Automotive history is dotted with lots of punching bags. Some of them seem fairly obvious. The German Trabant for example is a car that people openly mock around the world and for good reason. The body is made out of what is essentially reinforced cardboard, it was a gross polluter, it redefined what “slow” was, and stands as an enduring reminder of how much Communist rule sucks ass.
In terms of American cars that have been deemed historic shitboxes, the Pinto, the Vega, the Cadillac Cimarron, the Pacer, and the Chrysler K-car come to mind. Today’s question asks you to both form your own ideas about history’s worst cars and at the same time consider whether they really are as bad as their reputations or has group-think taken over, leading us to simply believe what we have heard time and time again.
As an example, the Chrysler K-car. It seems impossible to deny that the K-car had an instrumental role in dragging Chrysler out of the depths of financial despair in the early 1980s. I knew a couple people who had them in high school, circa the late 1990s and although they were not cool or fun to drive, they were still running, even 20 years later.
Surely lots of the cars that people dump on were awful. These things don’t start on their own. Most old cars are “bad” when put next to new ones, so when you answer, put these cars in historical context. Not only do they have to be considered bad now, they had to be bad then. American, foreign, it doesn’t matter. Let it fly!
Question of the day: What cars have been unfairly labeled as massive piles of junk by history?
(Is anyone impressed we got through this whole thing without mentioning the Yugo…whoops, there we go.)
I’d have to say Pinto. They built millions of them, only 40 or so of them EVER caught fire in a crash, and yet they gained a reputation as an exploding deathtrap. The engine was a good enough design that it stayed in Rangers through the ’90s in one form or another, and the early ones weren’t even bad looking.
My first car was a ’74 Pinto with a stick, loved that little car. Never once worried about burning up in it.
Although the Pinto/Vega is considered a shitbox car at the time, its still a common sight on the dragstrips.
Sorry, but I once received a free Vega (some reassembly of the sleeved engine required) It was the worst pile of crap I ever drove.
Sounds like you got what you paid for! That same Pinto 2.3L powers 150-200hp Mustang (and Pinto!) mini stocks at circle tracks everywhere.
The Vega was a huge success for about 2 years or until the first one made it to about 40,000 miles….
Pinto was a winner from day one,the timing was perfect for that car. Nader in a way killed that one too….
I cant recall how the Chevette was received but try to find one now,that said theres a girl at a local stop and rob who drives one still.
Didn’t AMC have trouble keeping cars sold running for a few years before they died?
AMC Pacer. It had a anvil reliable in-line six and even a V8 option for a while. Styling was love it or hate it, but there was no mistaking it for another car, which is a distinction few cars earn.
Ditto on the Pacer. AMC had dare-to-be-different guts to try unusual styling and in this age of conformity, that’s saying something.
AMC’s get a bad rap for no reason,they simply dont deserve it other than the styling.Vega’s were sharp looking and the drivetrian could be replaced easily which is a win and cant be said for just about any small car built today.Pinto like mentioned above were pretty sturdy and sold millions. There is cars that should get the nomination (many non American) but hese dont deserve it.
But, AMCs also spent part of the supercar 1960s with crazy old stuff like torque tube drivelines, keyed axle shafts, trunion front suspension, low-performance engines, and opposition to anything that smacked of high-performance. (“The Only Race We’re Interested in Is the Human Race” AMC proudly advertised, turning its back on Hudson’s brilliant racing heritage)
Then AMC spent about $19.95 developing its “import fighter” — the oddly-proportioned Gremlin, building variations of it and its big sister (Hornet/Concord/Eagle) until the ’80s. Factor in other misfires, such as the Metropolitan, the Marlin, and the “NASCAR” Matador, and AMC’s reputation isn’t so undeserved.
Certainly there were a few almost-bright spots in a handful of years (SC/Rambler, Rebel Machine, Gen 1 AMX, Javalin, Hornet SC/360), but these rare anomalies weren’t enough to reverse the prevailing current of weird, appliance motoring idiocy flowing out of Kenosha.
corvair ,teacher in school bought one new still see him driving it , my aspen ran great once I put a340 in it
I think there’s a common theme to the cars on the list. They’re all entry-level, cheap cars. Designed as such, they didn’t have to outlast the great wall of china or be good-looking. The other effect is that people treat them like cheap cars. They aren’t well maintained, get beat like mules, and it’s cheaper to scrap a car than fix one.
The bottom line is, you can’t REALLY listen to peoples opinion on cars, because it’s entirely based on their own experience, and the owner may be the actual problem with the car.
Mid-late ’70s Mopars. Styling was not bad, engines were anvils, could be reverse-engineered into something useful.
K-car derivitives can be made to haul ass and handle….Daytona, Charger, GLHS, Shelby CSX-T
W-body GM FWD’s with the S/C V-6 are usually beat to hell and back. Those things rock too.
73-77 GM A-bodies. Especially the Chevys. Heavy, yeah, you bet, but the same solid A/G-body chassis as always, same potential, same engine selections, roomy interior… And when you get rid of all the chrome, vinyl and fake window crap, they look really nice.
Everyone makes fun of the four-doors from the 60’s-early 70’s…
’70s Toyota Corrolas and Datsun B210s should be considered the biggest sh*tpiles from the era. At least here in n.e. Ohio those cars were the only ones that rusted out faster than a Vega.