What's the worst car you've ever driven?

Paul (MN)

i have to nominate 3 U.S cars

1) Geo Prism
2) Ford Taurus (low powered model at that) on twisty roads near San Fran. Got travel sick driving it.
3) Buick Rendezvous


You can easily make yourself sick in my 200T on really twisty country roads when pushing it. But I can't add it to the list.

unkel

Paul (MN) wrote:

i have to nominate 3 U.S cars

Haven't driven many but most would be very wobbly. Had a Chrysler Sebring Convertible 2.7 V6 for a week. Not bad looking, engine is fine, performance on a straight line is fine, just never turn the steering wheel more than a few degrees over 20mph or it will be all over the shop

PauloMN

Of current cars, the worst I've driven is the Kia Rio. Can't describe in words how poxy they are to be honest. It was an awful experience, just wanted to leave it where it was parked and walk 2 miles back to the office in the rain for a more pleasurable experience.

Of 90's cars, the Renault Twingo. Should never have been built, surely the Clio is small enough not to go any further. Underpowered, tinny and lacking any luxuries whatsoever it has to rank up there as one of the worst.

Of the 80s, my mothers 1981 Datsun Cherry. Why worst? Probably due to being able to accidentally putting my fist right through from under the front wheel arch through to the engine compartment when changing the brake pads in around 1987 - due to rust. 6 years old and most of the car ended up as little pieces of rust on my folk's driveway. So bad was the rust that Nissan gave us money to take it off the road for safety reasons. However it still holds a special place in my heart as I learned to drive/skid in it, so it can't take worst car of all time...

ambro25

To contrast with the prevalent testimonies re. worst cars driven being yank tanks, I had a rental Chevrolet Cavalier convertible Z24 a few years back, and that was 'behaviourally' OK, though. That was in New England, where there is a reasonable amount of European-like 'bendy' roads to test the car's manners. And it felt rather solid - the (electric) roof feeling much better finished, sturdy and operable than equivalent Renault (soft) or Puig (hard) ones.

That's the thing:

ambro25

PauloMN wrote:

Of 90's cars, the Renault Twingo. Should never have been built, surely the Clio is small enough not to go any further. Underpowered, tinny and lacking any luxuries whatsoever it has to rank up there as one of the worst.

Ah, disagree wholeheartedly, sorry. It was -conceptually- supposed to be the 2CV of the 90s and -in factual terms- has achieved just that (at least in France). It's not really pleasurable to drive one without p/steer in town, granted, but it's by no means as poor a ride, with bad manners and no performance as people make out. I used to get (and still do occasionally when I visit) 150 kph easy on motorways or nationals with my Mum's (which is valiantly knocking on approx. 10 years of age). And the interior space is -compared to much more modern and "reverred" superminis- positively cavernous (comparing here to the '02 Honda Civic of my in-laws, which is a fair few inches longer in length).

magpie

Peugeot 205 Junior. Dodgy electrics meant it cut out in rain, despite many futile attempts (by trained professionals!) to find the fault. Had the overall feel of being in a very bouncy dodgem car. God help anyone who ended up in a collision in one of these.

3rd worst was a VW Golf Mk3 1.4.

WTF? You don't like solid, reliable, sturdy, well-engineered cars then?

ambro25

magpie wrote:

WTF? You don't like solid, reliable, sturdy, well-engineered cars then?

Ahem... probably just a badun', is all. Nonetheless, I never noticed more of those on the back of AA/RAC trucks than when VW were running those ads about their never-failing reliability a few years back

magpie

Nonetheless, I never noticed more of those on the back of AA/RAC trucks than when VW were running those ads about their never-failing reliability a few years back

That was Brian D3's one, repeatedly.

ambro25

Must've been one of those "Hot-Wheels-change-a-colour-under-tapwater" jobbies, then

michaelanthony

Renault Clio - absolutely desparate grip and handling, completely underpowered with s h i t brakes, crap driving position - you sit up way too high and the radio was in a really bad location - too low down behind the gear lever and you couldn't see it properly. On the plus - ummm......it looked nice.

PauloMN

And the interior space is -compared to much more modern and "reverred" superminis- positively cavernous (comparing here to the '02 Honda Civic of my in-laws, which is a fair few inches longer in length).

Smaller car with a bigger feeling of space? Usually means that the body and doors are paper thin.... I felt like I was going to die an awful lot in the Twingo I had, and not just from boredom. That's makes it a pretty bad car, at least in my book.

Canis Lupus

00 Seat Cordoba my bro bought. Horrible gearbox which makes the gearstick vibrate which travels up yur arm. No space and dreadful driving position. Terrible handling and scarey road holding (almost crashed it when I took it for a drive cos it understeered like nothing I'd driven before) and the crappest brakes I have ever experienced, u need to brake a week before u plan on stopping.

full forward

Open Corsa. Rented one a few years ago thinking they cant be that slow. It was dreadfull. 0-60 in 18 seconds. Very noisy. You need to floor it for a hill start. Can even overtake a tractor. THey should be banned.

ambro25

PauloMN wrote:

Smaller car with a bigger feeling of space? Usually means that the body and doors are paper thin....

Try telling that to the lass who reard-ended me in it with a Golf Mk4 at 5-7 mph. I simply booted my plastic bumper back in place, not any other scratch (and the Twingo's black) & holding clips weren't even broken, they just popped under stress. But she was in for the whole Golf front: lights, bonnet, 1 out of the 2 wings, bumper & even the radiator brace was bent :eek: - put me off crumple-zone engineered VWs for life!

At any rate, I'll have the 10-year old designed Twingo over a Getz, a Wagon-R or any other such-like crapola anyday. But each to their own and you've made your mind up, so... so be it

magpie

she was in for the whole Golf front: lights, bonnet, 1 out of the 2 wings, bumper & even the radiator brace was bent - put me off crumple-zone engineered VWs for life!

I can't see the point of cars that don't have a bumper. As in a big bit of rubber/plastic to take the edge out of reversing into lamp-posts etc. The number of cars with the 'body coloured' crumple zone bumpers you see driving around with big dents in them is unreal. Probably because they cost a fortune to replace.

Why don't they just make bumpers out of high-explosive-coated glass while they're at it?

dogz

ill do u one better 1989fso somthing or other that needed to be push started

bp_me

Not really a car I know, but the worst vehicle I have ever driven was an Iveco Daily (the really big one).

Going from 1st to 2nd would nearly pull your arm out of its socket (Im not kidding, it was that hard)

CJhaughey

MG Maestro with the 1275cc engine.
A bigger pile of sh1te I cannot imagine.
No Brakes worth speaking of , No power, no comfort and definately no street cred.
No wonder the british car industry died a bad death.

BrianD3

magpie wrote:

WTF? You don't like solid, reliable, sturdy, well-engineered cars then?

What's so "well engineered" about the VW Golf Mk3? Is it the 60 bhp 1.4 litre engine which wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding. Just to put it into perspective, the same capacity engine in its Rover 214 competitor put out 103 bhp which is a helluva difference.

What about the diabolical handling and ride - try comparing the dynamics of a Peugeot 306 with those of a Golf Mk3. It is actually embarrassing that VW would try to compete in the family car segment with a vehicle so far behind the class leaders in terms of handling and ride. Spongy brakes too.

Reliability? Pretty good but not at the top of the class. VW's current reputation for reliability is based on vehicles they produced years ago and the subsequent milking of this by clever marketing

Sturdiness? Well the Golf Mk3 certainly feels sturdier than most of its class rivals but is it. Mid nineties offset crash tests give the Golf about the same safety rating as the GM Astra and Renault 19. Unfortunately a lot of people who buy VWs have inflated ideas about the safety of their vehicle and think that "sturdy german engineering" will save them if they hit a tree at 60 mph.

Equipment? VW are known for being stingy with equipment and the MK3 is no exception. These cars were very basic with almost no toys. When buying new you'd have had to spend thousands on options to bring the car up to the same spec as French class rivals.

Add to all that stodgy looks and crap seats and it's not hard to see why someone would regard this as a pretty bad car. MK4 Golf was an improvement but still had failings in many key areas (performance of petrol engines, dynamics, equipment) and was if anything *less* reliable than the Mk3.

BrianD3

lomb

BrianD3 wrote:

What's so "well engineered" about the VW Golf Mk3? Is it the 60 bhp 1.4 litre engine which wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding. Just to put it into perspective, the same capacity engine in its Rover 214 competitor put out 103 bhp which is a helluva difference.

What about the diabolical handling and ride - try comparing the dynamics of a Peugeot 306 with those of a Golf Mk3. It is actually embarrassing that VW would try to compete in the family car segment with a vehicle so far behind the class leaders in terms of handling and ride. Spongy brakes too.

Reliability? Pretty good but not at the top of the class. VW's current reputation for reliability is based on vehicles they produced years ago and the subsequent milking of this by clever marketing

Sturdiness? Well the Golf Mk3 certainly feels sturdier than most of its class rivals but is it. Mid nineties offset crash tests give the Golf about the same safety rating as the GM Astra and Renault 19. Unfortunately a lot of people who buy VWs have inflated ideas about the safety of their vehicle and think that "sturdy german engineering" will save them if they hit a tree at 60 mph.

Equipment? VW are known for being stingy with equipment and the MK3 is no exception. These cars were very basic with almost no toys. When buying new you'd have had to spend thousands on options to bring the car up to the same spec as French class rivals.

Add to all that stodgy looks and crap seats and it's not hard to see why someone would regard this as a pretty bad car. MK4 Golf was an improvement but still had failings in many key areas (performance of petrol engines, dynamics, equipment) and was if anything *less* reliable than the Mk3.

BrianD3

i agree with the comments on the mk3, really was a piece of junk.
disagree with the mk iv comments, very reliable apart from 1 or 2 design failures, mk 4s are lovely lovely cars even the 1.4. slow but good. a friend of mines dad always drove a new e class and would often drive the wifes mk4 and reakoned it was nearly as nice as the e.

hawkmoon269

A toss up between a late 80's Opel Corsa and a 1980 Opel Kadett.

Interesting the number of people who have mentioned Opels in this thread, especially the Corsa.

BrianD3

In fairness, the Mk4 Golf does look very well. both inside and out. I predict that it will still look well in 10 years time. Used values should stay strong for a good while yet.

BrianD3

fletch

michaelanthony wrote:

Renault Clio - absolutely desparate grip and handling, completely underpowered with s h i t brakes, crap driving position - you sit up way too high and the radio was in a really bad location - too low down behind the gear lever and you couldn't see it properly. On the plus - ummm......it looked nice.

Agreed...rented one on hols.....handling was a disgrace.....I was only short of screamin at my passengers to lean into the corners....move the steering wheel just slightly and the whole thing lurched and dived :eek:

lomb

BrianD3 wrote:

In fairness, the Mk4 Golf does look very well. both inside and out. I predict that it will still look well in 10 years time. Used values should stay strong for a good while yet.

BrianD3

common it doesnt drive badly either, i used to do 100mile stints in one and got out as fresh as a cucumber. mind u had a hairy moment on a motorway overtaking and missed the car over my shoulder in the lane beside me, only saw it after i was changing lanes at 70mph, i ripped the wheel back and the car lurched and wallowed violently, still held the road thank god (busy birmingham orbital-could have caused a major pile up)

PauloMN

Ambro, c'mon, just admit you like the Twingo 'cause it's quirky..... which is why I hate it. Don't try and convince us that it's safe 'cause a 5mph crash only knocked the bumper off it.

While a Getz or such like wouldn't be my cup of tea, I'd rather be in one over a Twingo if another car was headed my way. Believe me, you'd have been taking pieces of Twingo bumper out of your VW logo-embossed butt if that Golf had hit you with any force.

BrianD3

A Renault Twingo wouldn't be my first choice of car to have an accident in either...however I have seen some crash tests where Twingos were collided head on with Renault Lagunas and Safranes. Twingos fared pretty well. And a big barge like a Renault Safrane hits with quite a bit more force than a Mk4 Golf

BrianD3

unkel

dogz wrote:

ill do u one better 1989fso somthing or other that needed to be push started

FSO Polonez, was it?

fletch wrote:

Agreed...rented one on hols.....handling was a disgrace.....I was only short of screamin at my passengers to lean into the corners....move the steering wheel just slightly and the whole thing lurched and dived :eek:

That a Clio 2? Had one for a fortnight (1.5 diesel) over twisty Italian roads and was very happy with the handling

ibanez

All jap family cars are evil handling dogs.Terrible handling,Tractor like gear change,Built of old milk bottle tops.Worst ever Would be a tie between Mazda 323 and VW Golf Any model.

ambro25

PauloMN wrote:

Ambro, c'mon, just admit you like the Twingo 'cause it's quirky..... which is why I hate it. Don't try and convince us that it's safe 'cause a 5mph crash only knocked the bumper off it.

While a Getz or such like wouldn't be my cup of tea, I'd rather be in one over a Twingo if another car was headed my way. Believe me, you'd have been taking pieces of Twingo bumper out of your VW logo-embossed butt if that Golf had hit you with any force.

Don't think so - bear in mind my speed estimate is rough, as the Golf hit with wheels locked on wet cobblestones, and I did get a slightly stiff neck for a couple fo days from the impact (I still remember seeing the 'scrunched up' face of the woman in my mirror as she was going to hit a nanosecond thereafter).
You sure it's a Twingo you drove/were in, and not a Fiat Panda? As the Twingo panels are pretty heavy (doors are very elongated, conceptually it's a Mini-MPV of sorts, bit of a pain in confined car parks) IMO.
As I said, I like the Twingo as a city car (especially as they're now available with power steer - huge difference in driveability around town), it's small and easy to park like a Smart, but big like a Scenic inside, very economic (with computer econometer - not seen these before or since on cars of that size, have you?) and, well... what more can I say? I just like it, and in the context this particular thread, it's worth me defending it some.

unkel wrote:

That a Clio 2? Had one for a fortnight (1.5 diesel) over twisty Italian roads and was very happy with the handling

Second that. Had a 1.2 in Majroca, went round the entire Island (including twisty North coast) in a day and very happy with it (and perfromance on the small bit of m'way in the middle of the island - 165 kph speed ).

'Twitch' handling referred to earlier is simply known as a responsive car. Of course, if all you're used to is a 4x4/SUV, a Vectra or a big Ford, you may experience a certain degree of disorientation when first confronted with a car that actually goes where you point it

ibanez wrote:

All jap family cars are evil handling dogs.Terrible handling,Tractor like gear change,Built of old milk bottle tops.Worst ever Would be a tie between Mazda 323 and VW Golf Any model.

Did Toyota take VW over? Does my Impreza count as a jap family car?

magpie

I believe this thread is "what is the worst car you've ever driven", not "What does Top Gear Magazine say about its safety rating compared with the Ignatz Bolemio (insert real car name here)".

In my experience every French car I have ever driven has been a piece of s hit with horible handling, terrible plasticy interior and unreliable to boot. This includes a Peugeot 504 belonging to my old man, the mother in Law's Renault Scenic, and my own first car a Peugeot 205.

In contrast I've never had any trouble with my Mark III golf, starts first time every time, 110K miles on the clock, very comfortable and nice interior (comfortline), economical, sturdy and well built.

Over to you Mr Clarkson