Ten Worst Automobiles Nominations Please

Frank Williams
by Frank Williams

The Truth About Cars (TTAC) strives to report on all things automotive with the complete, unvarnished, unadulterated, no-holds-barred truth. All our authors write from a single-minded perspective: the consumer’s interests are more important than those of the industry. All our commentators keep us– and the industry– honest. In other words, we’re all a bunch of troublemakers. And it’s time once again to make some trouble. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m proud to announce that nominations are now open for TTAC’s second annual Ten Worst Awards.

Yes, while our colleagues strive to celebrate the best that the U.S. automotive industry has to offer, we're looking for your help to name the ten worst new vehicles domestic money can (but shouldn't) buy. To refresh your memory, here are the winners you selected during our last forary into America's automotive heart of darkness.

2006 Ten Worst Automobiles Today Winners

10. Chevrolet Aveo5


9. Lincoln Mark LT


8. Saab 9-7x


7. Subaru B9 Tribeca


6. Chevrolet Monte Carlo


5. Hummer H2


4. Chrysler Aspen


3. Buick Rendezvous


2. Jeep Compass


1. GM Minivans

Thankfully, the following losers winners have gone to that big garage in the sky: GM Minivans, Chevrolet Monte Carlo and Buick Rendezvous. Another '06 Ten Worst winner is slated for extermination (Saab 9-7x) while the Subaru Tribeca been redesigned to remove its, uh, pudenda. The rest live to die another day, remaining eligible for nomination and another Ten Worst award. Here are the six simple rules governing your nominations and an outline of the entire selection process:

2007 Ten Worst Award Rules of Engagement

1. Any car or light truck offered for sale as a new vehicle in the US between January 1 and today is eligible for nomination. It doesn't matter who built it or where. Repeat nominations from last year are allowed.

2. Nominations may be deleted without prior warning or explanation 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 may be permanently banned from posting on TTAC. That said, offensive observations about the nominees are encouraged.

3. Blatantly badge-engineered siblings can be nominated for a joint award if they all suck equally.

4. TTAC's writing team will select 20 finalists from the nominees, based on how well the nominations were justified and our personal opinions of the vehicles in question. Unlike last year, we won't track the total number of nominations for a given vehicle.

5. Readers will vote via an electronic survey on 20 finalists to determine America's Ten Worst cars. Multiple voting will be electronically prohibited. Anyone attempting to circumvent this ban through hackery will be permanently banned from posting on the site.

6. Nominations begin today and will continue until midnight EDT, Monday October 22. We will present the 20 finalists for voting on October 29. The winners will be announced on first of November.

While there's no doubt our readers know Ten Worst-iness when they see it, there are a few specifics that make a vehicle truly TWAT-worthy:

1.) Looks that stop traffic. In a bad way.

2.) The "WTF were they thinking?" factor. A true Ten Worst recipient leaves you wondering which bodily orifice the designers pulled it from and what management was smoking when they approved it. Cheap materials, poor ergonomics and questionable build quality only compound the problem, and help its chances of winning an award.

3.) Misused technology. This could be a car so low-tech you wonder if it was designed in the ‘70s, or so high-tech it's rendered virtually undrivable.

4.) Unfathomable product planning. Your favorite automotive abomination could be the result of poorly-executed badge engineering on an already mediocre vehicle. Or it could be a vehicle that's just a dumb idea, a market segment misfit or an answer to a question no one asked (or ever will).

An ideal TWAT would combine most or all of these factors, with an additional je ne sais quois that makes enthusiasts throw-up in their mouths a little upon sight. Those are the miserable machines we seek.

[NB: If someone has already nominated your favorite, please don't add a "me too" comment, unless you provide additional reasons why the vehicle is a really good (bad?) candidate for an award.]

As TTAC has grown since last year, we'll be posting updates and pithy quotes throughout the week, so you don't have to page through several hundred comments per post.

We here behind the scenes look forward to your nominations and attendant CIVILIZED debate. Thanks for helping us do that voodoo that we do for you.

Frank Williams
Frank Williams

More by Frank Williams

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 208 comments
  • Jerome10 Jerome10 on Oct 19, 2007

    And yet one more I forgot. Chrysler Sebring. Perfection of mediocrity. They definitely checked off every box in the requirement list and then hit the showers. Engine? Check. Seats? Check. Wheels? Check. Horrible style? Check. Terrible all-new 4 cyl engine? Check. Old school 4 speed tranny? Check. Ribbed hood? Check. Rock hard seats? Check. Huge waiting list from Avis, Hertz, Alamo, and Thrifty? Check. Great job boys!

  • Capdeblu Capdeblu on Oct 21, 2007

    I would like to nominate the Saturn P-on no excuse me Ion for worst car of the year. How Saturn could take a relatively funky car the SL and turn in into this is beyond me. Once upon a time Saturns sold for sticker price. They couldnt give the Ions away.

  • Thomas Same here....but keep in mind that EVs are already much more efficient than ICE vehicles. They need to catch up in all the other areas you mentioned.
  • Analoggrotto It's great to see TTAC kicking up the best for their #1 corporate sponsor. Keep up the good work guys.
  • John66ny Title about self driving cars, linked podcast about headlight restoration. Some relationship?
  • Jeff JMII--If I did not get my Maverick my next choice was a Santa Cruz. They are different but then they are both compact pickups the only real compact pickups on the market. I am glad to hear that the Santa Cruz will have knobs and buttons on it for 2025 it would be good if they offered a hybrid as well. When I looked at both trucks it was less about brand loyalty and more about price, size, and features. I have owned 2 gm made trucks in the past and liked both but gm does not make a true compact truck and neither does Ram, Toyota, or Nissan. The Maverick was the only Ford product that I wanted. If I wanted a larger truck I would have kept either my 99 S-10 extended cab with a 2.2 I-4 5 speed or my 08 Isuzu I-370 4 x 4 with the 3.7 I-5, tow package, heated leather seats, and other niceties and it road like a luxury vehicle. I believe the demand is there for other manufacturers to make compact pickups. The proposed hybrid Toyota Stout would be a great truck. Subaru has experience making small trucks and they could make a very competitive compact truck and Subaru has a great all wheel drive system. Chevy has a great compact pickup offered in South America called the Montana which gm could make in North America and offered in the US and Canada. Ram has a great little compact truck offered in South America as well. Compact trucks are a great vehicle for those who want an open bed for hauling but what a smaller more affordable efficient practical vehicle.
  • Groza George I don’t care about GM’s anything. They have not had anything of interest or of reasonable quality in a generation and now solely stay on business to provide UAW retirement while they slowly move production to Mexico.
Next