Renault didn’t help any:
Alliance, or, what if the French built a Jetta.
Fuego. I don’t know what the hell they were thinking.
Ford screwed up with the EXP and its sister car, the Mercury LN7.
I’m going to pitch a vote for the the new old Chrysler 300. It looks like they put the wrong top on it.
http://www.autosite.com/images/edphotos/previews/2005-chrysler-300c-rear.jpg
What were they trying for? The chopped look?
Well…it didn’t work.
How about the new Chevy HHR? Not to be confused with the SSR sport pickup, the HHR is a blobbier, uglier PT Cruiser.
Coming soon to a showroom near you.
Not to mention they stole the taillights from the Dodge Durango.
You win, Tuckerfan! I was going to scare up a picture of a Citroen (almost any model would do), but I have to admit that the Sir Vival is the truly butt-ugly car of all time.
The Sir Vival must be where the Simpsons writers got the idea for the Homer. Yeeeesh!
AMC was definately the runt of the litter! They made the weirdest-looking cars in the USA! Most of their design disasters were due to the fact that they were constantly on the edge of bankruptcey…and their factory (in Kenosha, WI) was a converted mattress factory that had been built in 1901!
It shows you what a vicious jungle the automobile business is…you cannot be small and survive in it. By 1978 (when AMC was bought up by renault-another disaster), their cars were easily 20 years behind the times in engineering…yet theyr 232 staright-six engine was a very good (allbeit dated powerplant).
AMC-the onlt people who bought those dogs were the poor and the eccentric!
My eyes are bleeding. I just passed a rice-rocketed Scion not all that dissimilar to this. ( at least the one I passed had a few less decals, but its California plate was OUR BB I shure hope that the owners don’t mean BB as baby )
P.S. was Sir Vival actually put into production?
Bippy, that link doesn’t work. Should I be relieved?
Incidentally, yesterday I saw my first PT Cruiser Convertible with the top up. Cream-coloured. There’s something seriously wrong with the proportions of that car…
What was the 1980s Cadillac (or some other large US sedan) that had a hunchback instead of a trunk? That one was seriously whacked.
No, thank the gods! It was a one off job done by a retired school teacher who spent $10K in the 1950s to build the thing. He hoped to sell the concept to one of the car companies, but since there was still talent in the design departments at that time, nobody bought it. Of course, now that I’ve put it on the web (and those are the only photos on the web of the car), one of the engineers at GM will see them, and use them as the basis for the next version of the Pontiac Aztek.
You mean this?
That’s the one. What were they thinking?
If you look back at some of those big-ass cars of the late 20’s - early 40’s, they had a similar feature. That’s what they were trying to recapture.
That Sir Vival… :eek: It looks like something that might live at the bottom of the ocean. Really, that’s the first thing that came to mind!
If we include non-production cars than we should also conside art cars some of which are real ugly in a fun sort of way.
They got it wrong. In the words of Car & Driver (IIRC), they look like a semi tried to back over 'em.
Still wasn’t as bad the ill-fated Cimarron. Hey! Let’s take a Cavalier and slap a Caddy grille on it and charge several thousands of dollars for the privelege.
Lol, I opened this up planning to say PT cruiser. OP beat me to it. 
(But you forgot about the even worse ones - the ones with wood paneling!)