MT-The 10 Worst Handling Cars Motor Trend Tested in 2010
12-30-10, 10:17 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
MT-The 10 Worst Handling Cars Motor Trend Tested in 2010
Taken from GMI...
The 10 Worst Handling Cars Motor Trend Tested in 2010
MotorTrend
December 29, 2010
Kirill Ougarov
We all love talking about cars that pull over 1.0g on the skidpad or come dangerously close to setting records on our Figure Eight course, but there’s also the other end of the scale. You know, the cars riding on hockey puck tires, the SUVs that are more than a handful to handle, the lumbering, understeer-prone minivans. To be fair, the vehicles on this list make no bones about being anything more than they are, so take these numbers with more than a grain of salt. For your perusal, here are the 10 worst performers in our Motor Trend Figure Eight test of 2010:
10. 2011 Honda CR-Z EX CVT/2010 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Figure Eight: 29.0 sec @ 0.57 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.78/0.73 g (avg)
9. 2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite/2011 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid/2010 Volkswagen Routan SEL
Figure Eight: 29.0 sec @ 0.56 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.73/0.79/0.73 g (avg)
8. 2011 Chrysler Town & Country
Figure Eight: 29.0 sec @ 0.54 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.73 g (avg)
7. 2011 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
Figure Eight: 29.1 sec @ 0.55 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.75 g (avg)
6. 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe GLS
Figure Eight: 29.2 sec @ 0.54 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.77 g (avg)
5. 2011 Honda Odyssey EX-L
Figure Eight: 29.4 sec @ 0.56 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.73 g (avg)
4. 2010 Mercedes-Benz GL 450
Figure Eight: 29.6 sec @ 0.54 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.70 g (avg)
3. 2010 Toyota Yaris
Figure Eight: 29.6 sec @ 0.53 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.76 g (avg)
2. 2010 Honda Element EX
Figure Eight: 29.8 sec @ 0.52 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.73 g (avg)
1. 2010 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
Figure Eight: 30.5 sec @ 0.52 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.67 g (avg)
The 10 Worst Handling Cars Motor Trend Tested in 2010
MotorTrend
December 29, 2010
Kirill Ougarov
We all love talking about cars that pull over 1.0g on the skidpad or come dangerously close to setting records on our Figure Eight course, but there’s also the other end of the scale. You know, the cars riding on hockey puck tires, the SUVs that are more than a handful to handle, the lumbering, understeer-prone minivans. To be fair, the vehicles on this list make no bones about being anything more than they are, so take these numbers with more than a grain of salt. For your perusal, here are the 10 worst performers in our Motor Trend Figure Eight test of 2010:
10. 2011 Honda CR-Z EX CVT/2010 Toyota 4Runner Trail
Figure Eight: 29.0 sec @ 0.57 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.78/0.73 g (avg)
9. 2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite/2011 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid/2010 Volkswagen Routan SEL
Figure Eight: 29.0 sec @ 0.56 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.73/0.79/0.73 g (avg)
8. 2011 Chrysler Town & Country
Figure Eight: 29.0 sec @ 0.54 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.73 g (avg)
7. 2011 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
Figure Eight: 29.1 sec @ 0.55 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.75 g (avg)
6. 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe GLS
Figure Eight: 29.2 sec @ 0.54 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.77 g (avg)
5. 2011 Honda Odyssey EX-L
Figure Eight: 29.4 sec @ 0.56 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.73 g (avg)
4. 2010 Mercedes-Benz GL 450
Figure Eight: 29.6 sec @ 0.54 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.70 g (avg)
3. 2010 Toyota Yaris
Figure Eight: 29.6 sec @ 0.53 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.76 g (avg)
2. 2010 Honda Element EX
Figure Eight: 29.8 sec @ 0.52 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.73 g (avg)
1. 2010 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
Figure Eight: 30.5 sec @ 0.52 g (avg)
Skidpad: 0.67 g (avg)
.
12-31-10, 04:29 AM
#7
Dysfunctional Veteran
why are minivans/SUV's on here? seriously? these arent supposed to handle nicely. Get a real job motor-trend guys, seriously. I dont know anyone who owns a minivan that doesnt drive it exactly the way a minivan is supposed to be driven...slow...to soccer practice.
Trending Topics
12-31-10, 05:46 AM
#8
Out of Warranty
^^ QFT
Not every vehicle on the road handles like an F1 contender, certainly not those designed for purposes other than handling. I don't imagine a Veyron is much of a rock-hopper, nor is a Porsche any great shakes as a family hauler. I suppose there are those little spec-racers who will argue a vehicle's value based solely on a set of numbers . . . how about reviewing vehicles with the greatest ground clearance, or interior shoulder room? Makes about as much sense.
Every car on the road is a set of compromises - in order to produce outstanding skidpad numbers (which ultimately aren't the whole story on handling anyway), you have to be ready to accept the fact that the vehicle won't haul seven passengers, or be particularly comfortable to drive on a rough road, or traverse a muddy ditch with some degree of grace.
What is notable from a historical standpoint is the lateral G's even the "worst" of these vehicles are able to generate, despite low rolling resistance tires (hybrids), limited suspension travel (minivans), high CG's, and cheap OEM rubber (practically universal), are some impressive numbers when compared to even sporting cars of a generation ago. Just try wringing 3/4 G out of a 60's muscle car - or for that matter, any of the "handling" cars so dear to the stringback glove set - the TR's, MG's, Alfas, even the upscale Porsches, Jensens, and Morgans. I guess it's a measure of our technology when we complain about skidpad numbers that aren't much below those of a supercoupe of the early seventies.
Not every vehicle on the road handles like an F1 contender, certainly not those designed for purposes other than handling. I don't imagine a Veyron is much of a rock-hopper, nor is a Porsche any great shakes as a family hauler. I suppose there are those little spec-racers who will argue a vehicle's value based solely on a set of numbers . . . how about reviewing vehicles with the greatest ground clearance, or interior shoulder room? Makes about as much sense.
Every car on the road is a set of compromises - in order to produce outstanding skidpad numbers (which ultimately aren't the whole story on handling anyway), you have to be ready to accept the fact that the vehicle won't haul seven passengers, or be particularly comfortable to drive on a rough road, or traverse a muddy ditch with some degree of grace.
What is notable from a historical standpoint is the lateral G's even the "worst" of these vehicles are able to generate, despite low rolling resistance tires (hybrids), limited suspension travel (minivans), high CG's, and cheap OEM rubber (practically universal), are some impressive numbers when compared to even sporting cars of a generation ago. Just try wringing 3/4 G out of a 60's muscle car - or for that matter, any of the "handling" cars so dear to the stringback glove set - the TR's, MG's, Alfas, even the upscale Porsches, Jensens, and Morgans. I guess it's a measure of our technology when we complain about skidpad numbers that aren't much below those of a supercoupe of the early seventies.
12-31-10, 08:38 AM
#10
I agree... it would be much more rational to at least categorize each car into segments.... for example: "Worst handling minivan", "Worst handling family sedan", "worst handling mini-suv", "worst handling hybrid sedan".... you get the point, at least we would know what the cars were judged against....
12-31-10, 10:23 AM
#13
Pole Position
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lake Country, WI
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article portion of the thread wasted a full minute of my life I can never get back 
The bashing of the article by the thread content brought a smile to my face!!!
The bashing of the article by the thread content brought a smile to my face!!!
12-31-10, 11:32 AM
#15
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do all the cars on this list have in common?
Prospective buyers who could care less about "handling". All the cars on that list handle well - they can take a corner safely if driven in a relaxed and normal manor. Where their handling becomes a risk is when they're being driven to their limits - and nobody in their right mind will push these cars to their limit. There's a reason sports cars exist.
Pointless articles like these are the reason why I don't listen to any automotive magazine anymore. Seems to me that magazines always want to review the sport aspect of a car, 0-60 times and handling. 90% of consumers out there DON'T CARE about these things. They care about interior space, comfort, features and the performance and handling are either deemed adequate or sufficient. Let's not forget that most cars come with a variety of engine choices to suit personal tastes. Those who need more power can buy more power.
Also, the VW Routan, Chrysler T&C and Dodge Grand Caravan are the same cars - and they take up two (three, if you count in the placement of the VW Routan) positions on this 10-point list.
Prospective buyers who could care less about "handling". All the cars on that list handle well - they can take a corner safely if driven in a relaxed and normal manor. Where their handling becomes a risk is when they're being driven to their limits - and nobody in their right mind will push these cars to their limit. There's a reason sports cars exist.
Pointless articles like these are the reason why I don't listen to any automotive magazine anymore. Seems to me that magazines always want to review the sport aspect of a car, 0-60 times and handling. 90% of consumers out there DON'T CARE about these things. They care about interior space, comfort, features and the performance and handling are either deemed adequate or sufficient. Let's not forget that most cars come with a variety of engine choices to suit personal tastes. Those who need more power can buy more power.
Also, the VW Routan, Chrysler T&C and Dodge Grand Caravan are the same cars - and they take up two (three, if you count in the placement of the VW Routan) positions on this 10-point list.