热度 2|
Worst Subcompact Car - 2013 Smart Fortwo:
You can buy a Smart car for a very reasonable $12,420, but you'll do
without power steering, power windows, air-conditioning or a radio.
Adding those common items brings the cost to $15,160, a price greater
than other similarly equipped subcompacts that include a backseat.
Then
there's the matter of driving it. The Smart needs 14.1 seconds to get
to 60 mph and once there feels as if it'll be blown off the road by
every passing tractor-trailer. Its three-cylinder engine returns a
frugal EPA-estimated 36 mpg combined, but requires premium fuel. Its
tiny dimensions allow it to squeeze into parking spots nothing else
could attempt, but its horrible single-clutch automated manual
transmission makes doing so a herky-jerky and potentially bumper-tapping
experience. Once under way, that slow-shifting transmission will have
you bobbing forward with every upshift as if a first-time driver is
rowing the gears.
You'll note we haven't yet mentioned the clown car styling, but why bother? On paper and in practice, the Smart is an oxymoron.
Worst Compact Sedan - 2014 Mitsubishi Lancer:
With Toyota's recent radical overhaul of its best-selling but
thoroughly crummy Corolla, the Mitsubishi Lancer finds itself alone at
the bottom. Though its edgy shape and shark-inspired nose look fierce
when gussied up on the Evolution X, the volume-selling regular Lancer's
small steel wheels, less aggressive styling and single exhaust transform
this compact sedan from rally champ to rental chump.
If
anything, however, styling is actually the Lancer's best attribute. The
cabin is burdened with an uninspiring design, cheap hard plastic, a
tilt-only steering wheel and insufficiently adjustable seats. The base
engine is thrashy, gutless and less efficient than its competitors,
while the optional continuously variable transmission (CVT) saps power
and produces noises more typically associated with calf-bearing bovines.
The optional engine is more powerful and can be equipped with all-wheel
drive, but its fuel economy remains subpar.
The Lancer's biggest problem, though, is a result of its advanced age in a segment that's progressing rapidly in recent years.
Worst Midsize Sedan - 2014 Dodge Avenger:
The Dodge Avenger was given a thorough overhaul for 2011 that
dramatically improved it in virtually every respect, yet it easily
remains the worst midsize sedan. Chiefly, this speaks to the abysmal
depths in which this Caliber-based family car once resided. It also
shows how good midsize sedans have become. Drive a new Ford Fusion and then drive a Dodge Avenger. We challenge you to not laugh out loud at the idea that they are supposedly competitors.
Beyond
its admittedly cool name and gutsy optional V6, the Avenger has little
going for it. The base four-cylinder is unrefined and attached to a
four-speed automatic. The backseat and trunk are tiny. Common features
like a rearview camera are unavailable, the cabin design is rudimentary
and the tall seating position forces its driver's head into the roof.
True, the price is low, but frankly it should be.
Dishonorable mention goes to the closely related Chrysler 200.
Worst Full-Size Sedan - 2014 Ford Taurus: This segment used to be rife with stinkers, yet after the impressive redesign of the Chevrolet Impala,
there is no clear bottom dweller and we're left with a "worst" choice
that is far from bad. The Ford Taurus quite simply isn't as good as its
competitors.
Yes, MyFord Touch can be difficult to use and the
visibility makes it a bit cumbersome to drive, but it's hard to pinpoint
things the Taurus truly does poorly. At the same time, however, it's
also hard to identify reasons beyond its colossal, class-leading trunk
that would warrant buying one instead of a Buick LaCrosse, Chrysler 300,
Hyundai Azera, Toyota Avalon, Volkswagen Passat or that revised Impala.
Heck, it's hard to think of a reason someone would choose a Taurus over
the Fusion sitting just a few feet away in a Ford showroom.
Worst Luxury Sedan - 2014 Lincoln MKS: For about $50,000 you can buy an Audi A6, BMW 5 Series or a loaded Lexus ES 350.
Alternatively, you can buy a version of the car we just declared the
worst full-size sedan, albeit with more equipment, fewer buttons and a
grille inspired by the baleen of a right whale.
Lincoln's MKS is
not the only luxury vehicle mechanically related to a non-luxury model.
The Cadillac XTS shares a platform with the Buick LaCrosse, for
instance, while the Lexus ES 350 shares its underbits with the Toyota
Avalon. The difference is that those plebeian relatives are better than
the Taurus, and there is a much greater distinction between them. You'd
be hard-pressed to spot their genetic similarities whether behind their
wheel or simply eyeing them from the curb. The MKS, on the other hand,
is pure Taurus: similar shape, driving experience, interior space,
compromised visibility and engines.
Many of the same complaints
can be leveled against the Ford Fusion-based Lincoln MKZ, but it's
dipping into a more gifted gene pool.
Worst Convertible - 2012 Ferrari California:
Let's say someone dangles two keys in our faces and says, "We're giving
you a free car! Would you like this Chrysler 200 Convertible or a
Ferrari California?" That's not exactly Sophie's choice. Of course we'd
take the Ferrari, but only because we'd end up with more money when we
immediately traded it on a convertible that isn't a completely hideous
poseur's car.
Otherwise, if we were to keep the California,
everyone who saw us driving it would automatically assume we had
purchased it instead of an Aston Martin DB9 Volante, Audi R8, Bentley Continental GTC, BMW M6, Maserati GranTurismo, Mercedes-Benz SLS, Porsche 911
or any number of cheaper performance and/or luxury convertibles.
Perhaps some folks would assume we got it for that glorious Ferrari V8
wail or the admittedly impressive handling, but they would inevitably
remember a Ferrari 458 Spider exists. They'd think we're insane. And they would be right.
Finally,
astute bystanders may snicker that our fancy-pants Ferrari has the same
crummy touchscreen navigation system as the Chrysler 200 Convertible
they drove on vacation in Ft. Lauderdale. Just because something's
hugely expensive doesn't make it good. In this case, it's a big reason
that the Ferrari California is the worst.
Worst Coupe - 2013 Nissan Altima:
A coupe should look better than its sedan counterpart. It should be
better to drive as well. We'd actually prefer it to be downright fun,
but barring that, we'd settle for more spacious, comfortable and refined
than more dedicated two-door sports cars. In other words, you should
get something in return for the indignity of having your rear passengers
slither in between the B-pillar and a flopped-forward front seat.
None
of the above applies to the Nissan Altima Coupe. It's not especially
attractive and it offers little dynamic improvement beyond the
previous-generation sedan upon which it's based. Making things worse, a
four-cylinder is the only engine offered, whereas you can get a V6 in
the Honda Accord (let alone the cheaper Chevrolet Camaro and Ford
Mustang or more spacious Dodge Challenger). We would throw in that only a
CVT is available, but we actually prefer it to the wonky six-speed
manual that used to be offered.
Besides the coupes we've already
mentioned, there are any number of other two-doors on the sporty or
grand touring spectrum that are better choices.
Worst Hatchback - 2014 Scion iQ:
This could've gone to the Smart as well, but in the interest of
variety, the nearly-as-diminutive Scion iQ is still mightily deserving
of this title. Now, we will certainly commend Toyota for its engineering
abilities here, as the iQ truly is a marvel of vehicle packaging. By
moving the passenger-side dash and firewall forward, there's
theoretically enough room for two passengers to occupy the right-side
seats in this "2+1" hatchback. There is also something to be said for
its ability to fit in many of the same tiny parking spots as the Smart
does, but with a proper transmission.
Nevertheless, there's
something about the iQ that's utterly terrifying. The crash ratings and
generous airbag count indicate it's safe, but we don't live in the
crowded confines of Tokyo. Here in America, even the most congested
urban areas are filled with irate Crown Victoria-driving cabbies and
oblivious Suburban-driving soccer moms waiting to pulverize this little
Scion like the bug it resembles. On the highway, should you dare to
venture, the iQ lacks the stability and substantial feeling of other
pocket cars like the Fiat 500 and Mini Cooper.
Let
us also not forget that the iQ spawned the Aston Martin Cygnet, which
is a crime against all that is dignified in this world.
Worst Sports Car - 2013 Lotus Evora:
"Wait, it costs how much?" While trying to identify the worst sports
car, the number $78,600 might as well have been written in neon lights.
That's the going rate for the top-of-the-line Lotus Evora S 2+2, which
is essentially an enlarged, more refined Elise with a beefier engine.
Sounds
like a good idea, but the Evora is still a tiny car with a laughable
backseat. It may be more refined than an Elise, but that car never set
the quality bar very high. The noise, materials quality, construction
and general modernity still pale in comparison to a Porsche Cayman.
That mid-mounted 3.5-liter V6 does produce a much healthier wallop than
the Elise's four-banger, and with the S model's supercharger, it brings
the Evora from zero to 60 mph in 4.6 seconds. However, it's sourced
from Toyota, meaning your $80,000 sports car basically shares its engine
with a Sienna minivan.
"But the Evora is one of the finest
handling sports cars you can buy!" a tweed-wearing, Colin
Chapman-worshiping bloke may argue, and he'd be correct. However, so,
too, are the Cayman, BMW M3 and Chevy Corvette, which all cost far less
than even the base $66,800 base model Evora and are significantly better
in most other respects.
Worst Luxury Crossover - 2013 Acura ZDX:
Sharing roughly the same footprint and weight as Acura's MDX, the ZDX
features an aggressively raked roof that creates a far sleeker vehicle.
Fair enough, as people are often willing to sacrifice some practicality
to make a fashion statement, but probably not this much. That slashed
roof yields a backseat that's friendly only for those who lack heads,
while the chopped rear door openings may be the reason they lost them in
the first place. The cargo area is meager for a vehicle its size and
its 4,438-pound curb weight doesn't do the 300-horsepower V6 any favors.
The ZDX is a full second slower from zero to 60 mph than the similarly
shaped BMW X6.
Now,
BMW's own coupe-crossover Frankenstein creation is hardly a bastion of
buying sensibility, but unlike the ZDX, the BMW roundel is at least more
likely to create that desired fashion statement than Acura's pinched A.
Be it for fashion or transportation, we can't fathom why anyone would
buy one.
Worst Five-Passenger SUV - 2013 Land Rover LR2: In Great Britain, the Land Rover LR2 is considered an alternative to compact crossovers like the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4.
With its frugal diesel engine, a lower relative price and genuine
off-road capability, it's a decent choice if you need a vehicle that can
just as easily drive through a muddy pasture as it can cruise the
grocery store parking lot. Plus, it's British, so why not fly the flag?
In the United States, the Land Rover LR2 is considered an alternative to compact luxury crossovers like the Audi Q5 and BMW X3.
It may still have more off-road capability, but no amount of leather
trim and fancy features can hide the fact that the LR2 is unsuccessfully
trying to ford some very deep metaphorical water. Its new turbocharged
four-cylinder engine is slow and inefficient for the segment, the cabin
is comparatively stark in design, the cargo area is cramped, and unlike
Land Rover's mechanically related Range Rover Evoque, nothing about the
styling says luxury vehicle. Plus, we're American and there's this thing
called a Jeep.
Worst Seven-Passenger SUV - 2013 Subaru Tribeca:
The Subaru Tribeca was introduced as a 2008 model, but it seems so much
older than that. Perhaps it's the center stack waterfall of mid-2000s
silver plastic or the lack of a telescoping steering wheel. Perhaps it's
the forgettable styling or the fact that virtually every other midsize
crossover has been redesigned since its introduction. No matter, as the
Tribeca wasn't appealing five years ago and it hasn't gotten any better.
Since
we're talking about seven-passenger SUVs here, there's no better place
to start than the third-row seat that can only accommodate children.
Adults can fit in many of its competitors' rearmost spaces. Should you
lower rows two and three, you're left with only 74.4 cubic feet of
maximum cargo capacity. That's about 30 less than a Mazda CX-9, and
essentially equal to Subaru's own Outback, which is better to drive and
far more efficient. In fact, the Tribeca's EPA estimates of 18 mpg
combined and 16 city/21 highway match a V6-powered Ford F-150.
Even if you were to consider the Tribeca a five-passenger SUV with a pair of occasional-use extra seats, it would be a stinker.
Worst Small Pickup Truck - 2013 Honda Ridgeline:
The number of small trucks on sale has fallen to a mere three choices
as the Chevy Colorado, GMC Canyon, Dodge Dakota, Mitsubishi Raider and
Suzuki Equator have all been put out of their (and our) misery. As such,
we're left with the Honda Ridgeline as the worst small pickup.
Now,
the Ridgeline is admittedly filled with clever features like an
under-bed storage compartment and a tailgate that both drops down and
swings out. Its ride and handling are also superior to its Nissan and
Toyota rivals, while the quality of its roomy and comfortable cabin is a
cut above. So, what's the problem? Well, the Ridgeline is just barely a
pickup truck. Yes it has an open bed, but it's built on a unibody
platform shared with the second-generation Honda Odyssey. Consequently,
there's only one cab style and bed length, its towing and off-roading
abilities are significantly compromised, and you get to tell your
friends that your truck is based on a minivan.
Worst Large Pickup Truck - 2013 Cadillac Escalade EXT:
Isn't the fad over now? Do any rappers or Sunset Strip cruisers still
think an Escalade quasi-pickup is cool? Furthermore, doesn't the
presence of ultra-luxury, top-of-the-line real pickups like the Ford
F-150 Platinum, GMC Sierra Denali and Ram 1500 Laramie Limited negate
any other need and/or desire for this Cadillac version of Chevy's
Avalanche?
Look beyond the absurdity of it all, and the Escalade
still suffers the same issue as the Ridgeline: It's almost as much an
SUV as a pickup. Now, its truncated bed can be extended using GM's trick
"midgate" allowing for the transport of longer items, but this presents
further problems. It allows whatever filth is in the bed to slosh
forward into your leather-lined Cadillac interior, which is also left
wide open for thieves to plunder when it's parked.
Thankfully, the announcement that there won't be a third-generation Avalanche pretty much seals the EXT's fate. Good riddance.
Worst Minivan - 2014 Kia Sedona:
The Kia Sedona went away for 2013 but will be resurrected for 2014.
Unfortunately for minivan buyers, it didn't really change in the process
and is very much the same van that was introduced for 2006. Back then
and in the subsequent model years, the Sedona was a smart alternative to
the class-leading Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna, while a clear step
above Chrysler's vans. The Sedona offered loads of features for the
money, a generous warranty, competitive interior space and commendable
driving manners.
Those same virtues remain, but the minivan
segment has moved forward with fresher designs, added features, more
refinement and better fuel economy. Today's Odyssey and Sienna, plus the
Nissan Quest and the heavily improved Chrysler Town & Country and
Dodge Caravan, are ultimately stronger choices. Worst Electric/Alternative-Fuel Vehicle - 2012 Mitsubishi i-MiEV:
Yes, they really do sell the Mitsubishi i-MiEV in this country. Yes,
you really can drive it places besides the 18th fairway or the
controlled confines of the Shady Pines retirement village. Yes, it
really is that terrible and embarrassing to drive.
Go beyond
that, as well as the dime-store interior, and you'll find an electric
vehicle with less range than every other solely battery-powered car. It
can only go 62 miles on a full charge, which is roughly the
distance-to-empty that triggers most drivers to start searching for the
closest Shell. Plus, the i-MiEV takes longer to recharge than its
rivals. True, this Mitsubishi city car is the least expensive EV on the
market, but its price tag of $20,000 (including the $7,500 tax rebate)
speaks to its cheapness rather than its value.
With cars like the
Tesla Model S, Ford Focus Electric and Nissan Leaf, we know that
electric vehicles can be viable. The i-MiEV gives them all a bad name.
Powered by Discuz! X2.5