(First Posted October 3, 2013) The driver of this Datsun F-10 bought it new in 1977, and she’s still in love with her beautiful baby. Which raises the question: is ugliness in the eye of the beholder?
There has to be some truth to that, because some folk’s idea of ugly cars is so totally off base. A while back Business Week recently carried a list of ten ugliest cars ever, and it included (get your meds ready): the gen1 Corvair(!), one of the most influential, revered and copied designs ever in the history of modern automobiles! They also listed the Vega, which was actually quite cute and well done design wise, despite its other flaws. Just goes to show there’s no accounting for taste.
It’s amazing how quickly a car company can fall off the pedestal. The Datsun 510 was hailed (still is) as a landmark in clean, timeless design, from a country that at the time was still finding its way stylistically. But only two years after the 510 arrived, Datsun was already going down a very different path stylistically.
It started with the 1970 Cherry, the predecessor to this F-10. You can see two things going on in Nissan’s first FWD car, and one of the first from Japan. Its back half accurately predicts the very successful 240 Z but the front half is already going down the ugly road towards the F-10.
The Coupe version of the first Cherry then adds a very high and bulbous rear end, and now the ingredients are largely in place.
But what really makes the F-10 bad are the front and rear end details: the front looks like the designers went home one night, and the janitors cobbled something up out of junk and by beating on it with an ugly stick. It’s about as bad as a front end gets on a car, no doubt. Our featured coupe has non-original or different black trim around its headlights, perhaps in an attempt to put on a bit of make-up.
Here’s a wagon (not my pic) of the un-adulterated F-10 front end. Nothing like making the headlights look even more google-eyed.
And lacking any other inspiration, the designers decided to mirror the front on the back end, with over-sized tail lights and a general lack of design acumen. I don’t know what Nissan was feeding its designers at the time, but the F-10 wasn’t the only recipient of its effects. The B210 was the RWD counterpart to the F-10, and it’s details are only slightly less ugly, but its proportions aren’t quite as bad. We’ve got some nice ones coming in a CC soon.
That dashboard has lots 70’s Nissan design school stuff going on here. There’s something decidedly Mopar-ish about all of this; at least more so than GM or Ford influence.
As much as I like greenhouses with visibility, and can hold up the Audi 80/Fox/VW Passat/Dasher as an example of clean timeless 1970′s design, I also recognize that high belt lines and gun-slit windows seem to be here to stay, and the benefits of aerodynamic kamm-back tails are indisputable. So as I sat looking at these pictures last night, I realized that from a side profile, the F-10 really is really rather contemporary, and a prophet of things to come.
Fugly, just plain fugly!
+1 it sure is but 3 cars I like most people say are ugly,the 58/59 Edsels,the Ford Mk 4 Zephyr/Zodiac and the 70 Dodge Coronet/Superbee.Ugliness and beauty are in the eye of the beholder.Ages since I’ve seen one of these F10s,the British climate dissolved most of them a long time ago,like a lot of late 60s/early 70s cars they didn’t have much resistance to girderworm
I wonder what Bill Mitchell would have said
Put me as another in the category that, while I’ll never call this car attractive, there’s something about it that I like. Probably because it didn’t look like something that’ll blend in at the local mall parking lot.
Then again, I always found the Pacer fascinating (although having driven one when new, have absolutely no desire to own one), likewise the Aztek (which I would like to own if the optional tent comes with it), and the 70’s Subaru GL (aka, Leone). I also love the Edsel, ’58 Lincoln, and am mildly fascinated by the ’57 Hudson.
I enjoy cars that stand out.
Syke, you would get along well with my middle son who loves Pacers and Aztecs. And, quite a few years ago when we watched It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, he fell in love with the 1962 Dodge Dart. If I find an ugly car, John is guaranteed to love it. He would probably like this one too.
I find this kind of blog post to be intensely annoying. Why does the writer feel the need to present his OPINIONS on the looks of an object as though they are matters of FACT?
The comments about various aspects of its’ DESIGN are, in my opinion, just pompous a**hattery.
Then again, MY opinion of HIS a**hattery may just, in fact, be more a**hattery.
What I am really trying to say is this; by all means convey your disdain for the appearance of a vehicle but please don’t try to make it seem scientific. It is just OPINION.
Scientific?? How does one (or did I) possibly describe the styling of a car in scientific terms? The precise slope of the hatch? The radius of the wheel opening? The measurements of the headlight surround?
We’re here to to discuss our opinions, feelings, memories and experiences of cars. If you want a scientific explanation of the F-10, you’ve probably come to the wrong place.
I’m sure if there was a scientific way to describe beauty in car design, this car would be the textbook example of a non-beauty. There’s no way in hell this car could be described as beautiful under even any scientific means. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and yes, at the end of the day, it’s always a matter of subjective opinion. But if you ask ten people what they think of this car, nine out of ten will say “WTF, man?”. And that’s as scientific as it gets…
I think it is BEAUTIFUL ! LOL ! ! ..and you could string triple 38mm Delorto’s across the front of the 1172cc transverse engine.. and have a very quick little car indeed!!
Reg Cook Racing Developments of Manurewa did a full ‘Datsun 1200 SSS’ engine conversion for me in the mid-80’s on a bright canary yellow 120A F11. He said the 45mm carbs (as used by the NZ factory converted Datsun 1200 SSS) were really too big for the engine for daily driving and that it would have better torque characteristics with the smaller 38mm units. He modified a set of extractors (headers) and opened up the exhaust with a bigger pipe and a 1275 Mini Cooper S straight thru resonator. It was quite loud. I don’t recall he changed the cam or did head work. It made that little mill really come alive and it was genuinely an exciting little car to drive after that. It could easily out accelerate an Aussie-built Mini Cooper S that we had at the same time back then. [That darned thing used to jump out of gear under load but it had been rallied and was pretty well thrashed. You drove around on the hills with a mate holding it in 3rd gear for you]
But why insult janitors? 🙂
I had one when back in 1979 and loved the car. A little small inside but not to small. It took no more than 1 hour at the most to change the clutch in the car.
Take off the front wheel and there is a cover. Remove the cover and there the side of trans. 6 bolts out and you can remove the pressure plate. Replace and you are ready to go. I put a pop up sun roof in mine and it was great. I wish I had it back.
Pat
I guess I like what others call “ugly”.
Hey, I’m ugly, but I love Gremlins, Jeep C-101s, Pacers, Azteks, etc…
However, some – most of the early Japanese cars are downright other-worldly as to design, but they have a Japanese-anime cuteness about them that over time stands out from the vanilla crowd.
The F10 tail lights do remind me, somehow, of “Forbidden Planet” Krell architecture! At least the featured car isn’t silver, white, beige or black, so THAT’s an improvement!
Hideous! Though I have to agree with you that this was a precursor to the current bloated, gunslit window, aero look afflicting so many cars today.
I remember car shopping with my brother in 1976 (when he wound up buying a Celica) and we looked at these. The one in the showroom was orange. Ugh. Datsun was quickly crossed off the list (well, he would have had a 280Z, but they were WAY too expensive).
I knew a girl in law school who had one of these, in white. It was an ugly, ugly car. It did not long survive her graduation, and was quickly traded in on a new Mazda 626 sedan, that was quite good looking.
This thing definitely has a Prius/Insight/hybrid vibe to it. And even though it didn’t work, you have to give the designers credit for carrying the big square theme all the way throughout the car – headlights, dash, tail, its uniformly off the mark.
From the blemishes it appears the owner attempted to reduce the ugliness by painting the headlight surrounds in black.
That pic of the red F10 is even worse. It reminds me of a waterbear.
The non-US versions of these are slightly more cohesive on the front end detailing, but the proportions remain rather odd. Unfortunately, the US never received the 4 door version. Think ’72 Gran Torino mated with an Allegro and you get the picture.
The wagon on the other hand worked comparatively well. Not unlike the Allegro, a slightly Dali-essque miniature version of a Reliant Scimitar.
In the UK, a surprising number of survivors came with a semi-automatic gearbox- I don’t know if these made it to the states, as I was born in the midwest in 1977 and thus most of these had rusted away long before I was at an age where I could remember the details.
The US was spared the silliness of Datsun names: Sunny (B210) Cherry (F10) Violet (710 or 610), Bluebird- 510 and later Stanza, Laurel- Granada sized; and the silliest of all, the Cedric- rival for the Toyota Crown.
My only memory of these was my grandfather’s B210- it had a smell that only Datsuns of the 70s had, and one of the most intricate dashboards ever fitted to an economy car that didn’t have chevrons on the grille.
They are definitely odd looking. I dunno about ugly though. I’ll go with distinctively different! I wouldn’t mind one myself but haven’t seen one in decades.
Today I might say it’s so ugly it’s cute. Back then, I remember them coming out and the “it’s cute” part never occurred to me. Round headlight and taillight bezels would have helped a lot.
And that’s some liftover height on that hatch opening – I don’t recall anyone caring back then.
Paul – how in the world has that lady tolerated her F-10 for 36 years??
Its probably alright inside looking out.
I was 6 months old when this car was made. It is ugly, but then again, most everything that I have seen from the 70s was super ugly.
The dashboard looks AMC.
I don’t think people that buy small cheap cars like this really care that much about styling. Tastes and design themes have changed over the years, but IMO, even today’s small cars are still this ugly, just in a different way.
After the good-looking 510, 1200,and pickups, Datsuns definitely started getting weirder with each subsequent “design”. The F10, the B210, the 610 and 710. All weird. Of course they weren’t the only ones. Subarus were pretty bizarre too.
Subarus being ugly cousin’s to Nissans of the day would not be an entirely coincidental observation. Nissan took a 20% stake of Subaru in 1968, and it is rumored that the first-generation Leone’s styling was a joint effort between the Subaru and Nissan styling departments.
Yes the B210 was strange looking too, especially the hatchback with those rear side windows. Remember the funny looking hub caps, with the honeycomb pattern.? They called the base model the “Honey Bee “. Along about 1980 was the restyled 210, and it was better looking.
Call me crazy, but there’s definitely a bit of Maserati in there…
Bora, or Merak…..I’m thinkin’ the Merak is closer..
Even more Porsche 924 – the hop-up in the rear side window, the wrapover rear hatch glass…
That was the Bora….here’s the Merak
The Oregon Trail plates on the car shown date back to the late 1990’s – the fact that the front one isn’t bent back where it extends below the bumper shows that the car’s been well cared for as well as lucky in parallel parking. Hey, ugly cars need love too….
I remember looking at these with my Father in 1976 when he was in the market for a new car. I had his old 74 710, and he was looking for a replacement…the odd thing we noticed was the vents on the top of the hood near the carburator…since this was one of the first (maybe the first) Front wheel drive Datsun cars, we were a bit suspicious, looked like an engineering change due to some problem they were having, so he passed, ended up getting a ’76 Subaru DL (front wheel drive, before they were doing 4 wheel drive)…3 years later I got my first job, and one of the ladies I carpooled with had the successor to this model, the Datsun 310, 2 door hatchback, was very similar to the F10…she called her car “Florence”.
Yes those vents were there as an attempt to fix a problem with afterboil in the carb. With the non cross flow head and the fact that the carb and exhaust manifold were on the fire wall side of the engine meant there was a lot of heat build up there. When that didn’t totally fix the problem a small fan similar to those aftermarket fans intended to be mounted on the dash was fitted to the strut tower and was pointed at the carb. That meant that you needed to keep a good strong battery in them as the fan would come on based on a temp sensor after the engine was shut off. When the sensing system failed they often failed in the on mode.
Yes, now that you mention it I remember the fan also…Living in Vermont at the time, the Subaru he bought seemed to have the “opposite” problem, the fuel line kept freezing up on him (despite using dry gas)…one time I remember him working on it and he didn’t get the hood closed all the way, it came up and buckled; he never had it fixed. Despite this he liked the Subaru for its front wheel drive in the snow (from then on, I think all his small cars had front wheel drive, as that was around the time it was becoming popularly available)..though he never bought another Subaru.
My brother bought one of these, cheap, a repo from his credit union. Not only was the styling bizarre, so was some of the engineering. The FWD drivetrain included a motorcycle-style multiplate clutch. Maybe the original Civic had the same?
It was not a multi plate clutch but it was quite interesting and one of the greatest ideas I’ve ever seen. To replace the clutch you did not have to separate the trans from the engine, since you couldn’t until the engine and trans were removed from the car. On the back end of the trans was a cover which revealed the input shaft’s end. Remove that cover and you could pull out the push rod that actuated the pressure plate and input shaft. Then you pulled a cover off of the top of the bellhousing and you had access to unbolt the flywheel, yes the flywheel. Turn the engine over and you could access all the bolts and then pull the flywheel and clutch disc out. Then you could reach in and unbolt the pressure plate from the flywheel and extract it. All told it was about a 1 hour job.
The only easier clutch was that of the Honda 600 series that was at the end of the trans pop off a half dozen or so bolts and the clutch assembly was right there. About a 45 minute job.
The original Civc was not nearly as easy since you had to remove the trans like virtually every other car. Once you’ve done a dozen or so though they could go pretty quick and the transaxle being so small and light was easy to handle.
Very similar to my namesake’s clutch replacement procedure.
When Datsun released the F-10, Car and Driver printed their review using the heading “The Car That Fell to Earth.”
Pretty much says it all…
I had two mountain climbing friends with one. It had everything you hated about Japanese cars at the time – narrow, high windows, tin-can construction, along with the ugliest exterior to hit the road since Chrysler fired Virgil Exner.
Sometimes Japanese car design doesn’t translate onto American roads, so forcing the F-10 to adopt US headlights, bumpers and other legal exterior requirements only made matters worse.
Nissan made some of the ugliest cars at this time. I’m sure they didn’t intend to, but they sure as hell did.
I have a feeling that Business Week’s article fell victim to bad subediting. The title is indeed “The World’s Ugliest Cars”, but the subtitle is “A recent survey selects the worst designed cars of all time”. I think the original intention was to talk about overall design, and someone wrote the headline interpreting it as visual design.
It was ugly back in the day, but has so much charm today. I love it.
Maybe I’ll like the nissan Juke (read Puke) in 30-40 years?
Aww, I see a couple of these (Pukes) on Maui roads, they are driven by cute girls, I guess they felt sorry for them. Same for the early Jeep Liberty (Chick Jeep).
It is not so bad and to be honest it was in good company in the mid 1970’s as most of the cars made and sold in the USA were ugly(I would take this over the bloat designed by the Big Three in that time period. For instance take the 1972 Cutlass in both sedan and coupe forms. It was stylish, muscular and a good looking car. Then take a 1973-1977 Cutlass. The car was “butt ass ugly” especially the sedan with that Colonnade style. Next take a 1978 Cutlass(the first year of downsizing) the car has style and the lines on it were gracefully and tastefully applied.
In fact from 1973 to 1976 most American and foreign cars sold in the USA were not exactly anything to write home for in the style department. it is like that time period was a wilderness for stylish and good looking cars of any stripe.
Then in 1977 GM downsized the B body and it was like “bringing sexy back” with stylish and clean designs
I remember the first time I saw these new. My eyes hurt, particularly after the 510 era. My first thought…. “they lost their way”.
I’ve been on the fence on these, and to a lesser extent, the B210, especially the hatchback variant due to the odd styling cues on both cars.
That said, I don’t think the rear taillights were bad on these, but the front head lights, not so much, not bad with the round sealed beams, but the googly eyed bezels, not so much, other than that, the front end looked OK. However, to me, the bezels looked like badly applied makeup like a drunken drag queen or whore with too much makeup around the eyes that had been badly applied. Going with the black bezels helps here.
That said, I, too like odd cars like the Yugo, and while I don’t find them pretty, they certainly have their charms but some cars simply don’t work, the Juke is one as it’s all about style over function and it’s even less cohesive than the F-10.
BTW, high lift-overs for hatchbacks were quite common back then, at least until the early 80’s when they, like their small wagon counterparts had been doing all along went all the way to the bumper for easier loading.
I suspect that a lot of early hatchbacks tended to have high liftover height for structural reasons. If you cut a big hole in a unibody structure, you lose a lot of rigidity; the bigger the hole, the greater the loss. You can brace the structure elsewhere to make up for the loss of rigidity, but that adds weight, which, with the very small and underpowered engines of a lot of vintage economy cars, was not a particularly attractive solution.
As manufacturers got more sophisticated with load analysis, having a bigger hatchback opening and lower liftover became easier to achieve without prohibitive strength/weight penalties, but the cars also got bigger and heavier anyway, so the idea of trading off weight for convenience was perhaps more acceptable.
Off hand I can only think of a couple of ’70s hatchbacks with a low liftover height, the Civic and the Pinto.
May I show you a Saab 99 or 900 hatchback? No rear lip at all.
I think part of the dilemma for Japanese automakers during that period was that the sort of designs that got a lot of critical praise in the U.S. or Europe for being clean, crisp, etc., didn’t necessarily go over very well in the domestic market, where I think buyers tended to consider them bland, too short on surface detail. So, there was a tension between what would play in the home market and what the export markets wanted.
Looking at the more expensive Japanese cars of that era, there seems to be a pretty strong overall correlation between busy detailing and price/class — with some exceptions, the pricier the car, the more cluttered it tended to look. Since there wasn’t as much of a size gap between low-end and high-end cars as there was in the U.S. or even the U.K., my assumption is that making small cars busier was a way of making them seem more expensive. (Given the popularity of rococo luxury cars in the States, I don’t know that the U.S. market was that different…)
Viewed in that light, the F-10 is a little easier to understand even if it’s not any prettier. For one, it’s trying to remind you every moment that it’s not a box and it’s not a sedan. It’s a car desperately trying to be interesting, and, like people who do the same thing, mainly ends up seeming very eccentric.
That’s well put. The Japanese were also just beginning to develop their automotive design sensibility. During the early- to mid-70s in particular, Japanese automakers seemed determined to chart a different stylistic direction than Europe . . . which all too often resulted in a weird mix of American and Japanese bling on roller skates.
It wasn’t until the early-80s that the Japanese automakers switched to a blander but more internationally acceptable look. Only in the last few years has Japanese bling started to show up again in designs available in the U.S.
Yet another example of the Godzilla school of design……..
Nissan has always had as many cars that were ugly as cars that were attractive. I liked most of them. Some of them just left me scratching my head but every Nissan I ever drove was fun.
Nissan’s apex design-wise was 1985-1995. Everything they put out then was sharp.
But yeah, they have a history of derp, from the F10/610/710 to the last gen Sentra, Maxima, Quest and of course the Juke.
I remember when these came out….the only thing as hideous was the Gremlin, Pacer and Subaru.
On the last point, I must beg to differ. Have you seen the 1977 Datsun 200SX/Silvia, this car’s big brother?
Whether it’s styling or engineering, Nissan seems to be a bipolar car company. You might get neat styling/basic engineering, neat styling/advanced engineering, bizarre styling/basic engineering, or bizarre styling/advanced engineering. Often it seemed they did a mix-and-match throughout their range over the years – like when the 710/Bluebird lost it’s IRS and back-tracked to a solid axle. I’ve wondered whether maybe the advanced engineering came when they took over Prince (whose cars were more technically advanced), and the ex-Prince engineering ethos had to periodically re-establish itself.
I remember when I saw my first Datsun F-10, I laughed out loud at how ugly it was.
For as ugly as I thought the F-10 was when they came on the market, it seems mildly attractive to me now. Maybe it’s all the ugly vehicles on the market from most any manufacturer today.
The Vega has been rightly criticized for many sins, but I’ve never heard anyone call it ugly. Based solely on it’s appearance, I still want one. The early ones were clean, attractive cars. Horrible in so many ways, but clean, attractive cars.
I agree totally on both your points. I always liked how the Vega’s front end styling mimicked the Camaro’s…even after 1974, both vehicles looked similar.
These cars were obviously style-challenged, but as with many other Japanese cars of the era, had a certain quirky charm about them. A buddy of mine had one and while ugly, it was mechanically bulletproof and never left him stranded, something that can’t be said about most US or European cars at that time.
My major complaint, shared with the Civic,was it had the lightest, flimsiest doors I ever tugged on – and I always was scared to death an F150 or Sedan DeVille would barrel into us and even at 20 mph, we’d be history……..
Thank you for digging up a repressed memory…
There seems to be a hint of the gen 1 Civic in the front end design – pinched grille, headlight flares, parking light placement – but a lot less modestly expressed.
My brother drove one of these for a while before trading it for a XA Falcon 302 it didnt give any trouble
to me the design,from some angles,looks like Citroen SM a car I really love
The F-10’s unharnessed ugliness lives on in Nissan’s Juke.
I remember seeing the Datsun F10 when I was a boy. At the time, I thought it was the ugliest thing Datsun had produced. Today, I consider it one of the nicest looking cars Datsun had produced.
Looking for a windshield for my 1978 Datsun f 10 that keeps running and running. Any ideas. T.
Which is the power of the engine and the maximum speed of the datsun f-10 1977
My first car. Looking to buy one.
I like it, i’d own one. I don’t have a problem with the rear, side, or front. Looks OK to me.
I think it’s quite inoffensive. Not a looker, but not much was out of Japan back then. People in the U.K bought them because they were mechanically excellent, had a radio as standard and they were available when most of the U.K’s manufacturers were on strike. Reliability was a big issue with home built cars here in the ’70s. It’s just a shame these Datsuns rusted out horrifically in our weird climate. Early ’80s scrapyards were full of 70s datsuns with no floor, wheelarches or sills (rocker panels) but faultlessly working engines and radios.
As a kid, a very distant cousin had an F-10 Coupe. I still remember seeing it for the first time and thinking it was the ugliest car ever, and couldn’t understand for the life of me why the hatch was near horizontal, creating what I now know the term to be lift-over height. Then having later seen an F-10 Wagon, I found it to be much more attractive, but still thought the front to be styled after an insect, and perhaps an alien one at that. But back to that Coupe of the distant family member…when I heard that the F-10 had been involved in a very bad accident, alas my first thought was not “is everyone ok?!” but rather “I hope I never see that thing in my driveway ever again.” Thankfully, the far removed cousin was ok and the F-10 was not.
CC-in-scale has built the first-gen Cherry coupe…
Nicely done! What is the writing on the roof? What scale, and what kit?
It’s a 1970s kit by Yamada, If I remember rightly. All their cars were in scaled to fit on the one common motorised chassis, so it’s probably something weird like 1/21, and that explains the huge fender flares.
The writing on the roof? It’s (bear with me) a peel-and-stick label off a shampoo bottle! I was going to cut it up and use the logo and words on a race car model, but for some reason I put it here and it’s still where I stuck it back in nineteen-seventy-something….
Thanks. For a 70s kit, and motorized at that, it looks very well done. As a model railroader, of not too popular Canadian lines, I get the idea of using whatever you can find for signs. Although a shampoo bottle label is a new one for me.
As well as sponsorship markings, they also work well for a fictional commercial vehicle…
We should do a survey on ‘which ugly car do you like?’. For me, one is the oft-maligned Subaru Tribeca.
(The photo clearly got censored!) 🙂
I never liked these cars, either. Stylistically, they were hideous.
Their big selling point as I recall was the front wheel drive. I can’t recall who did it (Popular Mechanics springs to mind), but in the 80s in an effort to promote the importance of proper mechanical upkeep and maintenance of cars, two F-10s, each with similar mileage and outward appearance were obtained. One had been maintained religiously, the other not so much. They were sawed in half behind the front seats, then each front portion were attached back together. The result was if you drove the one half that was maintained properly, then drove the other half you would immediately feel and sense the wear and tear on the drivetrain and front suspension of the lesser maintained car. The point was most people don’t realize how worn out their car is because it happens so gradually; this exercise was to show it didn’t have to happen so quickly if properly maintained.
One of our neighbors in Fort Collins, CO had one of these butt-ugly cars. It was yellow with the black trim, so it looked to 11-year old me like a giant bumble bee. On a side note, does anyone else but me think the tail-lamps on this car at least have a passing resemblance to the 1963 Chevy II? Let me know…
The Hyundai Veloster kind of reminds me of the old F10 in some ways.
I was a distant cousin in Hawaii that owned an F-10 (now I know what my mainland cousins were thinking when I would pick them up at the airport). I liked the F-10 better than the B-210, and perhaps because it was less popular, I got a really good price for a new car. It worked well, no major problems for the 4 years I drove it around Oahu. Good on gas for that era, peppy, and the contour of the rear end allowed me to haul a lot of stuff (I ran a small in-house print shop and had to cart boxes of items to and from the local bindery and the shipping store). Yes, I did have to replace all the struts and rear shocks and springs 2 years in because I over-loaded the poor thing. Otherwise, I enjoyed owning it. It fit in ok in Hawaii.
I used to have an F-10 hatchback. It was so light in the rear end that when I parked outside a bar or restaurant that had outside patio seating, I would park the nose in a parallel stall, get out of the car walk to the back and facing away from the hatchback, Squat down and lift the back end up of the ground and walk the ass end of the car into the stall while people sat and stared! 🤣