Ugliest Cars of All Time

grbeck · January 2002

Mr. Shiftright: In an earlier post, you said, "Good design is timeless and appreciated by many generations, and MOST important, recognized by people who aren't even remotely interested in cars." In your opinion, which older cars and trucks meet that criteria? Which new vehicles (say, 1996 and later models) will stand the test of time to meet that standard?

Also, how do the 1955-57 Chevrolets and 1964-66 Ford Mustangs fit into this? They were very successful when new and are still popular with collectors. Twentysomethings who were not born when they were first built still eagerly buy and restore them. At old car meets these models receive a lot of attention from the general public. Their makers still try to cash in on the excitement they generated and continue to generate. Even non-car lovers like them, and not because they represent kitsch or serve as a reverse status symbol (a vehicle so ugly or odd - AMC Pacer, the old bullet-nose Studebakers - you can't stop looking at it). The comments I hear are, "How good looking," or "It's a really sharp, stylish car." People genuinely think they are beautiful, and not because they have no taste and also collect velvet paintings of Elvis. Yet, I don't recall seeing them on any designer's list of the most beautiful cars of all time. And neither design puts function first.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

I disagree...57 Chevys and 64 Mustangs have some very nice styling features, and while not to my personal taste, they have very good proportion, are not excessively over-done, are of reasonable size with no gross overhangs, are rationally styled front to back (that is, the front half has something to do with the back half) were decently built (compared to say a '57 Plymouth or a '64 Rambler), and were excellent values for the money in their time. I doubt anyone could justifiable call them ugly. At worst, you could say they were very "period attractive" for their time.

These cars were extremely popular from Day One because they did not offend anyone and had mass appeal. A '59 Cadillac or '58 Buick or '58 Oldsmobile on the other hand were abominations even to those of us looking at it for the first time (see contemporary auto magazine comments to prove this) . The '59 Cadillac is still the classic example of High Ugly. The shrine of bad taste, if you will, that we can all worship with a smile on our faces.

Another strength for the '57 Chevy is that it has been mythologized in pop culture, so it's popularity is out of proportion to its real merit, like Zsa Zsa or _________(pick someone who you wonder about how they got so famous).

speedshift · January 2002

What strikes me about your two choices is that they're both icons. If there's one car that represents the '50s to most people it's the '57 Chevy, and with the '60s it's the first Mustang.

It would be interesting to do something like a focus group with both designs to identify which styling cues evoke such a tremendous response. I think the answers would pretty much distill the essence of each decade's appeal.

I've read that the '67-8 Mustang is a better styling job than the '64-6, mostly because the grille is more in proportion, but while it's a handsome car it just doesn't have the appeal of the first one.

Both the '57 Chevy and early Mustang are relatively clean designs. There isn't much wasted styling. The '57 has a few details that aren't strictly necessary like the hood spears and the Bel Air's stainless steel inserts, but I think for most people these details just add "interest". They symbolize the period but they're not seen as corny like a bullet-nose Stude. Same with the Mustang's side vents.

The Gabor sisters were maybe the first modern celebrities, people who are famous because they're famous. They're a good example of momentum, but there has to be something behind the hype to catch and keep the public's eye.

Maybe all of the above are just examples of well-merchandised sex appeal ;-).

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

Yeah, that's a good point.

But the popularity of the '57 Chevy and 65 Mustang support the contention that one sure sign of good design is that the design immediately pleased large numbers of people and continued to please them. It wasn't something they had to be talked into or "get used to".

Of course, talk about good design gets complicated because there is good design that is not really beautiful, but just functionally good.

Design that is both beautiful and functional is not all that common in cars.

taylor47 · January 2002

Then there was 1959 and just about every GM product that was built, especially the Olds and Chevs.

speedshift · January 2002

The Chevies were okay, at least the hardtops, but the '59 Olds was something else. Someone said the narrow track made it look like an elephant in ballerina slippers.

Pontiacs were okay too, and I've come to like the '59 Buick--it's actually a fairly clean, interesting shape. The '60 Buick looks like one of Exner's plucked chickens.

As for the '59 Cadillac, well, now it seem less like an affront to good taste and more like a symbol of a period of bad taste. Somehow that's an improvement.

avalanche325 · January 2002

Just an interesting design fact about the chrome side vents mentioned above. Fastbacks and GTs did not have them. They went for a "cleaner" look on these models.

I had a 66 fastback for almost ten years. I was told several times that my chrome side vents were missing. I even had one guy tell me that I ruined my car by taking off the side vents. I explained to him that fastbacks never had them.....I don't think he believed me.

IMO the fastback is the mustang that is pleasing on the eye. I did read somewhere that called it "confused styling" because of the sqarish body lines with a round roof. That's exactly the part I like. There is an old Volvo with similar styling. They always turn my head. The BMW 3.0 also comes to mind.

OOPS! I am off topic - these are cars that I like.

How about the old SAAB 900? I SWEAR they are made out of compressed ugly.

thorn · January 2002

http://imperial56.freeyellow.com/60vert.JPG

The 1960 "300" convertible 4 speed is one of the most valuable antique cars extant.
http://www.chrysler300site.com/cgibin/history.cgi?gallery_1960

thorn · January 2002

People forget that the '57 Chevy was a failure-mistake.

It was a mistake because the Chevy lagged in the styling department - especially behind Chrysler - and there was supposed to be a complete redo in 1957 but it wasn't ready.

The "57 was a makeover.

(1958 was the planned 1957 redo and it was a dud that only lastest one year).

The '57 Chevy was a failure because it was the first year in decades that it was outsold by the Ford.

In reality, both were eclipsed by Chrysler's stunning Plymouths - which made huge sales gains against Chevy and Ford - but at the expense of quality control.

...

http://kudas_realm_2.homestead.com/57_Fury.html

So it's funny that the '57 Chevy should become an icon considering how it was regarded at the time.

Good reading:

http://www.allpar.com/history/inside/plymouth-5.shtml

andre1969 · January 2002

...I see my brainwashing has worked with Thorn ;-) Just wait, the rest of you. I'll get you, my pretties...and your little DOG, too!! ;-)

thorn · January 2002

The new Chryslers were a work of art. The proportions were just right, and it had a sort of square jawed look that imparted masculinity. The fins were upswept and part of the design of the body line. The cars looked every bit as good as the 1957s had. Underneath the beauty was the muscle of the first unit body built by Chrysler. Engineers had discovered that the outer body panels did not have to be part of the inner structure to give it strength. That was part of the reason that Hudson and earlier unit body builders had so much trouble redesigning their cars.

The Chrysler 300 "F" was again introduced later in the model year. It hit the showrooms on January 8, 1960. Purists point to the "F" as the "last" of the pure letter cars. I will say this: Of all the makes and models of all the cars that Chrysler ever built, my all time favorite, hands down, no questions asked, kick [non-permissible content removed] with no names taken, top of the list, absolute never to be refused for anything else model is the 1960 300 "F."

http://www.allpar.com/history/inside/plymouth-8a.shtml

thorn · January 2002

= Distillation of ugly.

Same with most pre-1990's Subarus.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

Well, this is the World's Ugliest Cars topic.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

Now here's a very unattractive car (and rare, too).

1958 might have been the Year of High Ugly for American cars (and maybe foreign,too).

andre1969 · January 2002

...so it's cool in my book! Shifty, what was the second picture you posted? All I'm getting is a broken link. Actually, I always thought the Olds in '58 could've been attractive, if they got rid of al those creases cut in the side, and if the front-end wasn't so damn blocky!

andre1969 · January 2002

http://www.hearse.com/pages_to_file/11580.html . I don't think it's ugly so much as it is weird. Looks like a stretched-out '55-56 Plymouth styled to look like a '57 Lincoln and with '59 DeSoto tailfins grafted on. I'd also have to hate to have to replace the side glass on that sucker!

lemko · January 2002

That is an Australian Chrysler. It used a '53 Plymouth body with '57 Dodge Tailfins and DeSoto lights.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

The second picture was a '58 Buick. I can't bear to look at it again.

speedshift · January 2002

That Australian Chrysler would look right at home parked in front of Lenin's tomb.

Does Lenin still have a tomb? I know he's still dead.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

I think the Russian Mafia sold his body to a promoter in Las Vegas, but I could be mixing that up with something else

Okay, annudder Ugly One.............(poor woman has her finger caught in the vent window it seems...

andre1969 · January 2002

...out of the top 3 luxury marques of 1959, which do y'all think is the ugliest? Lincoln, Cadillac, or Imperial? I think the Imperial's body is actually pretty attractive, it's just that the front-end is too chromey and heavy-handed. That trick photography makes it look fatter than it really is, too. Out of the three, I'd say the Lincoln was the ugliest. I never liked the slanty headlights (didn't like 'em on the Chryslers and DeSotos, either) and it was just too bulky looking. The Caddy probably wins it for gaudiness, though!

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

They are all hideous in one way or another. It's not "styling", it is random welding. These cars look like they were designed by drunks or blind men.

Okay, let's take a shot at foreign cars for a change.

This "thing" was actually restored by someone!

(citroen Ami 6 panel truck)

merckx · January 2002

I've been waiting for someone to suggest that our beloved friend(pun intended)the Ami 6 belongs on this post.(I assure you it does not.)But I thought our esteemed host had declared a truce on the French.
Mr. Shiftright-didn't you EVER read any of the other pages of ROAD & TRACK lo,these many years? They could always be trusted to actually say something NICE about all these oddball foreign cars.
I'm rethinking my subscription renewal...

seeburg222 · January 2002

Sr. Shiftright, I must strongly disagree with you about the '59 Imperial! I literally have had dreams of a '59 Crown Coupe in deep maroon with a Silvercrest stainless top, swivel seats and 'Canadian Sunset' playing on radio of all things. I admit, the front end is heavy handed and chromey, but oh god, sooooo neat! There was a nice black one on Ebay this week that took alot of restraint on my part not to bid on. Now '73 Chryslers, yeahhhhhhh they were UGLY!!!!

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

Well, look, this topic is by definition one where a person gets to state his subjective opinion. You can't debate stuff like this, you either like something or you don't and then you state YOUR opinion of some car YOU think is ugly.

This IS the ugly car topic, after all. You knew that when you clicked on it

I'll tell you where I'm coming from, so that when I post future Ugly Cars, you'll know more about my point of view.

I've studied cars for many years, and visited museums all over the world looking at many rare, and even common cars. I've even been to a few of the famous design studios. And I've read quite a bit on the History of Auto Design from 1900 to the present.

And I must say, that among all the cars in the world to admire, all the gorgeous shapes, tasteful details, lovingly shaped proportions, and all the beautiful creations made by the great designers of the world throughout automotive history, I can't personally understand how anyone could see any beauty or merit in such wretched abominations of the designer's art as a '59 Imperial or an Ami 6.

I'm NOT saying that I don't understand how one could LIKE them. Hey, everybody had a pet frog when they were a kid and watched Frankenstein movies. Me, too. So if you want to own a monster, enjoy yourself.

But to attempt to defend these abortions as "beautiful" would require some rationale beyond "I think so", because the cars violate every good principle of design.....which includes proportion, grace, restraint, balance, choice of materials, functionality, reference to interior space, reference to what came before, etc. The list goes on!

There are some cars that are so BADLY done, they looked like they were made in prison by 9 year olds. No, wait, I have seen some car designs by 9 year olds, and they are much better.

When one calls oneself a "designer", one is presumed to have at least a crumb of talent. Whoever penned these cars were chaotic and confused people. They should return their paychecks, if it's not too late.

In short, they didn't know what they were doing.

jrosasmc · January 2002

Peugeot 504 & 604
Renault R12, R15/R17
Saab Sonett II & III
Most late 70s Datsuns

Now are these cars ugly or what? You tell me.

andre1969 · January 2002

Imperial for 1959 had the same problem as the other Mopar products. They were a heavy-handed facelift of the gorgeous '57-58 models, and facelifts rarely look as good as the original design. I think the '57-58 DeSoto and Chrysler are two of the most beautiful cars ever built, but they came through their '59 facelifts looking worse for wear, as well. Part of the Imperial's problem is that, to differentiate it from the Chryslers and DeSotos that they were trying so hard to distance it from, they merely applied the traditional "upscale" cues, such as taller tailfins, heavier chrome applications, and some pretty funky rooflines. They also came out with curved side window glass for 1957, a Detroit, if not industry, first. Unfortunately, they were about 10 years too early, because curved side glass and '50's styling just doesn't go together!

I used to know a guy with a 1959 Imperial. I forget the model name, but it was a bright green 4-door hardtop. We took some pictures of it, years ago, with my '57 DeSoto. All the stuff that made the car look upscale back in the '50's just made it look awkward, dated, and overblown (but still cool!) today! I've got those pictures somewhere. If I can find 'em, I'll post 'em. Another thing that surprised me, is that while a '59 Imperial is about 9-10" longer than a '57 DeSoto, you really couldn't tell in the pic. I guess once you get up to those kinds of sizes though, what's 9 or 10 inches? ;-)

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

I really don't discriminate like you do one from t'other. If it's got 400 lbs of chrome and huge tail fins, it looks ugly to me. So aside from 55 Chrysler 300s, which I like because it shows some grace and restraint, I think all those 50s Chrysler Corp pointy shark fins and rocket pods and three color paint and laser bomb sights and photon destructor nozzles and 9 feet of rear overhang represent one of the most dismal periods of American car design, right up there with 1946 and 1984.

You KNOW I'm still petitioning to have Virgil Exner exhumed so I can ask him what he was thinking at the time.

Virgil once said "The really modern automobile should convey an eager, poised-for-action look". I presume he meant by "action" fighting the North Korean air force?

I will agree with you, though...58-59 cars were a LOT worse. It seems we went from a Minor Golden Age in 1955 to Wretched Excess by 1960 to Getting Better by 1964 to the Great Muscle cars in the mid-late 60s (most of which are pretty "clean" if you look at them closely), Back to Barges in the early 70s to complete and Utter Chaos in the 80s and back to Sanity in the 90s.

Now I know you can get a lot of money for a '59 Caddy, but Elvis' underwear sold for...what?...$4,000? so anything's possible in the Babylon slave market of collectibles.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

What do you think of this "Paris" model Cadillac?

speedshift · January 2002

Tres chic.

carnut4 · January 2002

Since you've posted it in this topic, I think I already know what you think, Shifty. My immediate reaction is it's ugly, in the true 70's barge/phony chrome-crap tradition. But, if you take away that ugly pseudo-dual-sidemount-spare crap, and some chrome from the headlight area, the rest of the car is actually pretty clean. Maybe the phony Rolls grille could be changed too-never cared for them much. Overall, though, I think if my Dad drove up in this car, I'd never speak to him again. And if my wife tried to pressure me in to buying this car, as it is, I'd divorce her on the spot!

andre1969 · January 2002

Did Cadillac actually make those monstrosities, or did some outside supplier do it? The problem with it is that the tack-on stuff like the fake spare tire and the arrogant stand-up grille just look too fake, and draw too much attention to themselves. Makes me think of the first "National Lampoon's Vacation", where they took a Country Squire and doctored it up to make that Wagon Queen Family Truckster.

It's really a shame too, because the '75-79 Seville is actually a nice, clean, well-proportioned car. Take that fake grille and spare tire off, and you'd improve it considerably. Or better yet, just take a normal Seville and convert it to a 2-door, yet 4-seater, 'vert, and leave its hood at normal length!

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

Well, you can improve the design of most cars by getting the proportions right and by striping off those things that showed a lack of restraint in the first place.

My point exactly. If you can spot what is wrong with a car, you can often come up with ways to make it "right", or right-er in any case.

I think TRULY ugly cars could not be improved no matter what you did to them.

No, to answer your question, I think these grotesque Cadillacs were one-offs done by people gone mad. This level of insanity is still going on. It has something to do with welding torches and too many beers.

andre1969 · January 2002

...I think I'm going to post some pics of a '57 DeSoto that someone sent me awhile back. However, this isn't a real DeSoto...it's a Lincoln Mark VIII that someone was in the process of cutting up and trying to fit DeSoto pieces onto.

Believe it or not though, it's not as grotesque as it sounds! (well, to me at least ;-)

carnut4 · January 2002

How 'bout a mid seventies Eldorado with dual sidemounts stuck on like that? Holy dinosaur-reminds me of a cartoon I saw on the wall of a new Ford showroom in 1959. It showed an exagerrated, cartoonized, rear view of a 59 Chev sticking out of a small garage, and a little kid running terrified to his Mom, screaming, "Mom, there's some big monster hiding in the garage!!"

andre1969 · January 2002

...considering their '60 looks like a rip-off of the '59 Chevy! The Ford is more tastefully done, but less memorable.

carnut4 · January 2002

When the 60 Fords came out, I wondered how they could have that poster criticizing the 59 Chev, when their own 60s did look like kind of a ripoff off the 59 Chev, at least at the rear. That was one of the few years when Ford didn't have the big round talligghts in those days.

bburland · January 2002

So much for scratching the surface. Did any of the following get a mention...does anyone remember them?
Hindustan Ambassador
NSU Ro 80
NSU any other
BMW Isetta
Messerschmitt
Dyna-Panhard
Toyopet (no kidding!)

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

Great List bburland, most VERY homely, but I am puzzled why you think the Ro 80 is ugly.

I realize that today the styling looks a big odd, but it was a very influential car, and named European Car of the Year for 1967. The styling was later copied by Audi for the 5000 and by Ford for the Taurus, and of course the R0 80 was the world's first production rotary engine, later perfected by Mazda.

I think the car looks extremely modern for a 1967 model, compared to most other cars of that era.

merckx · January 2002

jrosasmc · January 2002

VW Dashers from the mid-70s. Hideous.

merckx · January 2002

I also think it's actually quite a good looking car. Very space efficient.

As far as the Ami 6,it's not beautiful,of course,but I admire the modern body Citroen put on the 2CV mechanicals. It's not beautiful,nor ugly,either. How about interesting? I like the reverse-angle rear window a'la 1959 Ford Anglia(sharp little sedan)and espically 1963 Mercury .

Now the 1977 Datsun F-10,coupe AND sedan I'll call ugly.

carnut4 · January 2002

I wish there was a way to post these pictures. In the February issue of Old Car Trader, on page 42, and 43, there are two of the ugliest Cads I've ever seen. One, on page 42, boasts, "63 Cad Sedan DeVille, one of a kind, 51,000 miles, only one in the world." Well, I hope so. It has an extra foot or two stuck on the already excessive rear overhang, with a continental kit. My god it's ugly! And, are you ready for this: they want $60,000!! On the next page, there's a 65 Cad Sedan Deville, with a stuck on continental kit that looks like it adds another two feet to the rear. The ad claims "15,399 original miles." I wonder, why would anyone do that to a nice, original car, if in fact, those are the actual miles. Hey guys, you gotta see these pictures. As I thumbed through the rest of the issue, though, I found something far worse. I mean, I couldn't believe it. Makes Shifty's picture of the sidemount Seville look like a Ferrari Daytona coupe. On page 208, in the "other" section, [along with the Clenets, Zimmers, etc] is a "Stutz Blackhawk Replica" custom built on a 72 TBird body, with "only 28K miles" I mean-who cares? The rear view presented in the ad has to be seen to be believed. Oh my god it's ugly!!! I mean, "what were they thinking??" "The ultimate neo-classic, stunning in appearance, exhilarating to drive," says the ad. Well, I dunno. I wonder what they were smoking...

speedshift · January 2002

I had no idea what the Ro 80 looks like so I looked it up. That's a sharp looking sedan. In the right front view I think there's something vaguely first 5 series about the greenhouse and doors. If that's a '67 it's at least ten years ahead of its time. Here's a link. All the sites I found were in German so that seems to be the only place it's known.

http://www.automarken.net/modelle/nsu_ro80.shtml

speedshift · January 2002

I really don't know if this car belongs here or not. In the early '60s there was a white Packard Hawk always parked next to our local post office that just knocked me out.

http://vintagecars.about.com/library/weekly/aa070101a.htm

speedshift · January 2002

There's no doubt this one belongs here.

Actually I've always been oddly attracted to this car, the same way I've always been attracted to train wrecks.

http://www.islandtime.com/autogallery/packard-58.htm

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

It looks even worse in the "flesh" so to speak. The photos flatter it somewhat. Certainly a disgrace to the name Packard, it was 100% a Studebaker with a fiberglass hood. Packard owners hated it, Studebaker owners didn't buy it, and everybody forgot about it.

Studebaker hung on until about 1964 in the US, and 1966 in Canada, and then morphed into something else.

andre1969 · January 2002

...the '58 Packard (not the Hawk, but the regular sedans and hardtops) look a bit like a warped, twisted '58 DeSoto. From the back view, it looks like they hired some Mopar stylists, some GM stylists, got 'em all high at a party, and then told 'em to design a car together! I'm surprised at how tasteful the dashboard actually came out on those cars, though!

Mr_Shiftright · January 2002

Probably designed by a different committee and it turned out okay. Yeah, the styling is just a hodge-podge of confusion. They did a much better job with the Gran Turismo Hawk, which was still just a hat trick done with old sheet metal from older cars. It had a kind of T-Bird roof and Mercedes-like grille, and with a supercharged engine option, it could get up and go (not stop or steer, but hey, this is the 60s!). The Avanti is a controversial design as well. You either like it or hate it. I never found grille-less shovel-noses very attractive, but the "coke-bottle" sides and fastback glass area are pretty good. The Italians could have cleaned up the Avanti and made it beautiful.

jrosasmc · January 2002

Late 70s Olds Toronados. They're plain too big.

Ugliest Cars of All Time

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles