Putting aside the tabloid approach to this by the author and the BBC, it would appear, you have to weigh cars (and any product come to that) on an individual basis.
I've only driven a couple of Beetles, and have to say I thought they lived down to the description in the article. OK they were fairly elderly well-used examples, but noise, lack of performance, nervous handling, minimal comfort, little refinement, just made them bad cars. Good for 1948, but not for the last 25yrs. If I lived in the middle of Brazil, it'd be ideal, same as a Mahindra would be a reasonable choice in India, but here? No thanks.
A friend was one of a group of folks who went over to East Germany shortly after the wall came down and they bought a dozen or so of the "last off the line" Trabants from the factory in Zwickau. That was so bad it was good! The front and rear seat coverings didn't match (both sort of tan, but clearly very different colour). I've never known a 500cc 2-stroke twin be so awful, vibration was diabolical. Brakes? - probably, somewhere. In it's favour (I think) it cost about £1500 all in.
The X90 is a different animal. Technically it's fine as far as I can see, just standard Suzuki stuff. It's just a very eccentric bit of bodywork. Doesn't make it bad, any more than an estate or coupe or a Fiat Multiplas is bad, but it probably won't suit everyone. I have to say I can't quite see the point, but cr@p? No, I doubt it.
Morris Marina? yep, that was!