The worst cars on the market

Forbes Magazine via MSNBC.COM ^ | January 13, 2005 | Dan Lienert

[immigrationreformactivist]

Making a list of the worst cars of all time, which we compiled last year, is easier than making a list of the worst cars currently on the market because, frankly, all cars are built pretty well these days. However, even now in the early days of the 2005 model year, several vehicles stand out for subpar performance in several important categories — in some cases, matters of life and death such as safety. What follows is a roundup of the ten worst cars on the market, based on three criteria: the worst crash test scores, the lowest projected reliability and the lowest projected residual values. We thought about castigating cars for multiple recalls, but the 2005 model year is too young to do so (most recalled '05 models have been recalled only once so far). Furthermore, consumers often ignore such issues as recalls — unless they are for universally dangerous reasons, such as spontaneously exploding gas tanks — in favor of style, sex appeal or raw power. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the cars in the slide show are not particularly sexy. Several of them are among the cheapest cars on the market.

[Darkwolf377]

The Submersible Kennedymatic would be my pick

[7.62 x 51mm]

SS Oldsmobile?

[AppyPappy]

Are they giving away the Kia Rio with every purchase of a Sorrento?

I can't believe they dissed the Navi. Mike Vick has a Navi.

[satchmodog9]

this was posted last week.

[Zathras]

Honda Element.
The only car which makes the AMC Pacer look good.

[stainlessbanner]

< snip >

LEAST SAFE
• Kia Rio
• Mitsubishi Lancer
• Nissan Sentra
• Ford Ranger
• Mazda B-Series
• Ford Explorer Sport Trac

LEAST RELIABLE
• Lincoln Navigator

LOWEST RESIDUAL VALUE
• Dodge Neon
• Lincoln LS V-6
• Chrysler Sebring sedan

[satchmodog9]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1326488/posts

[ProudVet77]

"based on three criteria: the worst crash test scores, the lowest projected reliability and the lowest projected residual values."

What moronic selection criterias. How about 0-60 times, max speed, G's in a turn! The stuff that really matters.

[rickmichaels]

Anything built by Chrysler in the 80's was an absolute abomination.

[Calvarys_Soldier]

"With their heads on the roof and their knees on their chest, they're gonna save enough gas for all the rest...in a Yugo...(in a Yugo)."

[shoffma1999]

I second that. Today designers are completely unoriginal. Lets see how much plastic we can put on a car. Oh yeah, and lets see how much like a box we can make it.

[Phantom Lord]

Anything built by Chrysler in the 80's was an absolute abomination.

I had a 1988 Dodge Ram Charger. One of the greatest vehicles I have ever owned. Wish I still had it.

[Banach-Tarski]

I'm surprised that the abomination they call the 'scion xB and/or xA' didn't make the list.

[quidnunc]

The cars in the "lowest residual value" category are there because these are the vehicles most used as rental vehicles.

They have no less intrinsic worth than other cars, it's just that rental vehicles are priced cheap because they are abused.

[DustyMoment]

The only car which makes the AMC Pacer look good.

Not to mention the Gremlin and the VW Thing.

[Corporate Law]

That is one fugly car, yet all the libs around me think they are the best thing since sliced bread. You cannot swing a dead cat in the neighborhood without cracking the plastic siding of one of those things.

[Holicheese]

Have you noticed that everyone driving a Honda Element looks exactly the same?
Gray beard, long gray hair in a pony tail and a cordoroy suit.
And that is the women...

[drt1]

Disagree. We have one and it is a very good vehicle - IMO Certainly better than most SUV's I've seen.

[-YYZ-]

"Lets see how much plastic we can put on a car."

You want to talk about plastic, GM is in general probably the worst for bodyside cladding, and the Chevy Avalanche probably the worst of those. I'm always amazed that anyone actually buys those things, but then there's always a few admirers for any model.