The Ugliest Car Ever

[Mr. Scram]

I like how this thread has become a demonstration of why every car maker is playing it safe and churning out a variant of the same car. Even if you take the huge cost of car development into account, there is an uncanny tendency for every brand to carry pretty much the exact same line-up with similar cars with different badges. Cars have become so terribly boring that it makes you want to pull your hair out. It's nothing like the wild experiments car makers hazarded in years gone by. Most cars in this thread tried to do something differently, and get relentlessly punished for it. Something like the PT Cruiser actually was very popular, even though the duel economy wasn't very good due to the shape.

What do you prefer? An industry full of middle of the road cars, where every brand has almost the exact same car, designed by committee? Of some variety, with some people inevitable hating the model looks, and others loving it?

[frozenfrogz]

In this list I miss the US postal car:

Actually I really, really love the design of this vehicle! It has so much 1960s atomic age flavor to it that I can not not like it

Please enjoy this intermission also featuring the USPS truck.

[SeanB]

Chevy Spark was originally the Daewoo Matiz, which was a model here that had very poor sales, till it was rebranded as the Spark ( only the badges changed, the rest of the vehicle is still the mishmash of Daewoo and GM parts) and then it was quite popular.

Of course now that GM is packing it's bags and closing the plant at the end of the year the workers, sales and dealers are kind of upset, along with the owners of the vehicles, though for all of those based on the DaeWontGo platforms the spares are still going to all be non franchise, simply from the cost perspective of having the non OEM or Daewoo part being in Won, while the GM part was converted to dollars, had the US market price inflated then got loaded with shipping from USA to here as well. Standard response from the dealerships is " will be here in 6 weeks" for every single part. Korean and sparesboys off the shelf new or used, and if used might even be the right colour as well.

[Vtile]

This is actually really nice. (from post #74)

Karmanchia looks in the front. The rear isn't that good, but the first 50% of the car is actually really nice. Most of the cars posted in these "ugly" usually suffers some not so good details in some part of the car (like the Citroen BX). Mostly proportions are off from some odd direction or it represent some now really old fashioned short lived fashion of some era. Would make a really nice rod with welder and angle grinder.

[Mr. Scram]

This is actually really nice. (from post #74)

Karmanchia looks in the front. The rear isn't that good, but the first 50% of the car is actually really nice. Most of the cars posted in these "ugly" usually suffers some not so good details in some part of the car (like the Citroen BX). Mostly proportions are off from some odd direction or it represent some now really old fashioned short lived fashion of some era. Would make a really nice rod with welder and angle grinder.

I think I prefer the BX over that car. Not in small part because the BX actually looks pretty good. That 80's vibe can be pretty nice.

[deflicted]

I like how this thread has become a demonstration of why every car maker is playing it safe and churning out a variant of the same car. Even if you take the huge cost of car development into account, there is an uncanny tendency for every brand to carry pretty much the exact same line-up with similar cars with different badges. Cars have become so terribly boring that it makes you want to pull your hair out. It's nothing like the wild experiments car makers hazarded in years gone by. Most cars in this thread tried to do something differently, and get relentlessly punished for it. Something like the PT Cruiser actually was very popular, even though the duel economy wasn't very good due to the shape.

What do you prefer? An industry full of middle of the road cars, where every brand has almost the exact same car, designed by committee? Of some variety, with some people inevitable hating the model looks, and others loving it?

There's no contradiction here. Wanting car companies to innovate and criticizing their failed attempts are not mutually exclusive things. The Edsel was a complete failure by all accounts, but virtually nobody who has criticized it over the past several decades thinks that car companies should just stop trying. There's always a risk of failure in any creative endeavor, whether it's designing a new car model, writing a novel, or recording an album. That risk is an inherent part of the desire to innovate, not something to be blamed on one's critics.

[deflicted]

This is actually really nice. (from post #74)

Karmanchia looks in the front. The rear isn't that good, but the first 50% of the car is actually really nice. Most of the cars posted in these "ugly" usually suffers some not so good details in some part of the car (like the Citroen BX). Mostly proportions are off from some odd direction or it represent some now really old fashioned short lived fashion of some era. Would make a really nice rod with welder and angle grinder.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think it's atrocious.

[tszaboo]

That reminds me:

I see a Chevrolet SSR every second morning. It makes my eyes bleed.

[HoracioDos]

I see a Chevrolet SSR every second morning. It makes my eyes bleed.

Walter White Junior's car...

[Mr. Scram]

There's no contradiction here. Wanting car companies to innovate and criticizing their failed attempts are not mutually exclusive things. The Edsel was a complete failure by all accounts, but virtually nobody who has criticized it over the past several decades thinks that car companies should just stop trying. There's always a risk of failure in any creative endeavor, whether it's designing a new car model, writing a novel, or recording an album. That risk is an inherent part of the desire to innovate, not something to be blamed on one's critics.

It has become a contradiction due to the huge costs involved in modern car development. There is a reason companies only present prototypes that are close to, or the same as later production models. Developing prototypes for the hell of it like in years past simply isn't economically feasible any more. Due to these enormous and ever larger costs associated with development, companies can't really afford to get it wrong any more. It really is a matter of not having your cake and eating it too.

Of course, companies are hurting themselves by developing the very same car their competitor or even sister brand develops. I never quite got why different brands, owned by the same company, produce pretty much the same car, for the same price and the same demographic. I guess it's harder to fire someone over playing it safe. Meanwhile, we get stuck with half a dozen carbon copies of the same car for every segment.

[Cerebus]

They were popular in New Zealand, as you could put two spare sheep in the boot.

Spare sheep? Spare sheep!?!

Oh dear, it looks as if everything I've heard about you Kiwis from the Aussies is true. 

[Mr. Scram]

Spare sheep? Spare sheep!?!

Oh dear, it looks as if everything I've heard about you Kiwis from the Aussies is true. 

What else are you going to do when your main sheep kicks the bucket and you're in the middle of nowhere? You obviously are going to need a spare one, and preferably two.

[Cerebus]

The Juke looks like someone at Nissan said to a 5 year old "See this pretty acceptable looking QashQai? Can you make a smaller version for us?"

The QashQai's pretty butt-ugly before you do anything else to it.

I always suspected that the QashQai got its improbable name when there was a marketing meeting that had someone with a stupidly posh English accent (think Jacob Rees-Mogg) and someone from Nissan Japan, and the English toff said  "This is going to be a cash cow." and the Japanese guy just wrote it down phonetically.  They do look a bit bovine...

[deflicted]

It has become a contradiction due to the huge costs involved in modern car development.

I disagree. You can't polish a turd, no matter how much it cost. That is, an ugly car is still an ugly car. Whether the car company spent $1 on R&D or $1,000,000,000, it's still not the consumer's fault that it's ugly. Consumers want innovation, but that doesn't obligate them to refrain from criticism. Your original post sounds very much along the lines of (paraphrasing) "This is why we can't have nice things. You guys (consumers) want innovation then turn around and criticize." As if it needs to be somebody's fault, as opposed to just an unfortunate business reality. I don't blame the car manufacturers for playing it safe. Nor do I blame movie studios for cranking out endless reboots of old movies and TV shows. It sucks, but I can see how it makes a lot of financial success sense (stupid autocorrect). But blaming consumers for wanting to have their cake and eat it too is just as absurd.

Consumers want the best product for the lowest price, and manufacturers want the highest return for their R&D dollars. Neither of those positions is inherently any more (or less) valid than the other. That's just how it works. And as far as financial risk goes, there's plenty of risk on both sides, and it scales proportionally with the reward. The whole reason that any company ever takes risks trying to innovate is because there's a potentially much higher payoff. Likewise, a new car is a huge investment, and a consumer is taking on a lot more risk buying a fancy, expensive new model of car than they are just buying yet another 2 year old used Honda Civic.

I don't dispute your reasoning about why car companies don't innovate as much as they used to. I think that part is fairly obvious. What I disagree with is your seeming need to blame consumers for this state of affairs.

[Mr. Scram]

I disagree. You can't polish a turd, no matter how much it cost. That is, an ugly car is still an ugly car. Whether the car company spent $1 on R&D or $1,000,000,000, it's still not the consumer's fault that it's ugly. Consumers want innovation, but that doesn't obligate them to refrain from criticism. Your original post sounds very much along the lines of (paraphrasing) "This is why we can't have nice things. You guys (consumers) want innovation then turn around and criticize." As if it needs to be somebody's fault, as opposed to just an unfortunate business reality. I don't blame the car manufacturers for playing it safe. Nor do I blame movie studios for cranking out endless reboots of old movies and TV shows. It sucks, but I can see how it makes a lot of financial success. But blaming consumers for wanting to have their cake and eat it too is just as absurd.

Consumers want the best product for the lowest price, and manufacturers want the highest return for their R&D dollars. Neither of those positions is inherently any more (or less) valid than the other. That's just how it works. And as far as financial risk goes, there's risk on both sides that scales proportionally with the reward. The whole reason that any company ever takes risks trying to innovate is because there's a potentially much higher payoff. Likewise, a new car is a huge investment, and a consumer is taking on a lot more risk buying a fancy, expensive new model of car than they are just buying yet another 2 year old used Honda Civic.

I don't dispute your reasoning about why car companies don't innovate as much as they used to. I think that part is fairly obvious. What I disagree with is your seeming need to blame consumers for this state of affairs.

Consumers don't want innovation at all. That's a misconceptions that has cost a lot of business owners their money. Consumers want exactly what they had, only slightly different, under the guise of it being better. So that's what they get. Most people loathe actual change.

Mind you, I'm not saying that's the only mechanism in play, or even the dominant mechanism.

[BU508A]

Nissan Cube:



I think, Daihatsu Materia is the same car.

[G7PSK]

The SHERP has to be the ugliest.

https://youtu.be/KTJUMOzx_zE

But Renault have been taking ugly lessons as well.

https://www.renault.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/twizy.html

[vk6zgo]

They were popular in New Zealand, as you could put two spare sheep in the boot.

Spare sheep? Spare sheep!?!

Oh dear, it looks as if everything I've heard about you Kiwis from the Aussies is true. 

I hope you aren't  referring to me, I'm one of those nasty Aussies.
Note the white stars instead of red ones on the flag.

Another giveaway---- I am a "Ham" & out of pure laziness use my call sign. VK6ZGO , on this forum.
Several others do the same----"VK" denotes Australia, the number, which State.

Kiwis call signs start with "ZL".

[ejeffrey]

The AMC Gremlin was awesome.  You guys are a bunch of weirdos.

[bitseeker]

Well, the truly ugly ones have already been posted. So, for something a little different, I submit the current line of Lexus. Designed and built by Cylons?

From an earlier post, it seems the Corolla is being infiltrated by the Cylon Empire as we speak.

[tszaboo]

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150419/OEM03/150419864/at-lexus-the-chief-still-defends-that-spindle-grille

The upshot was styling conservatism which everybody tolerated, but nobody was passionately in love with. We tried to please 10 out of 10 people. Now we're trying to please one of 10 people out there with Lexus.

Some of them is less terrible, when you put the license plate on it. In fact,  I would like to have a IS300h.

[Halcyon]

The SHERP has to be the ugliest.

It looks like a weird Lego car, but you'd have to admit, it would be a bit of fun to drive.

[Cerebus]

They were popular in New Zealand, as you could put two spare sheep in the boot.

Spare sheep? Spare sheep!?!

Oh dear, it looks as if everything I've heard about you Kiwis from the Aussies is true. 

I hope you aren't  referring to me, I'm one of those nasty Aussies.
Note the white stars instead of red ones on the flag.

Another giveaway---- I am a "Ham" & out of pure laziness use my call sign. VK6ZGO , on this forum.
Several others do the same----"VK" denotes Australia, the number, which State.

Kiwis call signs start with "ZL".

Sorry mate.

In my defence:

• Because you were going on about keeping spare sheep handy I just made the, understandable, assumption that you were either Welsh or a Kiwi.
• The flag's too small to tell which of the antipodeans you are, but enough to exclude the Welsh.
• I discovered beer and girls* before I reached the terrible point of needing to learn all the world's call-signs just for the pure street cred it would have given me with the other nerds.

There we are, I think that's an adequate list of excuses.

By way of apology, have a virtual Vegemite sandwich on me and I promise in the future to include Aussies in my list of sheep obsessed deviants.

Yours,
        Uncle Bumblefuck.

*Some of them Aussies. By the way, Gentlemen let me pass along a pearl of wisdom garnered over the years: Do not go out drinking with Aussie or Kiwi women unless you you also take along some other men for the protection of your personal honour. Do not ask me for details, just accept the fruits of the hard won experience of an older man!

[deflicted]

• The flag's too small to tell which of the antipodeans you are, but enough to exclude the Welsh.

You can always just hover your mouse cursor over the flag. Just sayin'.



Edit: If you're viewing the full site (not the mobile version, which doesn't show flags anyway) on a mobile device with no mouse, you can long press on the flag image and the image text should show up. Might depend on OS and browser, but there's usually a way to do it.

[ez24]

Just curious on how you got the screen shot with the cursor in it ?