Ten Worst Auto's Today = Monte #6
 

[align=center]The Truth About Car's[/align][align=center]:eek:T T A CHome page below [:-][/align][align=center]http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/[/align][align=center][/align][align=center]
TTAC’s Ten Worst Automobiles Today Awards: [/align][align=center]
By Frank Williams
May 2, 2007[/align][align=center][:-]
http://media.gm.com/us/chevrolet/en/...ntecarloss.jpg[/align][align=center]Monte Carlo[/align][align=center]:eek:[:@]#6 [:@]:eek:[/align][align=center]on the list.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-...ntana-sv62.jpg
Six months ago, this website published its Ten Worst Automobiles Today (T W A T) awards. While the resulting publicity pretty much killed our access to press cars, it had to be said. As we ready ourselves for readers' '07 T W A T nominations and the eventual awards dinner (yes, you're invited), let's see how last year's "winners" have fared since TTAC named and shamed the Ten Worst Automobiles Today.
10. Chevrolet Aveo: alive and, uh, well
"In the case of this captive Korean import, you pay little and get even less."
Driving a Chevy Aveo5 was like pedaling a bicycle through a Hell's Angels' motorcade: slow, noisy and frightening. And yet, since scoring a T W A T, consumers have shown their desperation for cheap, high-mileage vehicles (and their ignorance of T T A C's editorial wisdom) by sending sales up 53%.
9. Lincoln Mark LT: fading fast
"The Mark LT is a rolling testament to Dearborn's short-term, suicidal reliance on bean-counted engineering."
In 2006, Lincoln unloaded about 1k florid F-150’s per month. Only about 700 customers per month are currently looking at $9800 worth of first year depreciation, minus a $4k rebate. Still, anyone who loves their LT isn’t likely to care. At least not yet.
8. Saab 9-7x:doomed
"You know what I hate most about the Saab 9-7X? It's a Chevy Trailblazer with the ignition key between the seats."
Badge-engineering this mutant must be a low-cost proposition; GM's still building 9-7x's despite selling fewer than 500 per month. The model will surely die with the rest of the Trailblazer clones in 2010, to be replaced by the 9-4X. With Saab's DNA DOA, can another TWAT be far behind?
7. Subaru B9 Tribeca:struggling for survival
"The fact that the B9 is also slow, thirsty and cramped proves that repulsiveness can be more than skin deep."
Tired of TTAC-inspired s****ering and lackluster sales, Subaru is about to modify the Tribeca's infamous "flying vagina" grill and slot-in a bigger engine. The B9-no-more (if it ever was) will still be as ugly as current sales figures. Subie sold just 3606 examples in the first three months of ‘07, down 22.8% from last year's miserable total. We reckon it's only a matter of time…
6. Chevrolet Monte Carlo:dead
[b]"The Chevrolet Monte Carlo is a wrong wheel-drive engineering joke from the late ‘80's."
The darling of the NASCAR set heads for the big pit stop in the sky this June. Dale Jr. fans need not despair. Chevy has a

RE: Ten Worst Automobiles Today : (
 

RE: Ten Worst Automobiles Today : (
 

I most say that i some what agree with it that it is a "wrong wheel drive" car but by no means is it an "engineering joke"

RE: Ten Worst Automobiles Today : (
 

i like some of those vehicles too...

definetely the monte carlo obviously i like :)

and i also like the hummer h2 i would love to have one of those :)

RE: Ten Worst Automobiles Today : (
 

Whoever this idiot is, he's commenting on idealisms, not realisms. Has he been out to drive one of the vehicles himself? I mean EVERY car available for purchase just so he can judge if it's worthy? I doubt it. He has no experience, so he's simply taking other people's stories and elaborating on them to make them more 'Shocking' which means more people read his stories and more websites will actually pay to have him write for him so they get more clicks.

Sure, theM/C might not have been GM's money maker, but has Corvetteever beenGM's biggest money maker? He11 no! It's still around because itdoes well, and consistently. The M/C only went downhill because the market isvery conservative right now. There would be a sport car boom if it wasn't for gas prices. So instead people are looking for 4 doors (hack,cough,ugly,cough) and try to get as much "sport" in them that they can afford. Hence the Impala's popularity, especially in the LTZ and SS trims. I know a guy that got rid of his M/C for an Impala SS. Sure he said the V8 is Nice, but it just doesn't look right. I wanted to scream "AMEN" I mean neither of us have families or kids, why cramp style in a 4 door?

I've owned only 3 cars in my life, and all 3 have been what someone at one point or another has called a "bad" car. The Beretta because GM already had a compact coupe available (the ugly and more cramped cavalier) Plus I've owned two Monte Carlos. What can I say? I've loved all 3 cars, and would still own all 3 if I had the money.

When this guy comes up with some actual intelligent commentary about reasons why a vehicle is bad, or why a vehicle is good, then maybe he'll actually develop a following and start to make money. He's not basing the T W A T award on actual failure rates, cost of ownership, or measurables like that.... it's all opinion. and in this conservative market, people don't pay for opinions, they want facts.

In all the other vehicles he talked about, he mentions some hard facts. What does he say about the monte... ohh.. ummmm, let's metion something about Dale Jr so the googling fans will stumble upon my story, and say something about nascar, and oh yeah, the opinion that it's the wrong-wheel drive.So what did theRWD early 90's mustangs do? NOTHING. Noone wanted an UGLY rear wheel drive car with an engine smaller than a V8! Those things sell used a dime a dozen. RWD cars simply do not do well in northern climates because there's no weight over the drive wheels. Sure maybe they're overall faster in the 1/4 than a similar car in FWD, but think about it. We moved to FWD cars because they are:
More efficient. Less moving components and less weight are needed to move power to the ground.
Smaller. Engine is mounted transversely, so it saves length and overall weight.
Better for slick conditions. More weight is over the drive wheels, so more traction is available.

Why are we moving back to RWD? Because computers are able to help compensate for it's less-than ideal handling in slick conditions. Tire technology has advanced nearly as fast as computer'sso that helps compensate further. And those people unlucky enough to see the muscle cars, and fall inlove with them, only to have theEPA come in and ruin everything are now middle aged. Meaning they have more expendable income, and aremore likely to put it in something that brings out the nostalgia in them, without having to put all the time and work in a vehicle they save from a crusher.

RE: Ten Worst Automobiles Today : (
 

to this person i say this


EAT MY SHORTS hahahaha

the wrong wheel drive i agree with wholeheartidly but the rest well that idiot can just eat what i leave behind hahaha

RE: Ten Worst Automobiles Today : (
 

[align=center][:-]What has been written, [/align][align=center]The Good, The Bad & The Ugly[/align][align=center][/align][align=center]General Motors Kills its Golden Goose
By Matthew Neundorf
June 26, 2006


[/align][align=center][/align][align=center]http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-...arAssembly.jpg
For a second consecutive year, GM’s Oshawa production facilities have received J.D. Power and Associates’ “Gold Plant Quality Award.” The award is given to the production facility with the fewest number of defects per vehicle, as measured by J.D.’s famous “Initial Quality Study.” Oshawa created cars with just 43 defects per 100 vehicles. The industry average was 124. So what do you do if you have the second most productive assembly plant on the continent? If you’re GM, you do the only logical thing possible: you close it.
There’s no question that GM has too much of everything: brands, models, dealers, workers, factories and suits. Although the media hails GM CEO Rick Wagoner for cutting (a.k.a. buying off) production workers and eliminating plant capacity, they’re forgetting that the same stupidity that lead to the cuts could well mean stupid cuts. As GM downsizes its vast empire to match its diminished role in the US automotive market, it runs the risk of making too many cuts in the wrong places. Like Oshawa.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-...%20plants2.jpg
It may be a piercing glimpse into the obvious, but a plant that produces the fewest defects per vehicle is also building your highest quality cars. GM needs higher quality products like a losing football team needs touchdowns. The days when close enough was good enough are long gone. If GM is going to claw their way back against the likes of Toyota, Honda and Nissan, they can only do it with virtually defect-free products. They know this. In fact, they already claim success; continually citing a supposed “perception gap” between old (i.e. crap) and new (i.e. high quality) GM vehicles.
Again, it all seems pretty simple: produce better vehicles at your award-winning plants and reap the rewards, right? Well here's the thing. The vehicles produced at GM’s Oshawa plants are some of GM’s best sellers. Oshawa’s Number 2 Plant produces the Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick LaCrosse. The LaCrosse is the best selling vehicle under the Buick marque, accounting for some 93k units in 2005. The Grand Prix has only just been eclipsed by the G6 at around 120k units. But here’s the rub: GM (literally) has no business making “best-selling” products that drop as low 93,000 units. Their huge dealer network and corporate infrastructure require gigantic hits, regardless of their quality. And yet…
[b]By killing Oshawa, GM is revealing two important defects in its “right sizing” game plan. First, the General’s generals are demonstrating their lack of focus on product quality. Why kill your best plant before your worst, even if that plant’s products aren’t best sellers? If a hockey team doesn’t make the playoffs, you don’t trade your best player, you rebuild around him (unless you’re from Boston). Oshawa builds some of the best-built products in GM’s lineup. Throwing that skill overboard in favor of less capable factories is insane. Which brings us to the second prob

RE: Ten Worst Automobiles Today : (
 

I think the writer of that article must have been smoking something, when he put the Monte on that list.



Mike.

RE: Ten Worst Automobiles Today : (
 

Why was the monte on the list? Dated, dated, dated design and platform. I like the lines on the car (ala 1970's). But at some point you have to step up to the plate with a quality product. Now I'm not saying that they are problematic or anything. I haven't had one problem yet with mine. However, for the same amount of money I could say have the quality of a honda or toyota. These days people have families and a 2 door just doesn't figure into that equation. Also GM doesn't advertise for the monte. When was the last time you seen a commercial for one? Just my .02 worth.

RE: Ten Worst Auto's Today = Monte #6
 

Space, you know my opinion. You buy what you like and you enjoy it.

I don't have much money and the 17K the car cost me asa certified used car would not get me any other 06 or 07 model that would make me happy.

Sure you could buy a Toyota, been there done that!