Ten ugliest cars?

[Pilgrim]

Click the arrows at the top of the article to scan the contenders...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33194543/ns/business-autos/

I personally find it hard to believe that they left out the early 90's Impalas - history's best interpretation of a beached whale with wheels.

[Hornisse]

Very predictable choices.  Kenosha's AMC would have benefited from a bailout like GM got.  At least the Hornet wasn't on the list. 

[jmcgliss]

These "worst car" stories really burn me up since they often imply that the Big 3 still build cars like that.  Manufacturers probably cut back on styling when the feds imposed anemic pollution controls that sucked up R&D and talent. Headlight size and shape were mandated by the govt as well, which is why the small cars appear to have huge bug eye lights.  Inexpensive cars were popular before the "look at me" SUV craze and yes, they looked cheap. You can't impose today's standards, tastes, and $35,000 sticker prices on the 70's or 80's and call that a fair review. Hating cars seems to be fashionable now, otherwise editors would want to publish features about the best classics from that era.

[Pilgrim]

I don't think the Matador belongs on that list at all, and the Olds Cutlass hump-back was easily as ugly as the Caddy.  The Plymouth Valiant wasn't that hard to look at, either, and the B210 wasn't really ugly.

I think their list needs major adjustments. 

Additions I'd suggest:

Early 90's Impala
Pontiac Aztek
Nash Metropolitan (so ugly it's deemed cute)
1959 Olds 98 http://www.ev1.pair.com/59olds/olds-1.html
BMW Isetta
Yugo
Hummer (any)
Citroën 2CV

[gweimer]

You have to remember that the Pacer was designed after lengthy surveys asking what drivers wanted most in a car.  Funny what AMC came up with after tallying the results.  The Aztec was actually pretty cool.  I looked at one before I bought my Vue, and it had a lot of nice features.  I have to agree with the Gremlin.  My dad had a stripped model with almost no interior and the 3-speed stick.  Your generic "car", as it were.  Citroens were famous because they were built without a real chassis to speak of.  'Nuf said.  Edsels always make these lists, so who really cares anymore?  The Pinto (and Vega) were rapidly designed to give American car makers an entry to compete with the growing Japanese cars.  Although I haven't seen any Pintos lately, I still see the occasional Maverick and Vega around here.

And, I happen to like the Nash Metropolitan.  I was considering buying one when I was interested in getting a vintage car.  I'm surprised that the old Kaisers didn't show up on the list.

[angrymatt]

*sniff* I love my Aztek.  But it totally belongs on that list. 

I don't, however, love my Aztek so much as to attend the annual Aztek Rally.

[Pilgrim]

On a trip to CA, we rented a car and ended up with a Buick Rendezvous - the slightly less ugly sibling of the Aztek.

We discovered that it had a nice interior, drove great, had plenty of room, and was generally a pleasure to operate.  We just tried not to look at it when we got in and out.  It was STILL ugly.

My sister drove a Gremlin for a couple of years.  The doors, hood and rest of the body tried to fall off at regular intervals, but the engine and drivetrain would NOT die.  It just ran and ran.  The windshield wiper motor was pitifully weak - my dad put three of them on that car for her, but she always had to drive it with a string tied to the driver's side wiper and threaded into the car.  The wipers would move to the center, but to get them to move back up my sister had to pull on the string and yank them back up. 

[Freuds_Cat]

 The Leyland P76 is generally regarded as the ugliest car ever sold on these shores.

[clankenstein]

The Leyland P76 is generally regarded as the ugliest car ever sold on these shore.

didnt that have an aluminium v8?

[lowend1]

AMCs were never as bad as they were made out to be, at least not until they started selling Renaults. The people that put these lists together are imbeciles. You could pull cars from every manufacturer that were/are ugly, ill-conceived or just plain bad, yet they seem to be fixated on 70s AMC products for some reason.
I'd rather be seen in a Levi's Gremlin than a Prius - anyday.

[Freuds_Cat]

didnt that have an aluminium v8?

I think you are right!   Come to think of it I have seen some whilst in the land of the long white cloud.

[bobyoung]

I like the Impalas and also love(d) Pontiacs but think the Aztec was THE ugliest car ever made. I have a 95 Buick Roadmaster which is the same body style as the 90's impalas and think it's a pretty car. My G8 GT is prettier though and lots faster.

[eb2]

I think the Aztek was done in by the sheer bulk of it - they made it so large that the styling miscues were magnified.  I think I disagree with a lot of the other choices.  The Pinto was a decent looking car.  The whole rear-end collision vibe made it seem less attractive.  Having been alive at the time I can guarantee you that when it came out it was a big seller, and very intriguing.  Lots of people looked at the Pinto, and by any standard the woody wagon was pretty nice looking.  The AMCs were always by their nature not made to fit in with the Big 3.  The Pacer was fun.  Not bad cars really either.  Certainly more reliable and built better than VWs over the last decade.  And I can't say I find the 92-96 Caprice/Roadmaster/98s to be ugly.  At least not any uglier than most 90s cars.

I think the 90s Taurus was a needlessly ugly car, even though it sold a lot.  The Toyota MR2 was a clunky looking thing, that looked worse when compared to the Fiero.  The Cimarron was horrendous both physically and conceptually.  The bland-errific of the century had to have been those pathetic Cortinas that they shipped over here in the late 60s and early 70s.

[Dave W]

I think the rule for putting out these best or worst lists must be to have them done by the staff member who knows least about the subject and is clueless anyway.

As long as they don't pick on the Isetta or Amphicar, I'm fine.

[lowend1]

Here's a link to Time Magazine's 50 Worst list, which is a bit more "global". Naturally, I question the inclusion of the 1971 Imperial, which they describe as being under engineered. In truth, that particular car featured the first antilock braking system in a US made car, along with the first incarnation of Chrysler's dependable electronic ignition system (not to be confused with the subsequent and problematic "Lean Burn" system). Big, yes. Thirsty? You bet. But nowhere near a "worst" car. Oddly, they mention the 1980 Imperial (actually 1981 is accurate) which had a truly godawful EFI setup that generated many a lump of scrap metal when owners got the carb retrofit. It was a far worse car than the '71, yet they did not include it in the list.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/completelist/0,,1658545,00.html