We've had various comments lately about the aesthetics of cars and how they might affect desirability, so I thought we could get a bit deeper into the question.
I think ugliness falls into two, maybe three distinct categories, according to the degree of intentionality.
- Form Follows Function The car is designed for its task and the looks are an afterthought. This can produce designs that, while not classically beautiful, command respect because the functionality shines through. Examples include the Land Rover Defender, various Subarus down the years, the Volvo 240 and the Saab 900.
- Mad Stylist Syndrome Take an unremarkable design and decide it needs some new 'design cues' to make it more distinctively...whatever. Over-emphasize the wheelarches, contort the rear lights and give the side panels more creases than Boris Johnson's shirt. Result: certainly distinctive, but would you want to look at it it for long? Examples: Honda Civic, Accord, Mercedes E, new CLS, the ghastly new 'DS' models from Citroen.
- Finally, [Maiden Aunt] You Designs that are just ugly from ground to aerial tip, usually because they're just huge and make no attempt to hide it. They know it and they don't care. Examples: Cayenne, Panamera, Discovery 3, Mercedes GL.
Anything I've missed? Any pet hates here to be got off chests?
|
|
Nissan Juke - awful, but judging by the numbers seen a good enough drive, I guess it falls into the last category. Glad you left BMW out of this.
Last edited by: R.P. on Tue 13 Sep 11 at 21:01
|
Almost every new car will, when looked at 'correctly' be ugly.
The problem is the height of the bonnet as a result of pedestrian impact legislation.
Look at any new car, even the sleeker models from Jag/Mercedes and look side-on at the bonnet line - truly dire.
|
|
Also I'd devote a special page to the Ford Scorpio when it first superseded the Granada (rather than just being a high-spec Grannie).
|
Now to be clear, I'm just as guilty as the next man of this failing so this isn't some moral high ground comment but...
Why does anyone care what the outside of their car looks like? When in use it can't be seen.
Why do most people prioritise that ( outside appearance ) over how the interior looks? When in use it, ( the inside ) can be seen.
Why do women ( in particular ) have such strong opinions about the outside colour of their cars but once they own them never, ever wash them?
Why do I care about any of this?
:-)
|
|
Any car with one of those stupid rear-mounted cycle carriers.
|
Well, you're all too late. One of the girls in my head office has just told me today that she has bought a bike and needs a rack. So next time I'm in I've promised to deliver it.
It has been verbally exchanged for a large jar of Jelly Babies.
So nah nah nah nah nah.
You had your chances !
:-)
|
|
pfd I was going to come in with a packet of wine gums.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 17 Sep 11 at 00:35
|
It's hard (for me) to think of a car that I would call ugly, I suppose the nearest thing to ugly in a vehicle ( to me) would be the Fiat Multipla.
I used to think the Nissan Juke was OK, but the more I see of it, the more I think that perhaps it's not quite all there.
|
|
I'd put the Multipla in the first category. The facelift paradoxically made it uglier by trying to make it look more normal. The Juke is a try-too-hard horror.
|
|
I think the new Ka is deeply ugly. I thought it would grow on me as many car designs do in time but nope, it's a moose.
|
|
I know a "man" with a Fiat Doblo - he wears Crocs - black ones - say no more.
|
|
Doblo and Crocs. Axe murderer. Dead cert. Tell your wife.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Tue 13 Sep 11 at 21:47
|
|
She's actually been in the car with him. She knows the score though.
|
|
She's just coughed on reading this that she wore a balaclava in case she was recognized. In fairness a fellow biker and FB friend set fire to his Crocs when I abused him and photographed the progress and result - he's doing his iPhone 3G now - which he hates.
|
Unlike many here I find the Fiat Multipla to be the best looking MPV ever made. It has real style compared to the normal breeze block on wheels these things resemble.
Very few modern cars look good, they are too tall and bulky to be pretty.
|
|
I almost agree with you, it was certainly distinctive and risky at the time.
|
And on the other side of the coin, this is the car I always wanted due to its aching prettyness and never did get around to.
www.performance-car-guide.co.uk/images/L-Lancia-Fulvia-7.jpg
|
>> Unlike many here I find the Fiat Multipla to be the best looking MPV ever
>> made. It has real style compared to the normal breeze block on wheels these things
>> resemble.
You are, without doubt, Barking my ole son, completely off your trolley.
|
Edit
And you can take your radio rental taffy mucker along to the loony bin with ya.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 13 Sep 11 at 22:23
|
|
Well, I'm going to confess something. Some years ago, while shopping for a load lugger ( and "she" had said " don't buy another Mondeo" ) I test drove a Multipla. Only because it was preposterously cheap at just a year old and with minimal miles. It took me about five minutes and as many miles to decide unequivocally that it was about the most vile car I've ever had the etc.... Oh and she didn't like it either. Bought a Mondeo.
|
>>In fairness a fellow biker and FB friend set fire to his Crocs when I abused him and photographed the progress
What were you, a teacher or a catholic priest in a kids home? ;>)
|
|
Aw don't be too hard on him. There isn't much to do in Wales.
|
>> Why does anyone care what the outside of their car looks like? When in use it can't be seen.
The inside has to be good. And the outside has to be okay looking. I used to have a Mondeo Mk III (the face lifted one) and before the facelift the inside was a definite no. The outside was dull as anything but in black it was not too offensive.
I think various Skodas are pretty ugly on the outside but great inside. I'd have seriously considered the Superb estate but the cost per month was high due to CO2 emissions.
I also really rate Audi for exterior and interior design and would have probably got an A4. But I sat in one in the dealers to use the MMI and hated how it worked. So ended up with a VW. And in my eyes the CC was better looking than a Passat saloon or estate. And a Golf was too small and not as well equipped or as good value as the CC.
But to many my choice of car is just ugly I guess.
|
>>Aw don't be too hard on him. There isn't much to do in Wales.
I suppose it gives the sheep a rest.
That reminds me. Coming down the M1 a little while ago, we saw a sheep wandering along the hard shoulder. I convinced SWMBO to dial 999 and report it (I was driving). BIB asked her if she thought it was likely to walk out in front of traffic..............
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Tue 13 Sep 11 at 22:41
|
>> Aw don't be too hard on him. There isn't much to do in Wales.
>>
Zero would start an argument in a cemetery and you're still bitter about that bike rack.
|
>> Also I'd devote a special page to the Ford Scorpio when it first superseded the
>> Granada (rather than just being a high-spec Grannie).
That was the first car that came to my mind. Now that was thrashed within an inch of it's life with the ugly stick. Didn't look any better when they stuck a Cosworth motor in it.
|
The Granada was ugly. The Scorpio worse still. And I am assuming you are referring to the mark 2 or 3? Hideous. The mark 1 was only a Granada in the UK and a Scorpio elsewhere.
The Granada/Scorpio was a hatch to begin with and then a very ugly/big saloon.
|
>>What makes a car ugly?
A Kia badge on the bonnet.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 14 Sep 11 at 00:13
|
Some cars can look ugly in pictures, but different in the flesh. For example, I've only seen two "61" plate cars, but one of them was the RR Evoque.
Now, in pictures this car can look strangely proportioned and ugly from certain angles, whereas in the flesh it is just 100% gut-wrenchingly, traumatisingly hideous. This is the kind of car that the Gorgon would drive, just to draw attention from her own ugliness.
Last edited by: Londoner on Wed 14 Sep 11 at 00:21
|
>> >>What makes a car ugly?
>>
>> A Kia badge on the bonnet.
OI! My KIA was also badged as Mazda and Ford.
Anyway my badge is in the grille. ;>)
|
>>
>> OI! My KIA was also badged as Mazda and Ford.
>>
Gotcha! :-)
As Sarah Palin said, "Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig". ;-)
|
|
I'll have to start calling it a flying pig - it took FTD (Fastest Time of Day), that's an outright win, on a recent grass autotest. Beat three Caterhams as well.
|
>> I'll have to start calling it a flying pig - it took FTD (Fastest Time
>> of Day), that's an outright win, on a recent grass autotest. Beat three Caterhams as
>> well.
>>
Only pulling your leg of course Tom. It's actually Mrs. H that hates Kia Prides with a passion, based on a less than satisfactory ownership experience.
|
Pulling my leg?
How can I be expected to do a proper flounce with you hanging on to a leg? ;>)
|
The lipstick comment wasn't Palin (although I think she once referred to herself as a 'pitbull in lipstick'); it was Obama about Palin.
Neither remark involved a Kia.
|
|
The Mk2 Scorpio was the one I was thinking of. Seriously hideous.
|
>> The Mk2 Scorpio was the one I was thinking of. Seriously hideous.
>>
Two things were wrong with it. The horrible bustle and the fat lips around the grill.
If those had been conventional then it would be mundane except for the headlights.
The shape of the lights were new to the world and a shock but on todays Alfa they are just fine, so I am told :-(
MB came out with new shaped lights and also got a few words aimed at them but all is fogotten
As a MK II Mondeo saloon owner I think the shape is fine but the back lights are naff whereas I thing the hatchback version is orrible with its lump on its back.
I think bloated is one part of ugly especially the BMW X6
|
BMW X6
HaHa first time BMW have been mentioned - took a while - I view the X6 as "striking" rather than ugly. Not for me though. The 5GT Series - now that's ugly.
|
>> BMW X6
>>
>> HaHa first time BMW have been mentioned - took a while - I view the
>> X6 as "striking" rather than ugly.
I view it as Struck, probably by a bus.
|
>> >> BMW X6
>> >>
>> >> HaHa first time BMW have been mentioned - took a while - I view
>> the
>> >> X6 as "striking" rather than ugly.
>>
>> I view it as Struck, probably by a bus.
>>
I'm glad it's not just me who genuinely thinks this car looks as though it has been in some sort of disfiguring accident. Even more inexcusable when the conventional 5 series on which it's based is a handsome beasr in both saloon and Touring forms.
|
>> The Granada was ugly. The Scorpio worse still. And I am assuming you are referring
>> to the mark 2 or 3? Hideous. The mark 1 was only a Granada in
>> the UK and a Scorpio elsewhere.
>>
>> The Granada/Scorpio was a hatch to begin with and then a very ugly/big saloon.
>>
WHAT???????????
The Granada was a saloon 1st.
Mk 1 1972-1977
Mk 2 1977-1985
Mk 3 (hatchback) 1985-1994
Then Scorpio 1994-1998.
|
But that Mk3 hatchback was sold as a Granada in the fortnights-and-furlongs, two-sugars-love, company-car UK, and as a Scorpio everywhere else. (The UK got one high-spec model as a Scorpio, I think.) Then they brought out the bug-eyed one and called it Scorpio to make it seem new, even though you could still recognize the middle section of the Granada between the uglified ends.
But come on, chaps - don't just throw in names of ugly motors; what makes them ugly?
|
>> But come on, chaps - don't just throw in names of ugly motors; what makes
>> them ugly?
What makes a car ugly?
Its actually not that difficult to theorise and there are well known rule to avoid, which I hasten to add does not stop makers thinking they can break the rules ( and they usually fail)
You split the car in two halfs longitudinally, - (the waist line), The waist line must rise from front to back, stuff in the top half must not bulge out (fail - Multipla)
The wheel arch hight proportion must be right in the bottom half.
Roof line must never be curved then straight ( fail Rhodius)
The front must appear to smile, no turned down corners of the radiator grill, the lights must never break the plane of the waist line, or any front lights above the waist line (fail Multipla)
Front lights are eyes, they are key to your cars "attitude" Aggressive, passive, happy, sexy. Never dumb and stupid (fail scorpio)
Most of all. Proportion of all the elements are key.
Every now and again a designer becomes "brave" thinks the rules don't apply to him, he is better and can break the rules. He ends up with a dogs dinner. Multipla breaks all the rules, and is spectacularly ugly as a result.
The question that should be asked is what makes a car pretty. Much harder and why a good designer makes his money.
|
What is strange though is the effect of fashion and or familiarity. Cars which once seemed at least presentable can in time become "ugly". Conversely "ugly" new designs can often become acceptable eventually.
Funny folk, folk.
|
>> What is strange though is the effect of fashion and or familiarity. Cars which once
>> seemed at least presentable can in time become "ugly". Conversely "ugly" new designs can often
>> become acceptable eventually.
>>
>> Funny folk, folk.
No they never become Ugly if they pleased the eye the first time round, they may be become unfashionable, or even boring, but never Ugly,
What happens is that "fashion" or "different" temporarily blinds us, its still ugly but we suspend our senses. Later we realise it was just plain ugly after all. Similarly what we though of as a "fashion bore" was in fact just right - timeless in fact.
clothes are like that. The classics may become "unfashionable" but they will never disappear and will always return.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 14 Sep 11 at 08:21
|
'The classics may become "unfashionable" but they will never disappear and will always return."
That's patently untrue as a glance at a few historical pictures will soon prove.
|
|
Of course its true, patently they were not classics or they would have returned. They were just crap fashion.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 14 Sep 11 at 08:59
|
I have a problem with this "what makes a car ugly" question, as I stated in my first post on this thread,
I don't really think any car can be deemed ugly as such ... undesirable, unlikeable, uncoothed even, like the Multipla but - even outlandish designs like that, will have their followers.
Nowt as queer (can I say that?) as peops.
|
>>I don't really think any car can be deemed ugly as such
Any Cubes around in your neck of the woods, Dog?
|
>>Any Cubes around in your neck of the woods, Dog?<<
LOL - I used to see one quite often in Truro ... one!
|
Now there is a good point, is a cube ugly? Ok its not pretty, but its not ugly either. Its a perfect example of obeying all the design rules to the extreme of the letter, and as such its not lookaway ugly as the multipla for example.
Picture of a cube
www.chryslerprowler.net/nissan-cube/
The earlier one was much better
There is a guy round here somewhere who leases them
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 14 Sep 11 at 09:35
|
>> www.specsavers.co.uk/
Already been, so what's your excuse? ;P
|
I'm not sure about ugly but I think a problem with the way most of today's cars are designed (maybe because they have to be) is that they don't have any grace. Lines don't seem to flow any more. I'm not ashamed to admit that I only want to own cars that please my eye.
That's one reason why I have been tempted, yet again, to buy a first iteration Peugeot 406 coupe - one of the most delightful shapes ever and fairly practical with it.
|
|
The XJS was considered ugly by the motoring press when it was launched - and they droned on in their cliched ways about "flying buttresses" for years afterwards. I always thought it a handsome car but I preferred the original rear light treatment and the the American spec headlamps.
|
Indeed it was. I just remember it had the most comfortable driver's seat I had ever known - but I couldn't afford to own one.
I have the American spec front lights and you're right about the rear ones. The 'facelift' should have been confined to the face - but it did do away with (at least a bit) of the rust problem.
|
>>I have the American spec front lights
>>
That was the first mod that my friend did on his XJS. It is now much neater
|
>>The XJS was considered ugly by the motoring press when it was launched<<
Same with the Ford Jelly Mould.
|
>> >>The XJS was considered ugly by the motoring press when it was launched<<
>>
>> Same with the Ford Jelly Mould.
It was ugly, and had to be tweaked many times by Ford. The first makeover came very quickly in its life.
|
|
Funny - associated memories, I was reading about the launch of the Sierra in Autocar or Motor (or both - I was rich then) and eating a Star-Bar chocolate (I was as thin as a rake then) - ever since every time I read of one I get the instant memory of that bar's taste.....back in 83 wasn't it ?
|
>>Funny - associated memories, I was reading about the launch of the Sierra in Autocar or Motor
When they did a comparison test between the newly launched Sierra Saphire and the last of the Cortinas I had already bought the actual Cortina pictured on the cover of the mag.
It subsequently got nicked and stripped - a write off..
|
>>
>> That's one reason why I have been tempted, yet again, to buy a first iteration
>> Peugeot 406 coupe - one of the most delightful shapes ever and fairly practical with
>> it.
>>
I'll second that, a truely beautiful looking car.
The Multipla may break the rules, but it breaks so many it becomes a thing of great beauty on it's own terms.
The ugliest cars are those that try and incorporate "vintage" styling into a modern design such as the MINI and the new Beetle. And if the Chrysler PT did 1000 mpg at 170 mph and handled like an F1 car the thought of owning one would still make me vomit.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Wed 14 Sep 11 at 11:25
|
|
"great beauty" You've gone too far now ! :-)
|
I think the Rhodius has a very nice roofline.......but only the fastback bit.
If only they hadn't taken off the tailgate and dropped a small van in there !
Ted
|
Here is the maker or breaker.
Is this ugly or not
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edsel1000.jpg
|
>> Here is the maker or breaker.
>>
>> Is this ugly or not
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edsel1000.jpg
>>
Like tank tops and flares, it is now but it wasn't back then.
|
It was deemed ugly back then.
But is it now?
|
Ugly. A radiator grille that looked like a horse's collar. If a car should have a "face" it should be a smiley one. Smiley this is not. Described by a GM executive at its launch as "an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon", this automotive abberation was not the way Edsel Ford would have wanted to have been remembered. Car dealers would refuse to accept them as a trade in.
Fast forward forty-odd years and they now fetch big bucks as a quirky classic in a quirky classic American car world.
A strange thing, this ugly/beauty business. What was once considerd ugly is now considered quirky and charming today in classic car world. The Citroen Ami and 2CV being a case in point.
|
>>Here is the maker or breaker. Is this ugly or not en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edsel1000.jpg<<
The shape of the grill on the Edsel is said to be fashioned after a certain part of the (censored)
|
>> >>Here is the maker or breaker. Is this ugly or not en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edsel1000.jpg<<
>>
>> The shape of the grill on the Edsel is said to be fashioned after a
>> certain part of the (censored)
>>
Doomed to failure. A lot of men couldn't find the hood release... :o
|
Trying to be too clever usually ends up with the excessively fashionable of the moment, which all too soon thankfully fails in the looks dept, hence the next model and on it goes.
To my eyes apart from the misspelt Juke (Nissans present day Suzuki X90?), and no i couldn't not if Nissan paid me to drive one, the most hideous recent design is Honda's latest Accord, they managed to exaggerate every panel trying possibly to out-do present Mazda 6 which is nice looking if fashionable which means it will date quickly imo.
Can't agree with the comment that Citroens new DS3 is ugly, to me it's one of the nicest overall shapes of the current crop...spoiled to the nth degree by the ultra camp DRL's that many makers are trying too hard to please image concious buyers with...bit like the early days of rear fog lights when every idiot turned them on for 'look at me my car's got rear fog light' kudos when the first raindrop fell...hopefully we'll return to DimDip or some other sensible solution to this idea.
|
>> >> www.specsavers.co.uk/
>> Already been, so what's your excuse? ;P
Haven't got one, I'm afraid, but I've just checked and found that I've not set foot in Specsavers or any of the others for over 6 years.
Thanks, Zero - I'll arrange an appointment toot sweet.
|
|
The prerequisite for ugly is a designer called Bangle.
|
Beauty is in the eyes of beholder. So one man's ugly is another person's lovely.
Anyway, cars which I consider ugly are:
VW Beetle (even the upcoming one)
Nissan Juke (awful design)
Nissan Cube (asymmetric rear door is bad otherwise ok)
Rolls Royce (an elongated brick)
Renault Megane (obscene buttock)
Ford Ka (feels like someone smashed it)
Hummer (glad we don't see them often)
Fiat Multipla
BMW X6 (poor rear design)
Headlight cluster of most recent cars are ugly. Can't stand that feminine looking DRL of Audis.
Many modern cars are eyesore but most older traditional designs are pleasing.
|
Ever since the 'proper' bumper was removed and painted plastic was substituted, it has done nothing for a cars looks. Somehow the bumper broke up the front and gave it more character, allowing the designer to give detail to the areas above and below.
But what do I know. One of my favourite cars as a kid was the Volvo 240.
Audis these days look like the bumper is missing with that huge beaver corporate grill.
Last edited by: corax on Wed 14 Sep 11 at 19:41
|
>> that huge beaver corporate grill.
I'd never looked at it that way...
:-)
|
|
Good grief - I've led a sheltered life, mind you on a particular TV programme the other night (some dreadful voyeuristic thing) I mis-heard Vulva for Volvo and had to do a double take.
|
>>I mis-heard Vulva for Volvo and had to do a double take<<
I bet you think the G spot is an electric vehicle.
;}
|
|
That was actually mentioned as well !
|
Been pondering on this thread. Apart from Zero, I don't know that we have really responded quite as the OP hoped. (He did follow up with the comment "But come on, chaps - don't just throw in names of ugly motors; what makes them ugly? ")
This topic is a bit close to home for me, because a few years ago I needed professional help with depression which manifested itself in me making a drama out of some things which should merely have been trivial irritations. One of the main irritations was the (stupidly erroneous) feeling that the only cars that I could justify owning were all horribly plain or ugly.
I think that Zero did a very good job of explaining the objective basis how a car can look ugly because it breaks certain rules of proportion and/or ideas of normality which seem to be hard-wired into our brains. There is more scope for a deeper understanding of this. There is much reseach and commentary on pleasantness of form in architecture, and only a little bit in cars. The "three box shape" theory is one prominent example.
But we don't all have the same taste in cars, of course. In addition to objective influences, our subjective views, prejudices, and real life experiences come into play. Sometimes, when we look at a car we see more than just the object in front of us. We see a badge that we don't like, or a feature on the car that is a pet hate, or something that brings back a sad memory. Or maybe you just want to be contrary and go against the crowd.
As a result of all these extra influences, we may revise "ugly" to just "plain", or vice versa.
|
I think it rather depends on whether you "wear" your car or just use it. I know people who do fewer than 5k miles a year who have really swish cars they almost certainly just don't need but in fairness they want them and can presumably afford them so fine by me. Others I know who need/use their cars as tools/workhorses tend to be more concerned with how well and efficiently they do what they need them to do rather than what they look like.
I used to care a lot what my car looked like but now I'm much more excercised by its usefulness over its appearance. It wouldn't especially bother me to have an "ugly" car if it was simply brilliant for my needs. Of course, given a level playing field re practicality I'd still prefer something which at least looked ok but its not something I'd lose any sleep over.
|
Thanks, Londoner. You're right that most of the answers here - Zero honourably excepted - haven't given much insight into posters' personal aesthetics.
How about discussing a few specific examples? One I've been looking at recently is the Škoda Superb in hatchback form. This has a long roof to cover its capacious rear seat; it also has the clever two-way tailgate, which gives it a disproportionately short tail for such a long car. I wouldn't call it ugly but it does sacrifice some grace for function.
Curiously, the Superb estate has an even longer roof and no tail at all - and yet looks better proportioned than the hatch, so maybe it fits an expectation of how an estate ought to look.
But then, all Škoda's current estates, even the Fabia, look better than the hatches on which they're based. Now let's hear from the floor.
}:---)
|
Aha, Specific example, The Skoda Superb hatchasaloon.
Several things wrong on the rump of this
1/ The bustle/spoiler thing along the top of the boot lid, makes it look creased up and pinched.
2/ The lights, good round the rear wing/flank but then again pinched in on the actual boot lid
3/ The boot shut lines as they approach the bumper move in at a nasty angle
1 2 & 3 above all contribute to pinching in and squashing in the boot, tricking the eye into thinking the proportions are wrong. The rest of the car appears to be proportionaly excelent and follows all the good rules of line and proportion.
1 and 2 will be changed probably 3 wont because it means too much metal bashing.
The estate suffers none of those things, so it looks much better proportioned.
www.skoda.co.uk/gbr/newcars/superbestate/pages/default.aspx
Look at the front of this, see the rule about front lights not breaking the plane of the waist line? Looks superb in fact.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Sep 11 at 19:20
|
>> I'd never looked at it that way...
I do ask for it sometimes don't I?
|
What makes a car ugly? - R.P.
