What is with these young writers who have no concept of what a truly bad or truly unsuccessful car was? Time magazine had an article about bad cars a few years ago, and now the Vancouvre Sun website has one [h/t Jack]. Here are some comments I made about the Time article. They apply to this one, too.
- Other candidates from that [early] era which surely deserved more consideration were the Stanley Steamer, which despite its speed and its adherents, simply was never as good as an internal-combustion-engine car, and the Baker Electric -- you think modern cars have battery-life problems? ...
- But the 1950s really did usher in a lot of bad autos that I can remember, for example, the Henry J:
- To save body stamping costs, early Henry Js did not have rear trunk lids; owners had to access the trunk by folding down the rear seat. Another cost saving measure was to offer the car only as a two-door sedan with fixed rear windows. Also lacking in the basic version wereglovebox, armrests, passenger side inside sun visor and flow-through ventilation.
- I remember that in our town, Henry Js also had a reputation for being made with thin metal that rusted and dented easily and quickly.
- Another candidate might be the Isetta, a weak-powered, chain-driven car that might be able to reach 50mph downhill. It had a single bench seat, and that was it. I remember riding with two other big guys on a 90-mile round trip in one of those. That experience helped me understand why the car might have been okay in some European settings but was a loser in North America.
- And one of the most serious omissions from the list is the early Hyundais. They had so many problems (Lada-like), it was a miracle the company survived.