This is a terrible list. Yes, it includes many of the ugliest cars ever made -- and shame for not showing the lemon-sucking front of the Edsel, which still shocks after all these decades -- but many of these selections seem to have been chosen for stupid marketing/manufacturing decisions, not simply aesthetics.
It is apparent that this writer does not like the styling of American cars of the late fifties and early sixties, what does the wriyer actually like? And there isn't any mention of the Smartfortwo?
I went through them one by one and when I saw the '61 Dart my first thought was what? No '61 Plymouth?! Interestingly, that one came in next!
I'm surprised the '58 Oldsmobile didn't make the list. I always thought that was GM's low-point in that era. The '58 Buick was really wild and overdone, but somehow, I thought it worked. The Olds just looked heavy-handed, dull, and ugly.
I have stricter standards for "ugly"--one test is to push a baby stroller past the car and if the kid starts crying, that's a tip-off that you might have a good candidate for the list.
Andre, the 61 Plymouth was even scary on the inside! I thought the 61 Dodge Dart was uniquely styled, where a buyer would either like it or not, as opposed to ugly. But cars are like the opposite sex; different strokes for different folks. I can have an opinion, but it certainly doesn't invalidate someone else's POV. That's why I find these sort of surveys and opinions interesting reads, but seldom very valid on a larger than one person basis.
A couple other cars I just thought of...the "Plucked Chicken" '62 Dodge and Plymouth. I think the Dodge is actually kinda cool, in a twisted, off-the-wall sort of way, but I think the Plymouth is just ugly. And yeah, as for the '61 Dart (and larger Polara), I don't think they're that bad looking. Kind of plain up front, and the reverse-slant tailfins are a bit odd. But, there are uglier things out there.
I once saw a '61 Plymouth, where someone had customized it by grafting on the taillights from a '59 Impala. It was a fairly professional looking job and, believe it or not, it was actually an improvement on that car!
I've always been a fan of mid 50's to mid 60's Mopars, I think primarily because of their design risk taking, and of course their drivetrains. Sometimes it worked out, sometimes not. I think Virgil Exner was a top car designer in his days because he took risks. Few bat 100% and those who might usually are "boring". But his styling kept Chrysler from the fate of the independents despite it's much smaller size and scale compared to GM and Ford. I think you have to judge Exner and the 62's by how they would have come across as the full sized models they were drawn and clay modeled to be, not the short lead time crisis downsized result. I've also come to appreciate the 63/64 Chrysler more than I used to. I think Exner was often ahead of his time. If you look at those above vehicles and then look at the rear of say today's Audi or Impala, I think you see some of the same design elements like how the greenhouse overlays and flows into the remainder of the car body. Now I don't want to take away anything from what Elwood Engel accomplished on short lead times and tight budgets after he was brought in from Ford to make Mopar's more traditionally styled. I think the 64 Dodge and Plymouth coupes were very nice and he did an excellent job with the whole 65 lineup. Looking back at that era though, I most appreciate Exner and Bill Mitchell over at GM. I think they really elevated car design and influence while in their respective positions. While I'll give Mitchell the overall baton, and readily admit that Harley Earl deserves the moniker as the grandfather of modern car design, the very best cars in my opinion design wise during that timeframe were the 57 Mopars, particularly the Chrysler and Desoto.
Why the hate on the '96 Taurus? I thought it's swoopy styling was attractive. It got the rounded swoop styling down 16 years before the Mercedes Benz CLA lol
they put the most beautiful car that deserve to be 1st place in better visual ever made, and is in 1st in uglyest cars?? wa??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
they lost the mind.
but where is the loved impala 67? a square car, heis just a box, he can be loved, but still brutally ugly, even against veneno.
for sure some cars in list are ugly, those shoeboxes with giant ridiculous radiator, but cars with aero design can't be ugly by main body design, they aren't just a egg or a box like some new popular cars or old cars without design (because lack of ways to build cars, we understand).
this ranking was a fail, and looking to the comments, I have a confirmation, I'm right about it.
I did not call the author a bad name because i respect everyones opinion,but i can see that he made a lot of people mad with his lack of knowledge about cars,the year they were made, and what they represented in terms of history,and how they touch the millions of people that owned them.There`s a fine line that divides ugliness and beauty when we see art.AMC pacer and gremlin are the poster boys for ugly but i always found something fascinating and mysterious about them. Thanks God he did not include in the list the car that i have an ill fascination for.The car that i love more than my wife of 30 years. The 1972 Citroen DC Pallas. Who don`t enjoy the citroen on the movie Scarface with Al crazy Pacino? May not be the Pallas but look alike Have fun people.Listen to the song CARS by Gary Numan and you will feel better if your feelings were hurt by that Mor.........n JF
"The Laziest List Of The Purported 100 Ugliest Cars Of All Time"
Brought to us by someone so utterly indolent he couldn't even be bothered to include a good picture (or three) of each of his hated cars....on a car website....dedicated to cars...forcing the reader to web search each...and....every....effing....one if he/she wants to see what the author is griping about.
And all this back in 2013, before sloth had become rampant! A prescient complete lack of effort landmark!
I think this list is probably too long. Too many of these cars are not that ugly when only aesthetics are considered. The '75 Granada and '77 Versailles were actually 2 of Ford's better looking sedans of the 1970s, faint praise considering some of the alternatives, but, despite some near-fatal flaws as cars, their styling had it all over such visual embarrassments as the '77 LTD II and the rolling-bread-box '79 LTD. Other boring sedans like the 2 Omegas, the 1990 Imperial and even the Cimarron just don't stand out as that ugly, despite some of them being brand-identity disasters. I'd have picked on the ill-proportioned Dodge Dynasty before the Imperial or the '83 K-car limo. I'd also have included more triangle coups like the Omi 024, the TR7, and the '79 Mustang (which got gradually less hideous as Ford softened its lines in later years). I think ugly-car lists should be limited to cars that would be ugly even if they were otherwise perfect, just as bad-car lists should be limited to cars that were really terrible to own (eg. 78 Olds diesel) rather than just stupid.
Comments
I'm surprised the '58 Oldsmobile didn't make the list. I always thought that was GM's low-point in that era. The '58 Buick was really wild and overdone, but somehow, I thought it worked. The Olds just looked heavy-handed, dull, and ugly.
Andre, the 61 Plymouth was even scary on the inside! I thought the 61 Dodge Dart was uniquely styled, where a buyer would either like it or not, as opposed to ugly. But cars are like the opposite sex; different strokes for different folks. I can have an opinion, but it certainly doesn't invalidate someone else's POV. That's why I find these sort of surveys and opinions interesting reads, but seldom very valid on a larger than one person basis.
I once saw a '61 Plymouth, where someone had customized it by grafting on the taillights from a '59 Impala. It was a fairly professional looking job and, believe it or not, it was actually an improvement on that car!
they put the most beautiful car that deserve to be 1st place in better visual ever made, and is in 1st in uglyest cars??
wa??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
they lost the mind.
but where is the loved impala 67? a square car, heis just a box, he can be loved, but still brutally ugly, even against veneno.
for sure some cars in list are ugly, those shoeboxes with giant ridiculous radiator, but cars with aero design can't be ugly by main body design, they aren't just a egg or a box like some new popular cars or old cars without design (because lack of ways to build cars, we understand).
this ranking was a fail, and looking to the comments, I have a confirmation, I'm right about it.
bah... this is a true "professional hating"
Thanks God he did not include in the list the car that i have an ill fascination for.The car that i love more than my wife of 30 years.
The 1972 Citroen DC Pallas.
Who don`t enjoy the citroen on the movie Scarface with Al crazy Pacino? May not be the Pallas but look alike
Have fun people.Listen to the song CARS by Gary Numan and you will feel better if your feelings were hurt by that Mor.........n
JF
Brought to us by someone so utterly indolent he couldn't even be bothered to include a good picture (or three) of each of his hated cars....on a car website....dedicated to cars...forcing the reader to web search each...and....every....effing....one if he/she wants to see what the author is griping about.
And all this back in 2013, before sloth had become rampant! A prescient complete lack of effort landmark!