Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on July 27, 2008, 09:42:10 PM

Title: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 27, 2008, 09:42:10 PM
Interesting article. I found the #1 particularly interesting.  I have a passion of the H1, but I tend to agree that the H2/H3 was a mistake by Detroit.

http://www.doubleviking.com/10-cars-that-should-have-never-been-built-6542-p.html

Disclaimer: Copied post from an automobile BBS. I am not responsible for "real man love" ads on the website linked about. Should the moderators feel that this link should not be displayed due to the nature of questionable ads contained within the link, feel free to delete the thread.  HOWEVER...if there are ads instructing how to carpet your garage, I fully support these ads. That is all.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Masherbrum on July 27, 2008, 09:45:16 PM
I agree with all of them, but the Focus.   The H2 might have one of the highest "problems per 1,000 vehicles" ever.   I know it was far and away the front runner by a WIDE MARGIN in it's first 3 years of production. 
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 27, 2008, 09:48:14 PM
I agree with all of them, but the Focus.   The H2 might have one of the highest "problems per 1,000 vehicles" ever.   I know it was far and away the front runner by a WIDE MARGIN in it's first 3 years of production. 

Exactly my thoughts on the H2. I think it was Edmunds or another website that showed the defects per 1,000 vehicles, with H2's leading the way.

I wonder if Acid (you out there?) experienced any probs with his H2?
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: caldera on July 27, 2008, 10:05:03 PM
I'd like to add the Toyota Eunuch, err Prius to the list. How can they expect normal people to drive something that was apparently styled by Liberace and Richard Simmons.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Masherbrum on July 27, 2008, 10:18:36 PM
More so than the PRius, would be the new Tacomas.   Toyota is recalling Tacomas buy the truckload due to faulty frames.   These are being CRUSHED at a fee of $500 per vehicle, regardless of condition from 1995-2000.   A family friend had a 99 that was "purchased by Toyota".  They cut him a check for $11,000 for a 9 year old truck.   What I've been hearing lately is that the recall might widen to accommodate all Tacomas from 95-04.   

Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Halo on July 27, 2008, 10:48:25 PM
We had a 78 Pinto, 79 Pinto, and 2000 Focus wagon.  The 78 Pinto did fairly well.  The 79 Pinto could stall you at the darndest places (e.g., I-95 in rush hour).  The 2000 Focus wagon was a great design with tragic flaws, e.g., rusting wheels, squeaking brakes, and air conditioner that crapped out about just after warranty expired (nice timing). 

No love lost for any of these cars, although the 78 Pinto survived its new teen male driver, and the Focus IF reliable could have been a mainstay for Ford. 

No 10 Worst Cars list is complete without the 1961 Renault Dauphine.  Nice looking little French sedan that died way prematurely.  Just about signalled the end of French attempt to sell cars in America. 



Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: soda72 on July 28, 2008, 12:02:07 AM
See Rule #7
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Gunslinger on July 28, 2008, 12:02:42 AM
I'm not sure why the focus made the list.  I have one now and love it.  Most focus owners....again MOST love them.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: DiabloTX on July 28, 2008, 12:09:11 AM
Quote
In August 2007, it emerged that due to demand for the DeLorean DMC-12, it could go back into production. Businessman Stephen Wynn has purchased all the remaining parts for the car and plans to rebuild them in Houston.

Holy sh...
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: nirvana on July 28, 2008, 12:29:56 AM
They've been building/restoring DMC-12s in Houston for quite awhile.  They sell for $20,000-$30,000 if I recall correctly.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: mg1942 on July 28, 2008, 12:57:11 AM
Chevy Aveo.
- It's rebadge version of a Daewoo model.  Domestic engineered Cobalt is much much better.

Nissan Altima coupe
- Nissan has too much 2dr cars in their lineup.  Altima coupe will harm 350Z and Infiniti G-37 coupe sales.

Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: 1701E on July 28, 2008, 03:42:02 AM
They've been building/restoring DMC-12s in Houston for quite awhile.  They sell for $20,000-$30,000 if I recall correctly.

The new DeLoreans to be sold are much steeper, they are aiming for $52,000 starting price.  not sure about others though :aok
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: lasersailor184 on July 28, 2008, 07:15:00 AM
Toyota FJ and the subsequent Ford Flex should be on the list.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Jackal1 on July 28, 2008, 08:09:13 AM
See Rules #4, #5
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: bongaroo on July 28, 2008, 08:26:09 AM
H2/H3 = an overgrown suburban that has no buisness offroad.  H1 would be fun, but still unnecessary.


Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Cthulhu on July 28, 2008, 08:35:36 AM
H2/H3 = an overgrown suburban that has no buisness offroad.  H1 would be fun, but still unnecessary.



Absolutely. For the guys who need to feel like they're invading Poland. Nobody can be hung so poorly that they need to compensate with one of these silly things.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 28, 2008, 08:48:43 AM
H2/H3 = an overgrown suburban that has no buisness offroad.  H1 would be fun, but still unnecessary.



And, the H1 is limited in most ORV areas where I live. The trails are wide enough to accomodate Jeep, FJ-40, FJ  Cruisers, but no way in hell could an H1 or H2 go where we go. Too many trees.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlobqjCDlY4
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: indy007 on July 28, 2008, 08:56:42 AM
They've been building/restoring DMC-12s in Houston for quite awhile.  They sell for $20,000-$30,000 if I recall correctly.

That place was at 59 South & Beltway 8 iirc. I'm pretty sure it closed down.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: indy007 on July 28, 2008, 08:57:42 AM
Toyota FJ should be on the list.

Has to be more than just ugly. FJ is a 4Runner platform, which is rock solid.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: indy007 on July 28, 2008, 09:00:05 AM
I'd like to add the Toyota Eunuch, err Prius to the list. How can they expect normal people to drive something that was apparently styled by Liberace and Richard Simmons.  :rolleyes:

Drag coefficient dictated the shape, not an asian Richard Simmons. It actually has less drag than almost all sports cars. Get used to it, you're going to see that egg shape a lot more. :(
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: superpug1 on July 28, 2008, 09:04:04 AM
I dunno why the Jeep Commanche wasn't on the list. My dad had one and it would stall, overheat, shoot boiling coolant at you. I don't know why they ever discontinued the Jeep J10 and J20. Those were rediculously reliable and would go pretty much anywhere it would fit.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 28, 2008, 09:05:39 AM
I think this particular article was based loosely on the editor's opinion, therefore the appearance weighed more heavily than facts. (shrugs)
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: ridley1 on July 28, 2008, 09:11:05 AM
I've driven a yugo...yes....it's a piece of crap....I think it had a 5 gallon fuel tank

Why is the pacer not on the list, instead of the gremlin? That thing was a fish bowl on wheels, and did more to destroy AMC's reputation then the godawful styling of the Matador.
What about the Lada?  Ain't nothing like good ol' soviet tractor technology on the highway. Have to admit...the heaters on the damn things...you could cook a roast with it. Which was necessary...becouse the body would rust out within 3 months.

My brother used to have a renault 4...many many years ago....had a really nice ride...problem was.....nobody could work on it and parts were impossible.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: eskimo2 on July 28, 2008, 09:13:17 AM
The "New" VW Beetle = great car, great resurrection.  No way should it be on this list.  I've had a bunch of the old ones and loved them.  Rode in a new convertible last week, it was great.

Ford Focus = just a basic cheap little car.  What's wrong with that?

Yugo GV = Copy of the Fiat 128; now that's a POS!  I think this car should have been made, but not sold in the US.  It was what it was, a cheap, under $4,000 car that performed like a cheap, under $4,000 car.  You get what you pay for.

De Lorean DMC-12 = Unique and unforgettable.  Most of what people really pay for in cars of this niche is style, not performance.  The De Lorean had style.

Hummer H2/H3 = Hey, rich retarded people need cars too!  If you're going to make a car that looks like something it's not, why make it look kind of like the H1?  Why not a steam locomotive, or a P-51, or a Sherman tank?
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Kaw1000 on July 28, 2008, 09:20:44 AM
AMC Gremlin had a great power train...I believe it was a 4.0 liter straight six.
If you closed the hatch glass to hard, it would explode!!

The Focus had a rough start but now they are very good cars and rate high in
consumer critics books!

The Cadillac Cimeron was a Cavalier with leather and some fancy appearance
features. Tacky car to say the least.

Aztek...Intake gaskets went bad big job to repair them.

Deloran...had to wax them with WD-40...the V-8 had no balls...the car was stainless steal, but all
the screws that it was put together with were not...so the screws would rust.

Yugo and lecar.....if something went wrong with them(which usually did) couldn't get parts for them!!

Vega should be on this list for sure!!

Oh, and Volkswagen's, All Volkswagen's to this day, are an electrical nightmares!!






Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: eskimo2 on July 28, 2008, 09:23:36 AM
International Harvester Scout (& Travelall)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/01/automobiles/533-scouts.jpg)

I knew a guy long ago who owned an auto part store; he said he sold more International Harvester passenger parts than anything else.  IH owners were his most regular customers by far.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 28, 2008, 09:31:34 AM
International Harvester Scout (& Travelall)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/01/automobiles/533-scouts.jpg)

I knew a guy long ago who owned an auto part store; he said he sold more International Harvester passenger parts than anything else.  IH owners were his most regular customers by far.
I owned two from 1989 to 1991...one for driving, and one for parts! I was going to restore it completely but ended up trashing it offroad. :D
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: slipknot on July 28, 2008, 10:20:17 AM
Gonna add this to the list based on its overall homoerotic appeal.

(http://blog.vehiclevoice.com/Toyota%20FJ%20Cruiser%20F34%20Blog.jpg)
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 28, 2008, 10:31:32 AM
I could have seen that one coming from a mile away.  Just curious as to how you know what is and isn't attractive to homosexuals. Ewwww. :uhoh
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: soda72 on July 28, 2008, 10:39:49 AM
The "New" VW Beetle = great car,

I don't think any man would be caught dead driving one of those "new" VW bugs...  Well maybe one of those metrosexual types....



Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: caldera on July 28, 2008, 10:41:33 AM
Drag coefficient dictated the shape, not an asian Richard Simmons. It actually has less drag than almost all sports cars. Get used to it, you're going to see that egg shape a lot more. :(

The Prius may have a low drag coefficient, but d.c. is really only beneficial at highway speeds. The Prius gets awesome city (stop and go) mileage and that's where most people drive these days. With urban sprawl, more traffic lights and more cars we will be going slower still. Why cant they make a hybrid that doesn't scream "i know better than you and I'm gonna save the planet!" ?  Make one that looks cool and they will sell like '64 Mustangs.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 28, 2008, 10:44:14 AM
The Prius may have a low drag coefficient, but d.c. is really only beneficial at highway speeds. The Prius gets awesome city (stop and go) mileage and that's where most people drive these days. With urban sprawl, more traffic lights and more cars we will be going slower still. Why cant they make a hybrid that doesn't scream "i know better than you and I'm gonna save the planet!" ?  Make one that looks cool and they will sell like '64 Mustangs.

Well, GM is betting the bank on the Chevy Volt, limited production next year (10,000) and full production 2010 last I heard. Regarding looking cool, like every car style, "looking cool" is subjective and dependent on ones individual tastes.

(http://autobuyerblog.com/wp-content/gm-chevy-volt-lutz-intro.jpg)
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: slipknot on July 28, 2008, 10:47:03 AM
I could have seen that one coming from a mile away.  Just curious as to how you know what is and isn't attractive to homosexuals. Ewwww. :uhoh

I'm a good guesser, I suppose.

Grown men that use terms like 'ewwww' would also be pretty high up on the list.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: soda72 on July 28, 2008, 11:05:01 AM
Well, GM is betting the bank on the Chevy Volt, limited production next year (10,000) and full production 2010 last I heard. Regarding looking cool, like every car style, "looking cool" is subjective and dependent on ones individual tastes.
(http://autobuyerblog.com/wp-content/gm-chevy-volt-lutz-intro.jpg)

I like the concept of the VOLT car with the extend range ability mixed in with the electric only range.

There was an article mentioning they would need to sell it for $48,000 to make a profit and would break even at 40,000.  So unless they want to compete with the Prius they are going to need to get that price down between 20k-30k.

It's going to be interesting to see how the car market plays out in the next 2 - 3 years.    A lot of new concept cars from EVs to extended range EVs to hybrids...

Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Nilsen on July 28, 2008, 11:13:40 AM
On that list i have only driven the Focus and the Beetle. Both were good cars imo, but there is no charm in any of em.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Roundeye on July 28, 2008, 11:47:49 AM
The "New" VW Beetle = great car, great resurrection.  No way should it be on this list.  I've had a bunch of the old ones and loved them.  Rode in a new convertible last week, it was great.


The problem with the new "Beetle" is that they called it a Beetle.  I collected the vintage REAL Beetles too.  Owned over 40 of them (yes...I was addicted).

The original Beetle was waaaaaay different than anything else on the road.  It was simple, reliable and very unique in its style, construction, drivablility, sound and even smell.  The new one is no different than any other econo-box out there other than its very round shape with its front engine, liquid-cooled front drive, full-of-electronics self.

Anyone that could fix a lawnmower could completely disassemble and rebuild a Beetle with common handtools in a matter of days.  I've pulled engines in 22 minutes.  A floor jack, blocks, couple of wrenches and a screwdriver and its out on the driveway.  22 minutes is about how long it would take for the tow truck to show up to haul off a new "Beetle" when it refuses to run, cause odds are you are not going to fix it roadside with a stick and a chewing gum wrapper like the real Beetles. :D

I'm not saying the new ones are POS cars or even belong on that list, but they are not worthy of the title "Beetle".
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: CAP1 on July 28, 2008, 12:46:40 PM
I agree with all of them, but the Focus.   The H2 might have one of the highest "problems per 1,000 vehicles" ever.   I know it was far and away the front runner by a WIDE MARGIN in it's first 3 years of production. 

are we looking only at their stock forms?

 if i recall, wasn't the gremlin X a pretty quick car? definitly better than the pacer :D

pintos that didn't become barbeques, made mice dragsters.....


the cimeron was just a cavalier with some fancy watermelon added onto it......or was it a celebrity?
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 28, 2008, 12:48:40 PM
are we looking only at their stock forms?

 if i recall, wasn't the gremlin X a pretty quick car? definitly better than the pacer :D

pintos that didn't become barbeques, made mice dragsters.....


the cimeron was just a cavalier with some fancy watermelon added onto it......or was it a celebrity?

I rode on A1A in Ft. Lauderdale at night cruising for chicks at age 16 with a guy that had a 351 Cleveland dropped into a Ford Pinto with a completely rebuilt frame and suspension. He was pulling low 10's on the 1/4 mile with that car.  :rock

It looked almost identical to this one: http://www.animaljimracing.com/images/PSpinto.jpg
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: CAP1 on July 28, 2008, 12:51:37 PM
I rode on A1A in Ft. Lauderdale at night cruising for chicks at age 16 with a guy that had a 351 Cleveland dropped into a Ford Pinto with a completely rebuilt frame and suspension. He was pulling low 10's on the 1/4 mile with that car.  :rock

It looked almost identical to this one: http://www.animaljimracing.com/images/PSpinto.jpg

that's what i'm talkin bout :D :aok
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Kaw1000 on July 28, 2008, 01:01:20 PM
Price of a hybrid car $30,000...roughly

Price of a Cheap Hyundai $13,000...a difference of......$17,000

Gas mileage difference....not that much.

Why are people buying Hybrids??

$17,000 buys a whole lot of gas!!
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 28, 2008, 01:07:55 PM
Price of a hybrid car $30,000...roughly

Price of a Cheap Hyundai $13,000...a difference of......$17,000

Gas mileage difference....not that much.

Why are people buying Hybrids??

$17,000 buys a whole lot of gas!!

Al Gore, and it makes them feel better.  I had a college professor teaching psychology that used to describe one theory in psych as "by the time one reaches 30, one feels they have the need to either have babies or save the whales to ascend to their needs of self-actualization".

I've updated his comment with;

 "by the time one reaches 30, one feels they have the need to either have babies or drive a Prius to feel good about the planet they're polluting in order to ascend to their needs of self-actualization".
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: CAP1 on July 28, 2008, 01:08:14 PM
Price of a hybrid car $30,000...roughly

Price of a Cheap Hyundai $13,000...a difference of......$17,000

Gas mileage difference....not that much.

Why are people buying Hybrids??

$17,000 buys a whole lot of gas!!

because they're better anything on th eplanet.

they tell us that, so it must be true :noid
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: slipknot on July 28, 2008, 01:13:30 PM
Al Gore, and it makes them feel better.  I had a college professor teaching psychology that used to describe one theory in psych as "by the time one reaches 30, one feels they have the need to either have babies or save the whales to ascend to their needs of self-actualization".

I've updated his comment with;

 "by the time one reaches 30, one feels they have the need to either have babies or drive a Prius to feel good about the planet they're polluting in order to ascend to their needs of self-actualization".

I'd have to agree with this sentiment. Hybrids are just accessories for the self-serving bleeding hearts of our era, with little practical utility but plenty of social implication. They are not just benign tributes to peoples' vanity however, as for every hybrid that is sold, a revolutionary new technology that may spell the end to our collective problems is put off just a little bit longer... In short, a stinky little bandaid for a problem that requires emergency surgery.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: eskimo2 on July 28, 2008, 01:37:45 PM
The problem with the new "Beetle" is that they called it a Beetle.  I collected the vintage REAL Beetles too.  Owned over 40 of them (yes...I was addicted).

The original Beetle was waaaaaay different than anything else on the road.  It was simple, reliable and very unique in its style, construction, drivablility, sound and even smell.  The new one is no different than any other econo-box out there other than its very round shape with its front engine, liquid-cooled front drive, full-of-electronics self.

Anyone that could fix a lawnmower could completely disassemble and rebuild a Beetle with common handtools in a matter of days.  I've pulled engines in 22 minutes.  A floor jack, blocks, couple of wrenches and a screwdriver and its out on the driveway.  22 minutes is about how long it would take for the tow truck to show up to haul off a new "Beetle" when it refuses to run, cause odds are you are not going to fix it roadside with a stick and a chewing gum wrapper like the real Beetles. :D

I'm not saying the new ones are POS cars or even belong on that list, but they are not worthy of the title "Beetle".

I've had 6 buses, 63 -72
7 Karman Ghias 59 - 74
1 Fastbak and 1 Squareback
and I don't know how many bugs... probably 15 or so.
I chopped the rear apron off of a few.  One in particular I could pull the engine out in 5 minutes, by myself, outside, on a hill.  Back in took 10 minutes.  The 1600 was such a tight squeeze that I'd pull the engine out just to change spark plugs or many other basic jobs.

I've read about contests where two guys pulled stock motors in less than a minute; back in in less than three total.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: CAP1 on July 28, 2008, 01:40:40 PM
Al Gore, and it makes them feel better.  I had a college professor teaching psychology that used to describe one theory in psych as "by the time one reaches 30, one feels they have the need to either have babies or save the whales to ascend to their needs of self-actualization".

I've updated his comment with;

 "by the time one reaches 30, one feels they have the need to either have babies or drive a Prius to feel good about the planet they're polluting in order to ascend to their needs of self-actualization".

i still like and want my hot rods.

i'm 46
BTW
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 28, 2008, 03:05:16 PM
i still like and want my hot rods.

i'm 46
BTW
48 here. I could never afford any fancy hotrods in the 70's, but I had my share of small blocks that I played around with as a teen growing up.   :rock
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: CAP1 on July 28, 2008, 03:29:42 PM
48 here. I could never afford any fancy hotrods in the 70's, but I had my share of small blocks that I played around with as a teen growing up.   :rock

neither could i.....still can't really, but smallblocks are fun.
remember i have a 12 second fairmont...5.0L. and i know there's guys running 5.0L stangs into the 8's(although their not street cars)
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Roundeye on July 28, 2008, 03:34:32 PM
I've had 6 buses, 63 -72
7 Karman Ghias 59 - 74
1 Fastbak and 1 Squareback
and I don't know how many bugs... probably 15 or so.
I chopped the rear apron off of a few.  One in particular I could pull the engine out in 5 minutes, by myself, outside, on a hill.  Back in took 10 minutes.  The 1600 was such a tight squeeze that I'd pull the engine out just to change spark plugs or many other basic jobs.

I've read about contests where two guys pulled stock motors in less than a minute; back in in less than three total.

Awsome.  Years ago there was at least one person in every town with a pile of vintage VWs in their yard.  It was good to know that I was not the only one with that "problem". :lol

Yea, the Baja (with no cage) was a 5 min. pull.  Done that.  Bring it inside to adjust valves in the A/C. :D
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Masherbrum on July 28, 2008, 05:38:01 PM
Before my senior year of HS in the summer of 1990, my family drove from Michigan, to as far as Villhermosa, Mexico. 

While in Poza Rica eyeballing the "then recently discovered Mayan ruins", I happened to become fixated on one VW Bug, of the more than "at least 10,000 VW Bugs I came across in the month spent there."    This particular Bug was a metallic purple in color, but, I was immediately drawn to a red circle on the rear quarter panel.   

I thought to myself:  "No way in hell."    I then laughed as I saw the Cheez-Wiz cap being used for a gas cap.   I laughed at the simplicity of the "remedy".   The owner walked up to me and we chatted for about 10 minutes as for a 1961 Bug, this thing was restored nicely.   By this point my old man walks over and knew barely any Spanish.   So the three of us pretty much blow off the ruins, as we chat with a person who restored 25 or so Bugs as a hobby.   

Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Ripsnort on July 28, 2008, 05:45:06 PM
Cheese whiz lid for a gas cap  :rofl  Why, that is as bad as my duct tape fixes!  :uhoh

Anyone remember traveling across the US with siblings and playing "Bug Slug"?  My sisters were slow. :D
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Masherbrum on July 28, 2008, 06:38:31 PM
Cheese whiz lid for a gas cap  :rofl  Why, that is as bad as my duct tape fixes!  :uhoh

Anyone remember traveling across the US with siblings and playing "Bug Slug"?  My sisters were slow. :D

My brother and I gave up around 500 each, in Mexico.   
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: 68Wooley on July 29, 2008, 06:20:15 PM
I'm not sure why the focus made the list.  I have one now and love it.  Most focus owners....again MOST love them.

I agree - the Focus was a good car let down only by a bargain basement interior. It was easily the best driving small car of its time. The MK2 on sale in Europe for several years is even better. The re-hashsed MK1 Ford introduced in the US this year is smurfy though. Ford screwed up there - they decided the cost of bringing the Mk2 model to the US wasn't worth it, just as the US wakes up to small cars.

Pity - I'd happily go out and buy a Mk2 Focus ST.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Hangtime on July 29, 2008, 06:45:51 PM
Before my senior year of HS in the summer of 1990, my family drove from Michigan, to as far as Villhermosa, Mexico. 

While in Poza Rica eyeballing the "then recently discovered Mayan ruins", I happened to become fixated on one VW Bug, of the more than "at least 10,000 VW Bugs I came across in the month spent there."    This particular Bug was a metallic purple in color, but, I was immediately drawn to a red circle on the rear quarter panel.   

I thought to myself:  "No way in hell."    I then laughed as I saw the Cheez-Wiz cap being used for a gas cap.   I laughed at the simplicity of the "remedy".   The owner walked up to me and we chatted for about 10 minutes as for a 1961 Bug, this thing was restored nicely.   By this point my old man walks over and knew barely any Spanish.   So the three of us pretty much blow off the ruins, as we chat with a person who restored 25 or so Bugs as a hobby.   



...on my old bugs the gas fill was under the front hood.  I often wondered if this was a form of german birth control; fueltank first to the scene of the crash, with the fuseblock mounted directly above and behind the tank.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: eskimo2 on July 29, 2008, 07:01:30 PM
...on my old bugs the gas fill was under the front hood.  I often wondered if this was a form of german birth control; fueltank first to the scene of the crash, with the fuseblock mounted directly above and behind the tank.

The bus was nice and safe too.  In front of your knees you had 1/16" steel (including paint) AND a bit of colored vinyl upholstery glued over a good 1/8 inch of solid cardboard.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Roundeye on July 29, 2008, 07:31:22 PM
The bus was nice and safe too.  In front of your knees you had 1/16" steel (including paint) AND a bit of colored vinyl upholstery glued over a good 1/8 inch of solid cardboard.

Don't forget the windshield washer fluid tank that was there to help cushion things too. :rofl

I always said that if I ever got in a wreck with one of my buses I would be the first one to the scene of the accident. :D
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: eskimo2 on July 29, 2008, 07:45:09 PM
I've had one of those buggers up to 85 mph.  I got one airborne once with 7 people aboard. 

This one was my favorite:
(http://hallbuzz.com/good_old_days/cars/bus_640.jpg)
I've spent over 500 nights sleeping in that thing.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: DiabloTX on July 30, 2008, 01:35:30 AM
(http://www.cardboardcutouts.com/0631%20Fillmore.jpg)
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Fulmar on July 30, 2008, 08:40:42 AM
My wife and I drive Focus's.  We've had fairly good experiences with them.  The new design is a big improvement over the 05-07 models.

Otherwise I agree with much of the list.  Perhaps replace the Focus with the Toyota Echo.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: panzerr on July 30, 2008, 08:56:19 AM
AMC Gremlin had a great power train...I believe it was a 4.0 liter straight six.
If you closed the hatch glass to hard, it would explode!!

The Focus had a rough start but now they are very good cars and rate high in
consumer critics books!

The Cadillac Cimeron was a Cavalier with leather and some fancy appearance
features. Tacky car to say the least.

Aztek...Intake gaskets went bad big job to repair them.

Deloran...had to wax them with WD-40...the V-8 had no balls...the car was stainless steal, but all
the screws that it was put together with were not...so the screws would rust.

Yugo and lecar.....if something went wrong with them(which usually did) couldn't get parts for them!!

Vega should be on this list for sure!!

Oh, and Volkswagen's, All Volkswagen's to this day, are an electrical nightmares!!








ABSOLUTELY!!  I had a brand new 71 Vega, and it was dead 2 years later.  Of course, I was 18 and maybe beat on it a little too much.....but still..
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: RTHolmes on July 31, 2008, 08:46:29 AM
dont understand the Focus either, ive driven the MkI 1.8? zetec and its probably the best allround FWD chassis out there (except maybe grey import integras which i havent driven.) interior is pretty good too, reliability up there with the best. makes me wonder if the US built models were completely different?
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: dkff49 on July 31, 2008, 11:32:16 AM
More so than the PRius, would be the new Tacomas.   Toyota is recalling Tacomas buy the truckload due to faulty frames.   These are being CRUSHED at a fee of $500 per vehicle, regardless of condition from 1995-2000.   A family friend had a 99 that was "purchased by Toyota".  They cut him a check for $11,000 for a 9 year old truck.   What I've been hearing lately is that the recall might widen to accommodate all Tacomas from 95-04.   



I received my notification on my tacoma about 2 months ago, they are not recalling them all and are not buying them no matter the condition. What they are doing is acting on the fact that there were a small percentage of trucks that made it through with inadequate amounts of undercoating. The action taken for this is and extensions in the frame warranty and free undercarriage inspections. If a truck is found to have excessive rust (such as holes) in frame then options are discussed beyond that. I have friends who just had the frames cleared of undercoating and had it reapplied others like mine have had no problems and I have heard of one or two that have been given excellent trade offers.

The statement that they are buying them up without regard to condition is false. They are buying them up no matter the body or interior condition but frame condition is the factor.

Everybody has their opinion and entitled to it. I own a 97 Tacoma and have had no trouble with it at all. Best vehicle I have ever owned and I have had it since it was new. I have beat the living sheet out of this truck and it takes it. I have hauled massive loads of firewood out of the woods where there was no trail and when I say massive load I mean is that the stops on the frame were resting on the axle. That truck has 130,000 miles on it and the only things I had to put in it was a battery about 5 years ago, a starter about the same, and replace the front brakes and rotors about 3-4 years ago. I even spent last year pulling my 19 foot 3,000 pound behemoth boat back and forth every week with that 4 cyl truck.


Man seeing that gremlin did bring back memories. That in line 6 was one tough engine the whole car would rust out before that engine would die. As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened to mine.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: CAP1 on August 01, 2008, 10:07:24 AM
ABSOLUTELY!!  I had a brand new 71 Vega, and it was dead 2 years later.  Of course, I was 18 and maybe beat on it a little too much.....but still..

that's when ya shoulda dropped a smallblock 350 in it
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: midnight Target on August 01, 2008, 10:30:20 AM
I am proud to say I owned and drove a 1973 AMC gremlin in college. It had a 3 speed standard on the floor, a 6 cylinder engine that produced about 10 bhp, and was the ugliest yellow color I've ever seen. It even had an after-market AC bolted to the bottom of the dash, and I mounted my 8-track player to the hump behind the gear-shift. I couldn't change tapes unless I was in 2nd or Reverse.

It was a chick magnet.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: CAP1 on August 01, 2008, 10:54:17 AM
I am proud to say I owned and drove a 1973 AMC gremlin in college. It had a 3 speed standard on the floor, a 6 cylinder engine that produced about 10 bhp, and was the ugliest yellow color I've ever seen. It even had an after-market AC bolted to the bottom of the dash, and I mounted my 8-track player to the hump behind the gear-shift. I couldn't change tapes unless I was in 2nd or Reverse.

It was a chick magnet.

first car was a 67 mustang, lime green black vinly roof 289 automatic. it actually had a bench seat....only one i ever saw with a bench. wasn't fast, didn't handle great, but i loved the lines.

 i was just on mcguire afb last night for business, and there by the barraks sat a beautiful(ALTHOUGH PRIMERED) 67 coupe. left a note on it.....will make a nice winter time project
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: panzerr on August 02, 2008, 09:16:02 AM
that's when ya shoulda dropped a smallblock 350 in it
Someone in town (Angola, Indiana) did do exactly that with their 71 Vega panel truck.  That thing would pop wheelies in all 4 gears. :lol
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Holden McGroin on August 03, 2008, 12:38:27 AM
When I was a kid, the guy across the street had a 1967 Corvair.

He took the drivetrain and replaced it with a 283 amidships and a Chevy Malibu rear end.

Then he went hunting for Corvettes.

Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Baitman on August 03, 2008, 01:15:09 AM
Yugo (any) :rofl
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: SirLoin on August 03, 2008, 08:40:36 AM
Toyota FJ and the subsequent Ford Flex should be on the list.

Haha!..I work at the plant that builds the Flex..Saw a black one the other day,looked like a hearse.(another Ford masterpiece..as in POS)
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Masherbrum on August 03, 2008, 10:47:54 AM
I received my notification on my tacoma about 2 months ago, they are not recalling them all and are not buying them no matter the condition. What they are doing is acting on the fact that there were a small percentage of trucks that made it through with inadequate amounts of undercoating. The action taken for this is and extensions in the frame warranty and free undercarriage inspections. If a truck is found to have excessive rust (such as holes) in frame then options are discussed beyond that. I have friends who just had the frames cleared of undercoating and had it reapplied others like mine have had no problems and I have heard of one or two that have been given excellent trade offers.

The statement that they are buying them up without regard to condition is false. They are buying them up no matter the body or interior condition but frame condition is the factor.

Everybody has their opinion and entitled to it. I own a 97 Tacoma and have had no trouble with it at all. Best vehicle I have ever owned and I have had it since it was new. I have beat the living sheet out of this truck and it takes it. I have hauled massive loads of firewood out of the woods where there was no trail and when I say massive load I mean is that the stops on the frame were resting on the axle. That truck has 130,000 miles on it and the only things I had to put in it was a battery about 5 years ago, a starter about the same, and replace the front brakes and rotors about 3-4 years ago. I even spent last year pulling my 19 foot 3,000 pound behemoth boat back and forth every week with that 4 cyl truck.


Man seeing that gremlin did bring back memories. That in line 6 was one tough engine the whole car would rust out before that engine would die. As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened to mine.

Small percentage my arse.   In this case one frame is one too many.   I know that is about the frame mind you, the point is the frame is the most essential point of buying a truck.    The question begs, How long did Toyota sit on this?   
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Masherbrum on August 03, 2008, 10:49:28 AM
Yugo (any) :rofl

I remember back in 1989 that some chick was speeding on the Mackinac Bridge and blew over the side plunging to her death.  She was driving a Yugo and was doing 5-10 over the speed limit on day that had almost 50mph winds.   

Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: dkff49 on August 03, 2008, 11:13:23 AM
Small percentage my arse.   In this case one frame is one too many.   I know that is about the frame mind you, the point is the frame is the most essential point of buying a truck.    The question begs, How long did Toyota sit on this?   

yes the frame is the most important part of the truck. That is why they increased the warranty and include free frame inspections for those models. If you are going to talk down or refuse to buy any vehicle that has had even just one problem then I would say that you proably don't drive at all then right.

Every car company has had their problems with nearly every model that has ever been produced. They have all had recalls and bad reports given about them. The funny part is though people seem to favor one or another because they have had little problems with them. The best car debate will rage on for as long as there are cars being manufactured. I personally do not have a preference but the Tacoma has been very good to me no matter how much abuse I dish out to it. I have several friends and spoke with several people and this guys is the only one that has said anything negative. Even some of the most die hard GM, Ford, and Pontiac fans or whatever their favorite is say that Toyota's are notably very reliable.

weird how different 2 experiences can be.
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: Masherbrum on August 03, 2008, 11:24:07 AM
yes the frame is the most important part of the truck. That is why they increased the warranty and include free frame inspections for those models. If you are going to talk down or refuse to buy any vehicle that has had even just one problem then I would say that you proably don't drive at all then right.

Every car company has had their problems with nearly every model that has ever been produced. They have all had recalls and bad reports given about them. The funny part is though people seem to favor one or another because they have had little problems with them. The best car debate will rage on for as long as there are cars being manufactured. I personally do not have a preference but the Tacoma has been very good to me no matter how much abuse I dish out to it. I have several friends and spoke with several people and this guys is the only one that has said anything negative. Even some of the most die hard GM, Ford, and Pontiac fans or whatever their favorite is say that Toyota's are notably very reliable.

weird how different 2 experiences can be.

I'll never rip on Yota's pickups, BUT, this frame issue begs for some questions to be answered.   
Title: Re: 10 automobiles that should have never been built
Post by: dkff49 on August 03, 2008, 11:39:33 AM
I'll never rip on Yota's pickups, BUT, this frame issue begs for some questions to be answered.   

Agreed answered questions yes but that does not mean that they should be taking them all off the road.

And not necessarily for the purpose of splitting hairs. My understanding of the problem after several hours of searching is not the frame it is the undercoating that was faulty. Which before you say it is what protects the frame, that itself is very fixable if found early on. That is the reason for the inspection, then they can be repaired before a problem exists. I think this is actually a good way to handle the problem, at least as good as any other car manufacturer has handled their found faults. example is Ford's Pinto rear end collision issue used in the original posters link.

Again though finding out how this happened and making sure it does not happen again should be priority one and they already have the other priority taken care of which is locating the problem trucks and making amends. The rest of the location part though is going to be at the discretion of the owners to bring them in for inspections.

As a final note here, I will admit that mine has not been inspected by Toyota for bad undercoating or excessive frame rust. The reason is simple, in this state yearly inspections are required and part of that is a frame inspection looking for excessive rust and or rust holes. I know that is part of it because that old Gremlin that I had failed for that very thing amoungst other problems. That was the day the Gremlin finally died (hangs head in sorrow).