You know what I never liked? I mean, other than Circus Peanuts and when the lobsters in the tank at the grocery store lure you close and then seize your genitals in a cruel pinch, having fooled you with a slit rubber band that wasn’t really restricting their claw, as they lock their weird little black eye nubbins with your eyes and they know they have you beat. Other than that, what I never liked are stupid, hacky lists of “worst cars.” I hate these dumb, lazy lists. They almost always re-hash the same cars, most of which don’t even deserve to be on those lists, anyway. So what I’d like to do today is to take what seem to be the ten cars that most commonly appear on the list, give each of them a little defense, and then let’s vote to see which one deserves to be on those lists the least. The best worst car, if you will. And, oh, you will.
First, I suppose we need our list. I’ve been reading over as many of these dumbass worst car posts as I’ve been able to stomach, and I think the ten most common recurring characters are the following cars: Yugo, Edsel, Pontiac Aztek, Ford Pinto, Chevrolet Corvair, AMC Gremlin, Reliant Robin, Chevrolet Vega, Austin Allegro, and the Trabant. In my loud, messy opinion, I don’t think any of these cars deserve the amount of scorn they tend to get, but for now, we’re just going to pick one. We’re going to pick the one that deserves to be on these dumb lists the least, and from there we’ll contact our crack team of D.C. lobbyists to push through legislation to ensure this sort of injustice never happens again to whatever car comes out the winner. So let’s get to it.
Yugo
As you may guess, as a Yugo owner myself, I have never felt the Yugo earned all the derision it gets as an almost guaranteed member of these worst car lists. I even made a whole video about it, as you can see right above, when I worked for the Old Site. Here’s the thing about the Yugo: it’s fine. It’s not even a particularly unusual or radical design; it’s a FWD, transverse-engined hatchback that follows the template of so very many other cars of its era. Tons of them have been sold all over Eastern Europe especially, and they’ve proven to be useful workhorses for decades.
Sure, the build quality wasn’t great, but remember, these things were dirt cheap. Under $4,000 for a new one when they came out! They made Hyundai Excels look like the kind of lavish expenditure you’d expect from a sultan. Nobody paid any money to fix or maintain these things because why would they? You could buy distressed designer jeans for more than a new Yugo, even back in the day, so who would put money into them?
The truth is, the cars worked. They were decent transportation and did the job they were designed to do, cheaply. Dirty deeds of transportation, done dirt cheap. I respect that.
Edsel
For a very long time, the name “Edsel” was synonymous with automotive failure, perhaps even failure in general. And, sure, the Edsel was sort of a flop for Ford, but was the car really all that bad? No. It just wasn’t. The Edsel was a failure of marketing over-hype and misreading of markets more than anything else. It just wasn’t appreciatively worse than anything else being built by the Big Three in the late 1950s.
Sure, some people thought that the horse collar grille resembled a vulva, a bit, but it’s not like 1957 American car styling was any less ridiculous than what the Edsel was.
I mean, come on, look at this Chrysler. It looks like those two lovers are seconds away from making out over the carcass of a beached whale. The Edsel just got a bad rap, and never shook it. That’s it.
Pontiac Aztek
You know what the Aztek’s biggest crime was? It was ahead of its time. Okay, it was kinda ugly, too, but it’s not that ugly. Is an Infiniti QX really so much prettier? No, it isn’t. It also looks like some kind of cybernetic warthog, and yet it doesn’t show up on these lists anywhere remotely as close as the Aztek, which is MVP of these bullshit things. That’s because the QX had the good sense to start to exist in an era when we all somehow decided we wanted huge-ass SUV things, and the Aztek, which hit the scene in 2000, was just a bit early.
The Aztek trapped a huge amount of usable room inside that kinda ungainly body, a body that featured a fastback design that’s also now gaining in popularity. And that fastback even had an optional tent attachment, something that would fit well with modern overlanding and car-camping trends.
People used the crap out of these things, just fine. Like these others, it’s just not that bad. If you can’t stomach looking at an Aztek, maybe it’s time to grow up already, and remember how many other important and good things in life can be ugly, too: like a fancy smoked leg of ham or a scrotum or a waste treatment plant.
Ford Pinto
Okay, this one is a little trickier, because the car did have a pretty significant Achilles’ heel, one that’s a big deal if you’re into Tort law. We can’t ignore that. But, at the same time, the Pinto’s engine, also called the Lima engine or the Pinto OHC engine in Europe, went on to be a really reliable and potent little engine, ending up in Escorts and Transit vans and Capris and Merkurs and even in the TVR Tasmin!
Having a great engine at its core has to be worth something, and I think what it is worth is for the Pinto to not be thrown onto these stupid worst car lists.
Chevrolet Corvair
Yes, I know about the damn book. I know that most Americans didn’t know how to deal with an oversteering car. I know all that. I also know that the Corvair was one of the most innovative and bold cars GM ever made, and I know they’re a blast to drive, too. Plus, the Corvair may have been one of the most influential American cars ever, design-wise. Look at this, which I’ve showed you before:
So, no. No way is the Corvair the worst of anything.
AMC Gremlin
The Gremlin is one of those cars that you just can’t judge without the proper context. Because the context is the entire point of the car, and in context, it not only isn’t the worst, it’s brilliant. Here’s the context: perpetually-broke AMC needed a subcompact to fight the VW Beetle and all the new Japanese imports, desperately. They had no money to develop something new, from scratch.
What they did have was designer Dick Teague, an absolute master of making something out of almost nothing. Teague chopped the back off the AMC Hornet and replaced it with a little Kammback and glass hatch, and, boom, the Gremlin was born. All of a sudden and with pretty minimal development costs, AMC had the smallest, cheapest American car, and something that could actually compete with the imports.
Sure, it wasn’t as efficient with either gas or space as its competition, but it had a distinctive look and a lot of charm. Given the context, this thing is a triumph.
Reliant Robin
Yes, it’s the butt of so many jokes, and yes, it was hilarious when Jeremy Clarkson tumbled one around like it was possessed by Mary Lou Retton’s dybbuk, but the truth is that these little three-wheelers gave weatherproof, useful mobility to Imperial tons of British people who would otherwise be stuck on motorbikes. Plus, it’s worth noting that the little Reliant kept on going after all of those rolling-overs.
These things understood the assignment.
Chevrolet Vega
Okay, maybe this one is the trickiest one on this list, because these things really did have their share of quality problems when they came out, but even with that in mind, it’s hard to call a car that sold over two million examples and looked as pretty as this one a complete failure. Because it just wasn’t.
Chevy sold as many of these as they could build during the fuel crisis era, and they were actually pretty fun to drive. There was even the Cosworth Vega hot version, which is still desirable to enthusiasts today.
Austin Allegro
Okay, this one shows up on plenty of lists, but, not being from the UK, I don’t have much experience with the car. So, I found someone who did, our own cranky Brit, Adrian Clarke:
The Austin Allegro. A car that epitomized everything shit about the British motoring industry in the late sixties and early seventies. Lovingly smashed together by strike happy workers in between labor disputes, the Allegros failure was more of BL management decision making than the car itself. Badly built and under developed, the car itself was pretty sound and really gets an unfair rap. It was probably a bit too far ahead of its time for the market, with interconnected Hydragas suspension similar to a Citroen and on the bigger engine versions an OHC set up in 1969. The shape wasn’t quite what was promised in Harris Mann’s original sketches, but it was a very modern looking thing for the era.
I guess that’s not really glowing praise, but it’s also not a total indictment, either. I’ll take it.
Trabant
The Trabant is another car that absolutely needs to be judged in context. Because, in context, the Trabant is an absolute miracle. The East German government wanted a peoples’ car, but they seemed almost perversely unwilling to give their engineers and factories the resources needed to really pull off such a monumental task. And yet, somehow, VEB Sachsenring Automobilwerke Zwickau managed to find a path, using limited resources and clever engineering, to get almost four million Trabants out there, getting people on wheels and moving.
No steel for bodies, or even fiberglass? That’s fine, because the Trabant engineers figured out how to turn old Soviet underpants into body panels. Can’t afford a fuel pump? Let gravity do the work! Government won’t approve an update to the car? Then do so much work in secret that when they get shown what you’ve done, they have to approve it. The Trabant was a car built in spite of everything, with minimal support and even outright obstacles and hostility thrown in its path, all the time. And yet, somehow, it existed, it worked, it thrived.
The Trabant doesn’t deserve to be on these lists, but you know what? I bet it doesn’t care, either, because it’s seen so much worse.
Okay! I’ve made my cases! Time to vote! Which of these unfairly treated automotive icons is most deserving of a break?
It’s Time To Stop Sharing That Meme With All The White SUVs Because It’s Wrong And Stupid
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
What are your genitals doing in the lobster tank, Jason?!
We all have to do it. It’s like a pledge to The Autopian.
That’s what the others told the two of you, then?
I don’t know how many of us were told to do it. I had an Autopian branded hood over my head at the time.
Oh, sure, reserve all the good swag for the staff and leave us with t-shirts and bumper stickers and such. Typical.
I’m wondering who the ball-toweler is supposed to be. Maybe it’s a duty reserved for the FNG.
Why do you think we have different levels of membership?
I guess I should have read the fine print
I voted Corvair. There was nothing wrong with the Corvair that wasn’t equalled by its competition, and the second-gen models fixed most of that, too. If GM had followed through with their plans for a third generation, it could have been just the car GM needed during the first oil crisis.
Fun story about the Corvair: my great-aunt had one, I think a ’69, that she drove for the better part of two decades. She used to drive it just a mile a day–to the park-and-ride to take the bus downtown to her job and back–which was the source of its longevity.
Well, one day, she gets off the bus and discovers, to her horror, that she locked the keys in the car. There they were, still in the ignition. That’s unpleasant surprise number 1.
Unpleasant surprise number 2: this wasn’t actually a problem since she had left the doors unlocked. With the keys visible in the car.
Unpleasant surprise number 3: the keys were still in the ignition because THE CAR WAS STILL RUNNING. That little air-cooled engine had been quietly idling all day while she was at work. (Again, with the doors unlocked.) And nobody stole it because, hey, who wants to drive a Corvair?
I voted Trabant probably the worst actual car of the bunch, however as is pointed out in the article one of the most outstanding in it native and historical context.
None of them are real losers, just victims of space and time.
In my personal experience, it’s the poor Aztek. As you note, it was simply ahead of it’s time, and really wouldn’t look that out of place in our current market. It was middle of the road in reliability for Pontiac, and actually has a pretty good interior for what it is. People knock it for having no 4WD or manual option, but given the target market that’s actually a smart decision to keep costs down.
Finally, we get to the looks. It’s often called the ugliest car ever. I wonder if the people saying that have seen the monstrosities we have today. If you own a GLE coupe, you forfeit your right to call any car ugly, ever again. Give it a modern facelift and the damn thing would fit right in to the GMC lineup of today.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say the Aztek should’ve offered a manual, but the Aztek did offer AWD. Unless you meant 4WD with respect to a low range or locking diff, which did always seem to get a mention in SUV/crossover reviews at the time, but then there were multiple different systems even within a single model line at the time, and simple full-time AWD was probably going to be more of a selling point to the intended buyers for a lot of the crossovers anyway.
I say this with all due respect and cordiality, but how many of you dunking on the Aztek actually owned one or at least had long-term experience with one? Or are you just parroting popular, uninformed opinion?
Maybe I’m not old enough but I’ve never thought the Edsel is bad looking. Just different.
Totally agree on the Aztek. It WAS one of the ugliest cars of all time but now that insane styling is cool.
The corvair. Absolutely love them and am tempted every time I see one for sale (I want a wagon one soooooooo bad) and would definitely want one of the “fixed” model years. I recently saw a video of older cars losing control on the Nurburgring and a TON of the swing axle cars flipped over. Was making me think Nader had a point.
Gremlin, like JT says, was a success and it was developed with less than GM’s monthly expenditure on postage stamps.
I, too, hate these lists with a passion. Nothing worse than when a well-meaning older relative buys one of these books for you, either.
I went for the Vega. Good concept, never had the parts. Plus a US based Cosworth?
Can be a good platform for an engine swap and other updating.
I’ve heard the facelifted version with the “Iron Duke” engine was a pretty solid car, but the reputational damage was done.
Yeah, I knew someone who had a Monza wagon with a manual, he beat the crap out of it. Damn thing was indestructible.
Beyond my absolute horror at the revisionist Aztek history, I will also say you didn’t include one of the better “worst car” staples, and my choice for the best of them – the AMC Pacer. It took on the problem of making as much space out of the smallest footprint, and doing that for the standard AMC development budget of $10, and managed to fit the brief. I’ve seen the Pacer on these lists more than once and it has no place there.
Plus it looks kinda like a Porsche 928 crossed with a balloon.
Sit in the back seat of a Pacer and tell me it was space efficient. The damned thing is a mile wide but the rear wheel arches take up most of the space.
It was space efficient only in the front, they carried over the same front seat space as the full size Ambassador and built the smallest possible box around it, but the back seat was treated as an afterthought that didn’t get the same effort. Not much they could have done, anyway, with a front engine/RWD layout in such a short wheelbase, and American Motors didn’t have the money to develop any other platform (eg FWD)
I voted Edsel. There’s just something about it.
I probably should have voted Aztec, but I just love the Gremlin too much.
Comments on the vehicles in the order Torch presented:
3) I parked next to an Aztek last night. Its looks have grown on me, or maybe the rest of the industry has caught up to the odd (for its time) fascia.
4) Pinto was not a bad car for its time. It handled well, and the front suspension (or maybe its just the steering bits) are desired by shade-tree car builders. It was cheap and fuel efficient.
5) Corvair had so much potential but was kneecapped by the GM bean counters who wanted to save a bit on the rear suspension. By the time GM fixed the problem it was too late.
6) The Gremlin was cool. Had a friend who yanked the six and dropped in an AMC 8 festooned with all of the go-fast bits (header, free-breathing intake, 4-barrel) and it was scary-quick monster.
8) The Vega is at the top of my list. An aluminum engine with no sleeves in the 1970s? Any car person with a lick of sense could see this was a disaster waiting to happen. All involved in that engine’s design should be ashamed. I appreciate pushing the envelope, but don’t make your customers the beta testers.
Such lists are doomed from the outset because “worst” has very little meaning outside of a specific context. Worst at what? At being a car? That’s still not nearly specific enough to be helpful here.
Anyway, from this list I’ve raced a Yugo, owned a Corvair, and own an Allegro. They’re all perfectly fine cars and aren’t even among the “worst” currently on my property, much less when held up in comparison to the overall history of worldwide automotive production. I’d be happy with anything on this list except the Aztek and that’s mostly because of my stubborn personal bias against the mysterious mysteries of fuel injection. I do like its optional tent, though.
See, now YOU are a person I would trust to make a list of Actual Worst Cars at Being Cars.
I want to vote Aztek, since it was just ahead of its time. But I can’t just vote based on that, because it didn’t actually lead to the cars that made similar choices, so the Corvair’s actual influence makes it better.
It’s tough. I ruled out the Pinto right away, but there is really a good argument for several of these to be best.
I voted Pinto. I always thought they were pretty handsome for what they were. I would drive a Pinto wagon with zero shame. If I ever felt a certain way about it, I could swap the last two letters and drive a “Pinot.” That sounds adequately fancy.
Also, one was buried in the horse pasture where I grew up. Yes, we buried a Pinto in the horse pasture. That joke still kills to this day.
THE AZTEK WAS NOT AHEAD OF ITS TIME!
It was of its time. It was right where the market was, its contemporaries were selling – including the shoe-esque Buick Rendezvous on the same platform – and it rolled in as this badly proportioned mess. This was EXACTLY THE RIGHT time to roll in with a crossover! The market was hungry for them! Others were making huge hits! It would have been a huge hit if it wasn’t some of the worst styling ever committed to sheet metal.
It isn’t quite the worst vehicle – hell it’s not the worst vehicle on that platform, since you could buy a Chevy Uplander – but I am not going to abide the “ahead of its time” defense any longer!
Regarding the Aztek, the drivetrain was NOT ahead of it’s time, no. But in terms of styling cues (Adrian may disagree) and its marketed role as a tolerable daily driver with an outdoor adventure bent, it really was. Look up RCR’s piece on the Aztek for more insights. Before this, your other options were BOF pigs. This was a unibody vehicle with improved handling, somewhat better fuel economy, and not really great at any one thing.
That is to say, the precursor of the modern crossover.
This is incorrect! It actually came well after the foundational crossovers were introduced – The Lexus RX in 1998 was THE foundational model, and we already were seeing the refinements to the concept at that point – second generation RAV4s and CR-Vs were either in production or almost there. Japan was actually at the forefront of developing the product category, but by the time the Aztek was introduced we had pretty much reached what customers were expecting. Most of the major crossover players and nameplates today were introduced right around that time 2000-2001 was THE launch of the product category. And you can draw a straight line from pretty much every modern crossover to models from that time which succeeded because they weren’t total dogshit.
The Aztek was NOT the foundation. It was NOT a precursor. Suggesting it was at the forefront IS STRAIGHT UP REVISIONIST HISTORY AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT!
Yeah but those other cars you mentioned are nowhere near as ugly. They didn’t have the crazy amounts of body cladding or the angularity. It really was ahead of its time in that respect.
Pontiac had way too much body cladding for many years before that. Not ahead of its time by any means.
The concept of its styling (or literally, the Aztek concept) was ahead of its time if you consider the proliferation of 4-door crossover coupes now. But I tend to agree, the timing WAS right for the product, just it was still a very experimental era. The Aztek was a corporate/marketing failure above all.
The Aztek could be optioned up pretty lavishly – even a heads-up display! But that was a bit at odds with the outdoorsy marketing. Sure midsize trucklike SUVs had similar marketing, but then midsize crossovers were more alternatives to those SUVs, a new take on them rather than a radical change. The Rendezvous marketing was spot-on, and that arguably should have had a bigger hill to climb as a “premium” 3-row crossover from a brand selling 4 large-ish sedans.
Minivan bones made it slab sided and narrow-looking in a way Honda avoided when they derived the MDX and the Pilot from the Odyssey. And Honda would go weird and claddy too a couple years later with the Element, but it was also at least a few grand less than an Aztek.
No I agree. In concept the Aztek was a cross over ahead of where the market was. You’re absolutely right the idea was good, but as is the case so often with GM, the engineering and the styling was a total clusterfuck.
I voted for the Gremlin but there’s nothing on this list with the possible exception of the Vega that I consider bad. Things like the Trabant have to be taken in context. The Reliant – well I’ve owned 4 of them and never came close to tipping one. (Top Gear rigged that car to roll like a ball).
As for the Pinto..from Wired:
”
The Ford document was never a part of operational or design decision-making at the company; it was an analysis of a proposed regulation. Staff members estimated the total societal costs of fires from rollover accidents in terms of deaths, injuries, and burned cars arriving at a figure of $49.5 million. It then compared this figure to the cost of implementing vehicle modifications to comply with a rollover test in all cars and light trucks sold in the USA (not Pintos, not even just Ford vehicles), which they estimated to be about $137 million. Given these estimates, the staff members concluded that the cost to consumers of the proposed regulations would be nearly three times the benefit.”
The Pinto is awful because it’s awful. But it was far from unreliable. When I was very young we got our first, and it took five years to die. The second one (yes, my dad was a glutton for punishment) also lasted five grueling, desperate years. Ugly, fire prone, reluctantly dies eventually.
Given the rise of crossovers in all their forms, on my third go at watching Breaking Bad I hardly even noticed the Aztek.
I still maintain that the problems with the Vega were due to it being supposed to be the next Corvair, and they had to scramble at the last second for a conventional drivetrain. I’ve never seen any hint of confirmation of this, but why else would they have put very type 3 louvers on them? It would explain a lot.
My vote would be for the Austin. My experience with one old school English car was enough.
Vega was always intended to be a front-engine car. What happened though was that its’ designed-from-scratch engine had an aluminum block (because GM had casting facilities which had been built for the Corvair) and iron heads (to save money). The ’71 full-size Chevys had the same trunk louvers as part of the flow-through ventilation system. They leaked, though, and were dropped from all but the Vega wagon after a year.
I suppose you’re right, though my idea wasn’t entirely out in left field either.
Also it occurs to me that I missed the whole point of the voting, best worst, not best a being worst. In that case hands down the Gremlin. Not sophisticated at all, but already sorted. Hard to go wrong with an inline six, at least for durability, and when it became the smallest Eagle 4×4 it got the full rear windows it deserved (I always thought it looked much much better that way. Also I had an old Hornet wagon, It was like someone blew up a cheap model car into full size and called it a day. I ripped the hatchback off of it one day (the hinges were made of pot metal) but damn that car was smooth on the highways, yet handled better than it had any right to.
The Pinto, in addition to the gas tank as a bumper problems, suffers from way too much hood compared to interior/trunk space. A giant hood and tiny trunk is fine on a sporty car like a Camaro or Mustang, but stupid on a family economy car. Gremlin has the same too much hood issue.
The other cars were mostly either good enough for their time, or just a bit ahead of the curve and would have been ‘good’ released a few years later.
That was an issue throughout the American auto industry in the late ’60s/early ’70s. After the original Mustang’s runaway success, response was to long hood/short deck all the things. Look at old Popular Science owners’ surveys, even full-size family sedans got complaints about tighter rear legroom and smaller trunks than cars built to pre-1965 holdover hard points. (and being harder to work on, because of the amount of wasted hood length to be leaned over. It was the era of fan shrouds that looked like oil drums). It wasn’t until the first generation of cars designed after the 1973 gas crunch hit the market, most notably the 1977 full-size GMs, that sanity came back.
Yugo = Fiat 127 sadly the Yugo in the US was basically what the Ural is to an old and outdated BMW motorcycle. a poorly assembled copy. I suppose if you were to maybe replace much of it with actual Fiat parts it might be marginally more effective.
Pinto never lived down the bursting into flames gag, but for the times it actually was an ok car, it was just terrible times for sure.
Edsel had issues with whiz bang Gee-Whiz push button trans in the steering wheel and was beat with an ugly stick, but other than that they were not the worst. the last of them being badge engineered Ford actually were pretty decent for the time.
Corvair had the same thing as the Pinto and never lived down the Nader debacle even though that rear axle setup was used by others as well and was fixed for later years. same as the pinto.
Vega suffered from crappy paint changes resulting in rust from day 1, and of course new tech. the dissimilar head and block materials was the main issue. had they not tried to get too fancy here, the little Camaro would likely have stayed relevant longer. well at least until they rusted back into the earth.
Aztek and Gremlin just suffered from the ugly stick. Both were basic transpo with basic reliable drivetrains from the marques for the respective times. Not saying a 232 commando 6 or even a 3.4 GM v6 is anything to rally write home about, but both were relatively simple to maintain and keep running until around 100k miles.
The Trabant is an absolute nightmare pile of Eastern block crap. slow, unreliable, nasty on the environment. But when the Communist system give you these and nothing else, you make do.
Yugo is not a 127, it was a shortened 128.
This has to be the first time anyone has ever suggested that using Fiat parts would improve reliability.
I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. I’ve seen vulva’s and I dare say none looked quite like the front of an Edsel. Now that we are on the topic, my daughter came over a few months back and informed me that my ex-wife had purchased a new car. She proclaimed her mom had bought a vulva. I responded with I sure hope it was a Volvo, because a vulva would probably not appreciate being driven over asphalt.
When this happened I remember thinking the Autopians would really appreciate the humor, but assumed I would never find an appropriate time to offer it up. Thanks, Edsel.
*I assume this will get flagged for moderation. Maybe if I offered up that I earn $92 an hour…
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode and the girlfriend whose name Jerry could not remember…Rhymes with Deloris…And taste like chicken. Even when I was 4 years old, that Edsel just looked pornographic. A kid in high school drove one for about a week till he got tired of everyone saying it looked like. Well we all know what it looked like….
Man, I’m looking forward to the discussion in these comments. As a former Corvair owner, I just couldn’t vote for it. Yes, it was innovative, good looking (both generations), and fun to drive, but the engineering was a little crazy. I’m not talking about Nader’s complaints either – It had a ridiculous number of places where the engine could leak oil. The 90-degree turn by the fan belt was a guaranteed fail at some point, and to be fair to Nader, they probably should have noticed that putting an entire flat 6 behind the rear axle was going to be a bit of a challenge on weight distribution. Still, I enjoy my Corvairs. Even the one that never ran.
I had to go for the Pinto. If we can put aside the filler tube flaw (which, if we’re being fair, most American cars had filler tubes leading to the bumper), it was a small hatch with forward-thinking dynamics that made it a fun ride. And I think it looked pretty cool. Also, I had to pick the Pinto because the Mustang II wasn’t on your list and the Pinto is its kissing cousin. The Mustang II gets a lot of unfair treatment, as a car that was much closer to the vision of the original Mustang than the bloated ’73 model was.
Come at me!
Say what you want about the Mustang II, but because of the II the current Mustang is the only enthusiast car that originated from that era that has had an unbroken line of production.
I love the later Mustang Is. Gimme a ‘71 Mach 1 on dog dish steelies. But yeah the Mustang II was a massive hit. Right car, right time.
I owned a near time-capsule 1977 Mustang II V8 Ghia package for a few years, inherited it from my dad. While these cars came out when I was a toddler, I’ve never understood the hate these things have. I find the Fox body Mustangs far more ugly and far more of a departure from the more “classic” Mustangs. The Mustang II sold incredibly well and I stand by the fact that they are very handsome cars, and recaptured the svelte sophistication after early 70s bloat.
The Mustang II was an excellent example of how the nicer trim levels can really take the edge off and iffy design. (The Pinto was the same way) The base models were relentless in reminding you every second that you cheaped out, But the slightest nod toward refinement went a long way, particularly regarding quality of interior materials. It’s the part of a car that you sit in and stare at the most, not to be taken lightly. And I agree it was truer to the original mission, though they went a tad bit heavy in the “Brougham” direction there.
My wife and I were just talking the other day about the 2004 Pontiac Aztek Rally Edition in black her father owned. With that color and trim, the 17″ chrome wheels popped. The car itself wasn’t just pretty good looking “for an Aztek,” it was handsome in its own right. Go ahead, look it up.
Before she and I got married, and while we were still in college, I was included on a couple family trips. That was our family chariot and it was pretty civilized. The seats were comfortable, it had adequate power, good cargo space, decent fuel economy, and pretty good sound deadening. I don’t understand why Azteks get such a bad rap. They’re, at worst, the grandfather of the modern CUV and, also at worst, ahead of their time.
While we’re all entitled to our opinion of course, I did look it up based on the outrageous possibility of an Aztec being “handsome.”
That thing looks exactly as ungainly as any Aztek I’ve seen before it. I don’t think lack of chrome wheels was really the issue.
They did nothing to adress the car’s muffin top proportions.
To be clear I’m not trying to hate on the Aztek here. I appreciate that it was a practical, economical, and handy vehicle, but to myself and many others, it was never, ever pretty.
That’s fair and I appreciate your reasonable reply. To be honest, it could be a product of nostalgia, the fog of time, but also a question of context. Handsome may not be the right word, but perhaps you’d use the same adjectives to describe that Aztek as most of it’s contemporaries today. Not all of which may be flattering.
The black ones sorta work, but it’s only because you can’t see the shape.
Economical? Maybe maintenance wise, but they are certainly thirsty AF.
They weren’t terribly thirsty. My parents would get 26 on the highway. 22 around town. Obviously driving style matters. But who’s gonna hot dog a pontiac aztek?
Who would do that? Pit Crew Revenge in the 24 Hours of Lemons, that’s who.
https://24hoursoflemons.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/17-20-Aztek-1-1.jpg
I think of the Aztek’s as America’s answer to the Fiat Multipla: Innovative interior packaging sunk in the market by an ungainly exterior.
The whole problem with the Aztek is that it’s on a minivan platform. It’s proportions we’re doomed before they milled the first clay. I have it on good authority that the design team knew it was shit, but the senior management culture inside GM at the time was very much target oriented and somehow it hit all it’s internal targets which was more important that what the bedevilled crate actually looked like.
As a concept, it was probably a bit ahead of it’s time. The execution however is a total fucking dog’s dinner.
I tend to get frothing at the mouth when people say the Aztek was ahead of its time, but since you have some connections in GM, did the failure of the Aztek program lead to a culture change? Because it – along with the body hardware Chevy Avalanche – seemed to mark a turning point where GM products started to actually improve. Designs were cleaner, interiors were better, and so on.
I suspect it was a product of Wayne Cherry retiring and Ed Welburn taking over as VP of Design in 2003/4. But the Aztek wasn’t a failure of the design studio. It was a failure of management style and misguided ambitions. Ultimately how successful an OEM is in terms of it’s designs is a direct product of how seriously that company takes design and where it sits in the corporate hierarchy – ie who do the the chief designers report to.
That’s what I mean though, it feels like there was some kind of shift in upper management at that point. The designs got better – significantly better – but pre-Aztek it did seem like they were developed to meet arbitrary targets by set management instead of being anything anyone wanted to own. After it felt like there was at least some effort to actually consider the overall car.
I don’t think being cheap excuses a car for being bad. It just make the awfulness more bearable.
Gimme dat Gremmy!