I saw this article talking about the Cars of the Year that, in retrospect, turned out to be really bad choices. There are some real winners on this list. My personal favorites are the Chevrolet Vega and the Chevrolet Citation.
_________________________________________________________
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/846/dishonorable-mention-the-10-most-embarrassing-award-winners-in-automotive-history
Dishonorable Mention: The 10 Most Embarrassing Award Winners in Automotive History
Don?t tell anyone, but we?re not always right. Neither are those other magazines.
By The CARandDRIVER.com Staff
Here and now, in vivid HTML, Car and Driver formally apologizes for naming the Renault Alliance to the 1983 10Best Cars list. For the last 26 years, it?s been gnawing at our collective gut like a shame-induced ulcer. The car was trash. We should have known that back then, and it?s taken us too long to confess our grievous mistake. Let this frank admission be the start of our penance.
It?s not the only blemish on our record, and we?re not the only publication to recognize a few stinkers with its highest honor. The history of automotive journalism has seen flaming piles of poo named ?Car of the Year? even as they attract product liability lawsuits by the acre-foot and hunks of crud honored as ?All-Stars? at the very moment buyers are seeking reimbursement under lemon laws.
It?s always a risk making judgments based on the initial exposure to a car, and sometimes a vehicle?s ultimate crappiness only reveals itself with the fullness of time. We?re all subject to hype for something that seems new, different, and maybe even better, and in this business, we all feel the crushing pressure to be timely, amusing, and authoritative. Being wrong is always a risk. Still, here are ten award winners for which somebody needs to apologize.
1983 Renault Alliance: Car and Driver 10 Best Cars
?If we were some other magazine,? our ancestors wrote, honoring the Renault Alliance as one of 1983?s 10 Best Cars, ?this would be our car of the year.?
The Alliance was misconceived during that period (1982 to 1987) when France?s Renault owned American Motors. The idea was to take the front-drive Renault 9 sedan, redecorate it with American-friendly elements like whitewall tires and a monochrome interior, and assemble the whole shebang in an old Nash factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin. While the Alliance rode and handled okay for the time, the standard 1.4-liter engine croaked along with only 60 hp.
The Alliance proved that Wisconsin workers could assemble a Renault with the same indifference to quality that was a hallmark of French automobile industry. By the late ?80s, the sight of rusted Alliances abandoned alongside America?s roads was so common that their resale value had dropped to nearly zero. When Chrysler bought AMC in 1987, its first order of business was the mercy killing of the Alliance.
For the record, that ?other magazine,? Motor Trend, did in fact name the Alliance its Car of the Year for 1983. We share the shame.
2002 Ford Thunderbird: Motor Trend Car of the Year
Ford?s re-launch of the Thunderbird as a two-seater in 2002 seemed like such a good idea. The styling was gorgeous, the concept car had earned raves at every car show, and nostalgia for the 1955?1957 two-seat ?Birds was at a fever pitch.
Unfortunately, Ford went cheap engineering the new T-Bird, grabbing most of the chassis pieces and many interior elements straight out of the lackluster Lincoln LS sedan?s parts bin. The result was an overweight, softly sprung roadster that looked great outside, was agonizingly boring inside, and dreary to drive. And at about $40,000, it was stupidly expensive. If anyone was going to drive this T-Bird, it was platinum-haired women prone to carrying small dogs wherever they go. It turns out there aren?t that many of those women out there.
Only 19,085 Thunderbirds were sold during the 2002 model year and sales dwindled from there. Mercifully, 2005 was the two-seater?s last year of production.
1971 Chevrolet Vega: Motor Trend Car of the Year
The Chevy Vega is on everyone?s short list for Worst Car of All Time. It was so unreliable that it seemed the only time anyone saw a Vega on the road not puking out oily smoke was when it was being towed.
That?s not to say the choice of the Vega as 1971 Car of the Year doesn?t make sense in context. This was the year Ford and Chevy introduced new small cars and compared to Ford?s Pinto, the Vega at least seemed better. The Vega handled more precisely, was available in more body styles, and, with styling cribbed straight off the Camaro, looked more attractive. The Vega?s aluminum engine block even seemed like a technological leap forward.
However, the aluminum block?s unlined cylinder bores scored easily and the (usually misaligned) iron cylinder head let oil pour into them. Every element of the Vega?s chassis was built about as flimsily as possible and the unibody structure?s metal was usually attacked by rust mere moments after being exposed to, well, air. It?s been 38 years since the Vega appeared, and the stink still won?t wash off.
1997 Cadillac Catera: Automobile All-Stars
By the mid ?90s, Cadillac was sick of being kicked around by European competitors like the BMW 3- and 5-series and Mercedes C- and E-classes. No matter how hard Caddy tried, it always seemed that the Germans were cooler. So Cadillac looked at GM?s international portfolio of products, came across the rear-drive Opel Omega MV6 that was then being built in Germany (perfect!), and decided that, with a little bit of redecoration and a name change to Catera, it would make a great Cadillac.
Despite an ad campaign that featured both Cindy Crawford and animated versions of the ducks found on the Cadillac crest, there was just no way to hide that the Catera was a snoozer. The styling was generic and gelatinous, the interior bland, the chassis response lackadaisical, and the 3.0-liter V-6?s 200 hp had to strain against a nearly 3900-pound curb weight. Ads for the Catera said it was the ?Caddy that zigs,? but what?s the point of zigging without zagging? About the only thing truly interesting about the Catera was its calamitous reliability record.
1985 Merkur XR4Ti: Car and Driver 10 Best Cars
In 1985, Merkur was such a peculiar name that anyone writing about Ford?s new brand of vehicles imported from Europe had to resort to phonetic spellings. ?The Merkur (?Mare-coor?) XR4Ti is about the slickest thing to ever come out of a Lincoln-Mercury dealer?s showroom,? C/D wrote while enshrining the car as one of that year?s 10Best, ?maybe the slickest thing ever to come out of the Ford Motor Company.?
To create the XR4Ti, Ford took Europe?s bulbous three-door, rear-drive Sierra, excised its V-6 engine, and replaced it with the turbocharged 2.3-liter four out of the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe and SVO Mustang (albeit without the SVO?s intercooler). The result wasn?t a terrible car, but it sure was odd-looking.
With its biplane rear spoiler and slick contours, the XR4Ti was aerodynamically slippery and looked European. The turbo four?s raucous 170 hp managed somewhat sprightly performance, but no matter how giddy C/D?s editors were back then, buyers found the XR4Ti highly resistible. It was, in sum, peculiar.
1997 Chevrolet Malibu: Motor Trend Car of the Year
There hasn?t been a more generic or uninteresting car made in America than the 1997 Chevrolet Malibu. ?Chevrolet decided that unlike its crosstown rivals at Ford and Chrysler,? wrote Motor Trend as it assigned the Malibu its highest accolade, ?it wasn't interested in pushing the styling envelope with its new sedan.? And push it, General Motors didn?t.
At least the 1997 Malibu drove blandly, too. The front-drive chassis was tuned for banality. The two engines offered were a 2.4-liter DOHC four making 150 hp or a 3.1-liter V-6 rated at just 155 horsepower. And both were lashed to a somnambulant four-speed automatic transaxle.
Moments after the Malibu went on sale, it became a fixture in fleets; it was the perfect car to buy when you?re buying 600. It became such a staple with rental companies that when the next Malibu was ready for launch during the 2004 model year, Chevrolet simply changed the name of the one introduced in 1997 to ?Classic? and restricted sales to fleets. The Classic remained in production through the 2005 model year. It was America?s plain brown wrapper.
1990 Lincoln Town Car: Motor Trend Car of the Year
The 1990 Lincoln Town Car was barely more than a re-skinned version of its immediate predecessor, a lame tub designed to wring a couple more years of profits out of decades-old technology. Sure, the 1990 Town Car?s wheelbase grew an entire tenth of an inch?from 117.3 to 117.4 inches?and overall length was up 1.2 inches, but virtually every mechanical element was carryover. That included the float-tuned suspension, the Nimitz-class steering circle, the arthritic 150-hp 4.9-liter V-8, and the slough-shifting four-speed automatic transmission. At least the looks were marginally improved and, if you?re going to pass out drunk on the floor of a car, it?s hard to think of a better machine than a stretched Town Car limo.
The Town Car got better in 1991 when Ford?s then-new 190-hp V-8 replaced the old pushrod engine, but after that it remained technologically stagnant until it was once again superficially redesigned for 1998. It didn?t even try to be new.
1980 Chevrolet Citation: Motor Trend Car of the Year
When GM?s front-drive compact X-cars--the Chevrolet Citation, Buick Skylark, Oldsmobile Omega, and Pontiac Phoenix?went into production in April 1979, everything seemed foolproof. The X-car was front-drive, the two available engines were old-school pushrod designs, and the interior was Detroit chic with flat seats and plastic door panels. At the time, it seemed like a breakthrough?finally, an American-made Honda Accord.
Things started going terribly wrong as soon as the X-car got into the hands of consumers. While staring down 60 -month payment books, Citation owners were having trim bits fall off in their hands, hearing their transmissions groan and seize, and finding that if they listened closely enough they could hear their cars rust. At times it seemed the suspension in some X-cars wasn?t even bolted in correctly, as the ride motions grew funkier and funkier while the steering developed an oceanic on-center dead spot.
As GM?s first front-drive compacts, the X-cars were significant vehicles: They slaughtered GM?s reputation for a whole generation.
1974 Ford Mustang II: Motor Trend Car of the Year
The Mustang II was a direct response to the energy crises brought on by the OPEC oil embargoes of the early ? 70s. Looking at the bloated 1973 Mustang, Ford was sure the way to go for ?74 was smaller. So they slapped a new body atop the Pinto to create the Mustang II, and skipped V-8 engines altogether.
Even as the Mustang II went on sale, purists were crying that it represented a betrayal. Instead of the powerful car the Mustang had been, here was a poseur with wheezing four- and six-cylinder engines under the hood. And, except for slightly better fuel economy, there were no compensating virtues.
Styling cues from earlier ponies?the ?C? indent along the flanks, three-section taillights, and the corral shaped front grille?were cartoonish on the misshapen Mustang II. And no other Mustang is quite as despicable as the 1975 Mustang II Ghia notchback coupe with the half-vinyl roof. Ford shoehorned a V-8 into the Mustang II during 1975?a strangled, two-barrel 302-cubic-inch rated at a pathetic 129 hp?and that only further proved how ludicrously fragile the car?s structure was.
Today the Mustang II is the Mustang only the most socially inept enthusiast loves.
1995 Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique: Car and Driver 10 Best Cars
For three years from 1995 to 1997, this magazine tried to convince the rest of the world that the front-drive Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique were worthy of 10Best status. It didn?t work.
?[T]hese replacements for the Tempo and Topaz are very different than Chrysler?s Cirrus,? we wrote in the 1995 10 Best issue. ?The Contour is a smaller, tauter car. It has a tighter back seat but more aggressive road manners. In fact, if you didn?t see Ford?s oval logo, you might easily mistake it for a much more expensive European sports sedan.?
Hey, compared to the Tempo and Topaz, a wheelbarrow seemed refined. The problem was, as we should have understood back in ?95, that the Contour and Mystique really were too small for their class. Priced alongside the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, the Americanized versions of Europe?s cramped Mondeo never stood a chance.
?For the serious driver who wants a compact, affordable sedan,? we wrote to justify selection of the Contour and Mystique to the 1996 10 Best list, ?these Ford products deserve a long look.? So buyers gave them a long look and then muttered to themselves, ?That thing is just too dinky.?
"Today the Mustang II is the Mustang only the most socially inept enthusiast loves."
Take that back, you narrow minded reprobates, or I'll sick ChrisV oon your pasty white asses!
Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 25, 2009, 07:14:25 PM
"Today the Mustang II is the Mustang only the most socially inept enthusiast loves."
Take that back, you narrow minded reprobates, or I'll sick ChrisV oon your pasty white asses!
:lol:
Comments:
My bro bought his first car, a Renault Encore, for $800 in 1990. It was in decent condition to boot.
I wouldn't really call the LS's interior cheap -- even the cheap bits. It was fine for a $30k car. It just wasn't good enough for the T-Bird.
The Malibu sucked, but but it opened the door for better cars to come.
The same brother who had the Renault also later bought an XR4ti. It was a fast car. Sadly, he never checked the oil, and the motor exploded.
And my other brother bought a Contour for his first car. It was a great piece of engineering, a really good car, but the back seat was very cramped for its size.
The Citation was one of the cars that put a nail in GM's coffin, and they're still paying for it today.
In the late 1970s, GM did a major redesign on its whole fleet to make them lighter, more compact and more fuel efficient. The full size cars -- Chevy Caprice, Pontiac Bonneville, Cadillac DeVille, Oldsmobile 98, etc. were the first ones out in 1977, and they were significantly slimmed down from their bloated predecessors, and were well received in the market.
Next in 1978 the mid-sized cars were redesigned. These included the Chevrolet Monte Carlo and the Pontiac Grand Prix, two of my favorite cars at the time.
The most awaited redesign, though, was that of the compacts. 1978 was the last year of the old compacts -- the Chevrolet Nova, Buick Skylark, etc. These models weren't produced for 1979, but the 1980 models were introduced with great fanfare in the spring of 1979. The Citation had this catchy ad calling it "the first Chevy of the '80s, the first Chevy of its kind, a new Chevy kind of compact."
These cars were such a huge disappointment, and they came online just at the time when Japanese imports were becoming a much more viable option. It was a major blow to GM.
So basically, every time Ford brings over a Sierra or Mondeo here, it gets blasted. And now we want another Mondeo? :huh:
The REALLY funny thing about the Citation? They had an X/1 model or something, (too lazy to look it up right now, but you'll get the point), that was their fast and sporty version.
They're all American or French.
Quote from: CJ on January 25, 2009, 09:17:12 PM
They're all American or French.
You could argue that the Catera and Sierra/XR4 whatever are German.
Quote from: dazzleman on January 25, 2009, 06:57:30 PM
1974 Ford Mustang II: Motor Trend Car of the Year
The Mustang II was a direct response to the energy crises brought on by the OPEC oil embargoes of the early ? 70s. Looking at the bloated 1973 Mustang, Ford was sure the way to go for ?74 was smaller. So they slapped a new body atop the Pinto to create the Mustang II, and skipped V-8 engines altogether.
Even as the Mustang II went on sale, purists were crying that it represented a betrayal. Instead of the powerful car the Mustang had been, here was a poseur with wheezing four- and six-cylinder engines under the hood. And, except for slightly better fuel economy, there were no compensating virtues.
Styling cues from earlier ponies?the ?C? indent along the flanks, three-section taillights, and the corral shaped front grille?were cartoonish on the misshapen Mustang II. And no other Mustang is quite as despicable as the 1975 Mustang II Ghia notchback coupe with the half-vinyl roof. Ford shoehorned a V-8 into the Mustang II during 1975?a strangled, two-barrel 302-cubic-inch rated at a pathetic 129 hp?and that only further proved how ludicrously fragile the car?s structure was.
Typical Car and Driver retrospect through a very foggy lens. First some factual errors. The design was not a response to the fuel crisis since design work started in 1971 and the car was introduced in Sept 1973 and Arab oil Embargo occured about 2 months later. Actually the car got much better mileage than the by then bloated 1973 Mustang. They sold close to 500,000 of them the first year, somebody loved them, in fact a lot of somebody's lived them. I remember Car and Driver being very positive about The Mustang II. They also forget that almost all cars were beginning to suffer from the stranglehold of emissions, safety and fuel mileage concerns in the mid to late 70's. I think the next generation Mustang GT model only cranked out something like 140 HP as did it's V8 camaro competitor. And they distort the truth when the say Ford simply slapped a Mustang body on a Pinto Chassis. The Mustang was based on the Pinto platform but C&D itself chronicled all the upgrades and improvements made to the Pinto chassis to accomodate the Mustang II. IIRC, Mustang & and Pinto front suspension and steering components are in demand as hot rod suspension bits so Ford must have got something right.
1995 Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique: Car and Driver 10 Best Cars
For three years from 1995 to 1997, this magazine tried to convince the rest of the world that the front-drive Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique were worthy of 10Best status. It didn?t work.
Tried to convince? I think not. Look back at the road tests and all C&D did was bitch and moan about the back seat leg room. They practically called Ford Moronic for offering a car with such pathetic rear leg room. They did praise the rest of the car and its driving dynamics but they kept coming back to the rear seat as if it over-rode all the virtues of the design.
1983 Renault Alliance: Car and Driver 10 Best Cars
?If we were some other magazine,? our ancestors wrote, honoring the Renault Alliance as one of 1983?s 10 Best Cars, ?this would be our car of the year.?
The Alliance was misconceived during that period (1982 to 1987) when France?s Renault owned American Motors. The idea was to take the front-drive Renault 9 sedan, redecorate it with American-friendly elements like whitewall tires and a monochrome interior, and assemble the whole shebang in an old Nash factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin. While the Alliance rode and handled okay for the time, the standard 1.4-liter engine croaked along with only 60 hp.
My wife had a 83 or 84 Alliance when I married her. It was a pretty nice car for what it was at the time; an inexpensive economy car. It may have only had 60 HP but it sipped fuel like a diabetic consumes refined sugar. My wife regularly got almost 40 MPG on the highway. Most "economy" car's today can't achieve that. C&D was right about the trade in value. We got $500 trade in on a new Ford Escort GT. But considering the engine overheated and seized (my fault for not checking the coolant regularly) and I replaced the head gasket, changed the oil and it started up and ran fine, if a tad noisy, I think we came out OK.
(http://www.allfordmustangs.com/artman/uploads/1974_mustang_coupe.jpg)
Ok, so it looks like a Pinto and Mustang had sex, but it doesn't look that bad. :cheers:
The 1990 Lincoln TC was hot. :praise:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on January 26, 2009, 08:58:29 AM
The 1990 Lincoln TC was hot. :praise:
Amen brotha. The TC is America. I love those things.
Meh, hindsight is 20/20. Given the times, cars like the Vega, Mustang II, XR4Ti, X-cars, Malibu and Alliance were pretty good ideas. Not well executed maybe, but not terrible ideas in and of themselves.
In fact I think a lot of cars today owe the X-cars in particular a debt of gratitude for the technological advancements they brought to market. Who else had a mid-sized car with a transversely-mounted 60° V6 driving the front wheels in a space-efficient body? No one at the time, but every single mid-sized car sold in North America since has patterned itself off of those design criteria. Every single one.
Consider no one had done it before GM did in 1979. That's pretty huge.
I'm wondering what cars now will be seen in the same light. GT-R anyone?
And the new Mondeo should be fine; it's only marginally smaller than the Fusion, and more importantly, it looks 200x better.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 26, 2009, 01:43:00 PM
And the new Mondeo should be fine; it's only marginally smaller than the Fusion, and more importantly, it looks 200x better.
To whom? Certainly not the average consumer, who prefers fugly beige Camrys and Accords.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 26, 2009, 01:43:00 PM
I'm wondering what cars now will be seen in the same light. GT-R anyone?
And the new Mondeo should be fine; it's only marginally smaller than the Fusion, and more importantly, it looks 200x better.
Actually, It's not smaller. They're pretty much the same size. Bumper regulations make the Fusion longer, but the Mondeo is taller and wider. Probably larger inside too, since the proportions seem more space efficient.
Quote from: 93JC on January 26, 2009, 01:52:12 PM
To whom? Certainly not the average consumer, who prefers fugly beige Camrys and Accords.
Why are older Camrys always in that god awful gray-green-beige color?
Quote from: MidnightDave on January 25, 2009, 08:13:51 PM
The REALLY funny thing about the Citation? They had an X/1 model or something, (too lazy to look it up right now, but you'll get the point), that was their fast and sporty version.
It was the X/11. I liked the blacked out trim amd 5 spoke wheels that it came with.
I stopped my subscription to Automobile after they gave it to the Focus. While it's not the biggest rolling pile of dog shit, it was no COTY.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 04:48:30 PM
I stopped my subscription to Automobile after they gave it to the Focus. While it's not the biggest rolling pile of dog shit, it was no COTY.
It was an affordable American car that was a good alternative to the Civic. It's still one of today's great used market buys.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 04:48:30 PM
I stopped my subscription to Automobile after they gave it to the Focus. While it's not the biggest rolling pile of dog shit, it was no COTY.
It was an excellent car. It was just as roomy as a midsizer, but had the footprint and economy of a compact. And it handled good as well. What do you think the COTY should have been? The 1st year Focus was COTY in many, many places, US and Europe.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 04:48:30 PM
I stopped my subscription to Automobile after they gave it to the Focus. While it's not the biggest rolling pile of dog shit, it was no COTY.
What year was that in?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17338.msg980735#msg980735 date=1233014126
It was an affordable American car that was a good alternative to the Civic. It's still one of today's great used market buys.
Yes, but trust me on this. If you worked on them you would hate them. We don't call them Fuckus for nothing at work.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 05:27:55 PM
Yes, but trust me on this. If you worked on them you would hate them. We don't call them Fuckus for nothing at work.
The things worth doing in life are hard...
Quote from: Raza on January 26, 2009, 04:55:26 PM
It was an affordable American car that was a good alternative to the Civic. It's still one of today's great used market buys.
Wait a min, if it was a car that's a good alternative to a Civic, obviously, Civic was a better choice, so why not give it to the Civic??
Quote from: NomisR on January 26, 2009, 06:00:08 PM
Wait a min, if it was a car that's a good alternative to a Civic, obviously, Civic was a better choice, so why not give it to the Civic??
The Civic was old. (introed in 1996) And the 2001 civic was actually not as good as the Focus.
Quote from: NACar on January 26, 2009, 05:07:30 PM
What year was that in?
2000. Or 1999.........can't remember.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 05:27:55 PM
Yes, but trust me on this. If you worked on them you would hate them. We don't call them Fuckus for nothing at work.
You haven't answered my question. What would you rather have given it to? Many of the COTW's aren't easy to fix.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2009, 06:37:07 PM
2000. Or 1999.........can't remember.
There is no question the Focus is a better car than the Civic of those years.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 05:27:55 PM
Yes, but trust me on this. If you worked on them you would hate them. We don't call them Fuckus for nothing at work.
Well, even gynecologists still enjoy sex. How bad could it be?
Quote from: NomisR on January 26, 2009, 06:00:08 PM
Wait a min, if it was a car that's a good alternative to a Civic, obviously, Civic was a better choice, so why not give it to the Civic??
I didn't want to say that it was better than the Civic because I haven't driven a Focus, nor a have I driven a Civic of that generation hard enough to judge (and the one I drove was far from stock anyway), so I just don't know.
The civic of that generation is better.
Quote from: R-inge on January 26, 2009, 08:13:43 PM
The civic of that generation is better.
This civic?
(http://www.logical-source.com/images/AutoPhotos/HOCI9600.jpg)
:nutty:
Yep.
And the Civic that came directly after that one wasn't as focused or as well-built, but it was still better than our Focus. It was generally a more wallowy car out of the box, but overall it's still a better car than the US Focus with the exception of the SVT.
Well, stylistically I think the Focus looks better.
Quote from: Raza on January 26, 2009, 06:46:18 PM
I didn't want to say that it was better than the Civic because I haven't driven a Focus, nor a have I driven a Civic of that generation hard enough to judge (and the one I drove was far from stock anyway), so I just don't know.
I've driven both the 6th gen civic and the 2001-ish Focus, and I've owned a 2001 Civic and a 2005 Focus.
FOCUS >>>>> CIVIC. WHAT I SAY GOES. DAMMIT. :heated:
Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2009, 06:37:07 PM
The Civic was old. (introed in 1996) And the 2001 civic was actually not as good as the Focus.
2000. Or 1999.........can't remember.
You haven't answered my question. What would you rather have given it to? Many of the COTW's aren't easy to fix.
Just about anything. A Civic was a much better car.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 09:00:51 PM
Just about anything. A Civic was a much better car.
It's too old. Names, give me names.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17338.msg980795#msg980795 date=1233020696
Well, even gynecologists still enjoy sex. How bad could it be?
Compared to other cars I can think of, bad. I'd like to have a nice long talk with the engineering team. With a crowbar.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2009, 08:38:03 PM
Well, stylistically I think the Focus looks better.
WHAT? Sorry if I offend anyone but the Focus looks like ass.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 09:02:34 PM
Compared to other cars I can think of, bad. I'd like to have a nice long talk with the engineering team. With a crowbar.
What's wrong with it compared to other cars? (Of it's size, power, space and price)
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 09:03:47 PM
WHAT? Sorry if I offend anyone but the Focus looks like ass.
...............no comment.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2009, 09:01:56 PM
It's too old. Names, give me names.
Old but still a better car and holds it value better.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 09:05:00 PM
Old but still a better car and holds it value better.
Not the point. It's too old for COTW.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2009, 09:04:19 PM
What's wrong with it compared to other cars? (Of it's size, power, space and price)
...............no comment.
I'm talking build quality and how it's put together. And I know that they do absolutely fucked up shit design wise that makes them a PIA to work on. And even if I know that other people like yourself will never have to deal with this I still can't look past it myself. When I look at them I just see red hate so it clouds my view of them.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2009, 09:05:47 PM
Not the point. It's too old for COTW.
I've NEVER agreed that COTY should be only for new cars. If car A is old but still way better than the cars coming out years later it should still win. Even if it wins for 10 years in a row without a change.
Quote from: the Teuton on January 26, 2009, 08:30:43 PM
And the Civic that came directly after that one wasn't as focused or as well-built, but it was still better than our Focus. It was generally a more wallowy car out of the box, but overall it's still a better car than the US Focus with the exception of the SVT.
I love it when people talk about cars they've never owned or driven. Fuckcunt asscock shitstain, seriously, I have owned both of the cars you're talking about. The Civic had a bit nicer looking interior, but the FOcus'
materials were just as good. The Civic had a more conventional driving position, but the upright steering wheel way forward position of the Focus grows on you. FOcus. FoCUs. FOCUS. I dont' care if the PCV valve is impossible to get to without taking off the intake manifold, the Focus had a smoother more powerful engine. It had better steerring. Better brakign. Better handling, oh the handling was nice on the Focus. The Civic understeered like a bitch and then snap oversteered suprise! The Focus had a better ride, fo shizzle. Somebody had better give me a damn good reason why the Civic is better than the Focus, or I will asplode. And don't tell me it's the resale value, because I already know that.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 09:09:46 PM
I've NEVER agreed that COTY should be only for new cars. If car A is old but still way better than the cars coming out years later it should still win. Even if it wins for 10 years in a row without a change.
The point of COTY is cars that are new for that year.
Quote from: NACar on January 26, 2009, 09:11:16 PM
I love it when people talk about cars they've never owned or driven. Fuckcunt asscock shitstain, seriously, I have owned both of the cars you're talking about. The Civic had a bit nicer looking interior, but the FOcus'
materials were just as good. The Civic had a more conventional driving position, but the upright steering wheel way forward position of the Focus grows on you. FOcus. FoCUs. FOCUS. I dont' care if the PCV valve is impossible to get to without taking off the intake manifold, the Focus had a smoother more powerful engine. It had better steerring. Better brakign. Better handling, oh the handling was nice on the Focus. The Civic understeered like a bitch and then snap oversteered suprise! The Focus had a better ride, fo shizzle. Somebody had better give me a damn good reason why the Civic is better than the Focus, or I will asplode. And don't tell me it's the resale value, because I already know that.
Fuel Economy? :huh:
Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2009, 09:13:59 PM
Fuel Economy? :huh:
Yeah, and a Festiva with shit stains on the seats gets better fuel economy than the Civic, but that doesn't make it a better car.
Quote from: 2o6 on January 26, 2009, 09:01:56 PM
It's too old. Names, give me names.
I can't store all this useless shit in my head anymore. Give me a list of cars that came out brand new in 2000 and I'm sure I can name one. That is unless the Focus was the only new car that year. Most of the ones that come to mind from that time period came out in 99.
Mercedes W220.
The Celica was new that year. But it wasn't a COY worthy. I'd take one over a Focus however. And I don't even like the last Celica
Lincoln LS was new then too and much better. Sure it cost more but so what?
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 09:32:05 PM
The Celica was new that year. But it wasn't a COY worthy. I'd take one over a Focus however. And I don't even like the last Celica
You just hate the Focus because you always got stuck working on them. Give it a rest. :rolleyes:
Quote from: NACar on January 26, 2009, 09:33:24 PM
You just hate the Focus because you always got stuck working on them. Give it a rest. :rolleyes:
And I think they are ugly and cheap. But mostly because retarded monkeys built them.
Oh, and I had to rent one and drive it all over Nebraska onetime for a week. MOST UNCOMFORTABLE seats I've ever been in for a long drive. I can still feel the pain in my back.
God damn I hate that car.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 09:36:23 PM
And I think they are ugly and cheap. But mostly because retarded monkeys built them.
Oh, and I had to rent one and drive it all over Nebraska onetime for a week. MOST UNCOMFORTABLE seats I've ever been in for a long drive. I can still feel the pain in my back.
God damn I hate that car.
Good for you. I put over 30,000 miles on mine; autocrossed it, rallycrossed it and otherwise drove the shit out of it, drove it on several long trips in which the seats were perfect, and only had to take it to the dealer once for a minor PCV valve issue. I must have had the best Focus ever built and all the rest were crap.... oh except the other two I drove, which were also great.
If you had to work on Civics all day and drive on stupid trips that you hated, you'd hate the Civic, too. I think you just hate yourself.
Quote from: NACar on January 26, 2009, 09:40:41 PM
Good for you. I put over 30,000 miles on mine; autocrossed it, rallycrossed it and otherwise drove the shit out of it, drove it on several long trips in which the seats were perfect, and only had to take it to the dealer once for a minor PCV valve issue. I must have had the best Focus ever built and all the rest were crap.... oh except the other two I drove, which were also great.
If you had to work on Civics all day and drive on stupid trips that you hated, you'd hate the Civic, too. I think you just hate yourself.
Mine has been reliable too.
And I love the seats. They have a lot of bolstering and fit me perfectly.
Actually my girlfriend has a Civic from that year model and while I don't want to have sex with it I don't hate it. And I don't see why you seem to be so insulted that I'm not a Fuckus........ Focus fan.
And 30,000 miles isn't much to brag about in a modern car.
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 09:44:52 PM
Actually my girlfriend has a Civic from that year model and while I don't want to have sex with it I don't hate it. And I don't see why you seem to be so insulted that I'm not a Fuckus........ Focus fan.
And 30,000 miles isn't much to brag about in a modern car.
You hate Foci and you think the Civic is god's gift to the economy car, I get the point. Remind me never to trust your opinion about any car ever again. KTHXBAI.
Quote from: NACar on January 26, 2009, 09:52:11 PM
You hate Foci and you think the Civic is god's gift to the economy car, I get the point. Remind me never to trust your opinion about any car ever again. KTHXBAI.
No, the Civic isn't God's gift. I'm not even a Civic fan really. I'd rather have a Proteg'e or Sentra from that year to be honest. I'd have to think about it.
I'd take the Focus out of those, unless you're talking about the higher spec Sentra and Protege. And even then, I hear the Mazdaspeed has a weak engine (reliability-wise).
Quote from: Onslaught on January 26, 2009, 09:56:23 PM
No, the Civic isn't God's gift. I'm not even a Civic fan really. I'd rather have a Proteg'e or Sentra from that year to be honest. I'd have to think about it.
This is a craptacular car. Even the SE-R sucks. The only good sentra was the B13.
(http://images.automotive.com/reviews/images/00nissansentra.jpg)
John's right about the Mustang II, and the Alliance.
The original Mustang was designed as a sporty bodyshell on the plebian Falcon chassis, to give an economical, but fun alternative to the normal sedan. It was a runaway hit for Lee Iacocca. By '70, he was seeing the original idea become lost with ever larger and faster examples being made, that were becoming harder and harder to insure and were selling less, and wanted a return to the original concept, so in late '70, while BOSS 429s were in dealer showrooms, he had the team go back to the drawing board to create a smaller Mustang, more like the original that had sold so well.
He got the smaller Mustang AND the sales he was looking for. Had nothing to do with the energy crisis, though it was luckily perfectly timed in the market.
And these days, with them all being pre-emmissions testing in most of the country, they make excellent project cars. Who cares that the stock V8s only made 140 or so hp? It was a stock 302 cid V8! Which means huge amounts of hp are just a Summit catalog away.
My folks also had an '83 Alliance. Yeah, it was an appliance car, but it never rusted and it was always reliable.
the rust comments were interesting in tat article. The compared cars like the Vega and Citation to the Civic, and talked about how fast they rusted. I wonder, how many Civics of that era are runing around Michigan? In salted areas, pretty much ALL cars rust away. In the NW, where I'm from, Vegas, Pintos, Citations, Chevy LUVs, and early Civics, etc are all over and not rusted out. Over here, there is almost NOTHING of that era left. Can't point at one kind of car and say that kind of car rusts more than any other.
As for the Contour... SVT, thank you very much.
Quote from: ChrisV on January 27, 2009, 07:23:20 AM
John's right about the Mustang II, and the Alliance.
As for the Contour... SVT, thank you very much.
And FWIW, I put over 220,000 miles on my 2.3L 1974 manual transmission Mustang II. It saw me through undergraduate and graduate school and over 1 year afterward. That was about 55 oil changes and 6-8 sets of tires and 4 brake jobs.
And if I had to do it over again I would have kept the Alliance and traded in my POS Camaro for the Escort GT. I should have driven that Alliance until it died.
Speaking of which I can think of a few cars I wish I still owned.
1966 Dodge Charger.
83 or 4 Renault Alliance
1991 Mustang Convertible
1997 Escort Wagon
I don't remember my brother's Encore (nee Alliance hatchback) being a particularly bad car. He beat the crap out of it far more mercilessly than anyone should have, but it doesn't strike me that it was the car's fault for anything in retrospect. It seemed more like a masochistic homicide rather than a suicide why he replaced it (with a B12 Sentra iirc).
I've owned two of the cars on that list: 1983 Renault R9 Alliance DL sedan and a 1985 Merkur XR4Ti. My mother currently owns a third one: 2000 Mercury Mystique GS 2.0 Auto.
There was nothing wrong with the Alliance overall, not even the 60 horsepower 1.4 litre engine. It probably helped that my car had a five speed manual. I shudder to think what the performance of the three speed automatic equipped version must have felt like. Then again, if you were stupid enough to order the automatic, you deserve what you get! Performance was also unintentionally helped by the Alliance's light weight, achieved by making the car form metal so thin you could almost see through it! That said, however, the body on mine never rusted. Reliability could have been better but bear in mind my car was a decade old when I bought it and badly abused by the previous owner. Still, for the princely sum of $600, there wasn't a better car out there to be had.
My Merkur XR4Ti was much more reliable. Compared to the square tin boxes of the 1980's, the Exareforteeeye looked like it came from another planet. I loved the style and the turbo Whoooooooooosh was addictive. What ruined the experience for me was the local Lincoln-Mercury dealer. They made no attempt to hide their disdain for the Merkurs. After the way I was treated, It will be a VERY cold day in hell before I set foot in another Lincoln-Mercury showroom!
That said, however, my mother's Mystique has been fantastic. It is, without question, the most reliable car she has ever owned. It's even been more reliable than her old Camry. Take that, Toyota! Back seat leg room was vastly improved with the 1998 facelift, so there's no reason to complain about lack of space in back.
Oh, and while I never had a Mustang II, I did once own a Ford Pinto upon which it was based. My 2.8 litre V6 powered Pinto may have been surprisingly quick but it had absolutely no other redeeming qualities whatsoever. Ford deserved all the negative press they got for inflicting this terrible car on an unsuspecting public. Had they simply just imported the MK I Euro-spec Escort they could have saved themselves (and their customers) a lot of grief!
Cheers,
Madman of the People
QuoteFord deserved all the negative press they got for inflicting this terrible car on an unsuspecting public. Had they simply just imported the MK I Euro-spec Escort they could have saved themselves (and their customers) a lot of grief!
While many of us enthusiasts have a soft spot in our hearts for the top models of the Mk1 Escort, we have to remember that the basic Escort was no better than the Pinto, really (and utilized the same engines), would have rusted the same, and, because it would have been imported, would have cost more, too.
They were just basic economy sedans:
(http://www.manchesterclassicfordclub.co.uk/images/escortchris.JPG)
(http://www.cartrans.co.uk/Graphics/gallery/Fullsize/ford-escort-mk1-estate.jpg)
Quote from: Madman on January 27, 2009, 08:16:28 AM
Had they simply just imported the MK I Euro-spec Escort they could have saved themselves (and their customers) a lot of grief!
Cheers,
Madman of the People
It probably would have been little more successful that the Capri Ford imported in the eaarly 70's. The Carpi was a good car thet few people bought.
(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/private/carpoint/4302402.jpg)
(http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/private/carpoint/4302420.jpg)
Yes.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=17338.msg981102#msg981102 date=1233064544
I'd take the Focus out of those, unless you're talking about the higher spec Sentra and Protege. And even then, I hear the Mazdaspeed has a weak engine (reliability-wise).
I never liked the MS Proteg'e. It wasn't very fast and it was so stiff that it actually hurt to drive one on real roads. That and it looked like something out of a teen car mag.