I have read opinions about social media (including on social media), including from individuals whose ideas I generally value, about how horrible it is. While there have been some downsides that were unexpected dating back to the time I had first created such an account twenty-plus years ago (remember MySpace and Friendster?), my experiences with social media have been largely positive and life-affirming. Our views of many things are filtered through how we manage our own expectations. I’m not a braggart by nature and I like myself, so I’ve learned not to be triggered by the not-always-accurate portrayals of others’ seemingly perfect lives. I try to keep it real. I’ve said it recently, and I’ll say it again: comparison is the killer of joy.
Social media for me has been one channel through which I’ve been able not only to reconnect with key people from throughout my past, but also to better understand myself, my life’s journey thus far, and the human condition through the shared reality of reliving memories and making new ones with others through those platforms. Even from back when I had been seeing a therapist, my doctor had told me how apparent it was that I had used social media as an effective tool in my own healing.
Doing so also facilitated being able to make peace with who I had been at various points in my life, and to give myself grace for getting through bad situations with only the tools I had at the time. I’ve also been able to make amends with various individuals who I had come to realize had been on the receiving end of ways in which I had learned to act out as I faced my own challenges both internally and at home. To experience the forgiveness of such individuals has been both humbling and a huge blessing, and has made me realize the importance of extending the same to others in my past.
Our minds tend to filter out many of the truly ugly details of our histories. While I do believe in the release of forgiving others, I also recognize the importance of remembering and internalizing lessons learned so as not to be an active participant in repeating unwanted situations. In adulthood, when remembering certain events I had once thought of as deeply traumatic for a significant amount of time, some of them honestly don’t seem that bad – at least compared with other challenges that would later surface as my grown-up life became more complex.
Looking at the Aztek, I asked myself if it really was as bad at the time of its introduction as I had remembered it. Twenty years removed from when our featured Pontiac was new, it is truly difficult to recall the exact way I had felt about its styling, especially at first. The Aztek still regularly lands on many “ugliest” lists from various car sites and magazines I come across. When I had found this example last month, two ideas kept coming back to me. The first was that its looks, while not beautiful by any stretch (Bill Mitchell would have been horrified), don’t seem that offensive. The other was that the Aztek seemed to embody the idea of an automotive scapegoat, which was an image I don’t think it was ever able to shake.
I don’t have any strong recollection of having paid any special attention to the Aztek concept vehicle before having seen the production example. My initial adverse reaction to the styling of the first-year 2001 model hadn’t been tainted in my mind by any disappointment of the look being lost in translation. When I had finally seen pictures of the original concept, however, I could understand how Pontiac and SUV fans might have felt let down. One of the specific styling elements that didn’t work for me was the appearance of relatively little ground clearance for this type of vehicle, which visually tied it much too closely for comfort to the minivans which shared its corporate U-body platform.
The other major offense was the lower edge of the rear quarter window, which seemed to lack horizontal continuity with that of the passenger door windows. It looked as if the rear of the car had melted, giving the Aztek that “garbage truck” look to which I had read that more than a few had compared it. The nose looked unusually aggressive for the time, but that wasn’t problematic for me. This was a Pontiac, a make known through much of its history for in-your-face styling themes.
Within the context of today’s aesthetic extremes (BMW buck-teeth and Tesla Cybertruck, I’m looking at you), had I been too hard on the Aztek’s appearance? Had I been a bandwagon-jumper who might just as easily have just gone along with seemingly everyone else if they had said they liked it? (Many didn’t, which I do remember clearly.)
It’s like the Aztek had become the Glitter (Mariah Carey movie reference, there) of the automotive world immediately after its introduction, with about the same amount of build-up. The irony is that Glitter (the soundtrack, not the movie), which was also released in the early Aughts, had come back in recent years for another, much different, positive critical appraisal decades after its release. (On the Glitter soundtrack, I had always secretly enjoyed it, years before the #JusticeForGlitter hashtags had surfaced.)
As for the vehicle itself, it didn’t seem great at any one thing. It wasn’t a true off-roader, though it had decent AWD capability if equipped with Versatrak (this one’s a front-drive model, per a license plate search), which made it a good vehicle in inclement weather. The Aztek wasn’t really sporty, which was Pontiac’s traditional calling card. It handled well and also included a standard anti-lock braking system. It did have some cool tech features that were very much of its time, like a storage box between the front seats that could be used for compact discs or a beverage cooler, a built-in “tailgate tray” in the rear, and washable seat covers to keep things fresh inside for the physically active crowd it courted. I still own and play CDs, so I would have been on board with these things, even if my tailgating days are over.
It seems that once the “ugly” stigma had been attached to it, there was nothing Pontiac could do with the Aztek to reverse that. A mild refresh for 2002 brought a monochromatic paint scheme and smoother exterior cladding among some of its styling tweaks, all of which served to make the Aztek’s overall appearance smoother and more palatable. Sales remained far below expectations, with a total of just under 120,000 over its entire run and averaging about 24,000 units per year through the end in 2005. Peak sales came with the 2002 refresh, with almost 27,800 units sold. When the related, more conventionally-styled Buick Rendezvous arrived for model year 2002, it immediately outsold the Aztek, racking up sales of almost 286,500 by calendar year 2005, more than double the Pontiac’s number despite the latter’s one year head-start.
I recently became reacquainted with a former schoolmate and neighborhood guy I had once been afraid of. He’s doing well and I’m genuinely glad to be back in touch. Thinking back to my experience of having feared him, I’m starting to question the narrative I had long held in my mind about him. He had never physically harmed me when we were kids, nor do I remember him ever having used epithets at me. Was it that I had felt intimidated by his apparent confidence and show of hyper-masculinity? These things, by themselves, aren’t bad. Without gaslighting myself, I feel like I can safely say that my fear of him probably had less to do with him and more to do with the context of everything else that was going on in my life at the time. His and my interactions simply hadn’t ever been that bad.
Looking at these pictures of this Fusion Orange Metallic Aztek and how relatively normal it looks in 2025, I feel like I owe Pontiac an apology. They had attempted something different in a package that perhaps had looked too aggressive for its time. It’s true that it wasn’t executed perfectly, and its styling still isn’t exactly for me, but I’d probably rather have one of these today in good condition than another vehicle from its era with more anodyne, generic looks. There’s probably a bit of nostalgia that’s coloring my view as I write this. Maybe I should put on some Glitter (the soundtrack, not the movie).
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Sunday, May 11, 2025.
The Aztec was designed to be deliberately polarizing, so despite a lot of the details being not to my taste, I don’t find it as bad as people lambast it to be. That said, the concept-to-production translation was indeed what I would call terrible because they really went and altered the proportions; the production version was longer and significantly narrowed. What started off as something that looked fairly squat turned into looking like what it essentially was; a fastback minivan.
I agree with your assessments. As I read your first sentence, I recalled AMC stylist Richard Teague’s idea that the Gremlin had to have unconventional looks in order for people to pay attention to it.
2001 Aztek? 2024 Cybertruck?
So hard to choose.
easy to choose, the Aztec had zero export potential so none came here and Cyber dork truck isnt road legal so we are spared that too.
Ssangyong make plenty of strangely styled vehicles we didnt need more.
Ssangyong is next-level.
While the Aztek resembled a garbage truck when viewed from the side, the Cybertruck resembles a dumpster.
It’s hard to disagree with a picture.
Not hard at all.
The cyber truck is MUCH worse.
The front end isn’t exactly elegant but I doubt elegant was on the mission statement. Memorable likely was and it achieved that. I’ve never quite understood the disgust generally tossed at these.
If this were introduced today, nobody would think twice. Then again, with it being a GM product, it would likely be criticized for being too visually dull.
Isn’t it amazing how time can temper one’s strong reactions and feelings toward things?
Jason, I agree – especially about the built-in anti-GM bias many must have had hat by that point (whether deserved or not).
In hindsight, compared to the Cybertruck the Aztek is a thing of beauty. But polarizing indeed. The fact that there seems to be little middle ground in the love them vs. hate them opinion on the Aztek is probably one reason why I actually still see these around nearly 25 years later. Those people who love them REALLY love them and likely feel that their Aztek is their forever car.
Its the fit & finish I dislike about the Aztek, though the interior packaging is acceptable. The Cybertruck and Nissan Cube have much better panel fit, and no over-excessive plastic cladding like the Aztek.
One would hope the Cybertruck has better fit and finish given it’s much higher price point and more than two decades of technological advancement, but it appears not. The panel edges are sharp enough to cut carrots and the panel gaps are large enough to drop a pack of gum through.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/10/24032773/want-to-know-what-the-cybertruck-can-do-to-carrots-and-hot-dogs
The “thing of beauty” line made me laugh! Even just from the comments on this essay, there seems to be zero middle ground when it comes to the Aztec.
My complaint with the Aztek’s styling isn’t necessarily the idea. It was the right time for a practical yet bold crossover that was a little more civilized than the live axle SUVs that everyone was still driving. However, the execution left something to be desired. It tried to do too many things at one time without really commiting to any of them, yet wasn’t boring enough for its mediocrity to be appealing. The styling could have been executed better, but the real problem was basing it off a Minivan platform and its accompanying tragic proportions.
I have the Rendezvous way more than the Aztek. I don’t find it better looking, just more boring. It has less of an excuse.
Gray, reading your comment helps me remember a little bit of why I didn’t immediately take to the Aztek. It seemed to smack of effort to be and do too much, which I remember being offputting. Some fans of “The Simpsons” may get this reference, but the Aztek was kind of like the “Poochie” character that was killed off within the same episode.
It was ugly twenty years ago, and it’s ugly now. The difference is, more and more vehicles became ugly and boring in the meantime, so the Aztec doesn’t stand out so much.
Maybe this is part of it. If general unattractiveness is on a sliding scale, the Aztek seems pretty tame compared to some new vehicles.
Nice to see you back on a Tuesday Joe.
The things therapists tell us about accepting other people so we can accept ourselves – or is it the other way round? I forget. I can’t be as magnanimous about some cars but I don’t dislike the Aztek.
With the proviso that because I live in the UK I’ve never seen an Aztek in the metal. Without the ability to judge scale in photos it looks like a blown up version of it’s contemporary the Audi A2, too narrow for it’s height and with the horizontal split tailgate window that car makers chose when they want to signify they’re doing something ‘different’, but never get quite right.
I wouldn’t want one, but I like that someone else drives one.
Thank you, Hummel. I liked reading your perspective on the Aztek, not having been around them since new in your part of the world. I think your last sentence encapsulates much about the way I feel about the Aztek, in general.
In keeping with Joseph’s exceptionally well-written reflections about what was and is inside his head, I’d like to know what it actually was like INSIDE the Aztec. Was it roomy? Were the seats and seating position comfortable? Was it open and airy, but not overly so? Was it versatile? Could it haul lots of stuff? Was it quiet? Did it ride comfortably? Was it a happy place to be in for four or five people on a long trip? Was it easy to get into and out of?
Our roads are now filled with a body shape that at one time would have been shunned by some, and perhaps many. It isn’t that we love it now, it’s that we have gotten used to it and have lowered our expectations of what the exterior appearance of a vehicle should evoke. Functionalism is the new normal. And low-slung sedans and coupes are now more likely to evoke images of cramped misery more than artistic awe. At least for most, if buying patterns are any guide.
It’s been too long since I’ve been in an Aztek to remember specifics, but the interior was your typical ’90s to early ’00s Pontiac with mediocre ergonomics, grey everything, cheap-feeling grey plastic buttons and switchgear. I recall decent roominess, but the sloped hunchback left less room for tall cargo than you’d get in its Montana van platform-mate which had a squared-off roofline. There was no third-row seating (as in the related Buick Rendezvous) and the 2nd row seat didn’t fold down neatly to make a flat floor. Either the folded seatback was several inches higher than the main luggage compartment floor, or the whole seat, seatback and all, could be folded against the first-row seats, leaving a flat floor but considerably less length of that floor.
Great point about the sloping roofline taking a bit out of the cargo-hauling capacity for tall items. I hadn’t thought about that.
One of the “features” was that the rear (2nd row) seats could be removed to give you 94 Cu Ft of cargo space.
But I agree, folding down would be MUCH better than removing. Like when you’re driving around and see someone throwing out a old snowblower or a Go-Cart or something, it’s hard to remove your rear seats, and leave em by the side of the road to bring your new “treasures” home.
Or, leave em out UNTIL you need to carry more passengers?
I had a minivan w/ removeable 3rd row. Removed em and Never ever needed to put em back in. It was more useful for the open space.
Paul, I like what you said about lowered aesthetic expectations for modern vehicles. I think part of it is getting used to our bodies aging and not necessarily wanting low ingress / egress, but that excuses only the height of a vehicle and not the rest.
I rode in one Aztek only once and didn’t remember much about it except that I liked it and it didn’t seem at all bad – with nothing outside of the ordinary for a GM product of that era.
And thank you for your kind words.
I remember the first one I saw, in a small Michigan town right around the time it came out. I had two reactions: “what the heck is that?”, and “wow, is that ugly.” Still ugly. Front is over the top even for Pontiac; front and rear are very awkward-looking. Though it does seem to be useful for some people, as is our Element, also derided as ugly.
To be fair, I don’t think either vehicle is a beauty winner, but I wonder if the thing that makes the Element more appealing to some is that fact that it’s not actually trying to look “cool” per se.
Yeah, it’s not pretty but not ugly ugly, and not trying to be pretty. Frumpy, maybe? Of course it’s the usefulness that matters, not the looks. My wife wishes they still made them. She replaced it with a Cube, which is… less attractive, to me. But useful enough, though not as useful as the Element if I borrow it to go to the hardware store.
There was a lot to dislike about the Aztek other than the ugly/polarizing exterior styling.
— The sole powerplant (3.4 liter V6) offered underwhelming performance compared many comparable vehicles of the era.
— Azteks were built at a GM plant in Mexico, and build quality – especially on early production models – wasn’t the greatest.
— Pricing was initially set very high by GM, which helped to dull the initial market enthusiasm. Although they made efforts to reduce list pricing later, the perception of high Aztek prices remained.
— Early Aztek production focused on expensive, loaded, high trim models – limiting initial availability of lower-priced models and heightening concern about pricing.
— Resale value was awful.
We had an acquaintance who excitedly bought an Aztek right after they were introduced. The family was wealthy, so pricing wasn’t a concern to them. They wound up getting rid of the Aztek about a year or so later — disappointed in the performance of the car, and especially disappointed in the loss in resale value.
The combination of a high initial price-point and a steep drop in resale value surely must have been disappointing to some of the initial takers – especially after some of the styling details were cleaned up for the very next model year. I hadn’t realized the early ones had tended to be loaded-up. That would seemingly go against targeting the youth market.
The concept had a unique cowl height which was scotched in favor of vertically stretching the design to use the U-body minivan one. The solid color doesn’t really help as it offers nothing to break up the towering cowl height which cannot be unseen. I’ve often wondered, what if they’d gone in the other direction and flattened the car to use the W-body sedan cowl? Would they have then glommed on even more cladding and raised the ride height more lest they have something perceived as a “station wagon”?
Another problem with the Aztek (as built) going into what by then were almost all combined Pontiac-Buick-GMC showrooms was internal competition; as Gray Walters pointed out the BOF GMC SUVs, the Rendezvous on the same platform which looked smoother (and offered third-row seating) but also the Pontiac Vibe which cost significantly less upfront, offered much better gas mileage at a time when that became an increasing concern over the course of its’ run and looked like the car the Aztek was a rough draft of (if you want to fix a polarizing design, just add small).
I like your comparison to the Pontiac Vibe and how that Toyota-bases model was executed. In fact, I saw a Vibe just today and thought about photographing it and saving those pics for a later post.
My thought now about what you mentioned in your first paragraph might have been a different direction for the Aztec makes me think that what GM ultimately did was the right decision, as two “lifestyle” wagons at Pontiac dealerships might have seemed like overkill.
Between familiarity acquired over time, plus seeing a lot of newer cars with similar styling features and proportions, the Aztek has grown on me. And I appreciate its attempts at functionality. The Rendezvous has if anything gotten worse in my eyes. No. Redeeming. Value.
I do think that some of the Aztek’s stylistic risks, if not copied like for line, were definitely prophetic. The Aztek has grown on me way more than I would have expected it to back then.
Joseph, you are dead on with your analysis and I share the same feelings. I longed to purchase a new Aztek based on the looks instead of a minivan when the need arose and looked closely when our first child was due in 2003. Purchased a Saturn VUE V6 instead. Drove, handled better and more cleanly styled. Rear seat access was horrible on the Aztek and the fake hex bolt heads on the instrument panel surround were dopey, never mind the higher sticker cost. Twenty years later I need a good used car. I wanted something unique and quirky Found a low mileage 2003 FWD that looked great. I fell in love with the versatility. Removeable flip and fold rear seats, ease of ingress/egress for driver/passenger, the cooler and unique design language, camping option (although I never found at tent at reasonable cost). Once I got past/repaired the extreme hidden rust – I was too dazed to notice during my inspection – I found it to be the most difficult and frustrating vehicle I’ve ever worked on. So many design flaws and compromises. Even the smallest repair had myself and my ASE certified son pulling our hair out.
Cang, I’m glad you mentioned the rust hidden by the body cladding. I wonder how many purchasers of used Pontiacs from this era were met with the same problem, especially in my home state of Michigan where there’s salt aplenty on the roads in winter. I think the engineers probably did a decent job with the assignment and resources, but yes – the styling seems emblematic of some of the other compromises that had to have been made in the Aztek’s development.
Joseph, odd that you mention your home state of Michigan as that’s where my gem was bought new and spent all of it’s life before driven to NJ by his son. Although garage kept, I think it was always put away wet and never had the underside washed. Original owner was an engineer who spent his entire career at the GM Tech Center. Stopped driving it a 93 years old. Must have purchased it under an employee program after retirement. As an engineer myself, I think they could have done better but know how it goes on some projects. Your sighting is rare. Even in NJ, I’ve only spotted three other examples in the last 5 years.One was last night! CC Effect? Please keep on writing – it’s always a pleasure reading your perspective.
The story of your former example sounds fascinating. I worked at the GM Tech Center on S. Saginaw at Hemphill (former site of the Fisher One plant) as a co-op during my senior year of high school. That was a cool experience.
Thank you also for the good words. As long as I have something to say, even tangentially, about some vehicle I photograph, I anticipate writing here for quite a while.
What’s fascinating is how the Honda Element, which had a quite similar format and concept, had such a different trajectory. It didn’t sell in huge numbers, but it was loved by its buyers and is still being loved by its first, second and third buyers, with an exceptionally high resale value.
What was the difference between it and the Aztek? I’d say the single most important one was the fact that GM was repeatedly foisting not-quite fully baked cars but with lots of sizzle on the public, whereas Honda’s cars were inherently very well baked indeed. GM had lost the segment of the public that might have gone for an Aztek if it had been a Honda or Toyota. Too many bad experiences with GM, a lack of credibility. Fool me once…
My son sent me this picture of his Element yesterday, celebrating its 20th birthday (June 2005 build date).
Beautiful.
Owners love their Elements. There’s nothing suitable to replace them with.
It’s in great condition for it’s age and looks well taken care of. Shame these are so rare.
That’s a great shot! It’s hard for me to believe that the Element is that old!
I don’t disagree with your point about the Aztek being half-baked, but I think that the biggest difference between the Aztek and the Element is that the Element isn’t ugly.
It’s boxy and utilitarian and I have never understood why Honda discontinued it when it did (and still sells the CR/V which seems to me to be a much less useful vehicle), but it’s definitely not weird-looking like the Aztek.
I’d definitely consider an Element if there were a new one available. I’d still be standing on the curb scratching my head over the ugly jacked up butt and weird front end of the Aztek.
Great photo Jon Angel!
GM had certainly shot itself in the foot with underdeveloped vehicles, so any of the Aztek’s inherent goodness outside of how it looked was probably going to be met with cynicism just for being a 2000s Pontiac. Hondas are generally just good vehicles. I honestly wouldn’t think twice about a secondhand Honda having questionable reliability, ergonomics, or utility.
I liked the styling of these but only a certain way, as in the (hopefully) attached pic. The cladding and the flat faced geometric wheels with the white letter tires, enhance the aggressive appearance of the nose. Any of the other configurations seem too mismatched and soft to me.
The Aztek always made me think of the 1989 Pontiac Stinger concept vehicle. Especially with the outdoor lifestyle features such as the integrated cooler and tent.
I thought about picking one up once, locally for a good price. Until I realized that even a decade later, GM never fixed the intake gasket issue on the 3100/3400 engines. I’ll stick with the rock solid 3.1 MPFIs in my driveway.
I had forgotten about the Stinger – thank you! I suppose the only people who were happy about the lackluster resale value were secondhand shoppers looking for a good deal on these unique SUVs.
Strong opinions on its styling when the Aztek showed up on the marketplace. Myself included. In 2025 I’m turned off by a few Lexus SUVs doing ugly out there. And then there is the Cybertruck.
GM gave me an Aztek to test for a magazine feature. My family quickly found out this rig was ideal for around town and long distance travel with many useful features. However, many simply did not warm up to the Aztek and it died an early death.
I’m glad you mentioned the Lexus brand. It’s certainly not my intent to insult the tastes of owners or buyers of any vehicle (every car has a story!), but if the new frontal Lexus design language gets a free pass, the Aztek should get some latter-day grace.
I remember the first time I saw one in person at a huge school personnel convention. The team of Aztek cheerleaders were there as well, trying to desperately get the pep up. Sorry, but it remains ugly from any direction you look at it. It’s obviously built on a minivan chassis, and there’s not one redeeming style quality to it. GM blew it big time. Only Walter White could make these “cool”, and that strictly was by association.
Several vehicles have triggered me over the years, and some have even clawed their way back into a 2nd consideration of my harshness (Infiniti FX-35, Toyota CH-R); the Aztek remains on my naughty list with the Datsun F10, Chevy Avalanche and Subaru Baja.
Walter White did make these cool. I never watched “Breaking Bad”, so I didn’t make that connection personally, but I wonder if others who are now a fan of the Aztek like it because of that connection.
I reckon Walter White had a foul army green Aztek likely to emphasize his utterly lost status: dying, broke, working miles below his skills because he’d been done over earlier in life. A loser in an uncool car.
He continued to drive that monster as he both descended into depravity and rose in wealth and power, and only ditched it for a dangerously flashy Charger when he had become too big (and awful) to touch.
Jo, you simply must watch Breaking Bad. It is, by turns, funny, tense, moral, morally bankrupt, and outrageous and utterly credible. No better TV series has ever been made before or since.
The Aztec was, and remains, incredibly ugly. It looks as if three designers created it — one did the front end, one did the back end and the third did the sides. Unfortunately, they never talked to each other during the design process! To make matters worse, the front by itself is ugly, the rear by itself is ugly and the sides, by themselves are out of proportion. The result? Incredibly ugly!
I’ll give you that it’s definitely not the most harmonious design.
From day 1, I saw the Aztec for exactly what it was. I’m pretty sure the directive was:
“Minivans are fading from popularity. We’ve spent tons of money developing a pretty decent minivan, but sales are slumping. Is there anything we can do with the bones of this platform that will help sales figures? Oh, and let’s make the redesign cheap and quick.”
Slope the rear roof, replace the tailgate with a liftgate, and convert the rear doors from sliders to hinged. Done. If you needed a 2-row minivan but didn’t want to be seen driving a minivan, it was fine. I never hated the Aztek, because I took it at face value.
I can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t want to be seen driving a minivan would be alright with being seen driving an Aztek…
I like that you had managed your own expectations with the Aztek, and therefore wasn’t disappointed. I wonder how many people who had thought the original Trans Sport minivan was ugly liked the Aztek, and the other way around.
While never a fan of its styling, I was at a homebrew camp out years ago (August of 2003) when one of our club members showed up in one of these, just about the time we were all struggling to get our tents up and our homebrewed beer coolers set up for this weekend long party.
He looks around at all of us fighting with poles, and blowup mattresses, and…
He opens the tailgate, hooks up his tent, and reaches inside his built in cooler for a beer and sits down.
We had a new respect for this ugly monstrosity… (the car, not our friend ;o)
As we like to say, beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
This story wins. The equivalent of a mic-drop with the Aztek camper.
The Aztek would fit in much better with other crossovers (and even other cars) than it did in its time, just because weird, exaggerated angles and angry-looking grilles and headlamps seem to be fashionable. Still, the overly boxy shape would stick out even today. The worst aspect of the Aztek’s styling still looks wrong today the second set of lights about the headlamps that give it an unnatural four-eyed face, compounded by the extra grille above the main one. The hunchback styling in the rear doesn’t help matters any (although the Prius has basically the same shape, but somehow it’s less offensive on a lower-to-the-ground vehicle). In between, the fussy 2nd color on the original cladding cluttered things up further, although later Azteks like the one here de-emphasized that by smoothing out the cladding and painting it the same color. There were some convenient features like a center console that doubled as a removable cooler, and a set a speakers in back pointed outwards for tailgating. But overall, Pontiac’s own Montana, the Aztek’s platform-mate, was a better-looking, more practical vehicle, offering more cargo space, 3rd-row seating, and easier access via sliding side doors. The Montana was a minivan cosplaying as an SUV, and Pontiac should have just added the camping features (tent and all) to the Montana rather than bleeding their funds creating a whole new body, and a far less attractive one.
The illustration perfectly shows what you’ve described. There did seem to be something facially / anatomically incorrect about the headlight placement on the Aztek’s face.
Sometimes I wonder if someone in GM upper management intended to use the vehicle to prove their point that Pontiac band needed to close by selecting such vehicle.
I don’t think it was deliberate self-destruction of the Pontiac brand (which probably still had a good chunk of equity left, even then), but it’s an interesting idea.
Sorry Joe, I think I may be about to hijack your story – but what an opening!
In these days of BMW coupe-crossovers and coupe-SUVs, and the odd (very odd) Ssangyong, is the Aztek such a bad thing?
Yes.
There are so many clumsy if not downright klutzy details which looked awkward at the time, and still look awkward today. I’m not referring to the typical period Pontiac styling cues which get so often derided as overdone, but more to the basic proportioning, and only incidentally to the way those styling cues are handled/trowelled on.
Okay, I totally get that it’s on a minivan platform, but I feel this has been too often used as an excuse. MInivans don’t, as a rule, look as awkward as this. That being the case, this excuse doesn’t hold water.
It puts me in mind of Japanese kei wagons like the Suzuki Wagon R. To avoid that, I’d give it larger wheels – not 20s, but perhaps 18s – and deeper side glass to minimize the tall and narrow look. Definitely not have the lower edge of the rearmost glass drooping like your picture shows – that’s inexcusable! Perhaps if the lower edge of the DLO ran straight back from the base of the mirror rather than climbing up to the rear? Perhaps if it aimed straight for the base of the taillights the eye would see it as better resolved? The eye wants to make sense of what it sees (‘this is body, this is glass’) rather then have them all disjointed and higgledy-piggledy.
I’d question whether the hood really needs to be that high, and whether some components could be better packaged. Ideally I’d like to drop it level with the side windows; failing that, at least half that distance. I could live with the rear end, but I’d have locked the design staff in the studio on bread and water until they came up with an acceptable front end treatment. While I totally get the split grille motif thingy, and have no objection to it per se, the ’72GTO scoops above the grille just don’t work here (what is there about this vehicle that needs air scoops?), and the headlight/indicator treatment is just all kinds of awkward.
Great colour though.
Peter, reading your critiques of the individual styling elements makes me wonder what the finished product might have looked like – aside, of course, from the concept vehicle that had made the rounds. That’s the thing about even writing an essay, which I know you know – once the completed product is out there, it’s out there, aside from catching and fixing a typo or two.
And that is something about design that I just don’t get – when a concept proves popular on the show circuit, why do some manufacturers seem to invariably dumb it down to an alarming degree for production? I understand compliance with regulatory details, but the Aztek appears to be a prime example where untrained eyes (from finance? admin? HR? cleaning services?) have got their hands on it and made their mark. Just because they could.
I can’t help thinking this wouldn’t have happened on Bill Mitchell’s watch. He, or Harley Earl, would’ve told those untrained ‘executives’ exactly where to go!
What it usually comes down to is that a concept car confection (as opposed to a thinly disguised forthcoming production car) is a one-off, with little priority given to practicality of manufacture or to cost. Some concept cars aren’t even “runners,” so the powertrain and suspension may be nonfunctional mock-ups. Once they start thinking in terms of how they’ll actually build the thing, especially where it needs to share existing components, many things often end up having to change.
A useful down-to-earth comparison might be trying to replicate a recipe you see on a cooking show: It may look and sound great, but once you try to make it at home, you’ll inevitably have to compromise for what ingredients you can find at your local markets, how much you’re willing to spend on them, and what kitchen appliances and utensils you actually have on hand (which probably won’t match the fancy gadgets in the show’s giant studio kitchen). Depending on what you’re making, you might still end up with a satisfactory compromise, but it won’t look or taste quite like what you see on TV.
Peter, I’ve read elsewhere that’s pretty much exactly what happened with the Aztek. It met every managerial target for cost, timelines, etc. — an absolute model example of how GM management at the time thought vehicle development should work.
Due to the CC effect, I saw a 2008 Grand Prix in traffic today and it was exactly the same color as the Aztek that Joe saw. It IS a great color…much better than the red and silver that most of those Grand Prix seemed to be.
To me, it doesn’t even look like a GM car, I have often thought that GM were very good at styling cars that appeal to the mainstream of the time, not just in the US but worldwide.
Being from Australia, I have only seen this car in pictures, and of course Walter White’s car.
But I still find these incredibly ugly, and if I didn’t know, I would never guess this was from GM.
In the second from the last pic, can anyone I D the green car , parked in the distance? “Corvair”? Roof line looks a bit “low”.
I’d tell you, but it might ruin the surprise of a possible future essay topic.
“I wonder how many people who had thought the original Trans Sport minivan was ugly liked the Aztek, and the other way around.”
As I said, I liked the Aztek in a certain form. But I LOVED the original 90-93 Trans Sport van, which was before the nose job. I was a teenager at the time, and that was my honest to god dream vehicle. I said I would own one when they got old and cheap enough. Which I did for a decade, also had a Lumina APV. The Trans Sport had around 312k and it ran perfect. Towed my camper well too. Sold it, along with a bunch of other stuff, to come up with the closing costs for a better house.
I also liked the original Trans Sport (pre-facelift, which I had thought was decidedly retrograde). I would bristle inside when people referred to them as “dustbusters”.
And as they excavate the rubble of this marvellous experiment called mankind, whose science soared and soared just as its crumbling polity destroyed it forever, they will find strange evidence of the fall of man, twenty years earlier than once supposed, in the form of an Aztek. The original sin, the horror, a warning post pointing to the end times where every vehicle would look like it and yet be thought unremarkable.
Actually, they’d in fact find an even earlier artefact from another continent in the form of a Renault, namely, an atrocity called the Scenic RX-4 of 2000. The basic Scenic (I owned one) was famously a hugely successful monobox small MPV. However, as the French so often seem to do, especially after lunch, they got carried away, and added a dodgy 4wd system, and then clad the thing in abominations. The result certainly presages the Aztek, and nearly matches its hideousity (and very probably gave Pontiac ideas, ones it shouldn’t have had). Luckily for mankind, the 4wd gearbox was largely made of Gruyere and red wine, and the bad name kept sales low, but it still remains the earliest pointer to End Times in which we live.
It is interesting looking at these now, 25 years later. These things were an utter joke when they came out, a hideous looking car that no one asked for or wanted. It felt both ugly and desperate, and considering GM’s quality at the time no one I ever knew bought one or came close. Now it doesn’t seem so shocking but the proportions are still horrible. Especially with that monochromatic paint job, it looks insanely top heavy. Like it could fall over taking a minor turn top heavy.
I think you nailed it with desperation as a descriptor. I think that the apparent effort to make it look cool, and overdoing it, was probably why I hadn’t liked it at first. I don’t mind it now.
I don’t laugh and point at the Aztec like I once did, but I would not be inclined to love one either.
I think the polarizing looks are its smallest problem – kind of like the Edsel. More of a problem is that it was poorly executed, and proof that a minivan platform doesn’t often lend itself to other applications. The car wasn’t exceptionally well trimmed, or exceptionally roomy, or exceptionally durable. “It’s hip and funky” isn’t enough to sustain a fan base, especially when it wasn’t that hip or funky. It was just odd.
As Paul notes above, the Element generated a cult. The Aztec just generated jokes and disappointment. Sorry, but GM in its late pre-bankruptcy years had lost its way, and the Aztec was Exhibit A.
What I remember most about the Element from its ad campaign in TV spots was how the vehicle and its clientele seemed appealingly dressed down and active. The Element’s apparent modesty made it endearing, regardless of how it looked.
I think the dilemma both the Aztek and the Element faced was that they were both trying desperately to appeal to a kind of “younger buyer with Active Lifestyle” that the marketing people had convinced themselves was vital to brand positioning, which didn’t really work at all.
As I recall, even Honda ended up frustrated with the Element because while it attracted a loyal cohort of customers who really liked the vehicle, it was not the buyers Honda wanted: The Element appealed to over-40 buyers who liked that it was good for camping or hiking and also had room for a run to The Home Depot, when Honda was desperately hoping it would appeal to 25- to 30-year-olds who lived liked Vin Diesel in xXx or Yancy Butler in Drop Zone. Scion ran into the same issue with the original xB. (My parents had a bad experience where they wanted to test-drive an xB and the Scion dealer basically chased them out of the showroom for being too old.) These were supposed to be Hip Youth Market vehicles that would bring down the average buyer age, and they … didn’t do that.
Pontiac had that problem in spades because the Aztek was so clumsily translated to production and because, I think, its minivan bones were hard to hide, which made it seem REALLY pathetic and sad. The last thing a 25-year-old with an Active Lifestyle wanted was a minivan, especially one that screamed (at best) “suburban soccer mom who shops at The North Face,” and it was sufficiently awkward-looking to put off the older buyers who were more interested in practicality than sex appeal. (I also think automakers greatly overestimated the target audience’s ability to PAY for a vehicle like this, which gets back to the whole price issue.)
Joseph, your comment about the beltline in the rear being too low got me thinkering, and where I landed was actually more glass and black plastic, to give the clunky body some relief.
Nicely done rendering, Paul. It kind of works for me in a Honda Odyssey kind of way, with its unorthodox side window shapes and area. In my mind, though, there are only a handful of modern vehicles that can or have pulled off a descending line from front to back, principally among them the final, eleventh generation Ford Thunderbird.
I look at the Aztec and have though, “What if…?” – a sentiment clearly reflected in some of these other comments.
I thank the Aztek’s problem was, it was before it’s time. It doesn’t look a bit uglier than most of this crap nowadays. The ole Cybertruck is by far the ugliest vehicle ever manufactured. Looks like someone built it in their garage over the weekend.
The Cybertruck definitely looks homemade.
The Aztek may have been roundly criticized, but it spawned some styling knock-offs. The most obvious was the original BMW X6, which looked like the love child of an Aztek and a 5-series.