It's an old saying .. but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I own a WRX exactly like the one in the photo from your link. I like the looks. Are they classic .. nope, don't think so, but they have grown on me. Even more so after you drive it. Beemers will be watching tail lights - hutch
I'm not sure...I need to study one up close.....it seems a bit ultra-trendy, and it could look really bad in a short time, or....it could grow on me like the Cougar, which I at first was a bit wary of, but grew to like a lot. It seems like the WRX is, at best, not unattractive, but a very confused style. It doesn't know if it wants to be a Dodge Neon or a Cadillac Deville. I'll report back when I walk around a real one!
any possible quirks of styling when you've got the specs and performance of the WRX coupe. I want one! Actually, I'd want the wagon except for the lack of front fender blisters (smaller tires, too?) and that butt-ugly Subaru wagon back end.
Can anybody hazard an insurance quote on this puppy? I'd call my State Farm agent out of curiosity, but I'm afraid if I did ol' Joe would die right there on the phone with a smile on his face...
I agree that it looks confused and disjointed. It looks like the basic body dates back to whenever the Impreza first came out, but with fender flare accents like the first Acura Legends, and Dodge Neon headlights.
It may look better in person than in photographs. Subarus have always been kind of quirky with their styling, though. I remember the first Legacy looked like it had lifted the roofline off of a 1976 Chevy Caprice 4-door hardtop...little opera window in the C-pillar and everything! And the back windows even went down at an angle to get them mostly out of the way, with just a little triangular sliver sticking up...just like the Caprice.
So how fast is that WRX? I drove an Impreza when they first came out (was it '91 or '92 thereabouts?) I wasn't Imprezed, but I just drove a base model.
Oh well, at least it's unique, and in a better sense than the Aztek!
Suzuki X11....I think it only sold here for 2 model years.
First generation, Toyota RA4, two door...man is that an ugly vehicle...where is the rear bumper? 4 door isn't much better. New generation looks better from certain angles...
60's CITROEN (french). Ugliest looking truck is any F150 from 1997-present. Very hideous bulbous looking front end, except the F150 Harley Davidson. I guess all the people buying them don't care about looks. Love that beautiful and gorgeous Pontiac AZTEK....
The Citroen is WEIRD but not necessarily ugly...at least it looks the way it does for a REASON...the car is very aerodynamic and also self-leveling....very advanced for 1955. But yes, not "beautiful" by any stretch, but I wouldn't call it ugly because at least the design is PURPOSEFUL...in other words, the form of it is following some real function. The Aztek, while very functional internally, doesn't have to look anything like it does...it's just a hodgepodge out of the parts bin I guess.
Citroen Ami 6, circa 1966. Ford Anglia - like reverse angled rear window, 2 CV drivetrain, face and butt like a bagful of hammers. It has to be the worst ever.
Yes, the '59 Pontiac has some nice (or at least dramatic) lines. Don't know about the '60 Olds though. The '61-2 Olds and Pontiac are very nice, althoug the Olds has some lines that don't occur in nature. But the '60 Olds had a narrow track that made it look kind of funky. Somebody said it looked like an elephant in ballerina slippers, or something like that. The lines were okay though. Anything from Chrysler then was pretty forgetable except the 300s. '61-2 Fords were clean. Not a great era in styling but a few nice ones sneaked through.
more along the lines of Buick invictas. Very evil, and ugly, but in a moth to the flame kind of attractive. I don't see many and I am drawn to them. Must have had one in a previous life...
to me the all-time ugliest Buick is the '58. Mainly because, once you strip away all that chrome that was applied with a trowel, you essentially have a boxy old-man's car! Same problem with the '58 Olds.
I think both cars improved dramatically for 1959. The Buick was still ugly, but in a more aggressive, less stodgy sort of way. They toned it down for 1960, but then the stodginess returned.
For the most part, though, I think Buick and Olds went on to turn out some pretty decent looking big cars in the 60's, except for maybe around '67-68 or so.
Right now there's a 1965 Buick Electra 4-door hardtop for sale near my home, for something like $1700. I'm actually tempted, but the last thing I need is another car! It's kind of a purple-ish-midnight-blue color.
By 1960, I'd say Chrysler styling was all across the board. The '60 Dodges looked nice, but outdated compared to a Chevy, Ford, Mercury, or Pontiac. The non-Valiant Plymouths were hideous though. I think the DeSoto and Chrysler that year were pretty nice, although the Imperial, to be nice, was "over-styled"! I think '61 would have to be Chrysler's low-point in styling.
The '59 Buick has that "Darth Vader your car is waiting" look. Menacing but flamboyant. Andre is right, the '58s are boxes smothered in chrome. But I will say that every car from that period makes a statement--usually not a valid or coherent statement, but a statement.
The only car maker in that tradition now is Pontiac, especially the Bonneville SSEI, Grand Am and yes the Aztek. They're waaaay out there. Wonder if Harley Earl is still on the payroll?
The two speed DYNAFLOW tranny could cause 30 feet of wheel spin with MAX TRAC off. The 4 BBL Rochester on the 401 Cu in high compression V8 with 325 HP and 445 lbs of torque caused the 4500 lb car to do 0-60 in 8.8 sec with 16.2 at 86 mph in the 1/4. I know, i did in my mom's car at Lyons in 1963. Was smoked by '63 389 Grand Prix, another not so ugly car. Take the air cleaner off and it thundered on take off all the way to 60 mph at which time tranny was shifted from low to drive......
Saw Donald Duck driving down the road. He's got a new car. Cost him a ton. He got a Lexus SC 430, I don't care how much the magazines fall all over themselves to kiss Toyota's butt, this thing is terrible. Proportions are all wrong, wheels hideous, it truly looks like it was driven off the movie screen from a cartoon. Congratulations Lexus, you've beaten the Aztek, and you've found suckers to pay for it.
Speaking of which, I think it was in 1962 that Buick shoved the engine a few inches forward in the engine bay for some incomprehensible reason.
If I recall right, the admen dreamed up a fine-sounding phrase to describe this development, calling it "flight (or flite) poised suspension" or some such drivel.
But I do remember clearly the words in one of the ads touting the marvels of this change . . .
The words were: ". . . helps to maintain an arrow-straight course, even on curves . . ."
I happen to like the SC 430, and I don't generally like Japanese cars at all. The thing is gorgeous. And that convertable top! Of course, if I had that kind of money, I'd still buy either a T-Bird, or a Jag:-)
Yeah, for some reason Japanese cars do not get people's blood going for very long. IN a couple of years, nobody will look at or care about a Lexus...or at least that's the way it's been so far. Maybe because the styling in attractive but actually quite generic, and also because you will start seeing lots of them.
All of this coming from an Aztek owner. the SC430 is gorgeous. I was behind one on the freeway and it has really nice lines. I went to the dealer and looked at one up close and was sold, I placed an order on the spot. The stereo is the best ever in a factory installed system and throughout it's a technological wonder.
If it's so ugly.. why the 4 month wait at the dealers for a car that will be $68k out the door?
Oh, I think it's the old "first one on the block" phenomenon. It's a very human thing, fueled by massive advertising, and it creates artificial scarcity. We as consumers get manipulated like this all the time, and really, I don't mind.
I visited with a new SC430 and stared at it and looked it over pretty well, and I must say that I agree, it is not very attractive to my eye. It is really a rather clumsy rip-off of an Audi TT with many other styling cues thrown in, as if the designers were trying everything. The Audi TT I felt was totally integrated in design, as if drawn by one person, but the SC 430 looks like 4 or 5 different cars stuck together depending on how you look at it.
It's certainly a car you notice, which is commendable, but there are plenty of things one notices that aren't beautiful.
Sometimes designs grow on people, but I don't thing this one will be a success. The high flanks and droopy nose do not flatter it. There are some design elements on the car I like very much, but I do not see the hand of one person in it....many hands, much confusion.
You want to see a beautiful Japanese car design, go stare at a last generation Mazda RX-7, perferably in black.
to have an Aztek owner complain about another vehicle having bad proportions. The people at Toyota USA don't like the wheels either, my brother-in-law works at TRD and is in charge of coming up with a more attractive wheel.
Well, you know how it is with design...you throw it out there and see how people react. There are many famous cases of cars needing some adjustments to the design before people would buy them. The Infiniti Q45 comes to mind (people didn't like the "no-grille" look on a luxury car)/
"artificial scarcity" There are 12000 cars coming for 2002. EVERY dealer is backlogged 50 cars at minimum. Dealers are selling USED Sc430's in the high 70's (they buy them, license them, and sell as used to get around the Lexus policy)
I didn't like it at first, passed on my option but am back on the list. This car is incredible. If you don't like it, fine, that's your preference but to me and the thousands of people on the waiting listss, it's simply beautiful. There are alot of options in the $70K market, to me this is the prefect well rounded choice.
believe it or not, the "Bathtub" generation Caprice went through this phenomenon. I think when it first came out, it was actually selling around 20% higher volume than the angular model that preceded it.
Unfortunately, I don't think it lasted the whole model year, and sales of it consistently sank afterwards, even though Chevy cleaned up its looks for '93, revised the engines for '94, and cleaned it up some more for '95.
-Andre
PS: as for the new Lexus convertible, it's not horrible, but it looks like a combination of Hyundai Tiburon and Buick Riviera, with an interior done up by a conversion van company.
Well, I am personally not a bit jealous but maybe some people are, dunno. There are elements of the styling I like, but I think it is very overstyled, over-trendy. The design is gutsy, unusual, but IMO not timeless. Time will tell, I could be completely mistaken. But I think the design needs some cleaning up. It is a bit irrational at the moment.
The "verdict" on this car is far from decided. It takes a good 6 months for the media buzz to settle in and make up it's mind. Witness the Aztek. A few thousand people signed up to buy may in fact be the minority players. If public reaction goes against the car, the waiting list will fall to nothing. If the car begins to look better and better as people get used to it, then it will remain popular.
The "scarcity" of any consumer product is by definition artificial, because no one really "needs" it.
Automotive history seems to show us that it's good to be ahead of your time in design, but not TOO FAR ahead. People cannot take huge leaps, at least not the majority of people. The most successful automotive designs have taken small but decisive steps to new design frontiers. If a manufacturer takes two leaps instead of one at a time, they could bet burned. Mercedes- Benz does this type of innovative but not too radical design very very well, as does Audi.
But anyway, I would NOT call the car ugly by any means. Never meant to imply that if anyone thought so.
...yeah, I admit, I've always had a thing for the '95-'99 Riviera ;-)
As for that little Lexus convertible, I have nothing against people who own something like that...if that's what floats their boat, that's fine by me. But cars like that, I kind of lump into a "toy" category, the same as a Corvette, Viper, Prowler, etc.
Maybe my trailer park is showing, but if I spent $50-60,000 on a car, I'd be afraid to drive it!!
You've seen those lines a million times. On every Honda for the past 3 or 4 years.
I was thinking about that earlier today. Honda used to be a design leader. The early Legend and the first generation Integras were boldly and handsomely styled.
After Old Man Sochiro Honda died, things went to ...well, got ugly pretty quickly.
The new Acuras are all bland IMHO... almost as bland as their names.
Hey say what you want about Azteks, the Lexus as art(?) not happening. But I will dare compare my Lotus Elan to your precious Lexus, just how is it that the dinky little British company achieves so much with so little? Hey they couldn't give their cars away, doesn't mean they don't look good. Now Toyota has found that there really is a sucker born every minute.
For all their faults, Lotuses (Loti) were never ugly. I think that's because the form followed the function, but many cars don't do that...they do the styling regardless of functionality.
Not that vans were ever beautiful, but when Ford redid the Econoline and made the front boxy and extended it out another foot, they became hideous. I guess the idea was to move the engine forward a bit for interior comfort. Another anti-aesthetic redesign was when Impalas/Caprices were Naderized and the big cutouts appeared in the sail panels - presumably to eliminate a huge blind spot. The same butchery happened to many GM platforms - Firebird, Camaro, Chevelle, Cutlass, Skylark, etc. Another horrible safety oriented phenomena was when all the tail lights became huge, regardless of aesthetics, in order to meet DOT minimum area regulations. Not that I am against safety . . .
Ok, I talked to someone who lives in Toledo, OH the other day (someone on here had mentioned they saw 3 in 15 minutes there), who is a friend of mine, and she actually liked that hideous Aztek and wanted to buy one. I was like, "uh, I would never be caught in one of those the design is too much for me." Well, in case you were wondering the demographic of a potential Aztek owner, this is a 32 year old single female, who loves Star Trek and the X-Files. I knew it...Pontiac (I own a Pontiac but I'm not blindly loyal to any brand) has decided to tap that vast market of Trekkies, visitors to Area 51 and Renassaince Faire goers. I think GM has found it's niche.
I like Star Trek and Renaissance fairs, and I *still* think it's the ugliest thing ever bolted to four wheels. (With, of course, the possible exception of GM's other creative flop, the El Camino!)
Something old, and either British or Italian, (The Spanish don't make car do they?) but not too much of a sportscar. The last Renaissance fair I was at was decidedly British in flair, but you also think Italians. So maybe an old Alfa Romeo or Jag? Definately not a domestic! That's like wearing Nikes and drinking Coca Cola at a Renaissance fair. Save it for the Daytona 500. You gotta get in the mood.
Comments
However, it you can back that up with #'s in terms of repairs per hundred vehicles, I might be willing to accept it.
Otherwise, it's like the old saying that no matter how mad Grandpa gets, he never says a word.....
It's true enought but you have to understand that he's been dead for 10 years to place that information in its proper perspective.
It looks like a Sow's ear to me.
I don't care if it's fast... it's UGLY
It's an old saying .. but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I own a WRX exactly like the one in the photo from your link. I like the looks. Are they classic .. nope, don't think so, but they have grown on me. Even more so after you drive it. Beemers will be watching tail lights
- hutch
Can anybody hazard an insurance quote on this puppy? I'd call my State Farm agent out of curiosity, but I'm afraid if I did ol' Joe would die right there on the phone with a smile on his face...
It may look better in person than in photographs. Subarus have always been kind of quirky with their styling, though. I remember the first Legacy looked like it had lifted the roofline off of a 1976 Chevy Caprice 4-door hardtop...little opera window in the C-pillar and everything! And the back windows even went down at an angle to get them mostly out of the way, with just a little triangular sliver sticking up...just like the Caprice.
So how fast is that WRX? I drove an Impreza when they first came out (was it '91 or '92 thereabouts?) I wasn't Imprezed, but I just drove a base model.
Oh well, at least it's unique, and in a better sense than the Aztek!
-Andre
Nowadays beauty is a bad thing. From cars to personal fashion, ugly has become cool.
The sales numbers tell a different story.
Suzuki X11....I think it only sold here for 2 model years.
First generation, Toyota RA4, two door...man is that an ugly vehicle...where is the rear bumper? 4 door isn't much better. New generation looks better from certain angles...
beautiful and gorgeous Pontiac AZTEK....
And I generally like Citroens.
That car was pretty brutal in tri-tone colors.
Change my list. Any car except the corvette built from 1958 to 1962. Bag 'em all up.
http://www.motorbase.com/picture/pid/-590412669.html
Particularly after following the spectacularly sexy TR-6
http://www.motorbase.com/picture/pid/841160394.html
I think both cars improved dramatically for 1959. The Buick was still ugly, but in a more aggressive, less stodgy sort of way. They toned it down for 1960, but then the stodginess returned.
For the most part, though, I think Buick and Olds went on to turn out some pretty decent looking big cars in the 60's, except for maybe around '67-68 or so.
Right now there's a 1965 Buick Electra 4-door hardtop for sale near my home, for something like $1700. I'm actually tempted, but the last thing I need is another car! It's kind of a purple-ish-midnight-blue color.
By 1960, I'd say Chrysler styling was all across the board. The '60 Dodges looked nice, but outdated compared to a Chevy, Ford, Mercury, or Pontiac. The non-Valiant Plymouths were hideous though. I think the DeSoto and Chrysler that year were pretty nice, although the Imperial, to be nice, was "over-styled"! I think '61 would have to be Chrysler's low-point in styling.
-Andre
The only car maker in that tradition now is Pontiac, especially the Bonneville SSEI, Grand Am and yes the Aztek. They're waaaay out there. Wonder if Harley Earl is still on the payroll?
the 401 Cu in high compression V8 with 325 HP and 445 lbs of torque caused the 4500 lb car to do 0-60 in 8.8 sec
with 16.2 at 86 mph in the 1/4. I know, i did in my mom's car at Lyons in 1963. Was smoked by '63 389 Grand Prix, another not so ugly car. Take the air cleaner off and it thundered on take off all the way to 60 mph at which time tranny was shifted from low to drive......
If I recall right, the admen dreamed up a fine-sounding phrase to describe this development, calling it "flight (or flite) poised suspension" or some such drivel.
But I do remember clearly the words in one of the ads touting the marvels of this change . . .
The words were: ". . . helps to maintain an arrow-straight course, even on curves . . ."
If it's so ugly.. why the 4 month wait at the dealers for a car that will be $68k out the door?
I visited with a new SC430 and stared at it and looked it over pretty well, and I must say that I agree, it is not very attractive to my eye. It is really a rather clumsy rip-off of an Audi TT with many other styling cues thrown in, as if the designers were trying everything. The Audi TT I felt was totally integrated in design, as if drawn by one person, but the SC 430 looks like 4 or 5 different cars stuck together depending on how you look at it.
It's certainly a car you notice, which is commendable, but there are plenty of things one notices that aren't beautiful.
Sometimes designs grow on people, but I don't thing this one will be a success. The high flanks and droopy nose do not flatter it. There are some design elements on the car I like very much, but I do not see the hand of one person in it....many hands, much confusion.
You want to see a beautiful Japanese car design, go stare at a last generation Mazda RX-7, perferably in black.
"artificial scarcity" There are 12000 cars coming for 2002. EVERY dealer is backlogged 50 cars at minimum. Dealers are selling USED Sc430's in the high 70's (they buy them, license them, and sell as used to get around the Lexus policy)
I didn't like it at first, passed on my option but am back on the list. This car is incredible. If you don't like it, fine, that's your preference but to me and the thousands of people on the waiting listss, it's simply beautiful. There are alot of options in the $70K market, to me this is the prefect well rounded choice.
Unfortunately, I don't think it lasted the whole model year, and sales of it consistently sank afterwards, even though Chevy cleaned up its looks for '93, revised the engines for '94, and cleaned it up some more for '95.
-Andre
PS: as for the new Lexus convertible, it's not horrible, but it looks like a combination of Hyundai Tiburon and Buick Riviera, with an interior done up by a conversion van company.
The "verdict" on this car is far from decided. It takes a good 6 months for the media buzz to settle in and make up it's mind. Witness the Aztek. A few thousand people signed up to buy may in fact be the minority players. If public reaction goes against the car, the waiting list will fall to nothing. If the car begins to look better and better as people get used to it, then it will remain popular.
The "scarcity" of any consumer product is by definition artificial, because no one really "needs" it.
Automotive history seems to show us that it's good to be ahead of your time in design, but not TOO FAR ahead. People cannot take huge leaps, at least not the majority of people. The most successful automotive designs have taken small but decisive steps to new design frontiers. If a manufacturer takes two leaps instead of one at a time, they could bet burned. Mercedes- Benz does this type of innovative but not too radical design very very well, as does Audi.
But anyway, I would NOT call the car ugly by any means. Never meant to imply that if anyone thought so.
As for that little Lexus convertible, I have nothing against people who own something like that...if that's what floats their boat, that's fine by me. But cars like that, I kind of lump into a "toy" category, the same as a Corvette, Viper, Prowler, etc.
Maybe my trailer park is showing, but if I spent $50-60,000 on a car, I'd be afraid to drive it!!
-Andre
I was thinking about that earlier today. Honda used to be a design leader. The early Legend and the first generation Integras were boldly and handsomely styled.
After Old Man Sochiro Honda died, things went to ...well, got ugly pretty quickly.
The new Acuras are all bland IMHO... almost as bland as their names.
Cutlass
Crown Victoria
Country Squire
Lancer
Javelin
Regal