I couldn’t honestly check off the Aveo as a bad car because the Nitro sits on that list.

But seriously, the Aveo… I hope the Ford Fiesta is a smashing success and exposes the Aveo as the little NSFWbox we all know it to be. Who’s with me on that assumption?

A lot of Bland Prix drive around with their wipers straight up because of an electrical issue.

The way I figure it, if a company is sending out cars with all these problems I can see from a distance how many more are under the skin?

I do not wish any ill on their employees but I will not miss GM if they die.

Bunter

I would love that! That or the ’stupidest feature’.

I would love to see a vote on the items or features that should be fixed but never are…like the small ‘driving’ lights on GM trucks…the small ones that are always burned out on at least one side. I have seen GM trucks with these lights burned out for at least the last 5 years. Has anyone seen a GM truck with both working?

Because they’re woefully mis-planned. Think about hybrid demographics, then think about the kind of people who buy BOF SUVs. They don’t mix often, and GM’s own sales numbers back this up. Adding another model to the mix one makes exactly zero sense.

GM has two brands (Saturn and Saab) that ought to have hybrids, only one of which does (Saturn), and it’s a weak one at that. That Saab has no hybrid models is criminally stupid if you think about Saab’s demographics prior to 1998: left-leaning, affluent, educarted, willing to experiment. Of my local Saab club, more than a few have replaced their 900s and 9000s with Priuses because, and I quote “It’s like buying a modern Saab”.

And yet GM cranks out hybrid Tahoes that no one wants. Amazing. How is it that Bob Lutz and Mark La Neve still have jobs?

‘Is it an old style American rocket sled or a Lexus wanna-be. You know what – it is both!’

Personally, I think it looks like a Dugong.

Because the entire program is deeply flawed and they pressed ahead with the Escalade while watching Yukahoe hybrids sit on the lots forever.

The Yukahoe hybrids get really impressive city fuel economy, for their size, and somewhat improved highway fuel economy.

Part – probably most – of the reason for the Yukahoe hybrids improved highway fuel economy are two things that could be done to ANY Yukahoe at a reasonable expense… They cleaned up the aerodynamics, removed the roof rack and installed a VCM engine. These changes are probably good for 1-3 mpg at highway speeds. And they cost little. But GM wasn’t satisfied to make small, inexpensive changes to the vehicle to make it the most attractive in its class and universally more attractive to people who might want an SUV.

But nooo… GM had a better plan! They added a heavy, expensive battery; heavier, very expensive two-mode transmission; aluminum parts; special lighter-weight seats (the latter to offset the weight of the other components), increased the manufacturing cost by quite a lot (some say the transmission alone is $10K) and dropped it on the market for a $10-13K premium (depending on how you look at these things) to sell to people who, historically, don’t care much about fuel economy. And it’s in a top trim and feature level, also further distancing it from the part of the market that involves people who might be interested in saving fuel.

But here’s the kicker: Since many SUV purchasers are actually buying on wants, rather than needs, most of those who look at an SUV and get nervous about the fuel economy can get better fuel economy in their next vehicle purchase by simply buying something else. As a bonus… they save money on the purchase, insurance and taxes.

Consequently, in spite of the tiny quantities in which GM produces them, they sit on lots forever. The local dealer has managed to move two but it took massive rebates and discounting to do it. One has been on the lot since February or so and he’s got another at 100 days.

If they couldn’t bring the Yukahoe hybrid in for a very reasonable premium ($3-4K), the whole program made no sense at all… and that’s how it turned out.

It beats me why they kept going on the Escalade program and still haven’t delivered a two-mode pickup. GM was right about one thing… you save a lot more fuel going from 15 to 21mpg than you do going from 37 to 48mpg. If pickups are, as I suspect, more often bought on the economic merits, a work pickup hybrid might have a chance.

It certainly makes more sense to get a hybrid pickup on the market and see how it flies than deliver yet another SUV.

—

Considering the basic Escalade as a completely separate issue, I don’t see voting for it. As some say, it’s really OK for what it is, if you like that sort of thing.

The thing that bothers me most about the Escalade is the recent ad, “If it had a toilet, I could live in it.” The Escalade is (should be) a rich man’s car. Linking it to the concept of living in one’s car – a condition of only the very poorest segment of car-owners – strikes me as a really bad idea in an ad.

I don’t know why there’s so much antipathy for GM’s BOF two mode hybrids. To being with, BMW, Chrysler and Daimler were partners in the technology and they thought it had merit (as an aside, I can remember when the DOJ anti-trust division would get excited if the Detroit CEOs played golf together, let alone develop joint technologies).

The technology works and yields about a 25% improvement in fuel mileage. GM & Ford were each selling 3/4 of a million or more fullsize pickups a year, plus a lot of SUVs on pretty much the same platforms. Improving the mileage of that fleet 25% is non-trivial.

I take this car any day over the bland and safe Camry.

GM has announced the G8 maybe gone in five years, and don’t be suprised if the Lacrosse is still around at that time.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008-buick-lacrosse-super-review/

With that said, this will serve as my symbolic vote for the 9-5. I’d drive it over any of the others on the list, but it’s so old and so inferior to both its premium competition and just about anything else you can get at even its Red Tag price that it deserves the recognition.

Both the Sebring/Avenger and Caliber/Compass are the primary reasons Chrysler won’t survive. These are supposed to be their mainstream entries in two of the most hotly competitive classes in the industry, and they…well…punted. The miniature Charger styling of the Avenger doesn’t hurt my eyes as much as some of Acura’s latest offerings, but in every other respect, it’s as dismal as its Sebring brother. The original Neon and JA cars (Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze) were so close to actually being competitive, undone (according to Chrysler insiders) by Bob Eaton’s ill-considered cost cutting, but it’s like they’re not even trying anymore.

Others among the nominees get so much encouragingly wrong, yet can’t quite take that last fateful lunge for kitschy immortality. If perhaps the Sebring Sedan had a dorsal fin, if the Amanti had carried the faux Mercedes theme a step further with gullwings, if the H2 had gun turrets and missile launchers, or better yet, a full fledged Transformer option…if,if, if.

1. Largest drop in desirability from one generation to the next (and for a car that, originally, had a lot of practical and emotional value for many).

2. Stupid D pillar. An insurance conspiracy to be sure.

3. Heavier/less interior volume than the last one.

4. Big useless 4 cylinder with uninspiring mileage.

I’d vote for it 10 times if I could (but I’m not a Chicago voter).

I think it should have made the list since it was one of the most discussed “worst” cars in the previous episode of discussion for the ttac 10 list.

Chrysler Sebring / Dodge Avenger – I don’t mind the Avenger, but the Sebring is just dragging the Chrysler name through the mud.

Jeep Compass – Speaking of dragging a brand name through the mud…

Scion xB – Plumping it up alienated a lot of Scion lovers

smart fortwo – The fuel economy-to-size ratio of this vehicle is horrendous! You lose 50% of your passenger cabin and about 85% of your cargo area, but only gain about 10% fuel economy over other subcompacts (some of which are priced less).

VW Routan – Talk about false advertising…

One more comment: TTAC should supplement Ten Worst Awards with a few title awards like Worst Redesign (Scion xB) or Most Generic/Boring/Soulless (Camry, Corolla) or Most Brand Damaging (Jeep Compass).

Oh well, here’s who I voted for and why:

1. The Sebring. No explanation necessary
2-5. The Aspen, Caliber, Compass and Nitro. Again, ’nuff said.
6. The Torrent. Pontiac is beginning to define itself as a performance brand, so why would they have what is essentially a hatchback that looks like a wagon that looks like a truck with an anemic pushrod engine from the deceased GM minivans. For God’s sake Pontiac, get rid of the G3 and Torrent, and then make the G5 GXP-only with the powertrain from a Cobalt SS and a six-speed transmission with some Recaro seats! Give the G6 a detuned version of that same engine from a Opel Insignia SRi as a base engine and offer the Direct Injection V-6 with AWD as an option, and give both a standard 6sp manual! Get rid of the automatic option on the Solstice, too. The poseurs can buy the better equipped Sky.

Whoa, where was I?

Oh yeah,
7. The “Lincoln” Mark LT: The trunk-bed Blackwood was an interesting idea, but the follow-up a poor, poor excuse for car a brand that is just pulling itself off the respirator. Kill it, Ford! It ain’t doin’ you no good!

8. GMT360 trucks (TrailBlazer, Ascender, Envoy, 9-7X). The TrailBlazer SS was an interesting concept, a hod-rod truck, but why not put it in a real full-size truck to make a Silverado SS? Also, the interior is crappy even by Chinese standards, the styling is lumpen, and it is as refined as, well, an old pickup truck. No one is buying these anymore, they are moving to large wagons, a.k.a “crossovers”.

9. The Scion xB. As posted earlier:

On another topic, I’m really hoping the xB gets a spot on the list because the world’s most cautious and thorough automaker couldn’t keep a simple hatchback from gaining OVER SIX HUNDERED POUNDS during a redesign. Also, for giving a supposed economy car a whopping 2.4L engine, nearly the biggest in its class, with a piddling 158hp, only 18 horses up on a Civic despite having an extra 600cc of displacement. It’s like a late 70s Detroit approach to an economy car. What’s next for the redesign, a new carbureted pushrod engine, a three-speed transmission, and a solid rear axle?

10. Smart fortwo. Dumb for anyone.

ZING! Its funny because its not true. :)

Actually, it does. Have a look at some of the minor switchgear, seats or the AT shift knob. Now, sit in an NG900 (not a 9000; that’s a Saab/Fiat joint project and a very different beast). You’ll see a lot of the same stuff. Unchanged. For more than fifteen years.

But my basic point is nominating (or voting) for a car because of what it represents, rather than what it is, isn’t kosher.

I think it is. If this were just an objective ten-worst, TTAC might as well just license CR’s ratings and publish the bottom ten. I think TTAC should do a little more, some socioeconomic commentary, along with just raw ratings. It’s an enthusiast site, and a little poetic license–at least differentiating “scornworthy” from simply “bad”–is apt.

Take the xB: again, not bad in the way that the Sebring or Amanti are, but they (in my mind) deserve their place for what they say about their respective manufacturers.

The xB says that Toyota doesn’t “get it”, that no matter how much they might try, chasing focus group feedback without accommodating your core market is a good way to appeal to nobody (rather like the Epsilon 9-3, actually). For a company supposedly as smart as the Big T, that’s a serious misstep. The TSX says the same about Honda, the X6 of BMW.

The 9-5 says that GM doesn’t care. They have no intention of doing better unless they have do, have no strategy other than “grind out the same crap, day after day, until circumstances force our hand”. GM has other cars that say the same thing, but none as well as this one. No matter that it’s not terrible, it just speaks GM’s failure at such a volume that you can’t ignore it.

Look, I like Saabs a lot, but the treatment of the brand in general, and the 9-5 in particular, is borderline-criminally incompetent.

I’m not even sure that I’ve ever actually seen one. Or a commercial for one. Or a person dumb enough to want one.