Crap cars top 10;

unkel

IrishRover wrote:

But why is the Metro considered so crap?

It was designed in about a year with minimal investment to cut corners. The car was thrown together with ancient parts. Totally unsafe too

IrishRover wrote:

It shouldn't have been rebadged as as Rover 100, but the biggest mistake Austin Rover Group made was to get rid of the Metro and replace with with nothing!

It was eventually replaced with something even worse, the Indica :rolleyes:

I agree with you about the rebadging. I'll go one further though. I seriously believe that the rebadging of the Metro as a Rover and the introduction of the Indica were two of the biggest reasons Rover is now Over

IrishRover wrote:

Oh come on! What was wrong with the 620 and 623 that wasn't wrong with the 618 then?

Agree. Or what about the 620TI?

HashSlinging

prospect wrote:

No one here can judge the worst cars EVER, without having driven an awful lot of cars (or a lot of awful cars!).
Someone knocking an entire marque, because their parents had a dodgy one in the late seventies is just typical BS you hear from people in this country, and on this forum.
The amount of misinformed and half baked crap I read on this forum never ceases to amaze me. And this thread is the epitome of all that.

There is a section on personal issues here you know.

prospect

HashSlinging wrote:

There is a section on personal issues here you know.

clever,
he he he,

IrishRover

unkel wrote:

I agree with you about the rebadging. I'll go one further though. I seriously believe that the rebadging of the Metro as a Rover and the introduction of the Indica were two of the biggest reasons Rover is now Over

Well the MKI 800 and (believe it or not) the MKII 200 brought the Rover brand upmarket to the point where the MKII 200 left the Escort/Astra class and began competing with the BMW 3 series. Trying to confer some of that cachet on to the Metro by removing the Austin name and badge engineering to Rover actually brought the rest of the Marque down.

But the biggest reason IMO that Rover eventually collapsed was because BAe cashed in and sold off Rover to BMW without even consulting Honda.

Or what about the 620TI?

A nice sleeper alright. Very rare in Ireland. People think it must be Honda engined cos it's well fast innit, but in fact it's the only Rover engined 600 (apart from the diesels).

Anyway, sorry for keeping bolliking on about Rovers. I'll go and start a Rover thread or something...

AlanD

AlanD wrote:

My top 10 crap cars (in no particular order):

1. Austin Metro
2. Austin Maestro
3. VW Golf Mk 3
4. Nissan Micra, latest generations
5. Ford Orion Diesel
6. Austin Montego
7. Opel Ascona
8. Fiat Ritmo
9. Ford Mondeo Mk 1
10. Volvo 340

To help justify myself, I'll give my reasons for nominating the cars above:

1. It rusted like hell, was very poorly built, was horrible to drive
2. Didn't rust as bad as the Metro, but was a horrible drive. Although MG Maestro with talking computer was a novelty, even if it almost never worked.
3. Designed badly, became very dull to look at, drive and basically faded in to the background of the automotive world. Yet people still bought them!
4. I think they are "crap" for aesthetic reasons. Older Micra's had decent basic engines with decent basic style (if you could call it style). Newer ones just don't do it for me. When it looks bad, there needs to be something good about it like the engine.
5. What a god awful car. Diesel was as slow as a dumper. It was loud, it didn't handle and wasn't comfortable.
6. I suppose here, it's more specifically the diesel. Really slow, but then all diesels back then were slow, for the exception of the 1.7/1.8 lumps in Peugeots.
7. The diesel again was the culprit for me here. Wait half an hour for heater plugs to warm up before starting. Loud, very heavy steering compared to others. Petrols in fairness were ok.
8. Rust, plastic door handles that were round and broke off. Rust. Goofy looks and awful engines.
9. Although this was a breath of fresh air for Ford, the mondeo broke down a lot! Flywheels and more specifically sumps fell out by the new time.
10. For the auto box they used in them.....driven by an 19th century style belt. I suppose the first generation of CVT. But what a ridiculous gearbox.

Day-wanna-wonga

prospect wrote:

Here is my list.
1 -> 10
BMW, All models produced from 1990 onwards. - Overpriced, and not worth it. Bland, underspecced in every department, and these days, UGLY. Not bullet-proof reliable, and common as muck. Only bought as some sort of pathetic attempt at a statment of status. Really means you don't really know alot about motoring but like to think you do.

Everyone is laughing at you......

Brilliant!

zilog_jones

junkyard wrote:

I know the multiplas styling isn't to everyones taste but I'd have to say its probably one of the best Fiats ever made, I haven't heard of one problem with them and the people I know who have them love them and don't want to sell them.

My uncle has a '00 diesel Multipla, and he had to get a new gearbox a couple of years ago. It was in the garage so long (I think they had to wait for parts or something) that I forgot he still owned the thing!

IrishRover wrote:

But sure it was just a Fiesta with different badges? Surely you should be blaming the real culprit?

They're talking about the previous Mazda 121 (a rebadged Autozam Revue). I don't see what's so bad about it - at least Mazda tried to be different for once - the Toyota Starlet from that time was about as stylish/interesting as a Bic biro. I'd buy one myself if the price was right.

I'd buy a Trabi too if I could find one

IrishRover

Ah yeah that model, of course. Thanks for showing me where the Autozam name comes from. Can't remember where exactly I've seen it, maybe was on an import MX3.

unkel

IrishRover wrote:

A nice sleeper alright. Very rare in Ireland. People think it must be Honda engined cos it's well fast innit, but in fact it's the only Rover engined 600

Yeah great engine the T-series 2.0 turbo. One of only a very few select cars that can be called true competitors of the BMW 3-series. My father in law had one from new. I nearly bought one myself many years ago when I was in the market for a fast saloon. Drving it again was a bit of a turning point for me. Even though it has plenty of torque from low revs, I decided what I wanted was a big N/A engine. Haven't looked back since

IrishRover wrote:

trying to confer some of that cachet on to the Metro by removing the Austin name and badge engineering to Rover actually brought the rest of the Marque down

Agree. A shame really

IrishRover wrote:

the biggest reason IMO that Rover eventually collapsed was because BAe cashed in and sold off Rover to BMW without even consulting Honda

That discussion alone is worth a dozen separate threads

I do remember seeing an interview with a Honda spokesperson who looked like he just found out his entire extended family had been murdered, which was probably true :eek:

IrishRover

unkel wrote:

I do remember seeing an interview with a Honda spokesperson who looked like he just found out his entire extended family had been murdered

Hahaha PMSL, yeah "The Blitish have a dishonour us". It was a disgrace though. Things would have been very different if the Honda-Rover partnership hadn't been broken up.

TempestSabre

Vegeta wrote:

because if anyone drives a piece of crap (which you don't) then their ability to judge a poor car would be questionable

Like Sterling Moss and his Smart Car?

TempestSabre

Vegeta wrote:

because if anyone drives a piece of crap (which you don't) then their ability to judge a poor car would be questionable

I don't need to buy a Batter Mars Bar to know its not healthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_bar

Vegeta

TempestSabre wrote:

I don't need to buy a Batter Mars Bar to know its not healthy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_bar

yeah but if you weigh 25 stone and criticise others for eating junk food then i'd be less likely to value your opinion

maidhc

Vegeta wrote:

because if anyone drives a piece of crap (which you don't) then their ability to judge a poor car would be questionable

I disagree. Entirely!

TempestSabre

Vegeta wrote:

yeah but if you weigh 25 stone and criticise others for eating junk food then i'd be less likely to value your opinion

Thats a different analogy. That would be a person with a crap car telling you you shouldn't buy crap cars. Not that the car isn't crap. What you are basically saying is that you only trust rich people opinions because they can afford nice cars.

maidhc

TempestSabre wrote:

What you are basically saying is that you only trust rich people opinions because they can afford nice cars.

Thats what I would read too!

Hotblack Desiato

My dad owned a 1969 Austin 1100 (what a fantastic looking car, the only thing that ever went wrong on it was the Lucas fuel pump) and replaced that with a 1981 Austin Metro, which I later learned to drive in. So I feel obliged to leap to its defence!

unkel wrote:

It was designed in about a year with minimal investment to cut corners.

Not so. The development period was too long, if anything, due largely to BL's cash crisis in the mid 70's. Basically BL and the British Government bet the whole company on this car, built a new robotised line etc. and it was very successful with over 2 million sold.

The car was thrown together with ancient parts.

Thrown together perhaps - plenty of excellent BL designs (like the SD1) suffered from poor build quality, though whether it was really any worse than other European manufacturers of the time is debateable.

Yes the A-series engine did date from about 1948 but had been developed over the years. It lasted so long because it had excellent economy and good torque for a small engine (long stroke.) It was certainly class competitive by the standards of the early 80s. Major failing was the lack of a 5th gear.

The K-series Rover Metro had a much more modern engine and gearbox obviously, but also had much better ride and handling, and was class competitive by early 90s standards, not bad given that the basic shell design was almost 20 years old by that stage.

Totally unsafe too

So a 25 year old shell design didn't do well in late-90s crash tests it was never designed to meet. Hardly surprising. It was a hell of a lot stronger and safer and better handling than many other superminis of the 70s and 80s. How many other 80s superminis had 4-piston front brakes?

It was eventually replaced with something even worse, the Indica :rolleyes:

It would have been kinder to put Rover down before that happened

I agree with you about the rebadging. I'll go one further though. I seriously believe that the rebadging of the Metro as a Rover and the introduction of the Indica were two of the biggest reasons Rover is now Over

The Metro was let soldier on too long yes, but given the lack of investment from BAe what else could they have done. Great shame the Honda partnership wasn't kept on. Was it BMW's intention to asset strip Rover all along? We'll never know.

HashSlinging

maidhc wrote:

Thats what I would read too!

me too but I drive an A8 (well I dont really) so I should be ok.

bbability

Yepee...

1. Opel Vectra
2. Opel Kaddett ( a 2 year old could rob one!!)
3. Ford Fiesta
4. Ford Orion
5. Nissan Bluebird
6. Nissan Almera
7. Kia sedona
8. Rover 200
9. Renault Saffrane
10. Ford Scorpio

ALL CRAP

Fey!

A few people have added the Kia Sedona - we've had one for 4 years now (the combi version) and have had no major problems. It's the 2.9TD manual (ES?), is relatively economical, comfortable to drive, and well specced. Why are people putting them in their "worst" lists?

overdriver

I loved my Metro. I had two of them, both MG's and the interior was lovely on them, both. The only thing ever went wrong was the clutch master cylinder.

Big Balls

junkyard wrote:

1. Citroen BX.
2. Austin Allegro.
3. Rover Metro.
4. Renault Laguna( Any).
5. Vw Golf/Bora.
6. Peugeot 307/206.
7. Fiat Punto/Brava/Bravo.
8. Alfa Romeo (Any)
9. Renault Megane.
10. Skoda Felica.

You gotta laugh... looking at that list all but one seem to fit in.

VWs really belong in that list.. I mean, they're so like Renaults and FIATs.

And the funny thing is, Junky KNOWS all there is to know about cars.

IrishRover

Re the Nissan Bluebird, I always thought it was a good looking car. Then again, I like "boxy" cars I suppose. Can't stand the modern rounded stuff like contemporary golf/focus/civic/309 etc.

To my eyes, this was a good looking car which at least someone has taken the trouble to design:


Hatch version can look good too I think, especially in black (Ignore the general untidyness of this one.)


Whereas this Primera was made to look this way so as to try and not offend anyone's taste. To me this exemplifies the blandness of modern cars that I'm talking about.





To my eyes this Primera is totally awful looking. I want to puke just looking at it.

maidhc

Fey! wrote:

A few people have added the Kia Sedona ... Why are people putting them in their "worst" lists?

Because knocking Kia/Hyundai or anything from the far east is bad habit people pick up from watching too much top gear. Similar to the way teenage girls talk buffy-speak and call people "lusers" in a theatrical voice from watching too much imported TV.

Do you really think everyone here has driven a Corolla or Almera and found it "boring", driven an Alfa and found it to have "soul", or spent their lives working on Rover K series engines? (some probably have, but many just tow the "clarkson" line)

damo605

maidhc wrote:

Because knocking Kia/Hyundai or anything from the far east is bad habit people pick up from watching too much top gear. Similar to the way teenage girls talk buffy-speak and call people "lusers" in a theatrical voice from watching too much imported TV.

Do you really think everyone here has driven a Corolla or Almera and found it "boring", driven an Alfa and found it to have "soul", or spent their lives working on Rover K series engines? (some probably have, but many just tow the "clarkson" line)

Excellent post, sums it up really!

IrishRover

Yeah, probably true. When I think of Kia or Hyundai I can't help turning my nose up at them. Yet I keep wondering if there will be a day when they will become as highly thought of as Jap cars.

I remember when Toyota made awful rust buckets and Honda only made crappy scooters and Datsun were so crap they had to change their name to Nissan.

netwhizkid

My top ten of terrible transports.

1) Nissan Micras - all years they are so bloody ugly and crap

2) Seat Ibiza's I drove one around a house once and Felt embarresed to be seen getting out of it.

3) Ford Focus - Vomit

4) Ford Fiesta (see above)

5) Fiat Punto, I have seen better gear changes in my fathers 50 year old Vintage Massey Ferguson 35 tractor.

6) Toyota Yaris, How many grannies are seen in these like?

7) Honda Civic, If you are too poor to have a decent car stay of the roads that my big taxes are paying for, You understand there anto chav

8) Hyundai, I would rather f*ck a goat than sit into one of these.

9) Renault Laguna, Please I don;t even watch the late late show and all I ever see driving these are ex teachers of mine.

10) Ford Mondeo, Please wretch my eyes out.

overdriver

What's wrong with the last Micra ( before the lates t one)?
It does what it's supposed to, for what it is- it's nippy for it's capacity, handles well, is reliable, cheap to run, reasonably comfy.

You can't just call it crap. Back it up.

netwhizkid

Jeez, Okay can this convince you they are pure bog water.

Linky

Linky again

And again if needed

overdriver

No. That's just Urban Dictionary, which is written for comedic effect.

Try here:

http://www.carsurvey.org/model_Nissan_Micra.html

Lots of delighted customers, and VERY few poor reviews.