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?
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.