The top 10 worst "supercars" ever <vote>

[niky]

Countach. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Sure, it's the poster-boy for the word "Supercar", and is probably the most recognizable ever... but it's a pain to park and it has a clutch like a truck. And with all the scoops and body addenda, it has the aerodynamics of a truck, too.

While people bemoan the "Audi-ish" new Lambos, these cars handle better, drive better and don't break down as often. Or, at least, you don't have to replace a clutch that costs as much as a Civic every three burnouts.

The Miura was supposedly even more a of a pain-in-the-arse to live with, it's pretty, so it gets a free pass.

So the Countach is an icon, I won't deny it. That doesn't stop it from being a horrible supercar.

 

[Zenith]

Very few people here have driven a super car, even less have actually sat in the cars that they bemoan. Topics like this tend to have a too much of regurgitated opinions made by journalists who were talking out of their ass.

Seriously, don't regurgitate something that came out of somebody else's ass.

 

[R5]

Very few people here have driven a super car, even less have actually sat in the cars that they bemoan. Topics like this tend to have a too much of regurgitated opinions made by journalists who were talking out of their ass.

Seriously, don't regurgitate something that came out of somebody else's ass.

I've sat in an Aventador. Took me 12 minutes, 2 buzz saws, a pack of butter, an industrial catapult, a crane, a winch, a Hoover and a hammer to get out...

I would also not like to sit in a Caparo. Even without the engine on&hellip;

 

[Stevisiov]

Seriously, don't regurgitate something that came out of somebody else's ass.

That line is a keeper.

 

[E28]

Worst supercars ever. Ooh, let me think. I've got more than 2.

1 - McLaren MP4-12C because: It sounds like the name of a fax machine, completely drama less, you can tell by sensing that the people who made it deliberately made it boring, doesn't look like a proper supercar.

Firstly, you quoted Jeremy Clarkson- Never a good sign. It is in many ways a very good 'supercar', and I definitely would not call it boring. It might be boring compared to, say, a slightly insane Lamborghini, but still exciting. And it definitely does look like a supercar, very similar to it's rival the Ferrari 458 in terms of shape.

I pretty much agree with Zenith- It's one thing to dislike a car despite never having seen it, but you can't pass off your opinions as fact.

 

[Danny]

I would nominate the Jaguar XJ220, purely on it's conception.

 

[YSSMAN]

Alright, let me throw a weird one in here...

I'd have to go with the Chevrolet Corvette XP-895 "Aerovette". Since the mid '60s, engineers have been batting around the idea of doing a mid-engine Corvette, and the XP-895 was the closest we ever came to that happening. There were multiple variations of the car, but the one that I find most-horrific is the Wenkel 4-rotor version. That Wenkel 2-rotor design was originally destined for the Vega *shudder*, the bolted two together, and came up with this. Sure, it made 420 BHP, which was downright ridiculous for the time, but I could only imagine two outcomes with a car like this:

1) Idiots spinning them into the trees every weekend like they did with the Corvair.

2) These Wenkel engines detonating every 150 miles, or somehow finding a way to melt through the subframes of the vehicle. Whatever happens first.

It was very-nearly approved for production in 1980, and if it were, it would have forever changed the car that so many continue to love today. I couldn't imagine living in a world with a Corvette like this.

 

[R5]

Firstly, you quoted Jeremy Clarkson- Never a good sign. It is in many ways a very good 'supercar', and I definitely would not call it boring. It might be boring compared to, say, a slightly insane Lamborghini, but still exciting. And it definitely does look like a supercar, very similar to it's rival the Ferrari 458 in terms of shape.

I pretty much agree with Zenith- It's one thing to dislike a car despite never having seen it, but you can't pass off your opinions as fact.

This right to the sun.

I mean, have you DRIVEN a McLaren? It also doesn't sound like a fax-machine. The name is reminiscent of the F1 cars (MP4-4 for example) it does look like a supercar, but it isn't showy. It's subtle, to quote another Clarksonism (I think) "you don't want to wear your underpants outside the trousers, people will point and laugh" basically, a 458 looks okay. But in traffic, people will point and laugh, with the McLaren, subtlety is king. As is the McLaren. Sounds rather dandy too.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

This right to the sun.

I mean, have you DRIVEN a McLaren? It also doesn't sound like a fax-machine. The name is reminiscent of the F1 cars (MP4-4 for example) it does look like a supercar, but it isn't showy. It's subtle, to quote another Clarksonism (I think) "you don't want to wear your underpants outside the trousers, people will point and laugh" basically, a 458 looks okay. But in traffic, people will point and laugh, with the McLaren, subtlety is king. As is the McLaren. Sounds rather dandy too.

So driving a 458 in public=wearing your pants on your pants in public?

 

[Tornado]

I would nominate the Jaguar XJ220, purely on it's conception.

Mommy and Daddy had a baby, but it turned out that Daddy was an old Rover and Mommy was an old Escort; and the bastard brother was all Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag.

 

[R5]

So driving a 458 in public=wearing your pants on your pants in public?

What I'm saying is sometimes subtle is right. I don't get why McLaren get crap for realising that...

 

[Murcie_LP640]

In terms of the McLaren, massive amounts of tech and computers is right. It's kinda what defines the MP4-12C. It's like the R35 GT-R. Nissan don't do driver's cars, they do cars that try and bend the laws of physics through a combination of wizardry and technology. It's the same sort of deal with the McLaren. The 458 has "soul" and "passion" but the McLaren is all-around a better "car" than the 458. It's not a driver's car like the F1 was and the P1 is apparently supposed to be, but by harnessing its tech it's a hell of a lot quicker than many much more expensive contemporaries.

However this is a double-edged sword which is why I feel the Lamborghini Aventador is worthy of a mention in this list. Because Lamborghini's core image especially in its flagships isn't supposed to be all tech and no passion, Lamborghinis are supposed to be amazing to look at, difficult to drive and are designed to scare the bejesus out of you when you get a lick of pace going.

 

[McLaren]

3 - Maserati MC12 because: It's hideously ugly, its a fraud (detuned Ferrari Enzo in a fat suit), and doesn't work full stop.

I had to laugh at it being a "fraud", even though Ferrari gave full rights to its child company to use the Enzo as long as it didn't have a higher output.

Firstly, the MC12's sole existence is due to Maserati wanting to compete in the FIA GT. And what better platform than to create a road-going race car than the parent company's latest halo car; the Enzo.
As far as looks go, that's due to how they wanted the race car to be developed, so it's at least still functional at the end of the day. Enough so that's it actually a faster car than the Enzo on a track.

And the last part, well, would love some evidence of that beyond what 1 owner may have experienced, but I'm guessing that was pulled from the rear like the fraud claim.

I've sat in an Aventador. Took me 12 minutes, 2 buzz saws, a pack of butter, an industrial catapult, a crane, a winch, a Hoover and a hammer to get out...

Then you must be one hell of a fat man or you exaggerate like a child telling a story. The Aventador is an easy car to get into for a supercar, way more than the Lambos. of old.

This right to the sun.

I mean, have you DRIVEN a McLaren? It also doesn't sound like a fax-machine. The name is reminiscent of the F1 cars (MP4-4 for example) it does look like a supercar, but it isn't showy. It's subtle, to quote another Clarksonism (I think) "you don't want to wear your underpants outside the trousers, people will point and laugh" basically, a 458 looks okay. But in traffic, people will point and laugh, with the McLaren, subtlety is king. As is the McLaren. Sounds rather dandy too.

What world do you live in that people point & laugh at a Ferrari in traffic? I'd reckon 95% do anything but laugh, & I'd bet I'm right.

More so, the argument on the looks of both cars is completely stupid. The basic design of both cars is identical to a T, & it's extremely noticeable in the Spyder variants. McLaren catches flack though because the Ferrari is a much more aggressive design & as a result, it stands out more. So naturally, the McLaren looks subtle in comparison.

And both of you should get a minus for quoting Clarkson, whether in positive or negative light.

However this is a double-edged sword which is why I feel the Lamborghini Aventador is worthy of a mention in this list. Because Lamborghini's core image especially in its flagships isn't supposed to be all tech and no passion, Lamborghinis are supposed to be amazing to look at, difficult to drive and are designed to scare the bejesus out of you when you get a lick of pace going.

And yet, that is exactly the image they convey to this day. All the comments about what Lamborghini should be or look like are the similar to the same comments made during the era of the Countach. And we all know where that car ended up as far as fame goes. The recent Veneno & Egoista are a pretty copy & paste reaction of the Countach and what Lamborghini should be.

The only thing Lamborghini has changed for the Aventador is actually putting work into the suspension for once so the car isn't completely undrive-able at the limit. The whole "difficult to drive" image is downright stupid; let's alienate a large chunk of our clients because we want this car to be difficult to actually enjoy. They got away with it in the 90's & beyond because so did everyone else. As for scaring the "bejesus", it'll do that just fine. This is a car that still retains the size of a Murcielago that can actually take corners at high speeds.

Anything else regarding Audi's involvement as a negative is just stupidity spewing (this isn't actually pointed at you; just in general since it's a common "negative" thrown around). God forbid Audi actually turn the company into making a profit & making Lamborghini's reliable for once in their entire existence. Trying to be anything but in this day & age, and Lamborghini would have died well before the new millennium.

 

[Liquid]

"The McLaren's name is reminiscent of the MP4/4 for example."

Or the MP4/12, maybe?

 

[Murcie_LP640]

The only thing Lamborghini has changed for the Aventador is actually putting work into the suspension for once so the car isn't completely undrive-able at the limit. The whole "difficult to drive" image is downright stupid; let's alienate a large chunk of our clients because we want this car to be difficult to actually enjoy. They got away with it in the 90's & beyond because so did everyone else. As for scaring the "bejesus", it'll do that just fine. This is a car that still retains the size of a Murcielago that can actually take corners at high speeds.

The Murciélago is actually quite a competent handler. Just makes you work for it harder than the Aventador does; I'm not saying the LP700-4 should be like the Countach, Miura or Diablo where they were built only for walls as posters and were actually rubbish and ridiculously impractical to drive.

Anything else regarding Audi's involvement as a negative is just stupidity spewing (this isn't actually pointed at you; just in general since it's a common "negative" thrown around). God forbid Audi actually turn the company into making a profit & making Lamborghini's reliable for once in their entire existence. Trying to be anything but in this day & age, and Lamborghini would have died well before the new millennium.

I have no qualms with Audi's involvement; the Gallardo and the Murciélago were like the perfect blend of sensibility and drama. Incredibly sexy vehicles that didn't actually want to kill people at the drop of a hat.

 

[brianwong]

I had to laugh at it being a "fraud", even though Ferrari gave full rights to its child company to use the Enzo as long as it didn't have a higher output.

Firstly, the MC12's sole existence is due to Maserati wanting to compete in the FIA GT. And what better platform than to create a road-going race car than the parent company's latest halo car; the Enzo.
As far as looks go, that's due to how they wanted the race car to be developed, so it's at least still functional at the end of the day. Enough so that's it actually a faster car than the Enzo on a track.

And the last part, well, would love some evidence of that beyond what 1 owner may have experienced, but I'm guessing that was pulled from the rear like the fraud claim.

Then you must be one hell of a fat man or you exaggerate like a child telling a story. The Aventador is an easy car to get into for a supercar, way more than the Lambos. of old.

What world do you live in that people point & laugh at a Ferrari in traffic? I'd reckon 95% do anything but laugh, & I'd bet I'm right.

More so, the argument on the looks of both cars is completely stupid. The basic design of both cars is identical to a T, & it's extremely noticeable in the Spyder variants. McLaren catches flack though because the Ferrari is a much more aggressive design & as a result, it stands out more. So naturally, the McLaren looks subtle in comparison.

And both of you should get a minus for quoting Clarkson, whether in positive or negative light.

And yet, that is exactly the image they convey to this day. All the comments about what Lamborghini should be or look like are the similar to the same comments made during the era of the Countach. And we all know where that car ended up as far as fame goes. The recent Veneno & Egoista are a pretty copy & paste reaction of the Countach and what Lamborghini should be.

The only thing Lamborghini has changed for the Aventador is actually putting work into the suspension for once so the car isn't completely undrive-able at the limit. The whole "difficult to drive" image is downright stupid; let's alienate a large chunk of our clients because we want this car to be difficult to actually enjoy. They got away with it in the 90's & beyond because so did everyone else. As for scaring the "bejesus", it'll do that just fine. This is a car that still retains the size of a Murcielago that can actually take corners at high speeds.

Anything else regarding Audi's involvement as a negative is just stupidity spewing (this isn't actually pointed at you; just in general since it's a common "negative" thrown around). God forbid Audi actually turn the company into making a profit & making Lamborghini's reliable for once in their entire existence. Trying to be anything but in this day & age, and Lamborghini would have died well before the new millennium.

So much yes.

 

[RDF97]

Countach. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

Sure, it's the poster-boy for the word "Supercar", and is probably the most recognizable ever... but it's a pain to park and it has a clutch like a truck. And with all the scoops and body addenda, it has the aerodynamics of a truck, too.

While people bemoan the "Audi-ish" new Lambos, these cars handle better, drive better and don't break down as often. Or, at least, you don't have to replace a clutch that costs as much as a Civic every three burnouts.

The Miura was supposedly even more a of a pain-in-the-arse to live with, it's pretty, so it gets a free pass.

So the Countach is an icon, I won't deny it. That doesn't stop it from being a horrible supercar.

That's also the case I think with the Delorean DMC 12. I like it, I do. I think its cool but undeniabley its rubbish. It was good enough for "Back To The Future" but not good enough for the real world.

I've sat in an Aventador. Took me 12 minutes, 2 buzz saws, a pack of butter, an industrial catapult, a crane, a winch, a Hoover and a hammer to get out...

I would also not like to sit in a Caparo. Even without the engine on&hellip;

What did you do crash it or something? Why all the effort to get out of one of those?

Firstly, you quoted Jeremy Clarkson- Never a good sign. It is in many ways a very good 'supercar', and I definitely would not call it boring. It might be boring compared to, say, a slightly insane Lamborghini, but still exciting. And it definitely does look like a supercar, very similar to it's rival the Ferrari 458 in terms of shape.

I pretty much agree with Zenith- It's one thing to dislike a car despite never having seen it, but you can't pass off your opinions as fact.

I may have quoted Jeremy Clarkson on its name but you have to admit; MP4-12C. I'm sorry it does sound like an appliance of some sort. (I quoted Clarkson delibrately)
It you on button and then two more together for 10 seconds to turn off the traction control. Come on!

It looks boring (in fact it looks ugly), it may technically be a good supercar but it doesn't express itself with any sense drama I don't think. I'm sorry, drama is half of a supercars appeal and I'm sorry McLaren MP4-12C but you don't do it for me.

 

[AudiMan2011]

I have no qualms on the technical achievements of the MP4-12C and I think it is a very capable supercar.

However, having seen it at the Knockhill motor show last year, alongside the 458, I took a good long, hard look at it and I found the styling looked a little bit plain and simple, whereas the 458 has a bit more "flair". I like the McLaren quite a bit, but I just find it a little bit boring to look at.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The Murciélago is actually quite a competent handler. Just makes you work for it harder than the Aventador does; I'm not saying the LP700-4 should be like the Countach, Miura or Diablo where they were built only for walls as posters and were actually rubbish and ridiculously impractical to drive.



I have no qualms with Audi's involvement; the Gallardo and the Murciélago were like the perfect blend of sensibility and drama. Incredibly sexy vehicles that didn't actually want to kill people at the drop of a hat.

Show me some articles not from Top Gear that claims the Countach was 'rubbish' to drive.

Classic & Sports Car Magazine, June 2000:

'All the other cars merely lived to expectations (or some fell way short of them): only the Countach dismissed preconceptions by exceeding them. "It surprised me how good it is," enthuses Derek Bell. "It makes you wonder why more fuss wasn't made of it as a pure driver's car when it was new."'

Octane and C&SCM did recent articles on the Countach as well, but I don' own them. Most everyone praises the Countach's abilities.

This thread: Brought to you by Top Gear Seriously people, you do yourself a disservice to mindlessly accept anything and everything that TG says as fact. There is a severe lack of journalistic integrity with that entertainment show and it's probably not a good idea to base arguments on Clarkson's ramblings.

 

[The Stig Farmer]

Show me some articles not from Top Gear that claims the Countach was 'rubbish' to drive.

Classic & Sports Car Magazine, June 2000:

'All the other cars merely lived to expectations (or some fell way short of them): only the Countach dismissed preconceptions by exceeding them. "It surprised me how good it is," enthuses Derek Bell. "It makes you wonder why more fuss wasn't made of it as a pure driver's car when it was new."'

Octane and C&SCM did recent articles on the Countach as well, but I don' own them. Most everyone praises the Countach's abilities.

This thread: Brought to you by Top Gear Seriously people, you do yourself a disservice to mindlessly accept anything and everything that TG says as fact. There is a severe lack of journalistic integrity with that entertainment show and it's probably not a good idea to base arguments on Clarkson's ramblings.

Thank you.

 

[Liquid]

This thread: Brought to you by Top Gear Seriously people, you do yourself a disservice to mindlessly accept anything and everything that TG says as fact. There is a severe lack of journalistic integrity with that entertainment show and it's probably not a good idea to base arguments on Clarkson's ramblings.

Absolutely.

 

[R5]

Show me some articles not from Top Gear that claims the Countach was 'rubbish' to drive.

Classic & Sports Car Magazine, June 2000:

'All the other cars merely lived to expectations (or some fell way short of them): only the Countach dismissed preconceptions by exceeding them. "It surprised me how good it is," enthuses Derek Bell. "It makes you wonder why more fuss wasn't made of it as a pure driver's car when it was new."'

Octane and C&SCM did recent articles on the Countach as well, but I don' own them. Most everyone praises the Countach's abilities.

This thread: Brought to you by Top Gear Seriously people, you do yourself a disservice to mindlessly accept anything and everything that TG says as fact. There is a severe lack of journalistic integrity with that entertainment show and it's probably not a good idea to base arguments on Clarkson's ramblings.

I could also ask you to find me a day to day journal of people's daily lives with the 'Tach; they'll not enjoy day to day life with it. That's just the "weekend" drive on a B-road, I'm afraid.

 

[evilserpentman]

I'm amazed no-one has mentioned this yet:

The vomit-inducingly beautiful Aston Martin Lagonda. It has electronics that pale in comparison to the Italians as well as a montage of terrible design decisions. Admittedly its supercar status is debatable...

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I could also ask you to find me a day to day journal of people's daily lives with the 'Tach; they'll not enjoy day to day life with it. That's just the "weekend" drive on a B-road, I'm afraid.

This a thread about supercars, not daily drivers. What supercar is good at being used everyday? That's not exactly the point. But Harry Metcalfe (from Evo Magazine) has been to known to use his quite a bit.

 

[R5]

This a thread about supercars, not daily drivers. What supercar is good at being used everyday? That's not exactly the point. But Harry Metcalfe (from Evo Magazine) has been to known to use his quite a bit.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiBMo7j5Gtk">YouTube Link</a>

Harry has tinkered with his by making it a little more liveable. Electric power steering&hellip; also, a supercar which doesn't do the car bit well is as pointless a thing as a house without the walls.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

Show me some articles not from Top Gear that claims the Countach was 'rubbish' to drive.

News to me that Top Gear claimed that mate. Heard it was featured in an episode, but never seen it nor do I know any of the presenter's opinions on it.

My definition of "rubbish" isn't to do with a vehicle's abilities, just to make it clear.

 

[Giygas]

Do the homologated GT1 specials count? They're mostly road legal and i would imagine they're absolutely horrid unless you're on a racetrack.

 

[brianwong]

Show me some articles not from Top Gear that claims the Countach was 'rubbish' to drive.

Classic & Sports Car Magazine, June 2000:

'All the other cars merely lived to expectations (or some fell way short of them): only the Countach dismissed preconceptions by exceeding them. "It surprised me how good it is," enthuses Derek Bell. "It makes you wonder why more fuss wasn't made of it as a pure driver's car when it was new."'

Octane and C&SCM did recent articles on the Countach as well, but I don' own them. Most everyone praises the Countach's abilities.

This thread: Brought to you by Top Gear Seriously people, you do yourself a disservice to mindlessly accept anything and everything that TG says as fact. There is a severe lack of journalistic integrity with that entertainment show and it's probably not a good idea to base arguments on Clarkson's ramblings.

Jay Leno has a few issues with his Countach.

 

[Tornado]

I'm amazed no-one has mentioned this yet:

*giant luxury sedan*

The vomit-inducingly beautiful Aston Martin Lagonda. It has electronics that pale in comparison to the Italians as well as a montage of terrible design decisions. Admittedly its supercar status is debatable...

There's your huckleberry. Aston already had a car that ran with the best supercars of the late 1970s.

That wasn't it.

 

[McLaren]

Show me some articles not from Top Gear that claims the Countach was 'rubbish' to drive.

Classic & Sports Car Magazine, June 2000:

'All the other cars merely lived to expectations (or some fell way short of them): only the Countach dismissed preconceptions by exceeding them. "It surprised me how good it is," enthuses Derek Bell. "It makes you wonder why more fuss wasn't made of it as a pure driver's car when it was new."'

Octane and C&SCM did recent articles on the Countach as well, but I don' own them. Most everyone praises the Countach's abilities.

None of the cars were rubbish to drive. What they had a tendency for however, was being difficult to drive, very impractical, & not suited for common usage unlike the red heads of their eras. In short, the cars are fun to drive & look at, but from an owner's standpoint, they were better off sitting in a garage 5-6 days out of the week.