Yahoo Autos The disappointing dozen: Cars that fail to measure up
Look no further than our annual Top Picks list and you’ll see there are many great cars on the market today. At the other end of the spectrum are models that fall well short of being competitive. Here, we highlight our disappointing dozen—the cars Consumer Reports has recently tested with the lowest test scores.
In perusing these models, you'll find a wide range of car types—small cars, luxury cars, SUVs, and pickups. Likewise, there are several brands represented, with Fiat, Jeep, and Toyota each having more than one model to capture this undesirable distinction. At the corporate level, both Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and Toyota Motor Sales each have four models on the list.
Our criticisms of these vehicles are often similar, with common shortcomings being poor ride, sloppy handling, tepid acceleration, too much engine noise, and an uncomfortable driving position. Sure, these models may be better than the old jalopy you're looking to trade in, but they do not hold up against the latest competition.
Whatever your car-buying budget might be, the key is to make an informed purchase decision, and we're here to tell you, there are better choices than these models.
Below, we present this year's disappointing dozen, ranked by overall test score, with accompanying highlights where they came up short. Overall score is based on a 0-to-100 scale.
Click the car names to read the full road test and to check reliability, owner satisfaction, and other key data.
—Jeff Bartlett
Mitsubishi Mirage: 29 overall score
Base MSRP price range: $12,995 - $15,395
Lows: Clumsy handling, noise, vibration, acceleration, feels really cheap and insubstantial.
The Mitsubishi Mirage lives up to its name. While its low sticker price and good fuel economy of 37 mpg overall may conjure up an inviting image of an enticing, economical runabout, that illusion quickly dissipates into the haze when you drive this regrettable car.
Built in Thailand, this little hatchback is powered by a tiny and vibrating three-cylinder engine. To make it saleable, Mitsubishi primed the pump with a rather impressive list of standard features. But the car is way too slow and noisy, even for a cheap subcompact, to effectively compete in this competitive class. Further lowering its standing is its Poor score in the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety small-overlap crash test.
Mitsubishi i-MiEV: 35 overall score
Base MSRP price (with tax rebate): $22,995
Lows: Short range, long charging time, weak cabin heat, Spartan accommodations, acceleration, ride, agility, seats only four, complicated radio, headlights.
The i-MiEV is one of the cheapest all-electric cars available. But the trade-off is that it's slow, clumsy, stiff-riding, and quite utilitarian inside. It takes between 6 and 7 hours to charge on a 240-volt, Level 2 charger, or 21 hours on a standard 110-volt charger. Its range is EPA-rated at 62 miles, although we generally got around 56 miles. We measured its energy consumption at 111 mpg equivalent. The motor puts out a meager 66 hp. The i-MiEV fulfills its mission of being a very efficient and basic city transportation, costing less than 3 cents per mile, developing no tailpipe emissions, and making parking easy. But those attributes aren't enough to outweigh the considerable shortcomings.
Chevrolet Spark: 42 overall score
Base MSRP price range: $12,270 - $27,210
Lows: Noise, ride, acceleration, transmission, agility, front-seat comfort, complicated radio.
The Spark is a tiny car that's smaller than Chevy's subcompact Sonic and intended primarily to provide easy urban maneuverability and parking. But while its low price and rich feature list might be tempting for some entry-level buyers, the Spark's drawbacks can grate on your nerves in daily driving. It's painfully slow, relentlessly noisy, rides uncomfortably, and feels Spartan and insubstantial. You'd expect such a tiny car to deliver fabulous fuel economy, but we measured only 31 mpg overall, which is less than several larger, quicker, more substantial cars. Forget zippy or enjoyable handling in the Spark, too. Handling is secure enough, but it's neither agile nor engaging, especially for such a diminutive car.
Scion tC: 44 overall score
Base MSRP price range: $19,210 - $20,360
Lows: Ride, noise, visibility, lackluster handling, cheap interior, no rear wiper.
When we got beyond the surface appeal, we found the Scion tC to be a loud, cheap-feeling, uncomfortable car that doesn't really deliver anything notable beyond its convenient hatchback versatility. The tC's sporty looks write a check that the car's performance capabilities just can't cash. Handling is mundane at best and the ride is stiff and jittery. The transmission is poorly calibrated, forcing the engine to sometimes scream along after you're done accelerating. And it has a rev-matching feature that roars the engine on downshifts. Again, it may seem sporty at first, but it gets as tiresome as a kid endlessly shouting, "Vroom, vroom, VROOM!" Moreover, its loud exhaust boom also tries to imbue a sporty character, but it ends up creating a constant drone that also gets old quickly.And while fuel economy of 27 mpg overall isn't bad, plenty of larger midsized sedans with four-cylinder engines are more efficient. Add it all up, and the tC scores too low for us to recommend it.
Toyota Yaris: 47 overall score
Base MSRP price range: $14,845 - $17,620
Lows: Noise, ride, agility, driving position, front seat comfort, fit and finish, radio controls, rear visibility.
The Toyota Yaris, the company's impressively fuel-efficient and least expensive car, falls short of making the cut as a Consumer Reports-recommended model. Way short. For 2015, Toyota freshened the front appearance but that can’t hide the shortcomings. The powertrain remains a 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine making 106 horsepower and hooked up to either a five-speed manual or vastly outdated four-speed automatic. But ultimately the Yaris remains barebones in an age of increasingly refined subcompacts. The Yaris is noisy, its ride is choppy, and its driving position is awkward with stretched arms and bent knees and the front seats are uncomfortable. Plus, handling lacks agility and acceleration is slow.
