Okay then, they're all terrifyingly average compared to the other cars in the class, unlike their predecessors that all spent some time at the top of the class. They don't build a decent hot hatch anymore (as I already mentioned) which is ridiculous from a company that used to build some of the best around for many years. They still aren't reliable, the dealers are still crap, and they don't offer a single reason to choose them over their competitors, unless you know absolutely nothing about cars and just buy a model to replace the one you already had. And to me, and doubtless most others on this forum, that's not a good reason for a car to exist, just to act as a replacement to it's predecessor.
Terrifyingly average =/= worst
They might be a bit overpriced and a bit dull in comparison, to be the absolute worst car requires something a fair bit more than that (or less of something
).
Oh, and
of course my post was very subjective. To be much more objective we'd have to have driven all of the cars in question
So basing my decision solely on looks is no less a gauge of how good they are than most other choices in the thread so far.
Oh come on now, you and I both know we don't need to drive a car to have a good idea of exactly how good it is. You must like me have read reviews on cars, and while some occasionally conflict reading a few can help build a good idea of how good a car is. The idea that we have to drive a car before we can only rate it based on anything other than its looks is simply absurd. Reliable car reviewers can give you a good idea about a car without ever setting sight on one.
I'm sure the Ssangyong Rhodius is staggeringly practical, but that was overlooked because it's hideous...
I didn't say at anypoint that I approved of the Ssangyong Rhodius nomination either. I singled your post out because you are a member I respect for being sensible and knowledgeable, despite this your post seemed to be the best example of illogical nominating with basically a blanket nomination of an entire manufacture which is why I selected it.
I can fully understand you know longer liking Peugeot (if that is indeed the case). I as a Peugeot 306 driver think, they took a wrong turn particularly in the styling deparment pretty much after the 206 but I can't see any of those cars in your post as the
worst car of 2008
And, read my post on the 1007. I gave plenty of reasons why it's awful...
I am sorry I missed it, you couldn't perhaps post a link?
Sorry to sound like I want a big argument, I simply don't agree with you reasons for nominating all these cars. Not because I think the cars in question are particularly great but because you seem to be blinded by and overwhelming distaste for their aesthetics which may have pushed your indifference in the wrong direction. I can fully understand subjective being a factor in the decision. But to be the
worst car of 2008 it really ought to be truly awful both objectively and subjectively.
I get the feeling that if the OP wanted so much weight on the subjective judgement he would have titled the thread 'Car of 2008 you dislike most'. In which case I am guessing the GTR and Corvette would have been nominated instantly for obvious reasons. Sadly even with our current title some people think the Corvette and the GTR are the worst cars of 2008, which is a shame because even though people may not like them It shouldn't be too hard to see (say by review
) that they are pretty good cars, which then calling them the worst cars suddenly sounds a bit silly.
The Renaultsport Clio and Twingo are nice, and the Laguna coupe is pretty, but the rest are just meh. But even meh is still better than Peugeot manage.
and I HATE leather interiors.
