I don’t think most of these examples are all that bad. They’re all just examples of the “folded paper” school of design that was en vogue at the time, with lots of clean, straight lines. That was a design trend that I’d say started in 1974 with the VW Golf/Rabbit, and ended circa 1986 with the Taurus.
The Omni/Horizon were pretty obviously trying to copy the Golf. And while I myself made fun of the Fairmont for looking generic, I read a period review of it that (favorably) compared it to a Volvo, and praised Ford for following Volvo’s practical, no nonsense, form follows function design philosophy.
Yes, the new Multipla is trying to say “Lookit this cool design!” but it’s ugly as sin.
The 1950s one is definitely funny-looking but is partially redeemed by clearly aiming for functionality and nothing else. But the doors are a mystery. If you’re going to have doors that swing in opposite directions, you want them in exactly the opposite configuration, so the door handles are side by side. Also, the design has the unfortunate attribute that the back looks like it should be the front, and vice versa, and the headlights look like an afterthought that were glued on.
Another example where the shape is dictated by the function. Yeah, the Multipla is weird looking, but it can seat six people reasonably comfortably, while being not much bigger than a (modern) Mini Cooper. That right there is a feat of engineering.
Also like the Pacer, it has similar small but wide proportions. But I forgive them for that, since that’s how they fit so many seats in such a small vehicle. And unlike the Pacer it’s front wheel drive, so there’s no driveshaft and transmission taking up space in the cabin.
My first car in '76 was one of the first Ford Fiestas. Built by Ford Germany, its acceleration and cornering were great. And the visibility was great! A friend got in it and said “Well, this is like driving a glass box!”
I didn’t realize how much visibility we’ve sacrificed til my wife got a generic new SUV… with all the styling of a jelly bean, and tiny windows… which is why it comes with cameras all over it.
Well, I went out and bought a used Subaru (Impreza Outback Sport wagon), which was from the twentieth century… when they made cars with skinny pillars and picture windows. I certainly don’t need any cameras on my car!
Some of those old cars did have impressive visibility! But they are now stuffing air bags everywhere and those take up real estate. Not that the air bags are the only visibility issue.
I used to have a first generation Saturn. While not quite Pacer-like in it’s glass area, it did have a wrap-around rear window, and a relatively low trunk. Visibility was great! That car had virtually no blind spots. Nothing I’ve driven since then has had such great visibility (well, the Miata is great when I have the top down, but it’s terrible with the top up). Everything noways has high beltlines and tiny windows. Apparently a lot of people like that because it makes them feel “safe”, but it sacracfices so much in terms of visibility.
ETA:
Something I learned the hard way about the Miata; it’s got an incredibly thick windshield frame. I think that’s partly because that’s where the side airbag lives, and partly because it has to support the weight of the car in a rollover accident. I have pulled up to four way stops, looked both ways, and completely missed the car stopped at the intersection to my right (which had the right of way) because it was completely hidden behind the window frame. I have to remember to look, and then lean forward a bit to make make sure there isn’t a car there.
I have a 2012 Mustang – it’s a hard-top, not a convertible, but I have run into the same issue with the width of the passenger-side A-pillar (the technical term for the vertical support frame between the windshield and the side window). I’ve not ever had a collision due to it, but a couple of close calls.
