![]() 07/19/2017 at 08:45 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
What is the best bad car you can buy?
The 2nd gen Acura TL was a bad car. My definition of a bad car: could I recommend it to my best friend. If he/she comes to me and says “I’m thinking about getting one, thoughts?” My answer is RUN. But it drives great, is a fantastic place to spend time, and is nicer than a lot of new cars today, plus CHEAP to buy. Unfortunately, your transmission will blow up. Likely soon. Potentially several times in the next few years.
I say that the 2nd gen TL is the best bad car you can buy. Is there a better bad car?
![]() 07/19/2017 at 08:34 |
|
Citroen 2CV?
![]() 07/19/2017 at 08:50 |
|
To take the opposite approach:
Lincoln Town Cars. There’s nothing good you can say about the driving dynamics, and the interior really, really, strains the definition of luxury. But they last forever, there aren’t any gizmos to break, they’ll transport five people comfortably (plus a sixth you hate), and they feel like driving on a cloud.
Actually, I don’t think they’re bad cars. They just don’t have any pretensions about doing anything besides going from A-to-B.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 08:56 |
|
Most people would say it’s bad because it’s a Cobalt.
But 260hp Turbo. And these things are reliable, provided you change the coolant frequently.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 08:56 |
|
MG ZT 260
An E39 parts bins special with a Mustang V8.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 08:57 |
|
Town Cars = Couch on wheels
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:01 |
|
Whatever “Jake Does Dumb Stuff so You Don’t Have To” has purchased? ;)
Seriously though, I’d say a used Honda with an automatic is a pretty good Bad/Good car. Honorable mention would be a Cobalt SS from the second owner.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:02 |
|
An E65 745i/Li
You know it’ll have a billion new problems appear per day and that it won’t start 320% of the time, but you love it anyway because of how nice it looks.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:11 |
|
As long as they have an extra $2,000 for a transmission rebuild in the next few months to go along with their $3,000 Luxury Sport Sedan, they’ll be fine. Or they could change transmission fluid at every tire rotation like that one guy from the front page.
For me, it would be an R56 Mini Cooper S. They’re wonderful to drive but maintenance is scary. Plus, low-mileage examples here in the Charlotte area can be had for $5-7K
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:16 |
|
I own one, an E39. Great driving car but flawed with little things that go wrong as im finding out.
Also the Lincoln LS, some say its similar styling to the E39 but thats not where the similarities end. It too is also a heavily flawed, its a car that took Jaguar bits and mixed it with 90s Ford which is why you need to stay away from these.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:17 |
|
Ooooo I thought of a good one when I saw lincoln town car. Lincoln LS:
With the v8 it was a smooth RWD sedan with great handling, a comfy interior with much better than average (average american car at that time) build quality. It sounds great, its reasonably fast, it looks good enough, and you can get one for like $3k.
Too bad its just a jag S class underneath that will nickel and dime you to death.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:18 |
|
Obviously some BMW hardware must have gone into the Rover 75 and its derivatives, ZT 260 included, but could you be more specific about which parts of the E39 were used in the V8?
You mean Prodrive took sundry suspension/diff/halfshaft elements of the 5-series and stuck it under the ZT?
Genuinely interested.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:19 |
|
“but you love it anyway because of how nice it looks.” No, just no. Especially not with that pre-lci butt.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:33 |
|
“The worst car in the world”... With one of the best engines ever created in one of the worst sports car interpretations ever. Even compared to a current gen Mustang, this could have been really something back then if it didn’t get so badly neutered. Imagine this car with 320hp, a 6-speed manual and proper suspension back in 2002. Aluminum 32V V8, forged crank, IRS.. So so bad.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:34 |
|
Hot take: Bangle butt BMWs are actually very nice looking cars.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:35 |
|
I couldn’t give you a full parts list. I do know thay they shared a floor plan and axles. What I remember is that BMW owners would often replace broken parts of the fuel system or electronics with Rover parts since they were the same but of course much cheaper.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:42 |
|
What’s that, it’s rarer than hen’s teeth and isn’t sporty at all?
Doesn’t matter when it’s this cool, well-designed, and has such a great engine.
I love that it was basically Subaru’s Dreamcast moment - finally showing the world what they’re capable of. Pure ambition in one machine.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 09:42 |
|
or E65 745i
![]() 07/19/2017 at 10:01 |
|
Yeah, but put an exhaust on it and it sounds like a 911.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 10:09 |
|
Hmmm. According to aronline.co.uk, which are usually pretty good, the floorpan of the original 75 could have been the same as the
E34
5-series, but that option was not pursued (and BMW was not going to let them use the E39 platform).
http://www.aronline.co.uk/facts-and-figures/history/features-old-wives-tales/
At the rear the
FWD
75/MG ZT had a Z-axle design as did a few previous BMWs, but I have never heard they actually share any parts.
I still wonder where the rear axle componentry for the V8 came from. Maybe that is the link with the E39, but again, I have never heard or read anything that throws any light on the subject.
I doubt very much they put “half a floorpan” from the E39 under the ZT V8: it just sounds crazy in terms of cost and time. The V8s were built on the same assembly line as the FWD MG/75s, but also taken away at a later stage for “structural modifications” (I imagine rear axle area, gearbox area etc).
I would expect “equipment”, ancillaries and such to be common between those, but what I was really interested in was the heavy hardware.
I wonder if Prodrive would be so kind to give us that information, if asked nicely?
![]() 07/19/2017 at 10:09 |
|
Alright then… Take #2.
These are cars which are often called ‘bad’ because of their (lack of) reliability.
Exhibit A: Aston Martin Lagonda. Ridiculously delicate and costs a bomb to fix.
But just look at this CRT throne. When it was working it would be awesome.
There was even a Shooting Brake …and it had a V12 …and pop-ups!
Exhibit B (later developments of the) Maserati Biturbo.
The car that killed Maser’s reputation? Both unreliable and unremarkable.
Eventually developed into the Shamal. …by the guy who did the Countach.
Don’t forget the Ghibli Cup. It outperformed the 911 and was much nicer inside.
So there you go, two cars often in ‘worst cars of all time’ lists which were actually fantastic in the right guise/when they worked. Many other British and Italian cars of this era could also be classed as such tbh.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 10:09 |
|
Well yeah, I said it had a great engine.
![]() 07/19/2017 at 21:08 |
|
“Subaru’s Dreamcast”
That’s perfect
![]() 07/20/2017 at 08:25 |
|
Let’s not fool around:
![]() 07/22/2017 at 11:02 |
|
I always come out of hiding to comment on 2nd Gen TL appreciation posts. I miss mine but I don’t miss living in fear of the transmission blowing up every time I get in it. Feels so nice though to drive it.
My family friend has a 2nd Gen TL right now. And she got her kids two 4-cyl Accord because the son didn’t want to drive the TL. HE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HE’S MISSING OUT ON.