PDA

View Full Version : Which car do you hate the most?


Valentine One Radar Detector

Eric
10-30-2009, 03:15 PM
This isn't about the "worst" car - its about the cars you just can't stand to look at, even if they can't be faulted in terms of whether they work or not.

I personally hate the following vehicles:

* Cadillac Escalade -

This thing is loathsome mainly because of the gaudy stupidity it represents. Here we have a tarted-up Chevy Tahoe that GM charges two or three times as much for - and the idiots buy it! An "SUV" with 20-inch rims that are as suitable for off-road use as Paul Wolfowitz would be in a bar fight; a butt-load of elaborate "4WD" equipment that's as useless as a mangina in a fertility clinic...

* Breedermobile minivans -

I am thinking especially of overstuffed, left land-dawdling, sticker-plastered "soccer mom" models like the Chrysler Town & Country and the Toyota Sienna. These things are hateful because of the fatuous suburban ethos they represent; the leveraged-to-the-hilt McMansion-dwelling (and almost invariably doughy or downright obese) human cattle who drive them. It is impossible to have either a soul or a functioning human personality and hold the keys to such a vehicle.

* Hybrids -

All of them. They are the rolling embodiment of the cloying, holier-than-thou faux "I caaaaaaare" mentality of the typical American double-talking leftie or leftie dupe. The fact that these vehicles work beautifully is beside the point; so does my asshole - but that doesn't mean it smells good. And neither does the musky aroma of bullshit that rises like a noxious cloud from pile of PR crap that surrounds these hybrids. Anyone with half a brain who spent 5 minutes thinking about it would realize that the way to save gas is to buy and drive a decent condition used economy car for around $5-7k or so. Not spend $30,000 on a "fuel efficient" Prius (which must be Japanese for "imbecile American")>

swamprat
10-30-2009, 08:36 PM
I hate those boxy Scion type cars.

dBrong
10-30-2009, 09:00 PM
Boxy Scion Type Cars: You need to have lip piercings, multiple ear piercings, and maybe some hand / neck / facial tatoos to drive one of these.

Chrysler 300: A true 1930's gangsta caaar.

PT Cruisers: Panel trucks are great - immations are not!

Any anthropormorphic car: For instance the silly / dumbassed look of the new VW Beetle. Any car that "smiles" sucks.

Lincoln Trucks: Just as bad as the Cadillac Escalade. Maybe even worse.

Hummers: This ride says "My wife is a whore (or a pole dancer)"

misterdecibel
10-31-2009, 03:14 AM
All of the above, especially the 300. I was going to submit the 300 when I saw the thread title.

Other hates:

Lifted pickups
SUVs
Crossovers
anything MOPAR past or present
GM fleet car fodder
Camry and Corolla -- deathly bland
most convertibles, but especially the Sebring

Eric
10-31-2009, 09:47 AM
All of the above, especially the 300. I was going to submit the 300 when I saw the thread title.

Other hates:

Lifted pickups
SUVs
Crossovers
anything MOPAR past or present
GM fleet car fodder
Camry and Corolla -- deathly bland
most convertibles, but especially the Sebring


All good choices!

I especially dislike how genuinely useful vehicles like the original Ford Bronco ('60s model) International Scout and Jeep Wagoneer, etc. morphed into "SUVs" - almost uniformly driven by inept Yuppie types who do things like drive at 70 mph on snow-covered roads because "I have a 4WD!"

I'm old enough to remember when people who had vehicles such as the old Bronco, Wagoneer, etc., generally had a real use for them and knew how to use them. These were serious, capable vehicles built for people who understood them - and knew their imitations, too.

A modern "SUV" is the vehicular equivalent of a 5,000 sq. ft. McMansion on a 1/4 acre lot. It's big, expensive and garish - and a monument to gratuitous, wasteful stupidity.

swamprat
11-01-2009, 12:45 AM
I like the 300, but the Charger looks like puke.

Agree 100 percent with the Camry and Corolla.

I want to add the Honda Accord. Having driven one, it handles like the Forrestall and drinks gas (believe it or not).

I hate crossovers as well.

The only SUV that I like was the 1989-2001 Jeep Cherokee.

Eric
11-01-2009, 06:11 AM
I like the 300, but the Charger looks like puke.

Agree 100 percent with the Camry and Corolla.

I want to add the Honda Accord. Having driven one, it handles like the Forrestall and drinks gas (believe it or not).

I hate crossovers as well.

The only SUV that I like was the 1989-2001 Jeep Cherokee.

The current Accord looks as though it was hit from behind (and the front) at the same time. It is also perhaps the second-most over-rated car on the road. Number one being the Camry.

The 300's layout is fine and I don't mind its interior; but on the outside it looks like Luca Brasi from the "Godfather"!

dBrong
11-01-2009, 09:39 AM
I forgot the "Smart Car"

swamprat
11-01-2009, 09:48 AM
I forgot the "Smart Car"

So did I. It's a true car-haters car, along with hybrids.

Of course, I forgot that it was a car.

grouch
11-04-2009, 08:32 PM
All good choices!

I especially dislike how genuinely useful vehicles like the original Ford Bronco ('60s model) International Scout and Jeep Wagoneer, etc. morphed into "SUVs" - almost uniformly driven by inept Yuppie types who do things like drive at 70 mph on snow-covered roads because "I have a 4WD!"

I'm old enough to remember when people who had vehicles such as the old Bronco, Wagoneer, etc., generally had a real use for them and knew how to use them. These were serious, capable vehicles built for people who understood them - and knew their imitations, too.

A modern "SUV" is the vehicular equivalent of a 5,000 sq. ft. McMansion on a 1/4 acre lot. It's big, expensive and garish - and a monument to gratuitous, wasteful stupidity.



Last winter, we didn't get much snow but down south about 20 miles they got hammered. I went down to visit my mom in her nursing home and I got behind two other 4X4 pickups. We were creeping along at about 20 mph, which was as fast as I felt safe going, even in old "Black Betty". Betty came out of Maine originally and has 357K on the clock. 3.21 gear ratio means it's not much account in the mud but it's a great snow truck.
As we got farther towards Sebree, the snow got heavier and the plows had managed to get two lanes open, sort of. The wind had drifted it partially shut. My truck, and it looked like the other two, had fairly aggressivw tread tires. A kid in a regular Cherokee, bog wheels and skiiny tires decided all us old phartes were just an impediment.
He passed on a long straight stretch. He then bounced off the snow bank on the other side of the road. Then our side, then the other side again. Lots of platic pieces coming off. He stayed on the road but I'll bet he had to change his underwear later. If I'm having trouble in a truck with good clearance, totally mechanical drive and good tires, shift on the fly mommymobiles aren't going to do any better.

DonTom
11-05-2009, 06:26 AM
deathly bland
most convertibles, but especially the Sebring

What is it that you hate so much about the Sebring?


-Don-

misterdecibel
11-05-2009, 09:34 PM
What is it that you hate so much about the Sebring?


-Don-


What is there not to hate about it? What does it have going for it, that ANY other car in its market segment can't do better? What would possibly compel anyone to actually BUY one in a competitive marketplace, apart from massive buyer incentives?

DonTom
11-06-2009, 02:25 AM
What is there not to hate about it? What does it have going for it, that ANY other car in its market segment can't do better? What would possibly compel anyone to actually BUY one in a competitive marketplace, apart from massive buyer incentives?

You can say the same for the others. Can you be a bit more specific?

I own two convertibles. A 1999 Ford Mustang Convertible (3.8L) and a 1997 Sebring convertible (2.5L).

Of the two, IMO, the Sebring is more comfy, has more useful space in the trunk, gets much better MPG and has a larger gas tank and has a better ride.

The bad parts of the Sebring is it's very difficult to work on (even the battery is hard to get to). Very difficult to change the timing belt compared to other cars I have done. The design of the alternator idiot light is so stupid that you can drive all day without an alternator belt with nothing telling you there's a problem until the battery is so dead that the car won't restart. And have to take off the upper intake manifold to get to the rear spark plugs. But many other cars are a lot worse to work on.

But I don't think any of these things are real big deals.

I don't understand why you say it's so bad.


-Don-

Eric
11-06-2009, 06:03 AM
You can say the same for the others. Can you be a bit more specific?

I own two convertibles. A 1999 Ford Mustang Convertible (3.8L) and a 1997 Sebring convertible (2.5L).

Of the two, IMO, the Sebring is more comfy, has more useful space in the trunk, gets much better MPG and has a larger gas tank and has a better ride.

The bad parts of the Sebring is it's very difficult to work on (even the battery is hard to get to). Very difficult to change the timing belt compared to other cars I have done. The design of the alternator idiot light is so stupid that you can drive all day without an alternator belt with nothing telling you there's a problem until the battery is so dead that the car won't restart. And have to take off the upper intake manifold to get to the rear spark plugs. But many other cars are a lot worse to work on.

But I don't think any of these things are real big deals.

I don't understand why you say it's so bad.


-Don-


I agree with you.

For what it is - a reasonably priced four seat touring convertible - it's a perfectly nice car. It's not sporty handling, but that's not what people buy it for. It's roomier than the Mustang and as you note, it's easier on gas (the Mustang's V-6 is one of the worst on the market in this respect). It has adequate power, etc. etc.

Not everyone wants or needs a high-powered/sharp handling sports coupe/convertible. Some people just like to drive around leisurely with the top down (and in a car that's modestly priced).

For such duty, the Sebring meets the cut.

dBrong
11-06-2009, 10:59 AM
... The bad parts of the Sebring is it's very difficult to work on (even the battery is hard to get to).


My neighbor needed a new battery - I never saw a car that takes 30 - 45 minutes to remove the battery (or put it on jackstands and pull the wheel).


It's yet another example of bad design - if the battery had to be in a location like that, atleast they could have designed so that the components above it are easily removable.


It shows Chrysler doesn't care.

Eric
11-06-2009, 12:17 PM
My neighbor needed a new battery - I never saw a car that takes 30 - 45 minutes to remove the battery (or put it on jackstands and pull the wheel).


It's yet another example of bad design - if the battery had to be in a location like that, atleast they could have designed so that the components above it are easily removable.


It shows Chrysler doesn't care.

Many GM vehicles of '70s vintage are also difficult in this respect. In my '76 Pontiac, for example, the battery is partially under the top radiator support and there is a structural reinforcement bar above it that must be removed before you can even think about getting the battery out. Then, you have to tilt battery on its side and lift it out - which requires a pretty strong person. A big PITAS.

Adam
11-06-2009, 02:37 PM
I'm with Eric I hate that Cadillac Escalade,any car with those stinking bright halogen lights. However I'm giving more respect to old timers in convertibles or on Harleys or any status symbol because they worked very hard all their lives and baby it's time to enjoy. The other day I passed a geezer in a yellow rag top sporty looking Mercedez with a big fat cigar a white poodole next to him cranking up that song You've Lost that Loving Feeling. Gosh I love that song but no poodle for this tough guy. I'm going to be the best geezer ever I just need a little more time.

Eric
11-06-2009, 05:12 PM
I'm with Eric I hate that Cadillac Escalade,any car with those stinking bright halogen lights. However I'm giving more respect to old timers in convertibles or on Harleys or any status symbol because they worked very hard all their lives and baby it's time to enjoy. The other day I passed a geezer in a yellow rag top sporty looking Mercedez with a big fat cigar a white poodole next to him cranking up that song You've Lost that Loving Feeling. Gosh I love that song but no poodle for this tough guy. I'm going to be the best geezer ever I just need a little more time.

Agreed!

(See the earlier post about the Chrysler Sebring....)

DonTom
11-07-2009, 05:01 AM
It shows Chrysler doesn't care.


Or, perhaps they care more about other stuff, such as keeping the car small but with more room by putting things below other thingies and using up every inch available under the hood.

IMO, the Sebring has a good feel to it when you're driving it (instead of working on it!).

What I consider to be a "Piece of sheet car" is the 96 Camaro V6 that Tom used to drive. Extremely unconformable unreliable piece of sheet! Especially for the passenger. I am almost glad Tom totaled it out at about 15 MPH in Golden Gate Park. But it looked nice, for those who would rather look at the car than drive it.

BTW, want to change the spark plugs in that? Step one is to completely remove the engine from the vehicle! But that wasn't a convertible.


-Don- SSF, CA

misterdecibel
11-11-2009, 01:37 PM
I agree with you.

For what it is - a reasonably priced four seat touring convertible - it's a perfectly nice car. It's not sporty handling, but that's not what people buy it for. It's roomier than the Mustang and as you note, it's easier on gas (the Mustang's V-6 is one of the worst on the market in this respect). It has adequate power, etc. etc.

Not everyone wants or needs a high-powered/sharp handling sports coupe/convertible. Some people just like to drive around leisurely with the top down (and in a car that's modestly priced).

For such duty, the Sebring meets the cut.

Makes the cut as a car for people who don't care about cars.

Handling is a safety feature, along with good brakes it's the primary recourse for accident-avoidance. Every car should handle "like a sports car". There's no excuse for any mushwagens in this day and age. Adequacy is not a cause celebre.

As near as I can tell the absolute only thing the Sebring has going for it is that it's available as a convertible. Otherwise it's not even competitive with a Kia or Hyundai.

Eric
11-11-2009, 02:04 PM
"Makes the cut as a car for people who don't care about cars."

Well, who aren't enthusiasts.

"Handling is a safety feature, along with good brakes it's the primary recourse for accident-avoidance. Every car should handle "like a sports car". There's no excuse for any mushwagens in this day and age. Adequacy is not a cause celebre."

Everything's relative. Compared with virtually any car of the '70s, the Sebring handles and brakes like a race car! Just making a point. It handles/stops "safely" by any reasonable standard. It is certainly not a dangerous car.

"As near as I can tell the absolute only thing the Sebring has going for it is that it's available as a convertible. Otherwise it's not even competitive with a Kia or Hyundai."

There isn't another legitimate four-seat convertible (with room for four adults) that's in the same (low) price range - and that is Sebring's key selling point.

misterdecibel
11-12-2009, 02:00 PM
There isn't another legitimate four-seat convertible (with room for four adults) that's in the same (low) price range - and that is Sebring's key selling point.


What about the Sebring sedan or coupe, what's the excuse for them?

Eric
11-12-2009, 05:16 PM
What about the Sebring sedan or coupe, what's the excuse for them?

Ok, I agree with you there!

Roger
11-18-2009, 05:35 PM
Here's something that might get a response or two -- how about the 1957 Chevy? Just a warmed-over design from '55/56, with both the Ford and the Plymouth much more attractive in '57. The '57 Chevy has become a tiresome cliche. Ford outsold Chevy that year, not counting the sales of the newly-introduced Ranchero. (Disclaimer - I own a '57 Ranchero.)

Eric
11-18-2009, 05:40 PM
Here's something that might get a response or two -- how about the 1957 Chevy? Just a warmed-over design from '55/56, with both the Ford and the Plymouth much more attractive in '57. The '57 Chevy has become a tiresome cliche. Ford outsold Chevy that year, not counting the sales of the newly-introduced Ranchero. (Disclaimer - I own a '57 Ranchero.)

Hey Roger,

I also like the more aggressive look of the '57 Plymouths. I think part of the reason for the ongoing popularity and even iconic status of the '57 Chevy is due as much to its powertrain as its looks. The 283 small block was a great design; lightweight with very high output per cubic inch. Also inexpensive, with lots of aftermarket parts and very reliable and easy to work on, too.

I have nothing against Chevys, per se and have owned a few. I just prefer "different drummer" stuff - which is why I'm mostly a Pontiac guy!

PS: Welcome to the site!

Mase
11-18-2009, 05:46 PM
I also like the more aggressive look of the '57 Plymouths.

http://ericpetersautos.com/gallery/files/3/8/1957_plymouth.jpg

Eric
11-18-2009, 05:48 PM
[quote=Eric;118507]Hey Roger,

I also like the more aggressive look of the '57 Plymouths. [/quote

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/redthumb5/57fury2.jpg

Something snafu'd!

Roger
11-18-2009, 08:05 PM
Thanks for the welcome, Eric.

I have to agree with you on one hybrid in particular, the ubiquitous Prius. However, we recently bought a 2010 Ford Fusion hybrid after reading great reviews. It's a much better car all around, and certainly less of a "statement". Part of the purchase was a vote for Ford as the company not bought out by government or union, though the car's assembled in Mexico!

Eric
11-18-2009, 08:09 PM
Thanks for the welcome, Eric.

I have to agree with you on one hybrid in particular, the ubiquitous Prius. However, we recently bought a 2010 Ford Fusion hybrid after reading great reviews. It's a much better car all around, and certainly less of a "statement". Part of the purchase was a vote for Ford as the company not bought out by government or union, though the car's assembled in Mexico!

You bet!

On the Prius: It's overpriced and dealers are gouging people mercilessly. I bet you got a much better deal on your Fusion ... :D

Mase
11-19-2009, 07:11 PM
I also like the more aggressive look of the '57 Plymouths.

http://ericpetersautos.com/gallery/files/3/8/1957_plymouth.jpg

Fixed that.

misterdecibel
11-20-2009, 12:51 AM
I also like the more aggressive look of the '57 Plymouths.

http://ericpetersautos.com/gallery/files/3/8/1957_plymouth.jpg

Nothing exceeds like excess.

Eric
11-20-2009, 06:46 AM
It was a mean-looking thing!

Perfect choice for "Christine" - remember?

Body by Plymouth... soul by Satan!

Mase
11-20-2009, 02:15 PM
Nothing exceeds like excess.

Naw. HEREs the proper level of excess.


http://ericpetersautos.com/gallery/files/3/8/1957_imperial_convertible_original.jpg

Eric
11-20-2009, 03:31 PM
America used to be a great country...

misterdecibel
11-22-2009, 08:02 PM
Virgin Exner had a unique talent for making truly ugly rolling stock.

Or bad-ass.

Depends on what you like...

grouch
11-23-2009, 10:32 PM
Find a picture of each and then look really quick. Can you tell the '57 Chevy from the '56 Plymouth? I had a '56 Plymouth and everybody always thought it was a '57 Chevy. The fronts didn't look that much like each other but the fins were really close. Chevy was always a year behind Mopar back then on a lot of things but had better marketing. Name the first car for instance that had 1 h.p. per cubic inch as an option. Now, what was the first car to have the 1 per inch as standard?

Mase
11-24-2009, 12:11 PM
Find a picture of each and then look really quick. Can you tell the '57 Chevy from the '56 Plymouth? I had a '56 Plymouth and everybody always thought it was a '57 Chevy. The fronts didn't look that much like each other but the fins were really close. Chevy was always a year behind Mopar back then on a lot of things but had better marketing. Name the first car for instance that had 1 h.p. per cubic inch as an option. Now, what was the first car to have the 1 per inch as standard?


http://www.moparpowerclub.com/Tony_Ks_1956_Plymouth-Back.jpg

MeanMeosh
11-30-2009, 11:37 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Ford Escort yet. Talk about a POS. What always annoyed me more about that car, though, were the drivers usually piloting them. If there was an a**hole up ahead doing 55 in the fast lane, there was a good chance it was someone driving an Escort.

Eric
12-01-2009, 07:38 AM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Ford Escort yet. Talk about a POS. What always annoyed me more about that car, though, were the drivers usually piloting them. If there was an a**hole up ahead doing 55 in the fast lane, there was a good chance it was someone driving an Escort.

Yes - the plague of the '80s! I remember those cars like I do the wisdom teeth I had to have pulled. A friend in college actually bought one. Yes, he chose to rive an Escort. It was as embarrassing as Gary Del 'Abate's pitch!

Good to see you back, by the way -

MeanMeosh
12-01-2009, 02:44 PM
Good to see you back, by the way -

Thanks - been busy wrapping up an overseas assignment, which is thankfully done and over with. It's amazing how much extra time you have when you're not working the graveyard shift anymore...

grouch
12-02-2009, 09:36 PM
I must be slipping. I hate folks who post a question and then don't answer it.

The first car to have 1 horsepower per cubic inch was the 1956 Chrysler 300B with the optional high compression heads giving 354 hp from 354 inches.

The first car to have it as standard was the 1957 DeSoto Adventurer. It had 345 hp out of a 345 engine. By the way, both engines were Hemis.

Mase
12-03-2009, 01:45 PM
The first car to have 1 horsepower per cubic inch was the 1956 Chrysler 300B with the optional high compression heads giving 354 hp from 354 inches.



http://ericpetersautos.com/gallery/files/3/8/1956_chrysler_300_original.jpg

misterdecibel
12-19-2009, 09:28 PM
What was the first production car to have 100 HP / liter?

misterdecibel
12-19-2009, 09:30 PM
Virgin Exner had a unique talent for making truly ugly rolling stock.

Or bad-ass.

Depends on what you like...

I didn't write those last two lines, if you're going to edit my posts at least include an "Edited by ________" line.

KentAZ
06-21-2010, 07:34 AM
Definitely the Hummer. Pretentious, faux-military gas guzzler. Screams 'My SUV* is bigger than yours!

*can substitute a certain body part here for the same effect