Top Ten Cars Deserving to Fail: Your Guesses?

[Atomic]

i have yet to see the list myself, but will take a look now... try to guess before "peeking" 

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/10-cars-that-deserved-to-fail?icid=autos_0809&GT1=22021

a couple of guesses that i have: ford edsel, pontiac aztec...

[Atomic]

well, i guessed and only had one on the list...

[Atomic]

chevy's corvair did not make the list. wasn't that ralph nader's first pet project?

[2o6]

Several problems

- Z3 was a great car, and it didn't fail.

- SSR was a niche product that really only sold on it's retro styling, IMO not a failure

- Zastava still makes cars.

- X-Type wasn't a failure, and even so the fact that it was a Mondeo underneath wasn't the killer; it was the horrible reliability record, cramped interior, and high price (versus better cars like the 3-series, A4 and C class, and even versus lower priced cars like the TL and CTS)

- Excel sucked, but it didn't fail.

chevy's corvair did not make the list. wasn't that ralph nader's first pet project?

The Corvair for the most part was a wild success.

[Vinsanity]

Another list that I don't care very much for. It's titled "cars that deserved to fail", but the paragraph on the M-B C-coupe admits that it was a decent car. Decent cars don't deserve to fail, crappy ones do.

The paragraph on the Aztek was pretty funny, though. Excellent use of the Simpsons reference; I thought the exact same thing when the Aztek came out.

[Onslaught]

Several problems

- Z3 was a great car, and it didn't fail.

Not really. And the 4 banger ones are a joke.

[hounddog]

A lousy and lazy article.

Probably a top five "Worst articles of 2011."

[Byteme]

Several problems

- Z3 was a great car, and it didn't fail.

- SSR was a niche product that really only sold on it's retro styling, IMO not a failure

- Zastava still makes cars.

- X-Type wasn't a failure, and even so the fact that it was a Mondeo underneath wasn't the killer; it was the horrible reliability record, cramped interior, and high price (versus better cars like the 3-series, A4 and C class, and even versus lower priced cars like the TL and CTS)

- Excel sucked, but it didn't fail.

The Corvair for the most part was a wild success.

Oh, I disagree on the X-type. It was a warmed over Ford (not a bad car, but not a Jaguar) that failed to impress.  It just goes to show that a veneer of class can't disguise humble underpinnings.  First time my wife saw one from behind she thought it was a Taurus.  

In the late 70's Cadillac tried the same thing with a "baby" Caddy based on the Chevrolet Nova small car.  Despite the luxury appointments it also failed to impress because it was an econobox wearing a nice suit.

That said, the only car that deserves to be on that list is the Yugo.  Anytime I see a list like this with a gross misrepresentation of the Pinto I tend to discount the knowledge of the author. 

[Vinsanity]

In the late 70's Cadillac tried the same thing with a "baby" Caddy based on the Chevrolet Nova small car.  Despite the luxury appointments it also failed to impress because it was an econobox wearing a nice suit.

Are you referring to the Seville? If so, I respectfully disagree. IIRC, that model bought did well for the company as tastes started to shift away from land barges. It's just that Caddy took the downsizing too far when they came out with the Cimarron and the Oldsmobile-looking Seville and Eldorado of the late 80's. Those late-80's Sevilles and Eldos looked more like econoboxes than the bustleback and Nova Seville did.

[Raza]

My guesses:

BMW 3 series compact
Dodge Caliber
Pontiac Aztek
Chevrolet SSR
Pontiac G5
Pontiac G4


That's all I can think of.


EDIT:  I got a couple.  BMW compact, C class hatch, same thing. 

[Payman]

My guesses:

BMW 3 series compact
Dodge Caliber
Pontiac Aztek
Chevrolet SSR
Pontiac G5
Pontiac G4


That's all I can think of.


EDIT:  I got a couple.  BMW compact, C class hatch, same thing. 

Why the hate on the G5? It's a Cobalt with a sportier interior, which means a good chassis and efficient Ecotech engine. I paid just $9400 for Jenn's 2 yr old G5, and it's a decent little car.

[Byteme]

Are you referring to the Seville? If so, I respectfully disagree. IIRC, that model bought did well for the company as tastes started to shift away from land barges. It's just that Caddy took the downsizing too far when they came out with the Cimarron and the Oldsmobile-looking Seville and Eldorado of the late 80's. Those late-80's Sevilles and Eldos looked more like econoboxes than the bustleback and Nova Seville did.

The bustleback you refer to was the second generation Seville (1980 on), it wasn't based on the Nova, but was based on the Riviera-Toronado-Eldorado platform. 

The first, from 76 to 79 was based on the Nova platform and by all accounts wasn't that great a car, certainly not what the traditional Caddy buyer was used to seeing, now was it what GM originally set out to build.  The bean counters took hold and cut the front wheel drive, and European platform plans.  It did sell fairly well, mainly becasue we were still in gas price shock mode, I guess.   

[93JC]

Everything I've read about the '70s Seville said it was arguably the 'best' Cadillac you could buy at the time. Yes, underneath it was a Nova, but it was better to drive than the huge Fleetwood and Deville boats you could otherwise get and the 350 Olds V8 with EFI was a better performer than the old 500 ci V8 (which by then was down to an emissions-choked 190 hp).

Ostensibly it was the 'entry' Cadillac because it was the smallest but because of the added technology it was actually the most expensive Cadillac you could buy in the late '70s.

[Raza]

Why the hate on the G5? It's a Cobalt with a sportier interior, which means a good chassis and efficient Ecotech engine. I paid just $9400 for Jenn's 2 yr old G5, and it's a decent little car.

See, that makes lots of sense.  But as a new car, I think it would be a poor buy.  But a lot of these cars that are overpriced new get adjusted on the used market.  Was there ever a model other than the 155bhp version? 

[93JC]

The 155 hp model was only available in the last couple years of production (2009-2010). The first year (2005) was limited to a 148 hp 2.2 L, and in the second year they added a 173 hp 2.4 as an option.

There was never an equivalent model to the Cobalt SS Super/Turbo.

[Raza]

The 155 hp model was only available in the last couple years of production (2009-2010). The first year (2005) was limited to a 148 hp 2.2 L, and in the second year they added a 173 hp 2.4 as an option.

There was never an equivalent model to the Cobalt SS Super/Turbo.

Funny that the sporty GM brand didn't get the sport version. 

[93JC]

That car is emblematic of how fucked up GM was.

Consider this: it was sold in three markets (US, Canada, Mexico) under four names.

In Mexico it was called G4. In Canada it was called Pursuit. GMNA stepped in and said "we want to sell this car in the US, we're calling it G5," so GM de M?xico fell in line and changed the name to G5, while GM Canada slowly transitioned the name to G5. 2006.5 models were badged "G5 Pursuit". By '07 they were changed to G5.

Ostensibly Pontiac was the sporty brand and there was never, ever a model that came with the supercharged or turbocharged 2.0 L, in the US, Canada or Mexico.

[Atomic]

My guesses:

BMW 3 series compact
Dodge Caliber
Pontiac Aztek
Chevrolet SSR
Pontiac G5
Pontiac G4


That's all I can think of.


EDIT:  I got a couple.  BMW compact, C class hatch, same thing. 

great call, raza!

as far as the ford pinto is concerned, it was very problematic, but the car itself is indicative of many small american made cars of its time... the vega looked "cute", but i doubt it was much better. perhaps its better than the pinto's safety record is why ford's small car was cited over chevy's hatchback and notchback vegas. the ford pinto and mercury bobcat had serious issues with probable fires upon impact, as i recall.

the cadillac catea was a very pathetic looking car, imo.

[CALL_911]

These lists suck.

[sportyaccordy]

My guesses:

BMW 3 series compact
Dodge Caliber
Pontiac Aztek
Chevrolet SSR
Pontiac G5
Pontiac G4


That's all I can think of.


EDIT:  I got a couple.  BMW compact, C class hatch, same thing. 

That 318ti was indeed a miserable whip

[Soup DeVille]

This article is one of the worst I've ever read, not only is it unimaginative and myopic, its historically inaccurate. Not a single car on the list is remotely deserving of the author's pedantic and condescending tone.

[2o6]

Oh, I disagree on the X-type. It was a warmed over Ford (not a bad car, but not a Jaguar) that failed to impress.  It just goes to show that a veneer of class can't disguise humble underpinnings.  First time my wife saw one from behind she thought it was a Taurus.  

In the late 70's Cadillac tried the same thing with a "baby" Caddy based on the Chevrolet Nova small car.  Despite the luxury appointments it also failed to impress because it was an econobox wearing a nice suit.

That said, the only car that deserves to be on that list is the Yugo.  Anytime I see a list like this with a gross misrepresentation of the Pinto I tend to discount the knowledge of the author. 

No one says anything about all of Acura's lineup, most of Audi's lineup or even cars like the 9-3 (upon introduction).


I don't think the X-Type was that bad (it lasted a long time with decent sales, and was the only car for awhile where you can get AWD + MT + Wagon in a luxury package, aside from Audi.

[Madman]

A very poorly researched article.  Once again, we are subjected to the inaccurate falsehood of the Jaguar X-Type being related to the Ford Contour.  I stopped reading after that.

[Onslaught]

No one says anything about all of Acura's lineup, most of Audi's lineup or even cars like the 9-3 (upon introduction).

I don't know of many people who would put Acura even near the same class as Jaguar. Acura has always been a nice Honda. Jaguar has never been a cheap car with nice stuff put in it.

[2o6]

A very poorly researched article.  Once again, we are subjected to the inaccurate falsehood of the Jaguar X-Type being related to the Ford Contour.  I stopped reading after that.

You read that wrong, he got it right by saying it was a Mondeo underneath.


Did YOU read the article?

I don't know of many people who would put Acura even near the same class as Jaguar. Acura has always been a nice Honda. Jaguar has never been a cheap car with nice stuff put in it.

I can understand that.

[Madman]

You read that wrong, he got it right by saying it was a Mondeo underneath.


Did YOU read the article?

From the article:

"Built on Ford's small sedan platform ? the Mondeo in Europe and the Contour in the U.S"


Do I even have to explain why this is wrong?

[Soup DeVille]

That said, the only car that deserves to be on that list is the Yugo.  Anytime I see a list like this with a gross misrepresentation of the Pinto I tend to discount the knowledge of the author. 

In order for the Pinto to be considered a failure, one has to show how it was so much worse than its contemporary competition; the Gremlin, the Vega, or even the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon. It wasn't a bad car, it was the target of a smear campaign launched by Mother Jones magazine, who looked to the Pinto the way Nader salivated over his similar smeaer campaign against the Corvair.

By the same light the Yugo, being the cheapest car sold in the US, fulfills its niche just fine. It is completely appropriate for the cheapest car to also be the least fancy and the slowest.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I prefer the Mercury Bobcat.

[Byteme]

In order for the Pinto to be considered a failure, one has to show how it was so much worse than its contemporary competition; the Gremlin, the Vega, or even the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon. It wasn't a bad car, it was the target of a smear campaign launched by Mother Jones magazine, who looked to the Pinto the way Nader salivated over his similar smeaer campaign against the Corvair.

By the same light the Yugo, being the cheapest car sold in the US, fulfills its niche just fine. It is completely appropriate for the cheapest car to also be the least fancy and the slowest.

I can't disagree about your reasoning on the Yugo. But (you knew there would be a but )even at tha price point it was poorly made.  Which begs the question.  Should an entry level economy car have some minimums that should be met?  Is there such a thing as too cheap for it's own good and the good of the driver and passengers? 

[Raza]

No one says anything about all of Acura's lineup, most of Audi's lineup or even cars like the 9-3 (upon introduction).


I don't think the X-Type was that bad (it lasted a long time with decent sales, and was the only car for awhile where you can get AWD + MT + Wagon in a luxury package, aside from Audi.

The X-Type wasn't bad.  It just wasn't as good as its competition.  I drove one back to back with my Passat and wouldn't have traded the Passat for the Jag.  It was a very good looking car, but not enough to propel it beyond the rest of the cars in its class.