Hooniverse Asks- What is Today’s Crap Car?
I remember, back when I was a kid reading in Road & Track a review of the Isuzu I-Mark, a car that at the time was being sold here as the Opel by Isuzu. Most of the road tests the magazine conducted were mainly positive, but this one stuck out, both at the time, and in my memory, because they actively recommended not purchasing the car. That seemed to be an advocacy beyond the pale for a car magazine, which generally provides the facts, and in lieu of any major, life-threatening issue discovered, lets the prospective buyer weigh the options themselves.
The thing was, they considered, and very rightfully so as it would turn out, that the I-Mark was simply too crappy a car not to offer an admonition warning car shoppers. That was a butt-load of years ago, and back then there were more crap cars than not, but today things are different. As we were walking around the LA Show yesterday, and came across the recently updated and re-named Chrysler 200, the discussion turned to what cars today remain in the inadvisable to buy box. Even the 200, re-anointed to cleanse it of the shame of its past Sebring life in sort of a witness relocation program for carp cars, is now an acceptable form of point A to point B transportation. And that was once one of the worst cars one could buy.
So, if the Chrysler mid-sizer has emerged from its cocoon of crap as a marginally mediocre moth, what new cars are left that are in no way commendable? What today are the crap cars?
Image source: [histomobile.com]
Related posts:
The Smart is about as close as you can get to crap these days. Notice how sales fell off a cliff once the 2008 fuel price panic ended?
It will be interesting to see the depreciation on these things. It will also be funny to see the drivers go from the smug eco type to those looking to upgrade from their used Daewoo.
It will be intresting considering that they are offering leases now for 149 a month. For a little more than what a smart phone costs per month you can get a car. Considerng I live in a city (Philly), I have thought about picking up a used one for around town and commuting. I also think they might be hoonable with some after market parts and the trans can hold out.
Hayabusa motor.
You should hold out for a Smart Brabus Ultimate edition.
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/smart/2011-brabus-sm…
(whispers, "Aftermarket exhaust & air filter made a HUGE difference, car is almost fun to drive. Not quite, but almost.
Also, removing "ESP stability" fuse and swapping the wheels/tires front to rear makes the car almost hoonable. Actually beat a few of these "other" cars.)
<img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/34152_1526438205455_1369652107_1383064_1304137_n.jpg" width="600">
It is a truly terrible car. The seating alone is enough to turn me off to them, but the transmission is a total joke. It has this weird delay that makes the automatic jerk like someone who is learning to drive a manual.
People that bought them for mileage concerns were truly stupid. A 10 year old Civic matches it easily.
Yaris. IT'S A CAR! Barely.
The Yaris might be totally uninspired, but I wouldn't quite put it as crap. It's pretty well built, economical, and does OK for its mission as a small commuter appliance. I'd put it ahead of an Aveo, for instance.
Your points are valid and I agree but have you seen the crash tests on those things? SCAREY!
[youtube ZBLnk5vhaQA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBLnk5vhaQA youtube]
Doors opening, A-piller bending…
Wow my legs are aching now! The worst part was that it was a very squirrely car under hard braking, well at least a couple of years back when I test drove one. I could see it getting into an accident just like that more than it should because of that.
And the Camry's headlight pops right out like nothing is keeping it in, in the first place. Ominous.
I'm not so sure. I had one as a loaner while my truck was in the shop and it was a total pile. It shook at highway speeds, rattled like can with a pebble in it, and was about the slowest thing I drove since my Daytona with a blown head gasket. It was awful. The only thing that wasn't bad on it was the AC, whihc work surprisingly well.
I can't imagine a loaner Yaris having been well treated. I know a couple of people who have Yarises and they like them, plus the cars have been trouble-free. As I said, it's an appliance, but it's a usable one.
Precisely. It's today's Tercel, not today's Pontiac (Daewoo) LeMans.
(Not meant, by the way, as a knock against the Aveo, which at least is fairly reliable if hateful.)
My wife works as an instructor for a teen driving school (the kind to get your drivers license, not the fun kind), they have a fleet of 3 Yarii sedans. The cars don't seem to give them too much trouble.
You all have been fooled by the gratuitous ads on [REDACTED]!
I actually just wanted to stay away from Americans build the best (worst) crap cars. I reckon we still do, sadly.
Don't worry we will have Chinese cars soon. At least that's what I've been hearing for the last 15 years.
Dodge Caliber. (Since the Smart is already stated)
Made of cheaper plastic than a Cozy Coupe.
Drives like it is suspended by water balloons and rubber bands.
Has the fit and finish of a toy from the Dollar Store.
And to top it all off, it is a small car that on it's best day can only hit 30mpg.
Small, cheap, cheaply built, with no efficiency gains to show for the compromises of owning a smaller car.
I agree with everything you have said, but I fear the Calibers on the road now will be around for a long time to come. As I have mentioned before, my father was cursed with one of these as a company car. He has 150k+ miles on it and has had zero mechanical problems. The only work done on the car has been brake pads and a tune-up. It drives just as bad now as when it was new.
Thankfully, durability is only one factor in the equation.
The Dodge Nitro is really bad as well. This was maybe two years ago, I was driven in a then new one as the courtesy shuttle when my Caravan was in for repairs and the interior was very poor. Really it was the bottom of the worst terrible feeling and looking Dodge interiors of recent times. And they have not changed it since to improve it. Also it was very harsh on the ride, you could feel every bump, but not in sure sort of way. Plus it was noisy, from the tires, engine, and wind. And they removed the one neat feature in new models, the sliding rear floor, probably since it proved troublesome. It also is a very ugly car, but that's not enough to call it the crap car of today, it helps though.
Yeah, my brother rented one once in Chicago when we were there for a wedding. I had a Mercury Grand Marquis, since they were out of my category of cars at the rental place.
It was biblically terrible. Your assessment of the interior is dead one. Even the smoothest of new roads made the truck feel unsure.
And yet, the Caliber I rented made me more spiteful of Dodge than the Nitro ever could.
I like to think of the mid to late 2000's as Dodge's environmentally friendly phase. They took for a short time for them, and all of the resources used will be going back to the earth quickly.
See my comment above, I fear those resources will be clogging our roads for several years to come.
I'd argue there isn't one. There's a lot that I can't imagine buying under any circumstance, but we may be living crap free.
Yeah, I have to agree with you there.
Lipstick on a pig…
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/2012_Chevrolet_Sonic_2LT_–_11-10-2011.jpg" width=500>
I'll have to tentatively disagree, I think it's a nice little car. I'll have to sit in one at the coming autoshow, but I'm going in with an open mind, like, without the figurative "AVEO" hat. Or literal, for that matter.
I would be optimistic, however I worked for a dealership when the Aura launched… and when the Auras had "Intermediate Steering Shaft" issues every 5k miles… and when the Aura's transmissions blew up after 10k miles… and when the Outlook came out and started blowing its transmission every 10k miles… and the Sky's design that needed special parts for the lift or the fender will crack… and the Astra which was awesome until the plastic parts decided to liberate themselves… and when 5-6 year old VUEs would be on the lot for months because GM didn't support the 3.0 Saab V6 anymore… and when the VUE's torque converter jutters because they didn't use the correct programing, and when I worked for a rental place the impalas door trim would fall off.
That's just what I know about from my experience.
I forgot to mention, those 5-6 year old VUEs were customer cars.
GTFAC
Actually, I'm not so sure. The speedometer seems like it'll be super annoying at night, but otherwise it doesn't feel as wet and broken as its predecessor.
Here is what I learned when I worked for a Saturn dealership during their redesign period.
If GM can screw it up, they will.
I'm rather sure I could hand a 7/8's opened can to one of their executives and tell them to finish opening it and I would end up with a room full of dead directors with blood up to my ankles.
And you say that like it is a bad thing
Please do. For great justice.
I'm going to steal that last quip.
Anything for the cause.
I might hold off a few years on buying any GM product with the turbo 1.4, but other than that, I'd suspect the Sonic is simple enough to end up relatively trouble free (even the later Aveos aren't terrible cars to live with, even if they're ostensibly crap).
I'm not ready to dismiss the Sonic quite yet. I think Chevy knew it had problems with the Aveo, and early reports say that the Sonic is a big improvement.
thoroughly drive this car and then change your mind, the new Sonic is fantastic
I hear this little sucker is going to get a turbo version.
How much longer before we get Chinese cars?
Well, you can get a Coda electric sedan which is based on a small Chinese saloon called a Hafei Saibao. It's got a crap interior but it makes no bones about it being anything but an electric powertrain inside a small economy car.
I will leave this flaming pile of crap right here:
<img src="http://images.thecarconnection.com/med/tata-nano-in-flames-mumbai-india-from-indian-autos-blog_100308798_m.jpg">
They should call that car Dylan.
Because it drips hot fire!
If a Ferrari/Lambo/Audi R8 5.2 catches fire while testing on the Nurburgring do we call it Johnny Cash?
Any car with an MSRP above, say, $50k. They just aren't worth the trouble to own. Expensive parts and labor, indifferent service, fragile ("sophisticated!") construction, leading edge gimcrackery that hasn't been fully debugged yet, etc.
If it's primarily marketed as being expensive so the buyer can flash his wealth, then it doesn't need to be good.
Also usually moved off the dealer's lot with a lease. Pity the fool that owns one 10 years down the road without a warranty.
That's why you can pick up an E90 for so damn cheap now. The maintenance/repair is what will murder you.
I think you nailed it.
My last Audi experience was a nightmare- Bought CPO to 100k miles, where it fell apart. Suspension, transmission, AC, and even the paint was peeling.
I'd bought a Jag S-Type for my wife for $17k used as a lease return. The warranty we had was garbage so most of the repairs were customer pay. Seatbelt buzzer on all the time, brake pads and disks failing at 20k miles, the headlights are already foggy and the rubber trim is falling off. Last week I saw a big pool of oil in the garage.
When we bought it , I liked it so much that I was looking at an S-Type R to buy. Thank God I didn't!
I disagree. Although parts and labor will be commensurately expensive, that's the responsibility of the buyer to budget for. The Corvette, M3, Elise/Exige, or Viper (I know it's out of production, but there are plenty in stock) are attainable and generally hassle-free new or used purchases for enthusiast buyers.
Chevy Aveo was the first thing that came to my mind. Because I had forgotten the Caliber.
But the Aveo doesn't exist anymore, hooray! Still not sure which is worse between those two.
Since the Yaris is already mentioned I would think the base Kia, the Rio. I haven't driven one don't know anyone who owns one but when I see them all I can think is 'Crap Car'.
Well, they're pretty much an Accent and in my experience with Accent's, while they aren't great, they are nearly unkillable. The rental place I worked for had one that was a couple grand from being totaled twice and it still ran and drove pretty damn near factory fresh.
Isn't 'a couple grand from being totalled' basically a softball-sized dent in the bumper cover? Maybe a gouge in the paint?
I get where you're going with that, but they're worth 8-10k.
A new Rio just came out, I was curious at just how much it had been improved over the older model seeing as Kia has been on a roll. I went down at test drove one of the first three the local dealer had. It was an absolute base model. I left surprised. Yes the engine was a little gutless but that is to be expected on a car built to a price point and economy figure, but that said it was a surprisingly nice feeling and spacious, seemingly quality car.
I haven't driven the new Rio yet, but the interior is a very nice place to be. I'm sure it's slow, and Americans get screwed on transmission options, (not Canadians though! Manuals on all but the highest trim!) but I was very tempted by it.
The old Rio was basically fine, not exactly inspiring but hardly the worst car in the world to drive.
I don't know if there really is a good answer to this question. Sure we all have opinions on things like the Caliber and maybe the Aveo. It's just that the truth is that there really aren't any Yugo's on the American market today. Even the cheapest of new cars like the $11k Versa or $12 Rio Sedan will take you a hundred thousand miles or more with little maintenance or issues.
<img src="http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201104/2012-jaguar-xf-11_460x0w.jpg">
Jaguar XF.
Yes, really, because I think that the crap-factor is a derivative of cost. There are plenty of cars that are definitely substandard for their price but meet the goal of basic transportation well enough that they wouldn't be a bad buy if the purchase price was markedly lower than the competition or you found a killer deal used (Smart, Compass, etc.) On the other hand, the Jag XF's asking price is north of $50K, while it's simultaneously THE most unreliable car listed in Consumer Reports' most recent reliability ratings—by several orders of magnitude. (Regardless of what you may think of CU's biases, their reliability data is at least as defensible as anybody's.) In my book, that makes it a crap car. Regardless of how it runs and drives, a luxury car from a prestige brand should be at least as likely to get you to your destination as a Jeep Patriot or a Nissan Versa. In that market territory, you shouldn't have to deal with that sort of trouble record.
It's like a stripper… hot and you want her but she will cost you a fortune to maintain and in the end won't age gracefully.
I was going to mention this over the Yaris, but I was hesitant. The Consumer Reports rating makes the case in and of itself. The XF is crap.
You know it's bad when a notable number of the reviewers had issues on the press loaner. I remember a couple where they had to call a towing service before they could even drive it enough to form an opinion.
There's another factor here though. We tend to give vehicles like Alfas a huge pass in this regard. And we do it because of the driving experience (as rarely as that might be experienced). I have no idea whether the Jag should qualify for this exception (IIRC, it is an automatic only, which puts it solidly out of the running for being one of my dream cars).
I do agree with you about CU, though. I have a subscription, and when I'm buying appliances, I look right at their recommendations. I also enjoy reading their car reviews and data (this involves a lot of careful parsing and reading between the lines…). They do a good job of showing how different makes stack up with each other.
I would note, however, that had I followed their advice on car purchases my wife would drive a Toyota Prius and I would have a Nissan Frontier (and I don't think either of us would be happy with those).
<img src="http://www.hybridcars.com/files/jetta-tdi-1-502.jpg" width="300"> <img src="http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2012/Honda/2012.honda.civic.20373865-300×189.jpg" width="300">
I'm torn between these two. I know, perennial frontrunners in both fit, finish, quality, driveability and sales. But both failed miserably on their latest iterations. Compared to what else is out there, these two stand out as crap cars… also, Caliber was taken.
My 2006 Subaru Outback is a crap car. OK, it's reliable, but who cares? It has a terrible, roly poly suspension, the engine is a pig that doesn't even get very good gas mileage considering how slow it is. When you floor the gas pedal (can't call it an accelerator), the transmission has to think for a second before downshifting. On the drive up I-70 through Colorado's Summit County, you have no choice but to shift it manually-the car gets winded at altitude.
It's a fairly big car, yet the back seat has too little leg room for a baby seat to be comfortably backwards facing (the front seat needs to be moved all the way forward, which sucks for the cross country trips we bought this thing for).
We, not so lovingly, call it the Blue Whale.
today's Chevrolet Impala
Nice drive-by. What don't you like about it, and what model did you try?
I drove a rental "Wimpala" recently, and it just had that air of "fleet-only" neglect that the Ford Taurus had in the 2000s. I agree, it felt like a relic of GM in the 90s – except some of those 90s GMs (like the LeSabre) actually had the best, most comfortable seats ever made to go along with the floaty ride and snowplough-like cornering. The W-body Impala has the space-saving thin seats, and you still bang your knees into hard plastic constantly if you sit in the back. The idea of passing off a slightly-stretched Lumina as a legitimate fullsize car is just laughable.
I don't really know about the reliability, I suspect it's not too bad as long as you take care of the transmission. I think it's just the fact that GM tried so little with this car, and in the process dragged the Impala name through the mud, that makes it a "crap car" to enthusiasts, and pretty much invisible to consumers in general.
I don't have any firsthand experience with the current Impala, but my main judgement is this: That car is so bland, with such "don't really care" styling inside and out, that I believe they should rename it the Lumina. The Lumina is a nameplate synonymous with a disposable, instantly outdated and outclassed automobile whose overall ubiquity is the only reason you still see any around today.
The Impala is the car that proves that GM can still make 'em like they did in the 80s and 90s.
Another vote for the Yaris. Drove one this week while my car was in the shop. Functional? Well, yeah, it got me where I was going. Otherwise, a soulless box.
I was contemplating this yesterday while driving an awful base model Corolla rental. Sure, I didn't like the car, it was slow, the engine sounded like a distressed cow, the interior fittings felt low rent, and I couldn't get comfortable in it. But, was it crap? I'm not sure it was. It wasn't going to be unreliable, everything basically worked, as bad as the engine was it didn't handle badly and if you're not too demanding it's probably fine, and cheap. I'd never recommend one, but I'd hesitate to call it crap. Outside of the Caliber, it's the worst car I've driven that's on the market. If that's the worst you can buy, then maybe nothing's all that bad after all.
While I detested driving the Corolla, the Camry is worse. No finesse, on or off gas and brake, stereos that are wonky and depressing interior. For a hell of a lot of money.
Bad memories.
I owned an Aveo. And I owned an I-Mark. My dealer put me in a stripped Chevy Colorado 4-door as a rental while my car was in for service last month. It was worse than either car.
The crap cars of today are trucks.
They just don't make crap cars like they used to.
Thankfully.
[youtube joMK1WZjP7g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g youtube]
I just posted that same video over at Jal–oops.
You're right, though. I was a lot attendant at a Chrysler dealership a few years back and I was amazed at the level of sh*t they put out. My buddy recently bought a sport edition 200 and let me just say, that is a VERY nice car.
Hey now. That's not a "crap car".
[youtube rcNeorjXMrE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcNeorjXMrE youtube]
I shudder every time I think about how many Pintos I rode in when I was younger.
Ah, yes, the beautiful death traps. I still love 'em.
Then again, the X-frame on those Chevies were derided as unsafe even back in it's time. That video is relevant in that they can't get away with utter crap like that anymore, but misleading in that most big old cars weren't even close to being as bad.
A collision between my friend's grandma's 64 Galaxie and a modern Honda ended up with the Honda driver being life-flighted after getting cut out, and the Galaxie being driven home with moderate fender damage. Grandma was fine and kept driving it for years. Just as relevant in the other direction.
So yeah, the video kinda shows how far we've come, but it is slightly rigged for sensationalism with a known lemon playing to its particular weakness, instead of a more typical car of the era – which made the whole thing pointless to me.
A little too self-congratulatory for me.
The X-frame was unsafe largely because it offered no protection to side impacts. I think most any old car would fare poorly in a frontal or near-frontal collision like the demonstration because the concept of crumple zones didn't exist.
I would think that the support curving to the middle of the car and not a mostly square brace from corner to corner would lead to it being stronger in a head on impact, but anything off of dead center would lead to the frame giving and moving the occupant closer to the oncoming car.
I'm probably wrong though.
The X-point also created a structural pivot point in any offset-frontal collision, allowing the relatively thin outer sheetmetal to collapse around it, exactly as shown. The design was intended for comfort.
In the more typical ladder frames passengers often fared poorly due to the lack of any crumple zone and its ability to absorb energy. People tended to die from trauma in relatively intact cars.
A more valid test would have been the worst of then vs the worst of today, or the best of both eras, or even a pair representing perfectly average, but that would not have been as sensational.
The fact they chose cars that had the same "name" 50 years apart conveniently obscures the fact they paired the worst of then with the typical average of today, faulty metrics at best.
You would have gotten the same result pitting the 59 Chevy against a 59 Imperial. But I'd rather see the Imperial against the 09 Impala.
I still remember the Chrysler commercial from the early 80s of a LeBaron driving into a brick wall, the airbag going off, and the guy getting out and walking away. I always imagined a Chrysler from a decade or two earlier hitting that wall: the wall shatters, the driver goes flying through the windshield, and the car is relatively intact.
Or as we used to call em, "Low miles, needs windshield."
Yup. They picked the "wrong" car for '59.
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2463/4088855508_7372200ab1.jpg" width="500">
"Ford's husky frame bows out a full foot wider midway so passengers ride within the safety of heavy frame side rails."
Silent, solid, and secure. (Seatbelts optional.)
<img src="http://www.selectmotors.net/car_restoration/resto_pics/-123.jpg" width="400">
Mitsubishi Galant and Eclipse
What? Not an Alfa?
I limited my choices to vehicles that are actually sold in the U.S. and frankly, was surprised to see that the Eclipse is still made.
That said, I am fully aware of the feculent image surrounding my chosen driver. That's just fine – it keeps them cheap.
Nah, they're not that bad, aside from rust issues and the tendency to burst into flames periodically.
Must… resist… sudden… urge… to… buy… inexpensive… Alfa… Romeo….
Don't do it! Think of the Plymouth!
Ah, good point. It already has rust issues and bursts into flames periodically, so I guess I'm set.
You live in perhaps the best city in the country to own one. Bellevue was one of the last places in the country to have a dealer and the last time I was there (a couple of years ago) the Alfa repair shop on Eastlake was still operating. Plus, Seattle is kind for rust prone vehicles. It's why I bought one the week before I relocated to KC.
Not fair! Mine has only burst into flames once. In truth, it was operator error.
Oh, come on. My Plymouth has burst into flames on at least three occasions. You're just not trying.
<img src="http://www.tradebit.com/usr/pecno1/pub/9002/79802758_Toyota_Camry.jpg">
It's really hard to think of anything that could hope to rival the crappitude of, say, a Chevette. So…. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but bear with me… I can honestly say the crappiest new car I've had to the displeasure of driving recently was a relative's base, 4-banger, slushbox-equipped Camry. Where to begin…. how 'bout the 5 second delay between pressing the go pedal, and actually hearing the engine kick in – never mind the fact that the asthmatic hamsters under the hood were pathetically underpowerd, making passing semis on some of the more hilly parts of I-87 in the Catskills a very interesting proposition. Although that may have had just as much to do with the transmission programming – kickdown was pretty much nonexistant, and you'd feel a nice, satisfying "grinnndd – THUD" through the floor every time it finally did. Nice. Same story with the steering feel. Wait. What steering feel? Sure, it would track in a straight line – kinda. But my 12-year-old Crown Vic felt like a Lotus in comparison, in terms of actual road "feel." Which is saying something… a lot I think. The ride was smooth though.
Ahh, what else. The hospital-like interior, complete with the most toxic-smelling plastics known to mankind. The stereo with (I'm finding this to be typical of recent Japanese cars I've driven) LOADS of treble and farty bass, with all the midrange sucked into a black hole that no amount of EQ will fix. The styling. Yeah, I'm sorry. I guess in the absence of cars that fall apart if you look at them wrong, I'm going to say that, in an attempt to go way out of their way to create the most boring car ever, Toyota actually turned the base Camry into a complete shitbox. It may be too reliable to really be considered a "crap car" in the classic sense, but it's an utterly repulsive car to drive.
V6 too though, neither of them are any good, the V6 just has the benefit of chewing through tires… You soon realize that the car is trying to eject you through the large pane of glass in front of you when you touch your brakes.
I rented a Camry LE last week, and while it didn't have the "character" my Comanche has, it was pretty quick, comfortable, quiet and smooth on the highway, and returned 30+mpg at 75 on the highway.
Is it the new car I'd buy if I were in the market? No way. But I paid extra at the rental counter to get it instead of a Caliber. Can't be the crappiest car made.
Maybe they've fixed some of the programming on the drive-by-wire throttle and the transmission. I don't know… the one I drove was a 2007, first year of that body style, and it was intensely frustrating.
I'd say any Kia.
I'd rather have a six year old pretty much anything than a new Kia.
New Kias are actually pretty nice though, I've even been considering a Rio if I get a new daily driver, though I'll probably just keep what I have.
Damn near all of them.
*Wing-windows forever!!*
Nissan Versa.
nasty piece of crap.
You hit the nail on the head. The Sentra isn't much better, but the new Versa, just like the new Volkswagens, is significantly worse than the car it's replacing.