It was a “piece of junk” that people could afford to buy however. Generally speaking, automobiles prior to the T were lovingly constructed one at a time by hand, sparing no expense on the appointments and were pretty much exclusively affordable only to the very, very rich. Think 16 cylinder Duesenbergs. Think Testarossa or Lamborghini being the only cars available pricewise. Sure, nice car but hardly suitable for the masses.
Facts without context are worse than lies, almost.
All yugos came with rear window defrosters so your hands didn’t get cold when pushing it in the wintertime. :-)
Renault LeCar has to be in that list somewhere.
Mostly he trashes the Model T for starting people buying cars. That’s his real beef.
A bit of leftwing hysteria thrown in, typical CNN.
So the 1995 Ford Explorer is a worst car because it made SUV’s popular with soccer Moms? And if there were fewer of them, it would be a great car?
I forgot to add, how can there be a “worst cars of all time list” and the Fiero NOT be on it? I felt snubbed. ;)
Any car with the word “Fiat” on it.
Worst thesis ever, not the worst car. Restated the argument is that the Model T was one of the worst cars ever because it was so affordable that it made everyone get or want a car. This led to war and environmental problems. Therefore the Model T was so attractive to consumers and so affordable that it was one of the worst cars ever. Time magazine publishes drivel.
"Well, that's just the problem, isn't it? The Model T...conferred to Americans the notion of automobility as something akin to natural law, a right endowed by our Creator. A century later, the consequences of putting every living soul on gas-powered wheels are piling up, from the air over our cities to the sand under our soldiers' boots.
I wonder if the author walks to work, or eats food carried by hand from the farm fields to home. BTW - I've spent time in Afghanistan, and my two oldest kids have done tours in Iraq. Is it just me, or is the author's concern for the sand under my boots less than sincere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Neil
I found no automotive knowledge there.
In its very success, the Ford Explorer is responsible for setting this country on the spiral of vehicular obesity that we are still contending with today. People, particularly women drivers, discovered that they liked sitting up high. Even though more fuel-efficient minivans do the kid- and cargo-hauling duties better, people came to prefer the outdoorsy, go-anywhere image of SUVs. In other words, people became addicted to the pose. And, as vehicles got bigger and heavier, buyers sought out even bigger vehicles to make themselves feel safe. Helloooo Hummer. All of that we can lay at the overachieving feet of the Explorer.
Typical Time crappola.
The definition of "worst" seems to be "the writer personally dislikes it."
The Excursion? Please. There was nothing wrong with that vehicle.
1971 Plymouth Cricket.
THREE transmissions in 4700 miles. Massive electrical problems. Mercifully put to death with only 11,000 miles
Any list of the worst cars without the Vega shouldn’t be taken seriously. Those cars were made of compressed rust just waiting for the paint to fall off.
Ever since those fools allowed the serfs to talk back the world went to hell.
At the time, I was used to working with a jackhammer and could pick up 300 lbs of rock and walk away with it.
Anyway, I got in, the door would not latch because the battery was low, and it would not open either (same reason). After discussing whether we could get jumpers on the battery and other options with the dealer, I pulled the safety pin and tried to open the door from the driver's seat. Uh uh. No go. It took the dealer, a friend, and my own efforts to get the door open far enough to get out.
Keep in mind, this was a 'safety' car and a snug fit to boot, so there was not much room for the driver to move around when you were behind the wheel.
As for being slow, well, as I recall more than a few were wrecked at speeds exceeding 100 mph, and the drivers walked away from the wrecks. So they were fairly safe in a wreck, (as much as that makes sense). It was another 20 years, for instance before another manufacturer was touting side beams in the doors, even though the later models were much lighter in construction.
While some aspects were positive (heavy construction, midships engine) others outweighed them. (Handling, getting in and out).
They were pretty expensive, too (about $10,000, iirc) when other cars were going for $5-7,000.
I noted a few cars in the article which were marketing disasters, but did not really belong on the list of the writer's prejudices had the article really dealt with automotive quality.
Some were only guilty of being ahead of their time.
An interesting compendium, but far from what I would consider an accurate list of the "worst".
For instance, I did not see the Ford Taurus, for its transmission woes or spare parts compatibility (You needed to know the VIN to tie down which week the car was made to get some of the right replacement parts.) I guess the Taurus was too politically correct to make the cut.