What's the most underwhelming new car you've ever driven?

"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg) 06/25/2014 at 09:21 • Filed to: None

1

71

Whether it's a car that didn't live up to the hype, didn't drive or perform as well as you thought it should've, or just didn't feel like it was screwed together all that well. It can be from this year, or forty years ago, so long as it was new and not used when you looked at it.

I know for me, it was the Jeep Commander. My family went to look at one back in 2007, and it was the most underwhelming car I've ever been in. All the reviews called it a solid family SUV, but in reality, it was appalling. Even with a 5.7 Hemi, it had no get up and go, partly because the auto-tragic transmission took so long to shift, you would be forgiven for thinking you'd bumped it into neutral. The ride was bouncy and firm, and so generally unrefined that they should've just made it body-on-frame, because the unibody did absolutely nothing for it. And the interior was awful. Despite the fact that the one we looked at was fairly loaded up, with "leather" and "wood", every single thing creaked and felt cheap and plastic-y and disposable, because it was. True, the Dodge Journey I once sat it was probably worse, but it made no pretense of being anything more than a base crossover. The Commander was supposed to be a civilized semi-luxury SUV for use in suburbia as much as on the trails. And it wasn't. It was terrible. Never mind the fact that I also find it ugly.

So, Oppo, what's the most horrid, underwhelming new car you've ever sat in/driven?

crowmolly > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:24

2

1975 Corvette L48

Sets the bar for underwhelming. We used to race it off the line on foot.

JayZAyEighty thinks C4+3=C7 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:28

1

Definitely my dad's NC Miata or a manual A5. One was missing a pedal and one was an overpriced, manual snoremobile VW with AWD.

Jagvar > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:29

3

2006 Range Rover Sport. This is when the Sport was a brand-new model, mind you. The interior abounded with hard plastics, and everything felt cheap. It actually reminded me more of a Ford Escape than any Range Rover.

The 2009 refresh did a lot to help it, though. It's far more worthy of the luxury nameplate now.

NotUnlessRoundIsFunny > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:31

3

2001 Mercedes C240 with manual transmission. It's the only time I ever cut a test drive short and just took the car back to the dealership. There was just no way I was going home with that car.

The interior was cheap and crappy, the shifter was like a baseball bat in a bucket of marbles, and the V-6 (you could only get the least powerful six with a manual) was just...blah.

The car was just not pleasing to me in any way...I'd had a 190E before that, and the C240 was such a letdown.

macanamera > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:31

2

I won't say horrid, but as for underwhelming, maybe the MP4-12C? I really expected it to set my pants on fire, but it was a little sterile, didn't sound great, didn't feel that fast, and it just didn't hit me emotionally the way I thought it would. That might have been the results of my expectations though. I should have known it wasn't supposed to be like a Lambo or Ferrari.

macanamera > Jagvar 06/25/2014 at 09:34

0

Agreed. The dash in the pre-refresh Sport was a bit of a joke.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > crowmolly 06/25/2014 at 09:34

0

Was it the Cal-only model, or the regular one?

marvthegrate > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:35

3

I've had a streak of getting rental cars lately with very low miles on the clock. The worst was the Nissan Versa. It was even worse than my expectations. The CVT in that thing was terrible.

crowmolly > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:36

0

Regular. Granted you said new and not used but it was completely restored (not resti-fied) with few miles on it, so that counts...right?

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > crowmolly 06/25/2014 at 09:38

0

Am I right in remembering output cratered from '73 to '75, even taking into account switching from gross to net?

I can't stand the '74 on tail, anyway, but since I like the '73 on nose, that means I've got a very neatly defined C3 favorite year.

crowmolly > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 06/25/2014 at 09:43

1

Gross to net was 1971. Yes, you are correct.

1975 was the worst of the C3s. In my opinion it's the pinnacle year of "slashing for efficiency". Low compression, camshafts with tiny lobes, choking exhaust, a pellet catalytic converter, lazy timing curves, etc. Just taking the 60's engines and using less fuel because you are now making way less power.

TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:45

0

My dad's colleague's Nissan Tiida (Versa). It didn't have a single redeeming feature.

And the backup sensors didn't count because that was an aftermarket kit.

yamahog > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:45

2

I'm such a hayseed that anything newer than my 2004 Explorer is overwhelming :/ much technologies, auto transmissions with more than 4 speeds, wow.

FrederickLawOlmsteez > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:45

4

PRIUS! It was so bad on the test drive that the sales guy insisted that we take it for the day to "get used to it." We drove it to the VW store and bought a TDI. It's amazing how much leverage you have in negotiating a deal when you pull up with another brand's competition in full dealer livery. When we brought it back, the Toyota guy admitted most Prius buyers don't even test drive it before buy one. He said that the dealer used to encourage those people to test drive it anyway... used to.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Jagvar 06/25/2014 at 09:46

0

Seconded. Land Rover/Range Rover of recent have had some of the best interiors in the business. The 1st gen sport did not.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:47

3

It's a close tie between hyundai veloster and the nissan versa.

Versa - SLOW, WEAK, CHEAP! That's all the versa has to offer. The layout is horrendous as my knees operated the side mirrors but I was too busy trying to figure out how to get the cruise control to work to notice as the CVT kept the engine at a nice and calm 4000 rpm at 70 mph. The seats were atrocious and fuel economy abysmal. My FiST gets 40mpg on the highway. The versa got 29. My old monte carlo got 27 and it had a much bigger and much older engine with 200k on it. It was a rental from hell and was defeated by a hill in Ohio. Rot in hell you worthless piece of trash.

Hyundai Veloster - The 1990s called. They want their interior and driving dynamics back. The seats are rubbish. Poor support and ugly, basic design like out of a chevrolet beretta.......No, I'm sorry, that's unfair towards GM's interior crew. Fill/Flow lines on the plastic pieces are very obvious so I expect it all to break very shortly. Steering was kinda okay. RIde was average. The dual clutch transmission was the letdown by far in the drivetrain. The gas motor had plenty of oomph for a basic runaround car, but the dual clutch made very harsh shifts and yet was very SLOW to shift. I could shift my Mk3 jetta faster and with more smoothness. It was pathetic. All in all, I liked the coupe design but it really does feel like a cavalier or neon inside.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > NotUnlessRoundIsFunny 06/25/2014 at 09:47

0

I wonder if an auto would make it better or worse?

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > macanamera 06/25/2014 at 09:48

1

Interesting. Maybe needs a little more flare and passion and other Italian things.

2222222222212 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:49

2

2011 Ford Focus. Drive-by-wire kills everything about it. I was fresh out of a 2002 SVT Focus for stark contrast.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > crowmolly 06/25/2014 at 09:50

0

Close enough

macanamera > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:50

1

Meh. You could argue that its not supposed to be like those Italians. Also, I found the transmission to be a little goofy.

quarterlifecrisis > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:51

1

In my spare time, I do dealer exchanges for a VW/Nissan dealership. So, I get paid a very paltry sum to drive brand new cars. Underwhelming...every brand new Nissan that I've driven. Not that they had a lot of hype, but I just don't like any of them, and I honestly couldn't see myself ever buying one.

mr_gofast > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:52

2

when i was buying my first new car back in 2010 - i looked at a v6 charger - ugh...came away so dissapointed. No feel, excitement or joy in that thing - felt like i was driving a underpowered buick..not fun

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > TwinCharged - Is Now UK Opponaut 06/25/2014 at 09:52

0

You're the second person to say Versa. Methinks it may not be a very good car.

NotUnlessRoundIsFunny > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:52

1

That's a great question. In this case an automatic would probably make it better, since at least it would remove the manual's unpleasantness.

As an added bonus, with the automatic you could get the more powerful engine, so there's that.

Looks like your post really struck a nerve on Oppo!

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > yamahog 06/25/2014 at 09:53

1

You and my grandfather.

mr_gofast > macanamera 06/25/2014 at 09:53

1

keep in mind what cars you compare it to - so ye that may have clouded your judgement - by most accounts ppl are thrilled with it.

JR1 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:54

0

Look no further that the 2010 Honda Pilot my family owns. The only thing it has going for it is an abundance of storage space. It's a very vanilla car.

Brewman15 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:54

1

Nissan Altima and Hyundai Sonata.

Granted both were rental cars so weren't really optioned up. However, I was excited to try the latest offerings in the mid-size segment and was completely disappointed when the interior fit & finish, handling, and acceleration was barely on par with my '94 Accord. The only real improvement was how quiet they were on the interstate.

yamahog > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 09:54

1

Hell, I even liked the '13 Dart I had for two days this fall. Not enough to buy it, but it was a neat little thing.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 06/25/2014 at 09:56

0

Yet another person nominating the Versa. Nissan, I hope you're reading this.

Didn't see the Veloster coming, though. I've never driven one, but I guess I always assumed they were good. Guess not.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > 2222222222212 06/25/2014 at 09:57

0

Could that just be "different", perhaps?

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > mr_gofast 06/25/2014 at 09:59

2

I remember as a little kid I watched a few episodes of the Dukes of Hazard. Then my dad got a 2.7 V6 Charger as a rental, and I wanted him to do burnouts. He had a hard time explaining to 7 year old me that this thing did not have nearly the balls for that.

2222222222212 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:00

1

Yes, different in a dissapointing way. I guess the car was okay. I was distracted by the terrible driving dynamics.

I should say that when judging a car chassis, if I can't drive it with any amount of fervor, It is unfavorable.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > NotUnlessRoundIsFunny 06/25/2014 at 10:00

1

I know, everyone's lining up to rant and vent! Nothing wrong with that though.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:00

1

hyundai/kia's offerings look good to people who know nothing about cars. They're still using subpar materials and build techniques. I went to the NAIAS with a bunch of other friends in the automotive world and we had a good laugh at the ones they had to display. It was almost like they planned on sending out the second-string examples. My expertise is leather and metals and the models they had with leather used a VERY cheaply made leather. Poor processing on it too. My friend who develops some of those interior plastics pointed out that any larger piece of plastic in those cars was full of these flow lines that show where the production process and materials used were not exactly..........refined. Honestly that's why the veloster is "bad". It really isn't nearly as awful as the versa but the car writes so many damn checks with that body but the interior is in no shape to cash any of them.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > JR1 06/25/2014 at 10:03

1

I've told several people, it's functionally excellent in almost every way, but extremely snooze-inducing.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > 2222222222212 06/25/2014 at 10:04

0

True enough.

JR1 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:05

1

In our car at least the fake leather on the doors and the center counsel is ripping apart after only 70k. Disappointing to say the least

Logansteno: Bought a VW? > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:06

2

Previous generation Ford Escape.

If it drove anything like it was built, god help whoever bought one.

It was 2012 at the St. Louis Auto Show, we were looking at the Fords when I noticed one of these shoved into the far corner of their area. I had always liked how they looked, so I thought I would take a look at it.

I pulled on the door handle and thought the entire thing was going to come off in my hand. I'm not kidding when I say the door felt like it weighed 2 pounds. You know how a well made German sedan has a very solid thud to it when you close the door? This has whatever the polar opposite to that is.

Then, once inside, I toyed around in it for a good 15-20 minutes while my mom toyed around in an Edge. The seats were uncomfortable, the steering wheel felt like it was out of a power wheels, the console/armrest was cheap, I could get about 2 inches of play from the door panels, the dashboard was worse quality than the one in my dad's Silverado. The entire thing was a mess.

shop-teacher > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:10

0

A '97 F-150. What a hunk of shit that thing was. The interior was a joke. The seats had all the forgiveness of a steel park bench. Made my Dad's '95 Chevy K1500 seem like a Roller.

And I don't care what anybody says, that body style F-150 is the ugliest truck ever made. I can't believe they sold any of them. On looks alone, it should've been a bigger flop than the Edsel. They were uglier than a Nissan Titan, uglier than those stupid Mitsubishi DodgeDakotas, uglier than a new Tundra (what the HELL is up with that grill!?!). I'm just glad they're finally rusting away and getting crushed, so I don't have to see them so often.

Nibby > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:10

0

2010 Lexus HS250h.

twochevrons > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:10

1

US-market Mk6 Jetta. My in-laws bought one, and we all hate it. Hard and crashy ride without any great handling capabilities to match it. Visibility is terrible, and the interior, while totally inoffensive, feels cheap and nasty. Overall, it feels more like a car from 10 years ago than something current.

What makes it worse, is that the contemporary Golf, which is what the rest-of-the-world Jetta is based on, is excellent in all those respects.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > shop-teacher 06/25/2014 at 10:12

0

My dad had one briefly as a company truck. RWD, V6, awful.

As Du Volant > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:13

5

The 2008 Chrysler Sebring convertible.

I was a green pea salesman who had just started working for a Chrysler dealership in 2007 when these things were launched amid great fanfare.

When we got our first one, I sat in it and thought, surely we're being trolled. It was underpowered. It was loud. It had a godawful 4 speed transmission, coupled with the anemic engine, it'd struggle to climb a hill, slowly peter out, then downshift with whiplash-inducing force as the engine screamed, converting fuel into noise in a struggling effort to perform something resembling acceleration. In corners the body rolled like a container ship in a hurricane. The interior was ugly as hell, completely molded out of rock hard plastic, molding and cut lines visible everywhere. The soft top was made out of a cheap-ass vinyl material that felt of similar quality to the material used in trucker hats.

If you opted for the top of the line model, you'd get an engine that actually generated a decent amount of power, paired with a 6 speed automatic. It was okay. It also came with a retractable hard top that was kinda neat. The interior still retained all the hard plastic, with the addition of loads of stick-on "wood" in various places, and an already obsolete touch screen nav system that came with a 100 page instruction book. This one also got you the "premium" "leather" seats. Protip: if I can see the pattern of the weave in the material, you're not fooling anyone. It ain't leather. And this package cost about $35,000. THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

In all the training materials for it, when they list competitors for the car and invent reasons for you to try and say your car was better, they listed the Ford Mustang. A. Fucking. Mustang. THEY TRIED TO SUGGEST PEOPLE BUY A CHRYSLER SEBRING INSTEAD OF A FORD MUSTANG.

I could say similar things about pretty much of Chrysler's product line at the time, but this one was the worst offender by far.

As for how it turned out in the end- I'm still with the company, in upper management now. All of Chrysler's new products that have been 100% redone since the Fiat merger are freaking fantastic, the 200 especially. I don't miss those old days one bit.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Nibby 06/25/2014 at 10:13

0

That's two H's, so everyone knows for sure it's a hybrid.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > As Du Volant 06/25/2014 at 10:16

0

So what did they tell you to say in favor of the Sebring over the 'Stang? Slower is safer? Secretaries are less likely to get stopped by the cops? You've done nothing to deserve a Mustang?

As Du Volant > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:19

1

I never had anyone clueless enough to cross shop the two. Over the course of the six model years the car was on the market (I'm counting the years they called it the 200) I had three customers on them. Two were die-hard Chrysler fans who'd been buying Chryslers for decades and wouldn't consider anything else, and the third was a woman that for some ungodly reason was absolutely in love with the car.

EDIT- misread your post. I don't really remember what they told us anymore. I think it was along the lines of the base model is cheaper (heh! boy was it ever!) than the Mustang convertible, front wheel drive is easier to control in bad weather, and it got better gas mileage... by like 1mpg. And they tried to build value by listing all kinds of bullshit features that it came with standard that the Mustang didn't, but it was all stupid stuff that nobody wanted anyway. The Sebring comes with a standard wind screen that prevents buffeting, and it's an accessory you have to pay extra for in the Mustang! And so on.

banjo cat ghost of oppo past > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:21

0

Easy

Thanks in no small part to:

Plopping down in it for the first time and having this void of black nothingness stare back at me was like listening to a Werner Herzog monologue on the saddest of bargain Ikea furniture. I literally pulled a face as if the other consults pranked me by filling the cabin with farts beforehand.

It's not clean minimalism, its just bullshit with tiny buttons... Also its slow, the brakes were weak, the body roll was strong, and it was about $2k more than any GTI we had on the lot, which was infuriating.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > banjo cat ghost of oppo past 06/25/2014 at 10:28

0

Hmmm.. Minus the black interior, I always really liked these. I've never driven one, though.

banjo cat ghost of oppo past > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:45

1

I did too for a brief moment in "hey they emulated the back hatch of the Volvo P1800, that's pretty cool..."

PS9 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:51

0

AvaYAAAAWWWWWNNNNN

BoulderZ > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 10:55

1

Three come to mind, all horrid and underwhelming in different ways as to make for a tie: 2003 Mitsubishi Galant. 2006 Toyota Camry. 2008 Dodge Caliber with CVT. The best I can say is that they were all rentals, thankfully limiting how much time I had to drive them.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > PS9 06/25/2014 at 10:58

1

davedave1111 > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 11:01

0

Dear god, is that interior really from 2007, not 1997, or even 1987?

Looks like an early nineties Mitsubishi Shogun:

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > davedave1111 06/25/2014 at 11:03

0

yes, yes it is.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 11:04

1

Honda Fit. Sport mode just enabled manual shifting and changed the throttle response curve so that 80% of the power is in 20% of the pedal travel. Still handled like a mess, still super slow to accelerate. Interior build quality was meh, and visibility sucked.

Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 11:04

1

I drive a lot of brand new cars for work. The Versas are crap with the CVT but they serve their purpose. The worst ever was a '14 Mitsubishi Outlander, base model, with CVT. Just all-around bad. Nissan knows how to make a CVT work as evidenced by the Maxima and Altima. Honda does them pretty well in the Accord. But the Mitsu was just all-around bad. It didn't live up to my already meager expectations.

JEM > 2222222222212 06/25/2014 at 11:06

0

Came in here to post this vehicle. Had one as a rental and it was so, so bland. The dash was horrible and confusing. I honestly didn't even want to drive it.

Compare that to the Kia Soul I had a couple months late and that was a blast to drive! Very fun chassis and very simple and easy to use dash.

BarryDanger > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 11:06

1

I had the displeasure of driving this for a year. 2005 Chevy Equinoxious

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 11:15

1

Would it really matter? I mean, you are talking about a post-late-1990s-Cut-ALL-the-costs! Mercedes.

DylanToback > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 11:17

1

While they are by no means bad, I have been consistently underwhelmed by nearly all new cars I have driven. It seems that many of the "improvements" in automotive technology are unrelated to the aspects of driving that I personally enjoy. Sure, Bluetooth and blind spot monitoring are nice, but they are not going to result in the sort of car that leaves a lasting impression.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 11:18

3

whoa whoa whoa hold up.

As a Jeep Commander owner (My Wife's DD) I have beef with your example and I'll explain why.

Firstly, if you think it's ugly you shouldn't have even started here haha, We like the "rugged looks".

Next up - interior. We have the Sport model, it makes no attempt at "luxury" which is good, it shouldn't. It has cloth seats and the same hard plastic dash, but it's all black except for a couple "chrome" trim pieces. It's also quite spacious and we like that.

Power! No power, ever, we have he V6, we knew it was a slug the wife doesn't mind so no worries there, but on this one you are 100% correct. I have no complaints about your above statement in power haha.

Offroad capability is my last complaint. I doubt you went anywhere near a trail so you shouldn't speak to this. These trucks are very capable in true 4x4 form (not the AWD/Sport V6 one we have). They accept all Grand Cherokee lift kits/aftermarket parts and can be turned into serious trail trucks so this one just isn't fair.

I'll make another post for my "underwhelming" vehicle, but you know anytime you have an opinion on the internet someone has to have the opposite opinion...so here I am lol

yamahog > Logansteno: Bought a VW? 06/25/2014 at 11:20

0

The next time someone complains to me about how perceived quality shouldn't be a big deal, I will link them to this post.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 06/25/2014 at 11:42

0

I never said anything about it's off road prowess, I'm sure it does fine. Styling is a matter of opinion. The interior may be spacious, but I stand by my statement that it feels cheap, based model or top model.

I'm not trying to insult you, or your car, but I stand by my opinion.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 12:11

0

that's fine I know you aren't trying to insult me, I'm not insulted.

BUT: "The Commander was supposed to be a civilized semi-luxury SUV for use in suburbia as much as on the trails. And it wasn't. It was terrible." that basically says it's incapable off road.

I think having the fake wood probably made it feel cheaper in there than it was.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 06/25/2014 at 12:15

0

"As much as". That does't say it's incapable off-road. It was designed in theory to be used as either a family truckster or an off-road 4x4. Meaning they built it knowing that more users would use it on road than off road, and should have made it more on road friendly as such. If they were designing a vehicle purely for off road use, they should've called it the Wrangler.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 12:18

1

OK here's mine.

When I was shopping to sell my 2004 S10 Blazer 4 door 4x4 I was looking primarily at the 3 Ford brands. (they're one of my clients, it was time to finally join the team)

So the obvious direct competitor was my first test drive. a 2007 Eddie Bauer. Because of gas mileage I compared for the V6. So 3 years newer, worse power and same gas mileage. Now what really got me, because it had a V8 option so I shouldn't wine about power when I didn't use the top engine (though it was NOT comparable to the Chevy V6 at all), was the options. Now I understand despite the "prestige" of the Eddie Bauer versions of Ford's, they aren't the top trim level, they are the 2nd from the top. But this thing has blank spots on the steering wheel even for missing options. I was going to lose some of my power functions in the seat, no moon roof, worse stereo, and it went on. It just wasn't worth it, I left the dealership and kept my Blazer. When I left I thought to myself, damn for being 3 years older, this is STILL the better truck.

Stock photos but proper color/options:

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 06/25/2014 at 12:20

0

The interiors were better than some of the era, but they were still really far behind what they should've been.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 06/25/2014 at 12:27

1

yeah it just...it wasn't worth it.

This is basically what I was driving:

interior, but mine was all black and had ....every upgrade. Including the 6 disc in dash instead of that silly cassette thing

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 06/25/2014 at 23:17

0

I drove a 1st gen twice. 1st time was a driving a co-workers car home. Thought "shitty but it does have 20k city/highway driven miles on it".

Then I got stuck renting one. Nope it was just shitty.