Doug, don't take it that seriously. Besides, the list isn't the worst cars, it is the most disappointing. I take that to mean they didn't meet expectations, whether real or imagined. From that standpoint, I agree with most of the comments in the whole thread. Some people may find the 500 OK for it's intended audience but I was disappointed in it.

 

New Corvette is a great car
300C? Are you kidding me? Have you been inside one? This is a fad car.
M45 is not out yet - so it doesn't count.

Come on, we need 5 cars that are better than the 5 worst. That's only two at best.
personally I don't think 5 other new cars came out last year

 

Hmmm, ok, but I still don't agree cause
1. The Odyssey is an incredible car. So is the Sienna and personally I just don't see how Honda could come out with something so great as to not be considered disappointing to Autospies. I will tell you this, I've been in one and the car is amazing.
2. RL - this is an amazing car as well. I think that people are disappointed that it didn't come with a V8. I'll give you this one cause even though I think it is a great car, it should have a V8.
3. Ford 500 - This is one really nice car that Ford just didn't have an engine for. Ok, so the designers of the front end should be fired, but I'm telling you, they will fix the engine issue as well as the front end and this car will do well.
4. Cherokee - I admit to not liking the looks - but in person it does look better. I will agree I am disappointed in this one as well just because they are moving away from the sports car type vehicle they had.
5. STS. Ok this one makes NO sense. How could this car be disappointing? The only issue I can find with it is the fact that they priced it about $5K too high, other than that, I am VERY impressed with this car.

IF, I had to make the list, the QX56 would be on it - personally I don't like the design much, the reliability has not been there AND well it’s kind of ugly IMHO.

 

The 300C looks nice, especially when it's dropped with rims. Maybe it can be considered a fad car, but the design is still appealing. The new Mustang looks really nice too after seeing it in person, but the V6 with the tiny rims/tires detracts from the looks. The Corvette, nuff said. As I said earlier, the RL is a great looking car, just overpriced. Oh, and the Ferrari 430, one sweet looking car. These are my six cars of 2004 based on looks alone per your post.

Nice one, I forgot all about that beast of a car.

 

Well, Doug...one of the problem with so many of today's new designs is that, with the exception of some of the retros and cars like the 300C and Magnum, it's getting to be the same stuff, car after car after car. Wedge-shaped low front ends. Up-sweep trunks. Up-sweep slanted headlights that go way back up the sides of the hood. Firm suspensions. Large alloy wheels with low-profile tires. Painted brake calipers. Steeply raked windshields. Jelly-bean body lines. Similiarly, inside it is getting to be the same stuff too, car after car. Cheap hardware (with some exceptions). Brushed metal trim. Steering wheel buttons. Silly computer ***** like the I-Drive, MMI, etc... Nav screens in the middle of the dash that incorporate all the radio controls. Rock-hard seats.
Yes, this is starting to get a little long in the tooth now....especially compared to some of the classy, sensible, and handsome designs of 10 years ago or so like the 1994-1999 Celica and Avalon.
It literally is getting to the point (and I am NOT exaggerating here) that I can just about predict what a car's replacement is going to look like.....though to be fair, we've just about all been guessing about the next IS....except maybe Flip.

The new Acura RL, Mercedes S-class, and Infiniti M45 all look almost EXACTLY the way I expected them to look...and all three are pretty much similiar, style-wise, to each other. But to be honest, I did not expect Audi's new grilles or the Malibu Maxx hatchback....both of those surprised me.

 

When I was agreeing with autospies, I was just agreeing to their same dislike (exterior-wise).

I guess we can all agree that looks are verrry subjective. I can remember when I was at one of the car survey, I was bashing the XK left and right when I sat inside with a surveyor? while I can hear a gentleman totally adoring the jag...all personal taste.
But as for fit, finish, quality and ergonomics, this is where we can point out what needs to be improved or to just give a

Besides, if we ALL have the SAME opinion, the world would be too boring

I like the "jelly-bean" description mmarshall

 

Thanks. I confess that I am not an easy person to please, auto-wise. In general, recently, Lexus and Subaru products have impressed me the most, quality-wise,....especially the new Outback.
The ES330, though, even though it is a superb car, has some of the worst of those up-sweep headlights.

The point I'm trying to make, though, is that even though we all don't have the same opinions, we are stuck at least to an extent with the same stuff today at least in the mainstream styling designs, car after car, like it or not.

The term "Jelly-bean" is nothing new in auto write-ups.......I cannot take credit for it. It has been used for years to describe cars with aero body-shapes. If my memory is correct, it was first used with the then-new Ford Taurus in 1985 to describe the car's radically new look from the other mid-1980's squared-off designs.

 

I never gave my 2 cents.
1. Odyessy. I think this is wrong. Just b/c it is not what they expected does not make it bad. Toyota rarely misses 2 or 3 shots in a row. The Sienna is a product is frankly, some Toyota van mistakes. Previa. Too small Sienna. This van does not belong on the list.
2. RL. Tough. I guess like them, I was expecting more. I was expecting a much better exterior style. Also not expecting it to be 50k. But I don't think it belongs on the list as its not a bad car at all.
3.Ford 500.Monego. I agree. What a **** poor effort. Old Audi styling, nice interior, only 1 engine? 200hp V-6. Lets understand something here Ford. The old SHO V-8 made 230hp. The V-6 Camry, Accord and Altima are 230+. I won't even get into how the 300C is superior. Can u say rental car. And the name is atrocious.
4. Cherokee-it amazes me how the SUV craze has passed Jeep. Jeep helped jump start it with the Cherokee and what they should have been is THE SUV leader. Jeep=SUV. Very sad how this new one looks on the outside. This SUV is nothing ground breaking at all. And it costs a lot.
5. STS- I don't agree. Its like the RL, nice but jump over to Caddy? I don't think so. And the prices are pretty high to me. The exterior is nice, IMO, the interior is behind the competiton (this is a new car) and its very big on the outside but the interior does not reflect this. But its not a bad car.

What this list does show though, is how TOUGH, very TOUGH competition is right now.

 

I agree the Previa was a poor effort...especially with the way the engine was installed. It was very difficult to work on.

You have to remember with the 500 that the CVT compensates for the lack of HP. Its 203 HP has roughly the same performance as the 230 HP you mention with a conventional automatic.

Jeep has never really put much into exterior styling. It traditionally has concentrated on advanced 4WD / AWD systems and a tough off-road chassis that would do the Rubicon Trail.

How, IYO, is the STS interior not up to the competition? Please explain. IMO, it makes some other so-called "luxury cars" look like econoboxes.

 

Yeah, I am aware of the CVT but that is not convincing enough. Sadly, it is about HP nowadays and who has it. How can Ford make a 550hp Ferrari beating GT but not a family car that is tops? That is my problem with some companies priorities.
Sorry but the STS leaves me very cold with its interior. Fit and FInish is okay, the wood is not very classy to me. The leather and seats are very nice. The gauges seem to be Impala sourced.

 

Autospies must be smoking aomething because most reviews on the RLs performance and handling are positive and not ridiculously bad like this article claims