|
|
http://jalopnik.co...e-1990s-1708566735
Not sure I agree with the Exploder. They were kind of a capable machine and you could even get a 5 speed in the first generation.
| |
So much GM
so much accurate
| |
I hate it when these lists use "LOL IT LOOKS FUNY" as a criterion to call something a "bad car" by. I've heard it is quite a decent vehicle beyond the funky-looking exterior.
Oh good, my slow clap processor made it into this thing.
| |
Shit list. Seriously, no Hyundai Accent? Dodge Intrepid? Kia?
Ezekiel 25:17 | |
As much as I hate to say it.... cavaliers are not bad cars, shit my buddy who kills cars had a cavalier that lasted like 5 years of his destructive driving and rarely broke anything. Yeah there piles of shit but they will get you where you have to go.
| |
Posted by sleeperspirit
As much as I hate to say it.... cavaliers are not bad cars, shit my buddy who kills cars had a cavalier that lasted like 5 years of his destructive driving and rarely broke anything. Yeah there piles of shit but they will get you where you have to go.
|
I got 350 000 kms on my sunfire with the 2.4, it went to the wreckers on its original head gasket
Montreal Expos 1969-2004 Forever Proud Lets Keep The Dream Alive | |
Posted by jeepdave
Shit list. Seriously, no Hyundai Accent? Dodge Intrepid? Kia?
|
Yeah, definitely the Dodge Intrepid and the cloud cars would have been good adds. And any 90's Korean product is a given... Don't forget Daewoos!
[last edit 6/4/2015 1:12 PM by DelbertGrady - edited 1 times]
| |
this article was written by someone who probably owns either a Miata or GTi and who's criteria for a good car is how low it can go, bro. The list is ridiculous. First off, the Ford Aspire was built by Kia for Ford(there's your Korean connection) and yeah, what did you expect for cheap ass entry-level car? Bentley-like quality? It was a shitty, $9k car that got you where you needed to go. And then the Geo Metro? Sure, the Metro was shit, but again, what did you expect for a sub-9k car? And then moving down the list, the Land Rover? Well, yeah, they were kind of shitty, but so was everything else British, including Jaguar. Oh and of course, the Cavalier had to be on the list, didn't it? Never mind how many of these things are still running around. ANd lets not forget how many Cavaliers I have owned... 
The last point I want to make is the Monte Carlo and Lumina were the same car and were built like an American Camry... how many of these things, even has far back as the first generation are STILL running around? As an owner of three W-bodies, they were built rugged and tough, rode like a big fat comfy sofa and were exactly what they were meant to be- a reliable American car.
The Explorer, in my opinion, was never as good as the two SUV's it replaced, the Bronco and Bronco II. Too much compromise, too much weight and a powertrain that was never up to the task of moving that much weight around. If you've ever driven a 4.0L V6 Explorer 4 door, you know the frustration of merging on to a highway. The Bronco had a choice of engines and transmissions from the 300 I6 up to the 351W. The Bronco II was a nimble, lightweight and capable offroader with a 2.9L V6 that was more than enough to move it around, had enough clearance to go off road and had enough creature comforts to make it liveable, but it was painful cramped inside, especially with four people stuffed in it. With the Explorer, even with the V8, which was absurdly thirsty, it just never felt like a well-built ride.
| |
Posted by Samurai
this article was written by someone who probably owns either a Miata or GTi and who's criteria for a good car is how low it can go, bro. The list is ridiculous. First off, the Ford Aspire was built by Kia for Ford(there's your Korean connection) and yeah, what did you expect for cheap ass entry-level car? Bentley-like quality? It was a shitty, $9k car that got you where you needed to go. And then the Geo Metro? Sure, the Metro was shit, but again, what did you expect for a sub-9k car? And then moving down the list, the Land Rover? Well, yeah, they were kind of shitty, but so was everything else British, including Jaguar. Oh and of course, the Cavalier had to be on the list, didn't it? Never mind how many of these things are still running around. ANd lets not forget how many Cavaliers I have owned...
The last point I want to make is the Monte Carlo and Lumina were the same car and were built like an American Camry... how many of these things, even has far back as the first generation are STILL running around? As an owner of three W-bodies, they were built rugged and tough, rode like a big fat comfy sofa and were exactly what they were meant to be- a reliable American car.
The Explorer, in my opinion, was never as good as the two SUV's it replaced, the Bronco and Bronco II. Too much compromise, too much weight and a powertrain that was never up to the task of moving that much weight around. If you've ever driven a 4.0L V6 Explorer 4 door, you know the frustration of merging on to a highway. The Bronco had a choice of engines and transmissions from the 300 I6 up to the 351W. The Bronco II was a nimble, lightweight and capable offroader with a 2.9L V6 that was more than enough to move it around, had enough clearance to go off road and had enough creature comforts to make it liveable, but it was painful cramped inside, especially with four people stuffed in it. With the Explorer, even with the V8, which was absurdly thirsty, it just never felt like a well-built ride.
|
Lol... Jalopnik is almost comically anti-GM. Don't take it personal.
I hear you mostly... you can't expect a great car when costing next to nothing. I think they were specifically referring to the Metro Convertible and the absurdity of it.
I don't exactly agree with your sentiment on W Bodies... I had two and they were both shite. There were such better options by then for a mid size car. The Japanese (yeah, I know you hate that) offerings were more efficient, handled better, and had a better reputation for reliability. All it did was make people who wanted basic transportation desire beige Camry's even more.
| |
Posted by DelbertGrady
Lol... Jalopnik is almost comically anti-GM. Don't take it personal.
I hear you mostly... you can't expect a great car when costing next to nothing. I think they were specifically referring to the Metro Convertible and the absurdity of it.
I don't exactly agree with your sentiment on W Bodies... I had two and they were both shite. There were such better options by then for a mid size car. The Japanese (yeah, I know you hate that) offerings were more efficient, handled better, and had a better reputation for reliability. All it did was make people who wanted basic transportation desire beige Camry's even more.
|
my experience with the W-body was quite the opposite, although I will concede that the idiot that did the gasket ordering for the 3100 SFI engine needed to be beaten with a hammer. The gasket issues in those engines was horrific.
Other than that, I find that if one was looking for a W-body, you have to go with the Lumina/Monte Carlo as it seemed to have the better longevity of the series. Next would be the Buick Century/Regal, even those seemed terribly prone to corrosion (as was the Pontiac Grand Prix). The later Oldsmobiles are to be avoid as I think they were just throwing them down the assembly line as production for the line was winding down.
| |
Posted by DelbertGrady
Don't forget Daewoos!
|
Who could forget the Daewoo lAnus?
Oh good, my slow clap processor made it into this thing.
| |
Posted by Harvestman
Who could forget the Daewoo lAnus?
|
we had one in the shop a couple years ago... actually not too bad had like this cool two toned interior and everything .
| |
Ive had 2 grand prix, and i have to say my only issues ive had with my W bodies were pretty minor, although grand prix 2 did torpedo the transmission with the dreaded 1811 code. As for the forsa/swift/metro/sprint/firefly i had one once as a loaner, it was the 4 door hatch, automatic, 3 cyl. the thing was probably the most fun i ever had driving, basic, no PS, everything manual. Dont laugh id give my right nut to find one as a toy car
Montreal Expos 1969-2004 Forever Proud Lets Keep The Dream Alive | |
It's missing the Intrepid, the Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze, the Ford Contour/Mercury Mistake, the Windstar, the Tiburon, the Escort ZX2, the Mk3 VW Jetta and Golf, and the Mazda MPV.
996 Porsches are a fucking bargain and really aren't that bad. Who cares if the styling resembled a Boxster? Where's my Boxster? Oh right, I don't have one of those either.
And I'll even say it... the 90s J body wasn't that terrible of a car. Yeah, they were cheaply made, but they're still running around (albeit without rocker panels, muffler straps or subframes) but... they're still going. They were designed to be an economical little shitbox, and they're still holding that title today.
hi i like cars | |
Oh and first and second generation Metros/Fireflies/Swifts/Sprints were fucking awesome. Especially the turbo. Even if those blew up pretty regularly, they looked cool.
The 3rd gen was a total fucking waste of reclaimed Datsun metal, though.
hi i like cars | |
i liked that on the second gen, only difference between the dash on the gm and suzuki was the suzuki put most controls on a stock, the gm had buttons that flew off on the sides of the guage pod
Montreal Expos 1969-2004 Forever Proud Lets Keep The Dream Alive | |
Posted by Harvestman
Who could forget the Daewoo lAnus?
|
The Daewoo Lanos holds the title for the Worst Car I Have Ever Driven.
When I was living in Tennessee back in 2000, I tried out a Lanos at a Daewoo dealer that was hiding at the very back of a Pontiac/Buick dealer. The car was something out of "Gung Ho". The seat didn't work right, clutch felt like it was 4" in diameter, shifter felt like a wet noodle, A/C didn't work and the speedometer didn't work until you at 20mph and it would POP up to the speed you were at. It was just a terrible car.
| |
Posted by Samurai
The Daewoo Lanos holds the title for the Worst Car I Have Ever Driven.
When I was living in Tennessee back in 2000, I tried out a Lanos at a Daewoo dealer that was hiding at the very back of a Pontiac/Buick dealer. The car was something out of "Gung Ho". The seat didn't work right, clutch felt like it was 4" in diameter, shifter felt like a wet noodle, A/C didn't work and the speedometer didn't work until you at 20mph and it would POP up to the speed you were at. It was just a terrible car.
|
And that was brand new? Yikes!
“We are not going to have the kind of cooperation we need if everyone insists on their own narrow version of reality. … the great divide in the world today … is between people who have the courage to listen and those who are convinced that they already know it all.”
-Madeline Albright | |
Posted by splumer
And that was brand new? Yikes!
|
7 miles on the odometer.
| |
As amusing as that list is, I don't agree with the Cavalier being on it. There's so many of them still on the road. I don't think the Cavalier was a great car by any means (sorry Sam, just personal preference) but it's also not that bad. The VW MK3 generation should be in its place, or pretty much anything Chrysler put out in the 90s.
[last edit 6/13/2015 5:47 PM by Professor Chaos - edited 1 times]
"Toyota vehicles are marketed to people who would be more excited about getting a new fridge than a new car I think." -Bandi |
Add a poll to this thread
This thread is one of your Favourites. Click to make normal.Click to make this thread a Favourite.
| This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
Powered by AvBoard AvBoard version 1.5 alpha
Page Generated In: 78 ms
|
|
Ethics
