Aveos are being built here now too.
Cars I hate
- Thread starter Chris142
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
Lately I've been considering buying a new vehicle within the next year or so. If I do, country of origin or "domestic content" simply won't be a factor in my decision.
Fine, let me know what you produce so I can make sure I purchase it from your competitor. Or even better a competitor from another country.
Lately I've been considering buying a new vehicle within the next year or so. If I do, country of origin or "domestic content" simply won't be a factor in my decision.
Fine, let me know what you produce so I can make sure I purchase it from your competitor. Or even better a competitor from another country.
The cars I dislike most are Dodge/Plymouth Reliant K's and the (seemingly) dozens of models derived from them. Including but not limited to:
Omni
Acclaim
Spirit
Lancer
Daytona
Caravan
Voyager
Tourismo
Charger
Shadow
Horizon
Lazer
Rampage
Dynasty
I'm sure I forgot a few dozen sheet-metal-engineered models. They are cheap junk in every respect. These cars are one of the main reasons why I don't like Chrysler. I just can't forgive them.
Omni
Acclaim
Spirit
Lancer
Daytona
Caravan
Voyager
Tourismo
Charger
Shadow
Horizon
Lazer
Rampage
Dynasty
I'm sure I forgot a few dozen sheet-metal-engineered models. They are cheap junk in every respect. These cars are one of the main reasons why I don't like Chrysler. I just can't forgive them.
Originally Posted By: Robespierre
The cars I dislike most are Dodge/Plymouth Reliant K's and the (seemingly) dozens of models derived from them. Including but not limited to:...
Daytona
...
I've had an '84 Firebird LG4 305, '85 Mustang LX 5.0, and an '86 Daytona TurboZ C/S.
If I could have any one of them back, I would take the Daytona everytime.
...oh, and the Omni, Rampage and Charger are not K-car derived. They're from the French Simca.
Many a V8 met it's demise staring down the small caliber barrel of the Omni GLH and Shelby GLHS.
The cars I dislike most are Dodge/Plymouth Reliant K's and the (seemingly) dozens of models derived from them. Including but not limited to:...
Daytona
...
I've had an '84 Firebird LG4 305, '85 Mustang LX 5.0, and an '86 Daytona TurboZ C/S.
If I could have any one of them back, I would take the Daytona everytime.
...oh, and the Omni, Rampage and Charger are not K-car derived. They're from the French Simca.
Many a V8 met it's demise staring down the small caliber barrel of the Omni GLH and Shelby GLHS.
Yeah, I know they're not all technically derived from a K-car. But they share A LOT of parts. So much so that I can generalize that they're all junk. The turbo ones were kinda fast in their day. My dad had a turbo Lancer. It was just an ugly little brown sedan, but he could outrun some stock v8 cars with it. As usual, it died just a little past 100k.
Last edited:
I didn't mind the smart until I drove it - man is that a horrible experience - think you could boil an egg before it shifts gears.
Thing I repressed the memory of the Aztec - gotta be up there with the all time ugliest.
Thing I repressed the memory of the Aztec - gotta be up there with the all time ugliest.
Originally Posted By: Robespierre
Yeah, I know they're not all technically derived from a K-car. But they share A LOT of parts. So much so that I can generalize that they're all junk. ...
Matter of perspective.
I personally think the K-turbo motors were better/longer lived than the GM SOHC 2.0 Turbo, the Mitsubishi 4G54 MCA JET turbo, the Isuzu 4ZC1-T, the Ford CVH turbo, Renault Douvrin, and all the North American Honda turbocharged automobiles. ( okay, I cheated on Honda. They only made turbocharged motorcycles for North America in the '80s so Chrysler beats them in turbocharged car engines by default)
They are at least as reliable as any crankwalking 4G63
Perhaps the Lima 2.3 turbo was better. But the Mustang SVO, Merkur XR4Ti, and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe were typically quite a bit more expensive than a Daytona or LeBaron turbo.
The Saab B-engine was better. I'll give credit where credit is due to the Swedes for taking a Triumph TR7 motor and gaining a reputation for being reliable with it. It would be a fair comparison if we were comparing a 900 turbo convertible to a Chrysler TC by Maserati (freakin' LeBaron with a Cosworth head, IHI turbo, and Maserati cams... why anyone would buy one instead of a Saab 900 turbo convertible or 2 LeBaron convertibles, one with a turbo 4 and one with a Mitsubishi 6G72, is beyond me
)
New car for the list:
Chrysler TC by Maserati
Pontiac Sunbird J-body....especially in self destructing GT turbo trim
The Daewoo built Pontiac LeMons. I did not misspell that. I refuse to call that ugly eggship a LeMans
The Kia built Ford Aspire....at least Ford didn't call it a Torino
Yeah, I know they're not all technically derived from a K-car. But they share A LOT of parts. So much so that I can generalize that they're all junk. ...
Matter of perspective.
I personally think the K-turbo motors were better/longer lived than the GM SOHC 2.0 Turbo, the Mitsubishi 4G54 MCA JET turbo, the Isuzu 4ZC1-T, the Ford CVH turbo, Renault Douvrin, and all the North American Honda turbocharged automobiles. ( okay, I cheated on Honda. They only made turbocharged motorcycles for North America in the '80s so Chrysler beats them in turbocharged car engines by default)
They are at least as reliable as any crankwalking 4G63
Perhaps the Lima 2.3 turbo was better. But the Mustang SVO, Merkur XR4Ti, and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe were typically quite a bit more expensive than a Daytona or LeBaron turbo.
The Saab B-engine was better. I'll give credit where credit is due to the Swedes for taking a Triumph TR7 motor and gaining a reputation for being reliable with it. It would be a fair comparison if we were comparing a 900 turbo convertible to a Chrysler TC by Maserati (freakin' LeBaron with a Cosworth head, IHI turbo, and Maserati cams... why anyone would buy one instead of a Saab 900 turbo convertible or 2 LeBaron convertibles, one with a turbo 4 and one with a Mitsubishi 6G72, is beyond me
New car for the list:
Chrysler TC by Maserati
Pontiac Sunbird J-body....especially in self destructing GT turbo trim
The Daewoo built Pontiac LeMons. I did not misspell that. I refuse to call that ugly eggship a LeMans
The Kia built Ford Aspire....at least Ford didn't call it a Torino
Originally Posted By: johnachak
Originally Posted By: css9450
Blah, blah, blah. That has become a tiresome argument.
I keep buying GM cars and have yet to find one built in Mexico.
I have a Chevy cobalt (2007) and a Caddy CTS (2009) both made in the USA proudly by UAW. domestic content 70% in the Caddy (transmission and entertainment/nav from elsewhere) the chevy is also in the 70% range but I can't find the original data sheet I got with the car.
I recently got a used Acura MDX with great price/service history. I was close to purchasing the Saturn Outlook too but no idea on history.
Domestic content did not cross my mind when buying. However the previous owner left the window sticker in the Acura and it was 70% domestic content and 30% foreign (inc transmission). Honestly I was surprised.
Originally Posted By: css9450
Blah, blah, blah. That has become a tiresome argument.
I keep buying GM cars and have yet to find one built in Mexico.
I have a Chevy cobalt (2007) and a Caddy CTS (2009) both made in the USA proudly by UAW. domestic content 70% in the Caddy (transmission and entertainment/nav from elsewhere) the chevy is also in the 70% range but I can't find the original data sheet I got with the car.
I recently got a used Acura MDX with great price/service history. I was close to purchasing the Saturn Outlook too but no idea on history.
Domestic content did not cross my mind when buying. However the previous owner left the window sticker in the Acura and it was 70% domestic content and 30% foreign (inc transmission). Honestly I was surprised.
ls1mike
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Robespierre
Yeah, I know they're not all technically derived from a K-car. But they share A LOT of parts. So much so that I can generalize that they're all junk. ...
Matter of perspective.
I personally think the K-turbo motors were better/longer lived than the GM SOHC 2.0 Turbo, the Mitsubishi 4G54 MCA JET turbo, the Isuzu 4ZC1-T, the Ford CVH turbo, Renault Douvrin, and all the North American Honda turbocharged automobiles. ( okay, I cheated on Honda. They only made turbocharged motorcycles for North America in the '80s so Chrysler beats them in turbocharged car engines by default)
They are at least as reliable as any crankwalking 4G63
Perhaps the Lima 2.3 turbo was better. But the Mustang SVO, Merkur XR4Ti, and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe were typically quite a bit more expensive than a Daytona or LeBaron turbo.
The Saab B-engine was better. I'll give credit where credit is due to the Swedes for taking a Triumph TR7 motor and gaining a reputation for being reliable with it. It would be a fair comparison if we were comparing a 900 turbo convertible to a Chrysler TC by Maserati (freakin' LeBaron with a Cosworth head, IHI turbo, and Maserati cams... why anyone would buy one instead of a Saab 900 turbo convertible or 2 LeBaron convertibles, one with a turbo 4 and one with a Mitsubishi 6G72, is beyond me
)
New car for the list:
Chrysler TC by Maserati
Pontiac Sunbird J-body....especially in self destructing GT turbo trim
The Daewoo built Pontiac LeMons. I did not misspell that. I refuse to call that ugly eggship a LeMans
The Kia built Ford Aspire....at least Ford didn't call it a Torino
I am with you, yeah they were cheap, but of the 7 turbo mopar cars I had they were all pretty good and everyone of them saw over 200,000 miles. Wish I could say the same for a bunch of other turbo cars out there from that period.
Originally Posted By: Robespierre
Yeah, I know they're not all technically derived from a K-car. But they share A LOT of parts. So much so that I can generalize that they're all junk. ...
Matter of perspective.
I personally think the K-turbo motors were better/longer lived than the GM SOHC 2.0 Turbo, the Mitsubishi 4G54 MCA JET turbo, the Isuzu 4ZC1-T, the Ford CVH turbo, Renault Douvrin, and all the North American Honda turbocharged automobiles. ( okay, I cheated on Honda. They only made turbocharged motorcycles for North America in the '80s so Chrysler beats them in turbocharged car engines by default)
They are at least as reliable as any crankwalking 4G63
Perhaps the Lima 2.3 turbo was better. But the Mustang SVO, Merkur XR4Ti, and Thunderbird Turbo Coupe were typically quite a bit more expensive than a Daytona or LeBaron turbo.
The Saab B-engine was better. I'll give credit where credit is due to the Swedes for taking a Triumph TR7 motor and gaining a reputation for being reliable with it. It would be a fair comparison if we were comparing a 900 turbo convertible to a Chrysler TC by Maserati (freakin' LeBaron with a Cosworth head, IHI turbo, and Maserati cams... why anyone would buy one instead of a Saab 900 turbo convertible or 2 LeBaron convertibles, one with a turbo 4 and one with a Mitsubishi 6G72, is beyond me
New car for the list:
Chrysler TC by Maserati
Pontiac Sunbird J-body....especially in self destructing GT turbo trim
The Daewoo built Pontiac LeMons. I did not misspell that. I refuse to call that ugly eggship a LeMans
The Kia built Ford Aspire....at least Ford didn't call it a Torino
I am with you, yeah they were cheap, but of the 7 turbo mopar cars I had they were all pretty good and everyone of them saw over 200,000 miles. Wish I could say the same for a bunch of other turbo cars out there from that period.
are there more cars hated than loved. i guess yes
Hate is such a strong word. I didn't car for the K-cars and there derivitives, but I do believe they saved Chrysler in the 80's.
Never cared much for the Pinto, Pacer or Gremlin (or any other AMC car), although now they have a bit of cult appeal.
I had a strong dislike for the emission systems on most american cars through the 70's and 80's.
Never cared much for the Pinto, Pacer or Gremlin (or any other AMC car), although now they have a bit of cult appeal.
I had a strong dislike for the emission systems on most american cars through the 70's and 80's.
I agree! I drive what I drive to impress myself not others.I do think it is hilarious when the Mr. Macho types in their $45,000 four wheel drive,mega monster cab XLT Lariat XT GT crewcab trucks try to keep up with my Vette..are you serious..happens all the time! Sorry Bubba..ADIOS!!
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: Chris142
Enough of the threads that brag on our cars. What cars do you hate.
I learned a very long time ago not to hate anything or anyone, especially an inanimate object.
I do get a laugh out of people who need to use cars to bolster a shallow self image or to proclaim to the world that they have arrived. It's especially funny when you realize that the person driving the "look at me" car is probably deeply in debt on the vehicle, or worse yet dumb enough to get suckered into leasing a vehicle. I think there are manufacturers that market to the shallow self image crowd, and the shallow self image crowd buys into the notion that a car will make them feel better about themselves.
I think that cars like BMW, Mercedes and Jaguar often play to those with self image issues, but I don't hate the cars. I do feel a certain degree of pity for those that drive them.
I drive nice vehicles not because I am trying to "show the world that I arrived" but simply because I enjoy what they offer. I drive my Corvette not to impress, but because I like a car that is quick and handles well. I drive my CTS because I like a luxury car that is comfortable and somewhat sporty. I could care less that other people may think I am showing off. That is just jealousy in most cases.
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: Chris142
Enough of the threads that brag on our cars. What cars do you hate.
I learned a very long time ago not to hate anything or anyone, especially an inanimate object.
I do get a laugh out of people who need to use cars to bolster a shallow self image or to proclaim to the world that they have arrived. It's especially funny when you realize that the person driving the "look at me" car is probably deeply in debt on the vehicle, or worse yet dumb enough to get suckered into leasing a vehicle. I think there are manufacturers that market to the shallow self image crowd, and the shallow self image crowd buys into the notion that a car will make them feel better about themselves.
I think that cars like BMW, Mercedes and Jaguar often play to those with self image issues, but I don't hate the cars. I do feel a certain degree of pity for those that drive them.
I drive nice vehicles not because I am trying to "show the world that I arrived" but simply because I enjoy what they offer. I drive my Corvette not to impress, but because I like a car that is quick and handles well. I drive my CTS because I like a luxury car that is comfortable and somewhat sporty. I could care less that other people may think I am showing off. That is just jealousy in most cases.
Originally Posted By: hal2626
I agree! I drive what I drive to impress myself not others.I do think it is hilarious when the Mr. Macho types in their $45,000 four wheel drive,mega monster cab XLT Lariat XT GT crewcab trucks try to keep up with my Vette..are you serious..happens all the time! Sorry Bubba..ADIOS!!
You came to KY?
I remember when I was driving friends Odyssey after service... They didn't expect that mini van can take of so fast. Their faces--priceless
I agree! I drive what I drive to impress myself not others.I do think it is hilarious when the Mr. Macho types in their $45,000 four wheel drive,mega monster cab XLT Lariat XT GT crewcab trucks try to keep up with my Vette..are you serious..happens all the time! Sorry Bubba..ADIOS!!
You came to KY?
Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
The car I dislike the most is Acura TL..Not sure which years but it is one with the smiling rear end.
+1
The car I dislike the most is Acura TL..Not sure which years but it is one with the smiling rear end.
+1
Originally Posted By: zyxelenator
Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
The car I dislike the most is Acura TL..Not sure which years but it is one with the smiling rear end.
+1
That is the 2009+ model. The styling is softened for 2012, but not enough for me, and I still don't care for the styling of it.
Originally Posted By: CROWNVIC4LIFE
The car I dislike the most is Acura TL..Not sure which years but it is one with the smiling rear end.
+1
That is the 2009+ model. The styling is softened for 2012, but not enough for me, and I still don't care for the styling of it.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: hal2626
I agree! I drive what I drive to impress myself not others.I do think it is hilarious when the Mr. Macho types in their $45,000 four wheel drive,mega monster cab XLT Lariat XT GT crewcab trucks try to keep up with my Vette..are you serious..happens all the time! Sorry Bubba..ADIOS!!
LMAO! I had an old guy try to race me in a Trail Blazer!
Yeah, that went far.....
I agree! I drive what I drive to impress myself not others.I do think it is hilarious when the Mr. Macho types in their $45,000 four wheel drive,mega monster cab XLT Lariat XT GT crewcab trucks try to keep up with my Vette..are you serious..happens all the time! Sorry Bubba..ADIOS!!
LMAO! I had an old guy try to race me in a Trail Blazer!
1st gen Nissan Altima. Worst car I've owned. From reading various forums, I definitely wasn't the only dissatisfied owner.
I am amazed by several Prius haters.
My 2005 Prius is an absolutely amazing vehicle. It gets 50 mpg city or highway. The control complexity and yet mechanical simplicity and reliability of the drive is quite an engineering accomplishment.
The new version that came out in 2010 raises the bar even higher with significantly more power and even better fuel efficiency.
My 2005 Prius is an absolutely amazing vehicle. It gets 50 mpg city or highway. The control complexity and yet mechanical simplicity and reliability of the drive is quite an engineering accomplishment.
The new version that came out in 2010 raises the bar even higher with significantly more power and even better fuel efficiency.
Originally Posted By: mva
I am amazed by several Prius haters.
My 2005 Prius is an absolutely amazing vehicle. It gets 50 mpg city or highway. The control complexity and yet mechanical simplicity and reliability of the drive is quite an engineering accomplishment.
The new version that came out in 2010 raises the bar even higher with significantly more power and even better fuel efficiency.
I don't dislike the concept of the prius, but what I don't understand is the strange styling. It makes it look weird and stand out, which probably attracts the environmentalist crowd. I do think they would sell more of them if they looked like normal gas powered cars but had the more efficient drivetrain. I know several people my age who would buy them if they didn't look so different.
I am amazed by several Prius haters.
My 2005 Prius is an absolutely amazing vehicle. It gets 50 mpg city or highway. The control complexity and yet mechanical simplicity and reliability of the drive is quite an engineering accomplishment.
The new version that came out in 2010 raises the bar even higher with significantly more power and even better fuel efficiency.
I don't dislike the concept of the prius, but what I don't understand is the strange styling. It makes it look weird and stand out, which probably attracts the environmentalist crowd. I do think they would sell more of them if they looked like normal gas powered cars but had the more efficient drivetrain. I know several people my age who would buy them if they didn't look so different.
Nothing inherently "wrong" with the Prius itself, but it is a very unsatisfactory car to drive IMO.
That's just an opinion, ask any 12 folks and you'll get twelve different ones. I love this country because we don't all have to drive the same cars.
That's just an opinion, ask any 12 folks and you'll get twelve different ones. I love this country because we don't all have to drive the same cars.
- Status
