Ugliest Cars of All Time

andre1969 · February 2001

While the Aztek may provide some advantages over a Blazer or Explorer in terms of room and versatility, and it's more manueverable than a big SUV, is it really any more functional than the Montana minivan upon which it's based? While I don't like either one, the Montana is just a lot better looking to me. From what I've seen so far, car-based SUV's are more of a modern interpretation of a '42 Chevy or Plymouth than they are SUV. They have more ground clearance and sit up taller than a car, but that's about it.

The Aztek wouldn't take so much flak if it looked better. But when you combine styling elements from a VW Thing and a late-80's Korean LeMans and try to apply them to a minivan, what do you expect? At least it has a 3.4 V-6, though. If GM REALLY wanted to do things wrong, they could have thrown in a 3.1!

-Andre

dweezil · February 2001

was the color of the first Aztek I actually saw in person.{and I just finished reading the last posts laughing so hard until I couldn't see straight!}
As the owner of the largest collection of acrylic grapes west of Van Nuys Blvd. and a fan of "so ugly it's beautiful" home accessories as well as cars, I CANNOT appreciate the kind of mindlessly strained ugly the Aztek represents.People are TALKING about it for the same reason they're NOT buying it: because it is an automotive abomination!!! You expect them to buy one? And only THEN can they post on this site?
The whole thing screams "DESPERATE" the way gold chains, comb-overs and shirts unbuttoned to the last 3 buttons on some old "swinger" who ought to know better. This thing has as much appeal as a booger on a leisure suit!
I also nominate Porsche[read VW]914,Fiat x1/9 the "flying brick" Triumph 2 seater thing from the 70's, any 90's Camry wagon,Lincoln Navigator,58-60 Lincoln,72 Ford Torino,74 AMC Matador 4 door,62 Dodge Polara,mid 90's VW Jetta.
Gee, I didn't buy or drive ANY of those. I guess I'm just a whiner and not qualified to post an opinion then?

lokki · February 2001

It certainly deserves honorable mention as one of the most ugly designs of all time. In fact, if you took the offspring of a TR-7 and and X-19 and fed it on lard, you might get something that looks like the Aztek...

dweezil · February 2001

"Horrible Hamilton"? It had legs and if you pulled the string It crawled across the floor with these pincer type things opening and closing. Looked like an insect, or some alien dog or.....an AZTEK!
How many Yugos can you fit into an Aztek?
I don't know, but the Yugos have got to be willing!
Did you hear the one about the Aztek that spent 3 days at Sears Automotive looking for wheels for a miscarriage?
So the Sheepherder says: Out of all those beautiful Azteks, you picked the ugliest one of the bunch!
More to come

fezo · February 2001

It's just amazing what the Aztek has been able to do. Prior to ints introduction this topic had a wide variety of opinions on the ugliest vehicle ever made. GM has hit a grand slam. There's no question any more. It'd be kinda sad if I weren't laughing so much. It's kind of like thinking about all those guys that lined up eagerly 40 odd years ago to become exclusive Edsel dealers.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2001

Oh the poor guys who bought the Edsels and "put them away" as collectibles....now, after 40 years of storage and insurance and restoration, you can get almost $5,000 for one!

There's this Golden Rule of collectible cars that I personally believe in....if a car is spurned or mocked or rejected by the public when it is introduced, it will NEVER become a high dollar collectible...more like an oddity and a long-standing joke, with some sympathy thrown in, of course.

fezo · February 2001

As much as I'd like an old Edsel for the novelty of it I sure know I wouldn't be getting anything special in the way of a car. I actually drove an old 59 once - would have bought it if it was a 58 - and it drove just liek a Ford of its time.

The Aztek, though is really amking it difficult in this topic - like shooting fish in a barrel. I was on the highway the other day with an Aztek (with dealer plates of course) zipping ahead and slowing down so I got a real appreciation of just how ugly they are from every conceivable angle. I would imagine that low flying planes would complain about the roof! I was looking in my mirror and the guy is signalling a turn - even the turn indicators look misshaped and out of place.

dweezil · February 2001

to the Aztek:"Kiss me where it stinks!" So the Aztek took her to the Pontaic dealer!
That poor thing looks like something out of a Warner Bros. cartoon. I'm starting to feel sorry for it!!!But it really should be all covered with hair like Gossamer in the Bugs Bunny shorts.Looks like something from A Godzilla movie as well. It's kind of sad.Airflow,Edsel,Pacer,Aztek,58 Buick, 58 Ford, the Henry J,Nash Airflyte,57 Hudson Hornet. Perhaps the Aztek will rate one day for it's outlandish freakishness. Won't Will and Ted need a new vehicle for their next adventure?

andre1969 · February 2001

I almost hate putting them both in the same sentence...it's an insult to the Edsel!

Dweezil, there's a fundamental difference between the Aztek and the other cars you mentioned...all the other cars are beautiful! Well, in comparison to the Aztek, they are ;-)

Fezo, if you're going to get an Edsel, the '58 is the one to go with. That year, they had four series on two wheelbases. The Ranger and Pacer were on the 118" Ford wheelbase, with a 303 hp 361 V-8 standard. In comparison, the 361 used in DeSotos that year put out 295 hp in the Firedome, 305 in the Fireflite. The pricier Corsair and Citation were on a 124" wheelbase, longer than most Mercurys, and had a 410 V-8 putting our 345 hp.

In 1959, the Edsel was emasculated considerably, and also cleaned up its looks. In fact, if you take a picture of a '59 Edsel and put your finger over the center chunk of grille, it's not that bad looking! The grille was toned down alot, and really wasn't much more offensive than some of the Pontiac beaks of the late 60's or those early 70's Fords with the "poke through" center grilles. By this time, the Edsel was down to just the Ranger and Corsair series on a 120" wheelbase, just 2" longer than the Fords and about 6-8" shorter than the Mercurys The Ranger had a 292 V-8 with 200 hp, while the Corsair had a 332 with 225 hp. A credit option was the 223 L6 with 145 hp, for the wagons and the Ranger. You could also still get the 303 hp 361 V-8. Then by 1960 it was just one series, the Ranger, with a 185 hp 292 standard, a 300 hp 352 optional, and a 145 hp 223 L6 as a credit option.

One thing I'll give Edsel for, that dissapointed me about DeSoto. For Edsel's final year, it was still offered in a wide variety of styles...2 and 4 door sedan, 2 and 4 door hardtop, convertible, and wagon, with a choice of engines. All that choice, and only 3000 cars built for 1960. It must have been expensive to actually design all of them. For DeSoto's final year, 1961, it was only offered as a hardtop coupe or sedan, with a 265 hp 361 as the only engine (although I've heard rumors of a 361 with the cross-ram intake and 305 hp being a rare option) It also looked like they went out of their way to make DeSoto ugly for '61, almost giving people no choice but to buy a Chrysler Newport. At least the Edsel got better looking (or less ugly ;-) each year, even though it also became more Ford-like and less distinctive each year, also.

-Andre

dweezil · February 2001

thought that the 70 Pontiac was a more modern looking Edsel.They really ripped a lot of styling cues from it from grille to the tail lights!
I really like the last Edsel. Did you know the 60 Comet was intended to be an Edsel/ Even the tail lights on the Comet are coded with Edsel codes and fit the 60 full size ED.The 60 is probably what the 59 grille would look like without the horse collar,IMO. Nothing can beat the 58 station wagon for bizarre,saw one once when I was a kid and it had the same effect on me as seeing that Checker cab come out of the fog behind the credits in "Taxi Driver"!!!! SCARY! You can't intentionally design that sort of visual impact, I think it happens when no one is looking!!!!

andre1969 · February 2001

if it weren't for the recession in the late 50's, the Edsel probably would have survived! 1958 really was a bad year to introduce a new middle-priced marque. After all, that year Dodge and DeSoto were down by over 1/2, Chrysler by almost 1/2 and Mercury, Olds, Pontiac, and Buick by over 1/3.

In all fairness, I think the Esdel sold about 63,000 units that year, about the same as Chrysler, and about 14,000 more than DeSoto. In contrast, I think Pontiac and Dodge (probably Edsel's closest competitors) sold about 216,000 and 137,000, respectively. I think they wanted to move 100,000 units, so they weren't obscenely far off ;-)

Those big engines probably didn't help either, in a time where people were suddenly wanting smaller cars. Rambler suddenly became very popular, and would soar to third place within 2 or 3 years, and Studebaker would end up holding on through the first half of the 60's based on the strength of compacts.

Market timing probably did more damage to the Edsel than the actual styling of the car. Just because it's ugly doesn't mean people won't buy it. Heck, look at the 1970 Pontiac dweezil mentions...the "modern day" Edsel. I think Pontiac was #3 in sales that year, behind Ford and Chevy.

It's kind of funny how Edsel and Pontiac shared styling themes from time to time. I always thought a 1960 Edsel looked alot like a 1959 Pontiac. But then again, the 1960 Ford looked alot like the 1959 Chevy!

-Andre

badgerpaul · February 2001

I don't know if it would have been successful. Apparently the build quality on them was terrible. I've read where dealers were actually refusing delivery of new cars until they were repaired. A lot of the new technology/gizmos they had failed in the field.
I think Ford was backing away from it even before it was introduced. If you consider that the 59's were already in the final design stage before the 58's even came out, you can see that they had drastically scaled it back from the 58's.

andre1969 · February 2001

Actually, I heard that too, that their build quality was horrible for 1958. I've wondered, though, if it was bad across the board for Edsel. For instance, I've heard that the build quality for the '57 Ford was horrible, and the body had to go through extensive revisions for 1958 (like putting the creases in the roof for more rigidity), but I've never heard anything bad about the '57-58 Mercury. And back then, there was a lot more difference between a Ford and a Mercury than there is today. So I wonder if the more expensive, Mercury-based Edsels were better than the cheaper, Ford-based ones.

Incidentally, the build quality on the 1957 Chrysler products was pretty bad, too. In fact, I've heard that's another reason why their 1958 sales were off so much...not just the recession. My DeSoto is in pretty good shape, but it was also garaged most of its life, and it would be hard to tell with a 43 year old car now, anyway! But I have a friend who used to own a '55, and I can honestly say that, sturdy as my '57 is, the '55-56 Chrysler Corp cars were tanks by comparison.

I always wondered, though, with the Edsel, how they were able to scale back so quickly, considering that I thought they always needed a 3-year lead time. Maybe they had some higher-priced '59's and 60's in store, but with the '58's failing so badly, they just decided to pull the plug and scale back.

-Andre

badgerpaul · February 2001

I don't think that all of the big wigs at Ford were on board with the Edsel. So that when it started to tank they were more than ready to pull the plug on it. As to the build quality, I seem to recall reading that they came down a sped-up Ford or Mercury assembly line. Speeding up the assembly line tends to have a negative effect on quality. Couple that with the fact that it was an entirely different car coming down the line with things attached in different places, it's easy to see why they were poorly assembled.

bw403 · March 2001

Its so hard to say. The vast majority of today's cars are so ugly. It would be easier to mention the few good looking ones. However, I'll mention just a few:
1. VW Beetle - all of them.
2. Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable - most of them except the wagons of the early '90s.
3. Most Mercedes Benz models - they always remind me of the Checker cab.
4. Most Porches - I can't believe anybody thinks these cars look good.
5. The Plymouth and Dodge of '61 and '62.
I'll stop here before I offend too many people. Doesn't anybody know how to make a good looking car any more?

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

I think the best looking cars are really the simplest....or the cleanest, I mean. That way, as time passes, they don't end up looking like the equivalent of bell-bottoms and love beads.

bw403 · March 2001

That's why I bought my '92 Lexus SC400.

gearhead7 · March 2001

re: post 568.

Thank god you didnt buy the new SC430. Talk about a recessive ugly gene in the SC line. I had a SC400, which I bought simply because it was so beautiful. They really blew it on the update.

They should have let Calty design the new one, rather than trying to get it designed in Japan. What a screwup.

While the SC400 was lithe and powerful, the SC430 is overweight looking and poorly proportioned.

rea98d · March 2001

I agree with Shifty on this. In my own personal experience, 2 cars stand out, a 55 Bel Air (Aire?) and a 95? Grand Marquis. Both are fairly nice looking cars, but the two I saw, (at different times) were absolute beaters. The Chevy had surface rust over the whole car, the headliner was sagging, the chrome was dull...you get the Idea. The Mercury was in worse shape, plastic body panels were warped and discolored, the paint looked awful...Both of them were in sad shape, and yet the Chevy still seemed to have its good looks about it. Despite its shape, it was still a head turner! The Mercury, on the other hand, looked like it was on its way to a junkyard to die. That car looked pitiful. Mark my words, in 50 years, a 4-door Mercury won't have the appeal a 4-door Bel Aire does today. (Not neccesarily market value, but head-turning ability)

jgmilberg · March 2001

Haven't seen anyone mention the Gremlin or the Pacer. Man I wouldn't even want a spare tire from one of those ugly things!

stancovet · March 2001

the new Celicas are SO damn ugly! I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone rave about how hot they look, when the front looks like a spaceship and the back looks like an enormous butt! Not to even mention the fact that they're horribly underpowered....

carnut4 · March 2001

of the ugly Japanese cars of the seventies-that old "atomic cockroach" look of the 70's Subarus, the Datsun F-10 and B210, and even the Honda Civics. Perhaps the Japanese are going through their own "retro" stage with some of the new designs. Call it "new age plastic" or maybe "nightmare atomic nostalgia". I agree-everytime I see one of those new Celicas, I think "Why?????"

lokki · March 2001

I keep trying to like it... but I don't. I thought it just showed that I'm getting old.

The tail is OK.. but that nose.

stealth1969 · March 2001

is ugly looking to me also. Looks like they took a car and squished it some and the top popped up. My son thinks it looks like a dolphin.

speedshift · March 2001

I was at my Pontiac dealer, wandering around in the back of the lot, and suddenly found myself surrounded by about ten Azteks. I felt a strange mixture of fear and compassion.

By the way, I want to publicly apologize for saying earlier in this thread that the bad buzz Aztek creates for Pontiac is better than no buzz. Apparently bad buzz doesn't have an upside.

andre1969 · March 2001

in the parking lot here at work. It's kind of a goldish-brown, with grayish-brown body-cladding. I think if they dropped some of the body cladding, or at least got rid of some of the unnecessary creases in it, and made the back look more like a wagon/SUV instead of a hatchback, it would be a big improvement. There's still that front-end to contend with, though.

Now the sloppy build quality (creases not lining up, uneven gaps between panels, etc) are a different issue. That just implies to me that the thing was rushed out the door in a hasty attempt to jump in on the SUV craze.

-Andre

fezo · March 2001

Looks kind of like a box with a red "x" in it at the moment...

lokki · March 2001

I think that God is trying to tell you something here.....

andre1969 · March 2001

But here's another try...

hope it works!

-Andre

speedshift · March 2001

but I think they styled the Aztek differently--and how!--to differentiate it as the Swiss army knife of SUVs. But with their usual ineptness they differentiated it as the Edsel of SUVs.

fezo · March 2001

and endearing in its own way. It's an Amphicar - I only know that these are products of the 60's (naturally) and that they were German built with Triumph engines. Maybe Shifty can fill us in...

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

What's to fill in....dip an old British motor and old British electrics into salt water! Hey, what a good idea!

Actually, Amphicars are a "cult" car of sorts and you can get fair money for one....it's what we call a "second-tier" collectible....well, maybe "third tier"....they are charming, if ugly. I mean, how can you resist a car that has a propeller coming out the back?

fezo · March 2001

When I was growing up we were only a couple of blocks from a really pretty lake. I look out there one day and there's a guy driving an Amphicar out on the lake.

Someone mentioned seeing one over in another topic which is what got me started. I once almost bought one of those things in the late 70s. Was about $2,000. I see now that decent oens are going for $20,000. Hey, if I had it all that time it wouldn't be decent anymore.

Any chance they could fix up a Miata like that?

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

A Maita might float for a little while.

Really, the water environment and cars don't mix very well...a basically bad idea.

lokki · March 2001

"If Teddy Kennedy drove a volkswagen, he'd be president today."

The magazine used VW's logo without permission and got their pants sued off by VW and by the Kennedy's.

In those days VW Beetles supposedly were so airtight that they would float for several minutes..

fezo · March 2001

Oh, that was in bad taste - and extremely funny.

andre1969 · March 2001

I don't remember the National Lampoon ad, but it sounds like it's tastelessly funny (In a Deathrace2000 sort of way ;-), but I do remember hearing that those old Beetles would be able to float for awhile.

I always thought it was because having the engine in the rear, plus being lightweight, their weight was just balanced better, whereas most front-heavy cars would just nosedive.

For some reason, now I'm getting a mental picture of "Double Jeopardy", where Ashley Judd knocks a Metro off of a ferry with Tommy Lee Jones' '64 Galaxie!

-Andre

C13 · March 2001

The jury's still out. It's a hotly contested category.

Kia's in the running. Toyota's always competitive, but then Pontiac, ALWAYS a strong contender comes out with that Aztek and blows all would-be dogs into the weeds. I'd have to say they're in the lead for the moment.

But the others aren't sleeping.

I wish I could agree that all this bad design is merely inept styling but I think it's much more sinister. I think the designers know where the public tastes are at, and hold their noses and "give the people what they want."

speedshift · March 2001

Some of it's just an attempt to push the envelope by people who aren't talented enough--or managed well enough--to do that kind of heavy lifting. See "Aztek".

blarg1 · March 2001

against anyone who makes ugly cars. Here are a few of my "favorites" None of these earn the capitalization, no typo flaming, please.

All amc U pick'em, they're all the horse's patoot

1972 olds vista cruiser Looked like a 442 wagon, and came in all those great 70's colors, avocado, lemon, gold metal flake...had wheel skirts too.

mid 70's ford torinos Ever see one after 1980? Me neither. The fairmont was such a superior vehicle.

Any car with fake leather top, and fake wood trim. If it had fine Corinthian leather, it's a keeper...not! Push it into the river, before someone sees it!

All russian cars. Any car made in the People's Republic of _________. For a demonstration of how to start a Russian car, watch "Goldeneye"

1983 cadillac seville diesel So ugly that it stunk out loud. Whew!

1969 thunderbird 4 door Wow! Chrome letter "S" on the side. Kinda like an old style landaulet hinge effect. Blah...

pinto wagon Watch the proper way to dispose of this mess in the "Blues Brothers" Drive them all of overpasses! Head 'em up, moooovem out!

All saturns. Ever read their brochures from the dealer? It tells you the specific gravity of the windshield washer arm grease. What kind of techno-geekmobile is that?

1973 buick riviera Children cry for momma when they see this brute roll down the street

the new lexus convertible. Is it too late to put that horse in the barn, and what's up with the tv ads in French? I get it, I speak French. Do dot com millionaires speak French? Sais pas...

umm that meant I don't know...

So, how do we stop these genius engineers from inflicting these donkeys on us? There should be a law prohibiting these cars from ever seeing the light of day. National Referendum over the internet? Notice that there are very few ugly old cars on the road. It's all about survival of the prettiest. What about car designers? There are probably some ugly car designers who put a little of themselves into the crap they produce. I thought they draw a sketch, then show their boss. Then they make a clay model, then show the accountants, then they make a couple real ones and show a focus group. Who gets to be in the focus group? I have stock in the Big Three and I've never been invited to witness anything like this. I haven't witnessed a dividend check in a while either.

All you moron engineers and stylists in Detroit, listen up! I'm shocked as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore. That's why I bought a Mazda, because it doesn't have fake wood trim, three tone paint, gold screaming eagles, vinyl seats, pistol grip shifting, fake convertible top, speed sensitive wings, bubble windows and plastic wood steering wheel. It isn't ugly, and it gets good gas mileage. Too bad Ford didn't learn anything from the Mazda designers. What kind of fish did the taurus come from? If it had curb feelers, it would look like a catfish...

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

Detroit always counters your thrusts with the classic argument that I call the Bad TV argument....TV execs, when confronted with some of the awful programming on TV, say, "well, if people didn't want it, we wouldn't produce it".

The tragic flaw in that argument is that good style is supposed to influence, educate and uplift the buyer or observer....but the power of advertising defeats, or rather, makes it unnecesary to have good design...you just keep telling people that they really want the same cars they like when they were 12 and many of them will start believing you. But once they are exposed to cars that are beautiful as well as intelligently made, and once they drive them, few return to the old ways.

I can tell remember the day when I gave this old guy (a neighbor and a Cadillac fake wood and vinyl freak from way back) his first ride in a brand new Mercedes 420. Let him take the wheel for an hour or so. Yessir, 'bout 4 months later he had a Benz in his driveway. Reason? He said "I never realized a car could be so easy and comfortable to drive".

I still think he misses the fake flash, though, as he has been seen hanging this or that trinket on, over or under his Benz. It took hours to talk him out of wire wheels and fat whitewalls!

rea98d · March 2001

Hey, I'd kinda like to know he specefic gravity of wiper arm grease.
"Oh yeah, who cars if your Vette has a 400 horse V-8? My station wagon has wiper arm grease with a specefic gravity of .876. You're Vette's is only .84! So there!"

Shifty, have you no sense of style at all? Wire wheels and fat whitewalls improve the looks of any car!

Mr_Shiftright · March 2001

And let's not forget those landau bars!

The problem with "retro" styling features is that the aftermarket (and sometimes the factory) gets them ALL WRONG.....wire wheels don't look good with fat, small diameter tires...seems to me you need at least 18" on up....also the spoke patterns are all wrong on contemporary reproduction wires. And chrome....chrome is an ACCENT...it is not what you make an entire car out of! Your car doesn't have to look like Cher!

fivespeed · March 2001

American classic:

http://www.mrdos.com/1959ImpalaConvMedium.htm

andre1969 · March 2001

Actually, on some cars, I think they look good...or, at least, not as bad as they could be!

Usually, if a car is styled fairly formally, with angular, squared-off lines, a vinyl roof, whitewall tires, or decent wire wheels won't detract from it.

My grandma's '85 LeSabre is inflicted with all three! But I've seen a few LeSabres from that generation without the vinyl roofs and whitewalls, and standard hubcaps, and they just look naked in comparison! I think the quality of the wire hubcaps makes a world of difference, though. Her's are factory, with the Buick tri-shield in the center, and they have a thick, substantial look to them, but don't stick out like some of the cheap aftermarket ones do. The wire hubcaps that you can buy at any automotive parts store for $10.00 or whatever are a major fau paux!!

Fivespeed, nice pics of that '59 Impala. I used to think the '59 Chevy was the symbol of everything that was going wrong with Detroit styling at the time. I know most people think of the Cadillac, but to me, the Chevy was just uglier, if not chromier. But still, comparing it to a 1959 Ford, which was hulking and massive-looking, or a 1959 Plymouth, which was clumsy 2-year facelift, the Chevy looks pretty modern and restrained! It's still gaudy and flashy in the way I love 'em, but it seems to be getting better with age!

-Andre

joffficer · March 2001

The festive was designed ugly. Kind has that shoebox thing going... almost makes it look cute (in a clown car sort'a way).
What the hell was GM thinking about when then pulled the Aztec design from that "never to see the showroom floor" group. OK.. the P/T cruiser looks 'New' and 'Different' (in a Bonnie and Clide sort'a way), but why push a B rated movie reject onto todays 'kids'? I'm sorry, but I can't see anyone wanting to plop down 20k for a poorly built, ugly, subaru want'n be!! (by the way... my '92 festiva set me back $400.... cost me $.02 per/mile so far .....I'm already married so who the hell cares

jkidd2 · March 2001

What do you want me to say? GM invented car design. Harley Earle. Bill Mitchell. Now, you have the Aztek.

For god's sake, why couldn't they hire somebody? Ford did. Chrysler did. Mercedes and BMW did. They all do (not the Japanese, their designers really are Japanese.)

Now, GM did hire someone from the outside, a FRENCH WOMAN from Renault. Now, I like French women, and I wish her well. I am sure she is talented. But please explain to me who buys French Renaults besides the French and a few Spaniards. Who? Nobody.

Why couldn't GM find an American who understands the American culture and who can create a PT Cruiser or a Thunderbird? Why did they hire a foreigner?

daividh · April 2001

Howdy,

If I repeat anything that's been beat to death previously, sorry, but I'd like to offer up my hasty short list of uglies culled from 50 years droolin and 40 years drivin:

-1961 Plymouth
-1958 Ford
-1960 Chevy (at least the 59 was innovative)
-1958 Buick and Olds
-All Nash/Rambler/AMC products 1949-death (except the late 60s American)
-Early 70's Honda 600 coupe - the one with the swim mask rear window
-All recent Fords designed after-hours by the janitor with a drawing compass and an oval template (especially the Focus hatch - yuck)
-Toyota Echo
-All station wagons designed as a sedan with a cargo section add-on: current Taurus and Sable, Subaru Impreza (Saab may be an exception)
-All non-Legacy Japanese station wagons since 1983, except the late 80's Maxima (what's so tough about not making the last two feet of the car UGLY?)
-All 1970s Datsun sedans after the first 210 and 510 (the same sorry stylist that brought us the Honey Bee is back, if the last-gen Sentra and the current Maxima's any index)

I'm sure the Edsel and the Aztek, obvious candidates, have been discussed to death here already; there's a humongous "hate-Aztek" thread elsewhere on this website that's so manic it borders on scary.

Well, just passin thru. Thanks for your time!

lbthedog · April 2001

But I will debate the poorly built. That's definetly not an Aztek attribute. The numbers are coming in from warranty claims and sorry to tell you, the Aztek has Toyota like build quality. Kind of like the beetle all over again.

andre1969 · April 2001

...just a Montana/Venture/Silhouette with a clumsier, less versatile body? If that's the case, tnen most of the components would be left overs from the GM parts bin...pieces that they've had ages to get right.

So I think it would stand to reason that they'd be fairly reliable...after all, the minivans don't crash well, but at the same time they're not known for falling apart. And the 3.4, while not the vanguard of excitement or sophistication, is fairly reliable.

The thing I'd worry about the most is all that plastic. Metal may rust, but plastic cracks, warps, and discolors!

-Andre

Ugliest Cars of All Time

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles