Art and design are subjective. What appeals to some may be abhorrent to others. Car design is no exception. No car designer in the world can pen a design so perfect it earns unanimous praise. There are some cars that manage, however, to earn widespread acclaim and appreciation for their styling. Conversely, there are some designs that are derided by the vast majority of commentators and consumers. My question is: are there are any oft-maligned car designs you find appealing?
When I first pondered this question, the first car that came to mind was the 1996 Ford Taurus. Read the comments section of any article on the third-generation Taurus and you will encounter a heaping helping of scorn for this controversial design. It seems to fly in the face of what is commonly regarded as aesthetically appealing in a car design: it doesn’t look longer, lower, wider or meaner than its predecessor and its abundance of oval shapes appears to many observers to be gimmicky and contrived. I beg to differ: I find its design intriguing and multi-faceted and I feel it has aged well. I loved it as a child and I love the design to this day.
While a somewhat similar and equally poorly-received design, the 1998 Ford AU Falcon is one I didn’t have such strong feelings about at its launch but I have come to admire. Like the ’96 Taurus, it was replaced with a heavily restyled version that was more restrained and elegant. However, the AU Falcon’s design is one that I feel has aged well and presaged the advent of the now ubiquitous “four-door coupes” like the Volkswagen CC and Mercedes-Benz CLS.
Coming directly after the slinky 1997-2004 Grand Prix was bound to hurt the 2005 Grand Prix’s reception but, long front overhang aside, it is a muscular and aggressive design and similarly echoes a four-door coupe design.
Paul’s recent article on the Chevrolet Lumina APV had me admiring the photos included within. While the expanse of dashboard inside and overall practicality vis-à-vis rival minivans were valid concerns, the exterior design – to my eyes – is clean, futuristic and elegant. These were a funky, fresh design without looking like an over-inflated water balloon à la the Toyota Previa.
Of the same era, the 1991 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight is also frequently criticized for its design. Other large General Motors sedans of this time, like the Chevrolet Caprice, were pilloried for incoherently juxtaposing traditional design elements with more aerodynamic lines. The Ninety-Eight, however, managed to retain a fairly conservative roofline and chrome rocker panel trim – stylistic elements rapidly becoming déclassé – without looking awkward. Well, to my eyes at least. Its platform-mate, the Buick Park Avenue, is regularly praised for its elegance and comparatively flowing lines but I prefer the Oldsmobile.
In some respects, the Oldsmobile Achieva appears almost like a mini-Ninety-Eight. I find this small Olds rather handsome. After a decade of almost identical-looking cars, General Motors was finally exhibiting some design flair. I feel it is better to take a risk with a design rather than continue trudging along with bland, anonymous designs. Alas, the market tends to disagree.
I also rather fancy the wild 1992 Buick Skylark, especially in sporty GS trim. Its wedgy lines are intriguing, its pointed prow like nothing else on the road.
Some other cars come to mind as well, like the daring 1961 Dodges…
…or the 1961 Plymouths with their piercing prows.
Finally, the 2007 Lincoln Navigator may have made the Cadillac Escalade look subtle by comparison, but inside and out these look the very definition of a 21st century Brougham…
…or like some modern day interpretation of a fuselage Town & Country.
Seriously, aren’t these almost 1970s-retro? I know Lincoln was going for a ’60s vibe with the grilles of some of their products last decade, like the first MKX, but these Navigators seem to harken back to the days of shag carpet and leisure suits. And I love it.
So, what cars do you love the look of that everyone else seems to be repulsed by?
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1961 Plymouth Fury
Curbside Classic: 1998-2002 Ford AU Falcon
I’m not surprised the “lead” photo was a Gen3 Taurus, which does seem to be a lightning rod for CC criticism. That 1998-99 freshening (pictured by Mr. Stopford) made it a little more conventional, for better/worse. I’d like to believe that posterity will be kind to the “original” 1996 styling (below)–we’ll see, I guess…
Speaking of which: designing a car has gotta be a tough job to pull off (with all the guesswork about what’ll appeal a few years down the road), yet it’s ever so easy for CC-ers to armchair-quarterback the stylists’ work from some years’ perspective. I prefer to be designer-sympathetic and say “it doesn’t especially appeal to me” rather than “OMG, that’s ugly, what were they smoking?,” etc.
**********************
BTW, another poll sometime might be “what’s a (consensus) stylish car that still looks awkward from certain angles?” (or, “what’s the best angle on a car you think is ugly?”)
Roughly this angle is best for me in a sedan.
Worst angle
LOL, that rear 3/4 pictures is from an Aussie-sold Taurus
Suzy: the perspective at the time was that the styling was unattractive to just as many today. And people shopped elsewhere.
Especially coming after the almost universally loved first and 2nd generations. Ford lost the plot on the Taurus and Sable with this edition.
Ford Escort EXP.
It didn’t LOOK too bad, but I rented one during a summer vacation, and it turned out to be the most sluggish, gutless heap I have ever driven. I needed the AC, and every time I turned it on I could feel the drop in power. Lousy mileage, too.
I’ve never driven or even sat in one, but I suspect that among its flaws it has that sitting-on-the-floor-trying-to-peer-over-the-dash thing going on.
Lol. My brother bought the 1988.5 EXP as his first new car. Wanted a Mustang GT but insurance was way high. The EXP was a lousy POS.
The 1991 Olds 98 is also awesome. Half retro for that time with the non-full rear wheel opening and somewhat formal roofline and also formal squared off rear, combined with a smooth aero body. It had something of what the 1961 Lincoln had. Lots of curved glass area, and of course huge interior and trunk. Also a much better dashboard than the Buick version. I shopped for a used one at one point, hoping that they were so unfashionable by then hat they would be really cheap, but it turned out that the Trans Sport was apparently way more unfashionable and was really cheap, not to mention what I really needed in terms of practicality.
1992 Olds 98 Regency interior
i like the look of Datsun Btwotens.sedan and hach.Peugeot 405&206.
I like most cars that are considered ‘polarizing’. The Gremlin, 2nd gen Javelin, Honda Element, Toyota FJ cruiser, Pontiac Aztec, Chrysler PT Cruiser…there are many more, but all of these hold SOME appeal to me since theyre at least making the effort to do something different and stand out.
What I find truly repulsive is the bland and boring, hence my disgust for 99.9% of 4 door sedans, SUVs, and minivans out there. The inoffensive tends to offend me. Likewise, I’m the only person I know who can feel their blood boil when muzak plays…
I agree that the 1996 Taurus is maligned. It’s not one of my favorite designs ever, but I don’t get the hate.
Another car that I don’t understand the maligning is the 1980 or so generation Thunderbirds. Sure they’re a bit boxy looking, but it was a smaller design that was necessary from the 70’s T-Birds. I would totally rock one.
Come to think of it, most cars that I love today started as something that I considered ugly:
-Citroen DS, back in the days, I preferred 403, DS was weird.
-Mini Cooper (the original one), back in ’60s, I preferred Spitfire over mini cause of looks. Over the years, owned at least 5, 6 counting an ’08
-Honda Element, ok I owned one, first look was a ummmm, but learned to love it.
-Volvo 240, didn’t like the boxy look, but learned to appreciate the subtle lines.
1. The 1982-1985 Buick Skylark (the 1980 and 1981 models were truly ugly).
2. Ford Maverick.
3. Hyundai XG300 (a very American-looking car IMO).
4. Ford Festiva. I don’t ever want to drive one or even be a passenger in one but I like how they look.
I second the Maverick, especially the sedan.
The 1958 GM C Bodies
The 1959 Lincoln
The 1958 Edsel
The 1975 GM C bodies. Including my 98. They’re big but not, in my view, “bloated”. New cars are bloated.
The Chevette.
The Fox Continental. Especially in two-tone.
The 91-96 Olds 98, I wish they had made it on the Fleetwood/Caprice/Roadmaster scale as I’m convinced it was the best looking of the Bubble bodies.
Lastly, I think the current Buick lineup is the best looking one made by GM in years
Olds got jobbed by not having a sedan variant of the new RWD in ’91, and by the Custom Cruiser for only lasting two years. If they had upsized the 98 to the size of the Roadmaster with the same styling theme, I think it would have worn better.
What? The Fuego was supposed to be ugly? I thought mine looked pretty nice. By the way, I also liked the ’74 Matador coupe.
The Fuego was a sharp little coupe. Looked fine to me.
The Fuego was a sharp little coupe. Looked fine to me.
I remember the howls about the styling when it came out, especially the corrugated plastic insert at the beltline. The vitriol continued inside with the usual sniveling about the French take on the design of things like wiper and light switches.
yeah that one threw me too, it was (and still is) certainly regarded as a good looking car round these parts:
http://classics.honestjohn.co.uk/reviews/renault/fuego/
I know that received opinion has changed radically since it was introduced–and flopped–but I have always loved the Chrysler Airflow. It’s a rolling definition of the phrase “ahead of its time”. Art Deco masterpiece, as far as I am concerned.
And I don’t think the Aztek is nearly as ugly as most people say. Not that I would ever have bought one.
My wife, an import lover through and through, doesn’t get my love for Chrysler LH cars (and K-cars, namely the LeBaron variants). She scoffs at the second-generation Concorde every time she sees one and calls it a big whale. The 2002 refresh (a la LHS) subdues and improves the design; I prefer these over the the original 1998-01.
My grandfather has a ’77 Fury 4-door as a restored collectible. To no one who knows better that car could pass for a ’60s car. Hard to imagine the R-bodies (St. Regis, New Yorker, Fury) were the successors, they look 10 years newer. It’s big, longer than an extended cab pickup, looks dated with its side profile and the tailights integrated into the rear bumpers, but I just like that car. The Dodge Charger should have been modeled after the B-body Fury in my opinion. I like the snout nosed AMC Matador/Ambassador from the same era too.
I have to admit that the GM dustbuster vans aren’t that ugly, in fact I found them interesting as a kid. An Aerostar was more unattractive in comparison. At the end of the day, Chrysler’s minivan was the sharpest, especially the 1996-00 NS platform.
I am far from a a Toyota/Lexus fan, but I have to say that the 2003-07 (?) ES350 was pretty decent looking compared to what is out today. If I were held at gunpoint and forced to buy a Lexus, I’d pick this one.
Oh…I forgot the JS-platform Sebring and 200. How could no one like these (especially the 200)? I love my 200, it improved all of the flaws with the Sebring (mostly the interior, it was okay but a little too gray and a bit plasticky) but even the Sebring was a decent little car. I think Chrysler tok a step backwards with the UF 200. It looks too much like a Hyundai or Kia product, namely the interior and rear half of the car.
Sev: I am with you on the 07-14 Sebring/200. And the Avenger as well. Perfect size, roomy interiors [40″ front headroom], easy entry and exit. Lots of retro details in the Sebring and the top line tortoise shell trim was a nice touch.
Plasticky dash and trimmings, but I could live with that.
1962 Plymouth – I liked it when it was new and one of our neighbors brought one home, and I continue to like it today. I know the design was meant for a larger body and the car represented compromises but some details such as the oversized outboard headlight rims, concave grille, and matching hood and trunk trim pieces combined with a svelte body during an era of excess really worked for me. The Fury convertible is especially attractive. Perhaps part of my positive reaction when this car came out was due to my disdain for the hideous 1961 models.
For me, the 1971-73 Mustangs and Cougars were handsome cars. I had many friends who owned them back in the day and they performed well. The Mustang II is another story.
I like the 1957 Oldsmobile, a car subject to a lot of criticism when new and up through today. I thought it was a nice update of the 1955-56 which quickly became dated as cars grew longer, wider, and lower. Even the three-piece backlight, while impractical, looked good (as did the split-window Corvette). I’d take a 57 Olds over a 57 Chevy any day.
+1 on the ’57 Olds.
Did you have to ask? 🙂
Yes, and that’s another car they got right the first time and then proceeded to screw it up. Body got bigger, glass area got squeezed to little slits, perky 1.5 turned into 2 liter just to haul the mess around …
The ’71-’73 Mustang. Next door neighbor bought a Mach 1 new when I was a kid. So badass. Cragar mags.
I’ll be brave and say I’ll take one over a ’69.
So there.
Ive never got to like the Sable fronted Taurus we were sent and the AU is as ugly today as it was in 98 they are still quite common on the roads but most I see have the less ugly XR four headlight fronts whether original or retrofits I dont know, those early 60s Chryslers werent really that bad in retrospect and the others we dont have in any numbers if at all so eyeball searing Aztecs dont clutter our landscape, mind you some Japanese efforts can be pretty hard to look at.
The 1998 -2002 BMW M Coupe. One of my friends said the car looks like a Converse Chucky T basketball shoe… But I have wanted one since 1998
It’s like a z3 wagon…yuck. You will get absolutely no competition for one from me, good sir!
I nominate the 1976-1978 Chrysler New Yorker. Sure, it was a decontented 1974/75 Imperial but they definitely had some success in the “Gun boat” class. I didn’t always like then (used to think all that they were good for was a 440?Torqueflite donor), but the design grew on me. They have a presence that will never be repeated (good and bad..). I always see a bunch of old-people-survivormobile New Yorkers for sale–the survival rate is fairly amazing.
Really like those as well–the styling was pure Imperial. They were also one of the last 4-door hardtops available, perhaps *the* last?
Any Ami 6. Love these!
Others have already mentioned, at least obliquely, the ’60-’62 Valiant/Lancer/Rebel (well, okeh, nobody else until now has mentioned the ’61-’63 DeSoto Rebel member of that ’60-’62 Valiant family). I’ll sign on—because of course I will—with that entry to this list. Also the ’62 Plymouth and Dodge. This would be a much longer comment if the opposite question had been posed (what car commonly regarded as attractive do you find ugly).
I actually own a 74 Matador ‘coffin nose’ sedan, so I guess that gets my vote, and unlike a few cars mentioned so far, it is legitimately considered to be one ugly car by the majority of automotive literati.
Rare to find a picture of the front of a 74 Matador sedan on the internet, Chris. Even the brochure of that year doesn’t show it from the front. Far and away the worst of the run.
I even think the later models used the same oblong turn signal units as the 74 Gremlin in the Matador facelifts.
You’re talking to the guy that owned a Pacer.
I just bought a Prius. I like those looks, maligned as they are.
And I LIKED the Aztec.
OK, you can make me walk the plank now.
How do you think about Olds Cutlass Supreme based on GM10? I think its styling was sharp, clean and decent. Later facelifted one still looks ok, but overdone cladding could be controversial.
The 1991 Ninety Eighty and Achieva always reminded me of the Star Trek TNG style…very modern, with a hint of Space Age swoopiness. Never wanted one, but I liked them.
I never thought I’d say it, but I’ve come to appreciate the AU Falcon – possibly because my neighbour over the road seems to have a steady supply of the things.
When released, it was too far ahead of the public taste. Buyers in that segment of the market are reasonably conservative, and the Falcon’s curvy body with odd slumpy ends, angular lights and strange vertical-bar grille on the oddly-named ‘Forte’ (Loud?) base version and odd protuberant headlights that always made me think of a hippopotamus on the XR6. It looked like nothing else on the road at the time. There was certainly no mistaking it for a Holden – the concurrent Holden Commodore was a much more coherent (and conservative) design.
Advanced design isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if it can be seen to be a logical development from the known shape. The AU wasn’t. It was different, sure, but looked odd and awkward at the time, rather than futuristic. Maybe it was a generation too far ahead. Now it fits in well with the traffic on the road, but remains distinctive. The Forte’s grille, however, remains fifty shades of wrong.
And a steady supply he will keep. I’ve been told the things are literally unkillable. On top of that, they’re cheap as chips.
I am with you, starting to dig the AU. Specially in Forte and XR6 guise. However, the detailing of the car is still far behind that of the VT-VZ. I love the flush mounted windows of the Commodore.
Based on looks alone – the Pontiac Aztek. Personally, I – we really liked the look – it sure was different, and gave little away that it was basically a minivan underneath. We seriously considered one in 2002 and was on the list before Wifey decided on the CR-V she still drives.
We also loved the Gremlin and owned one for three years, too.
Add to my list the Marlin, Cube and Pacer.
Like a mid-century modern house, the Porsche 914 challenges the eye, and the rewards with both details and an overall “vibe” that are attractive.
Didn’t those things have a tendency to go up in flames, pre-dating the Fiero? I liked these, too, but heard they were quite problematic. Saw a few of these on base when in the air force.
If you didn’t replace the many feet of fuel injection hose on a regular basis they would leak and often burn.
Another one I’ve always been fond of, perhaps because I had a toy version as a kid. 2, actually, that came with a car carrier to transport them in!
OK someone already took the Multipla but I also have a soft spot for the styling of the oft-maligned 1978 FIAT Strada/Ritmo (as with the Multipla, pre-facelift only).
The details especially (like the door handles) always seemed a really well thought out, coherent and pleasing piece of design to me.
Glad to know I’m not the only one who liked the Strada! A very Italian take on the upright, practical Golf. Too bad they were built so poorly.
This. I can see why people ridicule them as “toads” but I remain a fan. Owned one about 15 years ago and really liked it. The ’60 Pontiac-style front end turned the whole concept of the Exner nostalgia evident on the Valiant and turned it modern. The Lancer wouldn’t look out of place parked in a row of Cessnas at a small airport.
I agree!
I’m going for the “Plucked Chicken” 62-63 Mopars. We had a great conversation about these standing around a Dodge at the NATMUS during the CC get together two years ago. The individual parts are nice, but the overall effect is gloriously ugly. I love em.
Everyone derides the 1980-1982 Thunderbird, i.e., the “Fairmont Bird” as atrocious, ill-proportioned, and tacky. I LOVE them. In fact, my Dad bought one for me when I turned sixteen in 1992. While every other kid at Coffee County High School was driving a Civic or a Ford Ranger, I rocked a white 1980 Thunderbird Towne Landau. I loved the 1970s Thunderbird styling cues packaged into what was essentially my Mom’s 1983 Fairmont Futura. I didn’t care if it was underpowered. I didn’t care that the driver’s power window had failed, and I had to open the door to receive my order from the Dairy Queen in Manchester, TN. Rather, I loved its hidden headlights, upright grille, hood ornament, full-width taillights, and ultra broughamy vinyl roof with coach lamps integrated into its tiara opera- windowed splendor. Later, Dad gave me his 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais, and the Thunderbird passed to my Granny. Still, she regards it as her favorite car. RIP Thunderbird.
Everyone hates them, but I love the Mustang II. No matter what criticism it gets I will always think it is a great design. Doesn’t matter if it is a Jaclyn Smith Ghia or a Farrah Fawcett King Cobra, I think they are great looking cars.
Everyone hates them, but I love the Mustang II. No matter what criticism it gets I will always think it is a great design. Doesn’t matter if it is a Jaclyn Smith Ghia or a Farrah Fawcett King Cobra, I think they are great looking cars.
_____________________________
+1
Add my vote for the Chrysler Airflow, whose only sin was being too far ahead of its time. I also love the overwrought and much-maligned 1961 Imperial LeBaron, but I have no idea why.
Now the next question would be, what car commonly regarded as beautiful do you find unattractive?
Yes! I have a few that come to mind
The 85-86 N Bodies. My own 05 ION. I think the facelift grille was unnecessary but the tail lights are great. Mitsubishi Mirage. Kia Amanti. 62 Plymouth full size. 56 Hudson [they messed up the detailing on the 57s]. 58 Studebaker.
And the 61 Rambler American. I hated these for years but time has changed that. But only the 61. Later models ruined the grille. Honeycomb is the only grille pattern that belongs on that design. When one has created a “masterpiece”, why tamper with it ?
Add me to the Ambassador fan base. But only the 67, 70 and later models. The 68 messed with two of the best details of the 67 [grille and taillights] and the 69 had a great front end, but the rear was a mess. Peak Ambassador after the 67: 1972.
The broughamed K Cars.
Sorry, but I can’t go with you on the 58 Stude. The 57 is a car I find quite attractive, particularly in Packard guise. In fact, the Stude museum recently sold a 57 Packard sedan from its collection, and it was all I could do to keep from selling a Miata to make room for it at my house. But on the 58, I just cannot get past those headlight pods or the strange shape of the rear fins.
I like the 57 Studebaker front as it’s cleaner than the 56, but I prefer the 56 rear to that of the 57. 57 Clipper is nice all over, including the instrument panel. Fantastic effort, especially considering it was done with whatever was cleaned out of the bottom of E Grand’s parts bins.
The rear quarter view of the 58 Packard Starlight is quite attractive and comparable to the Dodge of the same era. The front? Ouch! Even Checker changed the front fenders when they went to quad headlights.
The hardtop is indeed the best of the lot. But on that Packard, I can’t get over how one of the dual trim strips just stops cold when it hits that headlight pod on the front fenders. Just terrible.
I still wonder how they might have done if they could have offered the 58 Packard as the 59 Studebaker President (with properly done quad headlights this time) in only the long wheelbase sedan and the hardtop. It might have been an attractive package in a recession, if they could have priced it right. It would have made a nice complement to the Lark and Hawk. Chrysler sold a ton of Imperials in 1976 when they sold it at a New Yorker price.
I’ve always felt that if the 57 Packard wasn’t such a desperate attempt at survival, and more of an addition to an established Packard lineup, it might well have succeeded as a city car alternative to the big Packards. Sort of in the Mercedes mold. If only they had the money to hide the Studebaker parentage. The Cadillac Seville of the 50’s.
If only they had the money to hide the Studebaker parentage.
They couldn’t hide how narrow the Studebaker body was. It was narrow in 53, and hopeless in 58, for a full sized car. That was not an era for modesty in car design either.
The book about Harold Churchill goes into the decision making wrt Packard in some detail. They considered moving all the Packard tooling to South Bend when E Grand was closed, but the Packard body was something like 6″ wider than the Studebaker and it would have cost millions to modify the paint booths and ovens in the South Bend body plant. Tarting up a Studebaker only cost something like $3.5M, a relative bargain, so that’s what they did, both to keep the brand alive and pacify the few remaining Packard dealers.
I like the ’96 Taurus.
Also, the downsized ’62 Dodge, and I’m sure I’ll get some disagreement on this one. The grille is a bit over the top, but if the grille had a body-colored surround and a finer texture (eggcrate or honeycomb), then the overall design would look good to my eyes.
All Edsels, boattail Rivieras, and Flexes.
I’m with you on all three!
I doubt boattail Rivs were ever characterized as ugly.
Maybe not ugly, but certainly awkward. I seem to recall reading somewhere that they were originally supposed to be built on a smaller platform and at the last minute GM scrapped that idea and went with the large Eldo/Toro platform.
1975-82 Leyland Princess, ideally the four round headlight version in an bright solid colour
I’m glad the 90-94 Ninety-Eight and the Buick Skylark are getting props here. I thought that they both were striking cars and were a serious attempt of GM to break away from badge engineering.
I have always liked any year Edsel. I am also a fan of the Catfish Packard Hawk and the ’61 Dodge. I like the Plymouth too if it is the sleek two door hardtop.
Lots of guys I know cannot stand the ’73-77 Chevelle, but I like them. Heck, I even owned a ’75 El Camino and loved it.
71-73 Mustangs. Its a love/hate design.
I’m in the love camp.
Lexus SC430. I’ll take mine in Pebble Beach edition please. Brown with rare black interior.
Oh, this one came back to me that I forgot in my original comment. The Jaguar XJS, people give that design a lot of flack, but I think it looks really good for a British car that was made in the 70s. That design has aged well.
I like the XJ-S a lot too. It’s a design that IMO is underappreciated and may increase in value sometime in the future. I think the only reason it got a reputation as unattractive is it was the follow up to the E-Type IE: one of the most gorgeous cars ever. And it had the bad luck to be introduced in 1975 so came with a smog choked engine. Being available only with an automatic for so much of it’s first gen production cycle didn’t endear it it enthusiasts either.
+2 So much of what hurt the XJ/S was it’s supposed place in the market(E-type followup), if taken by itself as just a Jag coupe it’s gorgeous.
Also what may have hurt it was it’s loooooooong production cycle. Forget the drawback of just having an automatic only option for much of it’s run, whatever attractiveness a product has wears thin after it’s been in nonstop production for 20 years, and on top of that, if in 1996 you stop at a stoplight in your brand new XJ/S, and a beat up chalky painted 1976 XJ/S just happens to pull right up next to you, that premium car you just bought doesn’t seem so premium after that sight. Porsche of course did/does this too, but the XJ/S never underwent the extent of evolution the 911 did, nor did it get bolstered by a continuously successful racing career.
I’ve been a long-term fan of two Buick Rivieras that are generally maligned by the rest of men and motordom.
1970 Riviera (below) and the 1977-78 Riviera
Yes, the 77-78 Rivera was an anomaly while Buick awaited the new body –
And yes, I’d really rather have a ’66 Riviera; but I genuinely love both of these…
I like the 70 too, that was one extensive restyle for a one year wonder, and I found it to be a massive improvement over the ant eater nosed 68-69s.
Coincidently I spotted this one just a few weeks ago, at a junkyard sadly 🙁
Had lowrider hydraulics fitted to it, but it sat on musclecar cragar SSs(all but 1 mangled, natch) weirdly
The top photo of the Taurus is taken in Mission Beach, San Diego, CA. I grew up riding that roller coaster, leading to a lifetime love of coasters and numerous family trips when my kids were growing up to many great parks in the east and midwest.
Regarding the Taurus, while I didn’t love it, the contour of the hood reminded me of the 49-50 Fords. One little detail that I liked, at least.
maybe not ugly but a poverty vibe. Festiva! of course. beautiful utility though and unkillable mechanicals. add lowering springs and some upsized rubber to fill out the fenders and it starts to look serious. plug in the mazda 1.6L turbo or 1.8L engine in place of the 1.3 and looks no longer matter.
Girlfriend had a Festiva and I was impressed! Stout little unit, built for the long haul. Space efficient, economical. It is because of Festivas that Kia became a brand that I’d consider purchasing from.
PT Cruiser
Renault R8 specially if it’s a Gordini Rally in French Racing Blue, the R5 specially if its a Turbo. Anything by Virgil Exner did at Mopar.
PT Cruiser, MG Metro 6R4, BMW 7 Series E65