That would explain it!

Merc A class. I didn't expect much from it, and it was dire. Crap in just about every aspect. The worst modern car I've ever driven. I can't believe MB could sell such an inadequate car.

Clio 197 was very disappointing - worse than a 182 in just about every respect.

OK, it wasn't surprising.. it was just rubbish..

Oh god -Escort Mk III diseasal company car -wottaheapofste!! No baffles in the tank, so if fuel low and you got a bit keen around a corner....it cut out!! I did my best to blow it up but limiter would cut in....

Right, my turn.

I'm sorry but I am going to have to say the much vaunted Fabia vRS which I owned for 20,000 miles. It wasnt a bad car, quite the opposite, but it just wasnt a fun car IMO. There was no fun to be had from thrashing it, which to me goes against the whole ethos of a hot hatch. It also felt every kg of its 1,315 kg kerb weight, which is monsterously heavy for such a small car. Brakes were absolute cack. Grippy, but wallowy handling. It felt like driving a boat.

Mazda MX-5 Mk2. I drove a 1.8 model and I had to actually ask the salesman if it really was a 1.8 because it was so underpowered it was actually quite laughable. The Clio 182 I had at the time felt like it had twice as much power. I can imagine it could be good with a blower.

Toyota MR2 Mk3. Pretty much for the same reason as the MX-5, it was extremely slow. It was faster than the MX-5 though, but the engine was bland and soulless. Why oh why didnt Toyota put the T-Sport 190 lump in, this would have made the car a real Elise beater.

Hyundai Coupe V6 Mk3. Very pretty, but the interior was hideously low rent, and engine note was muted (shame), and to be honest the drive was poor too. Felt like a barge and was horrifically slow.

Seat Ibiza Cupra 1.8T. What a bag of ste. Poor handling, and a really, really boring engine. I would rather have the diesel. The 1.8T VAG lump must qualify as being one of the most bland, characterless engines in existence. Felt slow as well considering it was meant to have 180 bhp in a relatively light car.

Trouble with them cars is, the UK importers were often bringing them in on steel wheels and then fitted cheap, heavy 15's to them. Mine suffered this. And also the car has fully adjustable suspension, which is a mixed blessing 'cos until you go and get it checked, you never know whats underneath you. Mine too was dull and crap, but by fitting it with proper Mazda 14's, and having the geo done (it was well out) the car was utterly transformed. The curious thing was though, that the car was 6 or 7 years old by that point, so all its previous owners (and no doubt countless other owners) would obviously feel they've driven an MX5 and not liked it, yet they'd never ever driven a properly sorted (ie in proper standard spec) one, and so would have completekly the wrong opinion.

As standard, i've been able to mix with Elises at Donington.

When Autocar decided a few years back that the MX5 was the best handling car in Brtiain (or somesuch accolade), the following year it came 12th. From what was written i felt sure it was because of nothing more than a change of wheels, that's all.

Funnily enough, a mate who also drives this

really likes his wifes Jazz and usually drives it in preference to his 330d.

Must have had a bad one - freind of mine has a QV & he's done 7 or 8 trips round Europe in it at 3K+ miles a time & its never let him down that I know if.

I don't think your going against the grain there, it's been mentioned in this thread quite a few times already.

Don't try an E30 with the factory manual rack in that case - it's even slower than the power one....you need armfuls of lock to negotiate a roundabout!

which one was the worst then