By on October 17, 2018

Ah yes, boring cars. They’re everywhere. And really they’ve been everywhere in the past. It’s just the nature of the Internet Car Enthusiast to paint a rosier picture than that of reality. His or her tinted spectacles are very cheap, by the way. Just like they’re supposed to be.

But enough about designer frames from Walmart. Tell us about the most boring car you’ve ever encountered.

Of course, “boring” means different things to different people. For youths, perhaps a car with decent infotainment passes the boring bar, even if it’s a snooze to drive. For others, a commuter car isn’t something that falls into any boring or exciting category, it just is. The special breed which is the ICE expects more from their vehicle. More power, more torque, more consumption, more handling. Passion, soul, and various other crap adjectives journalists put into glossy car reviews.

Today we don’t need any of those words, as the cars we seek all lack these characteristics. The boring car pick doesn’t have to be a car you’ve driven recently, either. Just one that sticks out in your mind as especially boring. I don’t really have a boring car to offer you, specifically.

Oh wait — yes, I do. And it’s this, the Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera. You’ll be staggered to learn Olds made this very car until 1996 before finally killing it off. It started production in 1981, and had just the minimal amount of visual refreshing and upgrades in equipment and safety to qualify it as car.

I’m not saying it wasn’t reliable — the A-body was decent at that; you can find cockroach examples around today. Nor were they excessive consumers of the gasoline liquids. But never in my life have I driven such a boring car. The steering had no feel, the seats provided no support, and the engine and transmission were only vaguely connected by the idea of a throttle. Put the pedal to the carpet and you accelerated at a single pace. Let off the throttle, and you slowed down. The wheel could provide turns of left or right in an approximate way. I’m saying this as a fan of Oldsmobile, by the way. But that wasn’t a great Oldsmobile, nor a representation of what a car could or should be. It was a piece of car which was just dreadfully boring.

Let’s hear your picks for the most boring thing you’ve ever driven.

[Images: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

194 Comments on “QOTD: The Most Boring Car of Them All?...”


  • avatar
    Lie2me

    I had a Cutlass like the top pic and yes it was boring, but it was a company car and I had to do a lot of driving with it. I put almost 200K miles on it with no serious problems. Boring, yes, but it sure was a good car

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      Not that I have ridden in very many of these but IIRC they were quite comfortable for a budget cruiser. Perhaps it was so long ago that anything was comfortable as compared to my mountain bike which was my primary source of transportation….

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I spent a lot of long boring hours driving it and yes it was very comfortable, quiet and well behaved. Sometimes purposeful can be mistaken for boring. These were perfect for the long haul, but not much else

    • 0 avatar
      phila_DLJ

      Nothing with only two doors, no grille, and HIDDEN DOOR HANDLES can be the MOST boring car of ALL!

      The Ciera, fine, but the Supreme remains one of my favorite exterior designs of that era.

      • 0 avatar
        Featherston

        Agreed 100%, phila_DLJ. Those Supremes were a nice design and have aged well. A young guy who works in my neighborhood has one and, to his credit, has kept it mostly stock and in decent shape. It still looks good.

        It’s also not the same car as the Ciera (W-body vs A-body). In fairness to Corey, though, seemingly every non-98 and non-88 for a good quarter century had “Cutlass” in its name, so it’s easy to get confused.

    • 0 avatar
      whynot

      My parents (and grandma too) had a white Cutlass Ciera like the middle picture. I remember when I was young (like 3-4 years old) pretending that the fabric striping on the door were a cash register.

      • 0 avatar
        CobraJet

        I had three of these as company cars, an 85, 88 and 90. All were nicely equipped Broughams. The 88 had the 3.8 V6 and was a real performer. Two of the three were bought by family members after the lease was up. For that period of time, they were very good cars and gave no trouble for 100,000 miles or more.

        No doubt GM stayed with them way too long. By 95 they were very outdated and were rental fleet only.

        A boring car to me would be a gray Nissan Sentra.

    • 0 avatar
      namesakeone

      My parents had two of these. Both were decent cars (their 1988 model was the first car in the family to achieve 200,000 miles), and both were stolen. Their 1996 was never recovered.

  • avatar
    Car Ramrod

    I’d have to say the L-body, to me the Corsica is the most boring variant. I read that they were actually released to rental car agencies before they arrived on dealer lots. 3-speed auto and the Cavalier 4-cylinder, but with added weight. Snore.

    We rented several of these but I only knew one person that bought one. Come to think of it, hers was white and it may have started life as a rental car.

    • 0 avatar
      phila_DLJ

      My Dad was seriously considering a Corsica in 1996 after his ’78 Delta 88 Royale died (forget if it died or if he was just tired of it).

      The redesigned Saturn SL had just come out and I convinced him to get one of those instead, even though it had less room and no power steering.

      I still think it was the right choice…or at least the less boring choice.

      That forest green Saturn lasted a good long time until someone hit it while by brother was driving it.

      • 0 avatar
        zbnutcase

        I had a ’96 Saturn SL2 for 10 years. All options but leather and keyless entry. Despite it’s warts and pimples, was a great car. I even used it as a service car when I was self employed in the marine biz. (a small block Ford or Chevrolet longblock will fit in the trunk) Car was as reliable as an anvil, but I have owned toaster ovens with more personality.

        • 0 avatar
          ect

          I can’t speak to the SL, but I was inflicted with the use of a Saturn L-series for about a week in 2000 or 2001, and was positively appalled by (i) how supremely without any socially redeeming value it was and (ii) how obviously ashamed of it Saturn was.

          I know there was a Saturn logo on it somewhere – maybe the hood(?) – but there was no mention of the Saturn name anywhere on the car. Perhaps for good reason.

          The anonymity of the car positively screamed the message that “we’re so ashamed of this POS that we don’t want anyone to know it’s ours”. Its driving characteristics (or lack of same) proclaimed the wisdom of this choice.

          The same year, I also drove a Lexus ES300 and its Acura competitor as part of a market panel. They were both VERY bland cars, totally devoid of soul, but nowhere near as pitiful as the Saturn.

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      I drove a Corsica (white!) as a rental on a business trip to Atlanta, in 1995 (it’s memorable because I haven’t had to make that many business trips). It was so new that it had “LICENSE TAG APPLIED FOR” paper plates on it. The Ecotec four could do 85 on the I-75/85 freeway without breaking a sweat, and it had daytime running lights along with automatic headlamps (which I first noticed when the headlights came on automatically when pulling into a parking garage). Not a terrible car, but not one I’d want to actually own, either.

  • avatar
    tonyola

    The Cutlass Ciera and its corporate A-body cousins could be decent cars if they’re properly optioned and if you got a good one in the GM quality lottery.

    My pick for the most boring car is the Plymouth Reliant sedan.
    https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/plymouth-reliant-1981-1.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      That is a good call. The reliant sedan seemingly was sketched out by a kindergarten engineering student in crayon. It would be hard to imagine more than 30 minutes was spent on the overall exterior design.

  • avatar
    IBx1

    The 2003ish-era Taurus I had to drive in driver’s ed. I will never have a normal car, but that one was especially bland.

    • 0 avatar

      Did you enjoy the turning circle of the Taurus?

      PS. You secretly revealed an upcoming QOTD.

      • 0 avatar
        IBx1

        *logs in eighteen times*

        I hardly remember anything about that car except wanting to be out of it.

        There’s only 3 turning circles I remember: the Challenger R/T, Scion iQ, and my Abarth. The Challenger turned tighter than my Civic Si, the iQ could make hilariously small circles in a parking lot, and my Abarth turns about as tight as my crew cab F-250 did.

      • 0 avatar
        kenwood

        Excellent. I’m looking for a winter beater and an old rusty Taurus with the Vulcan 3.0 and 115K miles is on my list to visit. Looking forward to the article.

        • 0 avatar
          gtem

          Kenwood be careful with how rusty of an example you pick. It goes beyond just cosmetic sheetmetal rot on them fairly quickly in the Northeast/Midwest. Besides subframes and strut perches failing, the rear springs like to rust and snap, so if you see rear sag, it probably needs new ones (Monroe quickstruts will have you back in order quickly and cheaply). Besides that, they’re sturdy and cheap to run, yards are full of used bits and any neighborhood mechanic can keep it going for not much money.

    • 0 avatar
      ernest

      Daughter drove one of those through college, then I had it for a couple years, then went back down to my son-in-law. Boring- yes… but it worked beautifully.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Taurus can’t be boring. All those repair needs would keep you entertained in the garage

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Easy.

    2011 Honda Accord Sedan DX. Not comfortable nor fun. It was successful at being a boring blob of a car. I did not enjoy the 1 tank of gas that I owned it for. The only exciting event was the Saturday morning I put it on CL at 7 am or so and it was gone by 11 AM.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Can’t be. Same year Camry easy beats it in boredom department

    • 0 avatar
      johnds

      What country are you in? We didn’t get a DX trim Accord in the United States for 2011. I believe 2005 was the last year before the value package. I’d still say a stripped Accord would be more fun than a Taurus or Cutlass Ciera though.

    • 0 avatar
      WildcatMatt

      The 2008 Honda Accord I had from 2013-2016 was easily the most boring car I’ve ever owned. The PT Cruiser I rented in Orlando some time back may have it beat, I honestly can’t remember it well enough to be sure but I guess that in and of itself qualifies it.

  • avatar
    NoID

    I’m offended that the lead-in image for this QOTD is the Cutlass Supreme. The Cutlass Supreme, as the name suggests, was a winner for GM and stood out as a good car all around. I certainly wouldn’t imply that it shares the boring label with its Ciera sibling, especially given its racing pedigree [OK, so the race cars were barely based on the actual car…but at least the production design informed the aerodynamics of its circle track (Stock Car) and drag racing (Pro Stock) derivatives.]

  • avatar
    raph

    Any EV… sure they can be fast as hell and can look pretty good but that’s about it. They dont make noise and only require a reduction gear to move and with the impending introduction of steer by wire along with brake by wire people will just be telling the car what the want it to do rather than actually driving it.

    I’m sure we will see them in combination with torque vectoring AWD and fully active suspensions so they will go like stink around a track as well all with just a bunch of tire hum and drivers clumsily yanking the steering wheel, stabbing the throttle and jamming on the brakes and bragging about how “superior” thier robot on wheels are.

    Bleh… fine I suppose when you de stuck in traffic sending out that coded cry for help “I’m living the dream butvI cant think of a more boring car that will excel supremely at everything it does.

    People will just be better off getting a simulator and the latest copy of whatever driving game is out there and save on tires.

    • 0 avatar
      NoID

      No windmills were harmed in the making of this comment.

    • 0 avatar
      MoparRocker74

      Agreed. EVs are even more bland and lacking in character than even midsize sedans…and that’s saying something. The ‘experience’ is about as engaging as washing clothes. F it…I’ll NEVER own a hybrid or electric. Ill uber, ride the bus/light rail before that.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        I guess if your best view of an EV is it’s taillights as it leaves your Fiat in the dust, they can seem boring I suppose. Here’s a video of people being “bored” in an EV:

        youtu.be/Wd5TO-WpzqM?t=174
        youtube.com/watch?v=LpaLgF1uLB8

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Yup. As all vehicles close in on perfection, with the exception of styling inside and out, they will become ever more alike. When stellar excellence becomes ordinary, due to human nature, we will be bored with all of them.

      “they don’t make noise” True dat. A few months ago some other auto website had an audio recording of the entirely synthetic science fictiony sound played into the interior of some expensive brand electric SUV as it was being driven (I think Jaguar). Amusing

  • avatar
    ajla

    2016 Subaru Outback 2.5i Premium w/CVT.

  • avatar
    jack4x

    Had a 2016 or 17 base model Sentra for a couple months as a long term rental. Boring engine, lame transmission, minimal features, etc. Just the definition of mediocre and anonymous. I’m pretty sure this generation of Sentra is in the dictionary next to ‘Rental Car’.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Good call

    • 0 avatar
      zamoti

      It’s big brother Altima would like to have a word with you.

    • 0 avatar
      afedaken

      Completely and utterly unexciting and inoffensive. Which is EXACTLY what I wanted out of my last rental. Does its job well.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        I mostly agree: when I hop into a rental in a hurry, I just want to be able to sit down, adjust the seating position and mirrors, set up my phone to charge and possibly navigate, maybe get some music going, and hit the road. The Altima I had aced this part. The CX5 was much less intuitive, and the XC90 I got upgraded to recently was a freaking alien spaceship.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          gtem,

          I think, Mazda infotainment knob gets bad reputation for no reason. I find it easy to use. After a month you can navigate menus with eyes closed – push the home button, click wheel 2 times to the left, click down once and you are in app menu; click down once more and you are in traffic map… etc. But even if you first time user – it is pretty intuitive setup. Plus, HVAC is separate buttons, so Mazda is pretty good. Only complaint – it is a bit slow in the beginning.

  • avatar
    2drsedanman

    I drove an early 80’s Chevette Scooter while in college. The fact that it had a 4 speed was the only thing that made it even remotely interesting. Vinyl interior, no a/c, cramped, rode rough. Boring and sucky.

    After driving it two years, my dad traded it and a camper needing work for a co-worker’s high mileage 1982 Honda Civic with a 5-speed. Comparing the two really demonstrated the failings of the Chevette. There were thousands of them sold, though, and many led a hard, long life. Definitely boring.

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    The 1994 Saturn SL I bought my wife back in the day. No not a SL1 or a SL2, but just SL. At least it had a stick shift. But it sure was a bland-o-bile that didn’t do anything good.

    And it ended up burning oil like it was free.

  • avatar
    gtem

    Within the context of the modern car market, an old school A-body with its velour, raspy 60 deg V6 and column shifter, excellent sightlines, and the way it pulls the nose up on acceleration would be anything but boring. I’d personally find it an endearing throwback. Boring to me would be some sort of hybrid Hyundai or a CVT Corolla or Sentra, something like that.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    A boring vehicle is exactly what I want for our family members to drive. Something that will serve faithfully for 10 years. Start every time. Never strand anyone. Get them there and back safely and reliably every time. That never creates drama at the shop or wallet pain. Easy to drive and with good visibility. That never tempts them into driving beyond their or its capabilities or road conditions.

    Just what is wrong with that?

    • 0 avatar

      Nothing wrong with it in its essence, but it’s not what we’re after today.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      There’s nothing *wrong* with it, like driving a Sentra isn’t a personal flaw, but that’s not the experience everyone is looking for either.

    • 0 avatar
      MoparRocker74

      What I find ‘wrong’ with that (and I speak for myself, not anyone else here) is that it sets a VERY low bar. I just can’t see settling for the absolute bare minimum to scrape by, especially when the cash outlay is negligible for something that’s rewarding to own and drive. That describes every generic cammacord ever made. A Charger or 300 would do literally ALL of that, and raise you style, handling, performance and pride of ownership. Im not even talking SRTs or Hellcats…just the Pentastar/8spd models. Sure, if one were to crunch all of the numbers, Im positive that by taking on the bore-blob I could pocket a whopping 15-24 cents per day savings over the ego-mobile. But is that REALLY worth it? To me…not on yer life.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        We’ve gone down this road before, but I suppose it is worth rehashing:

        1st off, I personally am a fan of the LX cars. I think the 8spd+Pentastar is great and the ride/handling balance is sublime.

        For the average driver however, there isn’t a clear cut advantage. Many will find the view out of the LXs claustrophobic with compromised sight lines. Some will say “it’s just too big!” Others will notice that the combined MPG is a good 5 mpg behind the average midsizer. They’ll notice that the rear seat is slightly less roomy, that the trunk is harder to get things into, and won’t fit certain items as well as a midsizer (real example: a large size folded dog crate won’t fit in the Charger but it will in a Camry). Finally, up north, many will prefer the functionality of FWD on all seasons in the winter over having to mess with snow tires. Throw in Dodge’s historic reputation for less retained value and more repairs (rightly or wrongly) and it all adds up to people preferring something with inferior driving dynamics but wins in most other categories.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          Finally, up north, many will prefer the functionality of FWD on all seasons in the winter over having to mess with snow tires.

          Completely underappreciated by enthusiasts BTW. Heavy FWD vehicles with good all season tires are pretty competent in the snow (until the ground clearance is exceeded.)

          If I can’t have AWD (with a RWD bias or 50/50 split) give me a competent FWD over RWD for my “gotta be there heck or high water” commute.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “Finally, up north, many will prefer the functionality of FWD on all seasons…”

          I feel bad for you folks living in the snowy hellscapes.

          It might be 90 degrees here 10 months of the year, and I’ll probably die when a hurricane sends a yacht through my roof, but getting to go RWD with summer tires year-round is so, so good.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        Tesla. Ludicrous mode. Mic drop.

  • avatar
    jimmy2x

    Unfortunately, too easy for me. 1974 AMC Matador. Grossly underpowered, Godawful interior, and a drivers side window that literally fell out. I can only plead young and dumb.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      Nothing about a Matador’s looks were boring, hideous yes, boring no

      • 0 avatar

        Especially the BARCELONA.

        https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/04/rare-rides-1978-amc-matador-baroque-and-barcelona/

      • 0 avatar
        MRF 95 T-Bird

        At the time AMC was designed a four door version of the Matador coupe. The four door coupe ahead of its time? They put the kibosh on it due to the gas crunch and focus on Eagle awd.

      • 0 avatar
        2manycars

        The early Matadors were just plain looking. Really they were Rebels with a few tweaks, renamed when AMC decided they didn’t want to be associated with the rebellious youth movement of the day. The Matador got hit with the ugly stick really badly when the Jimmy Durante nose was grafted onto the sedans and wagons for 1974. The coupe that debuted the same year was always something of an acquired taste.

        Most boring car I’ve owned myself was probably a 1962 Rambler American two-door sedan with a flathead six and three-on-the-tree. Just a basic Point-A to Point-B car with no acceleration or handling characteristics to speak of and some truly bizarre styling.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Ford Freestyle
    Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego
    Ford Contour

    • 0 avatar

      By most accounts the Contour was not boring to drive.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        He could have just said “any Ford, oh and they constantly murder puppies when nobody is looking” and it wouldn’t have surprised anyone.

        Doesn’t matter that the Contour handled well and had snappy acceleration with the Duratec engine, not even mentioning the SVT.

        • 0 avatar
          johnds

          How many Svt cars did they make? Most were the bland models with a poor reliability track record. Everyone I knew who had one said it spent a lot of time at the dealer.

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            I have recent experience driving a hub-capped, beige, Mercury version of the Contour, and with the Zetec+stick, I will say that car is a lot of fun on back roads. Very European feeling. Oh and it has over 250k miles on it as of this year.

          • 0 avatar
            bumpy ii

            The Contour was basically a mass-market European sports sedan that Ford spent way too much money to reengineer for its existing USDM supply chain. On top of that, it was priced like a midsize but was about the size of the Infiniti G20. Problem was that nobody went to the Ford or Mercury dsealer for a G20 competitor; they wanted a stack-em-high-sell-em-cheap Tempo or Topaz.

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          JohnT; I suspect his momma ran off with an F-150 driver.

      • 0 avatar
        dukeisduke

        Especially when they were running. But then, there’s nothing more entertaining than searching through the engine for pieces of a plastic water pump impeller, after it’s shattered.

        OTOH, the SVT was definitely interesting.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Ditto on the early D3 sedans. I think Ford was going for a similar Bauhaus-style design simplicity as contemporary Volkswagen (which made sense, because designer J Mays has previously been at Volkswagen, where he penned such works as the New Beetle and . But if you got an uplevel one and were half asleep, you might mistake either car’s interior for that or the Phaeton.

      Nevertheless, they were spacious and comfortable, with some mechanical shortcomings. The 3.0-liter Duratec was slow and the CVT (in AWD versions) sucked. But when they were renamed Taurus and Sable and given the 3.5-liter along with comprehensive facelifts, they became a lot more appealing, especially compared to the indifferent W-Body Impala or the great-but-expensive Avalon.

    • 0 avatar
      spookiness

      I love the D3 sedans. Like a huge loaf of boring white bread, but freshly home-baked and warm with butter on it. mmm

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        I like the analogy spookiness. I think of something quite similar: A lot of older folks in small town-Midwest America migrated from crown vics to Ford Five Hundreds. I can just see a bunch of them mixed in with various Buicks, Chrysler Concordes, etc at a early bird country-fixins buffet. Mmmmm.

  • avatar
    statikboy

    Recent rental Dodge Grand Caravan. No, wait, the StowAndGo seating was really pretty fantastic.

    The ’82 base model Tercel was a friggin’ hoot to drive despite being slow and uncomfortable.

    Got it! Any full-size pickup since the mid ’90s. Lifeless piles of crap. Except the late ’90s-ish Ram work truck that would suddenly dive right towards that drop-off to the river or left at the oncoming semi for no apparent reason….. Very exciting!!

    Also nominate ’98 Ford Escort automatic.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      Nearly any full size pick up since, ever, will get sideways with a decent goose of the throttle. But, yeah, lots of HP, off-road ability (Raptor, Power Wagon, Z-71 in that order), being able to haul toys like ATVs and such, so boring, unlike a Tercel or Caravan. Because stow-n-go trumps hauling pallets of cinder blocks or a load of gravel for practicality any day. As we all know, being practical means it cant possibly be boring, unless it happens to be something very practical that you just don’t like.

      Maybe you thought this was “which vehicle do you love to hate for no valid reason?”. But, I think they did something like that already.

  • avatar
    phila_DLJ

    2007 Hyundai Sonata. Beige on Beige.

  • avatar
    SixspeedSi

    I might get hate for this, but the w-body Impala was always a snoozefest to me, sans SS trim. Don’t get me wrong, they’re okay highway cars, but dreadfully boring. The 3.6 barely helped as most of the power is found at top and who really wants to ring out a w-body Impala.

    The exterior design is boring, the interior is boring (no shift indicator lol), the infotainment was old and boring. Tons of aapr card caring members bought them and beige..boring.

    Runner-up would include the Fleet only Captiva, 2000s Ford/Mercury Sable, 1st gen Hyundai Azera.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      And the SS was only exciting because it would torque-steer you into a curb or oncoming traffic if you weren’t careful.

      I have rented many a W-body Impala, when all I needed was an inexpensive and reasonably comfortable way to eat up miles.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus

    Funny, I was actually thinking of picking up a Cutlass Ciera as a strictly work car. Yes, I figured on driving the GMC to jobs, but the reality of the fuel mileage would seem to lead to the conclusion that its best as a fun vehicle, something to take camping and off-roading, etc.

    Would buying a Cutlass Ciera for, say, $1200 or less save me enough fuel to justify the expense? Probably not. But, it would also save in wear and tear, since things like tires are cheaper for the car. Not only that, but putting excessive miles on a 4wd truck leads to the possibility of issues with the transfer case and such as that. If I only drive the truck when I need it, or want to, it would prolong the life of a vehicle I use for a specific purpose that the car wouldn’t serve.

    I’m not arguing that the Cutlass Ciera isn’t boring. In fact, its kinda ideal for this purpose.

    Yes, there were plenty of boring cars of the era, Corsica, Spirit, etc. There are plenty of boring cars today. Pretty much anything with a CVT holds a strong argument. There are exceptions, perhaps namely the Nissan Maxima.

    It doesn’t mean these are bad cars, most often, they’re not. Many are boring simply because they get the job done without drama or fuss.

    Someone mentioned a 4th gen (00-07) Taurus, not much of an argument against that, but, well any Impala that wasn’t an SS was as bad or worse. IMO, the Impala handles worse and has a worse interior. Taurus had become too big and heavy by then, but it wasn’t the worst handling for what it was. Avalon? Another boring entry of the era.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      I think you could do better and newer than a Cutlass Ciera or its Century counterpart for your $1,200. The aforementioned 4th-generation Taurus…would be better.

      And yeah, the Impala was boring, too. No doubt that by 2007 or so, the American full-size sedans—preciously the collective pinnacle of our engineering and design—were on life support. The Chrysler LX cars were the only ones with any soul, but—by all accounts—Daimler forced Chrysler to make eleventh-hour cost-cuts that made the LXs feel cheap.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I’d do a $1200 3.3L A-body over a $1200 4th-gen Taurus.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        Yeah, their being RWD saved them from the boring pile, but the awful 2.7L in base/fleet models, cheap interiors, etc, they could have been better. And, they are.

        Maybe you’re right about the 4th gen Taurus. I’m not completely set on the Ciera, but the one I found for $1200 was super low miles and in great condition.

        Actually, if its still there, there is a 2000 Honda Civic LX 5 speed sedan for $1500, pretty low miles, one-owner. It would probably far more ideal than the bigger 6 cylinder sedans. Better mileage, more fun to drive. I doubt it’ll still be for sale when I get off this job, but we’ll see.

        I also gotta put some money into the GMC, so, I may not buy something else at all.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus

          https://neworleans.craigslist.org/cto/d/98-honda-civic-low-miles-one/6716489959.html

          Actually, its an EX, just noticed the sunroof (and a ’98, not an ’00, although its the same generation). I’d kinda feel bad about ruining such a decent little Civic. Its so clean, and with working in the areas I do (and parking in the places I do), it’d be pretty trashed before its over with.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            Quite frankly, I’d be surprised if it’s available now. A lot of people leave old ads up, and that one is 11 days old.

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            That Civic is a steal if legit, it’d fetch at least double that around here. Classic cheap Honda motoring!

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            I feel its still there. They keep renewing the ad and they dropped it from $2k over the last week.

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            That’s just plain crazy. I would honestly suspect something were wrong with it. Around here that would be gone within a day.

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      If you are shopping late 80s / early 90s GM, I would suggest looking at a Pontiac 6000. It doesn’t have to be some wild 6000STE AWD turbo. The normal 6000 drove surprisingly well. (Surprising to me, anyway.) And you could get a decent V6 in it (not a 3800, but it’s a relatively small car).

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        I would prefer a 6000, but they’re thin on the ground around here. The Ciera is a ’95 or ’96. Mid 1990s is about as old as you’ll usually find in the dirty South (where scrap pays decent).

        If I was in the PNW still, a 6000 would be on the table.

        • 0 avatar
          Ty'Eira Marie Morrison-Osteen

          6000 is basically a sporty Ciera. Yes, it’s an A-Body cousin with the Celebrity, Cutlass Ciera, and Century

        • 0 avatar
          SPPPP

          Intrigued by this, I went and looked in classifieds for the Northeast and upper Midwest.
          I was surprised by how few Pontiac 6000s I could find. Even on Craigslist, they are almost extinct. Ah, well.

          You can still find a lot of W-bodies, which are decent cars. The main issue is rust up here, but maybe not such an issue in the south.

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      Here’s a decent 3rd gen for you. If the miles are original. Vulcan engine and all. Might be worth a records check.

      https://philadelphia.craigslist.org/cto/d/1996-ford-taurus-gl-1/6730862976.html

  • avatar
    volvo

    Most Chrysler K platform cars.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Seems to me that boring here = slow. In that context the current gen Sentra loaner I got from a Nissan dealer was pretty bad. Bad audio, bad handling, tepid acceleration coupled with an uninspired engine groan exacerbated by the CVT. Reminds me of a girl I knew who said she didn’t own any music.

    Dishonorable mention- current gen Mazda 3 2.0 auto. They must tune the autos or rental versions differently, because it drove no different than a Golf 1.8 TSI with what felt like half the horsepower. Cars can be fun without needing to be thrashed to make satisfying haste.

    I think a more interesting question is what people see as a FAST boring car. In that context I’d say my dad’s ’03 M45. Looked great, nice interior, but dynamically a mess. The engine wrote checks that bankrupted every aspect of the chassis; brakes and suspension. So once you had your big scare you just wound up driving it like an old man, trying to get more than 17-18 MPG in mixed driving. My (admittedly modified) auto G37S was faster, sharper and possibly roomier while being much smaller. It’s no wonder that M45 only lasted 2 years. Infiniti is a mess.

  • avatar
    Blackcloud_9

    I think I drive one of the most boring cars available today…the Kia Soul.
    Now…hear me out before you all have me publicly pilloried.
    The Soul is an imminently practical car. Does most everything reasonably well. It has been very reliable. But it definitely does not stir my “soul”. Due to its short wheelbase, it has a choppy ride, especially on the freeway. The stereo is middling at best. It has developed a myriad of squeaks and rattles over the years (It’s a 2014, bought new). Gas mileage is decent but not great. It just does everything…ok.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      At least it doesn’t *look* boring.

      Besides, as I mentioned above, “boring car” and “bad car” aren’t synonymous IMO.

    • 0 avatar
      Weltron

      We have a winner here…

      My mother has a early Kia Soul, and let’s get this out of the way first: it has been a very reliable car, and has never given any fault. But, the car is dreadful to drive. On the highway, it has tons of road noise, from not only the road, but the drone of the engine. Seats are uncomfortable for anything longer then an hour drive. But, it most definitely is “soulless”. No fun to drive at all. And I hate the radio. Hers has the top radio for that year, and it just ruins every song. It is so flat, and has no definition in any range. I could never drive it daily. But for her, it does the job rather well.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      My grandmother has a 2014 Soul + with navigation, also purchased new that year. And in Alien Green II. While I don’t find it boring, I don’t like the way it drives on the highway. I’ve had it downshift three times when I needed to pass. This, of course, is the N/A 2.0, as the N/A 1.6 was only available on the base model. I have not driven the one with the 1.6T and DCT, which I hear cures many of these issues.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    It must be 2008 Camry 4cyl. Not quick, not refined, not driving well, not built well, not have sharp design. Its total snooze-mobile

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      Agreed. But, I happen to think most if not all Camrys are boring. Again, I’m not saying “bad car”, I’m saying “boring car”. Slap all the aggressive facias on it you want, its still as sexy as room-temp butter.

      And on another note, I mentioned this before, but they keep popping up: Camrys from the era you mentioned with not-high mileage with “needs engine”. Seems to be a growing trend.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        There were some cases of excessive oil consumption around 2008-2009 when Toyota first started recommending using 0W-20 in the 2AZ-FE 2.4L, I can see where someone that doesn’t keep an eye on oil level (read: most modern car owners) could ruin a motor. But at some point the ‘I see a lot of these with “needs engine” on Craigslist’ observations are a matter of cars getting old and enough miles on them, with confirmation bias thrown in.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          Man, you get triggered easy. The average car on the road is over 10 years old – 2008 model years is 10 years, average is the middle.

          Next thing you know you’ll be defending Toyota products of the same era with the 5-speed manual.

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            Does following my comments around on an internet car site saying “boy you got triggered!” make you seem well adjusted?

            I think not.

          • 0 avatar
            johnds

            Where did you hear 10 years for the average vehicle on the road? I heard it was 13-14 years old.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          One dude works with me had to trade his 2009 Camry because he said, he can’t put enough oil in it and afraid that there would be nothing to trade.

          My 200 4cyl Highlander @126K now also started to eat oil at about 100K. And gets 1 extra quart for 5K miles.

          While on the topic, my 125K Mazda3 consumes exactly 0 extra oil, in comparison to aforementioned Toyotas.

        • 0 avatar
          JohnTaurus

          10 years old? 89k miles? Confirmation bias works both ways.

          I could (and did, but erased it) go into great detail about what I have seen, but I doubt it would do any good, and I don’t feel like arguing with a friend.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Any car or CUV with the Toyota badge on it.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Wrong. Take Camry 6cyl and this is a rocket. So, if it does something well, it can’t be so boring. You can have fun playing game “Got beat by Camry at the light”.

      Also, ’86, CHR are not boring cars. 4Runner? dude!

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        4Runner is not a CUV – DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        CHR is a an attempt to sell a jack up 2wd wagon.

        Go watch SavageGeese YouTube reviews of new Toyota’s with the 3.5 V6. I believe the man when he says it feels like the electronic nanny’s are sucking the fun out of that engine.

        I own a 2nd gen Highlander. Competent? Yes. Appliance like? Yes. The default choice for Middle America like Chevy was in the early 70s? Yes.

        But as exciting as dry melba toast.

        • 0 avatar
          Weltron

          I heard that the V6 RAV4 can actually be a bit of a handful. Shame they don’t have them anymore.

          • 0 avatar
            volvo

            I drive one (2009 awd) and you are correct. But torque steer under hard acceleration is some of the handful. approximately 80 more HP than the 4 cylinder and only 1-2 mpg poorer fuel economy. I only use more than 1/2 throttle when passing on mountain roads.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          You set the trap and I got into it. But still, CHR is not boring because it has fun shape, fun interior and its actually competent if not powerful. Then again, you said “any car” but somehow ’86 is just slips through your mind like a ghost through night. And Supra, and Celica. You gotta take your words back

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Second generation MR2 turbo? Supra? Current 86? (oops that’s Subaru)

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        (I was thinking currently on sale vehicles honestly.)

        If we want to talk MOST BORING CAR OF ALL TIME I’d nominate some of the greats that had the lowest historical power to weight ratios.

        http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/qotd/qotd-what-was-the-record-low-peak-hp-rpm-in-the-malaise-era-and-why/

        http://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-vintage-review-1975-ford-granada-250-six-wins-the-most-malaise-car-ever-award-a-triumph-of-imitative-style-over-substance/

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I was issued a gray mid-level 2018 Malibu LT twice: once last December and once this past July. It was a decent car that did everything right, but I found it exceedingly boring. It didn’t have any of the upscale aspirations of the Fusion, nor did it try to be sleek and sophisticated like the new Accord, or sporty like the new Camry (did I just say that?). It wasn’t even understatedly handsome, like the Passat and Legacy.

    I feel like with midsize cars disappearing, the Malibu, which has no real merit in the segment, will be the one that keeps plodding along, long after its sell-by date…much like your A-Body example.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      I sometimes wonder how many of a Malibu’s sins would be cured by the 2.0T that is in the top trim?

      GM has long had that problem of the car only being decent or better if you know what options to get.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The only reason to buy the current Malibu is if you want the hybrid. Otherwise go directly to the Regal or Impala.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          The best Impala argument is the 19 cubic ft. trunk and V6 and that they can be snapped up cheap with just a little bit of miles due to depreciation.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus

            The best argument for the Impala is it isn’t an ugly blob like the Malibu. 6 cylinders under the hood help lots, too. The current Impala is actually a looker, IMO.

          • 0 avatar
            Weltron

            That current Impala is a truly underrated car. I had one (2015 LT V6) as a rental when my car had to go into the body shop. I really wanted to tell them to keep my car when they were done with it.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Right. It seems like most of the GM cars that are holistically designed to be great in all configurations…are the ones with one powertrain and few trims. The Volt is one example.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          @Kyree – Right, kind of like most GM cars are designed in base form for the salesman to make an upsell.

          “Here’s the 4 cyl LS model we can take it for a test drive but for just a few dollars more per month…”

    • 0 avatar
      threeer

      Kyree…this. I was stuck with several Malibu (Malibii??) while my Curse, er, Cruze took a six week sabbatical at the local GM dealership for continued electrical issues. I found little wrong with the Malibu, but also found little to get excited about. Meh styling that doesn’t attempt to offend or stand out? Check. Predictable handling? Check. So-so acceleration. Check. Just so much blah to this car. I suppose it gets the job done, but dang…one drive around the block and there is no need for any melatonin to aide in falling asleep.

      • 0 avatar
        zamoti

        I second this. I rent at O’Hare pretty often and if I reserve a midsize, it may as well just come up as “would you like the gray Malibu?”. They really are such a bore. Slow, uninteresting, bland, etc. I’m sure you could option one up, but in my opinion, they shouldn’t even sell the rental spec as it is a detriment to the brand. When people like us only know of this car in it’s rental form, it gives it a bad name. I’d honestly rather have a compact because at least you know that an econobox is going to suck.

  • avatar
    jeoff

    mitsubishi galant—for 35 years I have driven everything from 1970s stripper Dautsan econoboxes to rental minivans—nothing more dull and numbing than the mitsubishi galant

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    I drove lots of those A-body GMs in the 80s. My boss had one with the biggest V6 of the time, and that thing could burn the front tires for a solid block. With FE3 suspension, those things handled surprisingly well too.

  • avatar
    conundrum

    Driven many thoroughly boring cars, but yes indeed, the 1996 Ciera we rented for a 2,000 mile roadtrip was among the worst. It was a bag o’ bolts all travelling in roughly the same direction. Felt like wrestling with an unruly mule – often wondered what its body torsional rigidity was. It felt like wet spaghetti, wriggling all the time. Rebound damping was non-existent so after a pothole the whole front end rose like a rowboat on a wave and obscured the horizon. As you say, acceleration from rest was powerful-feeling no matter where you held the gas pedal. After you hit second, everything went blah. The steering was as precise as the rope steering I had on my 1961 attempt at a go-kart with a used lawnmower engine.

    So let me rephrase that- the Ciera wasn’t a boring car. It was so awful it was interesting – it was a hoot realizing that in 1996 such an awful piece of driving junk could still be foisted off on the public. By comparison, a K-car from a decade earlier at least felt all of a piece. Some even had enough coolant in the system that the heater worked! One only worked going downhill and you could hear the sloshing upon cresting a rise as the coolant ran away back to the engine. And people wonder how “foreign” cars took a hold.

    My suggestion for a QOTD. What was the most “annoying” car you ever drove. Boring is one thing, annoying is another, because there are so many different kinds of annoyance.

  • avatar
    Runnoft

    The most boring car of all time has to be Chevettes. The most boring car I’ve owned is an ’09 Camry. Every new small “SUV” are THE MOST BORING cars of all time.

  • avatar
    Funky

    I tend to gravitate toward cars that I like (i.e. cars that are not boring to me). However, I did have an opportunity to drive the Chevy Citation as well as what I think was the Pontiac version, or perhaps the Oldsmobile version, of that car. I considered purchasing one of these and I took both on extended test drives. Both of these, in my opinion, were boring. The look of them was boring. The driving characteristics were boring and not memorable (except that there was an odd feeling to the suspension and steering which gave me the impression that I, in fact, had little actual control over the vehicle). I think this car, in my opinion, is the most boring I’ve ever encountered.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    1984 Ford Tempo, 90 hp HSC 4-banger with 3-spd auto.

    Boring to look at, boring to drive. If there are any left that haven’t met the crusher and are road worthy, I’d be surprised. Haven’t seen a first gen Tempo in probably 15 years.

    ***drops mic***

    • 0 avatar
      Vanillasludge

      I came here to say this very thing. Possibly the most boring OBJECT ever made was a Ford Tempo.

    • 0 avatar
      boozysmurf

      Hilariously, there’s a red one on my street – I think the owner bought it new in ’85, and he is…. geriatric, to say the least.

      But it’s still driven daily, and parked outside. There’s no visible rust, and the enthusiast in me wants to take my buffer over and freshen the paint, even though I’m not sure it’d be appreciated. Or possibly fall apart.

      It’s a 4 cyl / 3 spd, of course.

      I learned to drive on an ’88 4cyl / 5MT and while it wasn’t “exciting”, it wasn’t awful with the manual. Partly because it was still relatively new at the time (around 1991) so it wasn’t particularly slower than the rest of traffic.

      • 0 avatar
        SaulTigh

        Run away. My sister had a ’92 with the optional Vulcan 3.0 V6 as her first car. It looked considerably better than the ’84 at that point, and the 3.0 took care of the slowness. It wasn’t fast, but it could keep up with city traffic. Terrible car on the highway, as the auto was still the 3-spd, which my dad had to have rebuilt at some point. Weird handling characteristics and automatic seatbelts because Ford was too cheap to put an airbag in it.

  • avatar
    MoparRocker74

    I had a ‘08 Impala as a rental after a patch of black ice put my Jeep into a wall and into the shop. Granted, ANY base engine fwd midsize sedan would have been equally bad. But for about 3 weeks I experienced this humbling nothing car. Of course it would be a medium charcoal ‘Depression Grey’ exterior with matching ‘Grammas Hair’ grey interior. Engine? Who knows, some kind of V6, I never bothered to pop the hood. I can only say that it moved this snooze mobile from point A to point B without any character whatsoever. As a self proclaimed enthusiast, and as a guy who has only ever owned interesting vehicles, I absolutely HATED this thing…the worst was when work acquaintances would ask “Did you get a new car? Yeah, genius… I willingly traded my Supernova Yellow lifted Wrangler(which I was known to love) on the most boring and sensible old person car possible. Any comparable sedan would have gotten the same response from me. They’re all the same. THE SAME. They just…exist.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      it would have either been the 3.5-liter V6 or the 3.9-liter, V6, I believe. Things got better when both engines were replaced with the 3.6-liter, circa 2012, but it still wasn’t a fun car. I found it decent for a rental.

      The only time I was genuinely excited to see an Impala of that era is the time I traveled with my dad via plane, and we arrived to see that Enterprise had booked him a Chevrolet Spark. At over 6 feet and with a defensive-linebacker build, that would have been a tough feat for him. The woman at the counter took one look at him, then said “I can see now that you’re not going to fit in a Spark, so I’ll just upgrade you to this Impala feee of charge.”

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        The worst thing about the 3.6L in the old W was the way-too-tall gearing, especially in 1st gear. I think they did that so it wouldn’t scare the old people and renters. They fixed it for the Epsilon Imp, but it added on a bunch of weight.

        • 0 avatar
          SixspeedSi

          Maybe that’s what my issue is with it in the Impala. I always thought it was because it needed to revved, but taller gearing makes more sense. The 3.6 is fine in the Lacrosse but feels like a dog in the w-body.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            The thing that impressed me about the old W-Impala + 3.6 + 6 speed was that it was turning 1500 RPM at 85 mph.

            If I had to gobble up the miles and it was just me, a passenger, and our luggage, W-body Impala is a good choice. (Back seat and interior were terrible)

            Fortunately most of what was bad about the W was cure by the current Impala and its Epsilon II/Super Epsilon platform.

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            PDan they could have left the final drive and 6th gear ratio alone, just shorten up 1st/2nd/3rd. That W would be clipping 5.5 second 0-60 times.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            I think they did that so it wouldn’t scare the old people and renters.

            I also wonder (since the 6 speed was brand new in those days) if they had a durability concern and were basically managing the torque multiplication in certain gears with their gearing choices.

  • avatar
    readallover

    Ford Fairmont Malaise era performance with box design.

  • avatar
    Maymar

    I’ve driven a few Saturn L-Series, and they were just so exceedingly unexceptional. They weren’t bad (although from an uncle who owned one, long-term ownership could get pricy with some of the weird Euro parts not shared with anything else), but they were just so unmemorable. I think they even get frequently used as Generic Background Sedan #2 in a bunch of commercials (where other manufacturers try and show how much less boring their boring sedan is), and for good reason.

    • 0 avatar
      zamoti

      I dunno man, I used to work at a Saturn dealer when these came out. I got to take an LW2 out on occasion and I thought the wagon with the v6 had reasonably good punch for the era. I still keep an eye out for well-loved LW2s on the Craigslist hoping that I can score a deal for the replacement of a bod control module.

  • avatar
    ttacgreg

    Can’t believe I got this far and not one mention of one category and one nameplate.
    Minivans.
    Prius.

    • 0 avatar
      MoparRocker74

      Prius is so aggressive and in your face with its overall awfulness that it can’t really be called ‘boring’. Hybrid variants of other boring cars (Camry, civic, fusion) quietly do the hybrid thing, which would make them more boring…you wouldn’t even know you were in one. Prius may drive and perform boring, but the politically charged nature of that hideous little turd means it stirs up feelings of immediate hate. Boring cars just blend into the background without being noticed.

    • 0 avatar
      SixspeedSi

      I’ll counter.

      1. Minivans are extremely useful and aren’t that dull to drive with their modern powertrains. I’ve never really felt bored driving one.

      2. Prius may be dull and boring to some, but the fact that it’s switching from electric to gas is neat. Same with the low down torque. They may not have a soul, but I wouldn’t call them completely boring.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        Yeah I was prepared to hate my father in law’s 2nd gen Prius (he is absolutely not any sort of “activist” sort), but after driving around in it for a day I found myself nerding out over how different it felt and watching what it was doing in different modes. I was in Ithaca NY too where about 50% of the traffic is comprised of Prii anyways so I didn’t exactly stick out as someone making a statement.

  • avatar
    christophervalle

    I’d like to nominate the Oldsmobile Alero. I drove many as rental “or similar” to the Pontiac Grand Am. Same price class and same sh1tty manufacturer. At least the Pontiac had the fake pretense of excitement and elaborate plastic body moldings. The Alero had nothing, save for an incredible screeching noise and monstrous steering vibration during full-lock. When you get to the rental counter praying for a Grand Am, well that’s pretty telling.

  • avatar
    deanst

    Maybe old Toyotas – new ones are too ugly to be boring.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      *biased old Toyota fan*
      I’d say with the old ones (early-mid 90s), just how well everything was put together and the quality and longevity/durability of the parts made them at least something to appreciate as sort of a pinnacle of a company committing resources to mainstream economy cars. Like a plebian version of something like a W124 Mercedes: it’s not really about the performance so much so as the quality.

      I think peak “bleh” Toyota was something like the ’09-’13 Corolla. Cost cut, not offensively ugly. It just exists for a long time, taking you from point A to point B, in an adequate fashion, eclipsed by many rivals in terms of features and refinement, economy, etc.

  • avatar
    JMII

    When we first started dating my wife drove a Chevy Cavalier. Soulless appliance is being generous. I can confirm the Cavalier was indeed a car… just not an evenly remotely good or interesting one. It had a engine and wheels – and that is about all you could say about it. The paint, dash, radio, seats, every single item I can remember about it was dreadful, boring and clearly uninspired. I had a Honda Civic back then that was 4 years older yet at least 100X better in every aspect.

    • 0 avatar
      gottacook

      This is exactly why, when my dad gave us $3700 accrued through his GM credit card (which could only be used to buy a new GM product), we purchased a ’99 Prizm (5-speed) instead of a Cavalier. I’m sure an automatic Prizm would have been boring too; luckily, the 5-speed wasn’t.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Well the Prism was a Corolla underneath which is why Consumer Reports regularly urged people to buy a Geo/Chevy Prism instead of a Corolla and get the same car for less money.

  • avatar
    Dario Sycco

    I used to own a 1988 Celebrity when I was cash-strapped. I remember trying to talk to a co-worker when the engine was running with the hood open and having to yell just to be heard over that loud and joyless excuse of an automobile.

  • avatar
    geo

    My wife’s car is a 2006 Accord 4 cyl. There’s nothing wrong with it other than lack of thigh support. It handles smoothly, is decently quick, and has a comfortable ride.

    However, I don’t look forward to driving it in the least because of the sheer boredom factor. I much prefer my 2007 Focus wagon, which has a personality, a great view of the road, good steering feel and handling, and is fun to drive.

    I can say the same thing about the Camry I once rented. Great engineering, but you can’t engineer soul into a vehicle.

    • 0 avatar
      johnds

      I have a 2007 Accord with a 5 speed and it is certainly a lot more fun than the automatic. 200,000 trouble free miles, and it’s very durable and well built.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        I once was helping an acquaintance look at some cheap used cars and we ended up at some hispanic dude’s house/junkyard on the East side of Indy to look at a 5spd ’04 Accord with exactly 100,001 miles on the odometer, and advertised as recently getting the clutch replaced. Body checked out as accident free, interior didn’t look too horribly used up, it drove and rode well, I couldn’t believe it really only had 100k miles. I dig through the glovebox and find a receipt for the clutch replacement… at 263k miles! Despite the sketchy situation, if nothing else I was impressed with how solid and usable that Accord still felt with that mileage.

  • avatar
    pdog_phatpat

    Pretty much any Gm car made in the 70s-80s-90s. Not only were they bland and boring but whoa, the reliability was awful. No wonder they never recovered and had to be bailed out. Now THATS a disgrace.

  • avatar
    01 Deville

    I would have nominated second gen of the resurrected Malibu but it was ugly and V6 was decently quick.
    My sis test drove a 2007 Ford 500 for her first car and that thing could not get out of its own way and would have to be my pick, esp since its direct competitor at GM, Chevy Impala while similarly bland appearing had a much smoother and torquier drivetrain. I had her buy a 2002 Deville which surprisingly didn’t break the bank in 4 years ownership.

  • avatar
    jfk-usaf

    How about the new BMW X7

  • avatar
    Mike Beranek

    All of these are wrong. The most boring car ever was the 2004-2005 Chevrolet Classic, a car so boring they didn’t even bother to give it a name.
    The Classic was a previous-generation Malibu that was produced for two years after a new Malibu was introduced. It was only sold to rental fleets- how could any car possibly be more boring than that?

    • 0 avatar
      johnds

      I agree until the Chevrolet Captiva came into the rental arena. My wife had 2 for a rental and they were so terrible compared to our Honda it made her cry. I remember both Captiva’s had broken power door lock modules as well. It got to the point where I would refuse the car and ask for a different model.

    • 0 avatar
      Ty'Eira Marie Morrison-Osteen

      There was a reason for that: The GMX130 N-Body Malibu/Classic’s cousins, the Grand Am and Alero, had to live their final years out too. (’04 for Alero, ’05 for GA)

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    I’d go with the Dart/Valiant. Dull but reliable. As Consumers reports called them venerable in their final year 1976 when production overlapped with the Aspen/Volare.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    The Oldsmobile underAchieva or any Buick Regal with whitewalls.

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    Of the cars I’ve owned and driven, the most boring was my 91 LeSabre. I liked it because it was mine and I didn’t need to ask anybody to drive it, but it was the stereotype of a bore-mobile (grey exterior, blood red velour, single bench seat). Was like driving a sofa. I did find it funny that somebody accused it of being overly large.

    The most hilarious was an 01 Lanos hatch that mom drove. It had no power to speak of, but had a comical power button on the gear selector. I assume this only pulled the car out of overdrive and dropped it into its passing gear. Lots of noise with little forward momentum. Mom called it the flyong uterus.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    1970s

    Plymouth Valiant or
    Chevy Chevette Diesel

    1980s

    Chevy Celebrity with the 2.5 Iron Duke

    1990s

    Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz 4-cylinder auto or
    Ford Contour that isn’t badged SVT

    2000s
    1997* – 2005 Chevy Malibu

    2010s
    Toyota Yaris (not the Mazda2 Toyota badge job, the “Toyota” Toyota Yaris) or
    Toyota Prius C

  • avatar
    Garak

    I nominate the Kia Venga. It’s the most generic, gutless blob on wheels I’ve ever owned. I often fail to recognize it on parking lots. So uninspiring it hurts.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • d4rksabre: There are so many better cars for that kind of money it’s almost a joke that this even exists.
  • Fred: I have to agree, the color and the seats are probably really nice, but I would expect more. Maybe put the NSX...
  • schmitt trigger: “….use illegal Mexican-sourced labor…” That was then. Nowadays, because of...
  • Art Vandelay: Of course i’m good with the TVA…I like electricity. We export around 1/3 of the energy...
  • ravenuer: Are you referring to the Hawaiian Christian Obama? BTW, where was Melanija Knavs born again? I keep...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States