ClassicCar

Lancer770

There was a short discussion on the 60-62ValiantLancerForum the other day about an ebay listing where the lister called his 61 Valiant the ugliest car ever made. Maybe he said it with pride I don't know but I wonder what the classic car community has to say about the subject.

I personally don't think the Vals or Lancers come close to being ugly(I also think English Bulldogs are beautiful). In my book the old Nash Metro has to be high on the uggo list. Let the poll know what you think. Instead of a beauty contest I propose an Ugly Poll.

It is widely agreed that the 57 Hudson Hornet is the ugliest car ever built on this planet.

Lancer770

While I am simpathetic to your stance I think that the grandchild of your nominee and mine would probably qualify for this honor. Nash and Hudson were the parent companies of AMC and AMC was responsible for the Pacer. The car that was once described as resembling an over weight "person" pulling on a girdle while bending over.

Karn Utz

Any Ford product from the Grand Torino Elite / Mustang II / Granada era is much uglier than the Pacer. The Fox (Fairmont) platform T-bird was uglier still.

The Pacer was oddly proportioned, but a clean design.

Ford, Mercury and Lincoln's multiple 'opera' windows, landau roofs, fake wire wheels and ersatz Mercedes or Rolls' grills were sickening then, and sickening now. And the interiors were straight out of a whore-house. "Crushed Velour", anyone? How about Contact Paper dashboards?

Lancer770

I bow to superior argument, corraborating illustration, and how can a Mopar disagree with anyone finding a blue oval ugly. Bravo on your presentation.

Karn Utz

Thank you. Thank you very much.

tristansdaz

OK, I'll add another one...The Davis Three Wheeler. Put claw feet on the hood and deck lid and it could be an upside down bathtub.

LanceB

I've got two, the Pontiac Aztec and the Cadillac Seville (older style) with the sloped trunk with the luggage straps.

The Hudson Italia... Only a couple dozen of these were made...

I stand corrected -

Those things that look like exhaust pipes coming out of the the rear fenders are actually lights...

tristansdaz

I second the motion on the Aztec but add another couple, the Scion and the Honda Element. They look like cardboard boxes on wheels or refugee Russian Ladas. Oh, by the way, those aren't exhaust pipes, they are the tail lamps. Yes, in retrospect they look a bit silly.

backtohudsons wrote:

I second the motion on the Aztec but add another couple, the Scion and the Honda Element. They look like cardboard boxes on wheels or refugee Russian Ladas. Oh, by the way, those aren't exhaust pipes, they are the tail lamps. Yes, in retrospect they look a bit silly.

The Aztec is up there for certain. What about the Chevy Avalanche? That is in the same catagory.

tristansdaz

I concur...too many angles for me.

Every time I see a Pontiac Aztek I start to have sever stomach convulsions. Really! What WERE they thinking???

tristansdaz

I've seen three of them, even the 4 door prototype. They look a lot better in person than in photos. The scoops on the front fenders were for brake cooling. Hudson didn't design or build it, Pininfarina in Italy did. Hudson shipped Jet chassis over there to build on. Look at some of the other Italian cars of the era and you can see the similarities. Still...not the prettiest car around by any means.

How could I forget?!?!?

Those Subaru mini-station wagons with the hood scoops!!!

hahahahahahahahahaha!

MikeWA

Every time I see a Scion, I think of the cartoons of my youth. Didn't Deputy Dawg or Huckleberry Hound or some Hanna-Barbarian cartoon character drive a car that looked exactly like the Scion, even down to the tiny wheels? Truly a ridiculous looking vehicle. I also second the motion on the Aztec.

Aaron D. IL

Aztec and Element are definitely up there! I was never impressed with the Gremlins either. Lotta stuff from the Late- '70's to early '80's was pretty bad. VW buses are another machine that doesn't do nothin for my stomach.

71dartswinger

ya i the scions and honda elements are horrible, the new bronco looked pretty bad 2, i knew someone who had an old one, there nicer

FredMaxwell

Yugo!

Aztec!

Audi!

Toyota Cressida!

Aaron D. IL

Anything made after 1965. LOL jk

jsrail

Yeah......gotta go with the Aztec! Its uglier than my family's 1967 Volga (yes its russian)!

Jay

hemiEssex

AMC Matador - need I say more!

66patrick66

The post should read "Ugliest car ever SOLD in the USA", since over half of the cars mentioned are foreign-made.

Ugly garage with new(er) cars would be Aztec, pre-'04 Avalanche, Cadillac STS ('04), Honda Element and their "trucklet", and the Scion xA wagon.

Old car ugly garage - '60 Edsel, '62 Plymouth Fury, '58 Studebaker wagon, Crosley, '58 Cadillac deVille, '57 Packard Hawk, '57 Hudson Hornet, '58 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser, '58 Lincoln Continental.

RonfromCanada

http://www.matadorsedan.com/images/MyMat1.jpg

My input for this poll. At least for the 70's. Next in line has to be the Aztec (what were they thinking?) Then that ugly Honda SUV thing with the black fenders.

PAULARGETYPE

Well I Love The 57 Hudson Look 'chrome' And Lots Of It Yes It's Different But Thats What I Like About It And I Have 3 Hollywoods So In Some Guys Eyes My Garage Must Be Reallllly Ugly I Guess It Just What Turns You On With The Amc 327cid And A Gm Jetaway Tranny Few 57 Stock Cars Will Keep Up And It Gets 18 Mpg There Roomy And The Seats Go In To A Bed I Had One In High School And Have A Hollywood I Bought In 1971 You Can Ride All Day At 75 Or 80 And Get Out Of The Car And Be Ready To Go

66patrick66

I had a slick little '56 Hudson Wasp. Hudson went over the top for the final year, figuring it didn't matter what it looked like anymore!!! The '57 has too many afterthought tack-ons, wheras the '56 is comparatively mild-looking (still a bit tacky in its own right!). With the 202 in '56, it wasn't exactly a rocket, but drove nice.

Richard of C

RonfromCanada wrote:

http://www.matadorsedan.com/images/MyMat1.jpg

My input for this poll. At least for the 70's. Next in line has to be the Aztec (what were they thinking?) Then that ugly Honda SUV thing with the black fenders.

My vote for the ugliest American made car...42 Oldsmobile..a front end only a mother could love.

moefuzz

Any GM product from the late 70s up.

I must say that this is a major improvement over the original...

just my two cents worth

rustjunkey

I would have to say that the ugliest 2006 sold in America has to be the Subaru B9 Tribeca (K9 Rejecta).

Rustjunkey

Martin200

I totally disagree with calling the Hudson Italia ugly. It is a billionfold improvement over the car whose chassis it rides: the Hudson Jet. That car is truly fecal. Evidently someone at Hudson felt the same about the Jet as Dutch Darrin did about the Henry J; i.e. that the chassis deserved far better than it got. Dutch made the Kaiser-Darrin, Pinin Farina made the Italia.

I would also call the Henry J ugly only because of the inside story about it. The right solution was at their fingertips all the time and because of corporate politics, Darrin's original idea of shrinking the '51 Kaiser down and using Kaiser hood, front fenders and deck on the smaller chassis was ignored. The '51 Kaiser plans were blown up from a small car and could just as easily be shrunk down again. Henry Kaiser went with the AMP proposal instead basically because he needed a car to go to Washington with to borrow more money. Even "Uncle" Tom McCahill figured it "resembles a Cadillac that started smoking too young."

If Darrin's original proposal would have been accepted, they could have saved millions, put that money into a V-8, put the V-8 into the small car and had an early Chevelle/Nova-type muscle car. And who knows--they might have survived a lot longer! I blame the Henry J and the Kaisers' bad spending habits for the demise of Kaiser-Frazer.

Twitch

In my opinion the AMC Gremlin was an ugly mutha!

Martin200

Besides my Hudson Jet/Henry J diatribe, I can't argue with Twitch about the Gremlin. Can't argue with Karn Utz about the Eighties Fords, either. As a devout Orphanist, I too despise the "Found On Road Dead." (For the most part. '55-'56 Crown Vics are cool. So's the new Mustang.) Pacer, not too bad. Falls into the "so-ugly-it's-beautiful" category.

Ugliest car currently sold in the U.S.? SCION, hands down. Whose kindergarten class designed that thing? I agree with the idea that it looks like a refugee from Toontown. I don't know what's worse; that it was produced or that people are actually buying them. Well, like H. L. Mencken said: "No one ever lost money underestimating the tastes of the American public..."

classiccarsteve

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some absolutly hideous cars out there, both classic and modern. for example the chevy ssr and mazda rx8. *shudder

moefuzz wrote:

Any GM product from the late 70s up. Just my two cents worth

You can't be talking about my 87 Chevy? Say it ain't so!!

Martin200

classiccarsteve wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind that there are some absolutly hideous cars out there, both classic and modern. for example the chevy ssr and mazda rx8. *shudder

Yeah!! Chevy SSR?!? This proves how idiotic Genital Morons has become in recent years. Boy, every American country boy wants a Bolshevik Red truck with the initials for "Soviet Socialist Republic" plastered on it. But then, this is the same company that tried to sell the Nova (which comes out in Spanish as "won't go") in Latin American countries... :rolleyes:

Martin200 wrote:

tried to sell the Nova (which comes out in Spanish as "won't go") in Latin American countries... :rolleyes:

Actually, it's "no va" in Spanish, which means "it does not go" (out of place). The word NOVA exists in Spanish too and means the same thing that is does in English. Actually, NOVA is also a brand of gasoline sold in Mexico. Anyway, the two do not sound alike in Spanish...or English, so there is really nothing to this myth.

The Nova was a very popular vehicle for GM and it sold in the millions of units. GM sold the car in Spanish markets under the NOVA name with equal success. And...last I heard, GM is still in business!

Martin200

Okay, wait a minnit. The GM of today is NOT THE GM OF YESTERDAY. I am talking about a company who: 1) got rid of what was IMHO their best division--Oldsmobile--because it "didn't appeal to the younger crowd" (never mind the performance legacy left by the Rocket 88s, the Cutlasses and 442s ETC.--why? Because it had the word "Old" in it?!?) Olds was always VERY popular here in Wis. and I will NEVER FORGIVE THEM FOR GETTING RID OF IT until they bring it back; 2) brought back the VentiPorts for the Buicks, and while they look OK on the sedans, they look absolutely RIDICULOUS on the Rendezvous (which is another contender for ugliest vehicle sold in the US); 3) is playing FOLLOW-THE-LEADERS in the Retrocar market with the SSR and the other retro-Suburban-looking thing which I can't remember (look to the Chrysler PT Cruiser, the '05-'06 Ford Mustang, the recent Thunderbird and the new Chrysler 300C if you want to see who got it right THE FIRST TIME) and I have YET to see either of these two retro-Chevs on the road, but I see quite a few in the lots; 4)When was the last time Cadillac made a car that actually LOOKED LIKE A CADILLAC?? The new Lincolns are closer to my idea of a Caddy than any of the acronymed monstrosities they are cranking out now. And hey, Caddy, get out of the truck business; you look ridiculous!!

I am sorry that I touched a Nova nerve--thank you for setting me straight on that-- but I was merely trying to vent my frustration at what I feel General Motors has NOW become--the laughing-stock of the industry. They are destroying their heritage and they need to STOP! I see what they are doing NOW and it moves me to tears. My dad worked for two Chevy agencies in the 1950's and we have always found them to be a truly fine car. When Dad didn't have a step-down Hudson or some kind of Kaiser ("I wouldn't have had six Kaisers if I didn't think they were any good!"), he drove a Chevy, Olds or Cadillac. We still have a '64 Bel Air, a '68 Bel Air (both are sixes w/ Powerglide), an '87 Caddy Brougham and a '92 Olds 98 Regency Elite and love them all.

And hey--'51-'55 Kaisers came stock with Delco-Remy electricals and Dual-Range Hydra-Matic and I wouldn't have it any other way.

CAMAC37

The Italia is a good looking design.

I agree on the Pacer.

Ugly like Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Mac

My vote would be for the AMC pacer.. and mishappen egg on wheels! Yuk!

Sarah Young

Aztec is number one ugly on my list. A note on the Scion though... The best one I've seen so far was a white one pulling out of a casino. It had 2 black spots on the rear driver side door and 5 black spots on the rear passenger side. Yup, perfect car to make a dice out of!

bill a

I KNOW THIS IS ALL IN FUN, BUT I FEEL UGLY AND BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.ONE MANS JUNK IS ANOTHER MANS TREASURE, I REMEMBER SOME OF MY EARLY GIRLFRIENDS, lol BILL ALBRIGHT

CountryCar

Aztek does it for me, Hudson Jets are right up there too. Some years from now, we will all be saying it was the current crop of ugly SUV types, with acres of sculptured plastic tac-on body panels and fake plastic chrome trim that are somehow ment to look "tough"

In regard to Cadillac, it's instresting to note that GM has co-opted everything from the Cavalier (Cimarron) to the Tahoe (Escalade), and now the Corvette (XLR) in keeping the Cadillac name alive without actually making one. Cadillac use to be the leader in style and design...now they are masters of the paper tiger.

Linclon tried this in the late 70's with the Ford Monarch (Versailles) with the same success GM has had and returned to sperate lines for Ford & Lincoln. GM has not gotten the message yet. This due in part to a customer base that is loyal to the GM brand and don't mind paying $60,000 for a $22,000 SUV with leather seats.

Martin200

admin wrote:

In regard to Cadillac, it's instresting to note that GM has co-opted everything from the Cavalier (Cimarron) to the Tahoe (Escalade), and now the Corvette (XLR) in keeping the Cadillac name alive without actually making one. Cadillac use to be the leader in style and design...now they are masters of the paper tiger.

Linclon tried this in the late 70's with the Ford Monarch (Versailles) with the same success GM has had and returned to sperate lines for Ford & Lincoln. GM has not gotten the message yet. This due in part to a customer base that is loyal to the GM brand and don't mind paying $60,000 for a $22,000 SUV with leather seats.

I wholeheartedly agree, Admin. We could have an entire forum discussion about how badly GM has become the toothless bear of the automotive industry. That is one corporation that will need a serious leadership purge, IMO, if it is to regain my respect. As I implied before, they need to: 1) bring back Oldsmobile, apologize profusely for the idiotic decision to s--tcan it, and promptly fire the morons responsible; 2) start making REAL Cadillacs, apologize profusely for making SUV's and other garbage that defiles the Cadillac crest, and promptly fire the morons responsible; 3) restrict production of anything that even so much as SMELLS like a truck/van to the Chevrolet and GMC marques, as they have done for the past ninety-odd years, apologize profusely for defiling the other marques in this manner, and promptly fire the morons responsible; and 4) get out of the retrocar business (seeing as how they never really got into it in the first place), apologize profusely for following and not leading in this niche market, and promptly fire the morons responsible. Then and only then will I perhaps think about possibly considering maybe someday musingly taking a look at becoming a GM customer once again. :rolleyes:

LandYacht

What about the '56 Studebaker Skyhawk's front ends??

To me - that's ugly!

Robert Conner

my wife despises the Scion Xb.

She says that it looks like a couple of horses ought to be hitched to the front, and the driver perched on the hood wearing all black, including top hat, and that there should be a coffin in the back. She thinks it looks like an 1880-era hearse.

Kinda hard to disagree with her on that.

USNSPARKS

My bid goes to the 1957 Citroen DS. That was one ugly car!

Almost as ugly as the Citroen 2CV.

The Scion is the absolute winner for todays vehicles. I actually saw TWO of

them in one day.

Martin200

As for today's vehicles, as I and several others have already said, it's got to be the Scion, hands down. What scares the bejesus out of me is that these things are really starting to pick up in popularity; I see all kinds of them in my area (and in all different colors from canary yellow to hearse black--gotta agree with Robert Conner's wife on that one!). I guess it just reinforces H. L. Mencken's adage: "No one ever lost money underestimating the tastes of the American public...":rolleyes:

I guess the Scion must be one of those cars that look a helluva lot better on the inside than on the outside; the 1st-generation Kaisers and Frazers were like that... although my votes for 'ugliest domestic vintage' still remain the Hudson Jet and the Henry J... two cars which helped to kill their makers.

Michiman

AMC Pacer gets my vote!

Ashley

Martin200 wrote:

As for today's vehicles, as I and several others have already said, it's got to be the Scion, hands down. What scares the bejesus out of me is that these things are really starting to pick up in popularity; I see all kinds of them in my area (and in all different colors from canary yellow to hearse black--gotta agree with Robert Conner's wife on that one!). I guess it just reinforces H. L. Mencken's adage: "No one ever lost money underestimating the tastes of the American public...":rolleyes:

I guess the Scion must be one of those cars that look a helluva lot better on the inside than on the outside; the 1st-generation Kaisers and Frazers were like that... although my votes for 'ugliest domestic vintage' still remain the Hudson Jet and the Henry J... two cars which helped to kill their makers.

I have a scion, and I think it is wonderful. The inside is very spacious and the MPG keep my wallet full. If anything the Scions grandparent, the VAN (mini or super) should be your vote. Really, what is the point of a van unless its a VW and you hot box it.

Martin200

Ashley; with all due respect, one can design a vehicle that is very spacious inside with MPGs that keep your wallet full AND give it some decent, flowing aerodynamic lines... it would probably give you even more MPGs that would keep your wallet even fuller as a result. I'm sorry, but IMHO the Scion has all the aerodynamics (and visual appeal) of a cardboard box. Read the other threads; I'm not alone here. Indeed, it has a very toylike appearance; rather like one of those cardboard "kids meal" cars that a tot would get at a drive-in. I can't help but wonder if part of the assembly process involved folding along Line A and inserting Tab B into Slot C or something...

I understand that the Scion is probably going to be one of those cars that people either love or hate, like the VW Thing, the '38-'40 Graham "Sharknose," or the Edsel.

BTW, the Scion/minivan concept of a smaller, spacious people hauler is nothing new. Google "Stout Scarab", the forerunner of this concept that hails from the 1930's, if you want to see what I mean.

ClassicCar

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

We'd love to hear from you! info@classiccar.com