Last week, William Stopford asked us “What Car Commonly Regarded As Ugly Do You Find Attractive“. So now on the flip-side, I ask: Which car commonly regarded as attractive do you find ugly?
I’ll be honest when I say that this is a much more difficult question to answer, because quite simply, it seems like the opinion of a car design generally falls into one of two categories: disapproval or indifference. The number of cars that receive a large amount of overwhelming praise for their looks would appear to be a rare occasion. Nevertheless, there are several cars over the years which despite having received mostly praiseworthy reviews for their styling, I’ve never personally found them remotely attractive, and have questioned the positive hype around their looks.
Ever since the moment I laid eyes on the 2005 Chrysler 300, I was disgusted by it. From its gaping oversized chrome egg crate grille to its overtly blunt front and rear ends, its ridiculously high beltlines to its archaic-looking non-wraparound headlights, not to mention uninspired blocky and slab-sided styling, this car was the epitome of offensive style and poor taste when it came to car design.
Yet for reasons I can mostly never understand (apart from its return to rear-wheel drive and Hemi V8), it seemed like everyone from automobile magazines to everyday consumers alike were showering this car with a high degree of praise for everything, including its macho looks.
An interior that mimicked the exterior in its blocky, uninspired styling and featuring some of the worst plastics used in American cars of the mid-00s only made me question the seemingly overwhelming applause surrounding the 300.
Personally, I always likened the 2005 Chrysler 300 to a pre-packaged version of a car created by Pimp My Ride, or in a less-harsh way, a cheap rip-off of another heavily praised design I find nearly as sickening to a gaudy degree. This of course, brings me to the next car on my list, the Rolls-Royce Phantom.
Now I can’t fault the Rolls for its radiator grille, imposing proportions, or immeasurable amounts of chrome because after all, it’s a Rolls-Royce! Cars that cost over $400,000 need make no apologies for using expensive finishes, but that said, I found the Phantom’s design tremendously muddled and like stylists were trying way too hard, even for Rolls-Royce. To be dead honest, I think the Phantom looks a casket on wheels.
Compare that to one of its prime competitors at the time of its launch, the Maybach 57/62, which exhibited far more finesse and grace, despite the general lack of enthusiasm surrounding its general mission in life. Furthermore, turn to the Rolls-Royce Ghost, which is clear evidence that stylists can incorporate historic Rolls-Royce styling cues into an attractive design that doesn’t look like a statue.
Another car I’ve never quite warmed up to is the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu. Touted as “The car you can’t ignore!”, it certainly was a better, more inspired design than both its immediate predecessors, rightfully earning much of the praise bestowed upon it. And to be quite honest, I did mostly like the design from the side and rear angles.
Yet the generic corporate Chevrolet face grafted on the front end completely ruined the otherwise, mostly elegant design. The boring-looking headlights with their cheap, corporate GM amber running lights (one of my biggest pet peeves of GM cars from this era), ugly and overused Chevy split-grille design, and general shape of the front fascia just all came across as uninspired and forgettable.
Adding to this are two other pet peeves of mine: the gold-colored Chevy bowtie and unattractive, all-too-common GM paint colors I can only describe as rental car colors. It’s truly a shame that designers couldn’t have thought up the face of the 2014 Impala for the 2008 Malibu, because otherwise, it was an fairly attractive car inside and out.
These are just a few generally praised designs I find unattractive. Which car or cars commonly regarded as attractive do you find ugly?
Audi A7:
I so agree. It looks like two completely different ends of cars were roughly joined together.
+1
The only car I see in this story I find attractive is the Chrysler 300. I find the Rolls Royce hideous to look at. I’m also not a fan of the Chevy Impala. Its styling is a disgrace to the Chevy name. 🙁
To me the Rolls-Royce Phantom looks likr it was ripped off from the customized 1966 Chrysler Imperial known as “The Black Beauty” in the 1966 television show, “The Green Hornet”? It seems to me that car designs are often based on what I call industrial espionage,or plagiarism?
+1 on the Green Hornet likeness. Imposing though.
I have never looked at a single Camaro of any generation and said “Dang, I wish that was my car.” I don’t think they suck; in fact, I know they don’t. They just don’t appeal to me. Like, not at all.
I was in agreement about the Chrysler 300 at its introduction in 1995. It seemed that Daimler (that’s how it was pronounced, the ‘Chrysler’ was silent) wanted a total divorce from the Chrysler Corporation and intentionally went “Cab-Unforward” in every way possible. Only in a rear quarter view did it NOT look like a cartoon caricature.
Daimler went on to awkwardify and slab-side just about everything else from the Auburn Hills suburb of Stuttgart.
The Chrysler 300 has grown on me since, perhaps out of eleven years of familiarity, perhaps because some of Daimler’s design philosophy has been moderated.
It thus seems odd that another of my candidates is the Mercedes CLA. Boringly derivative, with creased sides and scowling, cluttered front, it seems to shout, “I’m trying too hard to look Japanese!”
And then, there’s the current Camaro. “I’m trying SO hard to be RETRO, can’t you see?”
I agree with the interior being shit-level plastics; overall the car was stunning in it’s design approach for the market at the time. Remember Ford brought out the Audi-inspired Five Hundred at the same time, which was shredded in the press and market as being uninspiring and derivative saddled by the 3.0 and CVT.
That said, the current 300 has ‘presence’ in my mind – for $40k you can get a well-made and finished-out car with solid bones and a strong powertrain team. In darker colors it’s menacing yet classy….
My nominee would be the 2000 Ford Focus – it was lauded as Euro-inspired and the greatest thing since sliced bread, yet I found them ugly and cheap. Still do, with the only saving grace being the wagon model with the sunroof available.
The original Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable never did anything for me on the exterior, not until the respective updates in 1992. I did think the interior was nicely done for an American car at the time, but then you had to deal with the usual Ford mechanical issues. My mom’s Sable chewed through rotors, ac condensers and power window switches at an astounding rate…add that on top of a crappy dark gray paint job that needed repainting after 2 years….
And finally, any Chevy with the Malibu-style front end…Cobalt, etc. The bar though the middle of the grille screams “rent me!”; the gold bowtie reminds me of the ‘gold’ packages that used (still?) to be available through the dealers. Hideous.
Infiniti J30.
I know its sloping rear makes the trunk unusable, and some people say that the whole car looks like jellybean that’s been melted and then stepped on, but I find it distinctive, in a classy way… very understated. I’ve always liked them.
To me, those look like a Maxima with a boob and butt job.
I remember the very first time I saw one…not a lot of cars I can say that about. Very striking. I can understand why some people don’t like it, I guess, although I tend to think they aren’t trying hard enough.
+1 I always disliked the droopy butt on these.
I thought it was just me, I have never understood the appeal of the Chryslers with this body style, worse to drive as it feels as if you are trapped in a large deep box.
Never cared for the Compass either for what it is worth. How they managed to sell these is a credit to salesmanship. Oh, sorry we were considering “attractive cars”, guess it doesn’t count?
I owned a Compass, yes, the “Chick’s Jeep”, used, for a good price. I liked it initially, but soon grew quickly tired of it’s overly thick pillars, extremely wide rear blind spots caused by them, and, it was also a mechanical nightmare.
Is that a Jeep? That front end looks like a SsangYong.
The post Cerberus Chrysler put a new face on it and it looked a lot better.
I agree the facelifted Compass looks nicer than the quirky original, but both I kind of like the looks on and hey, Orange rear turn signals!
The C7 Stingray. I know that it’s more “interesting” than the last few generations of Corvettes, but it looks like it’s trying too hard. It’s a busy design that I don’t think will hold up well 10 – 20 years from now
Beat me to it. Too many flares, character lines, strakes, black accents, and edges, plus the currently in vogue “scowl”. It looks like something cooked up for a Transformers movie.
I concur that this one won’t hold up well.
In it’s defense I don’t think 20 year old Vettes have held up well either. I love the “bones” of the C7 more than any Vette made in my lifetime, but I agree, the add ons let it down, the most basic of base Vettes look more roided up than the C6 ZR1.
Lose the hood ducts, rear spoiler and (pretty please) bring back pop-up headlights and it would be my favorite looking Vette since 1972
The overall shape is very supercar, but the execution is terrible. Kind of like Cadillacs.
Of course I liked the Corvettes from long ago that didn’t look like they were trying to look hot, although the original Sting Ray made that work.
Modern Lamborghinis, they just don’t do it for me. I do like the Countachs from the 70’s-80’s though, but it’s not like I want to own one.
Current editions of the Dodge Challenger and Chevrolet Camaro.
Never liked them from the start; they seem “bloated” versions of the originals.
Time to move on to something totally new or let go!!
The Dodge is less “cartoonish” than the Chevy,however IMHO.
I’m not a fan of the Challenger either. Front and rear ends look good, the sides are overstuffed slabs.
I think the rear view of the Challenger is awful…too tall and narrow, and the rear track is too narrow too…the proportions are just “off”
As you say.
I like photos of the Challenger, but you see one in person and it’s a whale.
Once one realizes that the current Challenger is less a successor to the E-body pony car and more the late ’70s Charger personal luxury coupe, its proportions make sense.
Lambos, they look like folded paper, grade school art projects. 😉
For me, among recent/current cars, it’s some of the really high-end stuff:
Bugatti Veyron, obscenely ugly and obscenely expensive
Bentley Mulsanne, Continental, Bentayga: all bloated and pretentious
Tesla Model S: anodyne, stark/cold/devoid of personality, generic “tech dominates car” feel inside
Time makes me much more forgiving of older designs, but one that comes to mind as an overrated example of popular/iconic style is the ’57 Chevy. I strongly prefer the ’55 and ’56 Chevy (some of the best designs of the 1950s), and even the ’58, over the awkwardly facelifted ’57.
I am also unable to follow the herd & like the ’57 Chevy, preferring the greater restraint of the previous two model yrs.
x3
+1. The 56 was best
+56! My Dad as a late teen SO wanted a ’57 Chevy, but could only afford a used ’56…. In retrospect, he is quite happy with his choice. I have to agree, of the Tri-Fives, it has become my favorite as well. Truth be told though, if I were picking a fifties Chevy, I’d have to go with a ’58 Impala. They were just beautiful IMHO.
x4
But the just pre-Germans Arnage is pretty awesome.
And all German Rollses are indeed appallingly horrible.
love that car. Gorgeous colors too.
I wish there was a Model S personal lux coupe. Even if it makes no sense whatsoever.
A few people find the water cooled VW Beetle to be attractive. IMHO the 1st generation LOOKED okay but has/had a truly awful reputation while the 2nd looks too wide….like it’s been stretched to fit a (too) wide “chassis”.
The current Jetta and Passat look like old Toyota Camrys, but apparently that is what buyers want.
The current Jetta and Passat took a step backward from the previous generation, but I think they will hold up better than you think in the coming years. The previous Jetta was derided for looking like a Corolla, but ten years hence it’s obviously much more sophisticated than any sedan Toyota has produced.
57 Chevrolet – for me it’s always looked awkward, a cobbled together, failed effort to compete with the all new Ford and Chrysler products. The 56 and 58 models are much better looking yet the 57 commands these ridiculous prices today.
Of the TriFives, I like ’55 the best. While I know the grille design of the ’56 was more mainstream (keeping with a wider look) But the ’55 had the “cleanest” face of the mid-century big 3.
Lexus vehicles are good looking, except from the front . The huge grill which start below the hood, and extend all the way down below the bumper with an ugly mean monster face look, ruin these cars.
+1!
The side and the rear can be questionable
Of all the current Lexus models, the IS works best for me (as long as it’s not the F-Sport). I’m still waiting for Brendan to give us a review of the 200T☺.
I don’t think those are commonly regarded as attractive.
+2
The 1977 Cadillac. I worked at a place that had one and got to look at it from several angles. One day, I stood looking at a rear 3/4 angle and it hit me, it looked like it was stacked in layers – front fenders, up to the beltline under the greenhouse, then up again to the still-higher rear fenders. It was like a flight of steps.
Add the fact that so many of the details looked hamhanded and poorly done. The odd trunk lid sculpting that was flat on the back (until it got to that strange horizontal crease) and the overly busy sedan doorframes looked terrible to me. The 76 Cadillac was no beauty queen (compared to the earlier versions of that body) but the 77 just looked bad, and still does.
I never noticed the stair-step beltline or the horizontal crease in the trunklid until now. But some things you cannot un-see.
The lines of the trunk of the ’77 Cadillac seem designed to reestablish the ‘fin’ element. Oddly, The ’77 Buick Electra looks ‘finneir” (if that’s a word.)
Uhm, the stylyin wasn’t the only problem. The 4.1L engine wasn’t even good enough to be a boat anchor. 135bhp for all that car!!!
The 77-79 got the 425 with the THM400. The only redeeming features of the car, IMHO. The 80-81 got the 368 and the 4.1 started with the 82 models. You are right about those.
You’re right, My ’79 had the 425. As far as the “4.1”, If I recall in the early eighties there were 2 “4.1”s a Buick V6 and the infamous HT-4100 V8.
I agree with the Rolls Royce in this article. It’s not good looking to say the least.
-2011-2014 Mustang
A car who literally owes all of it’s cred to it’s engines – note I left the visibly identical 2010 out – In 2010 everyone saw that lumpy restyle for the plasticy mess with weird taillights for what it was aesthetically, nobody puts the 2010 Mustang in their favorite list, in fact I knew quite a few 05-09 owners who utterly abhorred them. Once they got a 300 horsepower V6 and a 400 horse V8 for 2011 though? Oh well those were the greatest Mustangs ever all of a sudden, “how dare they change it for 2015!” The retro fans love for that styling I find equally baffling, with the flaring and odd angles on the back they remind me of the 1971-1974 Javelin more than a 67-68 Mustang, but without the quirky AMC charm.
-BMW 2002
Similar to the Mustang, if it wasn’t such a fun car to drive for the time nobody would have it as a desktop background today. The proportions just look odd and unlike the Corvair that served as BMWs inspiration it was tall and blocky. I like those cars for everything except their looks(though ironically I like the look of the hatch version, which most probably find ugly)
-Citroen DS
The “Goddess” isn’t my type I’m sorry to say, not a fan of teeny tiny butts on my gals. I like their quirkiness and I long for a world where a mass produced car with such a far out design like that could succeed, but treating it like a prophet is where I differ. It is just not a car I find so aesthetically pleasing that every subsequent car made between 1955 and the second gen Prius should be judged against for being “forward thinking” or not.
-2010 Kia Optima
I missed the memo on why this is the design that suddenly made Kia awesome. Better than the previous generation? Oh yes! THE gold standard for every competing sedan to follow? What the hell! Ugh that random strip of roof trim on the quarter panels, the clunky greenhouse shape, distracting random cutlines, those little (looking)dimensionless wheels, and the genericized faux Aston Martin fender gills. I just struggle to find the attraction to it, especially once the competition unanimously blew(blows) it away in later years.
– Ferrari Enzo and every single “supercar” made since.
-F1 cars are not attractive, and adapting F1 like traits to an enclosed 2 seat streetcar has predictably worse results… But inexplicably it took and the rest of Ferrari’s lineup(including the lauded 458) as well as most of the big names have adopted that look in some way shape or form on their current products, others have tried topping it with ever weirder designs themselves
I totally agree with you on the Citroën DS… Too weird for me, yet is is somehow supposed to be the most beautiful car ever. Yeah, it looks like something you’d see on a rerun of “The Mentalist”… Oh wait…. ;o)
As to the Retro-Stangs… Agree completely on the 2010 thru 2012… Other than the bump up of the belt line on its haunches, I just don’t care for it (ssshhh… don’t tell my friend Sylvia – hers is a ’12)… But I love my ’07, and I like my Dad’s 2014… I think the second refresh was a pretty nice looking car. I’m still on the fence about the ’15 and up… Waiting to see that one’s refresh before I decide.
Add me to the list on the DS. I have always found them to be just too weird.
Also, I agree on the 2010 and up Stang, but think the ’13 and ’14 Mustang is an improvement. The rear of the ’10 reminds me of a Neon and I don’t like the way they rounded everything off. As to the ’15 and ’16, I just can’t warm up to it, too much, for one thing, of a big Camaro butt. Yep, I don’t like the Camaro either. If something happens to my ’09 I am afraid that I will have to find a nice, clean ‘2005-‘2009 used one to replace it.
I also agree with XR7 Matt on the super cars. Ugly, Ugly, Ugly.
Totally agree that the DS and pretty much all “super cars” are butt ugly.
The Dodge Charger, I have always been amazed when they revive a classic model and then butcher it. I’m not saying that all revival have to be “retro” (see above comments about camaro) but I have serious issues with a 4 door charger. It just offends my senses. Not a big fan of the challenger or camaro either, but at least you can see the “heritage” coming through in the poor attempt at retro styling. The charger might be a fine automobile under the hood, that is if you are looking for a hot rod grocery getter and family truckster. It kind of reminds me when I was away at college and my father called and told me he bought a chevy nova. This was in the mid 80’s so I was super excited
to come home and find a really cool late 60’s early 70’s nova sitting in the driveway. Boy was I surprised to see the 1986 4 door Nova in the driveway…I immediately had him drug tested as it was one of the most offensive revivals I have ever seen.
What’s wrong with a slightly softened up Corolla hatchback? A far better car than any of the terrible generations of real GM Novas.
I had one… the worst car I ever owned. Just a miserable excuse for a car and it brought about my continuing hatred for Corollas.
The “retro Camaros”.
By the way, I was ready to hate the Chrysler 300 until someone pointed out how much it looks like the Rover P5; now I cannot bring myself to dislike it.
The 1958 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz (for proof, see below),
At least I think others found it attractive. Even at the time my 14 year old eyes thought the 1958 Oldmobiles and Pontiacs were beautiful cars, the Eldorado Biarritz was trying too too hard to be so so, what’s the right word here, schmaltzy.
This was exceeded IMHO only by the 1970s and early 1980s Stutz Blackhawk
The Stutz Blackhawk. No need to say more.
I wouldn’t call the Blackhawk beautiful. I like the design, but I like it as a monument to bad taste and excess. A so bad it’s good design if you will.
That Eldorado looks (and always looked) like two different cars spliced together: 1) the front end and interior of a 1958 Cadillac, any series; and 2) a rejected styling study for a 1958 Mercury, with the vertical chrome “gills” from a 1942 Fleetwood. As baroque as the other 1958 Cadillacs could look, at least one knew they were Cadillacs (and I have no love for the 1958 Fleetwood!). The Eldorado? They tried too hard, and the parts of the car look like graft-versus-host.
Looks better as a H/T coupe, I think.
Citroëns!
I have always hated the ID/DS.
They hurt my eyes.
For me, the 1993-2002 Toyota Supra ranks high on the list. I know that lots of the love was for that incredible turbo engine and the audacious wing, but in general, the styling of the car has always left me cold. The greenhouse looks tiny from some angles (though the current Mustang also has that problem), big blobby headlights, a lack of fine detail, and that very same wing. Just too much. And then the fact that about 95% of the remaining ones are modified just makes it worse, as such mods nearly never improve on the original.
I prefer the two prior generations of Supra.
I’d tend to agree with that. The A80 is one of those designs that seems like it should be good-looking, but none of the details are especially pleasing and they don’t really go together well. It seems like it started off as a nice sketch that didn’t turn out as well.
I understand the consternation about the wing. Without it, the tail doesn’t look quite finished (I thought the first Infiniti M35 coupe pulled off a similar effect more successfully), but the wing is so big and so exaggerated that it feels kind of silly.
Any retro styled cars: Camaro, Mustang, Challenger, etc. In fact I like the originals less now.
1974-76 Ford Gran Torino with the fender skirts.
+1
I never could figure out what they were thinking. Skirts had been out for about a decade or more by then. Well, except for some boats like Caddys , Buicks and Olds. and the Mercury Marquis.
TIL that the Gran Torino (and the Elite, too?) was available with fender skirts. I mean, I should have guessed.
Mercedes CLA. Take a Golf-competitor hatch not sold on North America, slap an ugly trunk on it, call it a “coupe”, and watch the suckers flock to this “luxury” car like flies! Who cares if it looks like a Hyundai Elantra – introduced three years earlier?
The rear end of the latest Corvettes are a train wreck IMO and the front view isn’t much better. I have yet to warm up to the Cadillac “snow plow” look front ends. And the same goes for Buicks hideous grilles.
Buick is a China market marque now. GM doesn’t much care what we think about those grilles.
I’ve gotten to like the Buick grille more than the Opel ones that were the original most Buicks. But the Avenir is introducing a more Opel-like horizontal bar with the round emblem in the middle.
That always cracks me up, Avenir is a upscale Nissan Sentra/Pulsar.
Have to agree on the Corvette. I think they were going for the Lambo look but didn’t have the budget for a (rear) mid-engined car so they said lets make it look like the engine is in the back like the Lamborghini. WRONG!
I never liked BMWs up through the 80’s. They look like cheap economy cars to me.
I agree. To me, they’re alright, but they’re not a luxury car. The styling looks as bland as a K-Car does IMHO
To me that generation always looked like a smoothed-off E70 Corolla.
And the E70 at least came as a hardtop or a fairly sporty three-door coupe.
Ugh, the E30. Makes me want to grab the design chief by the lapels, shake him and scream in his face “You are setting the pattern for the aspirational compact car for the next 30 years. MAKE. IT. LOOK. LIKE. *SOMETHING*!! Oh, and it MUST be a hatchback!”
Chrysler 300 is too bulky but still manageable. It inspired Lincoln MKS and Cadillac XTS, and both of them look pretty bad.
And eventually the beltlines were lowered on Chrysler LX cars.
The proportion of the Malibu is pretty bad, but it’s roomy. The next generation of Malibu is sleek but cramped inside. Looks like they eventually make a roomy and sleep Malibu this time.
Anything made by Lexus is… eh, with their weird “stretched out skin” styling as of late.
Bentley Bentayga is absolutely gross in so many ways.
And I never really got on with the visuals of V8 mid engined Ferraris after the 3289GTB, until the 458 Italia
These jumbo-grilled Fusions have never looked good to me. I liked the previous generation a lot better. And the rear is underdone.
I must agree with you completely. I find the current Fusion as ugly as sin. The front does nothing for me but the mass of cutlines on the rear of the car I find inexcusable.
1961- Chryslers with the diagonally mounted headlamps. When I was in first grade 1974, my walk to school included passing a curbside parked, very tired looking 1961 New Yorker. It never moved. I remember being literally terrified by its VERY SCARY face…..to my 7 year old mind, it was a monster, and I HATED it!
Actually, the 1962 Chrysler, that has that same front end as the 61 w/o fins is one of my all time fave designs! Now, a scarier “face” is on the front of the sinister 61 Plymouth!
I’m with you on the ’61, but does anyone regard it as attractive?
Richard Carpenter.
I do. Especially the 300-F.
I find the ’61 attractive, but I know my tastes run to the odd sometimes. There is a slightly rough ’61 sedan sitting on four flat tires in a parking lot near downtown Richmond that I keep wanting to ask about, except that another project is the last thing I need.
But the original 1960 per-facelift face was awesome.
Agreed!
Beautiful cars.
60 Chrysler in baby blue
61 in black, esp convertible
62 in red
Thank you for this entry! I have wondered for so long now why, oh why, has Chrysler continued this same boxy outdated body design now for over 10 years. And even more of a mystery as you’ve said, is why nearly every auto mag article continues to praise this car for its for its looks, performance and innovations. It has gotten few refinements since its inception, and looks so very much outdated. I sat in one once and I Thought that the driving position wasn’t made for humans. Guess I should made a judgment like this until I drive one (not likely).
How about a redesign, Chrysler ?
I drive a 1st Generation LX 300 for work and own a 2nd Generation 300 as my daily driver. Yeah, I know they are the same LX platform, but to me they are almost night and day. The Pentastar is a huge improvement over the older 3.5 (let alone the 2.7 some were saddled with, the interior materials are a thousand times better in the 2nd (especially the Cs), the Uconnect system in the 2nd gen is much better than anything the 1sts have.
As to the cars is general, I’m about 6’3″ and ~250lbs. I have no problem finding multiple seating settings that are completely agreeable to me, with plenty of headroom. Plus, all of the have just about the least offensive console out of all its peers-of any level.
Chrysler 300 for sure. Hideous!
All Chevrolet pickups with the double stacked fronts. I guess some people must think they are attractive because they have sold millions of them but I think they are hideous. Its like the original designer of this unique feature couldn’t think of anything else to fill in the vast blank space and figured the easiest way would be to just add another identical grille and set of headlights.
Someone must like it but to me it just gives me the effect as having double vision in the same way some people can’t stand to look at the front cover of the Pink Floyd Relics LP with the Mayan/ Aztec figurine
I have friends that are die hard Chevy guys who have got to Ram and Ford because of the front end of those Chevys.
A lot of people are fond of the GMT-400 trucks, but to me they always looked like “Lets take a Celebrity and drop another Celebrity on top of it”
It was the Sheer Look applied to a truck. But you never hear praises of the Celebrity, but the double-tall Celebrity-styled pickup still receives tons of praise.
I don’t find the Chrysler 300 attractive, but it certainly looks like it means business in a intimidating and imposing manner. Those cars, especially in black, impresses me as a gangster car……with the Peter Gunn theme playing in the background.
Regarding the Rolls Royce: When the current Phantom first appeared my first reaction was something “Germanic” looking and “cold and sinister” in stark contrast to the “warmth, elegance and grace” of the British style of previous version. I didn’t know at the time the automotive division of Rolls Royce (along with Bentley) had become German-owned….which explains the Germanic influence. (Winston Churchill and the heroes of the Battle of Britain must be spinning in their graves.)
Have to say today’s car designs with their gaping fish mouth grille and squinty sinister headlights are hideous. What are today’s auto stylists thinking?
Aww… I like the Rolls.
Newer Honda/Acura products, they just don’t sit right with me. Most supercars, they look too fussy and wild.
That’s easy. The current Mazda lineup thanks to that nasty looking schnoz
Ferrari Enzo. A mishmash of styling themes. Ok for functionality but some folks claim its a good looking car. It ain’t.
The F40 got the balance between brutal and beauty right. The F50 lost the plot a bit. Enzo even more so.
I wonder how much of the Mary Kay products the owner of that car had to sell to earn a Ferrari? Usually a Mary Kay pink car is something a little more pedestrian. LOL
Full agreement with you there–I’ve never liked the Enzo. Too much “enclosed F1 car” for me, plus a number of odd details. Yes, it looks like a streetgoing version of a race car, but that doesn’t make it attractive.
The F40 nailed it–gorgeous car.
I have to confess I’ve never much loved the Avanti. The interior is nice, but the exterior strikes me as awkwardly proportioned and oddly finished. The few interesting surface details (like the off-center hood bulge) seem like self-conscious gimmicks. I tend to like designs with strong draftsmanship and a lot of attention to the placement of visual detai — not over-detailing, which just gets tiresome, but ensuring that the elements are all placed harmoniously and that the way each detail fits into the overall design is pleasing to the eye. The Avanti exterior doesn’t do that. Granted, if it had had the benefit of a more normal development cycle, it might have come out a little less gawky, but it doesn’t do much for me.
Likewise the 1953 Studebaker Starlight/Starliner coupe. It looks different from the 1953 run of the mill, that’s for sure, and better than the sedans, but it’s always looked like a koi to me and I don’t consider that a plus.
Oh, and I suppose I can’t resist a dig at possibly my least favorite automotive design: the 1968–1974 Chevrolet Nova coupe. There are cars that are objectively uglier, but they’re at least novel or interesting. That vintage two-door Nova is clumsy-looking from every angle in a way that’s just boorish. (The facelifted late-70s sedan is a much better treatment of I think the same basic shell.)
+1 Avanti, +1 Nova, -1 Starliner in its original form.
Aaron, THANK YOU for mentioning the Avanti!
For me, it’s the wheel openings that come off as gimmicky, and to my eyes they seem to play some factor in the awkward proportions. Also awkward is the leading edge of the front fenders; to my eyes, the abrupt transition to the flat, grille-less face seems clumsy, at best.
On the other hand, in side view – wheel openings excepted – there is a taut, athletic quality that is almost graceful. Unfortunately, the whole design doesn’t quite measure up to the sum of its parts.
Have to disagree. I always thought the Avanti was pretty cool in its original form. A less flat, more sloped windshield even with the same A pillars would have been better though. No idea why it’s so flat and relatively upright for a sporty car, and in 1963.
Production convenience and cost, undoubtedly.
No, the original Loewy design had a more sloped windshield. Sherwood Egbert made him change it so there’d be room for tall people like himself to be comfortable. I agree it hurt the proportions.
The Avanti looks malproportioned from some angles but stunning from others. A rear-3/4 view might look the best. Very ahead of the times with the smooth Coke-bottle contours, lower roof, and long hood/short deck layout. The only element that always irks me are the cheap-looking painted 1953 hubcaps and thin tires. Tne interior was a stunner, and again looks newer than it is.
I recall reading somewhere that the original prototype had a more raked windshield, but when Sherwood Egbert went to sit in the vehicle he cracked his head on the windshield pillar. Hence the rather upright windshield on the Avanti which is in my opinion the only flaw in the car’s styling.
Agree with everyone on the Avanti. Some nice elements but not the beauty it’s made out to be, in my eyes. And the bug-eyed headlights and odd proportions are the real deal-killers. I don’t know why the design was idolized so much that 3rd parties kept making the same basic body for decades…
I don’t know why third parties kept making the same basic body, either, but speaking of copies, there’s something else about the Avanti that is a mystery: Most successful designs seem to get cribbed at some point by another manufacturer; maybe not the entire design, but at least certain elements will show up on another vehicle, and they’re obviously derivative.
To save my life – and please let me know if I’m wrong – I can’t think of a single design from another automaker that would cause one to think, “Ah, that roofline/beltline/fascia obviously looks to have been inspired by the Avanti!”
Well, the Avanti’s post-Studebaker survival had a lot to do with having a fiberglass body that could, at least notionally, be produced in small numbers more or less indefinitely, which wouldn’t have been possible with a steel-bodied car. Later production never topped something like 100 a year, and there are obviously people who love the design, so…
Jensen Interceptor. People say its roofline was inspired by the Barracuda because of the huge expanse of back glass, but if you look at the C-pillar, I see much more Avanti in it.
I agree about the Avanti, that was a car I was always sort of encouraged to like by the influential car people in my life, but I just never took. The Starlight, I may be in the deep minority with, but I always thought it looked better in Hawk form with the big grille and fins(preferably the smaller 56 ones). The neoclassical elements of that front end really played to it’s neoclassical proportions due to it’s long wheelbase. The wheelbase looks far too long on the older cleaner Starlights.
The Nova, I think the basic 2 door shape is attractive, but it looks like a design meant for a ponycar on the Barracuda end of the spectrum, a Camaro design reject, that inexplicably turned into the division’s economy car. A lot of it’s bottom feeder details that came with it – plain front end, framed side windows, plain rear ect. – do it in.
The Avanti’s windshield is too vertically-oriented…if it had been laid back at a more extreme angle the whole thing would look better. The Avanti II was even worse because the hood and fenders were taller to make room for the GM engine.
What an amazing interior, though…the dash and seats are excellent!
The Avanti is so appropriate for 1963 Palm Springs, CA, and is a fish out of water in any other environment. The quirky P.S. architecture of the time framed the Avanti so well, but in any other setting the car just looks weird. On the other hand, those old Palm Springs homes just look wrong with a new Subaru parked out front, too.
Pontiac Aztek GT.
But the question went to cars commonly regarded as attractive.
Everything built in the last fifteen years is friggin’ ugly.
The styling cues are taken from either Japanese anime cartoons or insect larvae.
…..and greyscale anime at that!
I always thought of bizarre undersea creatures, so this helps. Those new Toyotas are simply awful. Even worse, GM seems to trying to copy (Volt, Corvette).
Another car that I’ve never understood the attraction of is the 1961-65 Lincoln Continental , they looked rather bland to me and always found the styling of the Ford and Mercury’s of the same period to be better looking than these Lincoln’s, IMO the 1966 restyle of the Lincoln was everything I’ve wished the 1961 would be.
Nooooooooooo.
Granted, but I think the point of the simple, clean design for ’61 was purposely to get away from the garishness of the late 50’s over-exuberant designs. In that sense it worked, although as you stated the ’66 is smoother….
Avantis
+1
Nissan 350Z. The roofline is all wrong and the whole car ends up looking fat and bulbous.
In tne Nissan stable, Z is the Supermodel!
My list is long of answers to this question.
• Pretty much anything and everything done by Giugiaro/Italdesign. No matter the brand—Alfa Romeo, Brilliance, Daewoo, Fiat, Hyundai, VW, or whoever—it all looks the same to me, all equally ugly.
• Same goes for Bertone, another one-trick pony trading on the well-marketed horsepucky about how Italian cars are inherently sexy and beautiful and awesome.
• And for that matter, I have yet to see a Ferrari or Lamborghini or Maserati I could describe as attractive. Same goes for the De Tomaso, the Citroën SM, and all the other Italians-were-involved cars I can think of with the exception of the Chrysler Turbine Car and a small few other Ghia prototypes of that timeframe.
• Pretty much all the Chrysler offerings for the last what, fifteen years or so have comicbook styling apparently designed to appeal to 7th graders (of all ages) flunking everything except Smoking Area. The E-body Challenger/Barracuda was a stupid-looking car from any angle in the 1970s, and the same is true today.
• I don’t find anything attractive about the Camaro or Corvette (new or old) or the Mustang (new or old).
• All those might-as-well-be-identical little English, um, “cars” (Triumphs, MGs, Sunbeams, etc etc)
• Audi TT.
• Anything of any age that has the trailing end of the beltline upswept to meet the forward angle of the aft pillar. Yuuuuuck! No matter what brand or how fancy the car, this treatment makes it look cheap and ugly. Three examples (of far too many) in the attached photo.
• Most cars made in the last two decades, as “Robert” posted above. They look as though they’ve been through some giant animal’s digestive tract. I could point out the specificities of each brand’s turdlike design, but just take it as read.
So, what you’re saying is that you’re a curmudgeon that hates anything with four wheels made after the war.
Get off my lawn!
This comment system is lacking stars or thumbs ups. Thumbs up!
That’s a blessing…no thanks on the “likes” and the “thumbs up”.
+1
Well, no, that’s what you read, not (at all) what I said. But thanks for the chuckle!
Is there anything left over, Dan? Fuselage? Colonade? 1st generation Ford Taurus?
‘Scuze me: the question is which cars commonly regarded as attractive I find ugly. My answer was not complete, but neither was it anywhere close to all-encompassing. An enormous lot of vehicles don’t fall under one of my nine points. If you can’t think of any of them, the failure is on your end.
Some people have already listed some cars above, so I won’t list those. But as for my list, hoo boy, this’ll get ugly.
Jaguar E-Type: I will concede that the roadster version is better detailed and proportioned, but the coupe? No. The hood is too long, the ass is too stubby, the whole thing looks too phallic (indicative of the customer clientle who bought it I suspect) and it’s vastly overrated. Most beautiful car ever my left foot.
Fisker Karma: From the sloping roofline that looks like it was made for Oompa-Loompas, to a demonic front end that reminds me too much of Jack Nicholson’s Joker, this car remains a dud for me. I can’t believe the same man that gave us the DB9 gave us that as well.
1970-73 Camaro: The overall body is alright, if a little boring, the front end kills me. The front end has a massive beak and bug eyes that make it look like a cartoon character, and it doesn’t mesh at all with the rest of the car.
Lexus LFA: The world’s most refrigerator looking supercar. About as sexy as a sharp microwave.
Datsun 240Z: Apply the same problems I have with the E-Type to this car as well.
FD Mazda RX7: Some people say this was an absolutely gorgeous car for the 90s, I say it looks like Mazda left it in a toaster oven for too long and it started to melt.
Porsche 911: All versions, as a firearms enthusiast, I’ve often said that 911s are the Glocks of the car world. That extends to the looks as well, which are quite frankly hideous.
Volvo P1800ES: Never got it, there was just a lot of design details that looked out of place and awkward. It was like Volvo’s Avanti, except I never liked the Avanti either.
All station wagons: This will rustle up the jimmies real good. I will concede that station wagons are very practical cars. But they represent function over form, I never thought they looked beautiful or cool compared to the regular sedan or coupe versions.
Bugatti Type 57 Atlantic: It looks like a bug, and I want to squish it bad.
Ford Fusion: I find it so pretentious to look at, especially the faux Aston Martin grille that thinks it’s classier than it is. It’s like that greasy guy wearing an Armani suit, you’re not fooling anyone dude.
Fourth Gen Camaro: Can you say Catfish?
Fourth Gen Firebird: Can you say wheelie bin?
Mazda Miata: Never got it, never will.
59 Cadillac: The ultimate in 50s excess and bad design choices. Anyone who tells you that the 70s where the decade taste forgot, look at this monstrosity and tell me otherwise. Same goes for pretty much everything else of that model year.
That’s about all I can think of really. Man that felt good to get out.
Quick Edit: The F50 as well. If this is what Ferrari made to celebrate the company’s anniversary, I hope they kept the receipt.
All station wagons? Remove your prejudices and just look at this.
(I’m not sure if the new one quite does it like this outgoing model).
Any Countach. But, I might be allowing the word “beautiful” to slip in where it doesn’t belong. Perhaps it was never really meant to be applied to those Lambos. ‘Stunning” or “striking” was all they needed to be. Hyper-masculine cars, as a species, always look silly to me. Arguably, the original Countach was the inspiration for all the hentai, cyborg shapes that followed it. The Chrysler 300 might be a generational thing for some of us. We spent our childhoods yearning for at least one of those Exner dream cars from the early ’50s to be offered in production versions, and, when it finally happened, we went nuts. Now, I can see the shortcomings of the design, but I’m still glad they satisfied that jones for me.
I have to mention a particular theme that I”ve always been uncomfortable with, even though it appears on cars that are considered classics. The underturned bodysides on D-type and E-type jaguars somehow bother me. They appear to be designs for boat hulls that were scooped out on the corners as at the last minute to make land vehicles.
That’s because they are, sort of – the D-Type’s shape was calculated to be aerodynamically efficient; wheels are obviously a disturbance with which they had to live.
Any of the current bloated 4 door pickups with short beds. Reminds me of a horse wearing 2 saddles. Four doors on a Corvette or Mustang would be sacrilege but it’s become normal on trucks.
CAFE regulations are largely responsible for these, and while I understand that they’ve effectively replaced body-on-frame vehicles for passenger capacity and towing, I don’t see a great deal of utility in a five-foot bed.
I don’t propose that we should fight regulations with regulations, but in my world anything labeled as a “pickup truck” should be able to hold an eight-foot piece of lumber, without having it extend beyond the rearmost edge of the lowered tailgate. But I don’t deign to speak for all buyers, and obviously the market is speaking louder than I am.
Crew cab pickups are some of the most versatile family vehicles ever made. That’s not because of CAFE in my opinion, it’s because of improvements in the comfort, refinement, economy, and performance of trucks, as well as the need for both parents to be able to haul kids around in carseats. Few people haul 8′ lumber on a regular basis.
As far as looks go, yeah they have gotten bloated. I’m not a fan of the huge front ends.
“Few people haul 8′ lumber on a regular basis.”
My apology; I probably should have placed more emphasis on the phrase, “in my world” that was in my post.
Everyone is not as avid of a DIYer and gardener as I am, nor do they have the means, space and desire to own multiple vehicles (and no longer have a need to place small children in the back seat). God help me if I ever sound like the guys who can’t understand that their vehicle preferences aren’t shared by all. ?
Like others, I could come up with a long list as well.
Since nobody else mentions it, I’ll mention the Isuzu Impulse “designed” by Giugiaro, For me it’s just a featureless bar of soap that I’ve never been fond of in spite of 30+ years to change my mind.
I’m not crazy about the Chrysler 300, or the retro pony cars; I’d sooner drive a ’92 Buick Skylark coupe; but the 2008-2012 Malibu still looks sharp to me.
The Chrysler 300 has always reminded me of a Rover P5, not a car I find particularly attractive either.
I always link these two as well. Not an accident, I suspect
Muscular British design. The P5B is menacing.
(Restyle Wheels were sooooo popular)
Looking at the greenhouse of the P5, I see a little bit of 1955 MoPar?!? Could be the beer….
While I’d still own one, I’m with JPC on the ’77 (and ’78/’79) downsized Cadillac. I am a huge big GM fan but these weren’t quite a fully-realized design in my view. If only they had made the ’80 with the 425.
On that topic, the general statement that the ’77+ look better than their bigger predecessors. The ’71-’76 are huge, but I think they have loads of style, not ‘bloat’ which I feel better describes the Bubble GM cars of ’91-’96.
The ’86 Taurus. I thought the Fox LTD looked worlds better. Gen 2 was somewhat of an improvement but this was a revolution in design I did not welcome.
Most any BMW. Yawn.
Last but not least: The ’61-’65 Continental. Blah. I prefer the All American Cheesecake Look of the ’58, ’63 and ’64 Cadillac (I think the ’59 was cool but is so cliche at this point)
1974 Cadillac, I always felt the rounded headlights didn’t look right on these cars, I always felt the squared headlights on the 1975-76 Cadillac’s were an improvement over the 1974’s
The gaping grille of the ’56 Olds was meant to simulate a jet turbine intake ….. but after 60 years I still can’t bring myself to look at either its front or rear.
The 98 is not quite as abrasive as the 88’s, probably due to it’s longer wheelbase. But the 88’s are awful.
I’m a confirmed Olds guy, having grown up with 98’s, Cutlasses. and even an Omega.
But 1956 was an aberration of aberrations !
Well, it was a facelift without any sheetmetal changes of the original ’55. The loop bumper was I suppose supposed to be more integrated and modern, but misses the delicacy and detail of the original.
You got that right, MJ.
The ’55’s were terrific.
Since we’re only talking about design and not engineering, I’ll take these two:
88-92 VW Passat B3. I didn’t find the B2 really interesting, but the B3’s long and aerodynamic nose… hmmm. Not nice to my eyes
I also never liked the 86-91 Audi 80 (B3), which I’m sure many CC readers like. There’s something with the proportions of these cars I don’t like, their noses are somehow long, but it’s not only that (there are other long-nosed cars I find appealing). And the interiors of both aren’t doing better for my taste either… which is strange since both were praised for that. But I think both can be considered as cars commonly regarded as attractive I find ugly.
I believe the Cadillac Arts and Science design language is commonly considered attractive. I must be an uncommon guy because I could never find anything attractive about it.
I’ve been complaining about it for years!
I missed out on the Cadillac “A&S” discussion., Then too, I purposely missed out on the Art & Science era, and stopped paying attention to Cadillac. Sad, as I’m a Buick and Cadillac (real ones,anyway..) And I’m now of a maturity that they should be attracting me. They’re not. (at least the over the top Buick grilles are trying to be a 1950, er, I guess… But the car that comes closest (2 me, YMMV…) to a Cadillac (or at least a Buick) is the Chrysler 300.
Hmmm… I really had to think about this one.
Dodge Challenger. The beancounters got to it and the styling never appears quite finished. I say the same thing about the 2008 Malibu. Look at the rear – it’s missing a lot of something, like details.
8th and final gen Riviera – fish face
4th gen Camaro convertible – wait, that’s not a Sebring?
6th gen Camaro – 5th gen meets the crusher for 10 seconds
1st gen Aurora – am I the only one seeing similarities to the 1996 Taurus?
C5 Corvette – an NSX rip-off
Lamborghini Diablo – a curvy Countach, which is to say a curvy take on an already hideous boxy car
Mercedes W123 – I just don’t get the hype. A boring, bland looking car from any angle.
Mercedes W140 – a hideous bloated tank riding on tiny toy wheels
Cadillac Escalade – the epitome of class… especially the one with the goalpost taillights
Lincoln LS – a bland, anonymous looking thing that apparently was intended as the replacement for the Mark series
any MKZ – Lincoln Fusion with gimmicky nose and taillights
BMW 850 – Mater face
BMW i8 – is it aggressive or sad?
CTS coupe – Batmobile
the original LS400 – a bland boring looking tank with a period-correct Euro-wannabe thick stack of taillights
I could probably think of more…
What’s wrong with Mater’s face!?!?!?!?!?
The BMW i8 – How could I forget!
That is a heinously ugly car, one that also gets inexplicable praise from critics. The proportions are awful, like mid 80s stubby E-Body GM awful, the styling is an overwrought blend of terrible angles that don’t compliment one another and the paint, that heinous roofline that’s being emulated from everything from the latest Maxima to the latest Lexus RX, oh and and trim with the goofy blue and black inserts make it look like a stupid basketball shoe.
The BMW i8 is totally stunning in person, modern cars don’t photograph well it seems….
Nope, I’ve seen a few in person already, I actually disliked it even more once I saw how shadows from the wrong light hit it. Black is better, but anything can look better in that color.
Good list. The 850 always looked like a Ford Probe to me.
1959 Ford Custom 300/Fairlane/Galaxie. Uglyuglyuglyugly cars.
With the possible exception of some full-size monstrosities from the early ’60s, I find very few vehicles to be downright ugly – perhaps plain, perhaps some awkward details or odd proportions. In addition to my agreement on the Avanti (see above), a few others in this category come to mind:
I never saw the appeal of the first-generation (’63 to ’65) Buick Riviera. It’s elegant, it’s beautifully put together…and comes across to me as no more attractive than a LeSabre.
The C3 Corvette (’68 to ’82) leaves me cold, but I’d have likely given my eye teeth for one in high school, which was near the end of the run for this generation. I find them clumsy, overstyled and bulky in some details. For a sports car – which should be efficient – these are horribly inefficient in space utilization.
Even though I’ve owned two of them, the original Fox-platform Mustang (third generation, ’79 to ’93). I lusted after these when they were first introduced, and received a new 1980 Ghia on my 16th birthday. Then Ford introduced a taller, narrower version of the styling with the US-market Escort, and later, the EXP – and suddenly, the Mustang’s clean, almost European styling didn’t seem all that sexy anymore.
Almost any mid-late ’50s GM passenger car EXCEPT the ’55 (and maybe ’56) Chevys.
Mid and late (’59 on) GM cars are two very different things, and both are good and bad in different ways.
C’mon man, what’s not to like?
Yeah, it was too late to edit before I remembered that change of direction. I’m talking maybe ’53-4 to ’58.
“The Judge”. I never knew why anyone liked them.
They didn’t look as good as the other cars on the same platform. Kinda like they forgot the finishing touches.
And when you add the goofy stripes it looks like an overgrown hot wheels.
This is a very glamorous photo of what I think is about the worst and just unacceptably badly styled modern car. People buy them, so I guess they don’t think so. And the front has of course the terrible what-were-they-thinking “spindle” grille.
Lexus CT200h
Too bad the Sport Wagon trend didn’t really take off until after they stopped making the original SportCross…a much better looking car, a couple years ahead of its time…
I love the looks of almost every current Lexus but the CT leaves me cold. Mazda shows with the new 3 hatchback how to design an upscale-looking hatchback. The CT isn’t ugly in my eyes but it’s just… awkward and dumpy.
VW Karmann Ghia. It’s dopey and stodgy looking. Looks like what old Aunt Sylvia would come up with if asked to draw a sports car. I always wondered if I would grow to like its looks, as I have with the somewhat contemporaneous Volvo P1800. Nope.
One car that comes to mind is the Alfa Romeo Milano (75). They may be great driver cars but visually jarring. I don’t know which one came first the Milano or the Volvo 700 series sedan. I happen to like the Volvo much better. The other day I was asked to steer a Milano while the owner and his friends push it. When it came time to stop the brake pedal went to the floor so I am desperately looking for the e-brake and I don’t see it. It turns out that the e-brake handle is shaped like those GM gear selectors from the 70s often seen in Camaros, and the brilliant designers decided to integrate the handle as part of the center arm rest, on its off position. Que estupido!
Unless I missed the comment I can’t believe no one mentioned the Nissan Murano. In my eyes it looks like the top of the car and the bottom were designed by separate committees and then slapped together. It pegs the hideosity meter for me. The convertible version is even worse.
You’ve got a good point. I’ve never felt so cramped in a vehicle as one of these. Sit in the back seat and see how claustrophobic it is. Cave man special.
Seems like the 300 is the winner. A lot of people seem to like them, but not me. It’s not that I particularly dislike the high-beltline, chopped-top ‘slammed/gangsta’ look (I actually like old hotrods like the chopped ’49 Mercury in American Graffiti). The 300, with it’s huge wheels, just seems so much like an affected poseur. Plus, every time I see a black, SRT version, I can’t help but think of Walter White from Breaking Bad.
In the same vein, can’t say I’ve ever been a big fan of the pimped-out Escalade, either.
Maseratis are apparently desirable but when I see a four door it reminds me of a late 2000s pre-Opelized Buick, and the coupes remind me of the last gen Monte Carlo. So, yeah, Maserati somehow in my head equates to pre-bankruptcy GM.
Each and every Porsche ever made, except the 928 and Janis Joplin’s 356.
2004 bmw 730. What was chris bangle doing with that back end.
The new mustang ahghh it’s so bloated and from the sides looks like a slightly muscular bathtub and I can’t stand looking at it. The front end is as flat as a wall and the rear Looks like it came off a 8 year olds glue bomb Revell model kit. I due however think the interior looks fantastic but that’s a small upside in a vehical full of cosmetic downsides. I may be ranting a little but good lord do I hate the look of the new Stang.
+1! Although the new Camaro is even worse (I guess GM’s next step will be to stuff the car with enough videocameras to make any greenhouse optional).
Mercedes M Class of any year. Yech,
This particular thread has the Most (I Totally Agree with) comments I’ve ever read. Though it’s not really a “car”, how did the Range Rover ever be considered nice-looking? (especially the mid-80’s) Same actually goes for just about anything/any-year by Land Rover. I realize their off-road capabilities are top-notch, however, their Lego-like looks and plasticy interiors are HIDEOUS!! . I’ve driven them too, they are smooth, but there’s no real feedback from them, and their high-CG feels dangerous. They belong in Safari environments where only animals have to look at them.
Second-generation Mitsubishi Eclipse. I do NOT see the visual appeal. I could make similar comments about the contemporary Toyota Supra: it’s just blobby and misshaped. I think every other generation of Eclipse is better-looking.
Last generation Hyundai Sonata. A modern version of the 58 Oldsmobile. Heinous lines and proportions and the critics couldn’t pile enough platitudes on it. It will look even worse in 10 years’
08 Malibu is such a waste of space. Those tail lights are so …. dumb. It is as bad as the 300 with it’s short side windows. Screams dumpy to me. NOT a pinnacle of style.
Also agree about the Supra. And especially the last generation Celica.
The original Mustang. Cute and tacky, but not beautiful: awkward grille opening and surround, kicked in the rump tail. And Ford just made it worse in later years.
There was an article in MT around the time the 73s came out deconstructing the Mustang’s so called styling “legacy”. It confirmed my instincts that the styling was questionable in so many ways. I wasn’t the only one.
The 67 Falcon did it all better.
Any Escalade.
Agree on the Sonata. “Wild for the market” never ages well.
Disagree on the Mustang. Yes on the Falcon having more room etc, but the Mustang was sporty yet could be bought by a whole slew of the market. Now the 71-73 fat Mustangs were egregious IMO. Of course I’m a Mustand II fan, so….
Also disagree on the Land Rovers – they have the same appeal as Volvo wagons and first gen Caravans to me – give me space and make it square. I’m a huge Trooper fan, which was a knock off of the Land Cruiser, which was a knock off of the Range Rover.
The first Mustang is much more than the sum of its parts, because all the various elements don’t have much to do with each other, yet in total, it works well. I think the long nose/short deck and the nice semi-circular wheel cut-outs with the small flares cover for a lot of the other stuff going on there.
Honda Civic:
My 92 y/o Dad had an ’07 Plain-Jane, Silv w the cheapo factory hub-caps. I took it to a car wash and these 2 girls in their early 20’s told me it was a nice car. I thought they were joking at first as I had Never seen it as such. Guess the younger generation has a Completely different taste than we did at their age. Seems to me that most Every modern 4-door sedan looks almost EXACTLY the same from the side, the only differences being front-ends and back-ends,,,,,, guess the importance of aerodynamics dictates this, but it still seems that nobody actually Designs cars with the distinct personalities they used to have,,,, and what’s up with only having a couple of choices of interior colors????? i.e. Black, Tan, or Gray,,,,, and what’s-up with Leather being considered luxurious? It’s the worst of All worlds,,,,, Hot in the summer, cold in the winter, slippery, and uncomfortable, I’ll take cloth or velour over that Anytime (especially in a convertible).
As for leather, you left a few things out. Poor durability, and the fact that the upholstery doesn’t conform to your anatomy. I almost bought a 1992 Corvette just because it was the last year for standard cloth upholstery. Leather seating is awful.
Today “leather” is just a way for the manufacturers to upcharge you for vinyl.
The original Taurus/Sable models:
Most Audis
Maybach 57 and 62.
Latest Mercedes-Benz SL (R230 facelift and R231).
Never cared for either the 300 or the 2006-2010 Charger. The worst being the ones with cheap wheels and no side trim with a tall slab of plain sheet metal and tiny gun slit windows. They remind me of chop shop old cars. The original Taurus/Sable were as stated above round bars of blobby soap and really kick started the blandness we have today. Surprise most had boring gray or tan interiors thereafter and that is also sadly common today.
Having archaic non-wrap around headlights is a sin? Then count me a sinner as I am archaic and will go so far as saying I love my headlights that are still glass lenses. Twenty five years later they are still clear and I don’t have to constantly polish to avoid the typical foggy lenses. Now foggy headlights are a real sin.
As much as they “help” stylists and maybe aerodynamics, My first thought when composite lights were “introduced” in the ’80s: “Suddenly, It’s 1939!”
I hate wrap around headlights and taillights. The only reason that they are on most everything is that in one quick operation, all of the lights for that corner of the car can be installed at once on the assembly line.
It’s always puzzled me as to how plastic headlights fogging is not a safety recall item since the headlight throw and spread have to meet federal guidelines. The fogging of course cuts down on both of those requirements.
In 1990, I installed a set of replacement sealed beam rectangular headlights on my 1982 Renault LeCar.
Cost me $15 at Pep Boys; required the use of a Philips-head screwdriver; and took 45 minutes.
It wasn’t much different from replacing a light bulb in a standard D-cell flashlight.
Was 1990 that long ago?
Without a list compiled by some group stating what cars are commonly thought to be attractive I am not sure how to choose. But one car in the late fifties was the Eldorado coupe/convertible and the sedan (1957-1958). The basic Cadillac’s were OK for the tail fin era.
1974 Cadillac full size, I always thought the rounded headlights looked awful with the wraparound lights, luckily Cadillac got smart and replaced them with the better looking rectangular headlights on the 1975-76 models, the 1974 Cadillac is my least favorite of the 1970’s Caddies
Anything current by Lexus or Nissan. They seem to have returned to the world of bizarre Japanese styling of the 1970’s.
I quite like the Chrysler 300, the latest iteration is far nicer than what bowed in 2005.
Forgot to add all generations of Lexus RX’s. SO many people just LOVE those things… I don’t get it. Uglier than even the Aztek, a new definition of ugly. I lose my appetite every time I see one…
The 07-11 Camry is ugly indeed and the 08-12 Accord is borderline with its nearly bloated looks.
The 07-current Tundra looks like 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 pound bag. The Sequoia looks better, but still a bit funny.
Lexus SC400/300. Car mags went nuts for these things when new and even today enthusiast sites still gush over them. But like the last-gen Supra, they just looked fat and blobby to me. No real character, just big and boring. Drove an SC300 with the stick shift once. As boring to drive as it was to look at. Just don’t get these and never will.
+1
The DB11. I just don’t like it, mostly because it looks like a BMW designer tried to do an Aston Martin. The design language that was perfected starting with the DB6, updated with the DB7, and perfected again with the V12 Vanquish and DB9 was mutated and twisted with the DB10 and DB11. I understand why they thought it would be a good idea to update the design, but I also feel like the DB9 was so perfect that they could’ve kept the basic form while upgrading the mechanicals and interior for years to come.
I wasn’t even aware of the existence of that car, but you’re quite right. Aston Martin meets i8. The overall shape is ok but the details are terrible!
Until recently, I hated just about anything Ford made after the original Mustang. The Torino got uglier and uglier. They seemed to have had a lot of problems making fender flares that looked right at all. The weird pasted on plastic ones that STILL looked bad made me laugh. It kind of hit it’s peak of hideousness peak about the time the “melty” F150’s came out. When the next F150 appeared, it seemed like Ford finally had retired the bizarro stylists and finally made some decent looking cars and trucks. While I’m not crazy about all their vehicles, they are the best looking ones in nearly 50 years. The Mustang looks good from the side, but the rear end is horrible, and the front is just too squinty.
I have liked the 300 since the move to RWD, before that, I thought it was really ugly. I like the present one best of them all. Same goes for the Charger.
almost any year Trans Am Firebird. possibly excepting 1970. and the older i get the more cartoon-ish the Viper looks.