Once again, thank you for helping TTAC with our Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) award. We’ve been most gratified by the number and quality of the nominations. The nomination process will judder to a halt tomorrow at 5pm EST. TTAC’s staff (that’s me) will then begin the arduous process (which may or may not involve the use of dart boards, adult beverages and TV psychics) of paring a list of almost 200 losermobiles down to 20 really bad finalists. We’ll open the voting sometime next week, and announce the winner the following week. Meanwhile, here’s another quick recap.

Thank you for helping The Truth About Cars select the Ten Worst Automobiles Today: The TWAT Awards. We’ve been most gratified by your enthusiastic participation in this important exercise in automotive criticism. Although RF has been busy deleting over-zealous nominations and flame-broiled retaliations, the vast majority of you have made strong and eloquent arguments for a whole mess of incredibly weak products. The nomination process will continue for the remainder of this week. To help avoid carpel scroll syndrome, please continue to submit your nominations underneath this post. Meanwhile, a quick summary of the action so far…

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.

General Motors is at it again. After failing to flog captive imports from Opel, Isuzu and Suzuki, The General’s drafted in Daewoo to give Chevy’s “American Revolution” something to sell. Considering GM’s lack of success with captive imports in the past, and Daewoo’s Titanic troubles in the US market, you have to wonder about RenCen’s reasoning vis-à-vis the rebadged machine known on this side of the Pacific as the Chevrolet Aveo. Has GM made yet another logistical mistake, or will they have the last laugh as vendors of the only domestic nameplate selling a high-mileage subcompact car in the US?

There are three basic ways you can build a low-priced automobile. You can use lower-cost materials (and workforce). You can limit the standard features. Or you can keep variations to a minimum. When making the Rio, one of the lowest priced cars sold in American, Kia employed all three strategies. Is that a good thing? It depends entirely on where you draw the line between “cheap” and “inexpensive.”

On April 3, 2005, this website began the General Motors Death Watch. Few industry or media types credited the possibility that the world’s largest automaker could be on the ropes. By this August, when the Ford Death Watch series began, it was clear to all and sundry that GM is in a fight for its life. And, of course, that Ford was in the same position. That left Chrysler as the sole domestic automaker whose fortunes weren’t in deep decline. And then, two weeks ago, Chrysler announced that it will lose $1.52b in the third financial quarter. Does that mean its time for a Chrysler Death Watch?  First, a little history…

Germany was first, followed by France, England and Italy. Japan arrived a few years later, with Korea trailing by several decades. Since 1949, foreign car makers have mounted assaults on America’s automotive market. A few have flourished, others have had moderate success, but many have retreated after failing to establish a beachhead. And now another wave is forming, threatening to storm our shores. Entrepreneur Malcolm Bricklin is leading the charge, establishing Visionary Vehicles LLC to import a line of “aggressively priced, beautifully styled, high-quality vehicles” built in China.  Are we about to witness the next automotive revolution, or are we being asked to buy the Bricklin bridge?

Pop quiz. “What do a Chrysler Cirrus, Chevrolet Blazer, Plymouth Acclaim and Ford Expedition have in common?” Did you say “none of them would ever tempt a pistonhead?” True enough, but not correct. “None of them ever dented the US sales charts”? Another good guess, but still incorrect. And the answer is: all of these vehicles have received the “North American Car (or Truck) of the Year” award. Yes, it’s that time of year again. Time for the automotive media to prove that indiscretion is the worst part of valor. 

According to those renowned postmodern philosophers the Barenaked Ladies, “everything old is new again.”  The maxim certainly applies to the automotive industry. Those of us who put ourselves in Moto-PR harm’s way are constantly bombarded by joyous claims of new and improved technology and the latest justgottahavit features: self-parking cars, adaptive cruise control, heated/cooled cup holders, etc. The truth is, many of the technological advancements we lust after are recycled ideas from days gone by. They may be “improved” but they definitely aren’t “new.” 

Servicing my Corvette is only marginally more pleasurable than filling out my tax return. First, I stand around the service desk waiting for a bleary-eyed “advisor” to acknowledge my existence. Then the employee asks if I want to wait for my car or… if someone’s picking me up. If I hang fire, I’m confined to a waiting room with all the charm of a correctional facility. If I leave, I have to call to see if the job’s done. When I pick up my ‘Vette, previous experience has taught me to inspect it for familiar desecrations– oily boot marks, additional miles, changed radio stations, etc. Oh, and to make sure the job’s actually been done. Sound familiar?

Since the Model T, car owners have paid good money to make their rides stand out from the crowd. A brass radiator cap, special head lights, a steering wheel that pivoted out of the way– these are just a few of the hundreds of mods that could turn a Tin Lizzie into your Tin Lizzie. Today, the trend continues with an even wider (and wilder) array of goodies lining the aisles of automotive parts emporia, tempting whoever wanders past with the promise of aesthetic liberation. With a few exceptions, the only thing that results from these efforts is a 9-1-1 to the taste police.

In a recent Saab TV ad, a fighter jet transmogrifies into a 9-7X. The Transformers shtick tries to convince truck buyers that Saab’s SUV was “born from jets.” There’s one small problem: the 9-7X was born from a Chevrolet. The model’s built in Moraine, Ohio next to (and out of) Trailblazers. And get this. During the transformation the engine rolls down into the engine compartment sideways. Couldn’t the geniuses who made this commercial bother to remember that the Trailblaz… uh… 9-7X has a “north-south” engine, not an “east-west” one like current Saabs? And so car companies continue their assault on pistonheads’ intelligence.

For over 60 years, The United Autoworkers Union (UAW) has sold itself as the protector of America’s working class. According to their web site, “We’ve used our bargaining power to demand – and win – a role for union members to ensure that consumers receive the highest possible quality cars and trucks.” Regardless of your view of the quality of UAW-built vehicles, the union’s gained tremendous power on the factory floor, secured a group of benefits that are the envy of workers everywhere and amassed a mountain of money. So, now that GM and Ford are in trouble, will the UAW give anything back? Here’s what the union has to lose…

Once upon a time, a car that could crest 100K miles was a pampered piece of technology. To make it “round the clock” most machines demanded a tune-up every three to five thousand miles— at the very least. Today, high-mileage used cars with nothing more than a routine oil change under their [fan] belt are par for the course. Now that the goal posts have moved, how do we measure a vehicle’s “quality” and “reliability”? To some people the terms mean “the car starts when I turn the key and I don’t have to mortgage the house to keep it running.” To others, they mean “it looks and operates as well today as it did when I bought it.”  And to others it’s like pornography to a Supreme Court Justice: they can’t define it, but they know it when they see it. What’s your definition of reliability and quality? Are the two joined at the hip? Please post your answers below… 

Play word association with the average American consumer. Say the words “quality cars.” Chances are they’ll respond with “Toyota.” For decades, the Japanese automaker has carefully nurtured and perpetuated a reputation for producing well-built/reliable cars and trucks. As a result, the company’s US sales have grown like kudzu. As of last month, Toyota now sells more cars in the Americas than Ford. If you discount fleet sales (so to speak), Toyota’s totals are within shouting distance of GM’s, both nationally and worldwide. Despite this startling, seemingly unstoppable success, or perhaps because of it, the company’s supposedly impenetrable façade has begun to show a few cracks.