I'm going to say the Aztec.
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 15, 2012, 04:01:12 PM
I'm going to say the Aztec.
Aztek isn't that bad. It's ugly and the starting point sucked, but I don't outright hate it. I wouldn't buy one, and I try to stop anyone I know from buying Aztek or Rendezvous, but it's really not that bad. People get hung up on the styling and don't consider the rest of the car (which sucked)
I nominate the Aveo
(http://www.maxmotors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/2008-chevrolet-aveo-ls-hatchback2.jpg)
I have a strange relationship with this car; I actually think it looks good for what it is. It also has some merits; the interior is screwed together decently enough, and the interior quality is OK. It's also pretty roomy for it's size.
But it's slow without good fuel economy, it rides and handles like crap and they never stay together. These Aveos are always falling apart and having catastrophic failures on pretty much every component of the car.
You know, even though I halfheartedly defended the Aztek, I have far more disdain for the Rendezvous
(http://www.ecarsflow.com/images/buick-rendezvous-02.jpg)
For starters, it looks like crap. Yes, I think it looks worse than the Aztek.
It performs like crap; those old pushrod motors sound and feel like crap especially considering that the Rendezvous was aiming for the Lexus RX.
It drives like crap. I drove an Uplander a couple days ago, and it's clear that those cars are platform mates. It's bouncy on glass-smooth roads, and crashy over bumps. It has no confidence in the curves whatsoever.
The interior is total junk; cheap nastiness everywhere you look, no effort to hide the GM parts bin stuff all over the interior.
And to top it off, they're known for being fairly unreliable.
On the plus side, it is quiet and it is roomy....sort of.
I think both the Suzuki Aerio and the Toyota Echo were somewhat worse than the Aveo, although i'm not sure either of those were the worst.
Lincoln Aviator perhaps?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 15, 2012, 04:38:38 PM
I think both the Suzuki Aerio and the Toyota Echo were somewhat worse than the Aveo, although i'm not sure either of those were the worst.
Lincoln Aviator perhaps?
Echo is at least reliable, and it stays together fairly well. Also, Europe loves the Echo (Yaris). Aerio wasn't bad, either, it was just funky looking.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 04:10:59 PM
Aztek isn't that bad. It's ugly and the starting point sucked, but I don't outright hate it. I wouldn't buy one, and I try to stop anyone I know from buying Aztek or Rendezvous, but it's really not that bad. People get hung up on the styling and don't consider the rest of the car (which sucked)
I nominate the Aveo
(http://www.maxmotors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/2008-chevrolet-aveo-ls-hatchback2.jpg)
I have a strange relationship with this car; I actually think it looks good for what it is. It also has some merits; the interior is screwed together decently enough, and the interior quality is OK. It's also pretty roomy for it's size.
But it's slow without good fuel economy, it rides and handles like crap and they never stay together. These Aveos are always falling apart and having catastrophic failures on pretty much every component of the car.
A guy here at work has a bright metallic orange aveo with license plates that read '2fst4u'.
He has serious problems with reality.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 15, 2012, 04:39:46 PM
A guy here at work has a bright metallic orange aveo with license plates that read '2fst4u'.
He has serious problems with reality.
He must be referring to pedestrians.
Many Dodges made in the Cerberus era. Caliber, Nitro, Avenger.
Quote from: Rockraven on September 15, 2012, 04:41:30 PM
He must be referring to pedestrians.
No, he thinks its fast. He tells me from time to time about the cars he's raced and beaten.
(http://images.autobytel.com/carcom/05_Saturn_Ion/400/05_Saturn_Ion_exfrpass34.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 04:39:42 PM
Echo is at least reliable, and it stays together fairly well. Also, Europe loves the Echo (Yaris). Aerio wasn't bad, either, it was just funky looking.
I can't aegue about the Echo too much, I know it only from repytation: but the Aerio was a seriously flawed automobile.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 04:39:42 PM
Echo is at least reliable, and it stays together fairly well. Also, Europe loves the Echo (Yaris). Aerio wasn't bad, either, it was just funky looking.
The echo is trash....how could I forget that.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 15, 2012, 04:43:43 PM
I can't aegue about the Echo too much, I know it only from repytation: but the Aerio was a seriously flawed automobile.
Echo had a lot of things going for it; the 1NZ FE is bulletproof reliable and returns great economy. Echo also provided space that beat out Corolla, and the center-mounted gauge cluster (shockingly) many people actually like (I'm indifferent to this). It also feels far more refined and stable than Aveo, Rio and Accent of the day.
It was just ugly.
And I'm not sure about the uglyness, either, the hatchback IMO is a tidy looking vehicle.
(http://www.autos.ca/roadtest/images/04echo_hb2dr_1-1.jpg)
We didn't get the Echo hatch.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 15, 2012, 04:43:43 PM
I can't aegue about the Echo too much, I know it only from repytation: but the Aerio was a seriously flawed automobile.
It was an odd duck. The engine was remarkably powerful for its segment. Also, it had AWD.
Quote from: Laconian on September 15, 2012, 04:48:01 PM
We didn't get the Echo hatch.
That's true, but the Echo sedan is the same car but ugly.
Yaris is pretty similar (same powertrains) but with a stiffer, roomier chassis. I don't mind ugly cars if they have merits (which the Echo did). I mind ugly cars that are crap inside and out, and are unreliable and have no merits whatsoever.
Like the Saturn ION. Somehow, it manages to be worse than the Cobalt. I don't have much love for the Astra, either.
Quote from: Laconian on September 15, 2012, 04:48:35 PM
It was an odd duck. The engine was remarkably powerful for its segment. Also, it had AWD.
Which obliterated the main reason why people buy those cars: fuel economy. it was also unreasonably cramped inside. and the whole thing gave the impression of being glued together by a 3rd grader with a massive supply of Elmer's.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 15, 2012, 04:50:52 PM
Which obliterated the main reason why people buy those cars: fuel economy. it was also unreasonably cramped inside. and the whole thing gave the impression of being glued together by a 3rd grader with a massive supply of Elmer's.
I remember the Aerio being the opposite of cramped. (For it's size). IIRC, it was roomier than the Focus and friends.
(http://images04.olx.com/ui/1/32/65/1412765_1.jpg)
Reliable, and nothing else.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 04:52:26 PM
I remember the Aerio being the opposite of cramped. (For it's size). IIRC, it was roomier than the Focus and friends.
I could sit up in the Focus. I could not in the Aerio.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 15, 2012, 04:55:11 PM
I could sit up in the Focus. I could not in the Aerio.
Sedan or hatch?
It would be pretty hard to beat the Aztek for ugly...
(http://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/91054/2001-Pontiac-Aztek-i004.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 04:54:24 PM
(http://images04.olx.com/ui/1/32/65/1412765_1.jpg)
Reliable, and nothing else.
WTF, it might be boring but definitely not the worst.
Quote from: Laconian on September 15, 2012, 04:56:36 PM
WTF, it might be boring but definitely not the worst.
Exceptionally cramped, terrible to drive, and with that comedy 3-speed automatic......
Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I don't like that Corolla, either.
(http://0.tqn.com/d/alternativefuels/1/0/e/M/-/-/09_Chrysler_Sebring.jpg)
Even worse than Avenger, IMO
I don't think I need to explain this one :
(http://www.carfinderservice.com/images/used/1093.jpg)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 15, 2012, 04:42:38 PM
No, he thinks its fast. He tells me from time to time about the cars he's raced and beaten.
I would love to see some dashcam vids of this guy cruising around for some "kills". Maybe with a buddy sitting shotgun egging him on, and the Fast & Furious soundtrack playing through the system.
I'd say the Dodge Nitro: everything that was bad about the Jeep Liberty on-road, which was a lot, but without off-road ability.
In terms of simple penalty-box wretchedness, it would probably be hard to beat a Daewoo Lanos, though.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 15, 2012, 04:42:38 PM
No, he thinks its fast. He tells me from time to time about the cars he's raced and beaten.
Does he ever tell the cars he's racing that they're racing?
Quote from: Raza on September 15, 2012, 07:20:32 PM
Does he ever tell the cars he's racing that they're racing?
No.
I think its basically anybody who makes eye contact with him is automatically in a race.
I'll have to get a pic of the car.
Quote from: Laconian on September 15, 2012, 04:48:01 PM
We didn't get the Echo hatch.
Are you sure? Gus drives one on Psych.
Quote from: ifcar on September 15, 2012, 06:27:41 PM
I'd say the Dodge Nitro: everything that was bad about the Jeep Liberty on-road, which was a lot, but without off-road ability.
Also, it looked terrible, it sold poorly, and the ad campaigns were idiotic. It was a colossal F-up at all levels, it seemed.
Is this a list of the worst cars that were all-new post-2000 or any cars still for sale post-2000? The J-body was awful, but it was also a 1980s design updated in the mid to late 90s. Not really a post-2000 car.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 04:16:48 PM
You know, even though I halfheartedly defended the Aztek, I have far more disdain for the Rendezvous
(http://www.ecarsflow.com/images/buick-rendezvous-02.jpg)
For starters, it looks like crap. Yes, I think it looks worse than the Aztek.
It performs like crap; those old pushrod motors sound and feel like crap especially considering that the Rendezvous was aiming for the Lexus RX.
It drives like crap. I drove an Uplander a couple days ago, and it's clear that those cars are platform mates. It's bouncy on glass-smooth roads, and crashy over bumps. It has no confidence in the curves whatsoever.
The interior is total junk; cheap nastiness everywhere you look, no effort to hide the GM parts bin stuff all over the interior.
And to top it off, they're known for being fairly unreliable.
On the plus side, it is quiet and it is roomy....sort of.
What do you expect when a car is engineered in the lab of Dr. Frankenstein?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEQMxdL9ohQ
Quote from: Raza link=topic=28104.msg1779276#msg1779276 date=1347758683
Are you sure? Gus drives one on Psych.
Canada got it, but US didn't.
Quote from: MX793 on September 15, 2012, 07:26:07 PM
Is this a list of the worst cars that were all-new post-2000 or any cars still for sale post-2000? The J-body was awful, but it was also a 1980s design updated in the mid to late 90s. Not really a post-2000 car.
The fact it existed as long as it did is shameful.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
I don't think I need to explain this one :
(http://www.carfinderservice.com/images/used/1093.jpg)
LOL
I really don't know what compelled my dad to buy a Fit. I really don't. It's far from the worst car in the past decade of so....but it's not great. Maybe it's me, but it just doesn't feel substantial. It feels like a tin can....unlike the Accord.
It's also ugly. It's also baby-blue. :facepalm:
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 15, 2012, 07:53:06 PM
LOL
I really don't know what compelled my dad to buy a Fit. I really don't. It's far from the worst car in the past decade of so....but it's not great. Maybe it's me, but it just doesn't feel substantial. It feels like a tin can....unlike the Accord.
It's also ugly. It's also baby-blue. :facepalm:
The Fit is a great car, you just don't like it because its blue and small.
(http://www.atozautolights.com/images/AutoPhotos/CHTR0608.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 08:03:41 PM
(http://www.atozautolights.com/images/AutoPhotos/CHTR0608.jpg)
Solidly bland, but neither good nor bad in most regards.
(http://media.il.edmunds-media.com/mitsubishi/galant/2010/ns/2010_mitsubishi_galant_f34_ns_308102_717.jpg)
(http://thelcbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2007-smart-fortwo-2.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 07:33:00 PM
Canada got it, but US didn't.
Not even California? I mean, I know it's a TV show, but it is set in California. Seems odd that they'd get him a car that they mention by name that was never sold in the US under the pretense that it's a company car.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=28104.msg1779371#msg1779371 date=1347763234
Not even California? I mean, I know it's a TV show, but it is set in California. Seems odd that they'd get him a car that they mention by name that was never sold in the US under the pretense that it's a company car.
Nope. Hatchback was Canada only.
Quote from: Raza on September 15, 2012, 08:40:34 PM
Not even California? I mean, I know it's a TV show, but it is set in California. Seems odd that they'd get him a car that they mention by name that was never sold in the US under the pretense that it's a company car.
Never seen the show, but maybe it's produced in Vancouver? A lot of "Hollywood" productions get made just north of the border.
I wonder how hard it would be to import a Canadian Echo hatch? Since the butt-ugly sedan was already US-certified, I can't imagine it being very difficult.
Quote from: Madman on September 15, 2012, 09:12:48 PM
Never seen the show, but maybe it's produced in Vancouver? A lot of "Hollywood" productions get made just north of the border.
I wonder how hard it would be to import a Canadian Echo hatch? Since the butt-ugly sedan was already US-certified, I can't imagine it being very difficult.
It's produced in British Columbia.
Quote from: Madman on September 15, 2012, 09:12:48 PM
Never seen the show, but maybe it's produced in Vancouver? A lot of "Hollywood" productions get made just north of the border.
I wonder how hard it would be to import a Canadian Echo hatch? Since the butt-ugly sedan was already US-certified, I can't imagine it being very difficult.
Yeah, it's probably filmed in Canada like everything else, but I'd think they'd have someone checking on that before they started shooting.
I guess not, though.
Quote from: Raza on September 15, 2012, 09:45:23 PM
Yeah, it's probably filmed in Canada like everything else, but I'd think they'd have someone checking on that before they started shooting.
I guess not, though.
I think the checking involved "get me a cheap, funny looking car."
Chevrolet Aveo, hands down. Cobalt comes in second.
Quote from: CJ on September 15, 2012, 10:31:21 PM
Chevrolet Aveo, hands down. Cobalt comes in second.
Ion is worse.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 04:54:24 PM
(http://images04.olx.com/ui/1/32/65/1412765_1.jpg)
Reliable, and nothing else.
Sometimes, nothing else is what you want. My mother in law has one, and its a great car for crawling around Florida.
I nominate the 09+ GT-R. A technological tour de force for sure, but a philosophical embodiment of everything wrong with "drivers" cars today. Ugly, heavy, complex, expensive, literally designed to reward an absence of skill, weighs 2 tons and only seats two. Its a street car with performance you can't access + use, and a track car that doesn't help you hone your skills. I really don't get it. Where is the GT-R in its element.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 16, 2012, 09:49:49 AM
Sometimes, nothing else is what you want. My mother in law has one, and its a great car for crawling around Florida.
I nominate the 09+ GT-R. A technological tour de force for sure, but a philosophical embodiment of everything wrong with "drivers" cars today. Ugly, heavy, complex, expensive, literally designed to reward an absence of skill, weighs 2 tons and only seats two. Its a street car with performance you can't access + use, and a track car that doesn't help you hone your skills. I really don't get it. Where is the GT-R in its element.
This post is incredibly orwellian; you say the Corolla is great (it's not), but you slam the GTR because it is 'too great'.
The Corolla sucked; it has a very tight interior, an old-school 3-speed automatic, had no roadholding skills or handling skills, and pretty much all of it's contemporaries beat it up in pretty much EVERY aspect. Focus and Neon were way roomier and quite sharp to drive. Civic had the reliability of the Corolla, but with more room and a much better drive, and the rest hit harder on the value front and space front than the Corolla did.
Yet, you hate the GTR and you've never driven one and really can't say anything about how the car drives. For the price point, it beats pretty much every performance car out there of the same price, and many that are thousands more. Yet you dislike it for reasons that you really don't know.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 16, 2012, 09:49:49 AM
Sometimes, nothing else is what you want. My mother in law has one, and its a great car for crawling around Florida.
I nominate the 09+ GT-R. A technological tour de force for sure, but a philosophical embodiment of everything wrong with "drivers" cars today. Ugly, heavy, complex, expensive, literally designed to reward an absence of skill, weighs 2 tons and only seats two. Its a street car with performance you can't access + use, and a track car that doesn't help you hone your skills. I really don't get it. Where is the GT-R in its element.
Yes, i'd much rather be stuck in an Aerio, hot-gluing the interior pieces back on.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 16, 2012, 09:49:49 AM
Sometimes, nothing else is what you want. My mother in law has one, and its a great car for crawling around Florida.
I nominate the 09+ GT-R. A technological tour de force for sure, but a philosophical embodiment of everything wrong with "drivers" cars today. Ugly, heavy, complex, expensive, literally designed to reward an absence of skill, weighs 2 tons and only seats two. Its a street car with performance you can't access + use, and a track car that doesn't help you hone your skills. I really don't get it. Where is the GT-R in its element.
Pretty much all of the ultra-performance cars are so far beyond the capabilities of the non-professional-racing driver that they all are laden with all sorts of nannies to make them driveable by mortals. I fail to see how the GT-R is any worse than a 458, ZR-1, Murcielago, or R8 in that regard.
The GT-R is a 2+2 GT car (and in that regard, it's actually lighter than 2+2s like the 612 or FF) that can run with hardcore exotic sports cars (that also cost more) on the track yet be driven daily on real roads in "weather". I don't see what's there to hate beyond the styling.
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 15, 2012, 07:53:06 PM
LOL
I really don't know what compelled my dad to buy a Fit. I really don't. It's far from the worst car in the past decade of so....but it's not great. Maybe it's me, but it just doesn't feel substantial. It feels like a tin can....unlike the Accord.
It's also ugly. It's also baby-blue. :facepalm:
The Fit is indeed a terrible car ubt pretty much because the Civic, a better car, costs the same (that the Civic has better MPG too is the proverbial icing).
Quote from: GoCougs on September 16, 2012, 02:45:41 PM
The Fit is indeed a terrible car ubt pretty much because the Civic, a better car, costs the same (that the Civic has better MPG too is the proverbial icing).
It's sharper to drive than the Civic, and the interior is more versatile. The problem with the Fit is the fact that the pricing is out of control (it's too expensive) and it fails at being an economy car (poor MPG). For the record, I think the Fit is overpriced; they need to lop off around 2K from the base price for it to be more competitive. But Honda still moves the things at a modest pace, so maybe it doesn't really matter.
I suppose it doesn't make much sense as the Civic and Fit are literally only a few hundred dollars apart, and the Civic performance in every regard is better, but I wouldn't call the Fit 'terrible'.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 16, 2012, 09:49:49 AM
Sometimes, nothing else is what you want. My mother in law has one, and its a great car for crawling around Florida.
I nominate the 09+ GT-R. A technological tour de force for sure, but a philosophical embodiment of everything wrong with "drivers" cars today. Ugly, heavy, complex, expensive, literally designed to reward an absence of skill, weighs 2 tons and only seats two. Its a street car with performance you can't access + use, and a track car that doesn't help you hone your skills. I really don't get it. Where is the GT-R in its element.
You just described all current Ferraris, the Mclaren MP4-12C, and lots of other modern supercars. I think the GT-R should be commended for doing all the insane shit it does at the relatively low price at which it does it.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 16, 2012, 02:52:22 PM
It's sharper to drive than the Civic, and the interior is more versatile. The problem with the Fit is the fact that the pricing is out of control (it's too expensive) and it fails at being an economy car (poor MPG). For the record, I think the Fit is overpriced; they need to lop off around 2K from the base price for it to be more competitive. But Honda still moves the things at a modest pace, so maybe it doesn't really matter.
I suppose it doesn't make much sense as the Civic and Fit are literally only a few hundred dollars apart, and the Civic performance in every regard is better, but I wouldn't call the Fit 'terrible'.
They're $2,000 apart comparably equipped. A Civic DX doesn't have air conditioning and cruise control; a base Fit does.
Quote from: ifcar on September 16, 2012, 03:45:10 PM
They're $2,000 apart comparably equipped. A Civic DX doesn't have air conditioning and cruise control; a base Fit does.
Ah, I couldn't see that from the website.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 15, 2012, 04:10:59 PM
Aztek isn't that bad. It's ugly and the starting point sucked, but I don't outright hate it. I wouldn't buy one, and I try to stop anyone I know from buying Aztek or Rendezvous, but it's really not that bad. People get hung up on the styling and don't consider the rest of the car (which sucked)
I nominate the Aveo
(http://www.maxmotors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/2008-chevrolet-aveo-ls-hatchback2.jpg)
I have a strange relationship with this car; I actually think it looks good for what it is. It also has some merits; the interior is screwed together decently enough, and the interior quality is OK. It's also pretty roomy for it's size.
But it's slow without good fuel economy, it rides and handles like crap and they never stay together. These Aveos are always falling apart and having catastrophic failures on pretty much every component of the car.
No, it really is that bad. Try working on them for a while and you'll get why.
Quote from: S204STi on September 16, 2012, 06:01:12 PM
No, it really is that bad. Try working on them for a while and you'll get why.
Yeah, all the techs at work hate them.
I gotta go with The Caliber. Horrid!!!
Quote from: MX793 on September 16, 2012, 02:42:45 PM
Pretty much all of the ultra-performance cars are so far beyond the capabilities of the non-professional-racing driver that they all are laden with all sorts of nannies to make them driveable by mortals. I fail to see how the GT-R is any worse than a 458, ZR-1, Murcielago, or R8 in that regard.
The GT-R is a 2+2 GT car (and in that regard, it's actually lighter than 2+2s like the 612 or FF) that can run with hardcore exotic sports cars (that also cost more) on the track yet be driven daily on real roads in "weather". I don't see what's there to hate beyond the styling.
:hesaid:
I'm gonna go with the first post. I literally get angry every time I see an Aztec. Even moreso when the lady in the Aztec in Atlantic City this evening was holding up traffic. :banghead:
The GTR is worse because its ugly and sounds like a vacuum cleaner even uncorked
So you don't even get the visceral thrills of its Italian contemporaries our even the 911
And even when you turn the electronics off, they are still in control of all the differentials for example. What is mechanical about the GTR?
And the Corolla is fine. Aside from the Civic, and maybe the Sentra, which of its competitors would you pick over it for the sole purpose of getting you where you need to go a close to 100% of the time? My mother in law has the 4AT and in any case they are not hard to find in stickshift. 3AT was the stripper that nobody bought. You might a well say Corolla had no AC either. Its a solid but boring car which its more that you can say for some of its contemporaries
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 15, 2012, 07:53:06 PM
LOL
I really don't know what compelled my dad to buy a Fit. I really don't. It's far from the worst car in the past decade of so....but it's not great. Maybe it's me, but it just doesn't feel substantial. It feels like a tin can....unlike the Accord.
It's also ugly. It's also baby-blue. :facepalm:
Your dad drives a Fit?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 16, 2012, 09:49:49 AM
I nominate the 09+ GT-R. A technological tour de force for sure, but a philosophical embodiment of everything wrong with "drivers" cars today. Ugly, heavy, complex, expensive, literally designed to reward an absence of skill, weighs 2 tons and only seats two. Its a street car with performance you can't access + use, and a track car that doesn't help you hone your skills. I really don't get it.
Where is the GT-R in its element.
I'm not a big GTR fan but I nominate this as the worst nomination in the thread.
Maybe not the worst, but two of my least favorite:
(http://trialx.com/curetalk/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/2011/06/cars/2007_Cadillac_Escalade_Ext-2.jpg)
(http://www.hummerguy.net/wp-content/2008CustomHummerH2SUTWhiteMonotone.jpg)
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 17, 2012, 07:51:51 AM
The GTR is worse because its ugly and sounds like a vacuum cleaner even uncorked
So you don't even get the visceral thrills of its Italian contemporaries our even the 911
And even when you turn the electronics off, they are still in control of all the differentials for example. What is mechanical about the GTR?
SSo that puts it in the same league as the Aztek?
And the Corolla is fine. Aside from the Civic, and maybe the Sentra, which of its competitors would you pick over it for the sole purpose of getting you where you need to go a close to 100% of the time? My mother in law has the 4AT and in any case they are not hard to find in stickshift. 3AT was the stripper that nobody bought. You might a well say Corolla had no AC either. Its a solid but boring car which its more that you can say for some of its contemporaries
Everything elsw was better! Focus destroyed Corolla, as did pretty much everything else!
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 17, 2012, 07:51:51 AM
The GTR is worse because its ugly and sounds like a vacuum cleaner even uncorked
Ferraris are ugly too. And the sound is subjective.
2o6, what would you spend your money on now, a 2000 Corolla or 2000 Focus
Lebowski, :evildude:
Raza, Ferraris are not as dramatic from the cockpit, but they are miles away from the GTR. A G37 has more throat than a stock GTR.
You're ruining this thread.
The Corolla its far from the worst car since 2000. It wasn't even the worst car in its segment
Not sure how one can ruin a thread with an opinion, unless the point of the thread was to only get phonons o one agrees with
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 17, 2012, 01:28:02 PM
The Corolla its far from the worst car since 2000. It wasn't even the worst car in its segment
Neither is the GT-R :hammerhead:
Arguably the GTR is One of the greatest cars on the road, but you lump it in with the Aztek and Rendezvous.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 17, 2012, 01:50:44 PM
Arguably the GTR is One of the greatest cars on the road, but you lump it in with the Aztek and Rendezvous.
:lol: I am actually agreeing with Kevin on this one...
Quote from: 2o6 on September 17, 2012, 01:50:44 PM
Arguably the GTR is One of the greatest cars on the road, but you lump it in with the Aztek and Rendezvous.
You just said the Aztec wasnt that bad. And where did I say the Aztek was bad? This is very sloppy
GTR is an achievement for sure, but a deeply flawed premise