Worst-Made Cars on the Road 2010
 

1)Cadillac Escalade
2)Chevrolet Aveo
3)Chevrolet Colorado
4)Dodge Nitro
5)Ford F-250
6)GMC Canyon
7)Jeep Wrangler

Wow - Is it really possible that America sucks this bad a making cars? That is just pathetic. Personally, I'm embarrassed and I have nothing to do with it.

Define American made. Given that they're assembled all over the damn place...

oh and also, whose opinion is this and what stats is it based on? maybe you forgot the link -it's not like you to quote without?

And where did that quote come from? :eyebrow:

The link for y'all...

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home...od=family-home

oh, yahoo... no wonder CM "forgot" it ;) I'll bet he claims Forbes, though....

:lol:

thanks, Tulip

That's what I thought, much of their information comes from Consumer Reports. I've long been at odds with the way they weight portions of there evaluations. Plus those fuckers bought my favorite boyhood dragstrip and turned it into a test facility. :p:

And a hearty fuck you too.

Actually I started on yahoo and dug a little further finding the referenced article. And yes, it was Forbes. So back to how shitty these cars are again...

You wanna piece of me? Start yet another thread. :scream:

hmm, a citation would be nice to the author of the list. Here's Consumer Reports' list of worst new cars:

Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara
Hummer H2
Ford Ranger XLT V6
Hummer H3
Jeep Liberty Sport
Smartfortwopassion (whatever the hell that is!)
Chevrolet Aveo 5 1LT
Dodge Nitro SLT
Chevrolet Aveo LT
Toyota FJ Cruiser

Something called a Dodge Nitro sounds rather dangerous. Does it blow up often? :eek:

The Nitro and the Liberty are the same car. For it to be on the list as both indicates that the design is poor.

http://www.automedia.com/NewCarBuyer...itro_ext_1.jpg

http://www.autocity.com/latam/report...berty-hero.jpg

If my Commander had been totaled (than you fsm), I would have replaced it with a Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon. If I have money to burn, I'd just buy a wrangler rubi to fuck around in.

What's wrong with Consumer Reports? At least they're not paid like Consumer Digest.

I'd have a hard time buying a car not recommended by CR. I can tell the writing is on the wall regarding my car, so I may buy a new one in a year or so. So -- fun research!

(their, btw ;) )

classic whoa! I'm just ribbing you for forgetting to cite your souce, calm down boy! You've misplaced your dudeness somewhere.....

Sorry Monnie - I'm a lot touchy lately

no prob

their what?

evaluations, apparently

I think Cloud's original was correct.

"At least they're not paid like Consumer Digest."

At least they are not paid like Consumer Digest.

their evaluations, pete....

not there evaluations.

The way the weight features and performance.

If A has 5 doors, and B has 2 doors, they'll rave about A being much better for loading groceries, child seats, etc.
If A gets 40mpg and 0to60 in 12 seconds, and B gets 30mpg and 0to60 in 7 seconds, they'll choose A as being much better.

I disagree, what they deem better, isn't what I want.

but at least all the criteria are set out for you, so you can determine the relative weight of the factors you DO want

Gotcha.



Nevermind.

Yes, but what Forbes has done is just parrot this is best, this is worst, without asking why. That's why I'm skeptical of their list.

Forbes? What are you talking about? If it's the original list in the first post, that isn't the same as the CR one.

Do you have a better source for evaluation and testing of cars?

My experience of American cars is pretty limited and possibly somewhat dated, however on my visits to the US I have rented a Buick Le Sabre (once) and the Chevrolet Cavalier on three occasions.
I found them comfortable and powerful enough and all the fixtures and fittings were more than adequate. Admittedly I doubt very much whether any vehicle would have been more than about six months old so they weren't going to exhibit problems associated with wear and tear. I notice that Chevrolet cars appear in second and third place on the list of the worst, but can the whole range be said to be poor, or is it simply a case of a couple of rogue models?
Generally speaking, do Buick and Chevrolet have a reasonable reputation amongst US drivers?

Carruthers

ETA: My last visit to the US was in 2004. I did say my experience was somewhat dated.

I drive a '99 Buick La Saber, and I'm very satisfied.

It was a '99 model that I drove. I rented it at Denver and it was brand new; it didn't have plates, just a large sticker in the rear window. I had opted for a smaller model when I booked the car, but on arrival I was offered the Buick which was two categories higher but only had a one category higher rate. I suspect that they didn't have the car I had originally requested and would have had to offer me the Buick at the original rate anyway. However, I had left the house at an unearthly hour, driven sixty miles to the airport, spent an age waiting to board and then had a nine hour flight, so I was always going to say 'YES' to anything.

That reminds me. I must find the photo I took of the Buick.

Carruthers

From the Forbes article

interesting, 'cause CR has it's own list of worst cars (which I posted), and that isn't it. So they just picked and chose? But maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges? My list is the worst new cars.

I like CR for most of the stuff. We get the print edition every month. The biggest problem is that by the time the stuff makes it to print the model they tested is way out of date so you still have to guess in the general direction of near models but that is not the way it always turns out. But generally I like the way they report, esp for cars. BTW this years auto edition had all the Toyotas as best buy but with a reservation for the accelerator issue. So far I still like Toyota.

:facepalm:

been wanting to use that

Train wreck, ain't it?

See they're, how their messing with there rules?

again; why are all the good value, good reliability cars so ugly . . . and the cute ones are all not recommended?

bugger

Buy German or Japanese.

Well it's only my theory. But here it is. My theory.

At some point in the early 90s, every engineer at every car company figured out the huuuuuge advantage to be gained in cutting through the air easily. Put your car through wind tunnels, identify the perfect shape, and you gain huge MPG and huge acceleration.

At that point, the engineers explained to marketing that all the edges had to be rounded off, the rear window couldn't just slope down, the side mirrors had to look like pods, etc. or else they would lose 2 seconds on their 0-60 and 10 MPG highway. And marketing understood that.

So, around about 1996, every model of every car became "egg-ified". To illustrate this point, because I think it's cool, I'll get some pictures.

OK here's a 1989 Ford Taurus:

http://cellar.org/2010/1989Taurus.jpg

And here's that same model, in roughly the same color in 1999:

http://cellar.org/2010/1999Taurus.jpg

From a design standpoint, we realize that the first one is nothing special, but then it's a 21 year old design, which is centuries in automotive land. But the second one... well that's offensive. That's the Taurus? Ford's flagship sedan? It looks like a Neon. Or an Altima of its day. Or a 626 of its day. Or... every other car made in the wind tunnel era. The perfect shape is the perfect shape to every engineer: because it's guided by physics. The laws are the same for every car company!

So now, the cars that look interesting are the minority that aren't melted into an egg. But that means that car can't be too popular, because it won't be the most efficient design, by its very nature. The car companies, in turn, have to meet their fuel efficiency standards. So they might make niche cars that aren't as efficient but look cool, preserving their record as a company that makes cool cars. But the mainstream cars look like every other car.

And they know the big box of an Escalade -- sure it gets something like 12 MPG, but somebody's gotta win the Bigass American Vehicle awards every year, now that Hummer's given up.

Wow. I always wondered why cars turned into eggs in the 90s. Thank you, UT.

right. :rolleyes:

It's not a theory, it's the exact history of automotive design for the last 20 years. :thumb:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Toyota asked dealers to temporarily suspend sales of the new 2010 Lexus GX 460 after Consumer Reports issued a safety warning on the SUV.

"We are taking the situation with the GX 460 very seriously and are determined to identify and correct the issue Consumer Reports identified," said Mark Templin, Lexus Group vice president and general manager, in a prepared statement.

ouchy

btw- CR used to do apples v oranges in the bike industry as well.

What engineering says and what marketing hears (after applying filters) is what happens. For example, 1930 cars all had blunt front ends. Theory: raindrop is an ideal aerodynamic shape. So 1930 cars were reshaped like raindrops. Because marketing wants to promote that (what we now know to be a) myth to hype sales.

Engineering and costs say the rechargeable has no advantages. But marketting is about hyping myths - ignore the engineers. Which is also why GM would not market their 1999 hybrid paid for entirely with government R&D money. Marketing will only market what people without driver's licenses can understand.


Every so often, engineering says something that marketing can convert into more sales. For example, in the 1970s, engineers said if we use low profile (square) headlights, then the hood could be lowered. Better MPG. So government regulators (who had created headlight standards when the automakers refused to) permitted square headlights that only GM cars had. Now Mr Jones was jealous of Mr Smith who clearly had a new car - because Mr Smith had square headlights.

Well GM then stacked the square headlights vertically on Buicks. GM engines had so low performance that the hood had to remain high. So square headlights did nothing areodynamic for Buicks - but increased sales.

That third brake light is another example. On all safer cars, the rear turn signal is orange. No confusion. Signals can be seen in all inclement weather. But then GM could not hype Mr Smith's new car to Mr Jones. All engineered cars already had the superior solution - orange rear turn signals. So GM got the government to install the third brake light so that drivers would not be confused by red rear lights doing too many functions. And so that GM need not run two more wires. Now Mr Jones had to buy a new car because Mr Smith's car had a third brake light. The crappier solution did not solve the problem. Promoted sales. And cost controllers did not have to run two more 'expensive' wires to the rear.

In every case, when the car is designed by bean counters, then marketing only hears engineers when it can hype the newest product as mythical innovations.

Name an innovation in a GM car in the past 30 years. None except innovations required by Federal regulations. If government did not require it, then engineers were not permitted to do it. This author even worked in GM factories. Engineers did not make decisions. Often, problems can only be solved by finding a union worker. He throws an arm salute at the corporate offices. Then as one said to me, "Let's go fix it right now." Engineer could not do anything until he had permission from bean counters.

Also why GM cars must have two extra pistons just to get the same horsepower. So GM cars cost more to build than comparatively equipped Mercedes Benz. GM cars even required wheel alignment that was long made unnecessary on partriotic American cars designed in Japan and Europe.

That is why NUMMI (that finally closed on 31 March 2010) could build cars for GM with only 1/4th the employees. And GM then refused to learn the lessons from NUMMI. Marketing only permits a new 'appearance' when it can be used to hype sales. GM cars obviously being some of the world's worst because engineers are not an asset - are only an expense - according to GM spread sheets.

Marketing only hears what it wants to hear - which is why GM still does not have a hybrid. Which is why the Volt must be hyped as rechargeable because it is nothing more than GM's first hybrid - while the competition is already making its third generation hybrids.

Marketing can only sell what the product is. Its the engineers who design and develop the product.

this little factoid sheds one metric shit ton of light on the slant of many many tw posts.

I would assume that your relationship with GM ended badly.

must



show




some




restraint

...You think maybe top management screwed him over?

i think at least 85% of them did.

I think you'd be surprised how big a role the stylists, and marketing, play in the process.

You can bet Marketing is involved in every design decision.

Buy the warranty, people. Something goes wrong with every car at some point - it's all that shit that Jim sells that no one wants to buy that makes something going wrong less of a hassle. Get a cheaper car if you have to (not the one just out of your price range that you expect them to make a deal on), but buy the warranty. And the gap insurance.

I stand corrected.