Printable View
LINK
I must say I agree with the last one... discuss...discuss... :burnrubr:Quote:
1969 Ford Mustang
1969 Pontiac Trans Am
1971 Ford Pinto
1973 Volkswagen Microbus
1974 Volkswagen Thing
1980 Chevrolet Monza
1986 Suzuki Samurai
1987 Ford Festiva
2004 Hummer H1
2005 Pontiac Aztek
How did the first 2 make the list?? I like those!
1969 Ford Mustang
http://alpha-geek.com/1969mustang_mach1.jpg
1969 Pontiac Trans Am
http://www.acclassiccars.com/images/vehicles/1799.jpg
Stock, they are known for poor handling on the streets. This is according to auto writers, as I have never driven either one.
Edit: Guess I should have clicked on the link before I open my mouth. It explains it all very well. Unfprtunately, I didn't have to read aout them to know what the problem was with every one of them.
One of my high school buddy had a '69 Mach I that sucker was nice, handled pretty decent for a '70's era car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio-Active
I'm sure there is an auto writer somewhere that would have something bad to say about pretty much everything ever build. ;)
Hey Dave04 what the basis for the Scary part of the list??? How about a link!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave04
You mean like that one above?
Opps thanks (need more coffee!) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio-Active
Aw geez this list was put together by By Tom and Ray Magliozzi, Car Talk. Boo2
Not my favorite two guys to listen to, but I have to say, I have heard the same story from more than one editer. I am supprised that they didn't mention the Corvairs as being a rust bucket. From most reports I have heard, those cars hit the list for having the engines drop out of the car suddenly due to rust.Quote:
Originally Posted by POS Racing
Yeah... I knew it would be a bit controversial, but would be a chance to ::StirTheP a bit (which I enjoy doing from time to time).Quote:
Originally Posted by POS Racing
WHAT!!!
What happened to, "Dave04 Honda drivers are nice?::Banana:: "
::Whisp:: That's what they want you to believe, but it's not true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio-Active
I can vouch for the idea of knees first in the VW bus... :D
Hey there's nothing more fun than a 2.5 ton car with 300 HP and drum brakes!Quote:
Originally Posted by POS Racing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treibenschnell
At least the VW bus couldn't do 200+ MPH like the Porsche 917 (at least I think it was the 917) that had the same issue. And I'd love to have a 917.
In that case I wonder why they didn't add a 50's to early 60's Vette to the list. Like driving a wagon! If anyone has driven a car with bias ply tires you know what I'm talking about!Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio-Active
Dang it! my secret is out..... ::GottaRunQuote:
Originally Posted by POS Racing
You're right... I was lucky to hit 30mph.Quote:
Originally Posted by scmx5driver
Downhill.
With a tailwind.
During a cyclone.
With lead weight.
And a rocket.
Tub that Monza and it made for a great looking drag racer.
As for the first two, every car in that era had crappy handling and brakes. Given enough years, you will see auto writers complaining about the current ZO6's handling and brakes! You have to consider the times.
I agree with Dave that the last one most deserves to be on the list.
Yep... my dad has a '59 Corvette restored to showroom stock, down to the 6.7x15 whitewalls and drum brakes. After driving it for a day, I still can't believe the car weighed under 3000 lbs. The way it rolled around corners and took it's time coming to a stop, you quickly begin to miss the sweet handling and braking of a 5000 lb Chevy Tahoe. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by icepenguin66
I'm starting to like the current trend in naming vehicles so that we know in advance to avert our eyes...
Asstec...
Assender...