Time - 50 Worst Cars of All Time

  • Thread starter Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 60 comments
  • 4,664 views
This V12-powered super dune buggy gets on the list — well, my list anyway — purely because of its appalling clientele. The "Rambo Lambo" was the civilian version of a military vehicle that Lamborghini sold to those beacons of democracy, Saudi Arabia and Libya, among others. The luxurious LM002 appealed to spoiled young Saudi sheiks wanting to cross the sand to survey their oil field holdings. Uday Hussein, son of Saddam, had one, which the U.S. military cheerfully blew up in 2004 during a "test" to simulate the effects of a car bomb. The LM002 is the forerunner of another large and unnecessary SUV that signals pure contempt for one's fellow man, the Hummer H2. Read on.
Click to expand...
How on earth do the clients of the LM002 market (which was not just mainly Middle Eastern) make it a bad car?

I smell prejudice....
 
Yah, the LM002 is Italy's version of the H1, except it comes with a V12 and 5-speed manual. It's actually a sweet vehicle especially for a company who makes supercars for a living. The drawback is probably the fuel economy, but if you could afford one you could care less!
 
the airflow was lobbed off cause it was a unibody. the DeSoto one (look THAT up in your wikipedia) sold better. besides...anericans couldn't see where the engine was, so they mistrusted it

the horse fronted car was made so that it wouldn't scare horses

the Edsels were put together so badly, ford had to spend 10 GRAND apeice...in 58 money, to put them right. I think in todays money, that's a Ford GT APIECE

Jon Z got trapped in his car at the vehicles premier.

they for got the poor old tucker...he was hounded out of the car biz by the big three.

I'm suprised no-one mentioned kaiser-frasier...which was created buy the guy who made transport ships assembly line style for the US in WW2

the Yugo is a clone of a Fiat 124...so it was double crapped (fiat has a rep in the states because of crap quality cars like that)
 
MustangSVT
However, I fail to see how BMW 7-series is one of the worst cars ever, and also Ford Model T? Is there something about the 7-series that I should know about?
Click to expand...

Well, there are so many electronics, you see, and-

Wait, that's the 8-Series! Maybe with the fact that the 7-Series was in the shadow of this unfortunate beast, Time Magazine saw it fit to be labelled as one of the 50 worst cars of all time.

The Model T isn't on there because it doesn't have cupholders. Yes, I think this is what the Time Magazine journalists had in mind when judging the car.
 
Venari
EDIT: [:mad:RANT] Now I have read them. Okay, there are certainly some dogs in there. But the Lotus Elite? WTF? Obviously the author heard all the stories of talentless owners (note, not drivers) who managed to pilot these things over a few kerbs 'like I do my Caddy'.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That's has got to be THE Funniest line I have ever read on this forum!!

EVER!!!
 
superberkut
Well, there are so many electronics, you see, and-

Wait, that's the 8-Series! Maybe with the fact that the 7-Series was in the shadow of this unfortunate beast, Time Magazine saw it fit to be labelled as one of the 50 worst cars of all time.

The Model T isn't on there because it doesn't have cupholders. Yes, I think this is what the Time Magazine journalists had in mind when judging the car.
Click to expand...

what was on their mind? Do they have a list of criteria? clearly they included looks, which is very sad, being a matter based 100% on personal opinion, with no form of any facts to back it up.
Hell, I think a lot of older hot rods that many people love from the 30's-50's are ugly. Still doesn't make them the worst cars of all time.

And where the hell is the COUNTACH? That should be a candidate for worst car ever. it performed beneath expectations in every possible way a car could. Oh, wait... it was pretty
 
RecklesAbandon2
And where the hell is the COUNTACH? That should be a candidate for worst car ever. it performed beneath expectations in every possible way a car could. Oh, wait... it was pretty
Click to expand...

It's quick, it handled well and looked fantastic. What other expectations matter for a supercar?
 
TheCracker
It's quick, it handled well and looked fantastic. What other expectations matter for a supercar?
Click to expand...

Well, two out of three ain't bad. It was also approximately as pleasant and comfortable to drive as a 200,000-mile 2-ton refrigerated delivery truck. It was quick and pretty, though.
 
I would agree with the Countach being one of the worst cars ever. I love its looks and the fact that it's insane, but it's pretty bad in terms of comfort, noise inside the car, etc. or at least so I've heard.
 
MustangSVT
I love its looks and the fact that it's insane, but it's pretty bad in terms of comfort, noise inside the car, etc. or at least so I've heard.
Click to expand...
So was every Lamborghini made before 1988, and even then it was arguably a wash.

Duke
Well, two out of three ain't bad.
Click to expand...
I've never read about any handling woes that the Countach suffered from, and I've read it handled better than its main competitors did.
 
MustangSVT
I would agree with the Countach being one of the worst cars ever. I love its looks and the fact that it's insane, but it's pretty bad in terms of comfort, noise inside the car, etc. or at least so I've heard.
Click to expand...

Noise inside the car? You mean the fabulous 5ltr V12 screaming away behind your ear?

...and that's a bad thing?

Comfort was fine, as long as you weren't too tall or live in a very warm climate.

Toronado
I've never read about any handling woes that the Countach suffered from, and I've read it handled better than its main competitors did.
Click to expand...

Contemporary and recent retrospective road tests have it handling better than any of it's rivals, of which it had few - 512 BBi/Testarossa and 930 Turbo.
 
TheCracker
Comfort was fine, as long as you weren't too tall or live in a very warm climate.
Click to expand...

Or had knees which didn't angle backwards. Or wanted to park anywhere. Or reverse. Or drive in town/traffic.


I wouldn't exactly term it "pretty" either. "Striking", yes, but vulgar on a level even Mitsubishi and Subaru haven't been able to achieve. Mind you, it works for me :D
 
I disagree with the Hummer H2, any Corvettes or Camaros on the list and the SSR (which was a great modern hot rod truck if you ask me).
 
The Hummer H2 is a good off road vehicle, it's just no one uses it for that purpose which makes it fail.

And the SSR was a bad idea from the word go since it had the wrong engine in it, was built on the wrong platform, was to tall while you sat to low and the bed was worthless. It was up there with the Plymouth Prowler in terms of poor moves on the automakers part.
 
TheCracker
Noise inside the car? You mean the fabulous 5ltr V12 screaming away behind your ear?

...and that's a bad thing?

Comfort was fine, as long as you weren't too tall or live in a very warm climate.



Contemporary and recent retrospective road tests have it handling better than any of it's rivals, of which it had few - 512 BBi/Testarossa and 930 Turbo.
Click to expand...

From what I've heard I mean the engine noise and/or wind noise is so loud that it gets very annoying after a while in the car. It is my understanding that the cabin gets very warm from the engine as well. yes I'd love to drive one, but thankfully I'm only 5' 11" and I probably wouldn't want to drive it for more than 20-30 minutes at most.
 
MustangSVT
From what I've heard I mean the engine noise and/or wind noise is so loud that it gets very annoying after a while in the car. It is my understanding that the cabin gets very warm from the engine as well.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the 1970's.
 
Unlike the Miura, at least the Countach could keep the front wheels on the ground. Didn't catch fire as often either. For Lamborghini, that was an amazing leap in safety standards. And why complain about heavy steering? If supercars in the 70's had the steering of a Ford Fiesta you'd end up in a ditch or hedge every time you drove it. Supercars today STILL have heavy-ish steering. If you're rich enough to buy a supercar, and want to buy a supercar, you're not going to care what the air conditioning or clutch is like. You just want to drive very fast, accelerate quickly on freeway on-ramps, and be able to drive European mountain roads at speed. That is exactly what the supercar is designed for.
 
Famine
Or had knees which didn't angle backwards. Or wanted to park anywhere. Or reverse. Or drive in town/traffic.
Click to expand...
Some of these problems still technically apply to the Diablo & Murcielago, and I don't think anyone was calling either 1 of the world's worst 50 cars.

Grand Prix
Unlike the Miura, at least the Countach could keep the front wheels on the ground. Didn't catch fire as often either. For Lamborghini, that was an amazing leap in safety standards. And why complain about heavy steering? If supercars in the 70's had the steering of a Ford Fiesta you'd end up in a ditch or hedge every time you drove it. Supercars today STILL have heavy-ish steering. If you're rich enough to buy a supercar, and want to buy a supercar, you're not going to care what the air conditioning or clutch is like. You just want to drive very fast, accelerate quickly on freeway on-ramps, and be able to drive European mountain roads at speed. That is exactly what the supercar is designed for.
Click to expand...

Unforunately, that's not what everyone uses their's for. :indiff:
 
*McLaren*
Unforunately, that's not what everyone uses their's for. :indiff:
Click to expand...

Shame ain't it? Although some customers of supercars don't have a friggen clue what to use them for, most supercars do excel at what they are designed for, regardless of what the public perceives them as. The Countach is just one of many of these. I can't really think of any supercars that failed to meet the criteria to be one. If a car is too slow to be a supercar it's not going to be considered as one anyway, is it?

There are probably some very bad examples of GT cars though.
 
Joey D
The Hummer H2 is a good off road vehicle, it's just no one uses it for that purpose which makes it fail.

And the SSR was a bad idea from the word go since it had the wrong engine in it, was built on the wrong platform, was to tall while you sat to low and the bed was worthless. It was up there with the Plymouth Prowler in terms of poor moves on the automakers part.
Click to expand...

But the SSR looked good from a retro hot rod truck point of view, so it wasn't a practical truck, it was a style truck. And the H2 was awesome at off-road, if people aren't using it for that then they're not buying the right car- get a 300C people who want to pimp their ride.
 
nd 4 holden spd
But the SSR looked good from a retro hot rod truck point of view, so it wasn't a practical truck, it was a style truck. And the H2 was awesome at off-road, if people aren't using it for that then they're not buying the right car- get a 300C people who want to pimp their ride.
Click to expand...

Except the SSR failed and no one really bought it.
 
Oh well, a "good" car that doesn't sell is technically still a flop I guess. I say good even though it wasn't practical because I like how it looks and still has a V8 dunnit.
 
Grand Prix
Shame ain't it? Although some customers of supercars don't have a friggen clue what to use them for, most supercars do excel at what they are designed for, regardless of what the public perceives them as. The Countach is just one of many of these. I can't really think of any supercars that failed to meet the criteria to be one. If a car is too slow to be a supercar it's not going to be considered as one anyway, is it?

There are probably some very bad examples of GT cars though.
Click to expand...

In addition, a lot of cars attained supercar status without necessarily being officially classified as one (the first BMW M5s, the 635CSi, the Lamborghini Espada).

Bad GT cars are fewer than bad sportscars, however. (Caterham 21)

The criteria for this search may be a combination of looks or ergonomics, but it is glaringly inconsistent, taking these cars at face value against other modern vehicles.
 
Joey D
Except the SSR failed and no one really bought it.
Click to expand...

I think that's partially because it cost almost the same as a Corvette...course it did use the same powertrain. If they would have given it the 5.3, 5-speed, and maybe given it a softtop it could have sold more for a lesser cost, not to mention it could have lost some weight since the high weight is why the bigger engine was needed in the first place. The Prowler was a good car, except it would have helped to have had a bigger trunk and manual transmission not to mention a more powerful engine. The styling was cool but it was too slow. If you think about it, the SSR is a similar idea to the Dakota convertible of the late 80's/early 90's except the Dakota did it much better.
 
Only two I don't agree with that I reconized are the SSR and H2. Then again I'm the only one I know that likes the SSR other than my dad.

nd 4 holden spd
I disagree with the Hummer H2, any Corvettes or Camaros on the list and the SSR (which was a great modern hot rod truck if you ask me).
Click to expand...

The only Camaro on the list was a piece of crap. I4 please. It was junk.

I agree with the rest with the exceptioin of the california vette, terrible motor in that too.
 
honestly I have trouble taking any part of the list seriously because of three vehicles he added.

Model T : he has it on the list because it led up to every car made today... um ok

LM02 : because the vehicle is responsible for the customers that choose it

Explorer : again, the vehicle is on the list because of what it caused?

he seems to have a couple articles where he even admits that the vehicle in question is perfectly competent...

admittedly plenty of vehicles on the list belong there (some for painfully obvious reasons) and his reasoning is legit sometimes but the whole thing just wreaks of personal bias
 

Latest Posts

Back