The 12 Worst Cars Ever Made

There exists stiff competition for wearing the crown of the worst car ever made. At times, it seems some manufacturers are actively participating in this sort of competition, although they would never admit it. With the huge number of people involved in developing a car and getting it to market, it seems logical someone would speak up and mention glaring flaws before spending millions, if not billions, of dollars to get it made. However, the corporate structure and management style plays a huge part in how such things can happen. Toyota, for example, has a corporate structure that values feedback from lower-level employees all the way down to the workers on the factory floor itself. Conversely, in John DeLorean's book "On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors," he lambasts the management of GM through the '60s and '70s as more of a conglomeration of competing frat boys vying for power rather than a cohesive team of executives and skilled laborers worker toward a common goal.

Many factors can go into assessing a bad car. Two attributes can make or break a car's selling potential: styling and reliability. Poor styling is one of the things that is apparent immediately and can kill a car from day one, while reliability often is not known for a few years after thousands of unsuspecting customers have already laid out substantial investments. Another less tangible facet that makes a car bad is its inability to fulfill a purpose. For example, family cars without enough space to haul the stuff that goes with childhood, such as equipment for sports or band. Other cars can be deemed bad because of ergonomics. Having uncomfortable or awkward seating and controls can really sour the driving experience. Looking at the total package and making an assessment considering all of these factors, we present the 12 worst cars ever made.

Pontiac debuted the Aztek in 2001 and kept it around for four years. It was a car that struck a chord with the press and the public, and drew immediate reactions from everybody. In 2003, MotorTrend wrote, "There's nothing subtle about the Aztek," and added the byline to the article, "Minivan meets Creature from the Black Lagoon." No matter how good this vehicle was, comments about the styling overshadowed everything. One thing that can be said confidently about the car is that it is polarizing. Some people love it, while many hate it.

The Aztek is a mid-size SUV with a 3.4-liter V6, seating for five passengers, and a fairly generous cargo capacity. It is a capable SUV that was geared toward those with active lifestyles and could be had with several options, including all-wheel drive and an accessory tent that turned the cabin into a sleeping space. And, to most, it is hideous.

In a Car and Driver interview with former GM CEO Bob Lutz, he described the perils of the Aztek coming from GM trying to escape the reputation that it built boring cars and was afraid to do something bold. However, in the company's attempt to break the mold, and with a totalitarian management style in which subordinates were afraid to speak up, the Aztek got the green light, despite failing early consumer test panels. Management refused to see a failure unfolding in front of them and used arbitrary guidelines to measure success while ignoring what would make a great car that sells.

A long history of making winning race cars and some of the most beautiful exotics of the '50s and '60s was not enough to help Maserati through the new technological age of the '80s. Case in point is the much-maligned Biturbo. While Maserati had historically produced elegant sports cars and road racers, the company wanted to step into the luxury sphere in the late '70s. The Biturbo was meant to be a down-market car meant to be a more affordable alternative to the manufacturer's other executive cars, according to Motor1.com. It turned out to be an attractive and clever car, being the first production car to offer twin turbos from the factory. Buyers were impressed, for a time.

The Biturbo was a great-looking car with a well-appointed cabin, but, when inspected closely it was evident that quality was poor. Problems with the engine manifested early on, and the engine was finicky and tended to leak. Cost-cutting decisions such as releasing early cars with carburetors and lacking intercoolers contributed to difficulties in keeping them running properly (via Drivertical). Other low points were bad fuse boxes, cracked interior panels, and poor fit and finish. The long list of notorious problems sullied the brand's name to the point that Jeremy Clarkson on "Top Gear" felt the best thing to do with a Biturbo was to crush it with a garbage skiff. Despite the early setbacks, Maserati corrected these problems and ultimately built it into a marvelous special edition called Shamal.

Carmaker Triumph was responsible for creating some of the most engaging and fun driving vehicles from the British Isles, but the Stag is a lesser-known model. According to Auto Evolution, the Stag's first year was 1970. It was designed by famed Italian designer Giovanni Michelotti, and it is a gorgeous ride. Triumph meant for it to compete with other grand touring cars of the time. Due to new regulations for convertible cars in the U.S., the Stag employed a unique rollbar with a t-top-like design. It is a clever car with a not-so-clever engine.

Being a GT car, Triumph felt it needed more grunt than its four-cylinder engines could provide. Triumph also suffered from small budgets for development due to its small size as a carmaker. Therefore, engineers used existing plans for the slant-four engine used in the Dolomite car and basically fused two blocks into one, creating a 3.0-liter V8. The engine they ended up with suffered from multiple failures. The water pump was mounted high on the engine and when coolant ran even a little bit low, engine cooling stopped and it overheated. This issue was exasperated by having small cooling passages resulting from other engineering compromises. The list of problems with this engine is a bit lengthy and resulted in the car only lasting a few years, with the Triumph 3.0-liter V8 often landing on top of lists of worst engines ever made (via Driving.ca).

Chevrolet has built a few stinkers over the years, and most of them are remembered as happening in the latter part of the 20th century. Chevrolet's ability to build crappy cars is nothing new. The Ford Model T presented the biggest competition to domestic automakers in the early 20th century, and Chevrolet had to come up with new ideas on how to build a car that could knock Ford off its perch. Charles F. Kettering, engineer of the Cadillac electric starting system, led a project to produce an air-cooled engine for a low-cost Chevrolet. Eliminating the water pump and associated hardware could lower costs considerably. His engine broke from convention by installing thin copper fins to the cylinder blocks instead of fins being included in the engine casting. Theoretically, it would increase the cooling area and work more efficiently (via Mac's Motor City).

Kettering's idea did not work in practice. The engine created was smaller than others at the time and was overworked, creating more heat and detonation as a result. Furthermore, other divisions tested the engine with failed results, but GM executives implicitly trusted Kettering and he went forward with the design anyway. In the end, according to Hemmings, production of 1,000 units began with only a handful of cars being completed — 239 cars were scrapped before leaving the factory. A couple of hundred cars had been sent out as experimental units were recalled by Chevrolet and destroyed as well. Air cooling would not be tried again by the company until the Corvair of the '60s.

Tata is a large manufacturer of trucks and cars in India, and was founded in the late '40s. Originally manufacturing trucks based on licenses from European companies, it has since become an independent company producing vehicles of its own designs, according to the company's website. As an automaker in a developing nation, its domestic products have to be price sensitive and affordable to lower-income populations. And in 2009, Tata introduced the world to the Nano, the cheapest car in the world.

CEO Ratan Tata was bothered by seeing too many families riding scooters in his country in an unsafe manner, with whole families squeezed together on just two wheels. He envisioned a car that could be bought for about the same price as a scooter and at least get these families in a moderately safer vehicle. It cut absolutely everything but the bare minimum to reduce costs. The Nano has no rear hatch or trunk, no airbags, no radio, or style. Fuel must be filled by opening the hood for access, and the tires are tiny. The quality was poor and reports of fires started going around, with Tata acknowledging an electrical issue causing them (via Quartz India).

Sales never took off and Tata also acknowledged that advertising it as a cheap car turned away buyers. Plans to import it to the U.S. shockingly never materialized. Even in a country like India, where many people subsist on the most meager of wages, people did not want to be associated with something so cheap.

In the modern automotive age, the SUV is king. Some carmakers have dropped regular passenger cars altogether, focusing only on the bigger, taller, and more profitable car-truck-wagon thing. Nissan needed something less truck-like than the Pathfinder, and introduced the Murano for the 2003 model year, according to Money Inc. However, around 2010, Nissan brought us a version of the Murano that didn't know what it wanted to be, and left us trying to figure that out: the Nissan Murano Crosscabriolet.

For many years, the only convertibles available were mostly small sports cars with the odd Mustang or VW in the mix. But, droptops gained popularity in the new millennium, so someone at Nissan thought it would be the best time to make a convertible out of a Murano. Somehow, they took all the practical parts of the Murano and introduced a wholly impractical option that made the SUV somehow no longer an SUV. It was not a car, either. Convertibles are supposed to be a cool and stylish way to get around, like the giant 1972 Cadillac Eldorado with white leather and red paint. That is a cool cruiser, while a soft-top Murano is not. Its proportions are all wrong, and mostly just useless. Doug Demuro got to spend the day with one and wrote about it. His assessment was just as perplexed and confused as the Murano. He also noted it did not drive well, it was underpowered, and, with the top up, blind spots were everywhere.