G. David Felt

Alternative Fuel Reporter

CNBC.com just released their 10 Ugliest Auto's of all time list.

While concepts can WOW people and start a long life money maker like the Mustang. There are others that just leave people flat with the "What Happened?" attitude. Some of these models have been vindicated later down the road and other have just become a history footnote in a book.

While i will list the 10 auto's here, Review the complete list at this site with their explanation and then sound off on whether you agree or disagree and why for this Top 10 Ugliest List.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/10-ugliest-cars-of-all-time-231104344.html

10 Ugliest Auto's

1958 Edsel Corsair

1960 Plymouth Valiant1965 AMC Marlin

1970 AMC Gremlin

1978 Mercury Zephyr

1982 Aston Martin Lagonda

1990 Pontiac Trans Sport

1999 Isuzu VehiCROSS

2001 Pontiac Aztek

2002 Isuzu Axiom

List out your top 10 and tell us why.

Pfft...amateurs. My Top 20

SsangYong Rodius

Ford Scorpio

Mitsuoka Orochi

Weber Sportscar Faster One

Citroen Ami

Cadillac Seville

Fiat Multipla

Nissan Cube

Jeep Compass

Mohs Ostentatienne Opera

Acura ZDX

Toyota Echo

Hyundai Tiburon

Honda Crosstour

Nissan Juke

VW 181

Ford Taurus

`62 Dodge Dart

2001 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am

Suzuki X-90

And the Bonus, Pontiac Aztek

Now if you'll excuse me, my retinas hurt.

2001 Trans Am?

Seriously?

Dodgefan is wielding his spoon on a couple of those.

A 1980 Cadillac Seville is UGLY?! WTF?! You CANNOT be serious.

As for the rest of the list (both of them), I could not agree more about those exterior turds on wheels. N.B. The 2001 Trans Am looks way too butch to be a car (and is somewhat misshapen).

Oh, that Seville would be on my Top 20 Ugliest list for sure... in fact it would make the Top 5 list.

Hideous thing.

2001 Trans Am?

Seriously?

Sorry Camino, but I've never been a fan of bulbous plastic. I'm not really a fan of the 4th gens in general, what with their tiny looking wheelbase relative to the massive overhangs that would shame a W-Body, but at least the earlier ones didn't look like they suffered from cancerous swelling.

2001 Trans Am?

Seriously?

Sorry Camino, but I've never been a fan of bulbous plastic. I'm not really a fan of the 4th gens in general, what with their tiny looking wheelbase relative to the massive overhangs that would shame a W-Body, but at least the earlier ones didn't look like they suffered from cancerous swelling.

While I much prefer the looks of a Formula over the T/A, I just can't imagine putting a 4th gen F-body on the ugly list.

Well that's why I specified the year and model, the rest aren't nearly so bad, but that mess on the front is just hideous. It's just my opinion.

Well that's why I specified the year and model, the rest aren't nearly so bad, but that mess on the front is just hideous. It's just my opinion.

We have some common ground there - I never liked the "double-decker nostrils" on the WS6.

The Seville? Dems fightin words!

Sorry Drew, I've hated those things since their debut.

They look like they were rear-ended by a bus.

The Isuzu Axiom was quite nice looking.

The Isuzu Axiom was quite nice looking.

Yeah it wasn't bad. It's problem was it was teh opposite of what people wanted in a crossover. It was a truck that looked like a car and drove like a truck, not a car that looked like a truck and drove car-like.

Sorry Drew, I've hated those things since their debut.

They look like they were rear-ended by a bus.

Or the back end was sliced off by a guillotine.

I see it as a visual homage to these:

You and 68Panther have that in common.

I see it as a very pale imitation.

I think it is a period appropriate styling direction and one of the most regal and expensive looking luxury cars of the day... surpassing even its contemporary Rolls, Bentley, and Benz competition. Of course, this is a visual assessment only as the 4100 V8 was such a supreme let down in these cars even the 350 diesel is a step up for them.

No ugly car list is complete w/o the '48 Tucker..a hideous beast. Or the '61 Plymouths and '61 Dodges, which had ugly front ends with weird reversed fins out back.

I've always had a soft spot for the Tucker.

I think it is a period appropriate styling direction and one of the most regal and expensive looking luxury cars of the day... surpassing even its contemporary Rolls, Bentley, and Benz competition. Of course, this is a visual assessment only as the 4100 V8 was such a supreme let down in these cars even the 350 diesel is a step up for them.

To each his own.

I see those cars as ostentatious, over-gilt design disasters front to awful rear. They were the sad and misguided replacement for one of Cadillac's cleanest, most tasteful designs.

I'm the opposite. I *want* to like the prior generation Seville, the proportions are there, but all of the details end up looking terrible awkward.

Well, I guess we are a great argument for diversity then!

Y'know, the Gremlin and Pacer are such easy targets. I've grown weary of "experts" taking cheap shots at them. I happen to like both of them. I owned them as well. Great powertrains--AMC's rugged inline six backed up by a Torqueflite auto tranny (except my '77 Gremlin had a 3-on-the-floor).

Edited March 31, 201312 yr by NeonLX

The Tucker is an awesome car, I would never have it on my ugly list.

I loved the first-gen (1970s) Seville. I mean, LOVED it. The car had marvelous proportions and its simplicity was part of its elegance. I hated when they get turded up with the fake RR grille or "landau" roof.

The second gen Seville, on the other hand...well, I wouldnt call it Nissan Juke-ugly, but it was disappointing after the first-gen (FWD not withstanding).

Hate to say it, but the bustle-back thing seemed to work better (at least a little) on the 1981-'83 Imperial coupe. I also liked the front styling of that gen of Imperial.

I liked all of the bustle backs.... I owned an '85 Continental.

I loved the first-gen (1970s) Seville. I mean, LOVED it. The car had marvelous proportions and its simplicity was part of its elegance. I hated when they get turded up with the fake RR grille or "landau" roof.

The second gen Seville, on the other hand...well, I wouldnt call it Nissan Juke-ugly, but it was disappointing after the first-gen (FWD not withstanding).

Hate to say it, but the bustle-back thing seemed to work better (at least a little) on the 1981-'83 Imperial coupe. I also liked the front styling of that gen of Imperial.

I have to agree, The Imperial integrated that styling in a far better way.

The Mercury Zephyr. Come on! A list without the supremely ugly Nissan Juke and Cube, the Scion xBox or Honda Element or the Acura ZDX is just denial.

Yeah, what ponchoman said. The Zephyr sure didn't strike me as ugly. But most modern Nissans, especially the Juke & Cube, as well as the guillotine-grilled Acuras, definitely DO push the ugly button for me.

Jeez, I forgot about the bustle-back Continentals from the 1980s. I liked those as well.

...and where is the late 1970s Datsun 200 SUX?

Edited April 3, 201312 yr by NeonLX

Honda 600 (Scuba mask with wheels)

Does the BMW Crosstour make the list?

Honda 600 (Scuba mask with wheels)

1972 honda 600 coupe 4.jpg

WOW, These butt ugly Scuba Masked cars are still on the road????? I am shocked, I thought they all died off about 20yrs ago.

Does the BMW Crosstour make the list?

Well, it certainly oughtta...

These cars should be on the list also

I never liked the post-facelift Ford Contour. SVT or not, I always thought it looked like they were scowling.

toughcar.jpg

These cars should be on the list also

Also, what the actual hell is that...that thing?!

You and 68Panther have that in common.

I see it as a very pale imitation.

Bingo!

Here is my list of ugliness. But it will be with cars that I have actually seen and touched and experienced. A Ford Edsel for instance, wont be on my list as I never saw one in person.

I will also stay away from crossovers like a Pontiac Aztec/Buick Rendez Vous or Tesla Model X or Acura MDX and ZDX...too easy to fill up the list...

And the list:

BMWs 3 and 5 Series GT

 

I actually like the Honda Crosstour. Weird how that is...

AMC Matador sedan. Id rather both BMW GTs than this hideous thing. That is how ugly I think this POS is!!!

 

AMC Matador coupe.

Pictures actually do this car a huuuuuuuge favor as the pictures hide how truly this car was misproportioned and awkward. Worse than say a Gremlin or Pacer. I remember as a young kid looking at these and almost crying in horror!

 

When I visited in Greece in the 1970s, I used to see these all the time. A Romanian car called the Dacia 1300. Which in reality was a Renault 12. I got to see the Dacia versions.

and its El Camino brother

 

1990s Buick Skylark. I LOVED the Pontiac Grand Am GT  version, but man-oh-man this version was disgusting!

 

Life cant get any more depressing for you if you are driving a shyte brown 1984-1985 Ford Tempo

In hindsight, I dont know if Im being too harsh on the Ford Sierra/Merkur ΧR--- something or other---but back in the 1980s...I thought this was the most hideous thing on wheels. I preferred the Tempo...

 

I know this is a cult classic. And I LOVE me some FRENCH cars...so eccentric styling all in the name for Art Deco I can understand and appreciate. But this Swedish entry I will NEVER LIKE and I will ALWAYS think its UGLY!

 

 

Your delicate sensibility, re:  crying about the '74 Matador coupe is duly noted and will be held in mind for future interactions.  It will, however, be vehemently denied by me and others who find it refreshingly different from other midsize 1974 coupes.

 

The problem with this thread remains, however.  An apostrophe denotes a possessive.  Unless the "auto's" (sic) are in possession of something, it should read "AUTOS" as in plural.

21 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

The problem with this thread remains, however.  An apostrophe denotes a possessive.  Unless the "auto's" (sic) are in possession of something, it should read "AUTOS" as in plural.

Fixed it for your delicate sensibility regarding grammar. 

The problem with your argument is this though:

finding something unattractive is subjective. 

 

Bullshyting your way through facts is...NOT!

 

 

https://www.electrical4u.com/working-principle-of-three-phase-induction-motor/

 

 

 

The merits (and faults) of a Tesla Model S in it being propelled by two 3 phase induction motors is one thing...hating the way it looks is another...

 

Also...not liking cars being propelled by said 3 phase induction motors for whatever reasons is one thing...bullshyting the facts of a 3 phase induction motor so you feel better about your choices in life is another...

 

Edited October 1, 20178 yr by oldshurst442

I don't think any of the Teslas are particularly attractive... they're just jellybeans nearly completely devoid of character.

However, I do love the powertrain setup on them.  That powertrain in something like the Escala concept in @oldshurst442 sig would be orgasm inducing. 

PS: I dont  care what you think about what I think about a 1974 Matador.

I WILL ALWAYS HATE THE WAY IT LOOKS!!!

BUT....if the 1974 Matador was a good quality car and NOT an unreliable POS like it really was...

Unlike you...I possess enough maturity and enough SELF CONFIDENCE to ADMIT that it was a GOOD CAR DESPITE ME HATING IT!!!

Ive done THAT many times with BMWs!!!

8 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I don't think any of the Teslas are particularly attractive... they're just jellybeans nearly completely devoid of character.

However, I do love the powertrain setup on them.  That powertrain in something like the Escala concept in @oldshurst442 sig would be orgasm inducing. 

 

And I would agree to that about the Escala!

But I do like the Model S looks. I dont think the Model S is anything special though. And I could see as to why many think it aint good looking. Although I did put DFELT on the spot for him saying the Model S is a jelly bean...

I will agree that Teslas...all of them...are devoid in character. The 1974 Matador coupe had character. It was ugly, but it had character.

The Karma Fisker would also be orgasm inducing had it had the Tesla powertrain in it!  Or a 1970 Olds442 restomodded and pro-toured to accommodate such a powertrain!!!

 

 

Edited October 1, 20178 yr by oldshurst442

5 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

 

And I would agree to that about the Escala!

But I do like the Model S looks. I dont think the Model S is anything special though. And I could see as to why many think it aint good looking. Although I did put DFELT on the spot for him saying the Model S is a jelly bean...

I will agree that Teslas...all of them...are devoid in character. The 1974 Matador coupe had character. It was ugly, but it had character.

The Karma Fisker would also be orgasm inducing had it had the Tesla powertrain in it!  Or a 1970 Olds442 restomodded and pro-toured to accommodate such a powertrain!!!

 

 

The Fisker Karmas were breathtaking in person. I've actually driven them.  Their issue was never the powertrain, that was perfectly fine for the application.  Their issue was the kit-car interior. It was in no way close to the level of interior you'd expect from a car in that price range... well below even Tesla in that regard. 

Thanks Drewbert!  As for oldshurst442, darlin', you spend way too much time with your capslock and your exclamation point key.  Fix it.