Worst car by each manufacturer

". ." (xllx) 12/06/2015 at 11:08 • Filed to: None

1

78

Here goes:

Acura - ZDX

Alfa Romeo - Arna

Aro - 24

Aston Martin - Cygnet

Audi - Q3

Bentley - Arnage

BMW - Z1 (dishonourable mentions - 2 Series Active Tourer, 5 Series GT)

Buick - Century

Cadillac - BLS

Chevrolet - Aveo (dishonourable mentions - Chevette, Citation, Malibu)

Chrysler - PT Cruiser Convertible

Chrysler -fucking PT Cruiser again

Citroen C3 Pluriel

Dacia - Solenza

Daewoo - Matiz (dishonourable mentions - Tacuma, Kalos, Espero)

Daihatsu - Mira Gino

Dodge - Nitro (dishonourable mention - Avenger)

Ferrari - Mondial 8

Fiat - 500L MPW (dishonourable mention - Idea)

Ford - Fusion (dishonourable mentions - 11th gen Thunderbird, Tempo, Festiva, B-Max)

Honda - City (dishonourable mention - Crosstour)

Hummer - H3

Hyundai - Coupe (dishonourable mentions - Accent, Atos, Pony, Veloster)

Infiniti - QX50

Isuzu - D-Max

Jaguar - S-Type (dishonourable mention - X-Type)

Jeep - Compass

Kia - Rio (dishonourable mentions - Cerato, Pride, Carnival, Shuma)

Lada - Granta (dishonourable mentions -Kalina, Samara, Priora)

Lamborghini - Urraco

Lancia - Thesis (dishonourable mentions - Beta, Ypsilon)

Land Rover - Freelander

Lexus - CT200h (dishonourable mention - SC430)

Lincoln - Blackwood

Maserati - Ghibli (dishonourable mention - Merak)

Mazda - 6

Mercedes-Benz - CLC

Mercury - Tracer

MG - Maestro

Mini - Paceman

Mitsubishi -Eclipse (dishonourable mentions - Carisma, Mirage, i-MiEV)

Nissan - Murano CrossCabriolet (dishonourable mentions - Tiida, P12 Primera, Serena, Almera Tino)

Oldsmobile - 98 diesel

Opel - Meriva (dishonourable mentions - Agila, Vectra)

Peugeot - 207 Compact Sedan (206+) (dishonourable mentions - 206 CC, 207 CC, 309)

Plymouth - Caravelle

Pontiac - Sunfire (dishonourable mention - Aztek)

Porsche - 924

Renault - Thalia (dishonourable mentions - Vel Satis, Latitude)

Rolls Royce - Silver Seraph

Rover - CityRover (dishonourable mention - Metro)

Saab - 900 Convertible

Saturn - Ion

Scion - xD

Seat - Exeo

Skoda - Felicia (dishonourable mention - 130)

Smart - ForFour

Ssangyong - Rodius (dishonourable mention - Kyron)

Subaru - XV

Suzuki - Kizashi (dishonourable mentions - any Maruti Suzuki)

Toyota - Echo

Triumph - Stag

Volkswagen - Fox (dishonourable mentions - Eos, Bora)

Volvo - 300 series (dishonourable mention - C30)

pjhusa > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:13

13

Have to disagree with the Z1.

Who could hate the Z1?!

. . > pjhusa 12/06/2015 at 11:15

2

Mememe!

Wheelerguy > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:16

0

But the race version is the best Lada made.

. . > Wheelerguy 12/06/2015 at 11:18

0

On the other hand, this car is so bad it didn’t even work when it was presented to Putin.

crowmolly > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:19

3

Is the BLS really worse than the Cimmaron?

. . > crowmolly 12/06/2015 at 11:21

1

I was going to go with the Cimarron, but then it struck me that it’s starting to be a little bit cool, in that shitty 80’s way.

davedave1111 > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:24

2

Some seriously weird choices there. I mean, the Skoda Felicia? What on earth do you have against it? It was a really well-built, well-engineered, good value car: it’s the model that turned Skoda from a joke into a respectable badge.

And Fiat? With such a wide range to choose from, you went for something pretty decent by historical standards.

bob and john > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:26

3

no its not. stop smoking the nostalgia weed.

Svart Smart, traded in his Smart > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:27

4

Dear Sir: I disagree with 40 to 60 percent of your selections.

bob and john > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:28

1

yea...cant say I agree with all of this. some are cool buy...the merc CLC? id give tht honor to the a or B class long before.
the caddie? the BLS at least looks kinda cool .Cimmaron would have deserve that.
hyundai: dishonorable mentions. why the veloster? its kinda a cool car. and the turbo model make chocho noises

. . > davedave1111 12/06/2015 at 11:34

1

The Felicia was most definitely not well-built by any standards. My dad actually owned a pickup version for a few years. It was so badly made that my 260 lbs uncle went through the driver’s seat (the metal plate supporting the cushion bent). The 1.3 engine was also horrid, an ancient powerplant that needed timing chain swaps every 30k km if you wanted it to stay quiet. Also, there was rust and lots of it.

I’d say that the car that turned Skoda around was the Octavia, and even that only happened after the car was facelifted.

As for the Fiat, I think it was the only car me and a firend who helped with the list agreed on instantly. Fiat had loads of bad cars throughout the years, but the fattest 500 is the ugliest, most un-Fiatlike, most cynical car that company every released. Completely objectively, there are loads of Fiats worse than the 500 MPW, but none as hateful. And aside from all that, the 500 MPW isn’t even nice by modern standards.

. . > bob and john 12/06/2015 at 11:34

0

I have absolutely 0 nostalgia for Cadillacs. Don’t even like them.

Birddog > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:38

6

You seem to dislike quite a few good vehicles.

. . > bob and john 12/06/2015 at 11:39

1

The CLC was a facelifted W203 Coupe (worst C-class of all time) that was pretending it’s not a generation old when sold alongside the W204. It was also hideous and pointless. The B at least makes a good small people mover.

The BLS was a Saab dressed up as a pretty ugly Cadillac. It was bad, failed deservedly and I hate it. :P

As for the Veloster, I don’t see the point of it. It’s not a coupe/sportscar with an extra door, it’s a hatch that was made less practical for no good reason. It’s also ugly as sin and I don’t think the turbo version saves it.

. . > Birddog 12/06/2015 at 11:41

0

I’ve no idea where you managed to find a good car on this list. :P

GeorgeyBoy > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:42

1

But the S-Type is amazing.

itschrome > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:42

4

This is a garbage list

. . > itschrome 12/06/2015 at 11:43

1

Yup, a list of garbage cars. :D

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:43

1

This is truly loathsome and awful.

davedave1111 > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:44

0

I’ll certainly grant you that the 500whatever wins in the hatefulness stakes - I don’t even like the 500, really.

On the Felicia, it was great value for money and had incredible longevity.

Compare the numbers of each of these left on the road:

https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/family/skoda_f…

https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/family/ford_es…

Also this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/…

Before the Felicia, Skodas were such a joke that even the BBC business news reports felt they had an opportunity to get in on the act.

. . > GeorgeyBoy 12/06/2015 at 11:45

1

It’s ugly and as durable as unpasteurised camembert. They improved it with the facelift.

. . > davedave1111 12/06/2015 at 11:48

0

Maybe the relatively large percentage of Felicias still on on teh road has something to do with the sort of people who bought them? It’s purely anecdotal, but the only Felicia I know that’s still on the road is owned by an elderly Asian gentleman who absolutely babies it and keeps it pristine.

Funktheduck > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:48

0

You've made a few errors but overall not a bad list. I was expecting current production cars though.

TheHondaBro > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:49

0

I disagree with Acura and BMW.

fhrblig > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:49

2

There’s nothing wrong with the Buick Century other than it was boring. The X-car Skylark is probably the actual worst.

bob and john > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:50

0

the worst c-class is still way better then a B or an A class (i’[ve been in a B class. what a HORRID peice of shit

caddi styling those years wasnt bad. just enoguh to set them apart. also, i was always a saab guy. again, cimmaron deserves that spot.

a lot of cars are pointless. your point? the veloster is still pretty fun to fuck around in.

thgouht I agree with giving the worst to the coupe. ewugh.

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > . . 12/06/2015 at 11:54

1

This list is bad and you should feel bad.

. . > bob and john 12/06/2015 at 11:59

0

A friend of mine recently got a rental B-class on his trip to Norway and absolutely loved it. It was comfortable and supremely spacious, a much better car than he had anticipated. The CLC wasn’t good at absolutely anything. I’d sooner give the title of worst Merc to the first A-class than to the B.

As for the Veloster, it’s pointless in a way that doesn’t enhance it in any way. There are lots of cars that don’t make practical sense, but appeal to enthusiasts. Taking away the back door from one side of the car does absolutely nothing to improve it in any way. It’s literally just taking a door away. Hyundai’s marketing department tried to spin it as if they give you an extra pair of door on a sports car, I think that’s absolute bollocks.

. . > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 12/06/2015 at 11:59

0

Never. :]

I stand by it.

Dusty Ventures > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:04

2

I disagree, solely because of the doors

. . > Dusty Ventures 12/06/2015 at 12:05

1

They’re heavy, complex, unreliable, and don’t open properly. :P

Dusty Ventures > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:09

0

No.

TheJWT > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:09

1

Your opinion is wrong.

Dusty Ventures > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:09

1

Surely you jest

Dusty Ventures > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:10

0

No again

Frenchlicker > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:12

2

There is so much wrong with this list that I cannot even muster up the energy it would take to argue.

Dusty Ventures > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:14

0

I take it you don’t like the RX-8 either then?

GeorgeyBoy > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:14

0

The ls should be worse than the Blackwood

Dusty Ventures > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:15

2

All that is true. But the fact that a major manufacturer decided to put such a loony concept into production amuses me.

. . > Dusty Ventures 12/06/2015 at 12:15

0

The most powerful petrol version available here takes 10,5 seconds to reach 100 kph, the interior is horrid and Subaru really want you to get the CVT version. Awful.

. . > Dusty Ventures 12/06/2015 at 12:17

0

I do. The rear doors on the RX-8 add a touch of practicality to a sports car in a way that doesn’t spoil it. The Veloster works the other way round, like they took a hatchback and made it less practical in a really stupid, gimmicky way.

. . > Dusty Ventures 12/06/2015 at 12:22

0

The Peugeot 1007 did sliding doors in a way that made much more sense (if only they didn’t make them electric :/) and got crucified for it. Peugeot’s way actually made getting in and out of the car in busy car parks much easier. Also, no more door dings!

MultiplaOrgasms > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:24

0

This list is bullshit. None of these cars are even close to being the worst by their respective manufacturers.

Dusty Ventures > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:26

0

Subaru interiors being awful isn’t a new thing (remember when they thought putting the cupholder between the controls for the HVAC and the radio was a good idea?), and neither is getting to 100 in over 10 seconds (hello, first three generations of the 2.5 Outback). Also, what on earth are they putting under the hood of the XV where you are? Car and Driver said the four cylinder gets to 60 mph in 8.1 seconds, and even the diesel is quoted at 9.2. As for the CVT, you’re right, it’s awful. But they’re pushing that damn transmission across the entire range. At least the manual is still an option in that car.

DuddyKravitz > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:29

0

Early years Putin?

Alfalfa > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:31

0

C30!? If anything gets a dishonorable mention, I would nominate the V40.

. . > Dusty Ventures 12/06/2015 at 12:33

0

Well, it’s high time for Subaru to step up their interior game, it’s really not excusable. As for the available engines - there are 2 petrol versions (1.6 114hp and 2.0 150hp) + a 2.0 147hp diesel. The 1.6 takes 13,1 s to 100 with a manual and 13,8 with the CVT. The 2.0 does it in 10,5 and 10,7 s respectively. Diesel’s better at 9,3 s (only available with the manual). Thing is - if somebody doesn’t want a diesel (like my parents who are looking into this segment), they’re kinda buggered.

All acceleration data is based on the current Subaru XV catalogue available here (in Polish).

. . > DuddyKravitz 12/06/2015 at 12:34

1

Yup. Unfortunately, when the car was being presented to him the boot jammed and the engine failed to start. I am not making this up.

traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:38

1

What about the Rover James?

. . > traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn 12/06/2015 at 12:38

0

That’s an excellent automobile that has no place on this list!

Dusty Ventures > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:50

0

I don’t know why the manual is listed so slow in that catalog, but here’s Car and Driver’s test of the car with the very same 150 hp 2.0 engine. In instrumented testing (with all the fancy computers and such to get accurate, consistent readings) the CVT did a 10.3, but the manual was able to get there in the aforementioned 8.1.

davedave1111 > . . 12/06/2015 at 12:52

0

I’m sure there’s a range of factors, like with every car, but still the car has to be pretty long-lived to do that well. I think they are cheap enough to fix and rugged enough that they don’t hit the point where it’s not worth fixing as soon or as often as most cars of the era.

Autohaus Derp > . . 12/06/2015 at 13:08

1

Granta got putin like “DAYYYYYYYYYUM”

TheHondaBro > . . 12/06/2015 at 13:21

0

No. You’re wrong.

Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever > . . 12/06/2015 at 13:25

0

Not sure what criteria you are applying.

I don’t find anything wrong with the Z1, 500L, Arnage/Silver Seraph, PT Cruiser, Ghibli, XV Crosstrek, Kizashi, Echo, etc. unless you simply don’t agree with their styling.

Now, a cheaply executed badge job like the infamous Cadillac Cimarron, or the “Aston” Cygnet, I can agree with.

Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever > . . 12/06/2015 at 13:27

0

What about the Fiat Multipla? If you hate the 500L’s styling, the Multipla is arguably worse. That doesn’t take away from the fact that it had an astonishingly spacious interior—something that the 500L traded a little away for slightly less awkward styling.

If you don’t agree with the concept of the 500L, the 500X trades even more space away for even more “acceptable” styling.

. . > Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever 12/06/2015 at 13:44

1

The Multipla at least tried to innovate with its 3+3 layout and compact outside dimensions. I also find the 500 MPW uglier. Additionally, the Multipla wasn’t a cynical attempt to sell a big, ugly blob using the Fiat 500 name.

m-b-w loves his SUBAROO > . . 12/06/2015 at 14:09

1

I disagree with the XV being the worst model. Maybe the B9 TriBeCa. The XV has strong sales, and was just ranked as the number one small crossover by car and driver in a comparison test.

. . > Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever 12/06/2015 at 14:21

0

It’s a purely subjective list, there was no criterium outside of me thinking if a car is good or bad. I’m not hiding that.

The Z1 is a car based on a gimmick that actually makes it worse rather than serve to improve it - those doors. They’re hugely impractical and complicated, heavy, and far less reliable than a regular set. It’s not very powerful and it’s not particularly light so it’s not a great sports car. On the other hand a short wheelbase small convertible with not that much street cred (unless you’re driving with the doors down i suppose) doesn’t make a very good cruiser. That car was a suspension design mule that should have stayed one. On top of all that, I don’t like how it looks.

The Bentley an the Roller were actually criticised when they came out for being cramped and antiquated compared to their contemporary (in theory lower segment) competitors. They weren’t good cars from the get go and haven’t gotten any better. I don’t mind the styling.

The Ghibli is simply not that good. One could argue it’s the worst car in its segment. The supposedly rejuvenated Maserati should have done better.

The XV is a disappointingly slow (at least according to official figures - 10,5 0-100 kph with the fastest petrol version), overpriced car with a really bad interior. Subaru can’t be excused from designing their interiors properly any more.

The Kizashi, was Suzuki stepping out of their comfort zone and failing. They sold very few of them because they badly gauged what the market would be interested in. It’s one of the cars responsible for killing Suzuki in verious western markets.

. . > m-b-w loves his SUBAROO 12/06/2015 at 14:29

0

It got a petty chilly reception in Europe (Parker’s: 3/5, What Car?: 2/5, Auto Express: 3/5, Carbuyer 3.1/5, HonestJohn: 3/5, Top Gear: 4/10). It’s very expensive, slow (at least according to manufacturer data), rides harshly, and it has a horrible interior.

shop-teacher > fhrblig 12/06/2015 at 14:35

1

I’d say the B-body Skylark (or were those Skyhawks?) Was the worst. Definitely not the Century.

That's gonna leave a mark! > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 12/06/2015 at 14:38

0

This list is good and you shouldn’t feel bad about a list of the bad because that wouldn’t be good, it would be bad.

not for canada - australian in disguise > . . 12/06/2015 at 15:06

0

Really? The Stag? Those things kicked ass even if the engine sucked. The worst Triumph is the Acclaim. End of story.

The Acclaim wasn’t the worst at being a car. But it was the worst at being a Triumph. Just plain boring and completely unfitting of the Triumph name. At least Triumph’s more boring cars (Mayflower, Toledo) actually had some character. The Acclaim didn’t.

. . > not for canada - australian in disguise 12/06/2015 at 15:08

0

Thing is, the Acclaim moved. The Stag not so much. :P

not for canada - australian in disguise > . . 12/06/2015 at 15:10

0

That’s what hills are for! A real Triumph breaks down, a lot. And the Stag looked absolutely fantastic, even with steam pouring out of the hood.

. . > not for canada - australian in disguise 12/06/2015 at 15:11

0

I think the B-pillar/roll bar thing really spoiled the looks. :(

m-b-w loves his SUBAROO > . . 12/06/2015 at 15:15

1

They have significantly updated the interior, at least in America for 2015. I think we tend to get softer suspensions, and it's reasonably priced here.

CivoLee > . . 12/06/2015 at 15:35

1

Ford’s Fusion being the worst car they’ve ever made? Seriously? And not even a dishonorable mention for the Pinto, one of the the three cars (the others being the AMC Gremlin and Pacer) that arguably killed the appeal of hatchbacks in America?

wiffleballtony > . . 12/06/2015 at 17:59

0

Ford Fusion?

Hot Takes Salesman > CivoLee 12/06/2015 at 21:34

0

Or the Mustang II, which fucked the Mustang name in the 70’s?

Hot Takes Salesman > . . 12/06/2015 at 21:34

0

Oh boy Porsche 924 owners gettin their pitchforks and fire ready

Hot Takes Salesman > . . 12/06/2015 at 21:39

0

I'd go with 2 series Active Tourer because BLASPHEMY BLASPHEMY BMW BLASPHEMY

pip bip - choose Corrour > . . 12/07/2015 at 04:37

0

i agree with this one.

pip bip - choose Corrour > . . 12/07/2015 at 04:37

0

these were alright.

pip bip - choose Corrour > . . 12/07/2015 at 04:38

0

Samara? GTFO.

pip bip - choose Corrour > . . 12/07/2015 at 04:39

0

yep , i agree.

pip bip - choose Corrour > . . 12/07/2015 at 04:39

0

liar.

;)

Declan Hackett > CivoLee 12/11/2015 at 04:45

0

But they didn’t appear on page one, when he typed “Ford worst car”into Google!

Which appears to be as much effort, research and thought as went into this, and why you just see the same shit as always - even when it’s simply wrong…

Bor suqs alright. It’s so bad I wonder if he’s Jordan Sergent in disguise!