have been known to criticize cars that many people think are "good." It's not uncommon for a reader to see my opinion of a vehicle and say, "don't bash car XYZ, it's a 'good' car." But as many of you already know, "good" isn't good enough in today's super-competitive market. This is doubly true if, as an automaker, you are in the unenviable position of trying to reverse your dropping market share and/or change consumer perception of your product. Those guys need to be doing it better, cleaner and more effectively than the competition, and they certainly can't be producing "also rans" in terms of marketplace competitiveness. However, I'm willing to admit that while a Chevy Cobalt, Ford Five-Hundred or Chrysler Town & Country doesn't get my "gotta have" blood pumping, they are fully functional vehicles that will serve most buyers with minimal fuss. BUT -- what about cars that aren't even "good" or "fine" but are downright "bad?" The truth is, those models are becoming fewer and further between each year...but they do exist. And, as your personal guide through the automotive world, I'm even willing to call these vehicles out by name.
Yes, I'm risking the wrath of all these cars' current owners, but I'm also ensuring that, if anyone who reads my blog subsequently buys one of these models, they do it with full knowledge of these vehicles being on my personal "Don't Buy!" list. Let the games (and hate mail) commence!
1. Ford Freestar/Mercury Monterey -- This car is pretty much at the top of my "don't buy" list. It gets the dubious honor of almost making me call my Ford contacts the first time I drove it. The conversation would have started out with my simply asking "What the #%$@ are you guys doing!" I first experienced the "all-new" 2004 Freestar as part of our 2004 Minivan Comparison Test. We were doing our typical driving loops, where we drive all the vehicles on a pre-determined course, then have a driver switch and do it again. I had just spent the previous two loops in the truly all new 2004 Sienna, as well as the still stellar 2004 Odyssey, before hopping into the Freestar, and it was one of the roughest comparison test transitions I had ever made. The engine was torquey -- but extremely unrefined. The steering and handling were borderline scary and the interior's build quality was atrocious. I don't know for a fact that Ford simply rebadged the Windstar and threw in an updated system for folding the seats flat (a system that broke in our test vehicle, BTW), but that's certainly how the vehicle came off in this test. Thankfully, Ford is killing the Freestar soon. See, there is an argument for euthanasia. Look for an updated, 2007 minivan comparison test to hit the site soon...
2. Toyota Echo -- If the Freestar is the minivan to avoid, the Echo is (technically was, now that the Yaris is here) the economy car to run from. I did the first Full Test of an Echo waaay back in 2000, and I remember it being the first new car I'd driven for Edmunds.com that made me think "Wow, Toyota can still screw up with the best of them." I also remember wondering if I was too harsh on the poor little Echo. Then I read Car & Driver's write up and I still remember their bottom line statement: "Something new from Toyota -- a mistake." The Echo never met sales expectations and Toyota is hoping for better things from the Yaris (we'll see...). My personal Echo issues had to do with the small, central gauge cluster, tippy handling, goofy looks and poor value. Yeah, the car's starting price wasn't bad, but if you wanted any amenities (like a rearview mirror) you had to pay extra. My wife's best friend leased one, and got taken big time, too. I can't believe what she's paying every month to rent an Echo. She obviously didn't use Edmunds before visiting the dealer. I just keep my mouth shut whenever she comes over...
3. Jaguar X-Type -- Unlike the Freestar, the X-Type isn't a bad vehicle because of core failings in the design or platform; this one is all about the execution. First, it's competing against the likes of Acura's TL, Audi's A4 and BMW's 3 Series, three of the strongest products on the market. So just going in Jaguar had an incredibly high bar to meet (let alone exceed). As I said, the Mondeo from which the X-Type springs isn't a bad vehicle. It offers solid ride and handling characteristics. Not surprisingly, the X-Type retains those character traits -- though they aren't as impressive in the "near-luxury" segment as they are in the Mondeo's "family sedan" segment on the other side of The Pond. And that's pretty much the only semi-positive thing to be said about the X-Type. Our first experience with the X-Type was a disaster, but Jaguar insisted that car was a pre-production version and that a full production version wouldn't have any of the issues we experienced (like an exhuast system that falls off, an indecisive transmission or a driver's seat not fully bolted down). So we gave the X-Type another chance, and decided it wasn't a horrendous vehicle...just an overpriced and sub-par one -- in a segment full of superstars -- which still makes it a bad car.
4. Dodge Caliber -- The other cars on my list are pretty much proven failures in terms of sales and/or consumer feedback, but the Caliber is still in launch mode. But if you read my second opinion on the Caliber after our full test, you won't be surprised to find it here. I like the looks, and I like the idea that Chrysler thinks Americans need to discover the joys of economical hatchbacks (so much so they don't offer a sedan in this segment anymore). But I wish they would have launched their hatchback crusade with something that might actually win over American buyers. Put simply, the interior is too chintzy, the CVT is too squishy/spongy and acceleration is too weak (largely because of the rubber-band transmission). Dodge is lucky because the hard stuff (platform, basic design/layout) is fine on the Caliber. And the car has some cool features, too. If Dodge fixes the drivetrain and upgrades the interior materials they can still turn this one around. Right now, in a segment full of Mazda 3s, Honda Civics and even the aging Ford Focus, the Caliber can't compete. It's a "bad" car.
5. Chevrolet Colorado -- The GM spin on the Colorado's five cyclinder engine is "the power of a six, the fuel economy of a four." But we had a GMC Canyon (the Colorado's twin) in our long-term fleet. Take it from us, it's got the fuel economy of a six and the power of four, plus the refinement of a ancient engine design -- despite its DOHC design. In our 2005 Compact Truck Comparison Test the Colorado took last, behind not only the Tacoma, Frontier and Dakota, but even behind the archaic (yet still superior) Ford Ranger, which pretty much says it all. GM will sell millions (many to fleet buyers), and ardent supporters will be blind to the truck's lack of power and mediocre build quality, but this is not a competitive vehicle in the 2006 compact truck market.
By carlisimo
on June 5, 2006
03:19 PM
I bet that felt good to write!
Hey, would this list have been a lot bigger 6 months to one year ago? It seems a lot of cars with bad reputations have been replaced with at least competent offerings (like at Kia). Or were those not actually that bad?
By rsholland
on June 5, 2006
03:23 PM
No bashing here from me. I'm just surprised you kept your list to five vehicles. ;)
By editor_karl
on June 5, 2006
03:54 PM
There are more vehicles that could be added, but these are the most egregious cars from the last five years. I've spoken to another editor in the last few hours, and she reminded me of one or two other possible candidates. Maybe I'll add them...
There are definitely fewer cars today than there were, say, five years ago, that deserve to be on this list. And yes, the Koreans represent some of the improvement in that time (oh, that first Rio -- yikes!). The improvements over the last year aren't as large, but there have been some. No more Echo, for instance, and the new Sedona is much better. Certainly Nissan is an entirely new company compared to 1999, and Saturn potentially looks to be on the verge of a (long-overdue) turnaround.
By mercedesman1
on June 5, 2006
04:17 PM
How did you keep it down to five cars and i think it would be interresting to see a list of all the cars that you dont like and for what reasons it would be quite drole!!!:)
By jaserb
on June 5, 2006
07:41 PM
I drove a rental Freestyle while our MPV was in for a recall. What a horrible, horrible van. I honestly think the Windstar was better.
My wife - not generally the pickiest person when it comes to vehicles - commented that the interior felt like it was made by Fisher-Price.
There was some kind of "mooing" from the rear of the van that sounded for all the world like the fuel pump was dying.
The gas mileage was atrocious - it might as well have been a full size SUV.
The handling was downright scary - the ABS system had a hair trigger, and it was as tippy as anything I've ever driven.
I end up renting vans quite often traveling with my family, and even though I'm a Hertz #1 club member I generally rent from Dollar just so I can be sure I don't end up in a Freestyle. Bad. Bad bad bad.
Agree on the Echo, too. A colleague of mine bought one and immediately regretted it. He asked me if there was a chance he could take it back. I told him, "well, I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is you're stuck with it. The worse news is that it's a Toyota, so you're stuck with it for a looooong time cause it'll never break."
-Jason
-Jason
By aspade
on June 5, 2006
10:51 PM
The 5 cylinder engine in the Colorado isn't ancient, it's a high compression, 4 valve DOHC cut down of the 4.2l I6 that was brand new for 2001 or 2002.
Underpowered for a 4000lb 4wd truck, all the more so with an ancient 4 speed auto, yes. But in a 2wd regular cab with a modern transmission I think the engine would do pretty well.
By mikus
on June 5, 2006
10:59 PM
"My personal Echo issues had to do with the small, central gauge cluster "
The matter of taste. Saturn has the same. xB/xA have the same.
"tippy handling"
I think it handles ok for subcompact and goes 80 mph with ease
"goofy looks"
Only because at that time Toyota thought that americans prefer sedans, even in subcompact category. The original Yaris hatchback looks great. Later Toyota recognized that hatcbacks are gaining popularity and brought xB, xA and Matrix.
On the other hand, all new Toyotas look goofy. One of the reasons for goofy look is stupid side skirts and front/end spoilers. Toyota thinks that plastic cladding can make a Camry/Corolla/Yaris/xB look sportier. Nah. This stuff looks ugly, like a bolt-on amateur "aero"-set. Yuck. As if Pontiac example has not teached Toyota that cladding is tacky and yucky. At least Toyota improved the spoilers on 2006 Matrix, time to move forward indeed.
By rcf8000
on June 6, 2006
05:22 AM
Did the Saturn ION barely miss making the list?
By 210delray
on June 6, 2006
06:23 AM
How refreshing to see names named, and 4 of the 5 models are current! This certainly adds to Edmunds' credibility IMO.
We've come a long way from the Motor Trend of not too many years ago: all cars are good, except of course last year's models!
By rsholland
on June 6, 2006
07:23 AM
In regard to the Dodge Caliber: It continues this new—and bad—trend of offering a tiny, poorly shaped rear-quarter window. This styling gimmick can be found on many new vehicles, including: Murano, B9 Tribeca, FJ Cruiser (by far the worst of the bunch), Matrix, Vibe, and a few others too that I can't remember at the moment.
Whenever styling overrules function, it's bad. I see Dodge just jumped on the bandwagon here, rather than offer a good workable solution that also looks cool.
By jerrywimer
on June 6, 2006
09:23 AM
Good catch, aspade. I was going to point this out then read your comment, saving me the trouble. (Nothing old about the i5 in the Colorado)
I pretty much agree with everything else in the list though.
By germancarfan1
on June 6, 2006
09:24 AM
no wonder Ford is currently offering $4000 in rebates to move 2006 Freestars off the lot. I wouldn't take it for $10,000 in rebates...
It's 4.2L in the Limited trim engine only manages 201 HP. That's totally unacceptable for a car having a MSRP of $30K.
Does Ford even care anymore? Did they just give up?
By editor_karl
on June 6, 2006
09:49 AM
RCF, the answer to your question is "Yes"
I don't know how GM managed to make a DOHC engine design feel ancient, but they did. Very thrashy and loud (plus, as noted, the outdated transmission isn't helping matters).
By navigator89
on June 6, 2006
01:08 PM
Actually Karl, regarding the Colorado, it actually took 4th in your truck competition, so it did manage to beat the Ranger.
How come the Ranger isn't on this list? I wasn't surprised to see the vehicles on this list, except for the Caliber, which was a stunning shock for me. Still, people are buying the Caliber in droves from what I hear.
By editor_karl
on June 6, 2006
02:01 PM
You are correct Navigator, my bad. I went and looked a the specific scoring page http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=104774/pageId=62757 and remembered that while the overall score was higher for the Colorado, the Ranger won in our Personal Choice category (basically, the order in which the editors would rate the trucks). Plus the Ranger beat the Colorado in the "important truck features" category (which is just bizarre considering how much older the Ranger is), and performance (just barely). The Colorado pulled it out because, in the end, the editors gave the Colorado more "recommended" points than the Ranger -- and that was only because you can get a quad-cab version of the Colorado but not the Ranger (and we know many buyers really like/need that body style). Bottom line, I know which truck I'd buy first between those two...
By kdhspyder
on June 7, 2006
07:10 AM
jaserb wrote:
"well, I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is you're stuck with it. The worse news is that it's a Toyota, so you're stuck with it for a looooong time cause it'll never break."
Very funny comment to start the morning, tks. Selling them was, ehh
By poorcruzer
on June 7, 2006
04:38 PM
You think the Colorado is bad? Try adding 800lbs and an ugly body and 10,000 dollars more and you have a H3. Every time I see a H3 driving down the road I laugh until I cry because it seem humanity is getting dumber.
By crashtestdingo
on June 10, 2006
02:08 AM
"...I like the idea that Chrysler thinks Americans need to discover the joys of economical hatchbacks (so much so they don't offer a sedan in this segment anymore)."
I would buy a hatchback only as a last resort because cargo is more vulnerable to theft. A would-be thief smashed the window of my car on Memorial Day weekend. Fortunately, I didn't have anything of value inside. I would also pass up a sedan/coupe with folding rear seats that can't be locked, for the same reason.
By neely2005
on March 3, 2007
08:53 AM
Quote from Karl: "Dodge is lucky because the hard stuff (platform, basic design/layout) is fine on the Caliber. And the car has some cool features, too. If Dodge fixes the drivetrain and upgrades the interior materials they can still turn this one around."
So let me get this straight the Caliber is a "bad car" because you don't like the plastic that they chose for the interior & it doesn't accelerate fast enough???
As to the plastic my Mom has a 2006 Toyota Corolla and the plastic looks pretty much the same as the plastic in the Caliber.
As to the transmission from what I can tell from reading the Reviews on Edmunds it's a Quality, Quiet, Smooth transmission - it just doesn't allow the car to accelerate fast enough - for you.
That hardly seems like enough to rate this is a "bad car".
But you seem to have it out for this car and are looking for any reason to justify putting it down.
And no I don't own a Caliber but I did rent a Caliber SXT for a weekend and put about 1000 Km on it & I thought it was a fabulous car - especially for the price.
The only problems I had with it were the blindspot on the passenger rear side (which can be minimized by adding a convex mirror) and that things were sliding around in the hatch (which I solved by putting a blanket down)