Poll: What do you think is the worst car ever?

[Ferrer]

We get the DR 1 as a rebadged Chery Faira NN. Apparently safe enough to be sold over here. I've seen a few at a multibrands dealerships, but didn't check it.
It's similar, but I don't think any panel of the Matix would fit, then again I didn't really check both of them.

I thought they were copies but they weren't actually based on old Free-world cars...

For all you X6 lovers out there...there's a reported Audi Q6 coming to compete with it in similar crossover style.

Well Audi's cars are already useless in terms of handling so...

[KenPeterson]

I think we must go for Environment and must give value to Eco cars.Because this only source can decrease pollution...whats your opinion..

[thebrochureman]

I think we must go for Environment and must give value to Eco cars.Because this only source can decrease pollution...whats your opinion..

I agree, we must think about the environment theses. But i don't think going all electric will solve the problem, there’s plenty of cars out their which are a great example of the way we can solve the eco problem. For example diesel engines, they are more much better these days and as the times go on they will get even better. BMW are a good example, they make great diesel engines like the 120d 177 bhp and 60 mph and also the new 535d 299 bhp and 46 mph, i think car like these are the benchmark for all diesel in the future. Diesel cars like these may not completely solve the eco problem but it certainly helps.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I agree, we must think about the environment theses. But i don't think going all electric will solve the problem, there’s plenty of cars out their which are a great example of the way we can solve the eco problem. For example diesel engines, they are more much better these days and as the times go on they will get even better. BMW are a good example, they make great diesel engines like the 120d 177 bhp and 60 mph and also the new 535d 299 bhp and 46 mph, i think car like these are the benchmark for all diesel in the future. Diesel cars like these may not completely solve the eco problem but it certainly helps.

You should try to figure power isn't all that matters. Actually, diesel engines are already facing a hell of a problem getting ready for Euro6 standards, definitely not much room for evolution there.

[ScionDriver]

The Yugo or the Chevy Cavalier or maybe actually the Cadillac Cimmeron. Those are all pretty terrible cars.

EDIT: Although I'm not a fan of Pruis I see it's appeal. I wouldn't call it the worst car but maybe most pointless. When I think worst I think of poorly made, poor reliability and very few if any redeeming driving dynamics or qualities.

[thebrochureman]

You should try to figure power isn't all that matters. Actually, diesel engines are already facing a hell of a problem getting ready for Euro6 standards, definitely not much room for evolution there.

I know power isn't everthing, but not everyone will want to buy a 80 bhp diesel car. The point i was trying to make was going all ecectric won't solve the eco problem.

[culver]

The Yugo or the Chevy Cavalier or maybe actually the Cadillac Cimmeron. Those are all pretty terrible cars.

EDIT: Although I'm not a fan of Pruis I see it's appeal. I wouldn't call it the worst car but maybe most pointless. When I think worst I think of poorly made, poor reliability and very few if any redeeming driving dynamics or qualities.

The Cavalier wasn't great but it wasn't absolute junk. The Cimmeron was bad because of what it represented for Cadillac and an out of touch GM management. Still, neither are as bad as the Vega for the reasons I outlined above.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I know power isn't everthing, but not everyone will want to buy a 80 bhp diesel car. The point i was trying to make was going all ecectric won't solve the eco problem.

Based on what?
As far as I know an 80 bhp engine is always "greener" than a 300 bhp diesel engine, regardless of who is willing to buy them. The point I was making is that diesel engines won't easily be updated to EURO6 standards, underlining how they aren't all that green by imposed rules.
Electric engines are generally more efficient than any ICE, so yes that alone is an improvement. Is that enough? Enough is never enough. Want to consider how environmentally dangerous is producing batteries? Show some hard facts, as now one ever questioned how polluting is to actually produce petrol or diesel.
Even if oil is still used to produce most of electrical energy, a good electric energy plant has an efficiency around 50% and even 60% in some cases.
A car's ICE has an efficiency between 20 and 30% at best (petrol and diesel, respectively).

It's still a long way, but it's definitely a better solution as far as emissions are concerned. Batteries' future is probably including some metal-free (relatively) solutions, which would further reduce environmental impact of electric/hybrid cars. According to an internal study by Honda, the Civic Hybrid already reduce 66% of the CO2 (which is not the only polluting agent) of a standard Civic, over a 100.000 miles life, producing, assembling and dismantling included.

It may be cool and fun to drive, but I can't really see how BMW's I6 diesel engine is the right way to go to save the world, 5 years ago, now or in 10 years. And 300 bhp are definitely pointless in a diesel sedan/estate/SUV.
If it's for their "sporty" credentials, then they should use that engine in a sort of 1 Series M, if that would make any sense.

[Ferrer]

As far as I know an 80 bhp engine is always "greener" than a 300 bhp diesel engine

I know you are having a go at him, and I sometime feel myself like doing so because it is satisfying... but I want to question that statement.

It rather depends on the use (and I'm not saying especifically 80 and 300bhp), but sometimes if the average speeds are high a small underpowered engine cam produce worse fuel consumption results than a big powerful one because you are asking more of the small engine vs the big one.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I know you are having a go at him, and I sometime feel myself like doing so because it is satisfying... but I want to question that statement.

It rather depends on the use (and I'm not saying especifically 80 and 300bhp), but sometimes if the average speeds are high a small underpowered engine cam produce worse fuel consumption results than a big powerful one because you are asking more of the small engine vs the big one.

Hypothetically, yes, you are right.
Then again the more load you apply to the engine the more efficient it is. Perhaps the mileage is worse, but you are better using that fuel and the emissions could be comparable.

It would be very interesting to compare identical cars with different engines in the real world, while driving on the motorway, in rush hour traffic and other situations. It could be surprising.

I may say that given you don't request strong accelerations, a small engine could provide a good mileage even at high speeds and even more so at a constant cruising speed.
The differences step in when you demand a consistent acceleration: in order to provide a certain improvement of speed over a certain amount of time, the smaller less powerful engine has to vary its operating conditions much more than the larger more powerful engine. That would quite heavily influence the mileage: while city driving, we constantly vary the operating conditions of the engine, and the mileage goes tits. So it's a similar situation.

The thing is, in the real world with Joe A. behind the wheel, it's very difficult to request to a larger engine only the power we need, so we'll find ourselves accelerating a bit too much and consequently braking more than what would be ideal, worsening the mileage. That's (also) why a larger engine provides an horrible mileage while city driving, and why hybrids are so good in the same situation (reconverting part of the energy we were about to waste after the acceleration/braking phase).

If we were to drive without over-accelerating while also being capable (and patience enough) to let the car slow down itself rather than keep using the accelerator pedal until we brake, hybrids wouldn't be so necessary.
Of course we can't always let the car stop itself when we need to stop, it's just hypothetical, but I've tried to use as much as possible the kinetic energy and inertia of the car to keep it moving when possible, and the mileage was quite good (don't remember the exact figure, sorry).

On a similar note, with the large Lancia Phedra, using the cruise control was worth a difference in mileage even larger than 1 liter per 100 km (from 9 to 7,5/8 liters per 100 km or so, it was quite a while ago).

I don't remember why I'm writing this

[Ferrer]

Then again the more load you apply to the engine the more efficient it is. Perhaps the mileage is worse, but you are better using that fuel and the emissions could be comparable.

So basically what you are saying is, always go flat out if you want to use fuel efficiently? Excellent excuse for the police...!

By the way on personal experience, a 2.8 litre V6 can use about the same fuel as a 1.4 litre depending on the conditions. If the conditions work against the smaller engine that is.

[snake bacon]

Oh right. Thanks for clearing that up. And yes, any posh, name brand off road vehicle is bad in my opinion too. They seem to be usually bought by women who want to show off and look down on other motorists, except they can never drive them. Plus, I'd actually be worried to drive them off-road, especially the Range Rover. Let's think, would you want to drive a £70k car off road, despite it being its main function?

Yes, why is it that everyone is so interested in the "Luxury SUV", it's absolutely ridiculous, their only purpose is to use up insane amounts of fuel and are made for people who go around telling you that they're better than you, because they drive an X5. Everyone is buying an SUV now, and when you look at them you can tell that they've never been off road, are never going too, and they shouldn't have 7 seats because only the front 2 get used.

[thebrochureman]

Based on what?
As far as I know an 80 bhp engine is always "greener" than a 300 bhp alone is an improvement. Is that enough? Enough is never enough. .

Yes of Corse a 80 bhp diesel engine will be more efficient than a 300 bhp diesel engine. But it's going to be hard convincing everyone to drive round in a 80 bhp car, driving around in a 300 bhp diesel may not be as efficient as a 80 bhp diesel but it's better than driving around in a petrol V6 with similar power.

[thebrochureman]

Based on what?
As far as I know an 80 bhp engine is always "greener" than a 300 bhp

Yes of Corse a 80 bhp diesel engine will be more efficient than a 300 bhp diesel engine. But it's going to be hard convincing everyone to drive round in a 80 bhp car, driving around in a 300 bhp diesel may not be as efficient as a 80 bhp diesel but it's better than driving around in a petrol V6 with similar power.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Yes of Corse a 80 bhp diesel engine will be more efficient than a 300 bhp diesel engine. But it's going to be hard convincing everyone to drive round in a 80 bhp car, driving around in a 300 bhp diesel may not be as efficient as a 80 bhp diesel but it's better than driving around in a petrol V6 with similar power.

It's not about efficiency, which depends on other factors. It's about overall emissions. Even the best possible engine, with the ideal efficiency, will always pollute. That said, the more power you produce, the more you're polluting, given the same efficiency for both engines.

80 bhp may be something unpopular, 300 bhp in a 2,5 tons behemoth is senseless.