I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again–
:rolleyes: .
There are a lot of ugly cars out there. I have no reason why.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t millions of these ugly cars being sold ?
Why? I cannot answer that. All car lovers here agree the cars made today are ugly.
Are all the people buying them not noticing?
I’m not fussy about the Mach 1 either. The back deck is way too high, and the hideous cross-strut things over the rear window (I don’t even know the correct name for the apparatus) are just plainly stupid.
I much prefer the Camaros of the same era:
http://www.seriouswheels.com/1970-1979/1972-Chevrolet-Camaro-Z28.htm
At our house, we call them “juice box cars”. There’s a Scion xB at school that has “JUCEBOX” as its license plate, hence the name.
Robin
I don’t know why that would be heresy, I think they’re pretty cool looking. Kind of like an early 70’s Jaguar, but even nicer.
I’ll agree that there are plenty of arse looking cars these days, but I really like some of them. Some of the higher end Mercedes look like road sharks, I have no problems with the Dodge Magnum, the Subaru WRX looks like a car out of a video game (which may or may not be your cup of tea, but I like it) and there’s always the entire Lotus line, which gives you a car that looks like it cost half a million dollars, but can be had for around $60k.
Actually, that Mach 1 looks an awful lot like the AMC Eagle.
Now, granted, I’m one of the few people who thought the Eagle was a cool, if quirky, looking car, but it is mostly held to be an ugly, ungainly box.
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.
Most of the generally recognized “ugliest cars ever made” are from the 70s and 80s, and the cars made before 1950 were generally nondescript and boring. What we have now isn’t even close to the ugliest period in automotive history.
Sweet, I’ll take a 69’ SS Camaro convertible Hybrid please. To save weight and increase gas mileage they can make it smaller as long as the retain the look and make it a scale change. 
Jim
Another one voting for the late '70s-early '80s as the worst for US vehicle design. This was the era when manufacturers had to crudely graft huge locomotive-sized bumpers onto existing designs to meet the misbegotten 5 MPH impact regulations; when emissions regulations strangled even the biggest of V8s to less than 200 horsepower; when the makers began to use large amounts of plastic for both interior and exterior pieces; but neglected to test them to see how they would hold up with age; when millions of Americans inexplciably demanded that the exteriors of their cars be covered with swaths of fake wood grain and vinyl.
I shudder just to thinkabout it.
By comparison we’re practically in a frickin’ golden age of car design. IMO, the Chrysler 300C and Dodge Magnum are instant classics, and will be seen in thirty years the way the ‘49 Mercury is now. The Crossfire is not bad, either, despite an apparent lack of performance and a too-large grille. I’d include the Charger as well, but really, being a four-door, it should have been named Polara instead. I like the new Mustang, not quite as much as the first series, but still. The Pontiac Solstice, despite its being somewhat less than the sum of its parts. Recent Aston-Martins are among the loveliest vehicles ever made. And add me to those who think that the new Impala considerably improves on what was a real sow’s ear in its previous incarnation, not that I’ ever consider actually owning one.
What do I hate? Well, almost all the the BMW designs supervised by Chris Bangle, to start with. The 8-series is the only one I can stand to look at. The Honda Element; what advantage this thing is supposed to provide over the much more handsome and similarly-sized CR-V, I have no clue. Just about every full-size pickup truck on the market; Dodge has a lot to answer for ever since they started the fake-Peterbilt-grille trend. Lastly, the Chevy Malibu, which looks like it was designed by a group of eleven-year olds with blunt crayons and no sense of proportion and just screams of cheapness and lack of durability.
Oh yeah, and most Subarus. I say this despite owning an '01 Impreza wagon; I actually bought my car when I did precisely because I’d seen the next Impreza design and thought it much uglier than the outgoing model. Since that time, they’ve gotten even worse.
If I know Dopers, especially American Dopers, I’ll bet they love the design.
American ugly = ugly
European ugly = eccentric, creative and unique.
It might have the same amount of ugly as an ugly American car, but its European origins alone offset that.
There have been ugly cars built pretty much every year I can remember. As for your ridiculous statement that the 1971 Mustang Mach 1 is the best looking car… you almost had it. The 1970 Mustang 429 Boss is the best looking, but since I can’t find a good picture of the 429 Boss… you’ll have to make due with the 302 Boss
And if you look closely, you’ll see a similarity between the new Mustang and the 1969 and 1970 Mustangs… which means I like the new ones too.
I like the new BMWs. The new 3-series sedan is the worst, it looks way too bland and boring.
But the Z4, 5, 6, 7 are all great. And the new 3-series coupe looks awesome, inside and out.
Then again, I think the Hummer H1 was one of the best-looking vehicles ever made, so I doubt many people will agree with my aesthetic preferences.
I don’t find that many modern cars truly ugly. Pretty much the only ones I’d describe that way are the cheap little econoboxes, like the Scion xB, that are really more bland than anything else.
Certainly, there are some cars that I wouldn’t buy, because I don’t like the styling. The Chrysler 300C, for example. But I don’t think it’s ugly, it’s just not my taste.
Female, non car lover checking in (I consider them mostly as a means of conveyance).
I dislike the Mach 1–heartily. It looks too chunky and meaty in the rear, and too hulking in the front. A BF in college bought one used for $500(way back in 1983) and it ran like a bucket of bolts. Yuck. I much prefer the new Mustang, mostly because it seems to harken back to the 302 shown above. It looks like a car in condition, unlike the Mach 1, which looks like an athlete gone to seed, to me.
I think we’re in the “meh” times of car design. I think back to some truly ugly cars: the Fleetwood, the excresence Pontiac made of the Grand Prix, the K car, the Pacer, the Chevy Nova etc and right now, cars seem kinda bland to me. The Highlander is truly odd, as is the Scion.
As for the Picasso talked about here–I immediately thought of Mork and Mindy. it so resembles Mork’s pod.
Frankly, my idea of a sleek car is a Jag–I suppose an older one, since I don’t know what the new ones look like. I like cars that look like what they say they are: I drive a Volvo wagon–it looks functional, down to earth and unpretentious. My favorite car that I ever owned was a Honda Accord, when the Prelude was still out and Honda had tried to make the Accord look like the Prelude. Sorry, have no idea the year, but I bought it used in 1985. It was a standard shift, and handled like a dream–I loved that car.
2 CV, anyone?
I personally dislike the car because it’s an antithesis of what I think a car should be: a practical mode of transport, but with enough uniqueness and aesthetics to make it a joy to own. To me, the Mach 1 symbolizes everything that’s wrong with America today - selfish obsession with power, with no regard for other people’s safety or quality of life. And it’s not just the specs. The curves don’t look “sleek” to me, they’re more reminescent of a bodybuilder’s bulging muscles. The black trim and stripes look cheap, and the cut-off look of the front end seems to say “screw aerodynamics.” The window design also seems to suggest the designer wasn’t very concerned with visibility, especially in the rear. (Isn’t there a huge blind spot around 5 o’clock?)
Although I admit I really like the '65/'66 Mustang coupe (not the fastback). It has much cleaner curves. I know it looks even less aerodynamic than the Mach 1, but that’s OK for me because it looks like a more practical and fun car, not a racer-wannabe car.
Yes, it’s designed to be as practical as a mail truck - compact exterior size, roomy interior, maneuverable in tight spaces, etc. That’s the whole point of that car.
We’re talking about appearance here, not practicality.
I mean, look at a car like the Aston-Martin V8 Vantage. 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?
Thus the ugly has a purpose? I’ll still avoid purchasing one.
Your link goes to a claim of Theft Warning. This Google Search should give people a good Idea of what you wanted them to see.
A very nice looking and of course frivolous car.
Jim
Oops… the webhost doesn’t like your link. This is smaller, but it should work.
http://www.pictures-of-cars.com/Aston-Martin-Vantage.jpg
I like the DB9 too.
