Last month, I wrote an editorial suggesting that Car Of The Year awards were little more than an advertiser-pleasing circle jerk. After sharing my dismay, several diligent readers pointed out that none of the buff books or fraternal orders of automotive junketeers dared name their “worst car of the year.” RF immediately decided to create TTAC’s first annual Ten Worst Automobiles Today (a.k.a. the TWAT awards). The TTAC team felt strongly that you, our esteemed visitors, should play an important role in this infamous endeavor. We’re asking you to nominate vehicles that deserve a TWAT. Please read the rules and instructions before posting your selection or selections.
2006 TTAC Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) Award
Rules of Engagement
1. A nominee must be a vehicle that was on sale as a new vehicle in the US market between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006; regardless of price, builder, country of origin, production/sales numbers, domestic content or thinly-veiled threats from manufacturers.
2. Nominations may be deleted without prior warning or explanation for any of the following reasons: insufficient justification, excessively verbose or boring prose, foul language, patent absurdity or flame throwing.
3. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS ALLOWED Flaming or trolling is strictly verboten. Offending comments will be deleted. Persistent violators will be permanently banned from this site. No joke.
4. Poorly badge-engineered twins (or triplets) can be nominated for a joint TWAT if they all suck equally. If the twins or triplets qualify, they will enter the final selection and judging process as a single vehicle.
5. TTAC staff will select 20 finalists from the nominees, taking into consideration the number of nominations received, how well the nominations were justified, our personal opinions of the vehicles in question and how much we’ve had to smoke or drink beforehand.
6. Readers will vote (via an electronic survey) on the 20 final nominees to determine the top ten TWATs in America. Bribes and multiple votes are allowed and encouraged, as long as you don’t use a nominating software bot. (Anyone who crashes our server will be banned from the site for all time.) Although it’s highly unlikely, the selection committee reserves the right to throw out any winner and substitute another vehicle if we don’t like what you choose, or for reasons relating to personal payback.
7. We will present the 20 finalists for e-voting as soon as we can find the appropriate software, and think the time is right. Less specifically, the "winners" will be announced on this site sometime before the annual deluge of awards bestowed on some decidedly mediocre machines by the usual suspects. Winning manufacturers will not be notified of their nomination or award, and we will not create a goofy looking statuette to dishonor the winning TWATs.
Although we have no doubt that our highly informed and deeply passionate readers are fully capable of identifying automobiles that should have never seen the light of day, machines that often sit on dealer lots with ten foot pole marks littering their sides, here are some factors that may help your decision making process.
1.) An aesthetic affront. It would certainly help if the nominated vehicle is at least slightly ugly.
2.) An overall lack of quality in design and workmanship. Cheap materials, poor ergonomics and/or lousy fit and finish all increase a vehicle’s chances of victory.
3.) Technological insufficiency. An underpowered, harsh and/or noisy engine, outdated transmission, inferior brakes or fear-of-God handling will add to the vehicle’s overall undesirability.
4.) Despicable parentage. Your choice of automotive abomination could be the result of poorly executed badge engineering– slapping a new grille and a few body and trim modifications on an already mediocre vehicle and trying to pass it off as an exciting new model. 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).
Of course, an ideal TWAT would be a synergistic combination of all of these factors. Those are the miserable motors we’re looking for. If someone has already nominated your favorite, please don’t add a “me too” comment– unless you provide additonal reasons why the vehicle is a really good (bad?) candidate for a TWAT.
OK, go on now: tell the truth about cars. Thank you, in advance, for helping TTAC launch its TWAT.
Since this article was written, we've begun voting on the '06 TWAT awards.
Please click HERE to cast your vote on the final 10. You will be returned to the TTAC home page.
186 Comments on “TTAC’s Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) Award...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Jeep Compass
Aesthetic affront… check. It’s monstrously ugly, from it’s chipmunk cheeks to it’s inexplicalby trendy d-pillar kink.
Lack of quality… check. One of the worst interiors on the road.
Technological inefficiency… check. One of the worst transmissions on the road.
Dispicable parentage… check. Poorly thought out badge job of the Caliber reeks of a lazy money grab.
This insult to a legendary brand’s image has got to be one of the dumbest and poorly executed vehicles out there, and will eventually prove to be Jeep’s biggest mistake.
Chrysler Aspen.
Any request for explanation should be viewed as an admission of stunning ignorance.
Can someone else complete this DCX hatrick?
Dodge Sprinter. Nuff said.
Mind you, I nearly retched saying it.
DCX hatrick complete.
all Saturns they're so cheaply made their damn fenders feel like they're made of plastic!!
Toyota Prius
Aesthetics . . . looks like it was designed by the gastrointestinal tract of a small mammal.
Quality . . . fine, I guess . . . if you don’t mind occasional stalls while driving at highway speeds.
Technological . . . don’t believe the hype. Online reviews report 20-25% lower fuel economy than the reported EPA rating (Edmunds.com, et al).
Overall annoyance factor . . . seems to be the vehicle of choice for self-important Hollywood types as they drive from their 15,000 sq-ft mansion to the private jet idling on the runway.
Let the beatings begin . . .
The Saturn Ion…I test drove one and couldn’t believe how bad it was.
The electric steering seemed to be barely connected to the wheels.
The plastic exterior panels looked as though they were slapped together by a bored high school shop class.
The interior plastics must have been sourced from Rubbermaid.
The design of the interior door panels and dashboard made them look as though they were lifted straight from a children’s book about cars.
I actually felt sorry for the earnest Saturn sales associate riding with me who had to sell this clunker against a Civic, Corolla or Focus.
To top it off, the S-Series had been out for a decade, so the General couldn’t say that it had rushed the Ion into production as a replacement.
Chrysler Aspen. Although I’ve already written 800 words on the topic, here are the salient bits…
1. It’s ugly. Wow, is it ugly. Chrysler’s ‘trying to sell it as bling, but bling-savvy customers ain’t buying it. Literally.
2. Who needs it? America needs another poorly packaged, gas-hungry SUV like Tom Cruise needs a presidential citation.
3. It’s cheap inside. Nearly $40k and the Aspen has the cheapest, most poorly-fitted carpet I’ve seen outside of a college dorm room.
4. It’s slow, even with a Hemi. Well, it would be given its weight, but that’s no excuse, given the near single digit mileage.
5. The brakes are dead, the steering’s dead, the suspension eliminates body roll (which is not good since everything else is dead).
6. It’s a badly barely badge engineered Dodge Durango, a model that’s poorly packaged (obviously) and long overdue for update.
7. I can’t think of one compelling reason to buy one.
My nomination?
The Chevy Aveo/Daewoo Kalos/whatever other names GM is using to peddle this thing
- Transmission hunts gears when under load
- Very underpowered – don’t try passing anything going uphill
- Bargain sub-basment materials inside and out
- In the hatchback, the rear bumper is well below the bumper height of the average pickup/SUV, making the rear passenger compartment into the rear crumple zone
- Doors sound like hollow tin cans when you close them
- Putting the automatic tranny in gear requires negotiating the stubby shifter (it’s barely 6 inches long from where it comes through the floor to the tip) through three plains simultaneously
- Spindly cup holders that pop out of dash can’t hold anything larger than a soda can
- Many other design/engineering problems. See my review of this vehicle for more reasons it deserves the top TWAT award.
I don’t know if your American readers know what “TWAT” means in English english, but I assume you do?
we do.
Chrysler Crossfire.
Ugly? You bet. Looks like they took a 1967 AMC Marlin and put it in the hot-wash for too long, then into the dryer for too long, badge-engineered a Chrysler grill, slapped ‘er on there and shazam, y’all. Lookidad! Wow, UGLY. The hood still has wrinkles in it from being in the dryer for too long, too.
Plus the engineering, while probably fine, is cast-off last-generation Mercedes. Memo to Daimler-Chrysler: if you are going to rip yourselves off, at least grab the good stuff. May as well get economic benefits from screwing yourselves, by producing more of the latest-tech components instead of two generations of parts in fewer numbers, guys. “Duh.”
Then, make sure to have Karmann build it as expensively as possible so you cannot possibly make a profit with it in the United States and it is priced uncompetitively.
Job done. Yet another Chrysler nominee.
While I’m at it, let me throw in another Chrysler nominee.
The Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Magnum badge-engineered triplets.
Take one 1954 Hudson Hornet, with virtually no glass area. Open the wheel wells, throw in a fake-Hemi and toss on a cross hatch grill ripping off the memory of the fine 1950’s Chrysler 300’s which actually did have real Hemi’s, and built it in a foreign country (marketing it an “all American” car). Oh yeah, build the fake Hemi engine in Mexico with a transmission and chassis based on a German car. Yep, “all American”, all right. NOT.
Now of course the people who “love” the 300 will trash me but so be it.
As for the Charger, well, what can one say, Chrysler? Take a name which carries cachet with millions and then put 2 extra doors on it? Is EVERYBODY totally without brains in Auburn Hills? Maybe you could have gotten away with rear hinged Saturn type rear doors and make it a 2+2 door coupe… but that would have been smart, and that is reserved for your tiny Frogmobiles the Smart. No smarts allowed in other Daimler-Chrysler efforts, obviously.
As for the Magnum, well. Reincarnated AMC Hornet rear roofline added to Hudson Hornet does not make for a very glamorous look, now, does it? I want to hurl every time I see one but thankfully, so few are sold, I generally don’t have an upset stomach while driving.
OK here’s my third nominee. 3 for 3, Chrysler. Well done!
Chrysler Sebring sedan.
Need I say more? Just look at it. Then of course, it can be had with the “wondrous” 2.7 Chrysler V6 and “marvelous” out of date and “marvelously reliable” Chrysler automatic transaxles, plus it can use E85 in the 2.7 engine (I think) so the thing can obtain 15 miles per gallon and we can let much of the rest of the world go hungry so we can feed our oversized cars and “steamroller utility vehicles”! What a hat-trick.
The only way the Chrysler Sebring could be “improved” would be to bring back the Neon 4 cylinder engines (”kaBOOM – there goes another head gasket”).
Too bad Chrysler didn’t deem it necessary to bring back the AMC Pacer as the Dodge Citation (play on words using Edsel model names? – get it? – also the Citation was a “wondrously great” GM product – NOT). Then they could have had 4 for 4!
And someone said my Prius was ugly?! Wow.
Taking into account the other Chrysler nominees, they already have 6 nominees vs. 1 for Toyota and 1 or 2 for GM thus far (depending on whether you count Saturn twice).
Hey, Robert, time for a Chrysler Death Watch!
ah, the new Sebring… finally a sedan so ugly that it makes my Subie look amost presentable.
My nomination is any of the GM minivans. They are butt-ass ugly! It looks like the designers could not figure out if they wanted to design a minivan or a SUV. So they took the worst parts of both and stuck them together. I cringe every time I see one on the road. Just thinking about it gives me the willies.
GM CSV's (that the Aztek is based on) – Chevy Uplander, Buick Terraza, Pontiac Montana SV6, Saturn Relay, mediocrity on wheels. Class-trailing engineering, safety, styling.
Ford Focus, because it could have been a class-leading vehicle based on the C1 platform, and Ford USA decided not to bother updating the platform. Instead, it's just getting a Shick razor grille, but not until next year.
Isuzu Ascender, a bad example of badge engineering, shares the GMT-360 platform. Makes one wish for the days Isuzu made their own mediocre Rodeo and Axiom.
Saab 9-7x, a bad example of badge engineering, shares the GMT-360 platform, not born from a jet. Makes one wish for the days Saab actually existed as an independent entity.
Audi Q7
The proberbial answer to a question no one asked. A “me too” reaction from a company trying to keep up with Mercedes and BMW. Why?
The front end styling makes the the Jeep Cmpass look sedate in comparison.
The interior styling is a knockoff of the A8 and A6, perfectly acceptable for a less expensive car, but not at this price point.
Audi’s multimedia interface is only a little less confusing than BMW’s I-drive.
The third row seat (one of the few reasons to consider this vehicle) is not adequate for anyone over the age of 12.
At over 5500 lbs. aceleration is not good and neither is gas mileage.
As for hanldling TTAC put it best “drives like an Audi sedan on stilts”.
Just goes to show you that not all the dogs of the auto world are at the bargain basement end.
Another vote for the Isuzu Ascender. Just think about that name for a bit. Slow it down and really draw out the syllables. Asc-ender.
Mainstream Toyotas; Camry, Corollas.
They’ve succeeded in removing any passion from driving and apparently, the driving talents of most of their operators too.
Also: Buick Rainier, another GMT-360 clone that inherited the worst of the Oldsmobile Bravada which was its immediate predecessor. Beyond precision? how about no precision whatsoever.
Pontiac G5, answering a question no one except a couple of Pontiac dealers asked, a stellar example of badge engineering.
Re: Pontiac G5 – it wasn’t requested by the engineers, but by the dealers. They couldn’t stand losing sales to their Chevy compatriots.
Chevy Aveo.
It is too small, too weak, too Daewoo, and it gets crappy mileage for a such a tiny vehicle.
I think an examination of the roots of the name, Aveo, is appropriate.
Ave, from the Latin, meaning “hail”, and “o”, which could be representing a zero or nothing. In other words, Aveo is Latin for “Hail nothing”., which is appropriate in this case.
Alternatively, the “o” could represent the last letter in “Daewoo”, giving the meaning “Hail Daewoo”. Is GM that impressed with a company that can’t even make a decent VCR???
vw rabbit 2.5
absolutely most ridiculously named, ridiculously bad engined, ridiculously priced car which is 3 years late. Ah lest not forget the german idea of funny ads.
“dons flame retardent suit”
Chevy Cobalt
It’s not very pretty, the seats are less comfortable than the metal blechers at a high school football stadium, the car is noisy pretty much regardless of the road, the engine is anemic and the interior is bland.
Or I’ll just second the Audi Q7…
Infiniti QX56 – a badge-engineered attempt at a blingmobile of poor build quality and reliability.
Just checked out Chrysler.com – odd seeing the 2005 Crossfire still listed. Guess they didn’t bring over any 2006 models, reason to second the nomination. Also, it looks like the 2007 Sebring will be going on sale in time to qualify! A shoo-in!
1. The Chevy Uplander/Saturn Relay (and any other clones).
The front of the Uplander looks like a school bus. What kid would want to ride in that?
And what is this crossover crap? It’s a minivan and a bad one at that.
Extra penalty points for cheesy motors.
2. The Chrysler Crossfire.
First, it’s more throwback ugly from Chrysler.
Second, it’s not even approachable for tall people. I’ve checke out some cars that weren’t friendly to tall people but this is the first one that’s openly hostile.
Third, the dash looks like crap.
the chevrolet monte carlo. explanation unnecessary. beyond hideous.
I’m not sure why the chrysler pile on happened so early… I’ll toss another vote towards the jeep compass… poorly badge engineered, ill fitting to the jeep brand, hideous… nothing redeaming.
Others that should be nominated:
1. Chevy HHR (GM’s late attempt to cash in on the fading PT Cruiser image)
2. Chevy SSR (Too expensive to be so slow)
3. Ford Freestar/Ranger/Focus – All sufering from lack of attention, rotting on the vine.
4. The entire Pontiac line (this is GMs performance division??)
5. The new Camry – weird lines, weird fender flares, bulbous nose… just hideous.
The Monte Carlo gets my vote as well. That thing could handle like a lotus and wail like a ferrari and it still wouldn’t be able to get past its looks. Let’s not forget, though, that it in fact handles like a wheelbarrow and wails like my lawnmower.
This is just going to be a brand unpopularity contest.
I’d rather you guys used your own judgement on this one.
Unpopularity contest? Camry got nominated twice already.
Were you guys thinking of the 2000-2005 Monte Carlo? That was the one seriously beat with the ugly stick, the 2006 at least had its nose cleaned up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Monte_Carlo
I’ve got to go with the Lincoln Zephyr. Its so bad even Ford knew and changed it after only 1q
I’ll second the Prius.
Here’s why:
A) it IS ugly. Tiny wheels on a huge body bother me the most, especially after the supersize-me thing they did in 04′. Style? None. Quoting the guy who works on the Tesla Roadster, exterior designers of most electric cars believe that driving one should feel like punishment. It just has “Geek” written all over it. Nothing more than a fashion statement, like those colored armbands people used to wear a couple years ago (Ehh, save the plastic and stop wearing your heart on your glove, poseurs).
B) It’s so immature, it’s laughable. A turbodiesel Jetta from mid-80’s onwards gets better real-world mileage. Honda Insight goes further per each gallon you put in, and does so using simpler technology (and you can get one with a manual transmission, too!). Regardless, the right answer to which car will get you better mileage is, WHO CARES? Here’s how you save on gas: don’t waste money. My poor old Sentra (RIP) made 20,000 miles in the last 7 months and ate… ~$2000 worth of gas. I could have gotten extra 500$ by driving a butt-ugly, slow, ill-handling Prius, but instead, I chose to save 20k by not actually buying one. Talk about gas savings – I just saved the world from wasting 30 metric tons of gasoline.
C) It killed the electric car :) Yup, just like those GM converted SBC diesels from the 80’s, Prius forever impacted our image of hybrids and electric cars. Every time I think electric, I think “ugly, slow cocoons”.
D) It’s fails to do what it was made to do. Come on, it has batteries, it has electric motor, but I can’t plug the damn thing in so that I could do my 10-mile commute in an all-electric mode? What about that time when I need to move the car to the other side of the street, when I have to burn a half-gallon of “startup and warmup” fuel to drive, oh, 100 feet? That thing is supposed to save money for me, and the environment for my future grandkids, right?
E) It’s dangerous. Front and rear visibility sacraficed on the altar of fuel efficiency and butt-ugly looks.
F) Is the grade it recieves in following Toyota’s heritage. Poseur cars belong to other brands. Think Del Sol vs MR2. Both cars have mid-engined compact sports car looks, only one of them is a front-engined Civic, and the other one is a… Mid-engined compact sports car.
Toyota was always a smart man’s car. You know, the guy who paid the extra at first, and then laughed at everyone ever since. Camry, with its comfort and reliability. Tercel, with its ultra-low upkeep. Supra, with it’s infinite performance potential and (for the last generation, at least) sky-high resale value.
Unfortunately, Prius joins the late string of Toyota’s poseur cars (Like Corolla S). The brand erosion has started, and Prius is a part of it.
What does SAAB mean to you?
For me, a SAAB is different. Yes yes, they put the key on the floor. GM has certainly latched on to that haven’t they. But SAABs of old have always gone their own way.
Back when adjusting the seat in a Chevy meant the driver and passenger sliding forward as a team, SAAB was more like being inside a jet fighter. The “cockpit” was tight and driver oriented. The guages were military in design. SAABs were different.
As hatchbacks dissapeared from the American roads, SAAB understood this mistake and persisted at the cost of sales. They understood what a SAAB was and were not going to change.
SAABs had turbos that worked and didn’t wear the engine out in 3 years. Tons of power driving the wrong wheels. Reasonable economy and the ability to say “I drive a SAAB”, with the same panache as you might say “I did my MBA at Harvard”. European scoot without being mainstream German.
SAABs are different.
Before I bring myself to tears, I will simply say: I second StarLightMica. Banish the 9-7x to Badge Engineered hell and call a TWAT a TWAT!
-Ford Freestyle
-Toyota Camry and Corolla
Are these 2 shamedly British cars over here at the moment?
-Morgan Aero 8
-Noble…
if so i do apologise!
I guess a lot of people already forgotten about this vehicle, which says enough really, but still I’ll say it…
The Hummer H2:
-too heavy
-too slow
-offensive interior plastics
-CAN’T go around corners when driving faster than 5 mph
-needs more oil for gas than China
-automotive personification of SUV craze
-ability to sport 30″ rims
Well for the all new “things” in 2006:
DCX has had an exceptional year ( i would certainly nominate them for the most uneven corporate performance in 2006). Mercedes had a good numbers results except for the no-minivan-but-minivan-nevertheless R-class (note that this one could be a nominee for the most odd introduction for 2006, although not a bad vehicle at all)…
On the american branch, i would disagree on the fact that the triplet are bad (they are not even 2006 all- new so nevermind). Magnum/charger/300 are actually pretty good offering, although in the need for an update.
Chrysler has put up some pretty ugly duckling: Sebring
Dodge has an interesting approach: the macho econobox (Caliber)
But i think the price for the abomination goes to Jeep:
Compass and Aspen are 2 dangerous cases of tactical corporate shortsightness that will damage the image of Jeep (the Hummer before Hummer, the epitomy of the off-road and military vehicles!)
…1 model year. The tail lights that look like they were torn off a Hundai and glued onto the back provide an uglification of this vanilla, badge engineered bastard. The sizeable price hike over an equally spec’d Fusion adds insult to brand incoherence. The coming of an AWD, 3.5L V6 engined, renamed replacement speaks for itself.
Does the Subaru Impreza get automatic nomination or would that only apply to the “Airborne TWAT” awards.
That word is just so… satisfying. I think I’ll use it in a meeting this morning.
TWAT. Y’all owe me a keyboard.
All of these offend my eyes. Please eliminate.
1. Monte Carlo – suddenly, it’s 1978!
2. Subaru WTF half-pick-up – fugly
3. Infinity QX56 – fugly, cheezy
4. Honda Element w/o painted fenders – much better with paint
5. Chevy HHR – cheap (inside) imitation (outside)
6. Buick Rainier – uh, why bother?
7. Pontiac Gran Prix – rented a brand new one. I was insulted at how cheap a $30k+ car could be
8. BMW Z4 – puked while looking at one yet again today. What were they thinking?
Hummer H2:
Slogan is “Like nothing else.”
Engine shared with Chevy SUV’s
Transmission shared with Chevy SUV’s
Frame & Suspension parts shared with Chevy SUV’s
Looks a little bit like a tacky version of a certain military vehicle.
Seems to be a lot like something else: a Chevy Suburban dressed up like an army Hummer.
BTW,
I though this was for all-new 2006 nominations:
so H2, Prius, Cobalt, Zephyr,… out those are already history of yesteryears.
Camry is all new generation though but i would hardly think it as a bad car. It is by far the best, mightiest drone vehicle ever made. Piston-head’s Anathema: yes! Bad car: absolutely not!
Hummer H2:
Slogan is “Like nothing else.â€
Engine shared with Chevy SUV’s
Transmission shared with Chevy SUV’s
Frame & Suspension parts shared with Chevy SUV’s
Looks a little bit like a tacky version of a certain military vehicle.
Seems to be a lot like something else: a Chevy Suburban dressed up like an army Hummer.
The frame and suspension are modified, however. I would challenge anyone to take a Suburban where the H2 can go (both in stock form). I agree that it is big and slow, but it is not supposed to be anything else.
Chevrolet Impala SS, Not only is the car riding on a 20 year old chassis. Its a 300 HP FWD “large” car with 4spd auto. Those things just don’t go together anymore. Remember Cadillac finally got away from that on their STS (ignore the DTS for a spell) because they wanted to be a compete with BMW’s. So what is this Impalas mission. I guess its competition would be the Ford 500, but that has AWD available, and i think i a 3.1L W-body was faster. I guess the Impala SS lets you know who the big man at your company is, as its probably pretty sweet for a fleet car.
The Mustang is the biggest TWAT. Ford utterly blew an opportunity to reinvent the pony car genre when it gave the Mustang its first complete redesign in a quarter century.
Ford could have come up with a pony car that had the size and engineering sophistication to compete in European and Asian markets. Instead, the Mustang epitomizes the vulgar American: embarrassingly big, fat and crude.
The Mustang’s styling is cartoonishly retro, the interior looks cheap and tacky, and the lack of standard rear-wheel independent suspension and disc brakes is really quite unforgivable in this day and age.
Sure, the Mustang’s got old-fashioned, big-block V8 power, but watch what happens if gas prices go back up to $3 per gallon after the election (ahem). The Mustang and forthcoming Dodge Challenger will be dismissed as the automotive equivalent of sleazy, middle-aged lounge lizards trying to pass themselves off as young studs.
The Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky…
It’s like that beautiful supermodel who has to ruin it by opening her mouth, at which time you realize she has a less than room temperature IQ.
The top is an utter joke, a painful exercise that an old Triumph addict would refuse to countinence. Top up its claustrophobic. Top down, the wind will kill you and the trunk becomes full. And “open trunk, get out, put up top, get in, latch top, get out, latch down butressese, get in, drive off” is just pathetic!
The trunk is painful: if you can’t store a case of wine in it with the top down, if you have less cargo room than a Lotus Elise, you can’t call it a “car”. The backward hinging would be an additional insult if you could ever put anything in it in the first place.
The ergonomics are an insult: A giant squid can operate the controls, a human can’t. Open the door to adjust the seat? A huge high drive tunnel but no cupholders in it? (Instead, the cupholedr is designed to be elbowed. Heck, Porsche makes better cupholders, at least the Porsche limits the coffee spilling to the passanger!) Window controls mounted on the back part of the door?
Finally, there’s too much lard to be a good roadster.
I so wanted to like this car. I so wanted one when I saw the pictures. Yet the result is not good enough to be a car, and not fast and agile enough to be a toy. If someone GAVE it to me, I’d gladly trade it for the girliest Pink miata I could find! At least the Miata has a great top, solid ergonomics, less weight, and an actual working trunk.
A couple of others.
The Crown Vic/Marquis/Towncar.
A boring car in 1979. An atrocious car today. That the 300/magmun/charger havent’ completely killed the Ford triplets in the fleet/taxi/police market says that Ford must be giving the things away.
can we get some kind of grouping
ie worst car under 20k, under 30k, under 40k under 50k. over 50k. SUV, Truck, sports car, Worst of Show.
yeah the new Camry is disgusting…in a funny way i guess? i laughed when i first saw it then cringed. regardless of how well it sells or how nice it drives, no one should be forced to share the road with something that hideous.
Jeep Compass for all the same reasons. It almost makes the Aztec look good. Caliber too, sure it looks acceptable, but the interior plastics are a joke in both.
Chrysler Sebring…maybe the clever cup-holders will be enough to make it sell but again… like the camry… i laughed when i saw how ridiculous it looked. Saturn Ion/Chrysler Crossfire love child on growth hormones.
It’s almost better to be bland than ugly.
Chevy Uplander, Buick Terraza, Pontiac Montana SV6, Saturn Relay.
No work in differentiating models. Poor quality. Manages to be strikingly ugly yet bland.
Here are some more for discussion:
1. Jaguar X type
2. Pontiac Torrent
3. Cadillac BLS (not sold in the US, does that count?)
4. Mercury Montego
5. Mercury Mariner
6. Jeep Commander
7. Jaguar Taurus…I mean Jaguar XK
Speaking of XK, who can think of more high-dollar cars? We need to include them too.
TWAT. You guys kill me.
I for one vote for the creation of a goofy looking statuette.
Jeep Compass.
World car with 3rd world build quality. Could also be a model for the statuette.