# We are living in THE ugliest period in automobile history **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 5, 2006, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445 "2006-06-05T03:14:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/61 "2006-06-05T16:02:08Z")
[QUOTE=Absolute] We’re talking about appearance here, not practicality. [/quote] We’re talking about vehicles, not art gallery exhibits. Of course practicality is part of the equation. > [@](#): > > I mean, look at a car like the [Aston-Martin V8 Vantage](http://www.bisonium.com/blog/images/_wallpaper_sportscars_Aston-Martin-V8-Vantage---1024x768.jpg). That is a _beautiful_ car. Are you telling me that you don’t like it because it gets lousy gas mileage and has no room to store a load of crap from Wal-Mart? I wouldn’t call it _ugly_ but it’s not appealing to me, partly for those reasons. It doesn’t make me think “ooh, I wish I had the money to buy one.” ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/62 "2006-06-05T16:08:49Z")
[QUOTE=Argent Towers] I prefer the early to mid 70s for American cars and the mid to late 90s for Euro cars. The BMW 8-series is one of the best looking cars ever made, in my opinion. The best looking new American car right now is the Chevy Impala. [/QUOTE] Ya know, it might not be exactly fair to compare a $90,000 car with ones that retail in the mid-20’s. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/63 "2006-06-05T16:11:29Z")
[QUOTE=Who\_me?] Thus the ugly has a purpose? I’ll still avoid purchasing one. [/QUOTE] Well, I think it’s pretty _because_ it’s practical. Though I admit it’s not the best example of “form follows function” - I don’t like the bulging bumpers on the xB. I think the Volvo 240 wagon was a better example - lots of room, fantastic visibility in all directions, full height cargo area all the way to the back, and decent handling. The exterior design follows from those functional requirements, but with nice curves to soften the look. (The Volvo 740 went a little too far and looked starkly utilitarian, IMO.) ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/64 "2006-06-05T16:14:31Z")
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker] I had an idea for car companies. Remake classic cars. You know, update the materials that they’re made from and all. Update what’s under the hood. But remake the old mustangs and Chevys exactly as they were, at least from an aesthetic standpoint. I bet people would buy them. [/QUOTE] I know I would. Doesn’t seem that they understand the basic concept, tho. Reintroducing a classic does NOT mean putting an old name on a new car. The Mustang has a free pass since it’s been in production the entire time, but slapping a “GTO” sticker on a Monaro does not a GTO make. The T-Bird and the Charger are worse, in my opinion. It’s like remaking “War of the Worlds” and having Tom Cruise star - just flat wrong. 1968 Firebird with a modern drivetrain/suspension? Yeah!! (Keep the rear-wheel drive, tho) Argent - I just dislike Mustangs. Always thought they were underpowered and ugly to start with, then they got big and ugly. I’d rather have a '72 Nova. Heck, I’d rather have an 05 Mustang than a 65. ---
**Author:** ![Bambi\_Hassenpfeffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Bambi\_Hassenpfeffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bambi_Hassenpfeffer)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/65 "2006-06-05T16:16:06Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Just out of interest, would anyone like to comment on the [Citroen Xsara Picasso](http://www.autoweblog.de/50226711/images/picasso.jpg)? I’m guessing, from the general tone of critique here, the answer will be something like ‘giant comedy egg on wheels’ [/QUOTE] I love it and if I could buy a car like that here I would. I (as a rule) love most of the miniature European and Japanese hatches and wagons. I’m glad to see some of them (the xB, the Yaris) coming to the US, cause if they do well, maybe we’ll get more of them – provided Fiat keeps the double-decker Multipla far, far away. But I come from a different viewpoint than a lot of the people in this thread. I see the practicality of a car as one of its most important design considerations. The Honda Element does what it’s designed to do very well, and at the same time it manages to be cute and fun. Cute and fun are also completely valid design goals – not everything needs to be all roided out like that (HEINOUSLY UNATTRACTIVE) Mach 1. Cars I like: [Nissan Cube](http://www.in.gr/auto/parousiaseis/foto_big/Nissan_Cube_05.jpg) [Toyota Vitz (Yaris in the US)](http://superstreetonline.com/roadtests/p26502_image_large.jpg) [The Mazda5](http://www.mazda.nl/content/nieuws/Mazda5-1aug05.jpg) [Nissan Murano](http://press.nissan-global.com/COMMON/IMAGES/CURRENT_US/MURANO/LOW/murano.jpg) The entire Volvo lineup And lots of others… But giant cars that have form over function, like the 70s American models discussed above are not my taste. That doesn’t mean we live in the ugliest period in car history, it means what you like and what’s currently coming out aren’t the same. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/66 "2006-06-05T16:16:38Z")
[QUOTE=Argent Towers] Don’t understand all the hate for the Mach 1. I personally like sportscars that look a little mean, and the Mach 1 looks meaner than the older Stangs you’ve linked to, in my opinion. [/quote] I’m in the “I want reliable transportation” school of car-owning (gimme another Accord, they last for-fucking-ever!), so I’m not the most apt critic, I expect. But to me, the Mach 1 doesn’t look _mean_; it looks _cheap_. > [@](#): > > I think the grill looks great, I can’t see how someone could criticize it - it’s more recessed and the logo is smaller, plus it manages to pull off the combination of rectangular and circular lights. The grille is practically invisible. What IS visible is that sawed-off nose. To me, that’s cheap-looking. As is the cut of the rear window and some other minor doodads. The paint job admittedly makes a big impression too. > [@](#): > > The massive height of the swept-up rear end of the Mach 1 makes it look like it has more power behind it, and gives it a more solid look. It also looks a little bit futuristic without looking TOO futuristic. Having been in grade school when _The Jetsons_ were on TV, I’m acquainted with what was considered ‘futuristic’ in that era. There ain’t _nothing_ ‘futuristic’-looking about the Mach 1. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/67 "2006-06-05T16:27:12Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] Well, I think it’s pretty _because_ it’s practical. [/QUOTE] I really don’t understand the logic here. If there was a car that was the epitome of practicality: 100 mpg, plenty of storage space, good acceleration and handling, price under $10,000, yet was shaped, colored and textured to resemble a turd, would you still say “I think it’s pretty because it’s practical?” I wouldn’t. I would say “It’s a practical car, but that doesn’t change the fact that the styling is horrible.” Hell, by that logic, turds are beautiful little sculptures: what other practical way is there for a biological system to dispose of waste? They’re pretty because they’re practical! If Scion came out with the xSuck, which looked exactly like the xB, except it got 2 mpg, cost $100,000, and for some reason had a cramped interior with barely enough room for a driver, would you call that car ugly (because of the impracticality) and the xB pretty (because of the practicality), despite the fact that they both look exactly the same from the outside? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/68 "2006-06-05T16:39:34Z")
Sorry, I don’t know why that got me so worked up. I’m feeling kind of cranky today… ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/69 "2006-06-05T16:43:48Z")
[QUOTE=Absolute] I really don’t understand the logic here. If there was a car that was the epitome of practicality: 100 mpg, plenty of storage space, good acceleration and handling, price under $10,000, yet was shaped, colored and textured to resemble a turd, would you still say “I think it’s pretty because it’s practical?” I wouldn’t. I would say “It’s a practical car, but that doesn’t change the fact that the styling is horrible.” [/QUOTE] The point is that the box-like design is _why_ it is practical. It allows you to pack the most useable space in that footprint. The form and function are linked. Making a car look like a turn _wouldn’t impact the practicality_ so it wouldn’t meet the criteria. As a vehicle with good access, lots of flexible storage, that doesn’t take up a lot of space, you end up with a box like design. It may not appeal to you, but to many of us who view the purpose of the car as part of the design, it looks great. Obviously, if the purpose of the car is to go real fast and corner well, this would not be a good design. The Element and the xB are good uses of space, and their design reflects that. They are distinctive as well. I think the Element is a prettier car, but I also admire what the xB has done in a smaller platform. ---
**Author:** ![Glassy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ea666f/32.png) [@Glassy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glassy)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/70 "2006-06-05T16:48:06Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] However, I still think the world’s ugliest SUV is the Honda Element, which, in addition to looking like the box the Land Rover was shipped in, has the added feature of having those differently colored body panels, as if while being shipped from the factory it had already gotten into an accident and the body work was done by someone who didn’t have the right color of paint: [http://autonet.ca/Spotlight/TestDrives/story.cfm?story=/Spotlight/TestDrives/2005/11/11/1302603.html](http://autonet.ca/Spotlight/TestDrives/story.cfm?story=/Spotlight/TestDrives/2005/11/11/1302603.html) [/Quote] This is all true, and I duly recoiled in horror the first several times I saw one, but … The Honda Element is growing on me. I don’t know why. Somehow, some part of my brain has decided that anything that presents ugliness with such goofy confidence has to have some kind of panache. Not that I’m about to go out and buy one, but I’ve decided that the Element is kind of cute. [QUOTE=RickJay] It’s even uglier than the Aztek, which when in yellow looked exactly like a 1989-era Sony Sports Walkman: [A Sony Sports Walkman (scroll down)](http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-SONY-Sports-Walkman-Cassette-Player-WM-F45-AMFM_W0QQitemZ7622582600QQcategoryZ15053QQcmdZViewItem) [The Pontiac Aztek](http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/07/_in_the_summer.html) [/QUOTE] Hee hee. Now that’s funny. My personal least favorite car on the road is the Cadillac EXT Escalade [pick up truck](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.columbianshop.com/_images/2006NewVehicles/cadillac/EscaladeEXT.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.columbianshop.com/cars/2006newvehicles/Cadillac/escaladeext.cfm&h=246&w=475&sz=47&tbnid=Fi6zPaRZz_zNtM:&tbnh=65&tbnw=126&hl=en&start=5&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcadillac%2Bluxury%2Bpickup%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GGLD:2004-28,GGLD:en). I totally admit that my white liberal soul is completely offended by the sight of this 55-grand, seats-six-in-comfort-plus-the-servants-can-haul firewood excuse for a pickup. Plus people who drive them seem to be horrible road hogs. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/71 "2006-06-05T16:48:54Z")
I know this is subjective, so I’m not going to argue too hard on the particular merits of my opinion, but I do happen to like the styling of the [Styling](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Skyliner34gt-t2.jpg) of the R34 Nissan Skyline. I love a car that goes fast and looks sleek, yet fuctional, without needing to look overly exaggerated and pretentions. Those mustangs in the last few pics just scream “tiny penis” a little too much. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/72 "2006-06-05T17:03:25Z")
[QUOTE=Who\_me?] I can’t find a good picture of the 429 Boss [/QUOTE] [Here ya go](http://hometown.aol.com/rb302/images/boss9kmc04.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/73 "2006-06-05T17:06:28Z")
[QUOTE=Absolute] I really don’t understand the logic here. If there was a car that was the epitome of practicality: 100 mpg, plenty of storage space, good acceleration and handling, price under $10,000, yet was shaped, colored and textured to resemble a turd, would you still say “I think it’s pretty because it’s practical?” I wouldn’t. I would say “It’s a practical car, but that doesn’t change the fact that the styling is horrible.” \ [/QUOTE] Why, in the name of all that’s holy, must fuel efficient cars be so hideous? I’d like a Prius, but I can’t stand to look at the things. A low, slick looking sportscar body has got to be more aerodynamic than that thing. C’mon, Toyota. Even my old Corolla looks better. I’m starting to see your point **Argent Towers**. In the late 70’s and early 80’s, it was primarily American cars that sickened me, now just about every company has at least one that I wouldn’t park near, just in case that ugly is contagious. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/74 "2006-06-05T17:19:50Z")
It’s good that my husband isn’t a member here, allowing me to say in confidence: His '73 Mustang convertible is [ugly](http://www.marcpoole.com/73stang/DSCN2321.jpg). (Not a pcture of his car, but a dead ringer aside from the spoiler.) Somewhere, his ears are burning in fury. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/75 "2006-06-05T17:20:31Z")
[QUOTE=Absolute] If there was a car that was the epitome of practicality: 100 mpg, plenty of storage space, good acceleration and handling, price under $10,000, yet was shaped, colored and textured to resemble a turd, would you still say “I think it’s pretty because it’s practical?” [/quote] But a car shaped and textured like a turd would _not_ be practical. It wouldn’t be aerodynamic, and its exterior size would be larger than necessary. It would also be difficult to wash. > [@](#): > > Hell, by that logic, turds are beautiful little sculptures: what other practical way is there for a biological system to dispose of waste? They’re pretty because they’re practical! A shape optimized for one function isn’t optimal for another. The Concorde may be a pretty good shape for a supersonic airliner, but a car shaped like the Concord would be horribly cramped. > [@](#): > > If Scion came out with the xSuck, which looked exactly like the xB, except it got 2 mpg, cost $100,000, and for some reason had a cramped interior with barely enough room for a driver, would you call that car ugly (because of the impracticality) and the xB pretty (because of the practicality), despite the fact that they both look exactly the same from the outside? It depends on what the purpose of the xSuck is. If that’s the result of loading a 7-liter V-8 engine on the rear of the xB, I’d call that an ugly car. If the poor performance is a result of loading a 100-gallon water tank to use as a mini fire truck in an amusement park, I’d consider it a pretty car. > [@Bobotheoptimist](#): > > Why, in the name of all that’s holy, must fuel efficient cars be so hideous? I’d like a Prius, but I can’t stand to look at the things. A low, slick looking sportscar body has got to be more aerodynamic than that thing. No, it really isn’t. “Aerodynamic” means minimal air resistance _for a given volume_, or for a given frontal area. That means a blunt rounded nose, smooth sides and tapered tail end\*, with no unnecessary protrusions. The classic teardrop shape is ideal. The Honda Insight is more aerodynamic than a Corvette. \*A truncated rear end is also good, if there’s a smooth taper up to that point. It’s called a [Kammback](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammback). ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/76 "2006-06-05T17:33:29Z")
[QUOTE=Glassy] This is all true, and I duly recoiled in horror the first several times I saw one, but … The Honda Element is growing on me. I don’t know why. Somehow, some part of my brain has decided that anything that presents ugliness with such goofy confidence has to have some kind of panache. Not that I’m about to go out and buy one, but I’ve decided that the Element is kind of cute. [/QUOTE] Maybe the [commercials](http://automobiles.honda.com/element/index.aspx) are getting to you. _I like to peench_ ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/77 "2006-06-05T18:07:27Z")
[QUOTE=Hung Mung] Damn, **RickJay**. I heartily agree that today’s cars are uglier on the whole. Unfortunately, Ugly appears to be an actual marketing strategy. Check this article from MSNBC: [link](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3158452/) Doesn’t that just figure? Instead of designing something classy and timeless, these guys are _deliberately_ making ugly cars. We’re stuck with it. [/QUOTE] I have to disagree with you on this one. I like that they take chances on the design. I hated the 80s in that most of the designs were boxy and safe. Remember the Olds Cutlass which was the same as the Buick Century which was very similar to the Pontiac 6000 which looked like the Chevy something or other. I drive an Element so take my opinion with a grain of salt. However, my car is easier to clean and can carry a bunch of stuff while getting decent fuel economy. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/78 "2006-06-05T18:10:16Z")
Thank you Mr. Skywatcher… I’ll just sit here and drool for a moment… A neighbor had a 429 Boss back in 1970 when I was a wee motorhead lad… who spent countless hours at the side of the highway near my house, competing with other boys trying to identify every car coming past by make, model and year… As a counter to **scr4** , who thinks that little square boxes are attractive… here are some of my favorite cars… none of which are square… 😉 [1972 Olds 442](http://www.oldsclubofflorida.com/Images/Members/Ray%20Lymann%20Debby%20Erdmann72%20442.jpg) [1972 AMC AMX](http://www.dreams-cars.net/images/Galerie/AMC/AMC_Javelin_AMX_1972/AMC_Javelin_AMX_1972-01.jpg) [1970 Barracuda](http://home.fuse.net/billstoys/danhenslee1.jpg) For me, the epitome of American auto design was the late 60’s and early 70’s. Today, the only way you can get a car that looks great is to buy a Ferrari or a Lambo… which I can’t afford. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/79 "2006-06-05T18:13:41Z")
If you replace the words car, automobile, and specific model names with the word “penis”, the OP is hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445/80 "2006-06-05T18:23:56Z")
[QUOTE=Who\_me?] … [1970 Barracuda](http://home.fuse.net/billstoys/danhenslee1.jpg) [/QUOTE] I had a 70’ Barracuda, it was my first car. A very fun car, but only the Slant 6 Engine not the Hemi. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-are-living-in-the-ugliest-period-in-automobile-history/359445.md?page=5)