By on September 11, 2012

Some time ago in TTACs history, the site held an award for the poorest choices in the automobile kingdom. We called it the Ten Worst Automobiles Today – or, the TWATs, for short. It’s been almost 4 years since the TWATs were last run, but for 2012, they’re back.

Conventional wisdom has it that it’s pretty hard to buy a bad car nowadays. In 2008, that wasn’t the case. But 4 years on, the crop of cars has undeniably gotten much better. Boring may be the operative word, but it’s hard to find a truly wretched vehicle for sale.

Rather than handing down the gospel from on high, like every other auto site, we’re opening up the floor to you, the readers, to nominate cars for the TWAT awards.

Rules will be similar to the Farago era. We are still tweaking the rules for this year’s competition, but here are the old rules, for reference.

1.  Any car or light truck offered for sale as a new vehicle in the U.S. between January 1 and today is eligible for nomination. I know those of you in Canada and other countries feel left out, but we have to draw the line somewhere to keep this under control.  It doesn’t matter who built it or where, just that it’s sold legally in the States.

2.  All nominations have to be justified.  That doesn’t mean just saying it’s a POS car.  Tell us WHY it’s a POS car.  Nominations may be deleted unceremoniously and without warning for any of the following reasons:  insufficient justification, excessive verbosity or pontification, foul language or patent absurdity.

3.  All nominations must meet TTAC’s house rules on flaming or trolling (i.e., don’t).  Offensive comments about other readers will be summarily deleted and the writer could be banned from TTAC.  However, offensive observations about the nominees are encouraged.

4.  Blatantly badge-engineered siblings can be nominated jointly if they all suck equally (see winner #8 above).  Platform mates can be nominated separately, but may be combined at the whim of the editor for the final vote.

5.  If we can wake them up long enough, TTAC’s writers will select finalists from the nominees, give or take a few.  The number of times a vehicle is nominated is irrelevant so don’t waste the pixels on typing “me too.”

6.  Readers will vote via an electronic survey on the finalists to determine America’s Ten Worst Vehicles.  Multiple voting ain’t kosher so don’t even try.

7.  Nominations begin today and will continue until midnight EDT, Sunday December 8, with the 20 finalists presented for voting a few days afterwards.  The winners will be announced whenever we get around to it.  We have nothing to give the winners but our disdain, so the winning manufacturers will find out about it like everyone else.

How do you decide what crapmoblies are worthy of your attention?

- Styling so bad it could even make Stevie Wonder look the other way.

- A market misfit that makes you wonder what the product planners were smoking, drinking, shooting up or otherwise self-administering.

- Engineering malpractice that makes the vehicle practically undrivable or so bland you wouldn’t want to drive it.

- Something that you can’t quite put your finger on but gives you the urge to regurge anytime you think about it.

So now it’s in your court.  Make your nominations below and tell us which ones you think are really deserving of being named one of TTAC’s Ten Worst Vehicles.

Following the poll, our editors will chime in with some of their own choices, and Murilee will present his list of most wretched rental cars.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

223 Comments on “Hey Readers; Tell Us About Your TWATs...”


  • avatar
    Roberto Esponja

    I wouldn’t consider a Jeep Patriot one of the “ten worst”. I drove its twin, the Compass, off-road in Moab, Utah, and in 4×4 form with the Freedom Drive II Off Road Group, it proved to be a very capable vehicle.

    • 0 avatar
      TheEndlessEnigma

      The Patriot became a good vehicle the 2010 model year an after when the interior began to be redesigned. A very good CUV for the price and features offered.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      I would. The Patriot does great for a cute ute the one day you leave pavement but at any kind of speed it’s alarmingly gutless while making sounds as if it’s about to break.

      The Wrangler isn’t any good on pavement either but at least it’s a fun kind of bad.

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      The more-traditional Patriot also happens to be outselling the Compass by quite a large margin: 43,633 to 28,368 2012 YTD sales.

      Combined with Caliber sales, these trio of compact Chryslers are good for 34th place between the Kia Soul and Mazda3 with 81,835 2012 YTD sales.

      Not bad for an obsolete Mitsubishi platform.

  • avatar
    Ubermensch

    Toyota iQ

    • 0 avatar

      With the ridiculously short wheelbase and overhangs, I want to get an iQ out on an autocross course. It could be awesome.

    • 0 avatar
      tatracitroensaab

      The Toyota IQ is not perfect, but you really should look at it from the perspective of the people who designed it – it’s purpose is to be tiny, easily parable, and incredibly space efficient. The only other car that really competes in this segment is the Smart car. Is it luxurious, (relatively) fuel efficient, or even a good value? Not really. But for someone who needs a car that size, it is fantastic

  • avatar
    Lampredotto

    The Mitsubishi Galant. The current generation’s design was derivative, wan, and forgettable when it was introduced. NINE YEARS AGO.

  • avatar
    segfault

    Smart ForTwo. Bad styling? Check. Market misfit? Check (there are numerous more practical alternatives for the same price). Engineering malpractice? Check (how do you get so little MPG from an engine so small?).

    I’d also nominate the 2012 Toyota Camry for its incredibly cheap looking interior. I also think Toyota’s implementation of squared-off styling is ugly. This doesn’t seem to have hurt its sales.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Agreed on the Smart ForTwo. It’s a genuinely bad car on a number of levels.

      Don’t agree on the Camry. The interior has some wonky bits, but the quality is about average, it’s a step up from the prior generation, and the seats are genuinely decent. Powertrains, fuel economy, interior space and utility, and refinement are all competitive. Not exciting, maybe not a standout, but not a TWAT.

    • 0 avatar
      Lampredotto

      I’ve driven the ForTwo on multiple occasions as part of a car-sharing service I’m a member of. I feel it qualifies for this list solely on the strength of its horrendously lurchy, laggy transmission. The ForTwo and the weaksauce CVT-equipped iQ would be utterly transformed with a proper manual gearbox. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      The worst part about the ForTwo is that they made it worse when it was revised. CDI powerplant? Gone in North America. Transmission? Much worse. Interior? Less interesting.

      I like the car on principle, but like the Scion xB it’s an example of how to focus-group your way into a poor sequel.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      I’m boggled by the way people keep buying the damned things.

      (” Engineering malpractice? Check (how do you get so little MPG from an engine so small?). ”

      Easy – it’s short. Much harder to get decent aerodynamics and kill drag with something that’s under 9 feet long and shaped like a rounded brick.)

      • 0 avatar
        Les

        Which begs the question of Why it’s so short in the first place?

        It’s a nice idea, ruined by the originators trying to be too cleaver. “Right, most commuters never have need of the two rear seats common in commuter-grade cars so let’s ditch them.. and while we’re at it, lop-off EVERYTHING ELSE we can possibly get away with and still be able to legally call this a car.”

        Is there really such a strong niche for cars designed for people who live in cities too densely populated and congested for even normal sub-compacts yet are too stubborn to use public transport?

    • 0 avatar
      KalapanaBlack

      God, the ’12 Camry DOES have a terrible interior. WAY cheaper than the 2011. I don’t understand the fawning over it in the press.

      The climate controls are far cheaper than the old car, the standard touch screen radio is maddeningly slow and unintuitive to use (I haven’t experienced loaded/Entune-equipped ones), the adjustable rear head restraints have been cost-cut out, several interior lights have been cost-cut out, the center console’s storage bins have been cheapened, the seat fabric has been cost-cut, the carpet has been cost-cut into the sub-basement, the exterior build quality on most of the ones I’ve had experience with (front bumpers that are loose around the edges, rear bumpers that flap in the wind by design, orange peel in the paint) is a step down over the withered on the vine Corolla, stylistically it’s a definite step backward, having more in common with the ’02-06 body style, no real improvements in the drivetrain options…

      I can’t find a single part of the 2012 Camry that was improved over the 2011, aside from (optional) infotainment choices.

      It still drives just as well (or just as badly, depending on your POV) as the 2011. But it’s all surrounded by added cheapness.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “I can’t find a single part of the 2012 Camry that was improved over the 2011″

        That won’t stop the Camry lemmings, KB.

        Camry is like a bad stock that won’t go away, its overall value has probably halved since 1990 while other stocks (i.e. mfgs) have risen against it.

        “My Camry will go 200K”
        So will almost every other car sold now.

        “My Camry no longer has a rust issue as they did twenty years ago”
        Every car is partially plastic now.

        “My Camry has a five star crash rating”
        So does Taurus, Impala, and heck a bunch more today.

    • 0 avatar
      Austinpowerless

      I have to say the ForTwo certainly gets a lot of flak, but, though I say it as an owner, and so shave an obvious bias, I have to say I think most of the criticisms are seriously misplaced. As to the styling, I think it’s kind of cute in a runty way, but to each his own there. also, I have to concede the automated manual tranny is, well, is crime against humanity too strong? perhaps not.
      that said, I can say with all honesty, having owned many dozens of cars from MGs, Triumphs and Loti, to Towncars, Jags and Mercs, the Smart Is one of my favorite cars–maybe THE favorite. Why? Simple, speed.
      yup, for actual, no BS, a to b speed in the real world of urban/suburban driving, the Smart is actually one of the quickest cars I’ve ever owned. And yes, I’m dead serious.
      I’ve owned plenty of “fast” cars in my life, but it wasn’t until I got a Smart (for a goof, really) that I began to realize what motorcyclists have realized for a long time: in real-world urban driving, traffic nimbleness is, well, everything. I literally can’t count the number of times I’ve slipped through blockades of traffic from an accident, or a left-turning moron, or an intersection-blocking bus, and on and on. and the parking. My god, the parking. after the twentieth or thirtieth time I’e slipped into a spot right next to my destination (that only a Smart could fit) reality dawned: I’ve probably saved ten times the time not circling to find a spot that I’ve “lost” with my admittedly sluggish acceleration. besides, this is the street. I’ve long since outgrown Macho posturing; I save my racing for the track.
      A word about performance, too: dammit, it’s adequate for the purpose. yes, overall, it’s a “slow” car, but in reality, it’s good enough. I’ve driven it at real highway speeds (80-85) for hours on end; its second gear acceleration is surprisingly good around town. to be fair, its handling is pretty bad (the understeer is, well, character-building). on the upside, it’s an outstanding snow car. Yup, you read that right. Its combination of skinny tires and rear engine make it remarkably good at traversing even deep snow. Case in point: I actually had to use my Smart to retrieve my sister from her four wheel drive Expedition winter before last. it was stuck in the snow. Again, faster, as in, mobile.
      mileage? As many have pointed out, very good, but not outstanding for its size. But, I couldn’t care less, it’s fast.

      • 0 avatar
        Bowler300

        Being a previous owner of a Smart I agree with you. I loved the car; styling, size, comfort, utility. The problem with it is horrible transmission. I just couldn’t put up with it any longer.

  • avatar
    TheEndlessEnigma

    The Nissan Cube seems a good choice….for this award.

    Hideous styling (he look, I’m driving a box!)
    Interior treatments (what’s that, a shag rug on the dash?)
    More body roll than a hooker working overtime.
    Weak engine and transmission
    Oh and did I mention, your driving a box!?

    • 0 avatar
      James Courteau

      I’ve never met a Cube owner that didn’t love their car

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Rented one in 2010… while I cannot say I was very impressed I will say I swear the thing sounded like a Jetsons car when it was decelerating… Jane get me off this crazy thing!

      • 0 avatar
        Banger

        “I’ve never met a Cube owner that didn’t love their car”

        And this Cube owner won’t buck that trend. No way does the Cube qualify for the TWAT award.

        It is one of the best-equipped small cars on the market today. It’s still built in Japan (one of few “Japanese” USDM cars and even fewer USDM Nissans built there) and features one of the most comfortable, surprisingly useful interiors you’ll see in a small car.

        The Cube is probably the easiest car to maneuver in tight situations, bar none. It turns on a dime and gives you nine cents change. It fits in 3/5 of a regular parking space length. Parallel parking has never been easier.

        It doesn’t hurt that for a box, it gets pretty good fuel economy. We’re averaging 36 mpg over the life of our Cube so far (nearly two years). It will be interesting to see if the “PureDrive” treatment they’re giving the Cube for 2013 will result in better EPA highway ratings, but admittedly there’s only so much you can do with something the shape of a cinder block.

        Demerits (and I’m objective enough to tell you there are a few beyond the small size, for those of you who think a good car has to be 25 feet long): High MSRP thanks to the JPY/USD exchange rate, sparse availability at many dealerships, slight tendency to get buffeted around in crosswinds (until you realize it’s front wheel drive and will largely self-correct if you’ll just relax your death-grip on the wheel, anyway), and it can either haul quite a bit of stuff, or three or more passengers in comfort (but never both at the same time.)

        I also disagree with using the newest-generation Patriot as the photo for this. I’ve actually considered one. Decent fuel efficiency vs. off-roadability, low price, and a cheap (read: tough) interior. It’s the Jeepiest thing Jeep has made in years! (I’m looking at you, $30,000 Wranglers that are popular at Jeep dealers in my neck of the woods.)

        My nomination is for the Chrysler 200. Because you can put lipstick on a pig…and I’ll let Sarah Palin finish the rest. By all accounts it’s a largely improved vehicle that blows away the Sebring, but I just can’t shake the Sebring mentality when I see one because IT LOOKS LIKE THE SAME #@$@* CAR! Whose idea was that? Memo to Chrysler: Next time you invest a lot of time, energy, and money into improving a car that much, make sure it looks sufficiently different from the previous, poorly reviewed model that I don’t immediately wonder whether I’m looking at the new-and-improved edition or the old-and-to-be-avoided version.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “one of few “Japanese” USDM cars”

        Simply amazes me why people would want to buy a Japanese car NOT built in Japan.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

      I’d vote for the flabby latter-day xB over the Cube.

      (Though I’m not a big fan of asymmetry, it does look pretty practical and distinct.)

  • avatar
    Roberto Esponja

    A car whose only redeeming value is resembling Pumbaa from The Lion King – the Nissan Rogue.

    • 0 avatar
      ezeolla

      I would have to agree with this car being pretty terrible. My mother drives one and the CVT makes me want to drive it off a cliff. It takes about 3 seconds to react to throttle input and by then, that hole in traffic you were aiming for is gone.

      On the other hand, it is pretty easy to scare people in the passenger seat when you can make the car rev and lurch but not really go anywhere.

      • 0 avatar
        mistercopacetic

        I rented a Rogue recently, it was pretty pleasant even after apparent abuse (from prior drivers, of course). Styling is fairly subjective, but for me it looked just fine, neither offensive nor attractive. The interior quality was at least at class levels. The CVT was obviously installed for maximum fuel economy, but all I noticed was it was pretty smooth, if not particularly responsive. I would put it on my list of small SUVs to cross-shop against, if in the market for one.

      • 0 avatar
        ezeolla

        Also, it is very loud on the highway

      • 0 avatar
        KalapanaBlack

        The Rogue does suck. Cheap looking on the outside, cheap interior, garbage CVT. I find it unbelievable that the thing sells. I’d position it at the bottom of the small CUV class, under even the old-school 2012 Escape.

    • 0 avatar
      Sttocs

      THAT’S the image I’ve been searching for to describe the Rogue’s looks! Perfect!

    • 0 avatar
      Roberto Esponja

      Crap, I meant the Juke, not the Rogue. Not crazy about that one, but at least that one is a “mehhh…” sort of SUV. But the Juke is definitely what the Transformer’s version of a warthog would be.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    I’ll nominate the Hyundai Sonata Hybrid.

    The styling is horrible; the front grill looks like a basking shark moving in for the kill on a school of krill.

    Every test I’ve read of the thing shows real-world fuel economy badly trailing the Fusion and Camry hybrids without offering better acceleration or similar levels of drivetrain refinement. It simply isn’t anywhere near competitive.

    • 0 avatar

      Well if you think that’s bad, check out the one on the 2013 Honda Accord hybrid. I don’t understand why Asian car companies can’t comprehend the fact that Americans don’t want their hybrids looking like caricatured animals.

      Actually, the Sonata Hybrid may have been designed in Hyundai’s California studio, which is *really* sad…

      • 0 avatar
        dejal1

        I read an article in some car magazine a long time ago, where the author thought that the Japanese over do it because of the close quarters they live in. They don’t view cars at a distance, but very close up. So, to get your attention they over do it, because your eyes will pick up on an odd feature that is over the top.

        I don’t buy it, because the Japanese have turned out a lot of good designs.

        I actually don’t think the Hybrid grille is the worst feature on the car. It’s the wheels. Way too much going on with those wheels. Those old Ronal bear wheels that TireRack used to sell would look better.

        If no one remembers them, do a bing image search for
        “tirerack bear wheels”

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        Maybe the purpose of the 2013 Honda Accord Hybrid front fascia styling is to scare other drivers. Make them give the hybrid room as it cuts across traffic to the HOV lane. If the Accord Hybrid was in a wreck, it might get a free face transplant from the non-hybrid model, so what does the hybrid driver have to lose?

  • avatar
    Ex Radio Operator

    Ferrari. Buy one and then watch it burst into flames. But, it does look stylish as it burns to the ground. It happens so often it must be a feature, not a bug.

  • avatar
    Volts On Fire

    Easy, the 2013 Malibu Eco. Soundly and unanimously criticized as the worst new vehicle introduced this year by innumerable publications, automotive-based and not.

    Old-tech “hybrid” powertrain with MPG ratings that fail to match non-hybrid competitors, wrapped in a horridly-designed bastardized-Camaro exterior and with less rear seat legroom than its (dull, poorly finished, but competent) predecessor. And a dashboard straight out of the 1970s in “styling” touches and panel fit.

    The entire Malibu line could be worthy of a TWAT, but let’s see if the turbo engine manages to compensate for the platform’s numerous failings (we already know the 2.5L doesn’t.)

    Here’s a wild idea: maybe GM should have spent some of the money it wasted on the Volt, to better implement its top-selling model in the most competitive car segment? That kind of thinking might just raise the stock price a few points, too.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I’m with you on the 2013 Malibu as a TWAT. Perfect example of what not to do.

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        I agree fully. The new Malibu is a flop. I have not seen a single one in real life.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        Agreed. GM should have the advantage of home field knowledge, but they managed to come up with a family sedan that’s not competitive with the previous 2007-2011 Toyota Camry sales leader. Camry, but less ugly would be such an easy and obvious goal and GM has the engineering capability to deliver. Just copy the leader’s dimensions, but avoid the nose bulge and strange tail lights. Instead they deliver an excessively heavy family car with insufficient length for rear-facing child seats.

    • 0 avatar
      KalapanaBlack

      I’ve seen probably 2-3 Malibus on the street, and that includes at least one verifiable rental car around a major airport. The local dealer has plenty on their lot, along with a violet-colored Spark that hasn’t moved in more than a month.

      On the other hand, the just-launched 2013 Altima is already becoming thick on the ground. I’ve probably seen at least twenty, also including 1-2 rental cars.

  • avatar
    cugrad

    I nominate the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet.

    People like SUV’s and convertibles, so why not combine the two? Would love to know what sort of drugs they were on when they thought this was a good idea.

    Edited to contain my “reasoning.” I contend that this idea it so horrible that the car condemns itself by its sheer existence. No verbose reasoning required, although I will point out that the addition of a convertible top removes most of the good aspects of an SUV, leaving you only with a convertible that handles poorly and gets awful gas mileage without holding much cargo. It does seat four, at least.

    • 0 avatar
      dejal1

      Ding!!!! Ding!!!! Ding!!!! Ding!!!!

      We have a winner!

    • 0 avatar
      Joe McKinney

      They were smoking the same stuff that inspired the Suzuki X-90 and the Chevy SSR.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        SSR was basically a high profit low volume concept car they produced just to keep the Lansing Craft Centre open. Lexus LFA is no different with the notable exception Toyota is piloting new materials and manufacturing processes with its production whereas GM was just keeping the lights on.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        No, that makes it way different.

        And the results were different, too.

        The SSR was a poor excuse for a roadster, a mediocre quarter-miler and a very bad pickup truck. GM should have gotten a prize for failing to appeal to three market segments at once.

        The LFA, however, is a pretty awesome sports car.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “GM should have gotten a prize for failing to appeal to three market segments at once.” LOL

        Vette type people liked the SSR as those are the only people whom I ever saw driving/buying one. I’ve driven it, it feels very heavy in turns and overall I could see no reason to buy one over a Vette (or possibly a Camaro of the period).

        I can’t dispute the LFA simply because I have never (and will never) get a chance to drive one, but I doubt anyone outside of TTAC management will ever have an opportunity either. I’m sure it will be a well engineered ride, but it wasn’t designed and sold to keep the lights on, which is precisely my point. You build prestige cars when you are well in the black (as Lexus in the 90s did with the first SC), you usually cannot when you are fighting for survival… at best you might slap together something for a quick buck, a la SSR.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      No contest, this is the worst idea for a vehicle EVER!

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTheDriver

      Although I find your logic thoroughly tautological … I agree. Kill it. Kill it with fire.

    • 0 avatar
      Micah

      I also nominate the Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet. There is one that I have sighted locally several times. It is ugly. Ugly. UGLY. SO UGLY! I would rather drive a bright orange Aztek.

    • 0 avatar
      theonewhogotaway

      I think that it is a great concept (and this comes from a person who lives in the Northeast and has a BMW convertible as his “summer car” and a Jeep Cherokee as his “winter car”), but the execution failed miserably. The thing is uglier than sin.

      The concept of a good size convertible with a solid roof, awd or 4×4 and decent ground clearance is a great one. If someone comes with a decent one, I will be lining up.

    • 0 avatar
      tatracitroensaab

      People who love weird cars love this kind of stuff on old cars, but cannot seem to appreciate it on new ones. The cross cabriolet is hilarious and amazing, even if it is and never could have been anything but a sales flop. Twenty years from now this car is going to be loved by everyone at jalopnik.

    • 0 avatar
      afedaken

      SUV – Check…
      Convertible – Check…

      …Make mine a Wrangler please.

  • avatar
    JLGOLDEN

    Honda Crosstour. Ungainly styling. Truly seems like a half-effort to grab sales. Strange bulges and creases from every angle and the pinched profile offer no elegance, sport, and not much utility.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      You know, the Crosstour is not really that bad. I mean, it’s not great, but it improves a lot over the base Accord (NVH, cargo versatility). It’s still pretty comfortable and easy to drive.

      Now, the ZDX, that’s a bad car. I wrote this on TTAC about it a year ago:
      —-
      This is the first car that tempted me to write a review for TTAC because it’s so incredibly bad.

      Take, for example, the Honda Fit. It’s not a supercar, but it embodies a lot of virtues: efficient, well packaged, quick, fun to drive, easy to use. Now, imagine a car that is the Fit’s polar opposite: huge and lumbering, yet curiously cramped. Amply powered, but not at all fun to drive. Not an SUV, and yet it drives like one while having none of an SUV’s advantages: no space for people, no ability to haul, no commanding view.

      In short: imagine the worst aspect of every kind of car: the field of view of a sports car, the step-in of a truck, the rear seat of a coupe. Now, try to imagine why you would roll all this into one car.

      Honda did exactly that. That the car is funny looking isn’t really the point, it’s that it’s funny looking and utterly terrible. People talk about the Crosstour, RL or TL and how they point to the decline of Honda, but those three are actually pretty good cars within their niche. And it’s not like you can’t make a sports car that’s an SUV—the Infiniti FX is just such a beast, and a very good beast it is—it’s that this is so not how to do it.

      The ZDX sucks so much that it doesn’t have a niche. The CR-Z is a brilliant execution by comparison.

      Here’s an example: you need to be six foot four to manage the ridiculous step-in this car has. I’m talking worse-than-HD-truck, here. And yet, if you’re over six-four, you can barely drive it. You certainly can’t sit in the sear seat. My five-foot mother-in-law couldn’t. My four-year old son complained about the view out (or lack thereof). As far as I can tell, the guy who designed this car must be an anatomical freak, and one who’s somehow completely untouchable within Honda’s corporate structure.

      In terms of virtues, the ZDX’s looks are about all it has. Even the black-when-off instrument panel that should have looked cool instead looks like someone rubbed all the decals off.

      The Aztek used to be the standard bearer for holistic suck, but at least the Aztek could hold carry people comfortably. Dismissing it for being ugly misses the opportunity to dismiss it for being a complete and epic failure.

      I’d buy one just for that, and put a plaque on it that says “How not to do it.”

    • 0 avatar
      holladay

      I second the Honda Crosstour. Not for what the car is exactly, but for what it represents. Honda used to be a company that wanted to make the best car in every segment. They didn’t have a full line up until the late 90’s. Their approach was to stay small and build the best. Civic, Accord, Prelude, CRX… That was basically it for a long time. Then they slowly added the CR-V, Odyssey, and eventually Pilot. Each one of those vehicles definitely had some real Honda DNA in the first versions. But the Crosstour?? Along with the new Insight, CR-Z, 2012 Civic, and almost everything at Acura, the Crosstour is a giant misstep. A poor effort at gaining market share and a beacon of mediocrity from a company once known for setting the industry benchmarks.

  • avatar
    Joe McKinney

    Kia Sedona

    The current version of the Sedona has been around since 2006. While not a terrible vehicle, the design is outdated compared to newer minvans from Chrysler, Honda and Toyota. Even with a lower price and longer warrantly Sedona sales have declined significantly in recent years.

    Kia recently announced that 2012 will the Sedona’s last year in the U.S. Market. They have hinted that a new version will be developed, though no launch date has been given.

  • avatar
    Domestic Hearse

    Lincoln MKT.

    Stoopid name. Short for Meerkat. No. Market. No. Mark Truck. No. Make Time. No, not that either. Mucktup. Maybe. Should be.

    Ugly face. A face so ugly, only a mother with a similar big, droopy, cowgirl mustache could love it. Or a whale.

    Ugly body. With droopy, fat, floppily drawn sides. Hey, can we get a TTAC Velum piece on this POS?

    And, a black car livery replacement for the car every TTAC reader appreciates: The Town Car/Panther. So we’ll be seeing MKTs in every city center and pulling up to airports for the Rest. Of. Our. Lives.

    The horror. The horror.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Have to agree.

    • 0 avatar
      Windy

      I agree. The modern Lincoln is the pits; the look of the front end of them is so bad it is hard to come up with a reason for the grill design. I have not driven one but I have been in the back of a few livery ones on the way to or from the airport and the ride in the back I would class as ‘marginal’

      My baseline for Lincoln design etc remains the 60s Continental. best looking american luxury car of the last 50 years esp the 61 to 66 models.

      My Grand mother was born in 1890 and never learned to drive so when my Grandfather died in 1956 she hired a driver/gardner/ handyman named Selah Wallbridge who had been gassed in the first world war and took up being a Chauffeur Complete with proper uniform as he could no longer do heavy work. He kept the last car my grand father(he and his father never owned anything but Packards from the time that grt grandfather got his first car before WW I [but the post war Packards were a shadow of their prewar glory]) bought (a top of the line Cadillac fleetwood from 1948) in like new condition even though it had almost 160,000 miles on it when was traded in on the 1961 Continental which she traded in on a 66 sedan version at 100,000 (she found the convertible got less and less use as she got older.) the 66 she kept till she died in 85 and I sold it to a collector for $4,000. it had 170,000 miles on it but looked like it was brand new (heated garage and kept by Mr. Wallbridge it was showroom fresh every time it hit the road. it was quiet and comfortable from the back seat as well as from the front and was what a car like this should be.

      With proper care these cars from the 60s would go to 200,000 miles or more but proper care meant you had a grease pit in your heated garage a full time driver/mechanic to care for them and all those lube points were attended to almost weekly oil was changed every 1,500 to 3,000 miles etc etc

  • avatar

    I’m going to have to say the current Smart ForTwo, as well. It simply has the worst transmission for sale on the U.S./Canadian market, if not the entire automotive market. It’s overpriced, drinks premium fuel, and doesn’t get remarkable fuel economy. Other than the fact it is easy to park and nimble in city situations, there aren’t many positives to it. In fact, it’s pretty much the worst automobile today.

  • avatar
    Polar Bear

    The Toyota FJ Cruiser for its stupid retro look, noise, poor visibility, crappy build quality, stinky handling, bumpy ride, impractical door access and loud colors.

    • 0 avatar
      azmtbkr81

      Come on now, the FJ Cruiser is a niche off-road vehicle much like the Wrangler. It is going to ride rough and handle poorly on the road but get it off of the pavement and it really shines. Please don’t endanger one of the last SUVs sir! They are becoming as rare as the polar bear in your avatar.

      If you want a tallish, long car with 4 doors that handles well on the road Toyota has lame CUVs of every shape and size to choose from.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        Nothing says serious offroader like an IFS and craptastic visibility. When on the trail I need to know where the 4 corners of the vehicle are. I drove several still thinking they would be a good fit for at least camping and stuff with the family with the vinyl floor and stuff but the stupid door arrangement ruled that out. FJ80=last serious offroading Toyota this country got, even with all the stupid leather and geegaws. I’ll second the 10 worst nomination as this truck is supposed to carry the torch of the FJ-40. On that front, it is a fail. I do like the available steel wheels and available tan paint, but that’s pretty much it.

    • 0 avatar
      ezeolla

      And what is wrong with loud colors? Even though I don’t drive a loud colored car (Navy Blue for me, thank you very much), I definitely appreciate when I see one driving down the road in the middle of a pack of silver cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Zombo

      When these first came out off road enthusiasts salivated over a supposed rival for the heavy duty Jeep Rubicon . Instead they got a big tacky plasticy SUV with poor outward visibility and cheap plastic diamond plate accents inside . The yellow and light blue ones look like clown cars . All they need is a big rubber bulbed brass ooo-gah horn on the door and Bozo at the wheel . Cue up the circus music – Doot doot doo doo do da doot doot do do !

      • 0 avatar
        Zombo

        The Toyota FJ (Funny Joke) Loser is a dork mobile that only a dork would be caught dead in ! Read the rules , reliability has nothing to do with it- well a little but not everything . If you drive a dorky circus clown car be prepared to hear the circus theme song !

    • 0 avatar

      The 2010 FJ has about half of visit rank of Wrangler, so I would not be so fast with the poor build quality. Colors are quite practical, if you want to be easily found. Visibility was quite all right in my testing. For some reason everyone ass-umes it should be bad because it has wide pillars, but it’s not. As for the practicality of the door access, there is no such thing as “door access”. And 2nd row access is much better in FJ than in 2D Wrangler (although perhaps worse than in 4D JKU). All in all, I do not agree with the nomination.

  • avatar
    mistercopacetic

    Dodge Caliber: Universally panned as one of the worst cars in its class for poor build quality, material quality, performance, NVH, fuel economy, etc; existing for the sole purpose of keeping a factory running so that ports across America will have all available storage space occupied.

    Maybach 57/62: A dressed-up S600 for twice the price. A car built not to be the best in its class in any measure, but to merely be known as expensive. Best remembered for its transformation at the hands of Kanye West and Jay-Z in the “Otis” video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoEKWtgJQAU

    Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet: Let’s take a car whose fascia was inspired by Hannibal Lecter’s mask and cut off its head. Perhaps the first car in history marketed first and foremost for its ability to carry golf clubs in the trunk, so perfectly focused was its target audience (retirees who had lost their sense of sight, but not their trust funds).

    Scion xB: Let’s take the very qualities that made our first generation such an unexpected hit (too-hip-to-be-square style, lightweight, good fuel economy, fun to drive) and completely destroy them.

    VW Beetle: Let’s take the one feature completely unique to this model (flower bud vase) and eliminate it, turning what could be a whimsical fashion accessory into nothing more than a more expensive and less practical version of the economy car it is based on.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      The latest Beetle is ugly. The classic arch shape of he old one was iconic and stylish. Somedbody apparently dropped the clay model for the new one on it’s top and nobody noticed until after they’d drawn the CAD from it and made the tooling.

    • 0 avatar
      Bluliner

      The Dodge Caliber is more horrendous than most of you can possibly imagine. This year I was punished by my superiors by way of taking delivery of a ’12 Caliber.

      The seats are very uncomfortable and every time you touch something you’re instantly reminded that this car is cheap. Good cheap cars hide this…bad cheap cars don’t.

      The ride is wobbly to say the least. I honestly feel uncomfortable taking it on expressways unless there’s gridlock. It wallows from side-to-side, front-to-rear, and likes to catch the grooves left by tucks. A completely numb steering feel just makes matters worse; you never really know where the wheels are pointing.

      Exhaust note? You hear something like a sewing machine coming from behind the radio and downshifts, if it ever downshifts, give me the impression the engine REALLY wants to become externally combusted. And that radio? Makes everything sound like there’s a speaker inside a thin plastic box. Awful & very tinny sounding; talk radio is about all that’s bearable.

      Styling? Whatever…it’s a company car

      Redeeming qualities? It has a 12v outlet in the center console that’s placed nicely. That’s all I can really think of. It isn’t that great on gas either.

      This car makes a fleet-spec Dodge Ram feel like a S-Class Mercedes. The Ram drives 100% better, is more comfortable, radio sounds better, and is a better place to be than the Caliber.

      (Personal vehicles for reference – E36 M3 & Mazda3)

      • 0 avatar
        KalapanaBlack

        Are you sure it is a 2012? I was under the impression that the last model year for the Caliber was 2011. They did at least improve the interior for the last year, but the Caliber has always been a terrible car. Prior to the newer interior (which was simply better than the old one, and about on par with the current Corolla in overall quality), it had the worst interior in the C segment.

  • avatar
    redav

    Was the Sebring sold after Jan 1?

    I had one as a rental, and I can’t say anything good about it. Poor visibility, poor ride, unconfortable seats, drove like a boat, terrible mileage, and ugly as homemade sin.

    • 0 avatar
      ant

      re: Sebring. A friend of mine had one giving to her with 105k miles on it a few years back. It’s got 170k on it now, and the only thing she’s replaced on it was some suspension bits (tie rods or something like that).

      She loves that it’s a convertible, and the soft top still doesn’t leak.

      I mean yeah, I think it’s a POJ, but it’s been a great car for her, and she loves it.

    • 0 avatar
      theonewhogotaway

      Ditto. but mine was the current Chrysler 200 version. Has to be on the list. No redeaming factors whatsoever. About the same quality and space as my Nissan Versa rental (and that one has half the price point.)

  • avatar
    ant

    I nominate the Fisker Karma.

    Do I really haveta explain why?

    (edit: cause justin bieber owns one. I rest my case)

  • avatar
    mitchw

    Any BMW. The enormous black nostrils coming at me make me sick. They’re univeraly driven by over aggressive twats, who need to slow down in turns like they’ve got their panties twisted around their kankles.

    I’m serious

  • avatar
    Polar Bear

    The Cadillac Escalade for being ugly, outdated, over the top, expensive, thirsty, unreliable, unsafe, having poor handling, crappy steering and shitty brakes and making people think you drive around with a back seat full of prostitutes.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “you drive around with a back seat full of prostitutes”

      Whats wrong with that?

    • 0 avatar
      makuribu

      The Cadillac Escalade EXT, which calls itself “the Cadillac of pickup trucks” without any sense of irony or Get Shorty. A gigantic four door pickup truck riding on 20 inch rims and zero sidewall tires is an awesome sight to behold, especially as the driver is slewing from side to side to avoid manhole covers lest his “SUV” bottom out or break a strut.

    • 0 avatar
      ezeolla

      Man, you really have a thing against SUVs. Whenever I get to valet one of these bad boys it is usually a business man in very nice clothes with a family to match so my stereotyping of this vehicle has been changed. I can’t really argue the fact that they are expensive because, well, they are and a loaded Tahoe or Yukon does pretty much the same job just without the badge and I believe with true 4×4 (except the Denali which has AWD).

  • avatar
    dolorean

    Two words: Nissan Juke.

    • 0 avatar
      jpolicke

      +1!!!

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      +1 Ah yes the Nissan Joke.

    • 0 avatar
      Banger

      Disagree. My review: http://gearheads.org/the-2012-nissan-juke-beautiful-break-from-the-norm-or-baffling-bullfrog/

    • 0 avatar
      Sttocs

      The Juke is at least interesting enough to dislike, and I give it points for that. I think we need more cars with personality, even if that puts people off. Let’s have girly cars (that aren’t bad), manly cars, sports cars, off-road cars, gangster cars, cars that look like frogs, etc.

      So many cars are exactly the same, despite the proliferation of brands and models. They just vary in height and length.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        Sure the Juke is interesting. I could say the same about some fresh made roadkill. Sure is interesting! Might even be edible after removing the bits of glass and pebbles and dee-E-E-licious when served with some faba beans and a nice Chianti. Still, not exactly on par with actual vittles, is it?

        The Juke, like the BMW X6, answers a question that nobody asked with a design that only its mother could love.

      • 0 avatar
        Sttocs

        I’ll take some well-cooked roadkill over McDonald’s and I’ll take a Juke over a Carolla.

    • 0 avatar
      Geekcarlover

      I like the Juke, but then again, I think toads are cute. At least it doesn’t have that clone of a dozen others look. When I look at one, I have to wonder what designs were turned down.

      • 0 avatar
        Les

        I seriously considered a Juke at one point, but after sitting in one there was no way it could happen since the driver’s side door steadfastly refused to acknowledge my left-arm’s right to exist.

    • 0 avatar
      panzerfaust

      Got my vote, the first car I ever saw that appeared to have congenital birth defect. Stupid name, goofy front end, and generally answers a question no one asked.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      With all due respect to anyone who may have driven one in the 1970s, but..

      ..anything designed with a “C”-pillar cribbed from an AMC Gremlin! (Juke, Kia Soul, I’m looking at you!!) The Murano is a little more tasteful with the rounding of the “kink,” but having sat in one at an auto show, the visibility is still abysmal, IMHO.

  • avatar
    brettc

    While I appreciate the Mitsubishi Galant nomination, I’m appalled that no current Suzuki models have yet been nominated. So I’m going to nominate the entire Suzuki model range. They sell a whole 4 differently named vehicles. They make thirsty small cars, they make a thirsty small SUV, they make a mid-size that’s not horrible, but the ads for it definitely are. Then they make a pickup that I didn’t know existed until last year when I actually saw one on the road and thought it was an old out of production model. And of course, Suzuki has some of the worst sales numbers out there, which has caused many of the B&B to wonder why they still bother in the U.S. Then there’s the fact that they won’t have any new models until something like 2015.

    Since I’ve known 2 people with SX4s, I’ll nominate that one in particular. They’re ugly small cars with horrible fuel economy even for a 2WD model. A guy I know traded his SX4 for a Chevy Sonic and said the Sonic was great compared to the SX4. Another guy bought an SX4 and kept talking about disappointed he was with its thirstiness compared to his previous 2000 Echo. Due to Suzuki’s limited dealer network, if you were to take advantage of their crazy 6 year, 0% financing, you’d still have problems getting it fixed if it broke.

    But Suzuki keeps soldiering on for unknown reasons. I guess we have to admire their craziness/perseverance.

    • 0 avatar
      ezeolla

      I wouldn’t say their whole lineup. The Kazashi is a nice car and the Equator is just a rebadged Frontier (but without a manual transmission) so how bad could it be? I can’t really speak for the others though.

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      To be fair- it’s pretty hard to find a car that can match a 2000 Echo for gas mileage.

    • 0 avatar
      KalapanaBlack

      The SX-4 was interesting a few years ago. It is a bit over the hill now (although the interior is of decent quality). The AWD hatchback offers quite a bit at a decent price, but the basic FWD sedan is just appalling in looks and what it offers versus the competition.

      Of course, (presumably) due to aerodynamics and weight, the basic FWD sedan with a CVT is the only SX-4 that gets competitive fuel economy… The AWD hatchback with the 11 gallon tank has about 250-300 mile range. That’s pretty bad.

  • avatar
    Theophilus138

    I nominate the Toyota Matrix. It’s an example of truly atrocious packaging. Despite being a high-roof hatchback, it is impossible for tall drivers to find a comfortable driving position, which is aggravated by the low height of the top of the windshield, impairing visibility. The rear seating is cramped, and the rear wheel wells and suspension conspire to rob the cargo area of a lot of useful space. The car simply can’t be used to carry bulky objects. It also has horrible styling inside and out. The body has weird lumps, the rear door doesn’t resolve into the C-pillar at all, and it has those stupid, useless quarter windows extending from the rear hatch glass. This also gives the car horrible rear blind spots. The interior is also distinctly unharmoniously styled. But the worst thing about all of this is that in all these ways the current Matrix is inferior to the first-generation car. That makes this car truly awful – it represents the deterioration of a much better car.

    • 0 avatar
      KalapanaBlack

      I’ll sign on for this. The Matrix is one of the ugliest cars rolling, IMO. Plus it has the same underwhelming mechanicals as the Corolla. At least the Corolla is innocuously styled.

      The Matrix’s slab of a dashboard is shocking once you’re inside. The Pontiac Vibe version looked better overall, at least in GT trim. Too bad Toyota gave themselves the uglified version.

  • avatar
    Polar Bear

    The Nissan Leaf, for forcing you to drive without heat in the winter, without air condition in the summer, without lights in the dark, without overtaking, without the radio on, without going up hills, without wipers in the rain, without keeping up with highway traffic speeds and with a range estimate that says you will make it home in limp mode only to get a flat battery with ten miles left.

    • 0 avatar
      Slow_Joe_Crow

      Have you ever driven a Leaf? A friend at work has one and we routinely drive it around with A/C in the summer, heat in the winter and plenty of range for getting home at night. Your description sounds more like the late and unlamented Zap Xebra, which was a TWAT worthy “car”.

  • avatar
    Truckducken

    Honda CR-Z. ‘Cuz like, ‘what if we combine the interior room of the beloved CRX with a flaccid, overly complex powertrain, then remove the exterior view and pile on the pounds until the thing can’t get out of its own way’.

    • 0 avatar
      Dynasty

      I test drove a CR-Z. I remembered the car seemed to handle okay. But the seats were uncomfortable after about ten minutes, the car was s.l.o.w. And visibility was so impaired I was scared to get out of the left lane into the right worried I was going to get rear ended by someone.

      Other than that, it was an alright car. The interior seemed nice too.

  • avatar
    JMII

    Mini Countryman.

    Its a larger, lifted version of the iconic Mini… who asked for that? What purpose does it serve? It checks all the wrong boxes. Ugly. Useless. Expensive. Silly.

    • 0 avatar
      cfclark

      As a MINI owner*, agree on this. MINI should stick to the hardtop, convertible and Clubman. The Countryman, Coupe and Roadster are superfluous. A bridge too far as far as brand extension.

      My wife’s car, not practical for me but she loves it.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Nissan Sentra – questionable quality combined with a suspension that is floaty, harsh and bouncy all at the same time.

    Toyota Corolla – a clear case where economy comes at the price of even modest enjoyment. The transmission is ancient and crude, the interior is cheap and depressing and the suspension is at best confused.

    Lexus HS 250h – for those who want to pay a lot more for their Prius

    Mitsubishi Eclipse – sub par handling and more cheap plastics than a Chinese made toy.

    Scion xD and xB – neither practical, fashionable nor fun or any of things that made the original Scion launch interesting.

    SMART fortwo – I’m guessing its based on a Soviet era lawnmower because that’s how it drives.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      I tend to agree about the Lexus HS250h, it’s nice enough but why build a hybrid that doesn’t do much for your fuel economy? Given what it costs, it really should be something special.

      However, the Corolla is what it is. Honest, trouble-free transportation. The people buying it don’t expect a Mini-Cooper driving experience but they do want to get to work on time. It brings customers back to Toyota. I don’t know why Toyota hasn’t seen fit to update the transmission and some of the other bits but it does deliver the goods on the road. Nobody ends up wanting to set fire to their Corolla. And the Corollas don’t generally set fire to themselves, either.

      • 0 avatar
        KalapanaBlack

        I recently put 150 miles on a 2012 Corolla rental and got nothing out of it other than a back ache.

        The next day, I rented a Cruze for 3 days and put almost 500 miles on it.

        It’s a shame somebody can’t manufacture a car with the overall quality of a Corolla and the driving dynamics and comfort of a Cruze. I’d drive a Cruze everytime over a Corolla, but I’d buy a Corolla everytime over the recall-laden Cruze.

        The fuel economy (2012 Corolla LE w/ alloys, 2012 Cruze LT 1.8 with alloys and nothing else) was almost exactly the same.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      And in Lexus’ defense… the replacements for the HS, the CT and the new ES-h, are pretty good hybrids. The HS was a sideshow and now the main event is on.

    • 0 avatar
      Neb

      Nitpick: Soviet era lawnmowers were goats.

    • 0 avatar
      James Courteau

      In defense of the xD, I found it to be all around, a pretty darn good little station wagon with great gas milage. I ended up with a Versa hatch, though, it leased out much cheaper and the visibility is better. The Nissan dealer was also much nicer to deal with.

    • 0 avatar
      Acd

      +1 Nissan Sentra. Everything about it screams that the owner has given up. Wonder Bread has more flavor than this thing. The most substantial piece of metal on the car is the license plate; awful cvt transmission. The best part about when it breaks is that you don’t have to drive it. It’s depressingly bad.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    BMW X6. You can buy just as ugly elsewhere for less money. Or any luxury SUV. Ads proclaim their handling finesse, but they’re still bricks on Popsicle sticks.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Again, you’d think the X6 was bad, but you really need to experience the ZDX to understand why it (the X6) is actually a decent car.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Wow that’s quite a bit of ZDX hate… how can you do a so-so job on the Crosstour and then screw up its Acura badge engineered clone so badly?

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        The Crosstour and ZDX aren’t badge-jobs: The former is a slightly lifted Accord hatchback with all the options, and the Accord is actually a pretty good car. There’s nothing functionally wrong with the Crosstour that a restyle and a two-inch drop in ride height wouldn’t fix.

        The ZDX is an MDX (which is, in turn, a Pilot/Ridgeline) with all the MDX’s virtues (space, sightlines, ingress/egress) removed, all it’s foibles left intact (trucky ride and handling, weight), and a smattering of it’s own failings added to the mix. If it actually was a rebadged Crosstour it would handle better and you woulnd’t need to be a five-foot, 90lb woman with a 34″ inseam to get into it.

        The ZDX is fundamentally flawed; you’d have to go back to formula to fix it.

      • 0 avatar

        I don’t understand how the Crosstour looks better than the ZDX. The ZDX actually looks like a well-chiseled piece of machinery, and is probably the best fit for the Acura corporate “power-plenum” beak. The Crosstour, on the other hand, looks like a reincarnated British Leyland product…

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Wow I suppose props for not badge engineering the ZDX from Crosstour, but it sounds like doing just that would have made a better product.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “I don’t understand how the Crosstour looks better than the ZDX”

        It doesn’t. The Crosstour is ugly, make no bones about it. The difference is that it’s ugly, and yet a pretty good car. The ZDX might be less ugly, but it’s a terrible car.

        The Crosstour is just ugly. The ZDX wishes that was it’s only problem.

        “Ugly” shouldn’t be enough to land you on this list, nor should any other single attribute, in and of itself. A car needs to be comprehensively, holistically, bad: it has be perform poorly, be a textbook example of bad product planning, utterly brand-defliing, be excretably unreliable as well as being aesthetically challenged.

        This is why, say, the Corolla or Juke don’t belong on this list. They’re not bad cars on the whole. This is actually a tougher exercise than it used to be because there’s not nearly so many truly awful cars any more, so we’re reduced to thinking up stuff that’s symbolically bad.

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        The new Accord is supposedly going to be a “global” platform, which will hopefully include a wagon in some form. (As the B&B may be aware, the Acura TSX was the Accord/Accord Sport in other lands, and our bloated 8th-Gen Accord was the Inspire in the Asian markets, and the Accord in AUS. Heaven knows what Acura will do with the TSX since the new Accord has technology available, like Adaptive Cruise Control, that you need to step into an Acura ZDX or RL to obtain. Only bad thing: the Accord V6 Sedans don’t have paddle-shifters and manumatic control and the Coupes do, but likely, some enterprising soul will figure out how to “retrofit” the paddles at some point.)

        Lower the CrossTurd two inches, straighten out the sheetmetal on the rear end to make for actual sightlines, and we have a *** WAGON!!! *** (Who’d-a thunk!)

  • avatar
    azmtbkr81

    Hyundai Santa Fe.

    The Santa Fe is the poster boy CUV. Its amorphous shape and lack of distinction in any area of automotive measure an amalgamation of everything that is wrong with all CUVs in existence. It is the ultimate appliance for those too vain for a Camry or Caravan.

    • 0 avatar
      James Courteau

      Too many people like their Santa Fe’s for it to be on this list. Perhaps there is something about the newer on that qualify’s it. I have no experience with the new ones. Historically speaking, the Santa Fe played an important roll in changing “Ew, you bought a Hyundai ” into “Oh! You bought a Hyundai!”

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Mitsubishi Outlander – who thought an overbite could look so bad on a car design? And a HUGE logo on the steering wheel.

    Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback – Let’s give a car good looks, a weak engine, a CVT, no option for a manual or bigger engine, but put a 40gb hard drive in it, sport suspension and slap a cool sounding name on it.

    I mean, for chrissake!

    • 0 avatar
      fvfvsix

      Can I just nominate Mitsu’s whole lineup for the TWAT awards?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Can I just nominate Mitsu’s whole lineup for the TWAT awards?”

        If you earnestly believe that the Evo belongs on a worst-of list, then I’d humbly suggest that you’re off your rocker.

      • 0 avatar
        fvfvsix

        Well.. no. but I’ll be the first to admit I’ve got some serious hate for Mitsubishi Motors America, and my dealings with them (including a lemon law filing) haven’t been peachy. I was completely off my rocker when I bought one of their products. The Evo is a halo car, and I’m sure it’s a good one – but it doesn’t stand a chance because of the company that makes it.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        For a time, Mitsubishi was able to ride the coattails of Toyota and Honda. Some consumers got burned in the process, unfortunately.

        I think that Americans have figured out over time that not all Japanese cars are created equal. TMC, HMC and Subaru are usually very good, while Nissan and Mazda can be hit or miss.

        I think that you’ve already figured out Mitsubishi’s general place in the pecking order. But sports cars get a bit of a pass, which leaves us with the Evo…

  • avatar

    -Dodge Avenger (And they thought they’d have a chance at Accord & Camry!)
    -Dodge Caliber
    -2006-present Chevrolet Impala (Rental agency queen)
    -Acura RL (Why would you buy this?)
    -Lexus HS 250h
    -BMW 5-Series GT (This is what we lost the wagon to?!)
    -Mitsubishi Galant
    -Mitsubishi Eclipse
    -Nissan Cube (looking like vomit on wheels…)
    -Suzuki SX4

  • avatar
    99_XC600

    Even though it missed the timeline. an honorable mention goes to the

    Pontiac Aztek – setting the benchmark as the ultimate TWAT

    Enough said.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Aztek or Nissan Juke, which is uglier?

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        Ooooh that’sa tough one 28CL. Gotta go with the Aztek.

        99-XC600 the first runner-up TWAT awards would have to go to the ’78-’82 AMC Pacer or the ’81-’85 Chevy Chevette, with the crowning achievement of ULTIMATE TWAT going to the ’87 Yugo Convertible.

        Honorable mentions to the Citation, the Grenada, the Peugeots of the ’80s, and anything Diahatsu.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    I haven’t driven one in ages, but the Mitsubishi Eclipse seems to be well past its expiration date, and it doesn’t exactly have Toyota standards for reliability.

    I haven’t driven one of these at all, but the Honda Insight appears to widely missed the mark. It’s odd that Honda can’t seem to figure out the hybrid game.

    Dodge ended production of the Caliber in 2011, otherwise it would probably belong on this list.

  • avatar
    Slow_Joe_Crow

    The Toyota Corolla deserves a slot on the list for having slid from a benchmark to an utter mediocrity easily outperformed by a Kia.
    Also The BMW X6 and Honda Crosstour deserve a listing for utterly stupid designs that offer all the disadvantages of a sedan and a crossover with none of the advantages.
    Also throw in the the new Mini coupe thing with the fugly backwards baseball cap roofline for sheer ugliness and pointlessness.
    Also recent reports indicate that after a few thousand miles a Chevy Sonic is every bit as crappy as the Aveo it replaced.

  • avatar
    JohnTheDriver

    We’ll, since nobodies beat me to it yet … I nominate the Chevy Volt! First let me say that I actually kinda like the Volt, not that I would buy one mind you, it’s just that I’m not horribly offended by the car. On the other hand I would like a taste of that big TTAC swag thats bound to come my way for being a successful TWAT submitter. Soooooo, the VOLT! Worst car ever, because … FIRE! And communism. But mostly fire. And, well, FIRE! Did I mention fire? Surely fire will win.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

      Only problem is that everyone who owns one loves it.

      But I see what you did there. :)

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      The back seat is also too small to justify the back doors and boring proportions. They might has well have tried to make it look as cool as the concept car. It couldn’t have turned out any less comfortable.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      The problem with nominating the Volt is it currently lacks peers that are better. It’s the expensive car you buy so you can be more green than the other Whole Foods shoppers driving their Priuses.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTheDriver

      Come on you TTAC’s Best and Brightest, you can do better than this! I’ve been reading about the Volt here for years, I know the BURNING hatred you all harbor for this communistic chevy deathtrap. It’s unmitigated failings are far to numerous to mention, however a brief sample of the inestimable TTAC reportage can’t hurt;

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/03/blind-spot-the-twilight-of-the-volt/
      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/11/chevy-volt-catches-fire-after-crash-test-investigation-under-way/
      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/02/fox-tests-volt-runs-out-of-juice-in-lincoln-tunnel/

      This car will break down (in the Lincoln tunnel no less), explode (not really), and, let’s say … rape your mother (I’m sure Fox News reported that at some point.) If we can agree on nothing else surely we can all recall the day when the first Volt rolled off the assembly line and instantly transformed America into an ex-soviet style shithole. This car isn’t just one of the worst ten cars in America, it is the WORST CAR EVER MANUFACTURED BY MANKIND! It’s very existence represents an existential threat to everything we know, everything we love, and EVERYTHING AMERICA STANDS FOR! Now gimme the damn swag already.

  • avatar
    bbanninga

    TWAT List:
    1. Acura ZDX – what marketing MBA genius came up with this slow selling turd?

    2. BMW 535 / 500 Grand Tourismo – Okay BMW, enough of the niche carving. What are the X5 and X6 for?

    3. Cadillac Escalade ESV. Gee, a Caddy pickup. Why didn’t Lincoln think of that?

    4. Dodge Avenger – the last holdout of the crap management of Minimum Bob.

    5. Hyundai Equus – to be joined with the equally stupid Kia Qoris. We have enough bland, boring, luxury cars thanks to Lexus.

    6. Lexus CT200h – Really?

    7. Lincoln – all – Ford needs to keep investing in Ford and let Lincoln die.

    8. Porsche Panamera – 4 door sports car may get by, but it is soooo ugly.

    9. Scion – all. Kill them and rename the FT-86 a Toyota Celica.

    10. Smart cars – no so.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’d have to go with the Canyon/Colorado.

    1. The I5 punches below its power/torque ratings. Its overall fuel economy is equal to the Tacoma’s 4.0L V6, and its NVH makes the Chrysler 3.7L look good by comparison.

    2. The V8 option is down on power, expensive, rare, and gets worse fuel economy than the 5.3L full-size trucks.

    3. The build quality is hilarious. I don’t expect a small truck to be luxurious but the seat adjustment handle shouldn’t snap off in my hand either. The chrome paint on the grille magically vanishes. The seals on the headlights/tail lights let so much water in that you can put fish inside the housings when you buy the truck and they won’t die. The door and window seals fail immediately causing water/wind leaks. The exterior paint is thinner than Billy Halleck after a gypsy curse and the throttle body on the I5 and I4 versions need OCD levels of cleanliness or the idle spazzes out on you.

    4. It doesn’t sell well, which hurts the overall future for the compact truck market in the US.

    5. The margins on the truck aren’t very generous meaning it’s often cheaper to buy a similarly-equipped Silverado/Sierra.

  • avatar
    genuineleather

    Lexus HS250: ugly outside, barstool seating and cheap plastics inside. Easily the worst Lexus ever.

    Lexus GX: born to mediocrity. Bad styling, cheap interior, crude ride and handling.

    Mitsubishi Galant: If you’ve never had one of these as a rental, condier yourself fortunate.

    Toyota Matrix: vaguely aquatic, but definitely ugly. A poor follow-up to a decent first gen.

    BMW 6-Series Gran Coupe: not as pretty as the A7, yet not as aggressive as the CLS. Hideously expensive, to boot.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon. The Ranger was better and it was unchanged since the 90s.
    Dodge Avenger- Still crap.
    Scion XD- Who the heck buys these?

  • avatar
    Marko

    - Honda CR-Z (too many compromises for too little benefit)
    – Mitsubishi Galant (didn’t Fred Flintstone drive this after his “dough roller” car got totaled by a dinosaur?)
    – Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon (the Rubbles owned one of each, I believe)
    – Lexus HS250h (Prius with worse fuel economy, higher price, and less cargo space – why???)
    – BMW 128i (You really, really had to have that badge, didn’t you?)
    – Dodge Nitro (Exactly what would make you want this car? All the ones I see are owned by National Grid. I’ve had Lionel train sets with nicer interiors.)

    • 0 avatar

      I saw a Nitro in Japan (possibly not even one, but captured one on camera), and you don’t want to know what its owner pays for taxes. Purely bought for looks and bragging rights, I assume.

    • 0 avatar
      Sttocs

      If my 135i had a Kia badge, I wouldn’t love it any less. You obviously haven’t driven a 1.

    • 0 avatar
      ranwhenparked

      Wasn’t the Dodge Nitro dropped a few years ago? Terrible car though, basically the American equivalent to the Juke, except with shoddier quality.

      • 0 avatar
        Marko

        Its last model year was 2011, but production didn’t end until December 16, 2011, so Nitros were almost certainly “offered for sale as a new vehicle in the U.S. between January 1 and today”.

        Make that CERTAINLY – according to Left Lane News, 34 NEW Nitros were sold last month!

        (And for that matter, one new Aveo to some poor slob.)

      • 0 avatar
        Sttocs

        Marko,

        Don’t they miss you at your law firm? Get back to work you magnificent bastard!

    • 0 avatar
      Marko

      Let me add another – the Volvo S40. Its last model year in the US was 2011, but it just barely qualifies for this (un)popularity contest since ONE was sold new last month somewhere in the US. Not a bad car – viewed in a vacuum. Comfy seats, too. However, it was ridiculously expensive for what you got (there was no option you couldn’t get on the related Mazda3), too small, and awkwardly proportioned. The S40 was just very long in the tooth. It was also, shockingly, the only Volvo not considered a “Top Safety Pick” by IIHS. Barring discounts, why would someone have chosen this in its last year over the 2011+ S60?

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Lots of comments on styling and not dependability, myself included. Few mentions of how a vehicle wouldn’t start in the morning and Navy Chief levels of cursing ensued. Kinda nice to know that whatever you have the keys to will fire up and take you to work.

  • avatar
    George B

    I nominate the Project America Mitsubishi Eclipse and Gallant. Wasn’t even sure if they were still being sold. A 20 year old Eclipse in good condition is more desirable car that a new one.

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    I vote the Cadillac Escalade hybrid. To shiny for real luxury. I am not a fan of hybrids because the complexity of the technology does not justify the fuel savings. I am also not convinced that it is possible in any way whatsoever to get a true luxury ride from what is essentially a truck.

  • avatar
    FromaBuick6

    Chevy Impala – The powertrain may have been upgraded, but the floaty suspension, completely disconnected steering, mushy seats, cheap plastics, god-awful switchgear, laughable space efficiency and junky build quality are still there. Now that the Panther is finally dead, it’s the worst car on the market.

    Toyota Corolla – I’d buy it over several of its newer competitors based on reliability/cost of ownership, but on paper its outclassed by every single one of its competitors. Toyota should be embarrassed. It’s the second-dreariest car you can buy.

    Nissan Versa sedan- The dreariest new car you can buy.

    Mitsubishi Galant – I hated this car when it was brand new. That was 9 years ago. Why is this car still made? Why is Mitsubishi still here? I fear this car at the rental counter more than anything else.

    Ford E-Series and Chevy Express/GMC Savanna: Worst vehicles on the road. Based on rental experiences, I give the edge in awfulness to the GM twins, but only just. The Transit can’t get here soon enough.

  • avatar
    Neb

    Reading through the thread, I see some strong contenders.

    – I think psarhjinian makes a good case for the RDX.

    – GM Colorado/Canyon, a leftover from the bad old days of GM bottom-feeding.

    – Smart FourTwo. A car that never made sense in North America, and has been getting aggressively worse as time goes on.

    – Two Lincolns from the Mk. line: the Z and the T. The former is a hopped up fusion that has styling like a sunfire, (a ghost of Mercury, here) and the latter is…I’m not even sure what. A truck-wangon-thing that we cobbled together to replace an icon because we were too cheap to spend the money? What really says luxury to me is: cost-effective compromise.

    – The new standard-bearer for stupidity in BMW’s X series is the X6. Every element in it works in contradiction with every other element. The motto of the X line really is “quite similar to a BMW car, but worse in every measurable way.”

    • 0 avatar
      AlphaWolf

      I bought an MKZ to take clients out and as a cushy commuter car and the interior is a really nice place to be. Powerful engine that takes regular gas, not premium, and the THX stereo is incredible. I could not even touch a BMW 5 series base model for what I paid for a decently equipped MKZ. If this is a ten worst car then I am not sure where the GM Colorado belongs.

      The Fusion is a completely different experience behind the wheel. Even in SEL form, the interior does not hold a candle to the MKZ. It’s amazing how Volkswagen / Audi always gets a free pass with the platform sharing but not Ford or Chrysler.

  • avatar
    holydonut

    I’m nominating the Nissan NV Cargo/Passenger vans. These things are terrible to service and maintain. They are likely a fleet manager’s “FU” on his way out the door to stick it to the company that wouldn’t give him a raise.

    You should feel bad for the poor sap that has to keep these things on the road for 5+ years in a heavy duty setting. They priced the NV’s MSRP to undercut the GM/Ford vans, but the all-in costs to keep these things running is sky high.

    I don’t even think GE Capital will subvent decent leases for a small business wants to keep a small fleet of vans. And good luck trying to service these from an outsource shop.

    With their target audience of small business operators who need a niche van/transport, Nissan is struggling to break 700 units a month. This begs the question of why they bothered to hit this space with a vehicle that may be competent, but completely misses the mark for potential customers.

  • avatar
    Scorched Earth

    I nominate the BMW 3 Series (F30). Particularly the 328i. My beef with it, itemized:

    1) No longer the Ultimate Driving Machine
    2) No longer the Ultimate Driving Machine
    3) Says it’s the Ultimate Driving Machine; isn’t

    Handling gets the worst of it. Sure, the steering’s accurate, but it’s much too light, neutered of feel, and has no buildup of weight in turns. Even in Sport mode (which is unattractive due to the fact that it inherently changes to thirstier transmission mapping), steering is still way too light. Rolls like a bus in turns. Makes it tough to predict how the car will react to corners, even despite the continuation of the famous 50/50 weight distribution. Mushy brake feel isn’t “ultimate,” either.

    328i’s start/stop is intrusive and alarming, even for those who are used to hybrid systems, but at you don’t have to hear the engine idle. Worse-than-diesel clatter upon cold start; when it’s warm, still sounds like the show Stomp. After the initial, horrifying 1-second lag from a stop, the engine’s pretty strong. I can’t see anyone stepping up to a 335i. But does that make a 328i a bargain? Equipped at up to $50K+, hardly.

    How bout those pizza boxes which BMW calls “seats?” No lateral support. Or any kind of support.

    But worst of all is that they let the ATS, a Cadillac, become the new ultimate driving machine in that segment. 40+ years of clear, consistent marketing down the drain, all to merely chase Audi.

  • avatar
    ranwhenparked

    Well, the single worst car on sale in America today would have to be the Snyder ST600-C. A rebadged city car made by Shandong Jindalu, it retails for less than $8,000. For that, you get a 586cc motorcycle engine buzzing away under the seat, lap belts, and a hard plastic interior that most likely emits all sorts of noxious chemicals when hot, plus zero parts availability and no garage will work on it. Also, did I mention it has three wheels?

    Since the Snyder is only on sale thanks to exploitation of the 3-wheeled motorcycle loophole and is therefore not legally a car, I’ll also nominate the Mitsubishi Galant. It was something of a dated car when new, with bland 1990s styling, shoddy plastic interior, and course drivetrain. Even in 2004, it looked more at home in the 1990s, yet, it’s still on sale nearly a decade later. Some if its competitors have been redesigned as much as three times in that span, and the Galant, which started out behind the pack when it was brand-new, just keeps falling further behind with each passing year.

    • 0 avatar
      gearhead77

      MINI Coupe: Like the BMW X6, it’s an answer to a question no one asked.

      5 series Gran Turismo. Really? We couldn’t just have a 5 series wagon? What’s the take rate on these? I think I’ve seen one on the road.

      Nissan Titan: Unlike the Galant, it was a decent vehicle when introduced and if the first year quality hadn’t been awful, maybe it would have done better. But now it’s positively ancient (and getting worse) compared to everything but the Silverado/Sierra and I grudgingly admit they are probably better. The 5.6 V8 is the only redeeming quality in that truck and it’s a VERY thirsty engine.

      Nissan Murano Cabrio: This should win the poll….

      Let the Nissan bashing continue with the Juke and Cube. I understand the usefulness of the Cube, but it’s awful to drive. I understand the Juke is quite fun to drive for what it is, but it’s just bizarre looking. It’s almost like the Juke is peanut butter and the Cube is chocolate, but Nissan can’t have that Reeses moment.

  • avatar
    ttacfan

    I cannot believe that no one nominated GMC Terrain yet. The only advantage of the ugly front is that it takes your eyes away from the square wheel wells.

  • avatar
    Speed Spaniel

    Any 4 cylinder car costing over $50,000 no matter how good it is.

  • avatar
    cheezeweggie

    I’ll throw my vote in for the Chevy Colorado. The interior on my son’s toy Power Wheels truck is of higher quality and is is more up to date. Most come in white and are driven by bug exterminators or lawn care companies. These 5-cylindered slugs are proof that Detroit threw in the towel on the small pickup market and Toyota and (especially) Nissan are cashing in. But some guys just gotta have that bow tie…

  • avatar
    AoLetsGo

    I will go with the already mentioned Cube, Juke and MKT for sheer butt ugly vehicles. I will add one not already mentioned the Honda Ridgeline – poor handling, weak towing, bad gas mileage, slow, tiny bed and all for a starting price of only $30k.
    I will also sound the bugle and come to the aid of the much maligned Colorado/Canyon. Mine is a 2006 2wd, 4 banger, 5 speed manual it was just over $12k out the door and I could sell it today for $6k. Yes 6 years old and 100,000 miles and only $1,000 in deperciation per year. No major repairs – oil changes, some tires, couple of light blubs and clean the throttle body twice, still has orginal brakes, battery, shocks, etc.

  • avatar
    akitadog

    After the Murano Cabrio, gotta go with the MINI Cooper Coupe/Roadster. Compared to the standard Cooper, it’s slower, it’s heavier, it’s WAY less practical than an already-borderline-practical vehicle, visibility is worse, and, to top off all those shortcomings, it’s even more expensive.

    The Cooper Coupe/Roadster must be the most cynical piece of “engineering” short of a straight re-badge job. I’m not surprised, seeing as it comes from the same people who brought you the X6.

  • avatar
    acuraandy

    2012 Chevy Malibu. Followed closely up by 2012 Dodge Caliber. Unequivocal, overpriced, SHIT.

    Honorable mention: 2011 Lincoln Town Car (relax fellow Panther lovers, I mean no disrespect, but I throw this in as a matter of price. $50k for a 35 year old platform?! No wonder Dearborn killed it. Just sayin’…)

  • avatar
    05lgt

    2012 Galant. Loud, slow, uncomfortable and incompetent. One of several dead horses in Mistu’s stable, but it’s for sale this year.

    Mitsu i-miev: Too ugly, limited range, makes a leaf look and feel lux. It’s too far behind the competition, and this is it’s first year. Oh, and it’s seriously ugly.

  • avatar
    dasko

    Nissan Rogue seats 5 people and is an AWD crossover just like the Juke but costs several thousand dollars more. It also is slower, less powerful and somehow worse on fuel than the better in every way Juke!

    Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder costs more than a Ford Mustang convertible but is worse trimmed, worse on fuel, less power and not as fun to drive. At least it is pretty. Oh and the backseat makes the Mustang equivalent look like the back of a Mercedes S Class.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    1. The V6 Mustang….kidding

    It pains me, but the current Land Cruiser. Ginormous, thirsty, tarted up, and not really any tougher when the going gets tough than a Sequoia. All this for like 80 grand.

    • 0 avatar
      FJ60LandCruiser

      The Land Cruiser is dead in the US. If you want a soft roader you can get the FJ Cruiser with crappy visibility and fragile drivetrain, or spend 40 grand for the Trail 4Runner… which is an FJC in drag.

      I think Toyota has given up on the 4×4 market in the US.

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    2011 Ford Fiesta, or one of the first “one car fits all markets,” Fords.

    Brazilian parts meets Mexican assembly quality. Bad AT leading to infinite trips to the dealer, handles like a bus despite being a micro compact, interior HVAC bits falling off like from a Soviet era Trabant, SYNC and dash designed “like a cell phone” according to Ford is an ergonomic unintelligible disaster.

    Ford should have taken the bailout cash instead of selling miserable European cars.

  • avatar
    KalapanaBlack

    I’m surprised nobody mentioned the Nissan Quest. Nissan needed to crap out a minivan (why??), and they certainly did. Sure, it’s got a sumptuous interior. But that’s it. It’s ugly, poorly packaged, has no features that give it a competitive advantage (while missing some that are class standards, like disappearing seats), and is expensive.

    File it in the “why did they even try?” category. Hertz buys quite a few.

    I’d also nominate the current Mazda6. Yeah, it’s being replaced, and yeah, Zoom-Zoom and all that jazz. But it’s bloated, ugly, and cheap inside (Zebra-pattern seats? Really?). It doesn’t drive any better than the class norm, gets no better fuel economy than the class norm, isn’t cheaper than the class norm…

    And the current Subaru Legacy and Impreza. Cheap interiors, and standard AWD lost its buzzworthy status during the last Legacy’s life. At least that car had a nice interior and was styled well. The current one is a derivative-yet-uglier Camry with 400 lbs of MPG-robbing AWD gear that gets used an average of twice a year. The new Impreza is terrible, and the crossover version (I can’t remember the convoluted, oh-so-manufactured name… Cross-U-Vee or something) is absurd. Subaru is still making the Tribeca, I believe.

    Subaru sells on brand name alone at this point. As far as real virtues, they are Suzuki with slightly lower quality interiors.

    • 0 avatar
      KalapanaBlack

      Also, after all the vitriol spewed on TTAC, nobody mentioned the 2012 Civic! Unbelievable! Sure, it’s still a decent car and sells well, but it didn’t improve in a single area compared with the last-gen model. I’m not necessarily nominating it, having never driven a new one, but I have been inside one and was shocked at the decline from the last version. Also, the two-door is just ungainly, Si trim or otherwise.

      My parents own a 2008 Civic EX (their fifth Honda in a row) and I’ve driven countless rental EXs and LXs from ’06-’11. They said they wouldn’t buy a new one due to the obvious cost cutting.

    • 0 avatar
      Banger

      Hear, hear on the Mazda6 seat fabric. My parents have one. It’s not a bad driver, but like you say, any midsize sedan is on-par with the four-banger Mazda6 in that department. My dislike for that car is purely based on its interior. I hate the seat fabric and the red interior lighting.

      Disagree about the Quest. It lacks some of the “gee whiz!” things you find in other vans, but its look is part of the appeal to me. It looks best in black with dark, dark windows. Almost alien. Van nerds like me love that it’s basically the ElGrand that Nissan sells in Japan, only with a less-awesome front clip.

      My wife has said if we had two or more kids, we’d be saving for a new Quest right now. You nailed the luxurious interior part though. It does have just about the best-feeling interior of anything this side of a limousine. Come to think of it, the last limo I was in had much lower seating with less thigh support, so, maybe it’s better than even that.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    The Worst Automobile Today? All the ones I don’t like, same as everyone else on here.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    Mini coupe. Economy of scale does not justify what was done to this latter day classic which was to turn it into Dr. Frankenstien’s city car. It looks like one of those bad one off customs that were done for a customer that had more money than good taste. I don’t care how well it may or may not drive, one look at it says ‘yeah we do think you’re that stupid.’

  • avatar
    bill mcgee

    Agree about the ugly and impractical Mini coupe .
    Also Dodge Calibre and Nitro , if they’re in the time frame . Driven both of these = awful driving , awful interior
    Smart car
    Nissan Juke ( yeah it’s distinctive , so were Datsun F10 and Saturn ION ) and Versa sedan -awful , hunchbacked dimensions )
    the entire Lincoln line – enough is enough , pull the plug on it

  • avatar
    dolorean

    For a matter of perspective, here’s the list from AutoBlog of the worst selling vehicles of 2011:

    10. Subaru Tribeca
    MSRP: $30,595
    Units Sold: 2,791

    9. Mazda Tribute
    MSRP: $20,555
    Units Sold: 2,696

    8. Mercedes-Benz R-Class
    MSRP: $52,690
    Units Sold: 2,385

    7. Suzuki Equator
    MSRP: $17,899
    Units Sold: 2,127

    6. Cadillac Escalade EXT*
    MSRP: $63,060
    Units Sold: 2,036

    5. Toyota Land Cruiser
    MSRP: $68,920
    Units Sold: 1,662

    4. Acura ZDX
    MSRP: $46,020
    Units Sold: 1,564

    3. Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback*
    MSRP: $18,395
    Units Sold: 1,548

    2. Hyundai Azera
    MSRP: $25,495
    Units Sold: 1,524

    1. Acura RL
    MSRP: $47,700
    Units Sold: 1,096

    You may notice, many are cars mentioned so far. Apparently the American public isn’t as stupid as we thought.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States