Cars you hate

[8Mud]

Wife had a Citreon Palace, one of those French cars, that look like a big frog.
Had to take the fenders off, the radiator cross member out, or in other words, most of the whole front clip, to replace the water pump.
The whole top of the motor had hydrolic spaghetti and metal, injector lines, running every which direction. Which made the vacuum lines, on the old carburated smog motors, look very orderly, in comparision. The solid lifters , needed adjustment for years (I was unwilling to remove all the hydrolic and injection junk and risk all the leaks), everything in the suspension was hydrolic, the motor wasn´t.
Tried for hours to adjust the parking brake cable, I could see a big old wing nut, but couldn´t for the life of me, figure out how to reach it, without having reverse elbows. Finally took it to a specialist, he cut a hole in the bottom dust pan to reach the wing nut.
I celebrated when she crashed it.

 

[Citat3962]

Hyundai - Japanese

And hyundais are Korean.

 

[casm]

It doesn't get any more basic than a VW Thing!!

Oh, but it does... The fantastic Citroen Mehari, pictured below. Basically a 2CV in a more utilitarian body, it was the world's first plastic-bodied (as opposed to fibreglass) vehicle, propelled by the brilliant 29.5hp air-cooled 4-stroke 2-cylinder that was damn near indestructible.

We just did 1200 miles in one on a 3-day run last month. It was a complete blast

 

[xuv-this]

Re: Who owns who

I HATE:
-these because the company(s) that make them promotes them as being the best and then rips off buyers who think that more $$$= better product, and so the company doesn't actually care about actually designing the best....
1) H2, H3, H4.5, etc.
2)ewscalade
3)land rovers

-these because (they really are not bad cars from an economical standpoint), but $350 chinese coffee-can muffler in a slow car gives you no excuse to drive like an @sshole.
4)riced-out honda's and assorted front wheel drive cars

-these because the cherokee pioneered a excellent design, and they ruined it.
5) most cross-over suv's
6) liberty

 

[Citat3962]

The new Eclipse has no turbo

The new liberty is ugly.. no other issue I just think it's ugly.

Ford SUVs and trucks.. especially the Excursion and Expedition.. a few notable exceptions F150s from SVT.... etc.

every mopar car or minivan product from 1980 - 2005
excepting the new 300C and the Viper everything else was either ugly slow or both... usually both.

Every GM car made since 1980 except the vette. and even thats questionable.

Jeep.... Used to pretty much think they are all ugly over weight over built junk with street manners for something that doesn't belong there.. Now they build Street mannered Junk that is UGLY AS SIN and totally sucks off road in comparison... this flip flop type of designing will eventually shake off repeat buyers and dilute their lineup til it's just another cookie cutter Mopar Suv. I like my XJ and CJ10's and 7s as well as jeepsters and 2 door waggys... beyond that they are of minimal interest.

no point in bothering with the imports.. the come on a car by car basis because they don't follow the US manufacturer Cookie cutter car formula.

A VW is a VW not a nissan or a toyota.. and it's easy to tell the difference..

A pontiac is a dodge is a ford is a Etc.. they all seem to be fighting for the others market segment and so we end up with 4 different manufacturers putting out the same car in hopes of getting the others sale without doing anything more drastic than copying the imports last years design...

So if youre looking for real american ingenuity maybe you should decide which import this years models are trying to imitate and buy that... cut out the middle man and get a better quality car.

If you want to know what cars I hate?

I say american cars... and it's all their fault for giving us the last 25 years of CRAP cars to choose from. A few diamonds in the rough but mostly just crap.

 

[XJ Dreamin']

On the other hand, not all 2.2L FWD "roller skates", as you call them, are so deserving of scorn. Case in point: the 1986 Omni GLHS (Shelby edition) - if you can lay hands on one of these (or its slightly more mundane GLH or GLHT bretheren), I suspect they could easily give a Mini what-for. Be a heckuva lot of fun to put the GLHS and the Mini Cooper S side by side on a road course and see who comes out on top.

I can't go with you on this one, Rob. I have to say that any FWD deserves my scorn. All wheel drive, yeah. Full time 4WD, sure. I know I'm asking for a flaming here, but this is one point where I will stand by my convictions. FWD sucks in any situation at any time. I won't argue the point, and no, I won't meet anyone anywhere for a race. FWD sucks. That's the way it is. I can't change it and I wouldn't if I could. I like it that way. No offence, I hope.

Still, this has been a fun discussion - shall we dredge up the list of funny acronyms created from car manufacturer names next?Rob

Whoa. That sounds like another Mensa thread. The only ones I know are based on F O R D and those were already included earlier in this thread, but if anyone is game I'd love to see some.

 

[TMNT]

The Jeep XJ. I am sick of it still getting 20mpg and running great at just over 300,000 miles. I am sick of pure reliablility. I am sick of having room for plenty of people yet not being too big to park in a tight spot. I just hate it so much....




-Dillon

 

[casm]

FWD sucks. That's the way it is. I can't change it and I wouldn't if I could. I like it that way. No offence, I hope.

None taken here. However, I have to ask what (as well as experience with which vehicles) you're basing this on. Just curious.

 

[theslacker]

Any fullsize blinging SUV. H2, Tahoe, Excursion, Infiniti QX56. Boxy, Fugly, slow, and way to big. But the slow part might be from the gangsta with 26" chrome rims and stereo. You know none of them even go near dirt. Half of them don't come out in the rain.
FWD deserves no scorn. Just make sure they are Toyotas from the early 80's with a 5spd. Yeah there's a whole bunch of rust but they are a blast to drive. You can rev the hell out them all day and they don't complain. I had a hard time trying to kill my Tercel 4WD, and it was the tranny that gave out. Two of them.

 

[PapaPump]

FWD was done wrong early on. There are a few decent handling front wheel drive cars currently and in the recent past. Acura does not make a bad-handling car, and the only RWD car they make is the NSX. Toyota Celicas handle great, as does the mini cooper. In the early 90's there was the NX2000 and Sentra SE-R. In the 80s (and now of course) there was the GTi Golf. If you've ever seen these cars in action at an autocross course, than you would know that there is potential in FWD. The consistent winner here in the auto-x events drives a second gen CRX. The bane of FWD is weight and torque. heavy cars quickly overwhelm the limited traction offered by driving and steering through the same wheels. torquey cars drive in the direction of your momentum. the problem with FWD it the impression in our heads of full size cars with 350 ft lbs driving straight off the road and sloppy econoboxes with chattering engine subframes and mad wheelhop. it can be done. and these cars do better (than RWD) if you actually try and take them in low traction situations (like snow). and mud heheh: i rode with some friends in an escort to a cabin that required 4wd in my jeep. the 'scort had cables for snow but they worked well in the mud. i doubt a RWD car would have made it. i still prefer RWD of course, but FWD has its place and has been proven workable even for racing.

 

[skierbri10]

Any thing peugot. Or for that matter anything not American or German. :us:

 

[skierbri10]

The Jeep XJ. I am sick of it still getting 20mpg and running great at just over 300,000 miles. I am sick of pure reliablility. I am sick of having room for plenty of people yet not being too big to park in a tight spot. I just hate it so much....




-Dillon

Gasp......be careful even when said in jest it may bring the havoc of unluckyness......
:scared:

 

[DrMoab]

Whoa. That sounds like another Mensa thread. The only ones I know are based on F O R D and those were already included earlier in this thread, but if anyone is game I'd love to see some.

One that was forgotten.

Fawk! Our Ride Died!

 

[DDCxj]

How the hell did I miss this thread the first time through?

Anyway I HATE FORDS. It doesn't matter what model it is, if its FWD or RWD or 4x4, or if it its black or pink. If it has that 4 letter word on the front I HATE IT. The only good thing they have ever done is to use Navistar diesels which are made by International.

Also on the list are VW, Mitsubishi, and most of the "foreign" SUV's (I just dont like the styling at all). Although I am a huge fan of Chevys and most GM's, you can add the 80s/early 90's Nova to the list.

Dean

 

[XJ Dreamin']

None taken here. However, I have to ask what (as well as experience with which vehicles) you're basing this on. Just curious.

That's based on my opinion. :laugh3:

Before you ask: My opinion is based on what I like (or hate). :thumbup:

I'm the same way with music and art. Good music and good art are music and art that I like. Everything else is crap. Of course, except that this is a fun thread in a non-tech forum, I usually keep my opinions to myself. I hope that in a tech forum I never fail to provide support for any assertions I may make.

As far as British. The TR-3 we had would scoot like a son-a-b, when it was running. Keeping it running required a constant supply of packages from England. My Dad claimed it would do 0-100 in four pole lengths (i.e. the distance between utility poles that lined the county road out front). However, the little piece of scrap had a seemingly random over/understeer problem that would make your nape hairs stand on end. That with a number of totally assinine design issues caused my Dad to eventually give the thing away.

As for German: Ownership extends only to original style Beetles. The list of reasons that Beetles are crap is way too long to do it justice here. We ran them because we could get them cheap and they got good mileage. They were fun in the snow and on gravel. That does not absolve them of the crime of being crap. Everytime we had to work on one Dad would inevitably end up beating on it with whatever he had in hand screaming, "GD Volkswagons! No wonder the Nazis lost the war!!" Once we got used to the higher gas prices we scrapped them and went back to MOPAR iron. I've driven and looked at and even tinkered with a few MB's, a Jaguar, BMW's, Audis, Volvo's, Mercs, and Porches over the years, helping friends who owned them try to keep them running. When you spend all of your time working on a vehicle muttering things like WTH and WTF and "Ah, you piece of crap" you start to form an opinion about that vehicle.

WOW! I just realized that the inquiry to which I am replying might be limited to my assessment of front wheel drive vehicles. If so, I am sorry, Casm, for wasting all of the above space. As far as FWD: If someone can show me a FWD funny car that can do a 3-second quarter, I'll STFU (maybe).

All in :laugh3:

 

[XJ Dreamin']

None taken here. However, I have to ask what (as well as experience with which vehicles) you're basing this on. Just curious.

OK. Being serious and assuming that Casm is asking about FWD in particular..

I base my assertion on physics. Drive belongs on the rear. That's why tractors and dragsters have those big wheels on the back. Sure you can, and want to add drive to the front as part- or full-time 4WD, or even All-Wheel-Drive. But I maintain that it is silly to try to claim that drive only to the front is better, or even good. Mind now that comparisons have to be side-by-side, but I contend that if you put two cars side by side, with equal horsepower per pound ratios, the RWD will outperform the FWD.

All right, now - I've put it out there, but before you respond be aware that I'm not going to care how good you think your Neon is. If it's FWD it sucks and I'm simply not going to accept anything else but that. It's like boiled peanuts. I've never ever tried them but I contend that they are a bad idea. Why? Just because I think it's healthy for each and every one of us to have and maintain at least one opinion that is based on absolutely nothing, whatsoever. In order to maintain my opinion of boiled peanuts I have never, and will never eat even on peanut that has been boiled. In order to maintain my opinion of FWD, although I occasionally am forced to drive one, I will never own one (discounting that I am co-owner of the wife's FWD Grand Caravan).

That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[Lawn Cher']

You neglect traction ion less than dry surfaces in your assessment. Off-the-line acceleration is not the only factor in assessing performance. I think your determination is rather short-sighted.

 

[XJ Dreamin']

The Jeep XJ. I am sick of it still getting 20mpg and running great at just over 300,000 miles. I am sick of pure reliablility. I am sick of having room for plenty of people yet not being too big to park in a tight spot. I just hate it so much....




-Dillon

Amen. I hear ya' man.

 

[Citat3962]

Or even in high grip switchback turns... all things being equal - handleing neutral - 2-300 WHP - same weight - same driver... on a short road course with tight corenering

I'll take the FWD every time...

The RWD would be more fun to drive as it has that throttle steer effect... but that doesn't mean it's faster..

In fact if a FWD car is driven to the limit in a road race situation with the same HP as a RWD car the FWD will be able to enter the corner at a higher speed due to the inherent Understeer of the design..you just push it wide through the corner gripping the whole way and punch it as soon as you clear the apex. it might understeer a bit but if you entered the corner at the right speed you can get on the gas earlier..

The RWD car will have to wait longer to get on the gas coming out of the corner because the drive wheels have less weight on them.. braking is unloading the rear plus the lateral weight transfer leaves ou with ONE tire on the ground with less than half the vehicles weight on it... so you burn out the tire and slide off the track if you get on the gas too early..

That said above 250 HP the RWD gains an advantage as the FWD starts over stepping the tires ability to grip for both forward motion and turning the more torque you apply.. The RWD will be able to put the power to the ground at the same point through the turn even with more torque simply because the RWD has to be practically straight and out of the corner no matter how much power it has... the FWD will exhibit the same problem as power goes above 250 requring the front tires to be practically straight through the whole turn

If you would like to see proof of these statements refer to the Speedvision Motorola Cup in 2001 where the Realtime Acura Integras Whooped BMW 328's done by Turner motorsport Race after race after race... They're not as competitive now because the allow for higher horsepower cars in that class..e ffectively making the FWD acuras obselete... but when everyone on the track was pushing 250HP or less it made for some VERY close racing and a GREAT oppertunity to see the difference betwen nearly equal drivers and cars with only RWD being the difference between them..

I love both RWD and FWD in a road race application.. either car will have it's limitations and the key to making either fast is knowing how to use it like it was designed!

My road racer is an 86 GTI FWD.... it's a real gas to drive and on the 1.45 mile road course near my house I consistently can keep up with much higher horsepower RWD cars until we get to the straightaway. And I'm talking 300-400 HP porsches and vettes.

My next racer project will be to find a Toyota Corolla GTS so I can do some lightweight RWD racing.. Nothing is more lame on a road course than heavy ass american iron... if you want to coast through EVERY corner and only punch it when you are completely straight I'd like to refer you to any Fox body Mustang or Whatever (j body?) the last three models of camaro have been.. all those things are good for is driving in a straight line..

 

[XJ Dreamin']

You neglect traction ion less than dry surfaces in your assessment. Off-the-line acceleration is not the only factor in assessing performance. I think your determination is rather short-sighted.

Ok. Show me a FWD sprint car that will place or show in a field of RWD sprint cars. Show me a FWD hill climber that can out climb a RWD hill climber. I'm sorry, but from day one, when they started pushing FWD in the US, the claims have never made sense to me. Now if you put a 1500# FWD and my old 5000# Grand Fury on a gravel road, that Fury will plow it's fat ass right through the turn every time. But that is mass: that's not FWD or RWD. But, two cars of comparable mass with identical HP/lb ratios - I got to go with the RWD everytime. (damn plain text - that sounds like I'm harping. Please understand that while I'm typing my face looks like this :laugh3: not like this . I :heart: this thread and this hijack)

One winter, when I was home from school, I drove Hy 94 from about 5 miles west of West Alton, MO into St. Charles. A trip that would normally take something under 30 minutes. There was 3 inches of wet snow on the pavement and I found that I had to limit my speed to 35 mph. I was driving a 1972 Pylmouth Grand Fury (RWD:thumbup: ). Along Hy 94, County road B, and Elm Point Road I counted 10 cars and 2 truck off the road. In every case, the tracks led from the inside of a corner straight out on the tangent into the ditch on the outside of the turn. The tracks were all straight with no indication of any of the vehicles spinning their way off the road. Each and every one went straight off into the outside ditch. I found that while my rear end would drift if I applied throttle in a turn (with an open diff.) it was completely controllable. I didn't understand why so many were off the road until I realized that every car in the ditch was FWD and the two trucks were both 4x4's.

My conclusion is that each of those drivers, once they were comfortably in the turn attempted to apply power whereupon each and every one of them suffered a case of terminal understeer as their front drive wheels broke traction and led them straight into the ditch. I assume that the two truck drivers decided that 3 inches of wet snow demanded 4WD and they suffered the same fate. My rear drive wheels did not have any better traction, and my vehicle would tend towards oversteer if I applied power, but I maintained control because my steering wheels did not loose traction.

So, not dry pavement and not off-the-line performance, but still predictably obeying simple physics.

One other case: One early December morning, in St. Charles, I had a lot of trouble getting my Grand Fury up the ice coated hills in the sub-divisions off of Booneslick, east of First Capitol. That was about 1am. At 6am my girl friend (now wife) had little trouble getting her Grand Am up the same hills. When I complained later she contended that her FWD must then be better than my RWD. Remember, though, that her Grand Am weighed half what my Grand Fury did. I contend that when it comes to the minimal traction of ice, her light weight was more valuable to her than her FWD and my excessive mass was more of a penalty for me than was my RWD.

A true test would be to take two identical FWD's, side-by-side at the bottom of an icy hill: one facing up-hill and one facing down. Put the one facing up-hill in Drive and the one facing down-hill in Reverse. See which one has a better time getting up the hill. There is no ice to be had here, but maybe somebody from downunder could run some trials for us. Any wagers (in fun only, of course)

Damn. I need to be drinking some beer if we're really going to get in to this. :cheers: on me, at least in spirit. eace: always.