but YMMV.
“…not overpriced …and survived. Later Kia managed to do the same thing. ”
Yeah that’s kind of the whole point. The Koreans were dirt cheap so people forgave the early cars’ foibles (they weren’t THAT horrible either). The Diahatsus didn’t really have any particularly appealing attributes to set them apart from the crowded Japanese compact car and utilitarian SUV space.
I’ll be honest I have no direct or even anecdotal stories of friends’ cars or anything, I had just read period reviews where testers commented that quality of materials and attention to details was up to Toyota standards of the day.
I submit as WOTW American Motors AKA the Romney Rubes corporation from Kenosha Cheese State.
The Gremlin whose design staff ran out of budget dough behind the rear axle. Imagine for me if you will a hatchback with no hatch, just a flimsy window that few objects could be inserted through. And let us not forget the Pacer which was inspired by too many Mai Tais in a Chinese restaurant with the patron car designer staring out the oversized fish bowl aquaria. Thirdly, the tennager’s sire who brought home a 74 four door Ambassador, the most uninspired vanilla car that spawned a generation of teens who asked to be dropped off two blocks from high school.. Ambassador’s in foggy bottom terms always try to make nice with the third world hell hole dictators who rule over the Ambassador’s posted country. This Wishiie washie spineless attitude carried forth in the design of the so named AMC sedan. To be les than fair, I know there were exceptions: Penske’s Javelin and Matador piloted by Mark Donahue. Let us not forget that a Matador only works with near misses in the bull ring. I loathed AMC.
AMC definitely came to mind, however, just a little counterpoint, The Javelin and the AMX seemed to be decent efforts.
Ahhhh, fondly remember Ramblers. Made from spare parts from the other mfrs, and you had to be careful buying parts.
Ended up bought by Chrysler as “Eagle”. What ever happened to them?
Awwww, who else made so many cars that looked like pastry? Lois Lane loved hers. Who else was brave enough to have the “wheels don’t line up with the fender openings” style? Who was the last American car maker to sell a new car with a flathead engine?
The question is: “What single auto brand has foisted the greatest number of bad cars on its unsuspecting customers?”
AMC doesn’t come close to qualifying. You’re reasoning is about about your tastes… and therefore nothing about a hidden poor quality. No one bought a Gremlin or Pacer without seeing one. I suspect most took test drives. These vehicles appealed to those who purchased them and generally were as good mechanically as anything else on the road, in part due to their lack of money to offer the latest and greatest failure prone tech.
They didn’t didn’t just use other folks leftover parts either. In many ways they were significantly ahead of their time in buying accessories and stuff like that from other companies. Aside from some early Packard V8s in the mid 50s and some GM 2.5 and 2.8 motors in the Jeeps and a few Eagles, the motors where AMC. The bodies too. Who doesn’t use someone elses starter, transmission, alternator, electronics in today’s market?
No, AMC doesn’t come close to qualifying.
“The greatest number of bad cars” How could this be anyone other than Dodge?
They’ve been consistently worse-made than Ford or GM for generations.
Remember the Aires? The 70’s Monaco? The Nitro?
I guess the issue, is did they make bad cars, or just ones that you don’t like? Probably yes to both. The aires was the back bone of the Caravan. Hard to say that was a ‘miss’.
The K car was a critical moment and probably saved the entire US auto industry. But 81 was a rough time for America and having to go from an LTD to a Reliant would have felt like a kick in the nuts.
Does the Aries stack up that poorly against something like a Citation or Tempo though? They weren’t inspiriting cars, but they were reasonably sized, and about as reliable as you could expect for a domestic FWD car in the 80s.
Plus, for someone coming out of a Volare, they would’ve been a massive improvement.
The real K-car revolution was in manufacturing, not the product. By using a single chassis Chrysler (never overburdened with talented engineers or motivated factory workers) cut development and retooling costs across the board.
No question, the K-car was inferior to those three cars you named in every way but price. The tempo had the benefit of styling and 3 years to react, and the Citation had the benefit of the god-damned iron duke. The Volare tended not to die either. The first year K-cars had eight NHTSA-mandated recalls by 1984.
You can’t use recalls as a measure of suckiness – look at Toyota as a great example of why not.
Not sure you can say a Citation was better than a K car. The Citation went from over 800,000 supply constrained deliveries in the first year, half that in the second year, and dead by year five. All without an internet to spread the bad news. The K soldiered on for almost a decade, not counting the various spinoffs. The trans in the K cars was bulletproof, and once the cars went FI they ran well.
@slamonmigration: “By using a single chassis Chrysler (never overburdened with talented engineers or motivated factory workers) cut development and retooling costs across the board.”
— This is a clear indicator of a highly biased individual; the Chrysler Corporation was well noted for being cutting edge technologies for years, right up to the Daimler merger where Chrysler’s award-winning electronics division was sold to Siemens, supposedly as a cost-cutting effort (we saw where that took Chrysler.)
True, Chrysler had a reputation for unreliability with new-technology cars but this was due to the technology being released to the public before being thoroughly tested in most cases. Quite literally, their cars averaged about 3-5 years ahead of the competition in so many ways but other technologies got dropped because they didn’t prove reliable enough (such as the old push-button shifter for automatics, among other things.) Yet Chrysler is noted for engines like the Slant-6 and the Hemi.
So Chrysler absolutely had talented engineers AND motivated factory workers but these also tended to raise costs. The K-car was a direct result of one man’s effort to save the company from bankruptcy, which he did, while still creating a ‘standard’ that has been adopted across the entire automotive spectrum. Yes, the K-car did look cheap and in many ways it was cheap; but it allowed the Chrysler Corporation to build almost its entire lineup on one platform that only needed minor stretching or trimming to fit their largest and smallest cars; something most brands are doing to a large extent even today.
Sergio Marccione was right; the only way to reduce costs farther would be to share these platforms across brands, something the other OEMs are acknowledging and adopting, even if not with FCA itself.
Chrysler
So much crap from that one little “K” Car
For sheer number, it’s of course GM just like for the other question. But that’s boring and a bit unfair because they had some great cars too.
For a relatively large automaker that’s been around awhile, I’d say Mitsubishi has had the highest percentage of bad cars. I can’t name more than a handful that were ever really class competitive or better. This century, it’s probably only the Evo, and even that was pretty much left to wither on the vine for the last several years of production.
This is a tough one. The obvious answer is a domestic right? Sure they made some turds, but damn if some of those turds aren’t still on the road today used a daily.
I respectfully submit Land Rover. While there are offerings are available to the well heeled a goodly percentage of them have been bad. The Freelander, was the pinnacle of crap when one considers what they sold for new, 60k was all the engine was good for. Unsuspecting folks bought it thinking they scored a ‘cute ute’ with some panache only quickly to find that a Kia Sportage of the same year and 1/3 the cost would have some resale value vs the zero the Freelander had on trade.
Numerous other LR come to mind. I can’t think of another brand that sells for such a premium new and 7 years later are complete lot poison.
Good call, but anything English produced a lot of crap or anything that contained Lucas electronics
If we go by percentage of vehicles marketed/sold in the North American market that were ‘dogs’ then it has to be VW.
20+ years of rear engined, air cooled Beetles. Or Type II microbuses that were lethal for their occupants.
The Type III came too late. The Type IV started VW’s trend to endemic electronic issues.
The 1st generation(s) of front engined, water cooled vehicles included the Dasher which rusted worse than any Japanese import. Or the ‘Fox’. And a new trend to self-destructing exhaust systems and excessive oil consumption.
Mexican manufacturing led to a new reputation for spotty build quality, while maintaining VW’s traditional expensive parts and service.
Then we can move on to the woefully underpowered Transporter or the fun to maintain Phaeton.
The long term costs and headaches associated with VW ownership are proof positive that something that looks really good on the drawing board, can be sabotaged by over complication, ego and poor assembly.
I’ve owned 4 water-cooled VW’s and an Audi, and I’ve never felt they were as unreliable as many people seem to think. My last one, an ’07 Rabbit, was sold at 185k with no major repairs and no tow truck encounters. It was still on it’s original clutch and water pump!
@Mike and somewhere we can find someone who has had minimal problems with their Jaguar or Land Rover. As we say ‘anecdote is not evidence’.
Proper maintenance and responsible driving can help to mitigate problems with nearly every vehicle. However your personal experience, doesn’t refute the points mentioned regarding VW’s history of problematic vehicles.
Or of ‘pilfering’ automotive designs. The Beetle being based on a Tatra/Ganz design and the Rabbit/Golf being no more than an update on the original Mini/Issigonis design.
Forgot to add that I have owned/operated multiple VW products, including Beetles, and a Type III and a Type IV.
And would still like to get a well preserved Karmann Ghia, if the price was right.
Often VW owners are like Saab, Subaru or English marque owners, ‘blindly’ united in their devotion. Perhaps due to the ‘quirks’ associated with their vehicles?
I’ve owned water-cooled VW’s since my 1980 Scirocco and loved them all. In addition I had n 86 GTI, 88 GTI 16V, 90 Corrado, 93 Fox (a winter car that was ten years old when I bought it) Were they as reliable as my Honda Element or Acura Integra….probably not. But none left me stranded or were excessively expensive to repair or maintain. The difference is I had no passion with the Hona/Acura….good transportation. I’ve loved all my Volswagens. Currently along with my BMW Z4 coupe I own an 81 Scirocco S and a 2018 Golf Alltrack…
Was a Type 2 more lethal for occupants than the forward control Econoline or A100 or Chevy Van, though?
The problem with all of those was “no front buffer zone at all”, not that VW was somehow worse than any of the competition using the same design.
Greatest number meaning units sold? That one is easy then if so- GM all the way. Planned obsolescence from hell. Engines, transmissions, exhausts, electric problems all by 80-90K. Nevermind the rust issues. I’ve owned many of these abominations so I can speak to this.
I find it amusing Corey is doing a BDB on C-body GMs.. the pinnacle of junkdom.
Just an upvote for your post. You put it correctly and succinctly.
Ford. Hands down. They’re still doing it today.
I would say Acura version of the Isuzu Trooper as the Honda Passport had known issues also while Isuzu bones.
Or the 1980’s Camry turn Lexus ES 250?
“Or the 1980’s Camry turn Lexus ES 250”
What was bad about that? Probably not the most rust-resistant cars around, but they had the excellent 2.5L 2VZFE V6, and were impeccably assembled. You could do a heck of a lot worse in the late 80s than an ES250.
When you’re a GM shill and the talk is about bad cars, the only defense is offense. Only Ford is in the same class. Alternatively, perhaps someone who professes a passion for Daewoo-Buicks hasn’t the foggiest notion what constitutes a good or a bad car.
Neon. Fun to drive, great mileage … poorly built and badly engineered, lasted 70K miles.
Mitsubishi’s marriage of equals: Dodge Colt, the dissolving car of the 70’s that you couldn’t get parts for.
1972 Datsun 1200 with automatic trans. Came with marriage. Lasted ten years with much rebuilding and refurbishing. Marriage still going strong. I still remind her that for an extra $1000 she could have gotten a 240Z; then again that would have dissolved too.
I would say – GM. Come on – they had more models/brands to stick it to you. But yea, if you take each Pontiac separately – FORD
True on all counts. All of which made it the best rental car ever. If you were single.
The Neon was pretty cool, coming to the party with 132 horses when competitors had 85. And it was cute as could be. And had a long wheelbase for rear passenger room. It was also engineered for absolutely minimal assembly time—so for example while my first-gen Jetta had probably a dozen bolts on the front fender, the Neon had three—which was a pretty big risk given the quality of Chrysler pars and assembly. Still would take an SRT-4 all day!
Triumph. I love the TR-6 but I don’t know if I could own an all original and that is one of the reliable ones.
They are great cars if and when they are working.
GAK!! I had mercifully forgotten about the TR-7. Thanks
Buick, any v-6 or v-8 with the oil pump in the front timing housing. Rod knocking, broken crankshaft, no oil pressure, and they persisted with this from 1961 to the early 80’s. What I can’t understand is why we still have Buick today when Oldsmobile and Pontiac had great engines.
Duaney,
You left out the seals on plastic water pump plenum issue (on the V6’s) that seemed to last 10 years. It plagued my 87 and 00 Pontiacs It caused my buddy to ditch his LeSabre.
The reason we have Buicks – because the Chinese loved the Buick cache. The Feds gave GM the choice. Axe Pontiac or Buick. GM looked to China for the answer.
Pontiac was slowly, very slowly, pulling itself out of malaise. I can’t imagine I’d ever buy another Pontiac but I’m even less likely to buy a Buick. I agree that it was an unfortunate decision.
“Pontiac was slowly, very slowly, pulling itself out of malaise.”
I disagree. The last “real” Pontiac that the brand could take some pride in was the ’79 Firebird/Trans Am and that was just a nostalgic anachronism. Everything worthwhile after that was due to another GM division. Its two attempts at a modern sports car were half-baked and poorly received. Pontiac became a rudderless punchline and it’s fine that it’s gone.
Amen. The G6? The G5/Pursuit? The G3? A Holden badged as a GTO?
Prior to those: Montana, Sunfire, Torrent.
And older: Sunbird, 6000, Aztek, Grand Am, Corporate Dustbuster van, Phoenix,T 1000, Korean Lemans ?
And during all that time the exceptions: Fiero and Solstice.
Hard to make a case for “pulling itself out of malaise”.
Weren’t the last two engines Pontiac designed on it’s own the Iron Duke and 301 V8 which debuted in 1977 ?
I think Pontiac might be a legacy of pant load winner or runner up.
Pontiac and Oldsmobile get remembered with way too thick of rose-colored glasses on TTAC.
The G8 was a pretty damn good indicator of improving design if you ask me…
By 1980 there really weren’t divisional engines, but if you were to argue there wew, I would say the 3.8/3800 would be listed as one of the better GM engines….disregard the ones with a plastic manifold…By the 80’s Pontiac’s claim to fame was the Iron Duke, their V-6’s were Buicks and V-8 were Chevys
And their Quad 4 designed by Oldsmobile.
Mike Beranek: +1
Limiting it to say the past ~30 years (I think it is slightly unfair to judge based on the company’s entire history, when some companies have been around since the early 20th century while others really only broke into the North American market in the 70s or 80s) I would say Cadillac.
Look at all the crap they put out since the 80s, and contrast that with all the amazing potential Cadillac designers have shown in their concepts. With say Hyundai or Kia when they were putting out crap at least you can say they were trying, and new to the North American market. Cadillac had a strong market position and is obviously capable of more, but corporate incompetence (both Cadillac and GM) has held them back.
Daimler era Chrysler. Caliber/Compass etc.
Still driving ’08 Caliber, ten years. Love the CVT, reliability is perfect, no rust. Find a better car & I’ll try to convince my wife to buy it.
“Find a better car”
Literally anything else. Okay, maybe not a Mirage or a Trax.
Just to make it more difficult, the better car has to be cheap in the 2 year used market, popular so there’s parts available, dealer must not totally suck, and we value reliability and maintainability more than style, interior and tech options.
So, that’s why I bought a Caliber ten years ago.
Well, I suppose there’s two ways of looking at this: by the percentage of bad cars a company produced, or by the volume thereof.
In the first case: Yugo wins by a mile. After all, exactly 100% of its’ products were pure s**t.
In the second case: GM wins based on the Vega and X-cars alone. Everything else just puts it into the bonus round.
Ford, from all the Falcon-based cars that lasted until 1980 (Comet, Mustang/Cougar, Maverick, Granada), none of which really drove very well, and the rusty Fords of the early/mid ’70s, to the ’80s Fox-body takeoffs like the T-Bird shown above, to the Tempo/Topaz, its successor the Contour/Mystique, the Bronco II and Ranger pickup, and even today with the Focus and its terrible automatic transmission they never bothered to get right. Ford may be “cheap and cheerful” incarnate but any of their vehicles feels like a crapshoot.
My V6 manual Mystique was a good cut rate BMW, until 120k, at which point it reached design life and everything showed a lot of wear/fell apart. While fresh, though it was nice.
Since we’re limited to US-market cars, I have to say Ford. But really the crown would go to British Leyland (and all its alternate names).
British Leyland didn’t have the stamina that Ford and GM have demonstrated. Even if you separate US GM that died a decade ago from Ganzou Motors of today, GM still kept making awful cars much longer than British Leyland.
Morris Marina : exploding propeller shafts.
Austin Allegro : a nasty habit of losing wheels.
Rover SD1 : Total electrical failure on the motorway. At night.
Triumph 2500 mechanical injection : engine fires.
Jaguar 1968-87 : It started ! Bring out the champagne !
Austin 1800 : savage oversteer.
Morris Mini : Sump plate ripped out going over speed humps.
Mini/1100/1800 : engines dies in the rain, or going over puddles.
Ribbon cables anyone ?
A few more:
Austin 3-Liter – too ugly to sell.
Austin Maxi – underdeveloped and had a horrible shifter.
Triumph Stag – early and devastating engine failures.
Triumph TR-7: sad testament to British labor. The Japanese were laughing.
Rover/Sterling 800 – a debacle in the US. BL managed to screw up building a Honda.
Austin Metro/Rover 100 – a deathtrap in crash tests.
The Rover 800 – supposed to be Japanese reliability with British style, but ended up with Japanese style and British reliability.
My Triumph Spitfire is quite reliable – but it was taken completely apart and put back together better than the factory EVER managed.
But I still vote for GM as the big winner in this contest, by a landslide of crap.
GM will make awful cars longer than most people make cars?
You have a point, but we’re still talking about 38 years from the time BL was founded to the end in 2005 – probably even longer if you include the problematic cars introduced before 1967. In that time, every non-Honda based car BMC/BL introduced was a sales flop or had serious issues – or both. Potentially great designs like the XJ6/12 and Rover SD1 were sabotaged by poor reliability and substandard build quality. Even some of the Honda-based cars like the Rover/Sterling 800 were badly flawed.
Even Ford and GM couldn’t match this long parade of failure.
One four-letter word starting with the letter ‘F’ is my only reply. I have NEVER had a good car from that brand.
Well, that’s one of two brands.
I haven’t tried the other F word, due to their reputation, but Dearborn has been good to me. Your mileage may vary (literally).
Lol the ultimate irony is that you’re the biggest Fiat/FCA defender around these parts.
youtu.be/3AJCdmW33fM
Fiat has been making plenty of low quality cars for my entire life, and Jeeps have never been built to last. Chrysler made fantastic cars until 1957. By 1959 they pretty much had their act together again which they maintained for much of the next decade. Then they had a few years of good engineering combined with abysmal quality until they eventually didn’t have the money for either. Ford had been building junk for large chunks of its history long before Chrysler ever had two consecutive model years of problem products.
Just as it’s pretty easy to say that GM had the greatest number of home runs just based on the sheer number (not percentage aka batting average) it is equally easy to say GM had the greatest number of strikeouts just based on the sheer number (not percentage aka batting average) of duds.
For example, I could easily say that smart4two had the biggest number of duds in North America batting a perfect 100% of WTF were they thinking. But smart4two has given us exactly two models to go WTF (three if you count the convertible) and all of them awful. But that just doesn’t seem fair.
I can’t point to Japanese domination because it’s very easy to point at Mitsubishi – or Nissan for the better part of two-decades for a long run of lousy batting.
I can’t point to Europe either as Fiat becomes an easy target for duds, but again in a very limited product line up.
So just as my vote for GM for having the most hits, I’ll say GM had the most failures. But when you have a history that goes back more than a century and over a dozen marques in that history, along with a period of once having over 65% total marketshare in the United States – it’s really easy to say both.
Well put, GM really is the answer but it doesnt do much for debate, unless if we need to hear the Vega was junk another time.
For Japanese domination I can add Mazda and Subaru to your list. Both have a long history of rust, flakey transmissions. Subarus headgasket issues, oil burning, rod throwing…yet they’re not as irrationally hated as GM.
Subaru people in paticular don’t mind an annual engine swap, while something as simple as a cheap sun visor will condemn a reliable Pontiac Lesabre.
Only Yuri Bezmenov can adequately explain people’s loyalty to Subaru. If I ran a car company, would I rather have excellent products or excellent marketing? Today, I wouldn’t want to invest in anyone’s company who talked about product.
My cousin and his wife drive Subarus, and I don’t understand the love they have for them at all. He’s had a lot of problems with both of his, mostly powertrain related( $$$$), and his wife’s had electrical issues with her first one and the new one is currently in the shop for engine issues. They insist they are “fantastic” and will be giving his to their daughter and buy another one. I don’t get it. Boring cars with a lot of issues? Sounds like another friend’s irrational love of Ford. Dud after dud, even F150’s, and he keeps coming back. He bought his first one in ’68, and is trying to resist buying a new Bullitt Mustang. If I had 25% of the problems with my Chrysler stuff he’s had with Ford, I would be long gone.
There was a time when I assumed Subaru proponents didn’t acknowledge the gravity of their problems because they had traded in pre-GM SAABs or Peugeots, so any car that started practically every time was a revelation. Now though, Subaru popularity just seems to track with a tendency to believe lies over first-hand experience.
Subarus are tough, reasonably affordable, sensibly sized cars with all wheel drive and okay MPG. Until the current crop of compact CUVs came along, nothing else really checked all those boxes. People loved ’em because there was no alternative.
Now there’s more competition, but Subaru’s products are improving to keep pace.
And they do seem to sincerely try to be a good corporate citizen, which is refreshing given VW/Audi cheating on emissions, Hyundai/Kia cheating on warranty/recall, etc. I give them credit for running an environmentally responsible factory employing Americans building cars to Japanese quality standards.
I’ve never found any Subaru even remotely compelling to drive—vague steering, tepid acceleration, stiff ride—but a) I don’t live in the Snowbelt, and b) I’ve never driven a WRX.
Subarus are tough? OK. The original ones from 50 years ago (I feel this is fair game as everyone reminding us about Corvairs and Vegas) were the first cars not recommended to buy by Consumer Reports, they were that bad.
I love the line about the good corporate citizen stuff. Admittedly the VW scandal is bad but Honda was known for it’s overrated engines and odometers that track correctly, Toyota has a whole litany of issues, too. But Subaru is keeping up, with head gasket and other mechanical issues that continue to plague the brand.
Having worked for Tier 1 & 2 suppliers, Subaru isn’t the only one practicing zero waste practices. Far from it. The company I work for makes returnable packaging for parts suppliers and assembly plants. I can only say that all of the mfrs in the US are working on becoming way more green than Subaru’s *one* assembly plant. You know, the one that makes Toyotas…
There’s more to this, but I have stuff to do today. But, keep hitting the Subaru bong and remember to exhale..
Almost every car sold in the US in the late ’70s-very early 80s was a crapcan. This was a period of emission-choked American V8s with 130 HP from 5 liters, and European cars with even worse emission controls coupled with early attempts at fuel injection. (Bosch D-jet, anyone?) These combos made for some truly horrible reliability. The bright spot was Japanese cars, which were at least reasonably reliable and well-made. By the mid-80s, most American cars had good fuel injection, V8s were powerful again, and Euro cars also had more-refined engine management (Motronic) that was reliable and worked well.
NOOOOOO!!!! Bosch D-jet never existed!!! NEVER!!!! NEVER!!!!! It was all a horrible dream!!!!!!!
By the mid ’80s most American cars had fuel injection? In what alternative universe? By the early 90s is more like it. I had zero trouble walking ’80s Mustangs and Camaros with my 1990 Eagle Talon. Wasn’t until two years later that it was being outclassed by newly injected V8 iron.
Walking maybe from a dead stop (awd). I had an injected ‘88 5.0 GT that had no problem dealing with diamond star cars. BTW, the 5.0 HO became injected in ‘86, so yea mid Eighties.
Who’s that chick in the Thunderbird picture? She looks sooooooo familiar.
Looks like Cheryl Ladd, but not sure.
Cheryl Ladd, yes says Google search/Autoweek article which says it was in a 1977 Thunderbird advert.
I don’t think it’s Cheryl Ladd, plus, that’s not a ’77 T-Bird, but a Fox-body 1980 model. The 1977 ad was a TV commercial.
Can’t be a 1977 Thunderbird (the side glass is distinctive)—has to be at least the eighth-generation 1980, again downsized. Referencing myself:
https://eightiescars.com/2017/11/26/1980-ford-thunderbird/
80-82 Fox body Thunderbird (Before they got swoopy in 83). Incidentally, yet another malaisemobile Ford that is but a single 347 Stroker away from greatness
Yeah, that was the missing piece on those cars. I didn’t like the looks of them at all, like my opinion of most of Ford’s styling in my lifetime, but it was better than some of the horror stories coming out of Ford about the same time. A friend of mine’s father in law had an ’80 T-Bird and then had one of the first Turbo Coupes I ever saw. About the time the turbo began to eat itself, he got a Mustang GT which ended up scary quick after a couple of engine transplants. His son “borrowed” it and fell asleep. Not even the engine came out of that wreck. The kid was OK, and soon was groveling and whining to dad, as he was prone to do about everything.
A poorly worded question, because so many dimensions of bad are possible: most bad cars in absolute volume (obviously the answer is GM) or as a % of total sales (probably British Leyland)? Bad in terms of reliability (BL or VW), build quality (Tesla), durability (Fiat), driving quality (land yacht Lincolns), styling (Toyota/Lexus)?
Im going to limit my list to the 90s-onward just so I can knock the typical Ford/GM reponses.
1. Mitsubishi, Lancer Evos were cool, whatever happened to the rest of their cars? Older models are very rare and mostly not worth seeking out.
2. Subaru, and I say this as someone who wants to like them. Thrown rods, rust, headgaskets, transmissions, weak clutches. But I have to appluad them for sticking with the boxer engine, even if they cant seem to sort it out.
3. Volvo, after the stout 940 the nightmares began. Engineering got so shoddy that they even made a car with wheels that were too wide to fit!
4. Chrysler, but I cant even knock them much when 80% of their cars were rebadged Fiats/Mercedes/Mitusbishi.
5. Daewoo, even if I like Korean cars I cant think of a single decent car sold under the Daewoo badge.
Everyone seems to gravitate to the domestics, but I’d like to submit Datsun/Nissan. They were like Japanese Chryslers but without the good styling Chrysler got from time to time and in my experience have always been bottom of the barrel (to include malaise era domestics) reliability wise.
It hurts because the 91-94 SE-R is a top car for me, but even today they just aren’t very good.
I’d add Subaru for honorable mention only because they seem to have the same issues generation after generation and of late, every new model seems to be worse than the one it is replacing.
Daewoo.
It was Thanksgiving in the US recently, right? Hopefully you all gave thanks that you don’t have Ssangyong.
I know they’ve vastly improved in the last decade, but every Hyundai and Kia I’ve seen seems to have an air of disposability to it. Considering the crap cars they debuted with (discussed by earlier commenters), the joint company, and its two components, get my vote.
IMO, it’s Ford for domestics. Ugly, until recently, and bad mechanically.
But the winner buy a landslide is anything with Lucas inside it. My best friend’s dad and him learned the Lesson of Lucas Electric the hard way when his dad had an MGB, and he had a Triumph TR-4A. One of my memories of the MGB was the night we saw “Tora Tora Tora” in 1970 and his dad picked us up in his just purchased white MGB, and the generator began to die halfway home at 12am. AAA was a must with that POS. We got to my house after 1am, riding in the tow truck.
Define “bad.” If you mean, “Nothing ever works right,” it’s hard to beat Jaguar/Land Rover. The thing is, they make cars I still *want* to have, even if it means a constant battle with the terrible design and build quality. If, on the other hand, you mean, “Clearly designed for people who have given up on life,” then I nominate Toyota. I can name two or three cars they’ve made in the last 20 years that I’d be excited to own. The rest are washing machines with wheels.
Do Toyotas come with an extra spin cycle and can you get them finished in stainless steel?
I would have to give my vote to Fiat and then AMC for being among the worst car manufacturers. Most of today’s vehicles are not exciting and are more appliance like but that is not entirely a bad thing. Give me a dependable washing machine any day even if it is appliance white.
I’ve never had a Jaguar or Land Rover leave me on the side of the road, despite the dashboard being lit up like an x-mas tree. I’ve owned 4 Range Rovers and 2 XJR’s, never a major mech. issue.
Vehicles that have stranded me religiously are the Chrysler K-Car with 22k on the clock (needed three engine mgmt computers before it finally caught fire), a Jeep Grand Cherokee from the mid 90’s whos gearbox ate itself, and a Ford Ranger that just wouldn’t run for shit constantly breaking.
The correct answer to this question is anything domestic; They’re all pieces of shit, IMHO.
Over the last, say, 50 years? GM, hand’s down. X cars? Absolute garbage. The Vega? Possibly the worst car from anyone in the last 50 years, shit body, shit engine, just shit, period. V4-6-8 engines? HT4100 V8s? Olds diesels? Odd-fire V6s? Quad 4’s? All garbage. Second RWD X bodies that dog-tracked off the showroom floor? Rubbish. Northstar V8s? I could go on and on and on…
GM, obviously.
Junk, year after year after year. Sure, there are a few exceptions as even a terrible car company like GM gets lucky once in a while after pumping out garbage long enough. The percentages catch up. Still, for perennial over all crappiness, no other car company can match GM. It truly is a joke.