Demand for improved safety, practicality and a need to pack in more and more features means that cars are getting bigger and bigger. But that isn’t always a good thing.
So, to find out what cars out there have gotten bigger but no better, we turned to you. On Friday, we asked what the worst big cars out there were, and you did not disappoint with your responses.
Here’s a rundown of some of the top suggestions that we received.
2 / 12
“F-350 Dually (bonus if lifted). Unless you are towing something, what’s the point. But with gas prices as they are, there will be less of them on the road.”
Premiered in 1998, the Ford F-350 is the very definition of a big car. At 232″ long and 80" wide, it’s as much as 23 inches longer than its still very large smaller sibling, the Ford F-150.
Suggested by: live2skico2
3 / 12
“H1 Hummer. It’s unreal that a vehicle that big can be so cramped inside. I have no idea how soldiers in full battle rattle fit in those things.”
An ex-military truck for the normal road user. Because that’s something the world needs. Weighing in at 7,800lb and clocking in at 86.5" wide, this car is too damn big.
Suggested by: hillrat
4 / 12
“Some of the worst ‘big’ cars to ever grace American roads were that pinnacle of early-2000s retro Boomer-ness – the Chevy SSR.
“It was far too heavy and too slow (granted, the SSR later got the LS2, which helped). It was priced too high for being parts bin special with cheap interior. And it only had space for two overly-nostalgic Midwestern yuppies with jorts and poor taste.
“The Ford Thunderbird of the same time also qualifies, I think, but at least it wasn’t as huge. But it committed many of the same sins.”
At least the SSR had interesting styling working in its favor. But at 192" long and $42,000, retro stylings didn’t prove a hit with shoppers and Chevrolet sold just 9,000 SSRs trucks between 2003 and 2006.
Suggested by: dbeach84
5 / 12
“Charger. I got one as a rental a couple years ago instead of the more normal fare of mid-sized cars. Oh did I hate that thing. Let me count the ways.
“1. Wrong shaped or wrong sized door opening. I had a hell of a time getting in and out of it for some reason. I can stuff my lardass into and out of Miata easier than a Charger for some reason.
“2. No room inside. I guess it has as much room as a mid-sized, but it doesn’t feel like it. I was pushed against stuff in that Charger where I am not in a mid-sized.
“3. Some controls too close, others too far away. Just when you think ‘ok, this thing is like a Miata, everything is close to hand’, you need 6" longer arms to adjust the radio or something because it’s way the hell over there to show off the car is big.
“4. Can’t see. Nothing like having corners way the hell into different zip codes, but having a low roof line so you can’t see them well made it interesting to drive.
“5. Gas mileage. Last two mid-sized cars, I got 38 and 42 mpg. This thing? 18. And it was the V-6, not the Hemi. Pep was acceptable, but it was for the mid-sized sedans as well.
“6. Trunk. Pain to load and no more room (it appeared) than the mid-sized cars I normally get.
“The Charger just felt like it was wasteful of space. This experience re-enforced by bias against large vehicles. I didn’t see the point of the damn thing.
“(It did have cool features, if I could reach the controls. I will admit that.)“
The Dodge Charger is longer than the BMW M5, which we here at Jalopnik think makes it a big car. So I’m not going to argue with this commenter’s opinion, are you?
Suggested by: yeardley68
6 / 12
“Ford Excursion, especially with the Triton V10. Big, excessive, thirsty, and stupid. I like them, but they’re objectively dumb.”
The V10 Ford Excursion can just about manage eight miles per gallon if you’re driving around town, which is pretty damn bad. Produced between 1999 and 2005, Ford shipped almost 200,000 of these stonking great SUVs.
Suggested by: mrmcgeein3d
7 / 12
“1979 Lincoln Continental, specifically the 2-door ‘Coupe’
“Full disclosure – a now deceased great-uncle owned one of these – black with a red interior.
“Nearly 19-1/2 feet and 5,000lbs of peak Malaise-era, peak American large car.
“Top speed, in theory, was maybe 100mph, but realistically, between the weight and aerodynamics of a barn, 85mph tops. All this while returning 12mpg on a good day.
“And while there was plenty of room up front, the back seat was a miserable place to spend any amount of time – limited leg and knee room, no thigh or back support from the back seat and almost no visibility through those narrow side windows.
“Plus this thing handled like a pig on roller-skates, was a nightmare to park and had blind spots big enough to lose a VW Rabbit if it came up on your right side. (any yes, that last one comes from personal experience.)
“And it went through a set of Goodyears about every 12,000 miles.
“Uncle finally traded it in for a (slightly) smaller and more sensible ‘84 Eldorado.”
This poster’s uncle shaved off a full 29 inches by swapping from a Continental to an Eldorado. That’s an impressive space saving move.
Suggested by: earthbound-misfit-i
8 / 12
“Gladiator. Crappy break-over and departure angles, cramped interior, not competitive bed space for the segment, horrible fuel economy and wind noise, ugly as sin from the side. All so you can have a pickup that looks like a wrangler... but way worse.”
Big, boxy and cramped. Not the ingredients you look for in a fun driving experience. Still, that didn’t stop Jeep from selling almost 90,000 Gladiator trucks in 2021.
Suggested by: eschoettle
9 / 12
“Escalade. Take a massive SUV, bling it out, then throw 22" rims on it without increasing the size of the factory brakes. Looks stupid, is stupid. Why anyone pays the extra for one of those over a Denali or whatever Chevy call it is beyond me. And with the massive rims, the brakes look like they came off a Smart car.”
These cars are too big. Trust me, one almost rams me off my bike every morning when I ride into work.
Suggested by: gtbeam
10 / 12
“Ok maybe I’m missing the point of this but I’m going to say the Mustang.
“It has about the same footprint as a 4-Runner, but the inside of 2+2 with the same fictional back seats of my BRZ.
“I know this probably isn’t the honking SUV most people are thinking of for this question. But if we are talking about interior size: exterior size, this probably has the worst ratio.”
Much bigger than a BRZ and way less practical. That’s a good enough reason to warrant a sport on this list of bad big cars.
Suggested by: paradox127
11 / 12
“This. And not just from the looks/proportions (which are awful), but I’ve had the unfortunate luck of driving one recently and it is the single worst vehicle I have ever driven, been driven in, or been within 10 feet of.
“The engine is torquey down low, but has no top end. Throttle and break pedal response are wildly inconsistent. The suspension wafts and rolls and dips and dives. And the ergonomics.
“There is simply not one, single, redeeming quality about this vehicle.”
For upwards of $49,000 you too can drive around in more than 200 inches of Nissan SUV. Within all that car, you’ll be treated to 14mpg, 400hp and a whole heap of boring driving.