So what are the worst cars of the last 10 years (or older if you want), and what can the new/upcomming cars can learn from them. (by cars I mean: cars, vans, trucks...)

Pontiac Aztec:
Mini vans should not try to be off road SUV's

 

Aztec... message: Don't look so ugly

 

I don't know if I'd call it the worst car, but I think the Camry makes a case that a car can be too plain or vanilla:blah:

Exteriors on modern cars are hard to pull off becuase you have to balance styling features for aerodynamic efficiency. I think moden cars could take more cues from older cars (especially from the 50's and early 60's) in their interiors. I think alot of lines and shapes, albeit subdued, could be designed into modern interiors.

 

As far as ugliness goes, I would equate the Aztec to the Pacer from the 70's. Both had boatloads of ugly. Unfortunately ugly seems to be the in thing right now.

 

Agreed. Newer cars need more style like the old ones.

 

Be careful with statements like that...
You'll set off the radar of the Retro-Patrol!

 

Worse cars of the last 10 years?

Aztek. At least the 70s era Pacer actually sold in pretty high numbers the 1st couple of years out, and was ridiculed LATER, whereas the Aztek was ugly from day 1!

Mitsubishi 3000 GT. Yes it had twin turbos. Yes it had AWD. Yes it was a technological marvel. But the thing cost $40,000 in the early 90s and weighed just under TWO TONS! It's also the poster child of everything that went wrong with Japanese sports cars, and why they disappeared from the US.

The Ford Taurus redesign. This falls under the "What were they thinking" catagory. Bugeye headlights, carved out mid-section. Till Aztek came, I saw it as the ugliest car around. Ford mercifully did a quick redesign a short time later.

Camaro 3400 V6. The true definition of dog since Ford stopped making 4 cylinder Fox Mustangs.

I'd have to think very hard to come up with others.

 

Not so much from a specific model from the past, but in general...

Sometimes it is OK to sacrifice a little weight savings or aerodynamics to make a better looking car...

 

From my experience plastic bumpers dont cut it. I dont mind plastic/cheap bumpers on cars that must be light like a camaro or a vette, but just about everything else is going plastic too nowadays. Every year, truck bumpers get weaker. 5mph impacts that cause $1300 of damage is not cool. Niether is the fact that plastic is not going to save you from a semi truck. We shouldnt be relying on air bags, because they can fail. Id rather have some steel between me and a semi truck than a balloon or two. (but id prefer both course). conclusion: id rather have a vehicle that weighs 40lbs more if it saves me from death or very large repair bills. That .1 second better 0-60 time and .05 mpg better is not worth it.

 

The plastic is just the bumper cover ... there is metal behind it.

I would much rather be in one of todays cars and be hit by a semi than in a car from 1976.

And.. for the record... I was in the back seat of a 1999 Cavalier that got rear-ended on the turnpike at speed. We drove the car home... minor injuries...

Could have been a hell of a lot worse.

 

Yeah - the unitized body!

You realize that most car bumpers no longer have a metal frame?
They are molded polystyrene and urethane airframes (like waffles), many packed with styrofoam or celluloid foams to further absorb light impact. The plastic frame bolts to horizontal "shock-absorbers" which distribute severe impact loads to the unitized body over a greater period of time, allowing air bags time to deploy and reducing the rate of change of accelleration (aka da/dt or "jerk"). The rest resides in "crumple zones" and collapsible areas that are designed to give but NOT to encroach on the human-occupied compartment.

Look at the new bumper assemblies in a junkyard sometime...
or better yet, look at a body that completely burned in a fire.
There's really nothing left in the front bumper area.
It's kinda sobering when you think about it, but these new systems really do provide better safety for the occupants - no doubt.

 

There is more plastic behind the bumper cover. Its that way on my car, its that way on my moms trailblazer, etc. Of course theres metal behind that (well there had better be ). But if its like you say on some cars, why do we cover up the metal with plastic? All that is going to do is increase the price of repairs.

Im not saying go back to 60s tech. However I would feel much safer in a 60s car, that had todays safety technology(airbags).

 

thats exactly what im talking about, the "waffle."

 

To address both major points:

1) I'd much rather have heftier repair bills and be safer... I don't think many people would argue that today's cars are much safer.

2) The plastic is there so you don't have that 'tacked on' look that most chrome-bumper cars had... I don't think there is much to even say about it... it's for looks...

 

for the most part, i guess im complaining about the fact that a plastic bumper cover cost my mom like $400. Personally Id rather have the slightly 'tacked on look.' I dont see why a sheet of plastic costs so much. Thats basically the price of an entire bumper for my truck.

It would just be nice if they wouldnt crack so easily.... *cough 2mph impact cough*