RLSH700

I find it interesting how there are no Japanese and no Korean cars on that list (at least ones from the mainstream Japanese brands). Now although the Japanese have done a lot right in recent years which is way they are gaining popularity, they were not made by God himself; therefore, they have had a few booboos along the way. The T-100 would be an excellent example of a vehicle that was poorly executed. It lacked the guts that people wanted for a "full-sized" truck, the engine had head-gasket problems, and the paint left much to be desired from what I have read. How about the failure of the Accord Hybrid? Do I even have to bring up the Korean models?

A lot of vehicles on that list have do not deserve to be on that list, including vehicles I particularly don't like. The 1995 Ford Explorer does not deserve to be on that list. That was a success story. The only logical thing you could complain about that vehicle was that Ford made a poor choice to use Firestone as their supplier and the customers drove those vehicles too fast for what they were ment to be driven. Firestone Wilderness belongs on that list, not the Explorer.

There was nothing wrong with the Prowler to deserve to be associated with the term worst car. It was over priced and lacked an engine that the performance enthusiant crowd would approve of it having. The 3.5L in the 99-02 models was no slouche (0-60 in 5.8 secs using a 4-speed auto), but for around $40-45K, people rightfully wanted more than 253hp from six fireholes. Part of the problem was that Chrysler did not have a very good V8 for performance without having to invest a lot of resources into it. The 4.7L was not much better in power at that time, the 5.9L was only being used in the truck line and they were not mass producing a higher output version.

I don't read Time magazine regularly and quite frankly don't care what they think. This seems to be an anti-gas guzzler article mostly. They just throw in the Yugo and a few other econoboxes that were pretty shotty to cover for the slant in this article. They moaned and complained about the large SUVs, but they didn't prove anything was actually wrong with them. The Delorean sounded more like a rant about how the business was a failure and did illegal things, blame John if you want but not his car. Also they moaned about the lack of power on the Corvette, Camaro, and DMC-12, I'd like to remind the guys at Time about something. This was the 80s, they had to drop the power to pass the emission standards. They didn't have a very big choice. About the EV1, yes it was a piece of junk, but forgive GM for trying. Also I find it ironic that they mention the failure of the Cadillac V-8-6-4 engine, yet when they sight an example of a multidisplacement system that works, they skip over Chrysler's system that has been used on multiple models, GM's updated system (which would make the most sense to compare it to since its the same number of cylinders and the most similar technology), but no they sight Honda's system. We aren't bias are we?

I find that who article to be a waste of time.

I agree with patrick about adding Geo to the list.