A Defense Of Every Car On MotorTrend’s ‘Worst Cars Of The 1990s’ List

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s President’s Day so we’re sort of taking the day off, but we wanted to leave you with something fantastic. Something you couldn’t get anywhere else. Something you didn’t know you needed but once you see it you can’t imagine life without it. We’re talking, of course, about a defense of every single car on this almost year-old list from car-coding periodical Motor Trend of what they’re calling “The Worst Cars of the 1990s.” It is, as you’d expect, a list of bangers.

Just to clarify, this is not really a critique of Motor Trend (though click-y slideshows that make you see a bunch of ads is not great). We have many friends there and it’s important to keep at least one car magazine on the West Coast to represent that side of car culture. It just feels like a list hastily put together by an intern because an SEO expert said that Semrush wants more ’90s content. Fine, but someone needs to speak up for the unloved cars and that’s what we do here at The Autopian.

Is every car on this list stellar? Have we driven every car mentioned? Nope to both. Objectively speaking, some of them are mediocre when compared to a NA Miata or a ’90s Camry. What’s curious about this list is most of the cars are actually quite cool. Plus, you’re not less of a car person because you like the Plymouth Breeze and someone else likes a Lancia Delta Integrale.

So, here you go, a defense of each car on the list.

The 1996 Ford Taurus

Taurus Sho

This is probably the peak of ovoid ’90s Ford, with nary a right angle to be found anywhere on the inside or outside of the car. The crux of MT‘s argument is that people didn’t like the way it looked. It was distinct, but so distinct that you can’t not look at when you see one on the street. It has presence. Plus, in 1996 you could get it as a V8-powered SHO model. Hmm… what could one say about this car? Let’s go back to someone in the mid ’90s and ask them:

The ’96 Taurus SHO is clearly a fully refined and exceptional car-now, apparently remade for a more sophisticated role in a European tradition. From all appearances, it should be a world-class high-performance automobile, one we’re eager test against the best the world has to offer.

Who wrote this praise of the car? Why, Motor Trend of course. I had the V6 model in 1998 and it was a totally fine car. – MH

The 1991 Saturn S-Series

Saturn Sl

I admit that I was surprised to see Saturn claimed to be “one of the worst car companies.” Saturn pioneered a concept that a number of companies use today. Do you know how you can walk into a CarMax or click on Carvana and buy a car without haggling? Saturn did that first. Sure, no haggling meant that you couldn’t get that sweet deal that you might have gotten elsewhere, but as CNN pointed out in 2006, it also meant that, depending on the Saturn dealer, you could have driven home in a Sky for MSRP while Pontiac dealers marked up the Solstice. In today’s era of nutty markups, I’d take Saturn’s concept.

Back then, it was reported that Saturn’s customers loved the no-haggle concept. That’s not surprising; unless you’re a lawyer, chances are you don’t find negotiating with someone who negotiates for a living to be fun. And it wasn’t just the no-haggle model; buying and owning a Saturn was so good back in the 1990s that the brand consistently rated high in J.D. Power owner and customer sales satisfaction surveys, and at one point it ranked just second in owner satisfaction behind Lexus.

The cars weren’t bad, either. I learned how to drive stick in a 1990s SC1. Back then, just as I do today, I loved how futuristic Saturns looked. Sadly, the S-Series wasn’t what many would describe as thrilling and sure, the S-Series was buzzy and perhaps a little unrefined. But you weren’t buying one of these because you’re looking for a fine sports car. These were supposed to be the American equivalent of the import competition; efficient and cheap to keep going. Taking off those rosy nostalgia shades, even a Japanese economy car from 1991 could be described similarly to how MotorTrend describes the Saturn S-Series. In fact, the publication calls the 1991 Toyota Previa loud, so it wasn’t a complaint limited to Saturn.

Saturn was also GM’s experimental brand, from distributing the then novel GM EV1, its dealership model, and its cars that used a spaceframe construction draped with those plastic panels. Now, more than 30 years later, something I admire about Saturn S-Series cars is how well they take a beating year after year. Sure, Saturns still rot like anything else, but the plastic panels do make for cheap beaters that at least look better on the surface than an old Mazda with rust-deleted rockers and crusty doors.

Sadly, what made Saturn unique didn’t last, and the brand died slowly through a thousand cuts of neglect and rebadging. I’d put that blame on GM, not on Saturn. Perhaps the best example of how good Saturn and those S-Series cars were is the fact that the brand has a strong following today, including a woman who owns 17 of the cars. I have to meet her one day. – MS

The 1995 BMW 318ti

218ti

What do you call an E36 with no ass? How about joyful, composed, and friendly. On paper, the 318ti sounds brilliant. Many enthusiasts would kill for a compact rear-wheel-drive hatchback with three pedals and an available limited-slip differential. Sure, the 1.8-liter M42 inline-four may have only put out 138 horsepower, but reasonably long gears made for perfectly acceptable freeway cruising. What’s more, despite the strange blend of E30-esque trailing arms out back and E36 McPherson strut front suspension, handling is excellent.

Not only does this little car do a great job of absorbing mid-corner lumps and bumps, it will happily rotate under trailing throttle or trail braking, a huge benefit for keen drivers. Car And Driver claimed the 1997 model was the second-best handling car in America under $30,000 ahead of the Eagle Talon TSI, Ford SVT Contour, Chevrolet Camaro Z28, and Mazda Miata.

Nearly thirty years later, the 318ti makes a great base for many builds, partly because of its lively handling and partly because its engine bay can accommodate a ton of engine. From M50 inline-sixes from 325is to S52s from Euro-spec M3s to LS engines, there’s space to throw a ton of power at these things and the chassis will take it. Formula Drift legend Chelsea Denofa has an S52-swapped 318ti that he adores, and that’s a man who knows a thing or two about driving hard.

Despite its merely sufficient power output, the BMW 318ti represents an interesting time for small BMWs. One where a front-wheel-drive Mini platform wasn’t even an option, one where driver engagement reigned supreme, and one that set the stage for the incredible M2 CS. This now-classic Bavarian still knows how to dance, and its continued lineage proves its worth. – TH

1991 Toyota Previa

Previa1Look at this baby! How could you not love a 1991 Toyota Previa? To be fair, it’s not as fast or as efficient as a Dodge Caravan. Who cares? At one point, you could spec this minivan with all-wheel drive and a five-speed manual. My buddy Phil had access to one of these in high school and we used to blast to his Trip Hop Mixtape on CD while lazily cruising the suburbs and it was awesome. All of the alt-minivans of the ’90s deserve respect, genuinely, but the design and Previa I think stand up to scrutiny even without the hot coral-colored glasses of ’90s nostalgia. – MH

I have pop in to add some more here, because it’s worth remembering: The Previa was a minivan that you could get as a manual, supercharged, mid-engined vehicle with a clever “jackshaft” system to drive the ancillary stuff up front. On paper, the mechanical layout felt more like a supercar, and yet here it was, a big ovoid minivan ready to swallow a whole bunch of people and all their crap. I mean, look at it:

Previa Cutaway

That’s incredible. There’s nothing “worst” about this at all, unless were talking about “the minivans worst at not delighting anyone who loves cars,” in which case, sure, it’s the worst at that. – JT

1996 Suzuki X-90

Suzuki X 90

Every so often, a manufacturer builds a cult classic by taking a good car and transforming it to make no sense at all. On paper, the BMW M6 Gran Coupe is a four-door version of a two-door version of a four-door car. Mad. The Range Rover Evoque Cabriolet is a bizarre open-top version of an otherwise competent crossover. The Toyota Sera is a Paseo with billionaire doors and more glass than The Shard. Objectively, these cars all sound a bit daft, but they’re all enjoyable in their own ways.

The Suzuki X-90 is also a member of this club. It started life as a Suzuki Sidekick, the father of David Tracy’s infamous yet brilliant Chevrolet Tracker. This means that it’s objectively capable off-road, available with proper four-wheel-drive and a manual gearbox for climbing up rocky hills and bounding through streams. However, Suzuki then decided to make it look like a Honda Del Sol viewed through a funhouse mirror, a sport utility vehicle with extra sport and little utility.

Guess what? It works. Despite having 95 horsepower and feeling happiest around the double nickel, this thing can embarrass Jeeps off-road and offer compact t-top motoring in the city. The X-90 the exact same length as a 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage, so you can park it virtually anywhere, and the hard t-tops mean you don’t run the risk of having your soft top cut by thieves like on most other small, open-top 4x4s of the time. Even Motor Trend appeared to like it upon first sample, claiming that “Overall, during our excursion through the Washington countryside and Mount Baker foothills, the X-90 proved to be a fun, competent runabout, both for street and light off-road use.”

The Suzuki X-90 may have made no sense, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t absolutely rule. It’s certainly a weird package, but the roads are so much better off with it on them. It was never destined to be a high-volume product, but Suzuki sold thousands of them in America and storage space aside, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with them as vehicles. – TH

I’m going to pop in again here because I think you need to see an behind-the-scenes look at how just the idea of someone shitting on an X-90 affected us in our Slack channel:

X90defense Slack

Seriously, how dare they. – JT

1993 Honda Del Sol

Honda Del Sol

For such a small car, Mazda’s MX-5 Miata sure cast a long shadow when it was introduced in 1989. It had essentially no competition, apart from Alfa’s ancient Spider, and left other automakers dumbstruck by the release of pent-up demand for tiny convertibles. Ford was quick to counter with its Australian-built Mercury Capri, ironically half Mazda. The Capri caught flak for being front-wheel-drive, but so did Lotus for their new Elan, so Ford was in good company. 

Honda’s Civic Del Sol was likewise driven from the “wrong” end, but so was its predecessor, the celebrated CRX. Instead of a full convertible, Honda went for a targa roof, with a clever roll-down back window and a nicely-designed storage rack for the roof panel. (Here in the US, we didn’t get the Del Sol’s coolest party trick: the TransTop automatic targa roof, with a little robot buddy in the trunk that came up and stowed the roof panel for you.) With the roof off, it was a little flexible, but no worse than a Camaro with T-tops. And unlike a Camaro, the Del Sol was squeak-and rattle-free at 200,000 miles. At least, the one my wife and I owned was.

Strangely enough, while shopping for the Del Sol, we happened upon a Miata with just as many miles on it. My wife liked the Honda, I preferred the Mazda, so we did the only logical thing: We bought both. How did they compare? They didn’t, and that’s the point. The Miata was sharper, it’s true, but the Del Sol with its 125 horsepower VTEC engine was quicker, and got better mileage. And the Honda was practically a Town Car on the highway compared to the Miata, even with the roof off and the rear window down. Its only Achilles heel was the drainage system for the rear window; the drains clogged up from time to time and you could hear water sloshing around in the trough behind the seats. Disconcerting, but easy enough to clean out.

1991 Mercury Capri

Merucry Capri

It’s no Miata, sure, but it has that one magical feature that makes anything more fun on a nice day: the top goes down. It was available with a turbocharger and a stick. It can also be found dirt-cheap used, which you know appeals to me. Is it brilliant? Maybe not. Is it fun? That’s up to you. You can complain about it not being as “good” as a Miata, or you can put the top down, turn the stereo up, and go for a drive. – MT

Dodge Ram Van

Dodge Ram

I mean, c’mon:

1995 Chevrolet Cavalier

Chevy Cavalier

I can’t argue with many of Motor Trend’s criticisms of the 1995 Chevrolet Cavalier. The 2.2-liter pushrod four-cylinder engine felt like it was running on gravel rather than gasoline, the cabriolet had the structural integrity of wet newspaper, and a bicycle running into the side of a Cavalier could prove fatal to the car’s driver due to an abysmal side crash structure. I’ll even give Motor Trend more fuel for the fire by writing that the interior was a bleak, greyscale interpretation of accountants’ contempt for working Americans. In 1995, the Cavalier constantly reminded you of your $7.25 an hour wage, your meager pension, or the fact that your upper-middle-class buy American parents were too stuck in their ways to help get you into a Honda Civic.

However, as years of rust belt ownership rolled on, a funny thing started to happen: Civics started disappearing but Cavaliers were still everywhere. Flip to page 13 in the 1995 Chevrolet Cavalier brochure and you’ll notice a little line buried deep within the body copy that says “All Cavalier body panels except the roof are constructed of rust-resistant two-sided galvanized steel.” It seems that GM’s home base in Michigan was good for something after all.

What’s more, the 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine featured a timing chain, long-life platinum spark plugs, and the ability to run badly longer than many engines will run at all. It all adds up to a car that could be kept on the road for decades without much in the way of upkeep. Change the oil, slap on the cheapest set of Autozone brakes every so often, make sure the tires aren’t bald, and you’re good to go. Even the rear dampers were designed to last 100,000 miles, so whether you bought a Cavalier brand new, certified pre-owned, or for $500 off Craigslist, you could have a car that would always take you to work and back no matter how little money you had for maintenance.

The 1995 Chevrolet Cavalier wasn’t a great car when it was new, but it remained a car long after many competitors simply decomposed. It was a true peoples’ car, sold new for cheap and imbued with everlasting qualities. No matter when you bought one or how little you paid, it represented freedom on four wheels, which made it the absolute essence of the car. Mediocre cars can do great things, so long as you can put a few gallons in the tank and make enough memories to last a lifetime. They’ll get you out of your hometown, get you to work, or help you get back on your feet. Put some respect on the 1995 Chevrolet Cavalier’s name because if you’re down on your luck, it just might do everything you need it to until life deals you a better hand of cards. – TH

1996 Nissan 200SX SE-R

200sx Se R

The early ’90s SE-R is one of the best sleeper cars of all time and the replacement 1996 SE-R is, clearly, not. Most significantly, the car’s independent rear suspension was stupidly binned for a twist-beam rear. Maybe this is blasphemous, but the car looks a lot better and still keeps the SR20DE inline-four that every Nissan fan goes crazy for. One of these sold on BringATrailer a couple of years ago and this comment stood out to me:

I had one of these in college, brand new 96 in Black over black and it was an absolute gem of a car. Till this day (I’m now in my mid 40s) it was one of the easiest cars to drive long distance, and the motor made such a great noise. Not as fast in a straight line as I’d wanted, but I had the ECU, S1 Cams and Cold Air Intake and headers on mine and it was PLENTY fun and way quicker than I was a driver. These are getting extremely hard to find and I’ve always wanted to get another one.

A quick, five-speed coupe cannot be one of the worst cars of the ’90s! – MH

1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Convertible

Olds Cutlass

I grew up in a family that definitely preferred Ford products, leaving me with a slight bias against GM products. The Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Convertible, though, was undeniably cool to the seven-year old version of me. Today? They still look absolutely cool. The long W-body droptop featured the sweet basket handle, pop-up headlights, and crisp styling. These cars also came with some weird options, including the first-ever Heads-Up Display in a car, which looks like this:

Technology! – MH

1990 Yugo Cabrio

Yugocab

Is there anything lazier than throwing a Yugo on one of these lists? I mean, I get these are just some crap generated for SEO content or whatever dark web alchemy farts these things into being, but still, come on. The truth is the Yugo just wasn’t that bad. Not great, sure, but what the hell do you expect from something that was literally the cheapest car you could buy in America? You could plop down about four grand and get your ass everywhere you needed to go. The design was extremely rational and effectively no different from any number of other small FWD hatchbacks being sold all over the world.

Yes, it was from a country most people didn’t associate with cars, and the quality control wasn’t great, but, let’s be honest here – was a Chevette or a Hyundai Pony dazzling anyone with stellar quality? Hell no.

And for this entry here, the Cabrio, the MT blurb states it was “America’s cheapest convertible ($8,990!)” That would be about $20,577 today, still pretty damn cheap. To compare, a convertible very similar looking and in basic layout and design, the Golf/Rabbit-based Volkswagen Cabriolet, would have cost you about $15,500 in 1990, or about $35,500 today. The Yugo Cabrio was about half the price, and didn’t need the clunky roll bar and had rear windows that rolled down all the way, unlike the VW, and that alone should keep it off this stupid list. Seriously, I had one of those Rabbit convertibles, and the rear windows not rolling all the way down never stopped being annoying.

Was it more dangerous if you rolled it? Probably! So don’t roll it, dummy! It’s half the cost! You’re going to have just about as much fun in the thing, even if it’s slower or whatever, but who cares? Were you going to buy a VW Cabrio to win races? No, you weren’t. You wanted to drive around with no roof and enjoy life, and a nice new Yugo Cabrio would let you do just that. So stop being a jerk. – JT

1998 Daewoo Lanos, Nubira, and Leganza

Sure, Daewoo’s sales tactics may have been borderline criminal and the implosion of the Daewoo chaebol was one of the biggest scandals in South Korea, but Daewoo’s cars also helped give us this scene right here. Long after all the lawsuits were settled, “You just got killed by a Daewoo Lanos, motherfucker” still remains one of the most quotable automotive lines in 21st century cinema. Think about how often you’d say it if you owned one. That alone should be a good enough reason to keep one around. -TH

1990 General Motors “Dustbuster” Minivans

Dustbuster

So, what’s the matter with these, again? They look too cool? They look too much like a spaceship? You can’t handle having a minivan that looks like a spaceship? And somehow that’s the van’s problem? No. No no no. Look, these may not have been everyone’s cup of Earl Grey, hot, but there’s no reason for them to be on any “worst” lists. They were spacious and useful and, importantly, non-boring.

They got more potent engines over time, and yeah, it’s a long dash, but you know all cars have their quirks. I’m not going to give a company shit for attempting to make a minivan something a bit more interesting. Nope. Grow up. – JT

1992 AM General H-1

Hummer H1

You know what? I actually agree with the vast majority of Motor Trend’s writeup. This section in particular is hard to fault:

Despite being as wide as the Panama Canal, the H1 offered next to no passenger space, primarily because its hapless occupants had to share the cabin with the engine.

That engine was GM’s utterly wretched 6.2-liter naturally aspirated diesel, which made up for its stupendous lack of power with an overexuberance of noise—though to be fair, it fought an exuberant battle trying to out-shout the H1’s moaning driveline and roaring tires. AM General tried to address the noise problem by fitting a gas engine, Chevy’s venerable 5.7-liter V-8, which only succeeded in making the painfully slow H1 even slower

But the reality is that automotive greatness is not rational. Some of the most legendary machines in history have been noisy, impractical rattletraps. Just think about vehicles like the Jeep Wrangler, Dodge Viper, older Honda Civic Type R, most Kei cars — these are cars that people drive and say “Yeah, this thing has issues, but I just don’t give a damn. Because my god does it have soul!”

That’s very much the case for the H1. It’s unlike anything else on the road, with its wide stance, absurd ground clearance, humongous 37-inch tires, simply-stamped body panels, and just menacing overall profile. The interior is definitely tight given the machine’s size, and overall, I don’t think the packaging is great, but it makes for a memorable driving experience, especially off-road.

Speaking of, it’s not just “soul” that gives the aforementioned “rough around the edges” machines value, it’s their ability to dominate at a very specific task. The loud and harsh Viper is a track monster, Kei cars are efficient and cheap and easy to maneuver, the Type R handles way better than it should at a reasonable price — you get the idea. The Hummer H1 aligns with the Jeep Wrangler (particularly the older ones) in that, sure, it’s a bit of a nightmare to daily drive, but it’s unbelievably good in the dirt. It’s a damn supercar, in a way.

For a vehicle to be that good at one thing pretty much disqualifies it from the list. It’s a purpose-built off-road beast. That’s what it was built for, and that’s what it does, beautifully. Sure, if you daily drive it, it’s not going to be great, but that’s like putting Lebron James on a “worst athletes of the decade” list because he can’t bowl. -DT

1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo

Monte Carlo

via GIPHY

1993 Volkswagen Eurovan

Caravelle

All this minivan-bashing on this list is just embarrassing. The Volkswagen Eurovan does not deserve to be on a “worst” list. The Eurovan was big deal, remember: this was Volkswagen’s first attempt to make a van without using the proven rear-engine/rear-drive formula that had served them so well for decades, so there was pushback. But VW handled the moving-all-the-oily-bits-to-the-other-end switch with the same rationality that made them do it the other way all the way back in 1950: it just made sense.

The basic idea was the same: put a big useful box on wheels and make it go, and that’s what the Eurovan was, and it was damn good at it. It was an honest approach, driven by practicality. And, unlike previous VW Transporters, this generation was not slow! You could have a Eurovan with the narrow-angle, single-head VR6 engine, making over 200 hp, pretty damn good for a van in the mid 1990s.

Plus, it was pretty much the only minivan you could buy a full-featured camper conversion of, right from the dealer, as was VW tradition, complete with pop-top and sink and everything:

A camper you could easily commute to work in! A van that was crazy spacious and could hold a ton of people or stuff! It looked pretty decent! It wasn’t slow! It doesn’t deserve to be on this list! – JT

1994 Ford Aspire

Ford Aspire

As the youth around here, I’m declaring the Ford Aspire ironically cool. In the era of MGK recycling Warped Tour tropes and Gen Z largely borrowing nostalgia for the ’90s, this non-threatening glass house hatchback is button-cute enough to be a fashion accessory without conjuring up all the Simpsons jokes and neckbeardy images of Geo Metros. Are Metros great cars? Yes, but they have popular culture baggage. The Ford Aspire itself was jettisoned from the minds of the general public around the time LMFAO and Mitt Romney got into an airport altercation, so the jokes about how it aspires to be a real car are now taken with the same level of seriousness as people saying that nobody wants to work anymore. The result is a fairly rare car that’s as adorable as any of the Moomins and gets solid fuel economy. That sounds alright to me.

In the context of 1994, the Aspire also sounds alright. Standard dual airbags, available anti-lock brakes, a surprisingly attractive steering wheel, and dirt-cheap cost of entry made this thing a real contender against base-model Toyota Tercels that didn’t even offer a fifth gear in their manual gearboxes. Interestingly enough, a major threat to the Ford Aspire species was Mythbusters, as several of these trim little hatchbacks were unceremoniously destroyed for television. Bugger. -TH

1995 Honda Odyssey

Honda Oddyssey

Now, I’ll admit that the Odyssey wouldn’t be my first or even second choice for 1990s vans; those would be a Honda Acty Street and a supercharged Previa, respectively. MotorTrend is also correct that the Odyssey got destroyed by Chrysler’s vans in sales. But is it really a worst car?

The Odyssey was different take on the minivan formula, giving buyers a vehicle that could be filled with six people, but still drove like an Accord. MotorTrend‘s own review praised the Odyssey’s carlike handling and fuel economy, while still boasting the ability to carry more people than an Accord:

Along with an Accord engine came a sedanlike ride, made possible by the sophisticated four-wheel double-wishbone suspension. This space-efficient design incorporates upper and lower control arms, coil springs, shock absorbers, and anti-roll bars to produce a comfortable ride with responsive handling. The Odyssey squirmed through our 600-foot slalom at 61.4 mph, stacking up well against the Chevrolet Venture (61.0 mph) and Dodge Caravan (62.0 mph). A strong showing was also made around the 200-foot skidpad, where the Odyssey managed 0.74 g of lateral acceleration.

Instrumented measurements aside, 98.7 percent of survey respondents felt the Odyssey’s handling was above average, no doubt influenced by the positive steering feel and relatively compact dimensions. Numerous owners expressed similar sentiments; as an Illinois woman wrote, “I like the fact that it’s a minivan that definitely drives like a car.”

And despite the van being a slow seller, those who bought one loved it, from MotorTrend‘s review:

Honda’s engineers were guided by the design goal of creating a vehicle with the versatility and capacity of a minivan and the comfort and performance of a car. This seemingly opposing goal was met with admirable success; an astounding 97.4 percent of surveyed owners reported that they would recommend the Odyssey to others, and an impressive 98.3 percent claimed they would purchase another Honda, making the Odyssey the most highly recommended long-term vehicle by owners in the past year.

With the power of hindsight, we know that American minivan buyers were willing to sacrifice some driving dynamics for more space, thus making the first-generation Odyssey a niche vehicle.

But does falling into a niche make you among the worst? No! More choice is always better. – MS

1994 Saab 900

Saab 900 N G

While some may argue that the NG 900 was the beginning of the end for Saab, it’s proof that even under the iron fist of GM’s accountants, Saab just couldn’t stop being Saab. While the bean counters gave the Swedish subsidiary the GM2900 platform, Saab changed the wheelbase, used its own four-cylinder engines with its own engine management, installed its own instrument cluster, altered the crash structure to its own specifications, and changed so much else that the NG 900 is only an Opel Vectra in theory.

What’s more, it drove well. This is a car that will keep up nicely with modern traffic, track dead ahead on gravel roads, and lean towards gentle understeer when you overstep the limits of adhesion. What’s more, the steering is rather quick for the era, especially if you’re used to German luxury cars and their built-in sneeze factor. The 1994 Saab 900 may have been born from troubled circumstances, but it was still a proper Saab. -TH

1997 Cadillac Catera

Caddy Catera

The Cadillac Catera was, basically, an Opel for this market. It’s an odd-duck that doesn’t fit with any of the Cadillacs that came before it or any of the Cadillacs that came after it. The marketing, though, the marketing was great.

First, you get:

It’s the Caddy that zigs!

Second, you get the most insidious product placement of the ’90s with the TV show “Chicago Hope” creating a character named: Dr. Lisa Catera. Get it? LEASE-A-CATERA. This is a real thing I’m not making up. – MH

1997 Acura CL

Acura Cl

With a beltline as trim as its American owners’ wasn’t, the CL was—and is—a perfect runabout for a regional sale manager with a File-o-Fax full of dreams and a backseat filled with regrets. There isn’t a late-20th century Honda that wasn’t at least inoffensive to drive at worst, and most were downright lively. The CL was even available with a 5-speed transmission, as long as you were willing to somehow slum with one of the famously inefficient and unexciting 4-cylinders Honda made in the ’90s. Hey wait… (Okay, the 2.3 in the CL wasn’t one of the all-time Honda greats, but still.) – JJ

1996 Plymouth Breeze

The great thing about this one is that I don’t really have to defend it – the legend, John Davis (of Motorweek fame) describes in no uncertain terms in the video above that the Breeze is actually a fine automobile.

And how the heck could it not be? It’s basically a Dodge Stratus – which was in a family of revolutionary vehicles for Chrysler, with its fully independent suspension (double wishbone up front, multilink in the rear) and most importantly its space-efficient “cab-forward” design – but stripped down. After all, Plymouth had by the mid 1990s become Chrysler’s budget brand.

Motor Trend maligns the manual windows and locks, as well as the basic 2.0-liter inline-four and lack of aluminum wheel options. But John Davis drove a completely bare-bones model (base price under $15,000) in the video above, and that model paired that transverse-mounted inline-four to a five-speed stickshift with a sweet accordion-style shifter.

Fully independent multilink suspension, a five-speed, a roomy interior, and a low base price? This thing sounds decent until you look at the fuel economy, at which point the Breeze sounds more than decent:

Screen Shot 2023 02 20 At 1.37.48 Am

33 MPG highway!

The 1996 Plymouth Breeze just seems like good, basic transportation. Who could hate that? -DT

1992 Jaguar XJ-220

Xj220

I must be stupid because I’m baffled at how the XJ220 can be on this list. It’s so wrong in its wrongtitude the author must have gotten out of bed with the sole purpose of being deliberately the wrongest person on the internet this week, and that, my friends, takes some fucking doing. First of all, the XJ220 retailed for £470k in 1992, not £270k as stated. Second of all, just look at it. Look at it and then go for a cold shower. The big cat wasn’t a tarted up 911 like the 959, or stripped out widow maker like the F40. It might not have come with the promised V12 and four0wheel drive, but that’s because the original concept was an after hours, off the books lash up to investigate the possibility of a Group B Le Mans attempt.

Jaguar found themselves buried under blank checks for a production version, so the actual car was developed by Tom Walkinshaw Racing with a V6 engine distantly related to the Cosworth DFV. You weren’t exactly being shortchanged in the engineering pedigree department. No wonder it went like all bloody hell, with Andy Wallace wringing one out to 213 mph making it the fastest production car in the world at the time. They only managed to sell 281 out of a proposed run of 350 cars because just as it was launched the world fell into a massive recession. You know what else was a total business failure around the same time? The McLaren F1, which didn’t sell in it’s intended numbers either, and I don’t see any automotive hot-take chucklefuck putting that on any worst car lists. – AC

All photos Manufacturer unless otherwise noted

About the Author

Lewin Day

View All My Posts

142 thoughts on “A Defense Of Every Car On MotorTrend’s ‘Worst Cars Of The 1990s’ List

  1. It’s definitely a list put together to generate one click after another. Bad form, Motor Trend. Did the Herb take you over as well?

    The Cavalier deserves to be on this list as a new car. If you look at a vehicle’s life from lot to junkyard though, then it doesn’t seem so bad. They were dirt cheap on the used market and you couldn’t walk more than 100 feet without tripping over J-body parts when they were in wide use. I have to disagree about rust though- I still see plenty of Japanese econoboxes from the 90’s to early aughts around me in Southeast Michigan. The J-bodies largely disappeared years ago, and on the rare occasion I do see one it is about a 50/50 mix of paint and rust.

  2. The real reason you stopped seeing mid-90’s Civics is because teenage ding-dongs bought them and slapped on spoilers, chopped the springs, threw on obnoxious mufflers and then crashed them in street races.

  3. The VW T4 Eurovan was the fastest cheapest best most silent most comfortable – and also most boring – of all the VW busses I’ve ever owned, T1, T2, T3 and T4! I sure would like one again. Just such a nice package!

    And the H1? Isn’t it all the OTHER Hummers that are stupid? This is just a domesticated military vehicle. Like the Jeep 75 years ago..

  4. ” It’s so wrong in it’s wrongtitude the author must have gotten out of bed with the sole purpose of being deliberately the wrongest person on the internet this week, and that my friends takes some fucking doing.”

    This sentence could have been posted under nearly every car in the list.

  5. Had the taurus, well my older siblings did to drive us to school, was a great car until the transmission died on us and it was basically a “total”. I used to turn the volume all the way up on the tape deck connect to cd player and piss my brother off something fierce when he would start the car next.

    My buddy’s parents had the Toyota mini-van with a STICK. It was fun AF and we used to try to burn rubber anywhere we went in that thing. Load up all your boys and just cruise around our little town during summer breaks.

    I dunno about the pros and the cons and all the fancy facts. The smilers per mile were off the chart and that all that matters when I think about both those cars!

  6. If Motor Trend had any stones, they’d get bold and call something like the original Explorer (a dated truck cynically dressed in more fashionable clothing, and softened to ultimately disastrous safety issues) as one of the worst cars.

  7. I hate clickbait listicle slideshows but started this list anyway when I first saw it. I would not lift a finger to defend most of the American iron, but the failure of the 318ti and Honda Odyssey doesn’t show they were bad cars, they illustrate the perversity of American car buyers.
    And you have not lived in the ’90’s if you haven’t taken a road trip with a young lady in a Del Sol. I am baffled by how light Hondas of the era rode like giant land yachts on the highway and why we can’t duplicate that today.

    1. this wasn’t a slideshow on my computer. I agree that they suck and I hope I never see one here. It absolutely screams “I need more views to justify my advertising rates”. I’d rather step my membership up a level to avoid that!

      1. This isn’t a slideshow on desktop or mobile. We dislike slideshows as much as anyone else here!

        Maybe they’re referring to the MT slideshow.

        1. Yes, I was referring to the form in which it originally appeared at MT. One of my favorite things about the new automotive lighting sight is the blood oath sworn by all staff to oppose those things.

  8. I had never seen this list before, but it is just stupid. Several of the vehicles don’t need to be defended since any car enthusiast with a half of a brain can understand their appeal. Most of the other vehicles are thoroughly adequate transportation appliances, which is all people wanted when they bought them. This list is clickbait garbage that only serves to remind me why I don’t read Motor Trend anymore. I hope The Autopian never has to resort to writing crap like this list.

  9. Wait, wait, the Saturn S-series? You mean the era of Saturn when they were building absurdly good cars for absurdly cheap to get a foothold in the market? Those early Saturns were fantastic cars and whoever put them on the list should be ashamed of themselves.

    I also liked the Breeze. It’s the car I learned to drive on and while the engine blew a head gasket which prompted us to trade it in earlier than normal, it was otherwise a perfectly good car. Comfortable, more space than you would expect, and ours was a stick.

    The Aspire deserves to be on this list though. What a hateful little vehicle. Ours was also a stick and still not fun to drive because it was so horribly underpowered. About the only good thing I can say for it is that it functioned pretty well as a compact pickup if you took all of the passenger seats out of it. If it had been a better car I probably wouldn’t have wanted to cram my moped in it to get home from college. Anyone defending the Aspire clearly never had to drive one.

    1. buddy of mine lives in the city and actually drove one of these until about 5 years ago. It was a family hand-me-down car and they never really drive since the train is right there. It was sad to let it out of the family, but he was hitting a point where it just wasnt the right car for his life anymore.

    2. To be fair, the Breeze was a perfectly cromulent car, but an absolutely terrible value. (Also, never saw a Breeze blow a head gasket. Now, suffer head gasket failure because of a non-MLS design which resulted in oil pissing down the rear of the block? Oh yeah.)

      Basically the numbers work out like this: a base model Breeze with A588, 5spd, and manual everything was $14,200 before tax and delivery.
      A Plymouth Neon Sport gave you the more powerful 150HP A588, a better geared 5 speed, an equally rigid body, fog lights, air conditioning, 6 speaker Infiniti stereo with AM/FM and cassette, cruise control, and alloy wheels for $15,315 including delivery.
      A Neon Highline with an automatic and 4 doors cost substantially less. Equipping a Breeze up to the Neon Sport’s level made it cost substantially more.

      And the Aspire is a “car” so hateful I won’t even speak on it.

      1. The Neon is a completely different class of car though. We actually had both and I hated the Neon because it was too small. I hardly think it’s fair to say a car isn’t a good value because a smaller car can be had cheaper.

  10. I owned a Saturn 2000 SL1. Manual trans, manual windows, no power steering, bare bones, silver with the big black rubber-baby-buggie-bumpers.

    It was a great car. I owned it for 15 years, and drove it 250k miles. It took me from being a college student driving across the country (4 times!) to a family guy with 2 car seats in the back and commuting to work. The only major maintenance item was a new clutch at 200k. The only reason I sold it is because the AC failed; I got to a point in my life that I didn’t need to sweat all summer, and the repair was $1000. Sold it for $500, to a guy in a rough spot. I hope it served him well.

    What more could one possibly want from a car? It was perfect for what it was.

    1. Need an edit button.
      I see now that they said the 1991 specifically. But I stand by my post as it speaks to the brand, the quality, etc. They had solid, reliable, yet simple, cars.

      1. I loved both Saturns I drove/owned. The first was the hand-me-down ‘95 SL1 in a great teal color I got to drive in high school after my two older sisters got done with it. My parents traded her in my senior year with a lot of hard miles on the click and zero issues (minus burning a bit of oil). The first car I bought was a ‘95 SL2 with a stick that I drive in college. It was zippy enough, got great mileage, and was reliable. I loved the ‘95 because it had the old body, but the newer interior – dare I say a grail?

    2. In total, my family bought four Saturns; a 1994 SW2, 1998 SL2, 2002 L300 and my 2002 SC2.

      They were fantastic cars. Were they the best car in the segment? No, but I would argue they were the most interesting at the time. Everyone remembers the plastic body panels but they were the first to use lost-foam casting for engine blocks. The engine bay was specifically designed with DIY mechanics in mind. They used timing chains instead of timing belts. The cars were lightweight, tossable, reliable and safe.

      Motor Trend stating that they were the “worst car company” is the author admitting to doing minimal research. Saturn wasn’t just another division, they really were a separate company (subsidiary). They had their own R&D, manufacturing, and labor departments. Dealer reps were salaried, which is how they got away with no-haggle pricing. Saturn even had it’s own UAW contract separate from the rest of GM.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/07/27/gm-saturn-pact-gives-uaw-role-in-management/58801ef7-45c9-44ed-b914-0d17e6faa038/
      Remember, this was General Motors. They moved about as fast as the Edmund Fitzgerald through the Soo Locks. The fact they were able to accomplish any of this was amazing.

      Ultimately, GM had to GM. Saturn was starved of resources, they were forced to use more components from the GM parts-bin, and they were given existing platforms to re-engineer (L-Series) or share with the rest of GM (VUE, ION). The labor contract was dismantled because GM essentially said “If you don’t sign the national contract, we can’t guarantee Spring Hill will get future production.” Eventually, Saturn turned into the North American arm of Opel. Perhaps the last unique thing Saturn accomplished was that Saturn LLC and Saturn Distribution Corporation filed bankruptcy separately from General Motors.

  11. The SHO was ok, until the pressed on Cam gears slipped. First thing you did if you got one after a year or two in the road was tack weld the gears to avoid disasterous engine failure.

    Saturn Sky and the Ion Redline and even the Vue Redline with a Honda V6 were pretty desirable cars. The biggest gripe I had with the basic ho hum versions was really with the body panels. the Plastic expanded and contracted more than steel and so the gaps were mighty large, but F Bodies had similar problems exacerbated by the one panel on those Cars that usually rusted, being the only steel panel really. Ask me how to get into a Formula Firebird when the door contracts less than the metal rear quarter in cold weather. I did also dig the clamshell on the Ion drivers side s it aided entrance considerably while still keeping that sporty styling.

    funny how the Dustbusters are poopooed for the large reach to the window, yet every VW E-Van review comments how cool that is on them. As far as minivan’s go from this era those things were pretty decent. the previa was certainly more reliable and the awd and stick option was superior, but overall for the time those drivetrains were as good as any other big three drivetrain.

    I mean if you give Monte Carlo a negative nod then the similar whalish T-Birds should get the same treatment. some of us give them a pass because fo the super coupe and proper RWD design, but that is also a negative in the rust belt, and everything was basically FWD in those tough times.

    I also feel like they missed the 90’s v12 Jag and the M8 BMW The E31 was cool looking and the Jag still had some old school styling, but if you lived with either you might nominate them due to unreliability and cost of repairs.

  12. The U-Body minivans ate 4T60’s and 4T65’s regularly. Then again all minivans of that era ate transmissions like Cookie Monster ate cookies. The frontal overlap crash test results were abysmal as well. So were the Previa’s.

    A sorted Dustbuster with a hopped up 3800 backed by a built 4T65-HD is a heck of a sleeper. I once knew someone who built one of these. It accelerated darned well and cornered way better than it should have. I hope it’s still rolling around the Space Coast.

  13. ““All Cavalier body panels except the roof are constructed of rust-resistant two-sided galvanized steel.” It seems that GM’s home base in Michigan was good for something after all.”

    Yeah. Which makes the Cavalier even fucking worse.
    You don’t know. You’ve never been under one.
    That ‘rust-resistant two-sided galvanized steel’ started and ended at the body panels, to address GM’s notorious door bottom and quarter panel rot through issues. It very notably did not fucking extend to the unibody and especially not the subframe. And the subframe conveniently had large holes drilled in the top – but none in the bottom – ensuring water was trapped inside a NON-GALVANIZED CRASH COMPONENT. And the unibody rails had a similar problem.
    By 2003, there wasn’t a single 1995 Cavalier on the road that was even remotely safe to drive. Ran and drive? Sure. Didn’t have rotted out doors and quarters? Possibly. One severe pothole away from dropping your entire steering rack out of the car or splitting in half lengthwise? Most fucking definitely.

    Dustbuster Vans: “So, what’s the matter with these, again? They look too cool?”

    If dying in a minor front end collision looks cool, I guess that’s the answer.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7gSxmk1kp0
    And that was a 1997 which was specifically ‘updated and improved’ due to crash testing. Overall evaluation: poor. Actual evaluation: “unsurvivable for all occupants.”

    Plymouth Breeze: “Fully independent multilink suspension, a five-speed, a roomy interior, and a low base price? This thing sounds decent until you look at the fuel economy, at which point the Breeze sounds more than decent:”

    And that was the real complaint everyone had. Things like power mirrors, power windows, power door locks, and automatic transmissions were ubiquitous at this point. Your Dodge Neon had power windows!
    And the Plymouth Breeze when parked next to the Neon, very noticeably did not.
    Your 1996 Dodge Neon was spritely, it had real get-up and go from the same A588 2.0, and sure it had manual mirrors but power windows and locks!
    The Breeze with the 41TE was, well, it weighed a good 400lbs more than the Neon so you do the math there. Spritely and spirited were not appropriate verbs regardless of the transmission.
    But what truly sunk it?
    Your 1996 PLYMOUTH Neon was the same as the Dodge Neon, just without fog lights, it had the same engine, and optioned with the automatic and power windows cost $4,000 less. (And yes, the Neon is part of the ‘cab forward’ family as well, just not as dramatic a rake.)
    So yeah, when it was new? The Breeze was a fucking TERRIBLE value. You lost a bit of rear legroom, a bit of cargo, and gained power everything plus an automatic transmission for a lot less money in a Neon! Which is why the Breeze while being a perfectly fine car, was in fact, a total sales failure.
    They sold 72,499 of them 1997, their best year. It cratered from there. By 1999 it was just 52,000 and a mere 6,300 in 2000. In ’97, the Dodge Stratus moved over 98,000 units, and the Chrysler Cirrus moved around 90,000 units, both staying at or above those levels well past the death of Plymouth. Oh, and the Plymouth Neon? 105,476 units in 1996, 86,798 in 1997 (dealers were encouraged to push more people into the same-priced Dodge version which sold 121,854 units.)

    “I must be stupid because I’m baffled at how the XJ220 can be on this list.”

    Simple: the author is an idiot.

        1. I preferred the 4 doors. The doors on the 2 doors were too long, and the 4 door had better proportions to me. Then again, I was already in my early 40s when they came out.

        2. haha ok ok, I’ll accept your stance on 4 door Neons if you accept that I refuse to acknoledge that any 4 door G-Bodies existed. My dad had a wagon and not only where there no power windows in the back….THE WINDOWS DIDN’T GO DOWN IN ANY OF THEM (sedans or wagons). <This should be a short Autopian article

          It was really fun during a hot summer being a car-sick kid in the back of one of these, A/C didn't work (or didn't have it), 350F shiny metal GM belt buckles roasting your skin, velour interior that smelled like a lifetime of cigarettes, and all you wanted was to roll down a window just like you could on a GM car that was made 50 years prior….

          1. Oh, we do not speak of 4-door GM G bodies. They do not exist. In fact, they never made anything on the G platform except for the Regal, 442, and Monte Carlo. All of the rest were bad hallucinations.

    1. I miss the first gen Neons. They were a blast, and I rented them whenever I needed to rent a car. I particularly remember a dark green DOHC 4 door I had in Wisconsin on those delicious back roads.

    2. While never tested, I have to wonder if the original Dustbuster vans would have been not as bad as the ’97-05 gen in the IIHS test. GM was toying with space frame construction elsewhere and it fared well in the S-Series (an “acceptable” rating for a structure that was several years old by when IIHS testing rolled out was pretty good for the time).

      The 2nd-gens were narrower (to better suit what would prove to be a brief attempt at European sales as the Sintra) and built to accommodate the driver’s side slider, so pretty decent structural differences even though the tested van was a 3-door. The Windstar and the Quest/Villager also went backwards in their IIHS tests from their first to their second generations when adding a driver’s slider – so quite possible.

      Not to mention…that longgg front nose adding some space.

      1. You don’t understand: the 1997’s were BETTER than the originals. The originals basically had NO strengthened steel forward of the driver’s seat. Not a single inch. Space frame? Nope. The frame was open space on these. Everything forward of the dash is purely cosmetic and the body is plastic, offering zero resistance and zero energy absorption in crashes.
        In the first gen, everything forward of the B-pillars is cosmetic. (On the U-body, that’s aft of the dash at the mirrors; the slider latches to the C pillar.) There is no fucking structural strength at all.
        Which is why the 1997 U-body was flagged as the worst performing vehicle by IIHS. It was so bad that GM had to cancel the TransSport and re-engineer everything forward of the slider for the SV6. Of course, they then proceeded to sell the unmodified version in China as the Buick GL8.

        1. It was a space frame, they touted that in advertising and part of the pitch of it with Saturns was that the body panels could be plastic because they weren’t structural. Even in the less strict NHTSA test, the 2nd gen vans lost a star in the driver score over the first gen.

          GM never canceled the vans, they kept on selling it for years after the test in a full generation as I’m sure you know, and only then redid the vans quickly including the improvements to the front for the safety ratings, to tide them over until some type of replacement (Lambdas, which had a minivan under consideration before just going all-in on the crossovers).

  14. The 95 Cavalier was my first new car. It was basic, but, especially when it first came out, everybody told me how good it looked. People thought it was a Ford Probe or something, because the previous Cavalier was much more boxy. It was comfortable, it was competent and a step up over the previous J cars. Motor Trend can bite me.

  15. I’ve always thought that, in terms of Taurus looks, the ovoids were the best. I know that many people love the first Taurus, but I thought it looked weird. And don’t even get me started on the last Taurus, which had a gun-slit greenhouse as severe as a Gen-5 Camaro.
    I also liked the Passat-aping “Five Hundred” Tauri, because Volvo.
    1. Ovoid mid-90’s
    2. Post-ovoid early oughts
    3. “Five Hundred”
    4. Second-gen early 90’s
    5. First Gen 1985
    6. Last gen UGGO

  16. “In 1995, the Cavalier constantly reminded you of your $7.25 an hour wage, your meager pension, or the fact that your upper-middle-class buy American parents were too stuck in their ways to help get you into a Honda Civic.”

    $7.25 an hour? Get a load of this rich guy over here. Minimum wage was $4.25 back then. $7.25 was like manager money then, and those guys could afford pagers

    1. Oh yeah – I remember that was about a year before my big manager pay-bump at Domino’s. All the way to $6.50/hr.! And then things really got moving a few months later when I was hired by a local tech company for the princely sum of $7.50/hr.! I was able to keep three cars on the road then though – a $100 ’84 Cavalier, a $200 ’84 Celica, and the big kahuna – a $2000 ’81 Cougar.

      1. Nice! I worked at Dominos for years in high school and college and made about the same wage you did. I started out making the pies, and quickly worked my way to “manager-in-training” opening on weekends. I believe my first raise was based on being able to make a large pepperoni hand tossed pizza in less than a minute. It is still my favorite “pre-grown-up” job.

        1. I started out as a delivery driver in college, but subbed for an assistant manager from time to time who had a habit of ending up in jail. So, they just made me a day-manager and assistant night-manager after the third time that happened. That large pepperoni pizza in under a minute was my ticket to the big bucks as well! Got the time down to a 36 second best, but a pizza created that fast was best served to only the most inebriated of patrons.

    1. Nah, you do not want it in black.
      You want a 1994 in medium garnet red over white over white.

      Such a configuration exists. It was factory. I know this because an ex-girlfriend’s mother was absolutely fanatical about hers. You will never see as pristine an example as it, period. This thing was not even allowed to have stone chips for more than a week.

      And I have to admit, it looked damn sharp. Already I see you looking up pictures on the Internet; these are the wrong color. It is not bright red – it is a maroon. And it was not a combination you could order on the convertible unless you knew someone at GM.

      1. My 95 was white over Oxblood red interior. it was actually pretty fun car. I think mine was the last year of the non-interference DOHC 3.4, which was good because the timing belts were a bitch to swap and it made sense to wait until exactly the recommended swap interval because they charged 9 hours in the chiltons for it.

        The Convertibles were not stiff though. even with the top up you could see the window frame wobble over large bumps. But man otherwise it was cushy ride with adequate power and efficiency considering the weight it was lugging around.

    2. unrelated, probably insulting, and i do enjoy your writing, but i saw the “AC” signature after the Jag blurb and thought to myself, “wow, Alistair Cooke is salty,” and then “Alistair Cooke is quite the get for this site, but i didn’t know he was into cars,” and, “i never actually read Alistair Cooke,” and then “isn’t he dead?”
      Blame a childhood of enforced Masterpiece viewings.

  17. I have to agree with Motortrend on the Taurus though, and I’m including the refresh that remained in production till 2004 or 2005 ish. I’ve ridden in and driven several of them and I just don’t like them. I guess they weren’t any better or worse than any other full size American sedan at the time, but possibly (in my mind) the ugliest car ever built. Although, the Buick Rendezvous might give it a run for it’s money there. Everyone I knew with a Taurus had some kind of issue with it, usually transmissions acting up shortly after 100k miles. Oh and don’t forget the rear suspension that seemed worn out and collapsed from the factory. Whenever I see one dragging its ass around I wonder if there’s bodies in the trunk, but then I remember it’s more likely just a couple bags of groceries.

    *Note: given my love for the air-cooled VW Beetle, I don’t have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing a car for its appearance.

      1. That’s what I’ve read too. I guess I always found it surprising that they’d break so early in a car’s life. I remember seeing examples under five years old with the coils already broken.

    1. Motortrend forgot to mention the mechanical weaknesses of the Taurus/Sable family. The commonly-optioned 3.8L Essex engine eats head gaskets. But, assuming you get one of the 3.0 engine options, you’re still likely to have transmission issues. All 4 revisions of the AXOD transmission are problematic, and the first 2 are downright terrible.

      The concept of the car is fine, even if the ovals do seem overdone (speaking with the benefit of hindsight). And props to them for keeping the traditional 3-row wagon alive until 2004. Not a lot of folks wanted them by then, but a few did. And to those people, Ford was filling a niche that every other automaker had abandoned.

      If only they had offered a decent transmission…

      1. If there’s one argument to be made for ovoid Taurus as bad car, it’s how Ford managed to give up market dominance with a car that was maybe just too weird and a little too expensive. Weird and/or expensive can work for a niche product, or for a developing segment (early installment weirdness, like all the minivan options), but if Ford played it a little more safe, it might’ve still been a viable competitor.

    2. The Beetle is one of the cutest cars of all time.

      The oval Taurus was just ugly. I don’t think that merits inclusion on one of these hackjob “worst” lists, but it’s still the frame of reference I use for why I don’t want a 996. Its interior reminds me of THAT Taurus. THAT one. Both swings-and-a-misses from both companies, IMHO. I appreciate that they exist now in that weird radically ’90s era of design, but my gosh, I was relieved to see parsh go back to round-headlamp sanity in the next-gen 911.

    1. But that’s comparing what was the top of the line Yugo to the absolute basest of base model Versa. Base model Yugos, even adjusted for inflation were cheaper than the cheapest Versa and higher spec Versas start at about 20k today. I’d say they’re about comparable when you look at the whole picture.

      1. And which would you rather spend 20k on? Personally, I’d rather flush it straight down the toilet than spend it on a Yugo. A Versa may be a boring and nothingburger of a car by today’s standards, but at least you can count on it not rusting away in a heavy rain.

  18. It would be better for them to make a worst cars on sale today list, it’s all about context. In that regard, it’s the Nissan Versa, Ford Ecosport, Mercedes EQB, BMW 2-Series Gran Coupe, and Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross.
    I will provide zero elaboration on any of these picks.

  19. Thank you for the Cavalier defense.

    The GM J-Body scorn always gets me because these things were horribly constructed and cheap and whatever else (allowed to go way too long without updates, mainly), but they provided reliable and simple transportation to many economically-challenged people for decades – and still do.

    I mean, I still regularly see 3rd generation Cavaliers around here in various states of what I know is severe neglect. And the newest one is from 2005 – and even that year was a low-production flee—centered sales year for the model since the Cobalt had come online to replace it. Also, speaking of the Cobalt, I see more Cavaliers still running around here than I do Cobalts.

    Of course, I’m doing my part to preserve automotive history that no one but myself and other weirdos like me care about by preserving my own J-Body.

    1. Yeah, the Cobalt just sort of came and went without convincing anyone to give a shit. I don’t know anyone who loved it, hated it, or really cared beyond it being an adequate car. At least the Cavalier had people who wanted it, if only because they could get one pretty cheap and find parts fairly easily. And it had people who hated it for not being the thing they wanted it to be when they saw it.

        1. Damn. 30 grand for a Cobalt. That’s the top-tier of the model and not Fast & Furiously abused like almost all SS cars were, but still.

Leave a Reply