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

joolsveer

My vote goes to an A class MB I drove in mallorca a couple of years ago. It was a replacement for a Renault Mégane which was hors de combat. The A class was so stodgy compared to a 1.5 diesel Renault that I felt I was in the Flintstones!

jayok

Peugeot 206 GTI. The car was over powered, overweight with terrible handling. It cornered like a brick on ice and was just simply dangerous to drive. Top that with brakes that really couldn't grip the discs properly and it just has to be the worst.

Only plus thing was it was a company car and I didn't own it!

BrianD3

The worst "car" I've ever driven is the Mitsubishi L200 crew cab pickup.

It has the turning circle of an oil tanker,
Ride comfort is like a beach buggy
Feels like it's about to topple over when going around gentle bends at low speed
Brakes are terrible
Horrid plastic interior
Crude cart spring suspension and part time 4wd system
Poor space inside despite it being longer than a 7 series

Given the choice between it and the rustbucket Renault 4 banger I once drove, I would pick the 4 every time. The Toyota Corolla KE30 that I drove in a field when I was 14 is also ahead of the L200.

Second worst car I've ever driven was an Opel Corsa diesel. 3rd worst was a VW Golf Mk3 1.4.

BrianD3

Gatster

1.0 1994 Corsa (in 1994). Vastly underpowered, dangerous brakes, bizarre handling. Unfortunately confined in it for about a 500 mile round trip with two mates. Only plus was it was rented and therefore got screwed...

Seth Brundle

One of them Fiat Seciento thingys - just pure evil crap!

dogz

any fiat theyre all crap

ando

Going down the m1 in a suzuki balero

bazz26

1985 Ford Orion 1.3 - car would cut out after emerging from a small puddle of water. Pressing in the cigarette lighter caused smoke to come out of the radio cassette! Rear windscreen and boot both leaked. Total disaster of a car, haven't bought a Ford since.

1999 Opel Vectra - drivers electric window relay replaced 3 times - window still got stuck. Air Conditioning stopped working after 12 months. Radio controls on the steering wheel stopped working. CD player stopped working. 1.6 totally underpowered, bring a spare pair of underwear when overtaking in one of these. Car would cut out randomly for no reason, that Opel could find anyway. Glad to see the back of that car.

raphaelS

Citroen BX... can't be worst than that!

Everything is based on one hydraulic system... if there is a leak, you are loosing: brakes, suspension, suspension, Tape player,... and with 1000 pipes runing all over the car, there is always one close to nervous breakdown!

Once you start the engine... you need to wait for the car to rise!!! C'mon!

Raphael

impr0v

This is a tie between a 1l Polo that I took for a test drive because my mother was thinking of buying it, for no other reason than the lack of forward momentum, and a 1.2l (I think) 5 door Stilo which I had for a whole 2 days while some work was being done on my car.

Our man in Havana

1990 Opel Corsa, bastid brakes failed one day going down Summerhill in Waterford, (mike will know that hill well) The handbrake barely slowed me down, luckily the lights on the bridge were green and I managed to get across safely and stop the wreck. Deffo a brown trousers moment.

Never another opel.

unkel

Current Toyota Corolla. Makes you feel like being a capacitator on a motherboard

Would rather drive a €50 company car like a Renault 5, Peugeot 205 or a Fiat Uno

BrianD3 wrote:

The worst "car" I've ever driven is the Mitsubishi L200 crew cab pickup

So lucky I ain't a masochist, so I've never driven one. Neighbour got one for about a week (probably test drive) and it was either the rotten drive or the disgusted looks I gave him that convinced him not to buy it

kbannon wrote:

One of them Fiat Seciento thingys - just pure evil crap!

Drove one on Rhodes for a week and felt it was brilliant. A few things I should mention though:

- top speed in Rhodes is 70kph
- it had aircon
- it had a 2CV style electric all roof sunroof
- on a fairly narrow street you can do a u-turn in one go

dogz wrote:

any fiat theyre all crap

Eh right :rolleyes:

joolsveer wrote:

My vote goes to an A class MB I drove in mallorca a couple of years ago. It was a replacement for a Renault Mégane which was hors de combat. The A class was so stodgy compared to a 1.5 diesel Renault that I felt I was in the Flintstones!

Yeah was not too impressed with a A170CDI L I had as a rental apart from the rear legroom which was about twice that of my 7-series. Really liked the 1.5 diesel in the Clio 2 I had for two weeks in Italy. Wheelspin in 2nd gear - I was driving like an Italian

Alfasudcrazy

When the clutch went on my Fiat 128 3p I got a Ritmo as a loan car - horrible drivel and an appaling gear change - I just don't know why those cars sold in such large numbers

stratos

Mercedes 200 e I live in the country, twisty roads, soft barge, fell into the passenger seat going around corners. Horrible dash, lousy seats, hit a bump and the car reacts 25 meters later . I drove a c180 also horrible. Lousy soft fat mans barges.awfull, was really dissapointing as i loved the look of the 200e. Lmao oh yea and a Leyland Sherpa, Though would prefer one to a merc.

skibum

Worst car as in "Most disappointed with" was a 5.7 1990 corvett that I had the "pleasure" of driving many moons ago. Before I had driven it, I had heard about it's suspension and handling, they were right! In a straight line the corvett went like a bat out of hell, but when you came to the twisty bits it was a complete biatch. Great car for cruising but complete crap for hard driving.

stratos

U.S. cars don't do corners. Hey they don't have any.

AMurphy

Hard question to answer;
What's "worst", lots of "bad" cars had "character".

However, A Ford Pinto rental which I returned for a "real car". However, the VW Beatle wasn't great either, the acc would not make it go and the brake would not make it stop, (now do not confuse that with a 79 (analog) EFI Convertible Beatle).
The other Beatle only suffered from a brakes problem, the go-go juices were flowing.
Now, the VW Golf where Rev and 1st always ended up being in Rev, was not excellent.
The Fiats were fun, acc really ment GO and brakes really meant stop...just the body couldnt hold it all together....
That sums up the junk...
On the expensive side, I drove a friends MB SUV and thought...sheet, my truck is better than this. I have expectations, low and all as they may be..... but I do have expectations and if I mortgage the kids future to buy it, it had better perform.. So I would say the MB SUV matches the previous description of the Corvette.

I'm only basing my review on go, hold and stop. Breaking the driveshaft of a Chevvy on rapid acceleration or writing off the front end of a VW because it had bad/no brakes is "coleteral damage", nothing to do with being bad or good.

lomb

AMurphy wrote:

Hard question to answer;
What's "worst", lots of "bad" cars had "character".

However, A Ford Pinto rental which I returned for a "real car". However, the VW Beatle wasn't great either, the acc would not make it go and the brake would not make it stop, (now do not confuse that with a 79 (analog) EFI Convertible Beatle).
The other Beatle only suffered from a brakes problem, the go-go juices were flowing.
Now, the VW Golf where Rev and 1st always ended up being in Rev, was not excellent.
The Fiats were fun, acc really ment GO and brakes really meant stop...just the body couldnt hold it all together....
That sums up the junk...
On the expensive side, I drove a friends MB SUV and thought...sheet, my truck is better than this. I have expectations, low and all as they may be..... but I do have expectations and if I mortgage the kids future to buy it, it had better perform.. So I would say the MB SUV matches the previous description of the Corvette.

I'm only basing my review on go, hold and stop. Breaking the driveshaft of a Chevvy on rapid acceleration or writing off the front end of a VW because it had bad/no brakes is "coleteral damage", nothing to do with being bad or good.

the yanks dont make great cars either. when i was there last i hired a chevy malibu. about the only good thing about it was the engine a 3. something liter v6. the roar it made when it was floored was lovely but it didnt go anywhere. the seats, interior, exterior and auto shift left alot to be desired.
oh yeah and that merc ml suv is made in ...........usa! ask yourself a question-would u buy a used (or new) car from a yank?

joolsveer

impr0v wrote:

This is a tie between a 1l Polo that I took for a test drive because my mother was thinking of buying it, for no other reason than the lack of forward momentum, and a 1.2l (I think) 5 door Stilo which I had for a whole 2 days while some work was being done on my car.

I had a similar Stilo on hire from Barcelona and I tried to go up the mountains to Andorra and I nearly had to get my passengers out to push it was so sluggish!

$lash

A 1991 Lada Riva 1200 L ... Beat that if you will

ambro25

Tie between 3 of 'em:

1.6 PT Cruiser (rental) - couldn't fault handling (but just did motorway miles) but it felt like an underpowered 2CV (takes some doing!)

My great aunt's 1.0L Micra (the brick-shaped one, mid-eighties model)

bought new 1985 or thereabouts, current odometer reads: 35.876 kms. Never been 1 km/h beyond 60 in all it's 20 years, never driven beyond 50 km round trips. Needless to say, I was so afraid I'd blow the gearbox/engine trying for 50 mph that I ended up driving it just like my Great Aunt!

My first car (I sh1t you not), Citroen C35 (Pug 504 mechanics, no P/Steer):

:eek:
(I think that one got you beat, $lash )

Silvera

I drove a little convertible Suzuki jeep (name?) last October when I was staying on Rarotonga. It looked ok - but was an absolute heap to drive !!!

CrowdedHouse

How about a Renault 4 van ! Features such as gear change on the 'dash'.Handbrake hidden off in under the steering column,about the same power as an electric toothbrush !

Still learned to drive and passed my test in one,so I have a little affection for them.

$lash

Silvera wrote:

I drove a little convertible Suzuki jeep (name?) last October when I was staying on Rarotonga. It looked ok - but was an absolute heap to drive !!!

That would have been a Suzuki SJ410 or SJ413 ... they have a nasty habit of tipping over!

Silvera

$lash wrote:

That would have been a Suzuki SJ410 or SJ413 ... they have a nasty habit of tipping over!

Yeah, that's the model I drove.
(I wanted to rent a Mazda MX5 - but there was none left that day)

Luckily the speed limit on Rarotonga is 50kph - though the jeep even felt unsafe at that speed !

Here's a pic of the (actual) jeep I rented...........

AMurphy

lomb wrote:

.......
oh yeah and that merc ml suv is made in ...........usa! ask yourself a question-would u buy a used (or new) car from a yank?

Depends on who made it.. not who is selling it.
US cars tend to be softer, that reduces roadnoise and jarring... but has it's side effects.
My made in Japan 89 is still stiffer than made in US equivalent half it's age.
but you can always buy aftermarket parts to re-store the stiffness.

Renegade_Archer

93 1.7D(the Opel engine, not the nice Isuzu TD engine) Vectra. 0-60 of around 3 years, kicking down from 5th to 4th and putting the boot in resulted in going from 55 to around 65 in perhaps 30 seconds, so overtaking was not really an option. Handled like a tank, and had **** breaks as well.




When I got my hands on a TDI Toledo afterwards, it felt like I was driving a farking McLaren F1

trotter_inc

1996 Fiat Punto!! Doesnt sound that bad compared to some above

ambro25

Sorry for diverging from the main theme, but the mere mention of the F*** word prompted me to add the "Worst Car I've Ever Been Driven In": the (old) Fiat Panda (the one with cigarette paper -thin panels).

So bad I was terrified of being rear-ended by a cyclist!

fletch

A '94 Daihatsu Charade.....1.0 Diesel (meant to be a turbo but it was blown :eek: )

It took forever to get up to speed, no power whatsoever & steering was body builder heavy!

Dan_B

Jeep Wrangler,
All the comfort of a lada for the price of a Merc.
Still looked the biz though !!
Not sure of the model / year but guys on 18speed mountain bikes
where dropping me at the lights.

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.