View Full Version : Ugly Cars

October 21st, 2007, 04:09 PM
Let's get right down to it: the new 2008 Accord is U-G-L-Y. What a styling disaster! Has Honda finally created its own Edsel? The interior of the car is as laughable as the exterior. The new Accord is the 60 Wall Street of the car industry!

I hope this car is a complete flop, and Honda gets the notion to restyle it, pronto.

October 21st, 2007, 05:59 PM
I was thinking the same thing about the new Mercedes C-class... which the new Accord sedan sort of reminds me of.

I bet people will get used to it. Honda always manages to make their cars look expensive... this one's a dog but does have a look of quality.

October 24th, 2007, 07:23 PM
Need to hire Bangle.

October 24th, 2007, 08:03 PM
You kidding me? Every designer is a Bangle today! And I don't care if you've got the real Bangle or a cheap knock-off: please, NO MORE BANGLES!

The Accord (and corporate sibling Infinity G) has the exact same door/roof arc as the 5 series, and I know there's a bunch others out there apeing that car that I can't think of at the moment. Plus, look who else getting in on the copycat game: Hyundai!


^ This car, the Genesis, will be going on sale in Korea in December. No word on when it comes to the US.

About the 2008 Accord, I agree it's just fugly all around. It looks like they took a design that was 60% baked, smoothed out a few edges, and called it a day. There's just something off about it. Same thing with the C class, like Fab said.

The new Ford Super Duties are pretty hideous too, but at least we can take comfort knowing that that was the desired outcome. And while we're at it, Toyota's entire lineup is bad - not horrible, just bad - but bad nonetheless.

October 25th, 2007, 04:47 AM
Yeah that's ugly.

But IMHO nothing but nothing is as ugly as some of the stuff that comes out of GM. It is the worlds largest maker of ugly cars.Especially anything from their Pontiac division.

This is achingly ugly. It makes the Accord, C-class and that Hundai posted above look like Bentleys:



Here's the G6. This would have been just ok in 1995. Who in the world builds cars today that look like this?:



On to Buick.... ew... it's growing hair:



I've never seen one of these on the streets in the US. Have they sold any? It's just sooooo old:



The guys at BMW, Mercedes, Audi must get a good laugh over the fact that GM still builds this:


But maybe I should go easy on Cadillac considering that Ford STILL builds these....I guess it's been in production so long it could almost be considered cool. Dress me in a lesuire suit and point me toward Florida:



October 25th, 2007, 05:10 AM
This is REALLY UGLY cars!!!


Weber :eek:



Fiat Multipla :mad:



Ssang Yong Rodius :confused:


October 25th, 2007, 05:13 AM
The Fiat Multipla was designed to be ugly. That was actually the intent.

October 25th, 2007, 05:16 AM

But why?!

October 25th, 2007, 05:29 AM
The Multipla is "ugly" in the way that the Citroen C4 was ugly. The objective with the Multipla was to be homely in an endearing way.


"It is no mere chance that in 1999 an example of the previous Multipla was exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, the most important and famous modern art museum in the world...."



October 25th, 2007, 05:35 AM
... interesting!!!
... and what about Weber? Is it modern art of ugliness too? :)

October 25th, 2007, 11:54 AM
2008 VW Tiguan (SUV)

The Tiguan concept is as ugly as its name suggests, but the product version is rather nice.




October 25th, 2007, 06:59 PM
It's fine.

October 25th, 2007, 09:07 PM
I don't see endearing in the 1st gen Multipla. What I see is a car with a cowl that disrupts the air flow.

The 2nd gen has a smoother A-line. I'll bet it did a lot better in wind tunnel tests.


The Rodius should have a head-to-head with the Pontiac Aztec as the ugliest car in recent memory.

October 26th, 2007, 09:51 AM
I was shuttled off to a photo shoot in a Multipla this morning. First generation. I really think the restyled smoothed-out hood was done for foreign markets because in Italy the Multipla, lumps and all, was a hit. I think maybe it's a taste that doesn't translate well. I think now it looks too normal.

This was the original Multipla btw:




October 26th, 2007, 09:54 AM
The original is purely hilarious and lovable -- I can see why it was a hit in Italy.

October 26th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Sorry, but cars move through the air. I can't think of a better example of form follows function than auto design.

I suppose the Volvo PV544 may have been endearing in its time. I friend of mine in college had one. Four-on-the-floor, but the stick was about 3 feet long. A blast to drive.


Although produced from the late 1950s to the mid 60s, it looked like a scaled down 1941-48 Ford. The PV544 was an updated PV444, most noticeable change was a one piece windshield.

Here's the PV444, which started production in 1947,

And its inspiration, 1946 Ford

Full circle, Ford now owns Volvo.

At the same time the PV544 was in production, Volvo also produced the cool P1800.

While James Bond was cruising in an Aston Martin, Simon Templar drove a P1800.

And we all know that Roger Moore eventually became James Bond.

October 26th, 2007, 12:22 PM
The Citroen Ami.

You have to be French:



Ultra fab:




October 26th, 2007, 01:19 PM
If it's silver meteor in color, and if the sun is shining on it, and if the background is attractive, and if it's shot at an angle that makes the car look longer and the roof look flatter... then I guess it looks OK.I haven't seen one in person, but I don't see what you're talking about. The only ugly one so far is the disguised car on the test track.

Here's a level side-view, neutral background, even a garish color.


Not a great design, but ugly?

October 26th, 2007, 02:01 PM
The original Multipla does not look that bad. Kind of fat and dumpy (like a VW bus that was off of Jenny Craig).

The Aztec was THE ugliest car I have seen in a long time. I still wonder why ANYONE bought that multi-tiered choppy boxy nightmare!

As for that Citroen, it looks like a car that was beaten up by designers. Squished laterally and having its roof banged back as if some large hand had smacked it into a clope.

VERY impractical and a sheer experssion of form following whatever the hell it wanted to rather than function.

I would not call it stylish more than confrontory. It was a thumb to the nose of conventional design that, in my opinion, ended with more snot on it that what was really needed.

October 26th, 2007, 02:11 PM
I think maybe it's a taste that doesn't translate well. I think now it looks too normal.
Yes and yes.

Few Americans are able to admire the aestrhetic quirkiness of such "ugly" cars as the Citroen 2CV, the Ford Ka or the Smart.

Closest we came was learning to love the original Beetle.

October 26th, 2007, 03:26 PM
Citroen's 2CV is back! (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/208391/citroens_2cv_is_back.html)

Roof options will include panoramic glass or a canvas top that can be rolled back. Clamshell bonnet echoes that of
original, while headlights are now integrated into the wings.

Interior has room for four and lots of modern kit. Seat fabrics and colours can be personalised.

October 26th, 2007, 03:32 PM
Love the skirt.

October 26th, 2007, 04:26 PM
What about the fake spinning wheels in the isometric front rendering!


October 26th, 2007, 04:38 PM
The ugliness of the 2cv, the Ami, the Multipla... it gave them soul.

My problem with the ugliness of... say a Pontiac G6 or that Grand Prix... is that the INTENTION was to design something attractive and contemporary...yet you can see that it's the result of market surveys and commitee meetings... not the sure hand of a design studio with a point of view. And for me that is truly ugly. GM always seems to be trying to second guess what the public wants rather than designing inspired cars.

October 26th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Love the skirt.
Original had it too.

Sorry about the integrated headlamps. Mickey Mouse lamps would have been better.

October 27th, 2007, 07:11 AM
Sorry about the integrated headlamps. Mickey Mouse lamps would have been better.Austin Healey Sprite Mark I (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Austin_Healey_Sprite_Mk_I_red_vl.jpg)

The Bugeye, Frogeye, Happy Frog.

Distinctive headlamps were a cost-cutting measure. Original design called for flip-downs, like this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lamborghini_Miuras.jpg)

October 27th, 2007, 10:40 AM

October 27th, 2007, 11:10 AM
^ That made me laugh out loud.

October 27th, 2007, 11:47 AM
1946 Gatford (Gatsonides-Ford) (http://www.uijtenhaak.nl/gatso/gatford.html)


1948 Gatso 4000 Roadster

Designed by Maus Gatsonides, a racecar driver whose invention, originally intended to aid faster driving, has been ironically employed to curb it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maus_Gatsonides)

Designed also the undeniably sexy 1949 Gatso Platje. (more photos)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/BugattiFerrari/GatsonidesZandvoort1.jpg?t=1166787324 (http://www.uijtenhaak.nl/gatso/gatso_platje_pictures.html)

October 27th, 2007, 12:25 PM
I do not like Subarus, especially ones that have illuminating tumors growing off its hood.


While Fabrizio rags on GM for their junk designs (and rightfully so!), I want to turn our attention to their biggest market threat -- Toyota. They baffle me in how they can ever let some of these shapes leave the drawing board.

The Camry:

Its nose looks horrible in real life (way too bulbous and ill-proportioned), and those droop headlights seem like a weak attempt at trying to create an identity (well nobody else is using that shape, so why not?). They did the same thing with the taillights, but besides them the mid and back sections of the car are ok (I like the greenhouse arc, it's sleek without consciously going for the Audi look).

The Yaris:

Granted, I chose this photo for how unflattering it is, but damn! It looks like the designers went for an Audi-esque grille on a $12,000 car, threw some bug-eyed lamps on it and got the results you'd expect.

I ask the question: is it endearingly ugly, or what-freakin-insect-is-that ugly? (I can understand how people might chose the former).

The Highlander:

There's so many awkward lines and angles here, I don't know where to begin.

First, there's no direction to the body, it's just some sort of a mass that looks uncomfortable doing anything, be it moving or standing still. The front bumpers look like they got sanded back at the corners, the headlights do that stupid droopy thing like the Camry, and my god those fender bulges over the wheels.. the designers tried to make them into "character" lines, but ugh no. Bad Toyota, bad!

This one offends my sensibilities the most.

October 27th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Recall BrooklynRider's blog entry, Beauty and the Beast (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/blog.php?b=9)I thought only Italian cars were self-absorbed.

October 27th, 2007, 02:21 PM
Recall BrooklynRider's blog entry, Beauty and the Beast (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/blog.php?b=9)...

To me, all hybrid cars are beautiful and all SUVs are ugly.

The Tiguan is an SUV, but how bad could it be? Its based on the Golf platform.

October 27th, 2007, 02:41 PM
1958 Packard Catfish GT:


October 27th, 2007, 03:02 PM
^ First iteration of that car was thought to be a masterpiece.
1953 Studebaker by Raymond Loewy.

A lot can happen in five years.

October 27th, 2007, 03:41 PM
And then after it's ugly period, came full circle and amazingly morphed into this:


(BTW note in the above Studebaker advertising photos the woman driving the car is out of proportion...too small. This was done to make the car look larger.)

October 29th, 2007, 07:07 PM
1959 Ford Frogster :


October 29th, 2007, 07:17 PM
GRIMACE and all ^

October 29th, 2007, 07:21 PM


October 29th, 2007, 07:37 PM
Now, that's a BOOT!

October 29th, 2007, 07:42 PM
And no dead cat holes.

October 29th, 2007, 07:49 PM
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/05/deadcat_450.jpg (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/automobiles/01DESIGN.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=783d4bb84191862d&ex=1180324800)

October 29th, 2007, 07:54 PM

But the Nash's big butt housed a bedroom.

You just folded down the front seat... et voilà:


Lounging around before bedtime:


October 29th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Having a bedroom on wheels is sooo last millenium.. what about a washing machine?

http://smgenglish.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/25/nissanpivo.jpg (http://www.petrol-head.com/2007/07/video-the-rotat.html#more)

October 29th, 2007, 08:06 PM
But the Nash's big butt housed a bedroom.

You just folded down the front seat... et voilà:
An idea whose time never came.

Amazing there was a time people could consider this safe.

Sleeping in his car: wasn't that how Michael Jordan's dad met his maker?

October 29th, 2007, 08:14 PM
And if Cinderella (http://chuckstoyland.com/nash/nash/51nash/8%2051%20NASH%20photo%206002%204C%20inside.jpg) isn't home by midnight, her coach turns into a pumpkin. (http://www.cascaderamblers.org/images/50/4308f6613bd1b.jpg)

October 29th, 2007, 08:20 PM
Washing machine? This one's front-loading:



Sleeping in your car: Nash also offered an exhaust-pipe hose attachment.


More ugliness Euro-style: the 1959 Panhard Dyna Z.

It had a thing in it's mouth:



October 29th, 2007, 09:12 PM
Here's a homely but sensible one (http://www.philseed.com/daf-600.html) for quick trips around town:


October 29th, 2007, 09:42 PM
^ That car (Dutch) had a continuously variable transmission (CVT). Company was bought by Volvo and now makes their smaller models.

October 30th, 2007, 12:35 AM
Greenhouse Gas



AMC Pacer

October 30th, 2007, 05:10 AM
1961 Plymouth Glamourpuss


1950 Studebaker Super-Schnoz

http://www.classicsandcustoms.com/list/images/X_1950_Studebaker_Bullet_Nose_11152006034347_16394 .jpg

1955 Tatra Coldwarrior


1957 Tatra Maiden Voyager



October 30th, 2007, 07:28 AM
That Buick's faux wood square-acreage is average compared to many that preceded it:


Ford even offered it on a convertible: The 1968 Mercury Recroom



October 30th, 2007, 10:18 AM

Although I think theirs was a bit more green.....


October 30th, 2007, 11:55 AM
First,I think EVERY SUV,from the Bizzarro Ford Expedition to the cutesy "crossover" mini-wagons are the Kings of Ugly.Every last one of them can rollover and go to the crusher.(...many of them already have).Some of them look like freakin' migrants busses,some look like tow trucks.All of them are WAY too big for public transport on public highways.
If you get behind one of these whales on a freeway (and you have,admit it)you are deprived of ANY chance to see ahead of you,so if something up in front happens at 75 MPH--like everyone suddenly slamming on their brakes--you will have no more warning of possible doom than the SUV driver ahead decides to give you.If he is asleep at the wheel,or has Altzheimer's-like reaction times,you crash.Into him.

Curbside,they always exceed the space available,and behond the wheel they are clumsy and unwieldly.(Yes,I have driven my share of SUVs).If you ever get into a situation where you are completely surrounded by SUVs,it's like you are a pea among potatoes.

It used to be that the incompetent would drive things like Town Cars or Crown Vics badly.Now they are driving TRUCKS badly.Trucks,which get 12-15 MPG.

Secondly,I was glad to see someone finally recognize the hilariously deformed Pacer.The car won all First Place Ugly Ribbons for a generation until the Pontiac Aztec came along.The Aztec was so clumsy that it initially made me laugh the first time I saw one.Not so the Pacer.I remember actually feeling SORRY for the designers over at AMC when I first saw the Pacer.
I didn't much care for a lot of the cars of the '70s,especially when they began hanging the huge "safety" bumpers off of them.A lot of questionable designs went immediately Ugly when that happened.Also,a LOT of the '70s-80s Japanese Designs,like Datsun's B-210 or Toyota's Tercel were serious missteps.

Other fuglies;
>Most French cars.Sorry,Francophobes,but some (not all )French designs are misshapen,wierd and otherworldly.Though they undoubtedly mirror French character with their deliberate iconoclasm,they belong more on a list of cartoon-car designs than on a list of actual ugly ones.

>Anything recently from GM North America.Though there are a few outstanding recent designs from GM (ie:the Cadillac CTS,the 'Vette,even the Chevy Colbalt)much of their design efforts were warmed-over evolutions of cars that were originally designed poorly.Someone earlier mentioned recent Pontiac design;for years,Pontiac's efforts to update their mundane Grand Prix and Grand Am series were merely cosmetic plastic cladding,an attempt to fool the eye into seeing something old that just got refreshed.No wonder we all started buying Toyotas.

>The current Rolls-Royce.Look what the Baroque Germans did to a perfectly good uppercrust British classic design.If you ever get a Roller in your rearview,it looks like The Parthenon is chasing you.It is uniquely Ugly.It's like a cruel trick played upon the Rich.
If they want to be truly unique,BMW should sell Rolls-Royces with grillework carved from marble instead of using cheap,common chrome.Now THAT would be worth a half-million!

>Widemouth AUDIs (AND V-dubs).What are they thinking?These things look like Grouper trolling among baitfish.If I had an AUDI,I'd paint the area surrounding the grille a bright red,like lips,and I would have someone artistic make a tongue that I could hang from the front.It would look like the Rolling Stone's logo.

>The bloated Chevy Caprice from the late '80s.The first one I ever saw had rear wheel skirts and a vinyl top.I gagged.For years,until,gratefully,they all wore out,the Fugly Caprice was a mainstay in NYC's taxi fleet.Whenever I'd see a cluster of them bouncing down the Avenues,I'd think that they actually were making the streets of the City ugly as they passed.Crown Vics actually began looking good.
Recently,the car has become a favorite of the Brothers.They like to make an ugly car uglier by painting it candy colors and putting 21-inch "dubs" on them.Gaah!!!

October 30th, 2007, 03:25 PM
Chevy Cap:


I would not call it ugly, but it is definitely whale-like.

And some "modernizations" produced this:


And pimping can get you Da Honneyz




Ooooh the magic!

October 30th, 2007, 07:29 PM
Personally customized uglies are a huge bore.

Put a Gremlin on wheels from a Mack truck.



Ugly and STRANGE was the 1956 Dodge La Femme.

Really. That was it's name. It was a '56 Dodge Lancer designed specifically for women.

Standard equipment included an umbrella, a rain cape and rain boots. A pink shoulder bag. And the interior of the car was upholstered in a pink rose petal design.



http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Chrysler/1955_Dodge_La_Femme_fv_Fender_with_ModelDaimlerChr ysler_Historical_Collection.jpg

October 31st, 2007, 07:06 AM
The new Audi Metroproject Quattro.

October 31st, 2007, 07:20 AM
^ Not friendly.

Yosemite Sam?

October 31st, 2007, 08:08 AM
Speeding ticket because your car is red. Added 5 mph
because it's got this attitude.

Ugly and STRANGE was the 1956 Dodge La Femme.

Really. That was it's name. It was a '56 Dodge Lancer designed specifically for women.Car model names. Now there's a subject. I'm sitting at a red light behind a late 80s Daihatsu. Across the trunk, the model name is spelled out - Charade.

What does that mean? It's not really a car?

Daihatsu model names:
SocialDelta Wide Wagon
Marine RunnerRugger

1951 Daihatsu Bee

October 31st, 2007, 08:57 AM
Back then ofcourse the Japanese were famous for copying.

Here's the original. Presenting the Davis:


October 31st, 2007, 02:15 PM
Fab, look closely at the first pic you have of the LaFemme.

Tell me this, if this car was designed for the ladies, being all in pink and the like, why is the porter/doorman holding the passenger side door open for her?

Do you think it was deliberate? So that even though the car would essentially be for her, the ones who would most likely be buying it (men) would not feel somehow uncomfortable thinking of their women driving it or do you think it was an honest mistake?

(IOW, were they playing to their base, or did the illustrator get lazy?)

As for Yosemmity, I think the car looks more like Brak.


October 31st, 2007, 02:33 PM
http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/7725/smartprofilexk8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
I saw this stupid looking car in front of a restaurant the other night. I guess if you are going 30mph and tap into a light pole you're pretty much dead..not to mention..it's the ugliest thing I've seen on the streets.

October 31st, 2007, 03:37 PM
One of the coolest,punniest names for a car came from Nissan a few years ago--it was a light cargo truck/cutesy coupe with an odd,wraparound body.
They named it "S-Cargo".

October 31st, 2007, 06:39 PM
Ninja: I also noticed the passenger door open and agree it's strange.

Ford also got into the act in 1956 with advertising aimed at women.

Like the Dodge, note the same "fashion-sketch" art work ... similar to advertising illustration done by Lord&Taylor and Bonwit's.



You might be surprised to see this, but here is one of a series of commercials that I starred in for Ford.

I was to Ford what Isabella Rossellini was to Lancôme :


October 31st, 2007, 06:42 PM
Not necessarily ugly, but a couple '80s Japa-designs that are definitely out there:

Subaru XT.. look at those wheel covers!
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/1430/subaru12441ri9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/358/5701rm2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Nissan Pulsar
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9814/pulsargi5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1884/litbrochurenissanpulsarlu3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

November 1st, 2007, 12:38 AM
This one may have been posted before, but given the discussion over here (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=195475&postcount=61) it deserves a re-post ...

The Girasole (http://www.ghettodriveby.com/girasole/)


November 1st, 2007, 06:33 AM
I love Lofters post No. 52 showing the green DAF, it also shows a very early attempt at photo manipulation. How that woman got into that position, I can't imagine.
Within the homely and sensible link we see far too many people in a car this size, and then the advertiser tops it all with a caption "and it seats 5 easily"

Best laugh I've had all day. Thanks Lofter.

November 1st, 2007, 09:24 AM
Too quiet?

Like bicycles are not quiet? Like you can hear anything with an Ipod blaring in your ear?

I don't know about you, but I rarely hear a car coming by the sound of its engine if it is not revving up, these people saying that they are thrown off because of the lack of noise, or that blind people will suffer is really over-the-top.

November 5th, 2007, 09:03 AM
The notorius Trabant.

I love this photo. The fashions mixed with the bare-bones "not even a loaf of bread left" instrument panel.

Note the secret police in the rearview mirror:


Thunderbird instrument panel from the same year 1964:


November 10th, 2007, 06:04 AM
:D :D :D

Tuning of most ugly Russian car - Zaporozhets:




This is original:


November 10th, 2007, 05:05 PM
http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/7725/smartprofilexk8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
I saw this stupid looking car in front of a restaurant the other night. I guess if you are going 30mph and tap into a light pole you're pretty much dead..not to mention..it's the ugliest thing I've seen on the streets.

You never heard about the "Smart" ("Swatch-Mercedes-ART") ? They've been around for ages, since 1998.
They aint that ugly, and they are very easy to handle.
It does about 80mph~

The worst thing about it is that they made a plastic version of it... yes, the chassi was made of plastic!

Although its not that ugly =P

November 11th, 2007, 01:00 AM
Not necessarily the ugliest, but worth mentioning...

Citroen Ami 6. The back window is at a 25 degree angle...the OTHER way.

Cadillac BLS Wagon. Apparently built for 8 footers.

Plymouth Duster. Just plain boring design.

Ditto for the Dodge Diplomat. Severe '70's hangover.

'89 Alfa Romeo SZ. The 16 year old low rider dudes in my old neighborhood would have loved everything about this one.....except the price.

'62 Plymouth Valiant. I'll give you a fin for it:cool:

And the Honda Insight, of course. A 1940's concept car in the year 2000.

Finally, since so many Americans are sedentary overweight slobs, this
is the perfect car for them.

November 11th, 2007, 01:25 AM
Yikes ^

What is that last one?

The new Chevy Cellulite :confused:

November 12th, 2007, 02:08 PM
I wanna buy that car ! ! ! ^^^ :D

For masochists:Zaporozhets (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporozhets).

Aha, car for masochists.
We call that Gorbatiy [горбатый] as we call Gorbachev. :D
(Translated as "humpbacked", because of design of car and similar name of last "president" of USSR.)

November 13th, 2007, 09:59 AM
I don't know. Give me a little prompt, please. :o

November 16th, 2007, 08:12 AM
Heh, I think about what's the name of actress. :o

Brunhilde as I know is from Scandinavian legends. Cossacs is Russians (Slavish group), Scandinavian is another group including Norwegians, Swedes, Finns nations.

It is North-East Europe, if You want to find them on the map.

Brunhilde famouse by her voice. )))
It is well shown in the opera and... in your picture. :D

November 19th, 2007, 04:05 AM

^^^ Chevrolet Chevette


^^^ AMC Gremlin


^^^ AMC Pacer


^^^ Chevrolet Vega

Ouuuah! :mad:

November 19th, 2007, 03:44 PM
First generation Vega wasn't really ugly. But under the skin, it was an hideous engineering nightmare.

In 1974, it got a nose job and became ugly inside and out.


November 20th, 2007, 03:01 AM
^^^ It is nice picture of that scary car. :)

November 22nd, 2007, 10:43 PM




November 26th, 2007, 05:47 PM
:eek: Better shot me! I'll never seat into the car looks like that! ^^^

December 5th, 2007, 02:02 AM
Just a bit more...:)



It is art. But need to be here.

December 6th, 2007, 09:13 AM
New European edition FOCUS has a good look, but the USA edition not.

December 12th, 2007, 09:52 PM
The USA edition is horrible. Ford is in dire straits, sales of their light trucks are going down with the economy, and this is what they release to compete with the Civic, Corolla, Mazda 3, ect.


it already looks like an aging piece of shit even when new!

December 12th, 2007, 09:57 PM
The Euro version. It's no Aston Martin, but it's nowhere near as fugly as the American version.


December 12th, 2007, 10:17 PM
The Euro version. It's no Aston Martin, but it's nowhere near as fugly as the American version.
Clinicked to death.

December 13th, 2007, 04:35 PM
^^Looks somewhat influenced by Volvo.

December 14th, 2007, 05:41 PM
Most new cars are ugly; however, there is some hope in the near future. I like the new Camaro and, particularly, the new Challenger. Each will be sales hit. In fact, people are plunking down advance deposits now.

December 14th, 2007, 08:08 PM
The initial enthusiam is impressive and all, but they'll only be sales hits for the first year or so and that's it. The (affordable) sports car market is extremely fickle, and all it takes is two years before yesterday's hot new thing is completely forgotten about.

The current Mustang's sales are down (http://mustangs.about.com/b/2007/12/03/sales-of-ford-mustang-down-281-in-november.htm) by a decent chunk, and this is a year before either of the other two ponycars hit the showrooms.

Still, I like their designs, although I must say they both have awfully similar overall body shapes.

December 17th, 2007, 04:15 PM
Ford is making a mistake by keeping the Mustang redesign intact, rather than tweaking it. To compete with the Camaro, Ford should remake the 1965/67 inspired current version, with a full-blown 1969/70 retro version. I'd keep my 2005 version and also buy the new Mustang.

But enough...am already off topic, on a thread I started!

December 25th, 2007, 02:48 PM
Looks somewhat influenced by Volvo.

The Euro version looks like a Volvo in part because it uses the platform of the S40 and Mazda 3, something I didn't pick up on this until I read the Times' review (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/automobiles/autoreviews/23FOCUS.html?ref=automobiles) of the American Focus.

The gist of the above article is this: "For people who expected the new Focus to saddle up against the best compact cars — including the Mazda 3 and the Honda Civic — it’s hard to hide the disappointment," and this: "Yes, it’s obvious that the European-version Focus can’t be sold cheaply enough to be the mainstream version here. But it is less clear why Ford can’t sell modest numbers of the acclaimed Euro model as a sporty halo car to pump up the lineup." However, they do say good things about the new Sync software.

December 25th, 2007, 07:01 PM
How Ugly? Put a Bag on That Car

The Aurora may have had the most unusual pedigree in the history of the auto industry.

SAFETY FIRST The Aurora was designed with safety in mind, but some auto historians call it the ugliest car ever.

DESIGNER PRIEST Alfred A. Juliano.

Published: December 23, 2007

“I ALWAYS wanted to own a dream car,” said Andy Saunders, 44, who has a flair for customizing cars. “But others had already bought all the dream cars.”

So Mr. Saunders settled, instead, for a nightmare.

“I remember one day going through a book about dream cars, and I saw a tiny drawing, a sketch really, or artist’s impression of a car called the Aurora,” Mr. Saunders said in a telephone interview. “My dad commented, ‘Have you ever seen anything so ugly?’ He was right; it was so ugly it was unreal. I said straightaway, ‘I’ve got to own that.’”

Mr. Saunders, who operates an auto importing and customizing business near his home in England, said he enjoyed a challenge. He has worked on cars that include a Lancia and a Cord (www.andysaunderskustoms.com).

He saw the image of the Aurora in 1993, and it took him several years of detective work to find what happened to the car.

The Aurora may have had the most unusual pedigree in the history of the auto industry. It was created in the mid-1950s by a Catholic priest, Alfred A. Juliano, and partly bankrolled by parishioners of his church in Branford, Conn.

Juliano wanted to create the world’s safest automobile, and his Aurora featured innovations that were years ahead of their time. The Aurora also had many wacky ideas to go along with its bizarre styling. Some auto historians have called it the ugliest car ever made.

Although Mr. Saunders originally agreed, he has come to see beauty in the Aurora.

Juliano, who studied art, said he always wanted to design cars, even as he studied to join the priesthood. Published reports said he entered competitions for aspiring auto stylists, including one sponsored by General Motors. Juliano’s family said G.M. offered him a scholarship to study with the legendary designer Harley Earl, but he said the offer came just after he had been ordained a priest.

Juliano continued to be fascinated with cars and their design. He also believed that most cars were unsafe, and began a quest to design a car that addressed his laundry list of safety issues. His solutions were novel, to say the least.

“Despite having no mechanical knowledge, Father Juliano set out to put his heart and soul into that car,” Mr. Saunders said. “He bought a totaled 1953 Buick, straightened the frame, and began building his dream around that.” He spent two years designing the car and another two constructing it.

Over a plywood substructure, Juliano fashioned a swoopy 18-foot-long fiberglass body, which he said was resistant to dents, rust and corrosion. It had a gaping, cow-catcher-style nose, filled with foam, to safely scoop up errant pedestrians and cradle them on a kind of platform. The spare tire was in a “crush space” under the nose.

Hydraulic jacks, activated by a dashboard control, lifted the Aurora off the ground for service.

The oddly bubble-shaped windshield, made from shatterproof resin, had no wipers because Juliano said it was so aerodynamic, raindrops blew away. The bubble curved out, away from occupants, to minimize head injuries. The roof was a stunning panoramic dome, with metal blinds inside.

The driver’s seat was toward the center of the car, for better protection in a side impact. There were four seats, each with seat belts, still a revolutionary idea at the time.

The seats had high, reinforced backs and were mounted on a pedestal that could be rotated so, in case of an impending crash, they could be spun backwards.

Other safety innovations included a roll cage, side-impact bars, a collapsible steering column and a padded instrument panel.

Although the prototype cost $30,000 to build, Juliano calculated that he could produce copies for $12,000 and make a profit. At the time, the most expensive American car, by far, was a Cadillac Eldorado Brougham priced around $13,000. He planned to offer buyers a choice of engines, mostly from G.M.

Where Juliano got it all wrong was in the drivetrain. The Buick’s engine had not been started in more than four years.

Worse, he did not clean out the fuel lines before scheduling a media event in New York City in 1957, to which he planned to drive the Aurora for its world introduction.

He arrived hours late, because the Aurora broke down 15 times en route and needed to be towed to garages to have its fuel system purged of gunk. Although New Yorkers marveled at the futuristic-looking machine when it finally arrived, they had no reason to be impressed by its performance, especially relative to its price tag.

Things went from bad to worse for both Juliano and the Aurora. Questions were raised — no one seems clear who started this — about Juliano’s finances. He said he thought it was all instigated by G.M., which denied involvement.

Juliano compared himself to Preston Tucker, who had asserted that he was harassed out of business by other automakers when he tried to manufacture the Tucker in the late 1940s.

Juliano was eventually accused by his superiors of misappropriating parishioners’ donations. The Internal Revenue Service opened investigations into possible tax liabilities.

But Juliano was actually deeply in debt because of the project. He had no source of funds to begin production, even if he had received orders (which he had not).

Finally, Juliano declared bankruptcy. He forfeited the Aurora to a garage where he had an unpaid repair bill. He was forced to leave the Order of the Holy Ghost.

For decades, the Aurora lay forgotten and rotting in a field behind the garage. Juliano had a brain hemorrhage while reading in a library and died a few months later in 1989.

“I think the whole story is so sad,” Mr. Saunders said. “He died a broken man, because he lost his dream.”

Mr. Saunders found the Aurora through an old photo, which had a billboard for the repair shop in the background. He reached the shop’s owner and arranged to buy the car for $1,500, sight unseen, and have it shipped to England.

The car was in disastrous shape. “It had mostly melted,” Mr. Saunders recalled. “I wish I had never laid eyes on it.”

But he persevered for years and finished the car.

“I have never found anyone who could replicate Father Juliano’s astounding workmanship, in areas like the fiberglass bodywork or that Perspex windscreen,” he said. “I’ve done the best job of re-creating it I could.”

Mr. Saunders’s restoration was rewarded when he was invited to show the car two years ago at the prestigious Goodwood Festival of Speed in England.

Since then, it has been displayed at the National Motor Museum at Beaulieu, Hampshire (beaulieu.co.uk), and, true to its heritage, has been in and out of repair shops for assorted maladies.

Mr. Saunders said he believed the Aurora deserved a place of honor in automotive history.

“If anybody would have listened to him, he could have changed the face of motoring,” Mr. Saunders said of Juliano. “But for the time, he was just too far out there.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/automobiles/collectibles/23UGLY.html?pagewanted=all)

December 25th, 2007, 07:05 PM
The Euro version looks like a Volvo in part because it uses the platform of the S40 and Mazda 3, something I didn't pick up on this until I read the Times' review (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/automobiles/autoreviews/23FOCUS.html?ref=automobiles) of the American Focus.

^Pretty much what I expected. Oh well, at least Ford still catches some of the potential market with the new Volvo hatchback. (Incidentally, I think that color is a Volvo color, too.)

I'd long ago lost faith in Ford's market strategy. The decision to stop production of the Town Car sealed the deal.

December 26th, 2007, 12:50 AM
Does anyone know whether the American based car manufacturers still build according to the US measuring system (feet and inches and fractions thereof) or have they converted to metric system measurements?

I ask this because AMerican cars tend to look unbalanced to me.

To most of planet Earth, America must, indeed, seem a strange and foreign place based on its continued adherence to outmoded measuring systems. This applies not just to measures, but also to weights and to gauging temperatures. It's a wonder we adhere to the standard version of telling time!

Believe it or not, all of the above actually does relate to "ugly cars."

December 26th, 2007, 07:58 PM
Jerry, the US Automobile industry shares bodies and engineering with manufacturers around the world.

Ford with Mazda, Volvo, Jag

GM with Opel, Holden, Saab, Daewoo

Chrysler with Mercedes and Mitsubishi

Please explain to us how the use of inches would result in "unbalanced" cars.


BTW: the UK also still adheres to some "outmoded measuring systems".

December 26th, 2007, 08:25 PM
At least in the UK we use metric where it really matters, architects and engineers. Where we use imperial for speed, veggie weights and such is really quite unimportant and doesnt require much thought. I have gone from metric to imperial at work and its horrible. Trying to add 3/16 to 1/8 and 17/32 is very annoying and time consuming.

December 27th, 2007, 08:59 AM
OT, but the main reason for staying with Imperial units is because of the manufacture.

You can call a W12x53, a #9 bar, or a 3/8" bolt whatever you want, but they will still be a 12" rolled section weighing 53 pounds per linear foot, a 1 1/8" diameter reinforcement bar and a 3/8" bolt, they would just have themetric equivalents in their names (which fit better for some than others.

The other thing is people. When you grow up learning what a foot and a pound are, it is hard to start converting them to Kg and Meter. You do not have a feeling for a GPa over a KSI, or even PSI. You are not teaching an old dog new tricks, you are trying to teach a whole LOT of dogs to speak German.

BTW, JL, your question is VERY weird, and ironically unballanced. Since when does a system of measurements make a cars aesthetic design "unbalanced"? Whether it is 10" or 25.4 cm, it is still a rear view mirror.

December 27th, 2007, 11:11 AM
I haven't even ugly car =(

December 27th, 2007, 01:32 PM
Jerry, the US Automobile industry shares bodies and engineering with manufacturers around the world.

Ford with Mazda, Volvo, Jag

GM with Opel, Holden, Saab, Daewoo

Chrysler with Mercedes and Mitsubishi

Please explain to us how the use of inches would result in "unbalanced" cars.


BTW: the UK also still adheres to some "outmoded measuring systems".

I know of the innerconnectedness of the automobile industry, but thank you, fabrizio, for mentioning some of its detals, as they relate to American manufacturers. I assume the platforms shared by Ford and Mazda are primarily of metric design, by way of example.

One way that I think the measuring system contributes to an overall sense of balance and of beauty is derived from a hunch that I have that the metric system is better suited to reproducing the Fibbonacci "golden mean" in that the metric system seems better able to achieve the Fibbonacci ratios.

Anyone agree?

December 27th, 2007, 01:49 PM
1", 2", 3", 5", 8", 13", 21"....

December 27th, 2007, 01:56 PM

...florets in spirals of 34 and 55 ...

December 27th, 2007, 02:01 PM
I know of the innerconnectedness of the automobile industry, but thank you, fabrizio, for mentioning some of its detals, as they relate to American manufacturers. I assume the platforms shared by Ford and Mazda are primarily of metric design, by way of example.

One way that I think the measuring system contributes to an overall sense of balance and of beauty is derived from a hunch that I have that the metric system is better suited to reproducing the Fibbonacci "golden mean" in that the metric system seems better able to achieve the Fibbonacci ratios.

Anyone agree?


December 27th, 2007, 02:07 PM

The issue is that of determining whether the metric system, with its 1-10 format, is better suited to the use of number patterns in the design process.

It is generally acknowledged that number patterns can be and are used in the creation of unique and artistically pleasing designs. That, in an overall sense, is what I meant in referencing the issue of balance.

The Fibonacci sequence that has been alluded to here by at least two posters is noteworthy for its ability to result in a sense of "beauty."

Sure you don't want to reconsider?

December 27th, 2007, 02:13 PM

It doesn't explain the classic cars of the 30s.

Or some French cars.

December 27th, 2007, 03:21 PM
I would argue that the human derivation of imperial measurements imbues them with the golden mean. For instance the Greeks never had any trouble with beauty being incompatible with their system (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Measurements.htm) of measurement.


http://www.unitone.org/naturesword/images/content/parth.gif http://www.rrsilvershadow.com/Best/Poster9%20radiator.jpg

Both the Parthenon and the Rolls Royce radiator were built by hand but only one used measuring tools. ;)

December 27th, 2007, 03:42 PM
Nice post.


The Rolls Royce grill looks "balanced" to me, while that of the 1983 Cadillac deVille does not.

It may well be that the metric system is no more and no less "Fibonacci friendly" than any other measuring system.

December 27th, 2007, 05:10 PM
AAMOF, the imperial system is much more "organic" than metric. Metric is strictly digital and base-10. Works GREAT for mathematics! Physics, Chemistry, the whole works. But no atom is an even number of angstroms wide. A mole, to produce a certain number of kilograms from an element based on its atomic number, is 6.022 x 10^23, not an even number either.

An inch is as long as one of your thumb bones. A foot is about the length of a foot. Bushels, pecks, hectares, acres, dozens.

Al of these came naturally from one source or another, so it is rather ironic that you are seeing Metrics as being artistic.

Actually, they are quite the opposite, having been derived for mathematical and scientific convenience.

Neither, however, determine the actual sizes and shapes of things. Those are usually based on human scale and proportionality. Showing a 1970's(?) Cadillac as an example of poor design stemming from imperial units is no more fair than crediting imperial units for the Chrysler Building.

December 27th, 2007, 05:33 PM
I'm actually suggesting that precisely because, as you say, metric "[w]orks GREAT for mathematics! Physics, Chemistry, the whole works" may well be a reason why American cars often look awkward, where the assumption has been that many of them do not use metrics.

After all, we know on the authority of Pythagoras that "everything is a number." We also know that automotive design is largely a study in balance. Cars that "look right" tend to be balanced in everyway. From the right sizing relationship between the length, width and heigt -- aspects that very much lend themselves to the Fibonacci sequence and golden mean -- to the spatial relationships of the tires and wheels to the overall package, to the 'fit and finish' issues involved door openings, hood and trunk, etc.

In the 1970s, if I recall correctly, there was for the first time an acknowledgement of a lack of quality in US manufactured cars in connection with so-called 'fit and finish.' That was something that could, by implication at least, be blamed upon unionized workers (and probably was). However, a deeper flaw, in my view, was and remains the issue of poor design where US cars often look out of balance. In some instances, almost everything will look 'wrong' while in others, the car might look generally alright, but one little thing will be off, such as tires too small or overall design might be good, but 1 or 2 years too late.

In other words, the flaws relate to issues beyond the control of the rank and file workforce.

December 27th, 2007, 06:56 PM
A tire is measured in both inches and millimeters. I challenge you to tell the difference between a 17" wheel and a 43 cm wheel.

The thread is about UGLY CARS. If you have some data that shows that a metric system produces more aesthetically pleasing designs, show it. Don't go running off topic.

Start by explaining the classic car era in the US.

December 27th, 2007, 08:11 PM

Then let us consider the 2008 Honda Accord then.

According (no pun intended) to the sampling of reviews I've seen, including one by a writer for a Detroit newspaper (where an assumption of prejudice might be thought applicable), the new version is getting overall excellent reviews.


I think it looks a lot like the BMW 7 Series and have been wondering whether BMW considers the Accord design to be a TM violation. In fact, I think the overall design of mid to large size cars is based on the now 3 year old BMW 7 Series design (or is it 4years). When that car first came out, I thought it looked radical, but it seems to me it sure has been copied a lot.

The price of one of these:


Can get you 3-1/2 of these:


Based on the similarity in look, I'd have to take the 3-1/2. Of course, I know my friends on this board will likely disagree.

Both automobiles may have been designed with the following depicted principal in mind:


December 27th, 2007, 08:19 PM

December 27th, 2007, 08:34 PM
Short menu:

Ugly Cars

Ugly Cars

Ugly Cars

December 27th, 2007, 08:44 PM
If only the Edsel had been designed under the metric system...

December 27th, 2007, 09:35 PM
If only the Edsel had been designed under the metric system...

Was the Edsel ugly, or was the issue more one of over saturation of the market with too many brand names for the same set of auto platforms? The Edsel was basically the same as the then current full sized Fords and Mercurys, correct?

And, in addition, it came out just when the demand for large cars hit a wall and when "compact" cars became all the rage, resulting in the introduction of the Ford Falcon, the Chevy Corvair and the Plymouth something or other, all as competition for the VW, the Renault and the onset of the Japanese invasion.

Besides the Edsel had push buttons right in the center of the steering wheel; how cool is that?

December 28th, 2007, 06:58 AM
The "Plymouth something or other" was called the Vomet. Or was that the Mercury? I can't remember.

December 28th, 2007, 07:49 AM
Is Vomet the Italian name? The US version, now that you mention Vomet, reminds me that it was actually 'Valiant.'

By the way, on the issue of language variation, the pronuciation of Vomet would likely result in a cascade of jokes and ridicule because it would sound too much like 'vomit.' Mind you, I doubt the level of ridicule would come anywhere near that which I encountered in the 9/11 thread, but it would have been close. :p

Another example of car naming sensitivity gone awry was the Chevy Nova. GM actually marketed that car in Brazil where, of course, the words "nao va" (say "nova") means "doesn't go." Lovely.

December 28th, 2007, 08:10 AM
Fabrizio is well versed in the English language.

And, in addition, it came out just when the demand for large cars hit a wall and when "compact" cars became all the rage,The Edsel production run was 1958-1960. The representative small cars of the 50s, Corvette and Thunderbird, grew larger, the latter becoming a 4-seater. Corvair, Valiant, Comet (oh I get it) and Falcon and were not introduced until 1960. The Japanese invasion didn't take hold until the 70s.

You could have looked all of this up. Are you just trying to be contrary? It's not always the cool thing to do.

December 28th, 2007, 09:41 AM
Jerryelle: in Europe it was marketed as the Vomette.

December 28th, 2007, 09:52 AM
Available in only one color:


December 28th, 2007, 10:03 AM
Let's all be nice to Jerry.

December 28th, 2007, 10:51 AM
Fabrizio is well versed in the English language.

The Edsel production run was 1958-1960. The representative small cars of the 50s, Corvette and Thunderbird, grew larger, the latter becoming a 4-seater. Corvair, Valiant, Comet (oh I get it) and Falcon and were not introduced until 1960. The Japanese invasion didn't take hold until the 70s.

You could have looked all of this up. Are you just trying to be contrary? It's not always the cool thing to do.

Pardon the interruption, zippy, but your analysis is incomplete, misleading and, well, wrong.

Here's why:

While the "compact" cars that you name were not introduced until the midst of the Edsel production run, commencing with the '60 production year, they actually went on sale, of course, starting in Sept/Oct 1959.

However, that is not the main point. The main thing is that the "compact" cars were a rapid response to a demand that had already emerged and was being largely fulfilled by the VW 'Beetle' that were selling "like hot cakes" from the mid-50s onwards, reaching a crescendo from and after about '57. Thus, the demand for small cars was apparent and it took the US automakers the better part of 3 years to respond to a known demand. When they did so, the result was not inspiring, but still met with initial success.

It is in that context, meaning timeframe and market condition, that the introduction for sale, in the year 1957, of the Edsel must be considered. You missed that point and improperly characterized my post, in my opinion.

Ford's timing for introducing the Edsel was simply wrong and they could have deduced that, had they paid attention.

Ford offered a full size, medium priced line of cars when the public was clamoring for low cost compact cars. In other words, despite the handwriting being on the wall, Ford introduced what they wanted, rather than what the public wanted.

I think the Edsel production may have run 1 year longer than you assert and, in any event, the '58 model went on sale starting in Sept/Oct '57. That first year was its most successful year, but by the next model year, the fact that it was not responsive to consumer sentiment began to set in and it was downhill from there. Initially, people either liked the Edsel, or responded to the marketing blitz that accompanied its introduction by buying it in satisfactory quantities.

My impression is that the Edsel actually looked pretty good and had some interesting features, like the push buttoms in the steering wheel I mentioned earlier. It became "ugly" not on the basis of its looks, in my opinion; rather, its ugliness was a function of it not selling worth a damn because it was not responsive to the then market demand, all as I have set forth above.

Finally in this respect, the Edsel was not truly revolutionary or different in any real respect, not even engine or suspension. It was simply a full size Ford/Mercury with slightly different sheet metal and a few gizmos.

Cars that make a difference, that come to mind include the Prius and before that the Mazda Millennium with the Miller Engine and the Mazda with the Rotary engine. That, too, failed because the rotary engine did not get good gas mileage -- < 20mpg. The Mazda RX2 came out in the early '70s just in time for the first gas crunch. That marketing blunder was on par with that of the Edsel, in my opinion.

December 28th, 2007, 11:25 AM



December 28th, 2007, 11:33 AM
Pardon the interruption, zippy, but your analysis is incomplete, misleading and, well, wrong ...

I think the Edsel production may have run 1 year longer than you assert ...

Not so fast, jerryelle (thanks Febrizio for that ;) ) ...

Zippy succinctly stated:

The Edsel production run was 1958-1960 ...

You, on the other hand toss out a ton of words, including ...

While the "compact" cars that you name were not introduced until the midst of the Edsel production run, commencing with the '60 production year, they actually went on sale, of course, starting in Sept/Oct 1959.

Edsel (http://www.yanktanks.co.uk/bg-files/bg-edsel.htm)
In 1958 only 63,000 Edsels were produced against projected figures of 200,000. The 1959 range was cut to 10 variants. Just 45,000 models were sold. In October 1959, the 1960 models were put on sale, but they were essentially face-lifted Fords. 5 weeks later Ford announced the end of the Edsel line.That ^ means that the latest date when that the Edsel was in production was December 1959. There is no basis for your claim that compacts were introduced "in the midst of the Edsel production run .. starting in Sept/Oct 1959". Production of Edsels / new Ford compact models actually overlapped by a mere number of weeks.

... please note that my research here is as good is it is on proof of my 9/11 assertions ...

Hmmmmm ... Is Dr. Judy a car bug :confused:

December 28th, 2007, 11:37 AM
However, that is not the main point. The main thing is that the "compact" cars were a rapid response to a demand that had already emerged and was being largely fulfilled by the VW 'Beetle' that were selling "like hot cakes" from the mid-50s onwards, reaching a crescendo from and after about '57.You're wrong, I was there.

Euros like the VW, MG, Austin-Healey, and Triumphs took off in the 60s as hippy cars. For Japan, it was the Datsun 240Z. BMW defined the entire compact sports sedan segment with the 1600-2002, in the 60s.

In the late 50s, America was BIG - in every way.

December 28th, 2007, 11:41 AM
Unless the unedited JerryL post was seen, it might not be evident what's going on here.

Let's get this thread back on topic, and keep it light and humorous.

December 28th, 2007, 12:11 PM
Datsun 2000, not 810. The 810 was a sedan. Here's the 2000 configured for roadrunning (pun intended):


I think, if memory serves, that Datsuns and Toyo-pets (later Toyotas for obvious linguistic reasons--where it can be seen tha language sensitivity works both ways) were introduced in the US market in the decade of the '50s, not '60s. Although, their distribution was limited. They were ridiculed at first, but gained grudging respect because they ran and ran and ran, even if they were dogged. And, of course, they were cheap.

In the '50s products from Japan were valued because they were cheap in price. It was only later that people began to realize they were also of good quality. Americans did not grasp the signficance of cheap prices AND high quality until it was, perhaps, too late to save American manufacturing from teh steep decline it suffered. This is just my opinion. Pride can, however, be a real killer.

The Edsel: It was introduced at a time when the 'compact' cars were on the drawing board and getting ready for production. In order to have come out, as they did, for the model year 1960, the compacts went into production in early '59. Before that, the planning for them would have been well underway in year 1958, the first model year for the Edsel.

I think we're all pretty much saying the same thing. And, if we're not, I hope what we're posting is seen as being of a cooperative give and take.

December 28th, 2007, 03:27 PM
VW and etc. had very low sales in the US in the 1950's.

The real wake up call to Detroit was the ressesion in 1958 and the success of the Rambler (which had been making compacts since 1950).

It was the Rambler that really got Detroit working on the Falcon, Corvair, Lark, Valiant, Unicorn and Hologram.

BTW: Much of AMC's success in the 50's was due to Mitt Romney's father... who was then pres. of AMC.

Rambler 1958:


December 28th, 2007, 04:23 PM
Rambler? Good to know that. There were also Studebakers and Hudsons, right? Was it Detroit or California, home of Hughes Aerospace, that put out the Hologram?

December 28th, 2007, 06:34 PM
I think you're confusing it with the Candygram Landshark.

December 28th, 2007, 07:09 PM
Do you consider the Rambler that you posted a picture of an ugly car? It adhered to the "fin" fad of the '50s, but looks awkward and bulky, rather than 'streamlined,' to me. So, I'd say it's definitely UGLY.

December 31st, 2007, 03:26 PM
First, the word "car" has to be put into quotation marks because the candidate for world's ugliest that I'm going to propose is not actually a car. It is, however, used for that purpose and that use is utterly offensive, indefensible and indicative of all that is wrong with American auto design, manufacturing and marketing.

The car is:

The Hummer

That is an abomination, an 8,600lb gross weight vehicle used for traveling from home to mall to job and so on. That car is so ugly it hurts me even to post about it.

It might get 10mpg in the city, maybe.

Oddly enough, in a certain way, the car is balanced. Certainly, for the American conception of 'beauty' -- where "bigger is almost always better;" or, if not better, at least "advantaged" -- the Hummer may be appealing to many. Certainly, no one complains much about it. But, then again, Americans are powerless to say anything much, let alone do something to stop corporate America from doing whatever it likes and then to have its commercials drown out any objection that might be trying to formulate in our feeble minds.

The Hummer certainly seems to comport with the Fibonacci Golden Mean, so it can't be called ugly on the basis of lack of that kind of balance. But, in a very real sense, the Hummer is about as unbalanced as a person-made object can possibly be.

Having sat in one or two of them, one feels like one is in a protected environment; but only in the same way that a tank, amongst unarmed vehicles, feels secure.

The Hummer is, perhaps, best understood as a weapon, where the planet Earth and humanity are its enemies.

I think a corporatist capitalist society is about the only one on the planet that would allow the marketing of a vehicle that is as offensive to as many important social issues as the Hummer is. It should not be allowable to put out onto the streets for driving by ordinary people something that is as gross as the Hummer is.

I find that my own reaction to posting this is a simultaneous build-up of anger and of frustration that the society I call home would put the Hummer out on the market at any time, let alone the present. The Hummer offends against even a modicum of environmental sensitivity for both energy and safety reasons. It was introduced shortly after the US thumbed its nose at the Kyoto Treaty and literally says to the rest of the world cuck fonservation. We will do as we please,when we please and the rest of you be damned.

I'd say that's about as ugly as it gets.

January 1st, 2008, 12:19 PM
Gee...that's the vehicle I'm gonna buy, now that my 2002 Rendevous is gettin up there in age (86k miles on it.

Now, if it's any help, we bought my 17yr old son an Elentra in September, but I'm sorry to say that it's not DEW resistant. But I have taken action!

Told him, in no uncertain terms, that if I see one more empty soda bottle tossed in the back seat, I'm takin away his keys!


January 1st, 2008, 08:22 PM
When I started this thread, the intended theme was "ugly" in the style sense, not the PC sense. If the H2 is "ugly" in the PC sense, it may be beautiful in the style sense. To each his own.

January 2nd, 2008, 05:10 AM
It's a planet-destroying, terrorist-supporting killing machine, but I just love the yellow one.

January 2nd, 2008, 07:06 AM
^ Makes you look like the highway department.

One side, here come the Repair Crew.

January 4th, 2008, 11:58 AM
When I started this thread, the intended theme was "ugly" in the style sense, not the PC sense. If the H2 is "ugly" in the PC sense, it may be beautiful in the style sense. To each his own.

But, Bob, what of the ditty: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?


January 4th, 2008, 01:13 PM
Here's a hankey.

January 5th, 2008, 02:58 AM
OK, here we go. Easily in the top five for ugliest cars on the market right now:

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8490/2008chryslersebringjc4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/8923/chryslersebring05ev5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/483/chrysler2007sebring1vz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And keep in mind, these photos are reasonably flattering to the car.

January 5th, 2008, 06:41 AM

IMHO everything by Chrysler is ugly. Everything.


A friend of mine just got one of these:




I am amazed how the styling recalls the elegant, fluid lines of GM cars designed under Bill Mitchell in the mid 1960's.

January 5th, 2008, 06:59 AM
1st gen Riviera and the Stingray.

January 5th, 2008, 07:08 AM
Yep, exactly.


And I guess we shouldn't be so hard on Chrysler. Look at Ford.

Please compare ( side by side) the moldy 2008 Mercury with an 8 year old Volkswagen Passat:



AND the 8 year old Passat looks better!

Meanwhile the NEW Passat looks all glam and contemporary:


( I guess that's what the 2016 Mercury is going to look like)

Is it any wonder why Ford is suffering?


January 5th, 2008, 11:51 AM
Ford should put Mercury out of its misery.

They haven't come up with a good design since about 1969 ...



January 5th, 2008, 01:06 PM
yes, 1969-70 ...and then a long down-hill slide to todays sorry line-up:



The big Merc in 1967:


Makes me want to weep.

January 5th, 2008, 01:55 PM
Italy should sue for defamation (http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/milan/) :cool:

January 5th, 2008, 01:59 PM
... then a long down-hill slide ...

... and the beginning of the end of the big boats (http://www.sunmanford.net/arrival_photo/1973%20Mercury%20Montego.html) ...


1972 Mercury Montego

January 5th, 2008, 02:39 PM
Mercury used to come up with some fantastic ideas ...

Concept and Future Vehicles (http://www.wingedmessenger.net/ConceptFuture.htm)


Here's a version of the Monterey ... a model only a mother could love?

The Breezeway (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1963-1968-mercury-breezeway6.htm) ...

A 1963 (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/Mercury Monterey Breezeway Hardtop) Breezeway Hardtop ...


Tweaks to the 1964 Mercury Breezeway included pointed front fenders,
a convex grille and ovoid taillights.


The 1965 Mercury Breezeway featured new Lincoln-inspired styling ...


The last of the reverse-slant Breezeways were the 1966 Mercury Breezeway models ...


And back to 1963 and the beginning, here all dolled up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Monterey) ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/58/Mercury_Monterey_4door_Hardtop_1963_side.jpg/800px-Mercury_Monterey_4door_Hardtop_1963_side.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Mercury_Monterey_4door_Hardtop_1963_side.jpg)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f2/Mercury_Monterey_4door_Hardtop_1963_tail.jpg/800px-Mercury_Monterey_4door_Hardtop_1963_tail.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Mercury_Monterey_4door_Hardtop_1963_tail.jpg)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/30/Mercury_Monterey_4door_Hardtop_1963_head.jpg/800px-Mercury_Monterey_4door_Hardtop_1963_head.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Mercury_Monterey_4door_Hardtop_1963_head.jpg)

That 1963 Monterey Breezeway ^ evolved from this Monterey circa 1956 (http://pagesperso-orange.fr/trombinoscar/mercury/mc5602.html) -- which is hardly ugly
(and which shows a hint of the reverse rear window to come its the side chrome detail) ...




The Breezeway used some ideas from this 1956 prototype (http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Mercury/1956/XMShowCar/pages/56M%20XM-cruiser-3_jpg.htm) ...

1956 Mercury XM Turnpike Cruiser (http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Mercury/1956/XMShowCar/pages/56M%20XM-cruiser-2_jpg.htm)

1956 XM Turnpike Cruiser was designed with fast, long driving in mind. It was inspired by the greatly expanding Interstate Highway System (http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Mercury/1956/XMShowCar/pages/56M%20XM-cruiser-1c_jpg.htm). A lot of the design elements were later seen on the regular production model 1957 Turnpike Cruiser. The transparent roof panels flipped up when the doors were opened. The design of this car greatly influenced the 1959 Mercury automobiles. The car is now located somewhere in California waiting for a total restoration.

http://www.wingedmessenger.net/Images/56xmturnpikecruzr.jpg........ http://www.wingedmessenger.net/Images/56turnpikecruiserconcept.jpg

http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Mercury/1956/XMShowCar/images/56M%20XM-cruiser-2s3s_jpg.jpg (http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/Mercury/1956/XMShowCar/images/56M%20XM-cruiser-2s3s_jpg.jpg)

That prototype led to this 1957 Model (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1957-1958-mercury-turnpike-cruiser1.htm) ...

This 1957 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser hardtop came with a
continental kit, a popular Fifties accessory.

©2007 Publications International, Ltd.



Thanks to The Old Car Manual Project


http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/07layout/brochuresheader240607.jpg (http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/)

January 5th, 2008, 03:23 PM
Shut up :D

Not a touch of ugly here.

No wonder they called it a CRUISER (http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/main.php?g2_itemId=58367) ...






January 5th, 2008, 07:24 PM
When I started this thread, the intended theme was "ugly" in the style sense, not the PC sense. If the H2 is "ugly" in the PC sense, it may be beautiful in the style sense. To each his own.

Here's one more thought on why the new Honda Accord is considered ugly. Could it be that as a result of the 'world-beater' all triumphant Honda Civic (introduced in '06) that the new Accord simply could not live up to an expectation you might have had?


January 6th, 2008, 01:35 PM
Gee...that's the vehicle I'm gonna buy, now that my 2002 Rendevous is gettin up there in age (86k miles on it.

Now, if it's any help, we bought my 17yr old son an Elentra in September, but I'm sorry to say that it's not DEW resistant. But I have taken action!

Told him, in no uncertain terms, that if I see one more empty soda bottle tossed in the back seat, I'm takin away his keys!


Your post merited the reply I offered, but, alas, it was not to be, unless you were quick.

January 6th, 2008, 05:58 PM
IMHO everything by Chrysler is ugly. Everything.

Yeah. IMO, their lineup of the mid- to late-'90s were some of the most beautiful cars on the road. The so-called cloud cars (Cirrus, Stratus, Breeze), the LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, LHS, 300M), and even their trucks (specifically the '98 Dakota/Durango) all had pleasing shapes that didn't totally succumb to the 1990s jelly bean look, a la the '96 Taurus. They always handled their curves (if not their engineering) with aplomb, and they still please my eyes to this day.

10 years later, they've abandoned those for an aggressive shock-and-bling thing that I too think is pure ugliness. And according to the reviews out there, their engineering (cough interior quality! cough) has taken a few steps backwards also.

January 6th, 2008, 06:18 PM
At Toyota they must have been jumping for joy when they saw Chrysler unveiling those brick-shaped 300s.

Rather than aiming for sophisticates they aim for idiots.

And now the new Challenger will go after the boy-racer crowd.

Market shelf-life? 2 years.

A lesson in how to ruin a brand:


A lesson in how to create and perpetuate a mystique:




January 6th, 2008, 07:11 PM
At Toyota they must have been jumping for joy when they saw Chrysler unveiling those brick-shaped 300s.

Rather than aiming for sophisticates they aim for idiots.
As a confirmed idiot, I rented one of those bricks six months into its model run. Couldn't believe people's reaction.

Everywhere I went people told me what a snazzy car I was driving. People on the street while I was stuffing a meter, girls in drive-throughs, pumping gas, toll booths --even tollbooths, can you imagine!!-- everybody thought this thing was the cat's meow.

Thumbs-up signs. Everywhere.

There are lots of idiots.

January 6th, 2008, 07:23 PM
The key phrase in your post is "6 months into the model run".

I say that cartoonish look will be getting stale very fast.




Instead of cars dressed in Zoot suits and revivals of 40-year old glories (the Challenger) , Honda is working on this:






January 6th, 2008, 09:36 PM
The key phrase in your post is "6 months into the model run".

I say that cartoonish look will be getting stale very fast.

It already has. Since the general consumer ain't buyin' it no more, Chrysler's been busy pumping the rental companies full of these. Bye-bye resale values, not to mention it'll hurt its "classic car" status with tomorrow's collector.

BTW, I loved that first Bimmer ad. I'll fall asleep tonight telling myself, "it's only a car!"

January 7th, 2008, 03:53 AM
Detroit needs to build latest technology green cars along with latest technology ultra-luxe 12 cylinder rear-wheel-drive cruisers. They need a Prius AND things like the 7 Series... cars people yearn for.... cars that create a glow for the rest of the line-up. How do you build a brand going straight to the rental fleet?

Really, what American cars (cars, not Suv and trucks) cause anyone to really desire?

The Corvette, a Cadillac or two, maybe the Mustang (retro but very nicely done), the Saturn Sky looks nice... any others? Even if some, (like the new Enclave) are considered good.... is anyone just dying to own a Buick? A Mercury? A Pontiac?


Bravo to GM for going out on a limb...heavy handed, but what the hell! ... : http://www.omniauto.it/foto/popup/60002/corvette-zr1

( In pure GM style, however, you open the door and it looks like a luggage sale at K-Mart : http://www.omniauto.it/foto/popup/60016/corvette-zr1 )

Why, oh why, can't it look like THIS? : http://www.leblogauto.com/images/mercedes_sl_2006_4.jpg


January 7th, 2008, 05:03 PM
Some good points raised here. And while I'm no defender of American interior design, keep in mind, Fabrizio, that the Corvette probably costs only half as much as that Mercedes. American muscle cars were, are, and probably always will be substantially cheaper than their European/Japanese counterparts, with maybe one exception:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/gallery.jsp?model=xlr (Interior's nice too)

I still think Ford's the worst of the big 3. And it's not that Chrysler didn't try. I thought the Crossfire was a great little roadster, but it's been discontinued due to lackluster sales. As has the Magnum and Pacifica.

What I want to know is, given that Chrysler was on the other end of Mercedes' umbilical cord for years, how did one's premier, new four-door sedan end up looking like the 300 does, while the other looks like this:


^That's true beauty.

One more thing to keep in mind: Americans (especially overweight, suburban types) love their rims. That's undoubtedly one reason why the 300 sold so well, at least at the beginning. You see many more with the upgraded wheels:


January 7th, 2008, 05:42 PM
"...keep in mind, Fabrizio, that the Corvette probably costs only half as much as that Mercedes."

While base Corvettes are lower priced than European equivalents, the Zr1 (pictured) will most likely exceed 100,000 USD. Making it MORE expensive than the Mercedes (pictured).

The Cadillac XLR is another with a sub-par interior for the price. BTW: Have they actually sold any of those things?


January 7th, 2008, 07:16 PM
We could start a topic just for ugly wheels

The worst are the "spinners"

Defeats the purpose of a light alloy wheel.

January 8th, 2008, 09:23 AM
Zip, that first one is absolutely laughable, not ugly.....

And as for spinners, they are SUCH a waste of money for Blingage. They are the sideboard underbody runner lights (or whatever they are called) of the new millennium. Hopefully they will go the same way, to auto body shops in industrial NJ and Queens/Brooklyn, as they did.

January 8th, 2008, 10:43 AM
The whole Bling thing is just old and tired.

It made an interesting statement up until around 1976.

Here we are in '72:


January 8th, 2008, 10:56 AM
Spinner pendants


January 8th, 2008, 02:19 PM
While base Corvettes are lower priced than European equivalents, the Zr1 (pictured) will most likely exceed 100,000 USD. Making it MORE expensive than the Mercedes (pictured).

Really? What model did you picture? Because even the cheapest SL model starts at $96,000, and its engine doesn't come close to the ZR1's (382hp vs. over 600hp). For a true comparison, you'd have to look at the SL65 AMG, which has 604hp, but comes in at a whopping $188,000.


The Cadillac XLR is another with a sub-par interior for the price. BTW: Have they actually sold any of those things?

Sales have been "below expectations." Less than 4,000/year.

January 8th, 2008, 04:18 PM
Whether the Vette has 600 hp or 300 hp, the $100,000 price-range customer expects a nicer driving environment. 100,000 is a LOT of money and the Vette's interior is bargain basement.

Maybe they should throw in a piece of titanium and use plusher leather ...and charge $110,000.

Would paying a bit more make a difference in this price range?

And I doubt Chevy is making the Zr1 to build up their yearly bottom-line. It's an image car.

January 8th, 2008, 06:23 PM
I thought the Crossfire was a great little roadster, but it's been discontinued due to lackluster sales. As has the Magnum and Pacifica.

I have no qualms about the Magnum going, but it's too bad about the Crossfire and Pacifica (the PT Cruiser convertible was the fourth car they axed at the time). Upon its launch, I thought the Pacifica could've found a solid niche, as there wasn't much else out there like it then. Plus, I always liked its styling- it was a minivan with a sedan's clothes stretched over it, and yet it looked remarkably good. Were I ten years older and in the market for a minivan/cuv/suv, I definitely would check one out before they vanish forever.

Oh, and killing the low-volume Pacifica only to introduce an other vehicle (the Dodge Journey) that'll compete in the same basic class? I'm failing to see the logic in that decision, guys.

Plus, they've decided to keep the Chrysler Aspen (ugly!), the Jeep Patriot and Liberty, and the Dodge Nitro...?? I've seen a few of the Jeeps on the road, but never the Nitro or Aspen.

January 8th, 2008, 06:41 PM
And WHY did they revive that name from Dodge's dark days? Wouldn't they want the world to cancel any memories of this baby? :


Ugh...and that advertising campaign: "How's your Aspen?

Sure didn't help any.

January 9th, 2008, 10:04 PM
Whether the Vette has 600 hp or 300 hp, the $100,000 price-range customer expects a nicer driving environment. 100,000 is a LOT of money and the Vette's interior is bargain basement.

Maybe they should throw in a piece of titanium and use plusher leather ...and charge $110,000.

Would paying a bit more make a difference in this price range?

And I doubt Chevy is making the Zr1 to build up their yearly bottom-line. It's an image car.

You're right that it wouldn't make a big difference to the guy paying either 100K or 110K. But the Corvette has never been plush. And it probably never will be. Its image is a muscle car that many Americans could afford. (It starts in the mid 40Ks.)

So comparing it to a Mercedes coupe is a little like comparing an Izod dress shirt to a Thomas Pink. Sure you may find a couple that are in the same price range, but there will always be an underlying difference in quality. And most likely, a fundamentally different customer base.

Look at it from the point of Mercedes. Do they spend more money making the 188K model's interior look plusher than the 96K? Not that I can tell. It all goes to the engine, the drivetrain, etc. As I'm sure does most of the ~50K increase between bottom-end and top-end Corvette.

January 10th, 2008, 05:04 AM
Piano: From the 50's through the 60's (the car's hey day) the Vette's interior was indeed luxurious:

The standard interior from 1965-67... top-class all the way, looking every bit as swanky as anything else built at the time:


67 Mercedes

'60 Vette


AND please note: the Corvette's image was NEVER that of a muscle car. It was always a powerful stylish sports car. Definition of a "muscle car":


GM began really cheaping the interior in the 1980's. A painful mish-mash of cheap ill-fitting plastic:



Things have improved since then, but sorry, in today's market-place this is not worthy of a car with a base price of $47,000 (coupe) to $55,000 (convertible). ( and even with 600hp, unacceptable in the $100,000 bracket) :


(note the econo-car textures, cheapo controls and over-all dull design. Just dreadful)


One more time:



January 10th, 2008, 05:28 PM
I can't speak to what the Corvette represented 40 years ago. Indeed, there were probably many fewer variations on what car interiors looked like back then, what with the lack of options and everything.

I don't know how else to explain this to you, Fabrizio, but...maybe there's something being lost in translation. I just don't think "plush interior finishes" matters as much to Americans as it does to Europeans. The very idea of a "Chevy" with expensive wood trim and leather paneling almost sounds ridiculous to me. Chevy is the "everyman" car here. I don't know who in their right mind would expect its interior to look like a top of the line Mercedes. And I stand by the statement that the increase in costs between models is a factor of performance, not interior detailing...just as it is with the Mercedes.

In any case, here's the interior of a Dodge Viper (starts at around $86,000). It looks a LOT like the interior of my 6 year-old Chrysler Sebring coupe:


The Shelby Mustangs, which go all the way up to $50,000, don't fare much better in that department.

All these high performance cars are simply...higher performance versions of cheap American coupes. The higher performance versions of the Mercedes are...higher performance versions of a Mercedes. Get my drift?

January 10th, 2008, 05:52 PM
This is not about an ugly car, but about something ugly that happened to a beautiful car (and some ugly repurcussions) ...

My Dad was a pretty conservative guy, but he did love his cars. By 1960 he had achieved some success and he got himself a red Alfa Romeo convertible (the other family car at the time was, of course, a station wagon). He happened to play poker with a fellow who had the local Chevrolet dealership and, by 1963, he managed to get the first Corvette Stingray delivered in northern California. It was a white convertible with red interior. When the top was up there was a smallish compartment behind the bucket seats, just big enough to contain the folded-up top. Back there is where I would ride on occasional long trips, with Mom & Dad up front. At the time I was young enough and limber enough to curl up in there and still be comfy enough for a cruise.

This Corvette was the car in which my older brother learned to drive a stick shift. Unfortunately some local toughs stole the 'vette and drove it into the ground. They found it mangled -- the fibreglass body all shredded and torn. Completely totalled (imagine how ugly that was :cool: ). So, aside from going up and down our very short driveway before I had even taken one real driving lesseon, I didn't get much chance to drive that baby.

However I did secretly learn to drive a stick in my Dad's next car (still too young to drive on the streets). It was a gold '67 Camaro convertible with black top & interior, which he got to replace the stolen Stingray. By then he figured there was no way he was going to let his teen-age kids drive around in another Corvette. Plus there was the insurance issue (which was really ugly -- and got uglier after my older sister totalled the Camaro :eek:).

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:4jPC-nb99gehMM:http://www.stbernardrockport.org/sumr_soc/DSC00831-2.jpg (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:4jPC-nb99gehMM:http://www.stbernardrockport.org/sumr_soc/DSC00831-2.jpg)





January 10th, 2008, 06:40 PM
Pianoman writes: "I don't know how else to explain this to you, Fabrizio, but...maybe there's something being lost in translation."

You know, I think you're right.

I think anyone who has followed my posts on this forum is aware that I do have a hard time with the English language.

So I usually find myself running your posts (in particular), through the free on-line Google translater.

And when I do, it often giggles and rolls it's Googley eyes.... but it only does it with your posts.

Once it even belched and wispered, "garbage in, garbage out"


From Businessweek:

"Cars: What's Inside Is What Counts: Interiors become a crucial battleground for the Big Three"

"The Big Three are making up for lost ground. It's a matter of survival. Consumer surveys generally rank foreign carmakers higher than domestic companies on interior quality. With foreign competition setting the benchmarks, the Big Three can't afford to annoy consumers with poorly organized dashboards, cheesy upholstery, or flimsy knobs. "They see their market share slipping and know what they have to do," says John Phillips, director of advanced product development at auto-interiors maker Lear Corp."

"European car execs seem almost amused that Detroit took so long to wake up to the mystique--and value--of interior design. "GM has discovered that upgraded interiors sell cars," says BMW Chairman Helmut Panke. "For us, the interior has always been a priority of design."



From an Interview with the president of GM

"Better panel fits, closer gaps, better door-closing sounds, better-tailored seat covers and more precise knobs and switches. Soft, low-gloss plastic parts instead of hard, shiny ones. All of those things are part of what the customer registers as a quality perception, which is why we call it "perceived quality." And your real quality can be outstanding, but if your perceived quality is off, the customer says, "Gee, I don't know, this is a pretty lousy-looking interior. I can't believe this is a good car." And you turn them off."


Another article from Businessweek:

"Rand and his design team went to work, charged with transforming the company's interiors. Many GM products had been maligned by auto analysts and consumers for being seas of sexless hard plastics and flimsy components. Taking cues from furniture, jewelry, and graphic design, the GM team started with the basics: audio and climate controls, instrument clusters, seats, and even keys."

"The first generation of new dash components—knobs, switches, buttons, and radio and climate controls—was dubbed "black tie," as in elegant and goes with everything. These elements—not the dashboard forms themselves but the components that populate them—could be used in Cadillac models as well as less expensive Chevrolets."

"The idea, according to Zak, was to give components a weight and level of detailing noticeably more refined than previous products, and to distribute those improvements across the company's many brands."


Car and Driver reviewing the Vette:

"Also on the debit side, the interior looks decidedly low rent in this company. Sure, it’s the cheapest car here, so we will cut it some slack, but we’re confident that Z06 buyers would be willing to spend an extra five grand for an interior that has plastics and leather that are comparable with the Porsche’s. And although the seats are comfortable enough over long journeys, they lack lateral support and feel flimsy."



January 10th, 2008, 08:20 PM
I think anyone who has followed my posts on this forum is aware that I do have a hard time with the English language.

Nothing like sarcasm to kill a discussion.

Once it even belched and wispered, "garbage in, garbage out"


January 11th, 2008, 10:48 AM
Sometimes "translation" has nothing to do with words.

January 12th, 2008, 03:57 AM

Especially agree with 8,5,3,2,1.

January 12th, 2008, 05:34 AM
The USA edition is horrible. Ford is in dire straits, sales of their light trucks are going down with the economy, and this is what they release to compete with the Civic, Corolla, Mazda 3, ect.


it already looks like an aging piece of shit even when new!

That's pretty sad.

I've been saying for some time, that the American automotive industry needs to relocate out of Detroit. They need to be located to a city like New York, Chicago or somewhere in California where there is a ubiquitous design culture and the automotive design industry can florish through cross-polonization with other design disciplines— industrial design, art, graphic design and of course architecture.

American automotive design is, on the whole, just crap.

January 16th, 2008, 10:24 AM
Look, before the 1930s, the American car industry was very dynamic with many automobile players and a heavy entreprenuerial spirit, and the American car is basically the same product we had in 1929. We can't even innovate to make the car smaller because corporate inertia of the big 3 and the unions prevents them from rapidly making that obviously needed change for the marketplace.

Once unions formed, we have basically been stuck with the big 3. I don't think you can really evaluate the 1930s and the impact of unions - the great depression and the war would distort the result. If I talked about unionization in the 1930s, I'm sure you would give me another lecture of how uninformed I was for conflating union problems with the Great Depression (for the record, to the extent they helped pass the Smoot tariffs, they did cause the Great Depression, but that's a shared screw up that companies are just as culpable for).

Let's analyze something Zippy - why can Japanese car manufacturers in non-union states with non-union workers produce good cars in the US? Why do they want non-union workers? Why are right to work states in the south all economically growing faster and outperforming union friendly states in the midwest? It's either because you need to be a bible thumper to produce a car, or its because unions disrupt the ability for management to improve productivity and quality. Look at the way Toyota runs a plant - they give you a performance review which you must hang on your door and all your coworkers see so they help you with your faults. Can you imagine a union allowing that?

Why did the unions insist on the benefits package for retirees hobbling Detroit right now? That benefits package rewards NOT working, instead of working. As a consequence, Japanese companies outperform.

By the way, I'm not against unions in countries with logical laws about them. After all, Japanese workers also have unions. What I'm against is laws that don't give the company a chance to argue its point because that amounts to intimidation, or fails to allow companies to respond to worker strikes. Japan has collective bargaining without silly litigation that prevents companies from acting to improve. We shouldn't ban unions in the US - we should restore some logical rights to companies negotiating with them to ensure unions that work with the company and defend employee interests can thrive - and most important contracts that prevent companies from rewarding productivity increases rather than seniority, making staffing decisions, placing union rules above management discretion about how to operate the business, etc, should be discouraged.

January 16th, 2008, 11:44 AM
Why do you continue to run away from things you state. From the other thread:

Look at the history of Detroit. Before labor unions, American cars were innovative and Detroit had high wages. After labor unions started forming in the 1940's, innovation in American cars basically stopped and we've had a long slow deterioration ever since.You say wages were higher before the industry unionized. Got figures?

The UAW was formed in the 30s, signed a collective bargaining agreement with GM in 1936.

Give examples of American automobile decline after 1936.

Your subsequent explanation of the above quickly drifted to the present day global auto market.

Once unions formed, we have basically been stuck with the big 3The Big Three was forming long before the UAW came along. The union had nothing to do with it.

The auto industry achieved its greatest growth from post WWII through the 60s.

It was the UAW that tried to get the Big Three to pay attention to foreign imports and build more fuel efficient cars. Management basically told them to run the union, and leave product line decisions to them.

I response to your general rant about unions:

In my own industry, although I've had problems with some of the policies of my company; it should be noted that it was the non unionized companies, MCI Worlcom, Global Crossing, etc that engaged in criminal behavior that led to the companies going belly up - something we're still paying for. The unionized companies like Verizon and AT&T survived.

Enron? Non union, we're still paying for that.

You live in a fantasy world if you think that companies only want to play by rules, and don't break the law. Or that unions are the major problem with American industry.

You say Japanese auto companies want non union workers in the US, but also state that their companies in Japan are unionized. Know why? Because the business environment in the US is hostile toward unions.

Unlike unions in the US that are connected to particular company or industry the unions in Europe are ingrained into the political system. The result is a higher quality lifestyle - unless you think working yourself to death is an admirable goal.

Just wondering - what do you do?

January 17th, 2008, 05:08 PM
Unions impeding new automotive design and development in 1949. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCYr3MvnjpQ) ;)

January 17th, 2008, 07:36 PM
Hey, zippy, sorry I hadn't replied to you earlier. I'm a computer programmer. My only job involving unions was as an intern in high school, but I guess what left me dumb founded when I did were rules about what people could do and the general attitude that people couldn't go outside there area to pitch 100 percent. I think its fair to say that left me with a negative impression of the attitude they had towards their job and their morale, although I'd argue there are some industries (like casino workers) where union workers seem very motivated.

The MCI issue seems like a red herring. I'm not arguing that its impossible for crime to occur outside a union. I'm arguing that if you give anyone too much power, they're more likely to commit crime or pursue corrupt interests for the sake of power. In states like New York (and in the US in general) I think the balance of power away from individual rights has gotten out of control.

By the way, jasonik brings up one example of how **NOT** to fight unions. Obviously, Henry Ford's efforts to do work in Germany to avoid unionization were the wrong approach, to put it mildly. People should have the right to organize and express themselves (the original purpose of the Wagner Act). But if their strike costs money, or the company can't argue its case about why the union is wrong, or the worker can't get a job without joining the union, then that gives the union more power than the individual. I read a case just yesterday about the NYPD suing to stop rookie cops from getting paid a signing bonus because that was outside the collective bargaining agreement. How is that in the interest of workers? It's a power play for the union, plain and simple.

January 17th, 2008, 08:04 PM
Well, thanks for explaining how after labor unions started forming in the.... uh... 1940's, innovation in American cars basically stopped.


Ford's best in 1949: http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1949/fordbig.jpg

Ten years later: http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/52199162.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=F6E491859AC9469BB66CB297B24ED9C4284831B75F48EF45

January 18th, 2008, 04:27 AM
From today's Times:

German Law Seeks to Maintain the State’s Role in Volkswagen



Earlier I compared a 2007 Mercury Sable to an 8 year old Passat. In the meantime the Passat was restyled and given a new body. Now VW is showing previews of the 2008 Passat. Restyled AGAIN:


Click on the photos. Note BTW the interior.

January 20th, 2008, 05:40 PM
When are Ford going to return to good design principles again and turn out another winner? :)


If you are reading this, you are probably a student who has been assigned to do a report based on the Billy Joel song, "We Didn't Start the Fire" and want to know what the line "Edsel is a no-go" means.

Well, the Ford Motor Company introduced the 1958 model Edsel automobile on September 4, 1957 after much fanfare. Initial sales were disappointing to say the least. Ford had hoped to sell 200,000 of the 1958 model Edsels, but ended up only producing 68,045.

To try and bolster sales, Ford redesigned the car somewhat and removed some features that had not done well on the 58's, but again sales were very low, compared to expectations. Only 47,396 of the 1959 models were produced.

The 1960 model was released in the fall of 59, but was basically a 1960 Ford with some sheet metal changes and did not resemble the earlier models very much at all. Only 2,846 of the 1960 models were produced, mainly just to fulfill dealer contracts.

Ford decided to discontinue the Edsel in favor of smaller cars that were becoming popular at the time, and on November 19, 1959 announced that it would no longer produce Edsels. Therefore, Billy Joel correctly says that in 1959, the Edsel was a no-go, meaning that it flopped, and was discontinued.

Hope that you get an A!
5 8 http://www.edsel.net/eds58.JPG
Undoubtedly the most controversial feature of the new EDSEL was the shield, or "horse collar" grille. Designed to be instantly recognizable as an EDSEL from a distance of several blocks, the grille was said, by some, to resemble a toilet seat and made the car look like "an Olds sucking a lemon".

Total 1958 production: 68,045

5 9 http://www.edsel.net/eds59.JPG
Edsel designers restyled the grille for 1959. The basic shape remained the same, however, it was softened significantly to make it more acceptable to buyers. Other troublesome features of the car, such as the Tele-touch transmission, were also scrapped for the new model year.

Total 1959 production: 47,396

6 0 http://www.edsel.net/eds61.JPG
By the debut of the 1960 model, the horse collar was gone and all that remained of the original shield design was a small emblem in the center of the grille. The last EDSEL came off the assembly line on November 19, 1959, as Ford announced that they were discontinuing the car. This shortened production run makes the '60 models among the rarest of EDSELs.

Total 1960 production: 2,846

January 21st, 2008, 02:46 AM
Captain: I thought you might like to see this:

1956 Packard show car. Vertical grill. This car was a sensation on the show circuit. Seeing the public's reaction, one can understand why Ford had the courage to go ahead with the Edsel's front end. Although certainly the Edsel's is ugly in comparison:



And note how the 1960 Edsel took some advice from the '59 Pontiac:


January 22nd, 2008, 02:43 PM
Earlier I compared a 2007 Mercury Sable to an 8 year old Passat. In the meantime the Passat was restyled and given a new body. Now VW is showing previews of the 2008 Passat. Restyled AGAIN

To be fair, that car shown - the Passat CC - is one of those faddish "four door coupe" models (a la the M-Benz CLS) that, if brought to market, will be a separate, upscale offering from the regular Passat, which will continue with its current design for the foreseeable future. So while VW is most certainly marching in lock-step with progress (unlike you-know-who), it's not exactly the most judicious comparison.

Now why Volkswagen is thinking of making this when their previous foray into the upscale end of things (the Phaeton) didn't go so well is beyond me. Seems like they're in a self-created identity crisis if you ask me. Hey VW execs, have you heard of a company named Audi before?

And speaking of four-door coupes, what is up with them? It seems like a concept that wouldn't go very far, and yet we've got Volkswagen, Porsche, Jaguar and Aston Martin all working on getting their versions to the market. The whole thing puzzles me a bit. However, if there's one thing this mini-niche produced that I'm forever grateful for, it's Aston's model: the Rapide.


Oh whoops, this is a thread about ugly cars. Sorry for defiling the place with the above.



January 22nd, 2008, 02:54 PM
Oh whoops, this is a thread about ugly cars. Sorry for defiling the place with the above.

How about putting it into an "Ugly People Looking at Beautiful Cars" thread.

January 22nd, 2008, 04:55 PM
The Aston is sweet. It looks like an Italian Leather Shoe.... (A practical, yet stylish entity).

The Aztec, OTOH, looks like those Crocks.

omfy? Maybe, but tasteless and absolutely horrendous....

January 28th, 2008, 12:14 PM
Found this photo from a thread at SSP. That GMC really struck me as being... odd. Not in a horribly ugly sort of way, but sometying about it is just off.



January 28th, 2008, 05:19 PM
Super-mini Nissan Micra/March. Mainly sold in Japan, 'Oceania' including Australia, UK and Europe:

http://www.vehiclelocator.co.uk/UsedCarPhotos/kl56yrg_1_l.jpg http://www.vehiclelocator.co.uk/UsedCarPhotos/kl56yrg_4_l.jpg http://www.vehiclelocator.co.uk/UsedCarPhotos/kl56yrg_3_l.jpg
Courtesy Evans Halshaw

Courtesy Babez.de

http://serendipitously.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/nissan_micra_cc_pink.jpg http://www.automotoportal.com/media/images/vijesti/060911007.jpg
left - Courtesy of PinkCarAuction; right - automotoportal

January 28th, 2008, 05:32 PM
Not ugly.

This is ugly. Toyota Venza

A slew of ugly views; except #27, which is nice. (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/toyota-venza-live/582923/)

January 29th, 2008, 02:38 AM
Bangle Butt, meet the five door crossover.

January 29th, 2008, 08:56 AM
I would not call that Ugly Zip, chunky definitely. Choppy? Maybe.

It definitely is not pretty though.

As for the Micra? It looks squeezed. The headlights on the hood make it look a bit froggy/lizard-y.......

January 29th, 2008, 03:09 PM
Lamborghini Gallardo



Ugly beacuse it's EXPENSIVE

January 29th, 2008, 04:37 PM
It looks too gemoetric post modern.

Kind of like a deliberate attempt at futurizing their product.

Granted, it is done quite a bit better than some I have seen, but still, that driving shot is what made me think twice.

February 3rd, 2008, 10:46 AM
Not into Lambos, there are ridiculously expensive cars out there that actually have class and performance.

February 6th, 2008, 10:06 AM
is it just me or has Lambo become completely irrelevant? I remember in the 80's early 90s people would kill family to get one and now it's like the least talked about sports car out there? I hear more about Hyundai than I do about Lambroghini....

February 6th, 2008, 01:13 PM
I hate the Chrysler cars, they remind me of "the anthill mob" car out of Penelope Pipstop! :D

February 9th, 2008, 10:55 AM

Although I think theirs was a bit more green.....

Ahahahahahahahahahah......My stomach hurts from laughing. You win! Hands down the ugliest car....I just LOVE the wood paneling and the puke color exterior.

April 17th, 2008, 09:50 AM
The Popemobile


Pope John Paul II thought the term "Popemobile" was undignified. And yet...

The ML430 Popemobile goes 0-60mph in 8 seconds.

Shoot. A little aerodynamic work, and I could shave a second off that. And the Popemobile would haul ass.

April 17th, 2008, 07:44 PM
With the majority of this year's auto shows out of the way, it's time to see what new abominations we'll be forced to look at for years to come:

2009 Nissan Maxima


2009 Honda Pilot..... wtf


More to come.

April 18th, 2008, 04:01 AM
And the Popemobile would haul ass.

As a Catholic, I'm trying to figure out if I'm supposed to be offended by that.

April 18th, 2008, 12:17 PM
Hey, it wasn't me that published the performance specs; but I figured if the Church wants to modernize, I'd help them crack the 12 second quarter-mile barrier.

I guess I should trash my report:

Pope Benedict Visits Raceway Park - Endorses Snap-On Tools

Yes, I'm going to hell - in the HOV lane.

Kz1000ps: That Honda looks like an unknown species of eel I once hooked.

April 18th, 2008, 12:22 PM
The Christian right is gonna love it: the Pope is a speed demon.

April 18th, 2008, 02:55 PM
That Honda looks like an unknown species of eel I once hooked.
:D I saw it too, the eyeballs, the mouth, what on Earth were they thinking. Truly ugly car.

April 18th, 2008, 05:01 PM
The Nissan is not that bad, but what is up with those headlights?

They want to be able to charge you MORE for repairing one when you hit a cicada at 90?

April 19th, 2008, 12:19 PM
This one is ugly & mean (all the better to intimidate you with, my dear).

I made sure to ask permission from a nearby Officer before shooting this one :cool:

Not sure if it is officially a "car". Perhaps a tank?

Whatever, it seems to be an NYPD gunship*, as seen in Central Park for the protection of the Pope (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226140&postcount=14) ...

Please note the portholes along the sides, which handily open in times of distress & need.




* The maker is LENCO (http://www.armoredtrucks.com/), a private company out of Massachusetts.

April 19th, 2008, 12:28 PM
I love those door handles.

February 17th, 2009, 11:29 PM
http://forum.avtoindex.com/foto/data/media/33/Dodge_Mirada_1982_30.jpg (http://www.moparautos.com/mirada82-83.htm)

Ugly in the best way - to the max!

February 18th, 2009, 12:12 AM
Actually, a brilliant concept.

Anyone who likes to tinker with the appearance of his car needn't worry about screwing it up. The Dodge Boys managed to make it look after-market right out of the factory.

February 18th, 2009, 06:52 AM
Came with a pair of white loafers at no extra cost.

February 18th, 2009, 09:14 AM
Again, brilliant. The little gold chain matches the pinstripe.

Can you still call it an opera-window without a vinyl roof?

February 18th, 2009, 01:10 PM
Some other gems from that era:

Chevy Laguna

1974 Dodge Charger.. combine the languid styling with a nearly-choked-to-death engine and I can only look at this with pity

Another 1974.. this one is the Mustang II.. blech

1977 T-bird.. these sold like hotcakes back in the day, and I can see how the
styling might have been edgy, but I've always thought the rear proportions were horrid

The 1980 T-bird is even worse.. it has neither the imposing grandeur of the best upright '70s designs
nor the futuristic, plasticky look of the best '80s wedges.

1971 Edsel.....oops! I mean Pontiac Catalina

February 18th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Mid 1970's to early 1980's... I call it Detroit's Super Fly era. That is when the nail was put in the coffin. A large portion of the buying public knew that stuff was ugly.

You have to remember: along with the leisure suits and disco wear, there was also the backlash of the Preppy look.... khaki pants and the rise of Ralph Lauren. That crowd bought the Honda Accord, the Volvo, the Saab. While Detroit was building those things posted above, in 1976 Honda introduced this:


A sedan followed in 1979 and things would never be the same. By 1982 it was the best selling car in the US.


That 1971 Pontiac seen above is a Greek urn compared to the things that followed as the decade wore on. The grill was bold, but the rest of the car, like most of the GM lineup in that year, was pretty well styled.


February 18th, 2009, 01:32 PM
When the Detroit auto execs are in DC begging for money, the walls of the hearing room should be covered with posters of all these cars.

April 27th, 2009, 02:26 PM
Pontiac is dead!

Well, as of next year. But GM is in the process of shedding at least half of its US brands, and something had to give. Saab, Saturn, Hummer and now Pontiac are on their way out of GM's portfolio, leaving Chevy, Buick, Cadillac, and GMC.

Although it's somewhat sad from both a historical and current perspective (more on the latter in a bit), this is more or less an inevitable conclusion to the crap way GM has run their business for 25-plus years now, and by that I mean BADGE ENGINEERING. What's the difference between a Chevy Cobalt and a Pontiac G5? Is there one? Damned if I know. So that's two identical models that require the marketing budgets of two separate vehicles, and yet will compete directly against eachother in the marketplace. Then they repeat this process across almost all their vehicle lines.


About the "current perspective," it IS somewhat sad that Pontiac will go away just when it gets some downright GOOD product. I'm talking about the G8 sedan (an Aussie import) and the little Solstice convertible. Regardless of sales numbers, both have been enthusiastically embraced by the auto community.

But of course, it's all too little too late. The current G3 and G5 are tangible reminders of why GM's in the predicament it is, and the stench of the Aztek still hangs in the air.

May 22nd, 2009, 02:33 PM



May 22nd, 2009, 03:18 PM
^ 5 Series GT is the little sister to the muscular X6 (http://www.autoblog.com/tag/BmwX6/) -- BMW's Cayenne competitor (they even have an M badged version to rival the Turbo).


May 22nd, 2009, 04:24 PM
The Cayenne is the ugliest car around, people shouldnt be competing with it. Surprise surprise the X6 is ugly as hell.

May 22nd, 2009, 05:07 PM
^ I've heard this assessment of the Cayenne since its inception, and I've always been puzzled by it --as I was by the frequent negative assessments of the DS19 when it was newish.

Must be that it doesn't look familiar.

Some folks think that the goal of fine art is to show you the unfamiliar, and the goal of commercial art is to confirm what you already know.

If I could afford it, I would own a Cayenne.

May 22nd, 2009, 05:14 PM
Its not just that they basically welded a regular porsche front end onto an suv its that the shape just doesnt work on a high wheel base. Its surreal to see it sitting up there, its like a boat on a trailer, same with the X6.

May 22nd, 2009, 06:39 PM
An SUV is an SUV. You can use it as a car, but it's based on different premises. You don't need to judge it by the criteria of a sedan or a sports car. It's got a bit of Mack truck built into it.

May 22nd, 2009, 07:25 PM
Dunno why, but I've never had much of a problem with the Cayenne other than that the front is somewhat fugly.

Back to the Bimmers, I don't know what to make of this new 5 series GT. I didn't see much of a need for the X6, and I see even less for this one. On a purely stylistic level, the front nostrils are oversized to the point of being a caricature, ruining the rest of the front end's well-executed lines, and it looks like the designers couldn't decide whether to go for an SUV-like ride/body height or that of a typical car, ending up trying (and failing) to do both at the same time. Also, the proportions are off -- the front end is quite long and linear in the vein of a classic sports car, whereas the rear is truncated in the extreme -- making it look very nose-heavy.

Finally, the 5-door body style just does not mesh with my notions of what a luxury car should look like.

May 22nd, 2009, 11:10 PM


2010 Porsche Panamera (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0811_2010_porsche_panamera_first_look/index.html)

^ Lines are similar to the Carrozzeria Touring Maserati Quattroporte Bellagio Fastback (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=262378&postcount=28).

May 23rd, 2009, 02:00 AM
Ugly cars?
The Green Hornet.

May 23rd, 2009, 08:22 PM
What's up with the Honda/Acura styling department? The new Honda Hybrid looks like a ripped off version of the Prius, and is u-g-l-y. I was just by the nearby Honda dealership...not a customer in sight, but there sure were plenty of hungry salesman chomping at the bit. Vultures is more like it.

May 23rd, 2009, 08:44 PM
Welcome to the 35 mpg future. Work with it.

May 25th, 2009, 10:07 PM
All Congress really needs to do is get the heck outta the way. Legalize European-spec cars and rescind CAFE. Now that's a shot in the arm Detroit could use, pronto, with the least amount of regulation.

May 26th, 2009, 11:19 AM
What's up with the Honda/Acura styling department?

I wish I knew. Acura's latest styling direction deserves a big ol' WTF.




May 26th, 2009, 01:07 PM
And not to forget about Toyota & Lexus.

The HS 250 h... a Corolla given a hybrid powertrain and a "Cimarron by Cadillac" style makeover.

May 26th, 2009, 05:27 PM
^ Bangle-itis?

May 27th, 2009, 10:49 AM
The TL looks like Batman's "Other" car.....

May 27th, 2009, 01:10 PM
This Barris creation?