car models that have gotten worse

tjbell wrote: The original RX-7 weighed under 2400lb and had a gigantic rear sway bar, in 1981 they made the car heavier and have it a rear bar with half the stiffness, in 1984 they made it a 280ZX Lite with more luxo crap and they buggered up the rear suspension geometry to make the car even more boring.

But in 1993 we got the most beautiful car possibly ever made with tons of power, especially for the time, which would go on to become the best donor for God's engine of choice, the GenIII/GenIV GM V8s pioneered by his first disciple, Ellis Juan. And it was glorious.

Knurled wrote:

tjbell wrote: well, most of the time it is best to by the latest model of a given body style (last year run) and I was wondering, are there any cars/trucks that they nailed it the first year, then by the 3rd or 4th of the given body style they got worse. discuss

ALL OF THEM. I can't think of a car that got better as they progressed. Well, maybe the Grand National's best year was the last one. But I am thinking of cars like the RX-7, the MR2, the BRZ, where the first model year was the Raw Intent, and then they get focus-grouped into blandness afterward. The original RX-7 weighed under 2400lb and had a gigantic rear sway bar, in 1981 they made the car heavier and have it a rear bar with half the stiffness, in 1984 they made it a 280ZX Lite with more luxo crap and they buggered up the rear suspension geometry to make the car even more boring. Bleargh. The original MR2 was good but after a couple years they buggered upo the rear suspension to make it "safer" (read: blandified for the dipwad brigade). The first year BRZ had an engine powerband that you had to DRIVE, second year they took all the fun out of it. And don't get me started on the 911.

The Fiero is another that got better with age, first with the introduction of the V6 and 5-speed, then the huge improvement in the 1988's suspension design.

2nd Gen Bronco: First year came with a 351W, C6, 9"/Dana44 then came the '79 with a 351W, C6, 9"/Dana44.

Kaiser did something similar with the '68-'69 M715.

I know this is generally believed to be an example, though, as someone of a certain age, I actually don't hate either.

flatlander937 wrote:

tjbell wrote: The original RX-7 weighed under 2400lb and had a gigantic rear sway bar, in 1981 they made the car heavier and have it a rear bar with half the stiffness, in 1984 they made it a 280ZX Lite with more luxo crap and they buggered up the rear suspension geometry to make the car even more boring.

But in 1993 we got the most beautiful car possibly ever made with tons of power, especially for the time, which would go on to become the best donor for God's engine of choice, the GenIII/GenIV GM V8s pioneered by his first disciple, Ellis Juan. And it was glorious.

That's a different model.

It could also be argued that the FD was just an overweight Miata that they had to put a more powerful engine into in order to hustle its fat butt around with. Also it can be argued that the FD is ugly, no creases anywhere on the car, a minimalist exercise in the "shapeless blob" school of automotive design.

Knurled wrote:

flatlander937 wrote:

tjbell wrote: The original RX-7 weighed under 2400lb and had a gigantic rear sway bar, in 1981 they made the car heavier and have it a rear bar with half the stiffness, in 1984 they made it a 280ZX Lite with more luxo crap and they buggered up the rear suspension geometry to make the car even more boring.

But in 1993 we got the most beautiful car possibly ever made with tons of power, especially for the time, which would go on to become the best donor for God's engine of choice, the GenIII/GenIV GM V8s pioneered by his first disciple, Ellis Juan. And it was glorious.

That's a different model. It could also be argued that the FD was just an overweight Miata that they had to put a more powerful engine into in order to hustle its fat butt around with. Also it can be argued that the FD is ugly, no creases anywhere on the car, a minimalist exercise in the "shapeless blob" school of automotive design.

Please do not take this personally.... YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH!

But we can agree that FDs are not the same model of car as SA/FB. Maybe same model name but different generation.

If it's any consolation, I saw a CYM R1 yesterday. One of the wheels was cracked, so it never had the recall done. (Say, did you ever notice that they only made the R1 for the FIRST model year?)

Second gen Neon. The Germens took over, stood in front of the staff, and said, "We are here to make Chrysler great. We won't remove content from the cars." And then proceeded to remove content. The 02 Neon is about twice the car that the 04 is.

Civic.

1988-2000 great. After 2000 suckage.

In terms of being a Miata, the 3rd gen was definitely the worst (though it's the best CAR of the Miata family). Mazda seems to have righted the ship with the 4th gen though.

93EXCivic wrote: Civic. 1988-2000 great. After 2000 suckage.

I too was thinking Civic but I would say the sweet spot was '84-'95

From a GRM-ish standpoint, Corolla.

I don't have personal experience, but I'd say the 3 series has to be in there. The E36 won pretty much every comparo test it was in back in its' day, but the successive generations seem to have had less and less favorable reviews.

Good...

Better...

PUKE

I got a good one to add. the saab 900 chassis. 94-2003 where basically the same car, except when saab went trionic 7 in 99.5 and re did the PCV system those things sludged up in a hurry... 15000 mile oil change interval on conventional oil hurry

Sanchinguy wrote: From a GRM-ish standpoint, Corolla.

Agreed!

From this:

To this:

4th Gen trans am.

I'd take an lt1 hard top WS6 over an 02 any day of the week, although I realize this will be a uncommonly shared sentiment.

Maybe not the best in the first year, but definitely got worse as time went on--the first generation Mustang. 64.5-68, awesome. Beautiful. Wonderful. 69-70, eh, looking a little bloated there buddy--not quite my thing, but not bad. 71-73... Puke.

Another great example would be the MGB. From this:

To this:

Although maybe that is just proof that 17 years without really updating a car other than what is legally necessary is a bad recipe.

Monte Carlo- Started as a proper rear wheel drive car with a V8 that actually looked good....ended a bloated, ugly front wheel drive.

First gen DSM's were cool:

Then accidentally....

the 3g eclipse wasn't too bad compared to the freightliner it became.

My two additions. A3 Golf/Jetta and first gen Mazda 6. In both cases, they started with high quality interiors with some really neat little features. But a year or three later, big step down. As much as I don't want to get a first year car, the realities of the current car industry is that you will get the least cheapened experience with the first year.

C2 Corvette is the screaming obvious answer here. Introduced for the 1963 model year, the split-window fastback was gorgeous. Inexplicably, that feature was deleted in subsequent model years.

In reply to tjbell:

Ford Capri

Every car that lost the manual transmission option during the run. Off the top of my head, the '06 Legacy GT Wagon, but I know there were others.