:CONTROVERSIAL: Worst cars of the 2000s :CONTROVERSIAL:

  • Thread starter Jim Prower
  • 97 comments
  • 16,131 views

Jim Prower

The Big Blue Ford.
Premium
10,620
gtp_jimprower
Source: Cars.com Via Yahoo! Autos

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1071/worst-cars-of-the-2000s/

Even with the strides that cars have made in recent years, let's face it: There have been some real stinkers, too. Whether poorly executed, ill-conceived or downright dreadful to look at, these 10 stand out for all the wrong reasons. A car had to be sold at any point in the 2000s to be eligible for this list; some of these models were only on the market for a few years, while others are still being sold today.

10. Pontiac Aztek

2001-2005

The Aztek was criticized for the duration of its life for its ghastly styling. Design is subjective, so what do you think of the Aztek shown here? Were the critics wrong? Yeah, we didn't think so.

9. Daewoo Anything

1999-2002

We had just tested a Suzuki Esteem and marveled at how competent even the cheapest little econoboxes had become when a leather-lined Leganza midsize sedan showed up — the best Daewoo had to offer. We mused over which would kill us first: the toxic gases from the cheap interior or the recalcitrant transmission and inconsistent acceleration. Three days into the loan, the first Daewoo crash tests in U.S. history came out, and we called Daewoo and told them to come pick up the car. We'd never done that before, and we haven't since.

8. Isuzu VehiCROSS

1999-2002

The outrageous Isuzu VehiCROSS two-door SUV, whose extreme styling drew varied reactions, lasted from 1999 to 2001, and even that's surprising. The fanglike grille uprights made it look like it would eat you, which was scary mainly because inside the VehiCROSS was a place no one wanted to be. Headroom was minimal, and the low roof blocked even shorter drivers' view. If the noisy cabin didn't get to you, the punishing ride would. Isuzu deserved credit for taking a chance then on a design likely to find more admirers now, and it deserved scorn for a 2001 sticker price that would be just as preposterous in the current market. The VehiCROSS cost $30,350 by the time it fired up its interplanetary drive and went back where it belonged.

7. Jaguar X-Type

2002-2008

In the early 2000s, the class of entry-level luxury cars was growing. Most were sporty and started at $30,000 or less. Wanting in, Jaguar came out with the X-Type. From the get-go, critics warned that a cheap Jag would be bad for the brand and that Ford — which bought the company in 1989 — would probably cut corners and sacrifice quality. That was before they saw the product. Sharing its front-drive platform with a European Ford Mondeo, the X-Type was a too-small, not-so-sporty sedan with all-wheel drive that was hamstrung by some of the forewarned quality issues. The trap was clearly visible from miles away, and Ford walked right into it. A 2002 Jaguar X-Type can be had for up to $8,500. A 2002 Honda Civic goes for up to $9,275.

6. Pontiac Sunfire

1995-2005

The Sunfire managed the rare feat of having a worse interior than its GM twin, the Chevy Cavalier. Cheap interior plastics run amok, a coarse four-cylinder engine and horrendous crash-test ratings sealed its fate. On the flip side, the Sunburn was probably responsible for untold thousands of rental-car upgrades: "Honey, remember Fort Lauderdale last summer? Trust me, we want the Grand Am."

5. Cadillac Catera

1997-2001

To think that Germany's Opel is now the source of many of GM's strongest new models...

In the late '90s, the Opel Omega begat a Cadillac that was sporty in theory but soft and underpowered in practice, rear-wheel-drive in design but front-wheel-drive in feel. And that's just the car. Cadillac didn't help its case with advertising that included the tagline "The Caddy That Zigs," supermodel Cindy Crawford, an animated duck, and the suggestion to "lease a Catera" with the response, "Who's Lisa Catera?" The geniuses responsible for the Catera should have been exiled, but we suspect they went on to develop something called the Pontiac Aztek. Upgrades and deep discounts in 2001 couldn't save the Catera; it went to the duck blind in the sky in 2002.

4. Toyota Echo

2000-2005

The Echo subcompact's high seating position and center-mounted instrument panel were two well-intentioned features that were summarily rejected by consumers (though they would find their proponents in later years and other models). Call the Echo ahead of its time if you must; mainly it just wasn't a very good car. In taking over for the Tercel — a boring but popular choice against offerings from Suzuki, Geo and pre- renaissance Kia and Hyundai — the Echo proved that sometimes bland is better than bold. The problem wasn't that the youth-targeted Echo appealed more to older buyers than to younger ones, it was that there weren't enough of either.

3. Jeep Compass

2007-present

We could have easily chosen the Dodge Caliber for this list — a compact hatchback with unremarkable gas mileage, refinement and crash-test scores — but the hapless Compass edged it out. Why? Besides the fact that you shouldn't spread lackluster product around to more than one division (the Compass is related to the Caliber), it doesn't belong in the Jeep lineup, a brand known and respected for its off-road ability. The Compass is a soft-roading poseur, and not a good one at that.

2. Chrysler Sebring

1995-present

The previous-generation Sebring wasn't a bad car in its day, but Chrysler dropped the ball with the redesigned 2007 model. With a weak base powertrain, uncomfortable front seats, poor interior quality and haphazard styling, it never had a chance in the highly competitive midsize-sedan segment.

1. Smart ForTwo

2008-present

We don't have a problem with small cars in general (we're big fans of the Mini Cooper), just with ones that don't deliver on the benefits of going small. The pint-sized ForTwo sacrifices a lot of passenger space for a relatively unimpressive 41 mpg on the highway, has an SUV-like propensity to roll over, and is equipped with an aggravating sequential manual transmission. Sure, the ForTwo looks cute, but after you drive it you won't be smiling anymore.

I'm personally not sure about the Vehicross, but...what's with the Smart taking spot #1?
 
I cannot agree more on #2. If anyone has one, my condolences.

The Yaris however, if its the same one as we get here in Australia, I think they could do a lot worse - Ssanyong Stavic worse.
 
Well, we dont' get the Stavic over here...

Also, the Echo was the Belta sedan, rather than a Yaris
 
Well, we dont' get the Stavic over here...

Also, the Echo was the Belta sedan, rather than a Yaris

Your country could put that as an advertising angle for tourism.

'where theres absolutely no chance of getting a Stavic rental'

OMG -We must go!
 
The Echo, Smart and X-Type don't even slightly deserve to be on there. Nor does the Vehi-Cross, given that it was released in the 90s... :odd:

The trouble is, it appears, once again a continental divide. The Smart makes significantly more sense over in Europe than it does in the States, the X-Type achieved very good reviews over here and even beat cars like the 3-Series and C-Class in reviews when it was first launched, and the Yaris was also considered one of the best cars in it's class when it was released.

Also, the Echo was the Belta sedan, rather than a Yaris

No, it's a Yaris
 
Any list of Worlds worst car that doesn't include the wonderous Ssangyong Rodius or the worst car I've ever driven in my entire life, the original Kia Rio, is a fail IMO...

I give you the Rodius

Rodius.jpg


I had a Sebring convertible hire car for 6 months when I lived in LA back in 1998/99... it wasn't good, but I didn't think it was that bad either. Certainly better than the Buick Regal I ran for a while.
 
Last edited:
It's possible that the Echo's failure in the US, possibly spawned the eventual success of the Scion xB (which was created from the Echo's platform). With $1.20-1.30 gas back in late-1999, nobody cared much for it, and its mis-shaped styling didn't help. Tercels sold fairly well then where I live: Most people do not want an attention-getting economy car; since the average buyer of that kind of car is usually a sensible-shoes buyer on a budget aged 30-55.

Looking back, the Aztek was ahead of its time: The "crossover" market is loaded with minivans posing as SUVs. Of course, that means it was ahead of its time for all the wrong reasons.

Past Sebrings sold in bunches in the US; it's possible that since they're troublesome, outdated, and unreliable now, these author(s) are giving it the stick now. Naming it after a famous racetrack is always a problem when it's not remotely sporty. But geez, the latest Sebring is a real visual and tactile punishment, and offers nothing noteworthy that I can think of.

Enthusiasts on a budget always ask for a cheaper car with a luxury or sporty nameplate: Who here wouldn't mind the idea of a $30,000 new Porsche (the 939?) or a $20,000 BMW (a 2-series?) in their driveway, with a tight budget and the urge for a new car? But when it arrives, many trash it and say it doesn't live up to the nameplate. The X-Type was based a Ford product which was already offered in the States, which didn't help. I personally sneered, and I never thought highly of it.
 
Last edited:
Any list of Worlds worst car that doesn't include the wonderous Ssangyong Rodius or the worst car I've ever driven in my entire life, the original Kia Rio, is a fail IMO...

I give you the Rodius

Rodius.jpg


I had a Sebring convertible hire car for 6 months when I lived in LA back in 1998/99... it wasn't good, but I didn't think it was that bad either. Certainly better than the Buick Regal I ran for a while.

That's branded as the above mentioned Stavic in Australia.
 
Stavic or Rodius... I've only ever seen one in real life... and that was one too many. To my eye it's the ugliest car in existance... how could anyone ever go into a dealers and think 'That looks great, I think I'll hand over a big chunk of cash for one of my own'???
 
My software teacher has one. It has the noisiest diesel ever, and I asked him time and time again why he drives it.
 
The list includes some truly horrendous cars, whether there are worse ones out there or not (there most certainly and likely will be), I certainly won't disagree with any of those car's spots on the list. Except maybe the X-Type, it may have been bad, but was it worth a spot on that list?
 
I notice no-one arguing with the Sunfire...I'm apt to agree.

When you can easily see the road through the OEM front bumper, (like you could a Ricer Bumper,) something's wrong
 
The Echo, Smart and X-Type don't even slightly deserve to be on there. Nor does the Vehi-Cross, given that it was released in the 90s... :odd:

The trouble is, it appears, once again a continental divide. The Smart makes significantly more sense over in Europe than it does in the States, the X-Type achieved very good reviews over here and even beat cars like the 3-Series and C-Class in reviews when it was first launched, and the Yaris was also considered one of the best cars in it's class when it was released.



No, it's a Yaris

Nope this is from the US, its not the Yaris at all, the Echo was a different model in the US. What confuses the issue is that the Yaris was originally sold as the Echo in some markets (but not the US).


I'm going to possibly go out alone among Europeans and say that I agree with both the X-type and the Smart.

The X-type may have been OK if it was badged as anything but a Jag, but as a Jag is hurt the brand to a huge degree. Its not as good as the Mondeo on which it was based, while costing significantly more.

The Smart is a car I have never been a big fan of at all, size is all it has going for it, and even that limits its use as an 'only' car. Interior space is poor, the gearbox is one of the worst I have ever had the misfortune to use and the engine never lived up to the frugal claims made of it.

Much better cars, admittedly slightly bigger exists that are a much better buy in almost every way. The only reason to buy a Smart in my mind is as a fashion statement, and these days its debatable what statement it makes about you.


Regards

Scaff
 
When raised up and planted on some huge mud tires, the VehiCross doesn't look all that bad. Some guy in my neighborhood has one.
 
I cast my vote for booting the ForTwo and VehiCROSS from the list and adding two current Chrysler products, or maybe a Chrysler and the Ascender. Maybe the Aspen and Nitro.
 
The only cars I have a problem with are Echo (if being boring and practical make it a bad car, where is every other Toyota made this decade?) and the VehiCross (which got pretty good period reviews when it came out. It was actually a darling, if I remember correctly).

Quite frankly, I'm shocked that there aren't more Chevrolet Impalas, though first place is quite deserved for the smart. And no, I don't see how continental divide has anything to do with it, because people in Europe should know better.
 
I drove a Ssangyong Chairman for two years.. :sly:

Or at least it's un-uglified parent.


I completely agree with the Jeep Compass.
 
I agree with some, but in my opinion, the current gen STi hatchback is as ugly as a car can get. It's hideous.

It comes close to the Pontiac Aztek...
 
I see the batteries fail in a Toyota Prius within two years of owning one. The Smart to me is better car than that.
 
The only 2 I disagree with are the Sebring and Vehicross. While the Sebring isn't exactly a great car, it's nowhere near the 2nd worst car of the 2000's. As for the Vehicross, I have always kind of liked it, I would rather drive that over an FJ-Cruiser any day.
 
I don't disagree with this list too much. Some of those cars I have driven, and they were as lousy as advertised. Still, I think the Echo and Aztek were two examples of cars released in the wrong period of time. I wouldn't own either, but both would sell better today.
 
I don't really disagree with this list. And my room mate owns a Catera, so that was good for a laugh :lol:
 
Back