GMs Homliest Car?

[CarlLaFong]

It's far better looking than the Puke

It's all in the eyes of the beholder. Sorta like arguing over who's uglier, The Elephant Man or Frankenstein's Monster.

Personally, I'd rather be seen in the Ami than the Juke, only because I've always favored the quirkier side of life. The Ami has soul, the Nisssan is a throw away car. As to which is uglier, I have to vote for the Frenchie. Additionally, I'd like to have an Aztek for the same reason. Imagine showing up, when they become eligible, at an AACA with a nice example, complete with the tent and all of the options. My cousin has one and she just got an NOS tent for it from Craigslist. She was so stoked.

[Guest Skyking]

 Additionally, I'd like to have an Aztek for the same reason. Imagine showing up, when they become eligible, at an AACA with a nice example, complete with the tent and all of the options. 

 

By then people will like them as they do now the Edsel, although I've always like the Edsel.

[Guest]

It's all in the eyes of the beholder. Sorta like arguing over who's uglier, The Elephant Man or Frankenstein's Monster.

Personally, I'd rather be seen in the Ami than the Juke, only because I've always favored the quirkier side of life. The Ami has soul, the Nisssan is a throw away car. As to which is uglier, I have to vote for the Frenchie. Additionally, I'd like to have an Aztek for the same reason. Imagine showing up, when they become eligible, at an AACA with a nice example, complete with the tent and all of the options. My cousin has one and she just got an NOS tent for it from Craigslist. She was so stoked.

 The Juke might grow on you especially when you discover that the 4 cylinder engine can get 30-35 MPG plus, drive the car up to 124 MPH and do a 92MPH quarter mile.

[Guest]

Thinking this topic over I think most of us have confused homeliness with ugliness. They are not necessarily the same thing. Plain does not mean ugly. Therefore my new pick would have to be the 1921 Olds car/truck of the Beverly Hillbillies. Now that truck looks more like a car to me than any of the SUV's mentioned if someone wants to get technical a SUV is not a car either. That aside, the image of the Clampett's driving along with everything they own hanging on that Oldsmobile is the epitome of homeliness........EXCEPT Elly May of course!

FYI, hard to believe she died this past January.

[ScarredKnightfan]

The first generation U-body vans are called the 'Dustbuster'.

 

Bingo, Craig!

 

I've also heard them referred to as "Devil vans" due to the configuration of the taillights.....

 

 

Cort www.oldcarsstronghearts.com

1979 & 1989 Caprice Classics | pigValve, paceMaker, cowValve

"Just another regret" __ All-American Rejects __ 'Dirty Little Secret'

[Hudsy Wudsy]

Thinking this topic over I think most of us have confused homeliness with ugliness. They are not necessarily the same thing. Plain does not mean ugly. Therefore my new pick would have to be the 1921 Olds car/truck of the Beverly Hillbillies. Now that truck looks more like a car to me than any of the SUV's mentioned if someone wants to get technical a SUV is not a car either. That aside, the image of the Clampett's driving along with everything they own hanging on that Oldsmobile is the epitome of homeliness........EXCEPT Elly May of course!

FYI, hard to believe she died this past January.

[/quote

helfen, there once was a discussion about how ugly, or not ugly (depending upon your point of view), the Toyota Scion was. I mentioned that I thought it was "homely/cute" (perhaps as one might describe a mutt). A surprising number of folks simply couldn't wrap their head around that concept, believing that it was too oxymoronic to have any meaning.

[8E45E]

helfen, there once was a discussion about how ugly, or not ugly (depending upon your point of view), the Toyota Scion was. I mentioned that I thought it was "homely/cute" (perhaps as one might describe a mutt). A surprising number of folks simply couldn't wrap their head around that concept, believing that it was too oxymoronic to have any meaning.

 

Cars, such as the Nissan Juke, Cube, Scion Xi are intentionally designed to appeal to those who want to make a statement, and not be reminded of their parents' car every time they get inside it.  Nissan/Renault and Toyota NEVER expect them to be 'million-sellers' and target them to that minority who actually appreciate them.  Among their targets are college/university students who want an economical car to drive everyday, while not looking like a 'mom & dad's' car.  Remember, these 'to us, 'quirky' designs were no doubt designed in Nissan and Toyota's California studios here in the good ol' USA. 

 

Craig

[Hudsy Wudsy]

Cars, such as the Nissan Juke, Cube, Scion Xi are intentionally designed to appeal to those who want to make a statement, and not be reminded of their parents' car every time they get inside it.  Nissan/Renault and Toyota NEVER expect them to be 'million-sellers' and target them to that minority who actually appreciate them.  Among their targets are college/university students who want an economical car to drive everyday, while not looking like a 'mom & dad's' car.  Remember, these 'to us, 'quirky' designs were no doubt designed in Nissan and Toyota's California studios here in the good ol' USA. 

 

Craig

That makes perfect sense to me.

[Guest]

Cars, such as the Nissan Juke, Cube, Scion Xi are intentionally designed to appeal to those who want to make a statement, and not be reminded of their parents' car every time they get inside it.  Nissan/Renault and Toyota NEVER expect them to be 'million-sellers' and target them to that minority who actually appreciate them.  Among their targets are college/university students who want an economical car to drive everyday, while not looking like a 'mom & dad's' car.  Remember, these 'to us, 'quirky' designs were no doubt designed in Nissan and Toyota's California studios here in the good ol' USA. 

 

Craig

Most of us know those facts, but we seem to be talking about cars that are off topic and that's why I thought the old Oldsmobile of Jed Clampett's is not only a GM car (which relates to the topic question as well), but the way it's dressed up is certainly the epitome of homeliness. PM me Craig if you want to know more about Juke type of decisions.

[8E45E]

Most of us know those facts, but we seem to be talking about cars that are off topic and that's why I thought the old Oldsmobile of Jed Clampett's is not only a GM car (which relates to the topic question as well), but the way it's dressed up is certainly the epitome of homeliness.

 

Then that wave of mid to late '70's GM A & B body cars 'dressed up in drag' are qualifiers to the throne of homliness.   These include, but probably not limited to, 'Custom Cloud' and Stutz derivatives.

 

Craig

[Bleach]

Then that wave of mid to late '70's GM A & B body cars 'dressed up in drag' are qualifiers to the throne of homliness.   These include, but probably not limited to, 'Custom Cloud' and Stutz derivatives.

 

Craig

 

This proves you can always make something ugly even uglier.

Btw, it seems the overwhelming consensus that the Aztek is by far the ugliest thing on wheels to come out of a factory. The Aztek comes up in almost every search of ugly cars on the internet.

[Guest prs519]

I must be missing something here. GM's Cadillac division pulled the very meaning of butt-ugly out of their hats when they offered that Biarritz which looked like a large picnic ant pulling an injured rear segment along behind it.  In my opinion, it wins the poll here. I have seen this car dressed up with wire wheels and continental kits in order to try to make it more attractive.  The effort pretty much failed, substituting cheap glitz for bad design. Perry

[Hudsy Wudsy]

When I started this thread, I chose to use the word "homely" and not "ugly". It's funny to me, though, that so many guys simply can't differentiate between the two words. Personally, I think the Aztec is ugly, but it's just my opinion. I also think that the '42 Olds, especially in any two door version, is particularly handsome, despite it's laughable front end. Many of those '40s GM bodies have always struck me as quite beautiful. After all, the front end is really just one aspect of it, so I wouldn't let that amusing design mistake keep me from owning one.

From Google:

http://www.rmauctions.com/images/cars/AZ08/AZ08_r153_1.jpg

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4043/4452893097_be146889e8_z.jpg

[Guest Skyking]

 The Juke might grow on you especially when you discover that the 4 cylinder engine can get 30-35 MPG plus, drive the car up to 124 MPH and do a 92MPH quarter mile.

 

 

I can't see how that changes the looks....................

[Guest Skyking]

When I started this thread, I chose to use the word "homely" and not "ugly". It's funny to me, though, that so many guys simply can't differentiate between the two words. 

 

 

Is there a difference between a homely girl and an ugly girl?

[Bleach]

Is there a difference between a homely girl and an ugly girl?

 

On date night they both stay at home so it must mean the same thing.

[Bleach]

I can't see how that changes the looks....................

 

It's still ugly and there's nothing that will make want to drive one.

I'd rather drive a good looking car that gets poor gas mileage than one that's ugly and performs well.

Something so ugly will only grow on me like a wart except the wart still seems more attractive and won't cost $30K.

[Hudsy Wudsy]

Is there a difference between a homely girl and an ugly girl?

Of course there is. Anyone who doesn't see the difference between the two adjectives, homely and ugly, has a vocabulary that is sorely lacking any nuance whatsoever.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)

[Bleach]

home·ly

ˈhōmlē/

adjective

adjective: homely; comparative adjective: homelier; superlative adjective: homeliest

1. 
   
   
   

   
   

   1.

   
   

   
   

   
   

   North American

   
   

   (of a person) unattractive in appearance.

   
   

   
   
   synonyms:
   
   unattractive, plain, unprepossessing, unlovely, ill-favored, ugly;
   

   
   

   
   

   informalnot much to look at

   
   

   "she's rather homely"

   
   

   
   

   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   antonyms:
   
   attractive
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   
   
   
   
2. 
   
   
   

   
   

   2.

   
   

   
   

   
   

   British

   
   

   (of a place or surroundings) simple but cozy and comfortable, as in one's own home.

   
   

   "a modern hotel with a homely atmosphere"

   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   
   
   
   

[Guest]

Of course there is. Anyone who doesn't see the difference between the two adjectives, homely and ugly, has a vocabulary that is sorely lacking any nuance whatsoever.

I guess they don't get it.

Ugly;unattractive, unappealing, unpleasant, hideous, unlovely, unprepossessing, unsightly, horrible, frightful, awful, ghastly, vile, revolting, repellent, repulsive, repugnant;

Plain; simple, ordinary, unadorned, unembellished, unornamented, unostentatious, unfussy, basic, modest, unsophisticated, without frills, homespun, this is where the homely comes from.

Edited May 18, 2015 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest]

Possibly this will help;

homely

English

Alternative forms

* (l) (Scotland)

Adjective

(en-adj) • Characteristic of or belonging to home; domestic.

• On intimate or friendly terms with (someone); familiar; at home (with a person); intimate.

• Domestic; tame.

• Personal; private.

• Friendly; kind; gracious; cordial.

• Simple; plain; familiar; unelaborate; unadorned.

•* 2001 , Sydney I. Landau, Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography , Cambridge University Press (ISBN 0-521-78512-X), page 167,

There is no simple way to define precisely a complex arrangement of parts, however homely the object may appear to be. • (US) Lacking in beauty or elegance, plain in appearance, physically unattractive.

• (Southern Asia) Proficient in skills needed to maintain a home (see homemaker).

ugly

English

Alternative forms

* (l) (obsolete)

Adjective

(en-adj) • Displeasing to the eye; not aesthetically pleasing.

• Displeasing to the ear or some other sense.

• Offensive]] to one's [[sensibility|sensibilities or morality.

He played an ugly trick on us.

Related terms

* (l)

Synonyms

* (displeasing to the eye) hideous, homely, repulsive, unattractive, uncomely, unsightly * (displeasing to the ear or some other sense) displeasing, repulsive, unattractive * (sense, offensive to one's sensibilities or morality) corrupt, immoral, vile * See also

Antonyms

* (displeasing to the eye) attractive, beautiful, gorgeous, handsome, pretty, sightly * (displeasing to the ear or some other sense) attractive, pleasing * (sense, offensive to one's sensibilities or morality) moral

Derived terms

* uggo * ugly duckling * uglification * uglify

Noun

(en-noun) • (slang|uncountable) Ugliness.

•* 2009 : (Lady Gaga) and (RedOne), "(Bad Romance)":

I want your ugly / I want your disease. • (slang) An ugly person or thing.

• (UK|informal|dated) A shade for the face, projecting from a bonnet.

(Charles Kingsley)

[Hudsy Wudsy]

Wow, helfen, if all that doesn't drive the difference home, surely nothing will.

[Guest]

Wow, helfen, if all that doesn't drive the difference home, surely nothing will.

Well hard to say if it will, there is still the other problem of going off the topic of GM cars to other brands.

[Guest Skyking]

It's sad how simple things in life keep getting difficult...................

[Larry W]

I don't share everyone's opinion about the Aztec. While I can't say its pretty by any means, IMO its certainly is not GM's ugliest. There are several others which far surpass. Which ones? Most every of the early 1980s X cars for five. Mom & dad each had Omega sedans (ugh!). Dad's business used several more Omegas, one Skylark and an anemic Phoenix fastback. No Citations or Cimmarons. Whew! Speaking of ugly fastbacks, what about the 1979 Cutlass Salon. Eeew!!!

The interesting thing about Aztecs, if you were to put them alongside several of the current models crossovers, foreign and domestic, they share a lot of the similar styling features.

271049.attach

. I must beg to differ! My '83 Olds Omega 2door coupe was considered extremely sharp looking and I received many compliments on it, with it's tu-tone burgundy and beige paint, rally wheels, bucket seats, and sport steering wheel it was quite the looker. Edited May 18, 2015 by Larry W (see edit history)

[Hudsy Wudsy]

Larry W, I agree completely. I remember how very popular Omegas, Chevy Citations and the other (Buick and Pontiac) X body cars were in their day. I hope I'm correct in recalling their being called X bodies, but my memory fails me some these days.

[Guest]

. I must beg to differ! My '83 Olds Omega 2door coupe was considered extremely sharp looking and I received many compliments on it, with it's tu-tone burgundy and beige paint, rally wheels, bucket seats, and sport steering wheel it was quite the looker.

 

Larry, I agree with you and Hudsy Wudsy. Also for some reason GM called two different generations of cars "X" cars. I have a 1976 Omega brougham and it's a X car. My car;

[Guest]

There was a chap who began a thread here on the General section concerning a 1980 Buick Skylark Limited asking for advise on the car. It was beautiful. Silver exterior and deep red interior.

1980 Buick Skylark WITH PICTURES

http://forums.aaca.org/topic/179637-1980-buick-skylark-with-pictures/?hl=%2Bbuick+%2Bskylark#

Edited May 18, 2015 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest]

 My July 2015 issue of Hemmings classic car magazine came today in the mail. You guessed it, a 1942 Oldsmobile as one of the feature cars!

Hudsey Wudsy, you timed this topic perfectly! 

[8E45E]

It's sad how simple things in life keep getting difficult...................

 

Blame GM for making it difficult!!

 

In the 1950's there were 5 distinct divisions, each catering to a certain segment of the market as per Alfred Sloan's marketing strategy.  Then came the seventies and eighties when Chevrolet moved upmarket and Cadillac moved downmarket with the other three divisions in between, compounded with identical engines and small exterior & interior differences and totally muddying the waters between the five divisions.  Then came Saturn in the '90's which not only stole sales from existing divisions, but also created animosity within the ranks, and did not accomplish its goal of sending Toyota back to Japan.  Before 2009, GM was spread much too thin, and spent way more money propping up their various 'independent' divisions when the funds should have been allotted to R&D work to make cars that competed with the rest of the world. 

 

Well before the 2009 bankruptcy, I mentioned it should have been every GM executive's homework assignment to do a case study on BMC/British Leyland/Rover Group and analyze why their market share plummeted from a healthy 40% of their home market (and an extensive global sales network), to .02 % of the British market when they claimed "Insolvency" in 2005, and learn from it.

Craig

Edited May 20, 2015 by 8E45E (see edit history)

[rocketraider]

It's what happens when you listen to MBAs and consultants who have way more education than either common or business sense, and who can't fathom that you can sell the same product under different names for only so long before folks catch on...

[Guest]

Blame GM for making it difficult!!

 

In the 1950's there were 5 distinct divisions, each catering to a certain segment of the market as per Alfred Sloan's marketing strategy.  Then came the seventies and eighties when Chevrolet moved upmarket and Cadillac moved downmarket with the other three divisions in between, compounded with identical engines and small exterior & interior differences and totally muddying the waters between the five divisions.  Then came Saturn in the '90's which not only stole sales from existing divisions, but also created animosity within the ranks, and did not accomplish its goal of sending Toyota back to Japan.  Before 2009, GM was spread much too thin, and spent way more money propping up their various 'independent' divisions when the funds should have been allotted to R&D work to make cars that competed with the rest of the world. 

 

Well before the 2009 bankruptcy, I mentioned it should have been every GM executive's homework assignment to do a case study on BMC/British Leyland/Rover Group and analyze why their market share plummeted from a healthy 40% of there home market (and an extensive global sales network), to .02 % of the British market when they claimed "Insolvency" in 2005, and learn from it.

Craig

The problem with Chevrolet actually started in the mid sixties. It was only natural for Chevrolet to respond to it's main competitor Ford. Ford LTD required a response from Chevrolet and so the Caprice was born. Caprice, when optioned a certain way had almost everything you could get in a Cadillac-at a much lower price sans automatic climate control and a few other things. Remember earlier in the thread I mentioned about how Harely Earl designed all it's divisions to have some resemblance to Cadillac or Buick? 1939 Chevrolet= 1939-40 Cadillac known as the baby Cadillac or 1940 Buick= 1940 Chevrolet or known as the baby Buick. Just look at the front end of a 1970 Chevrolet, that car says Cadillac. 

The similarity of brand image, and the constant trying to out feature your competition were leaders of this trajectory. However I must admit a 1939 or 1940 Chevrolet considering the styling and the quality of fit and finish with all the chrome on the special deluxe models was a GREAT value for the money. They certainly looked like they would cost more. At that time those cars had the look, but were smaller than Cadillac ( "A" body vs. mostly "C" body) and with only a six cylinder made enough of a difference to keep them apart in the corporation. The beginnings of this upscale out of your place in the corporation is most evident with 1940-41 Pontiac which used the "A" body with Chevrolet and the small Oldsmobile, the "B" body with Buick and  Oldsmobile, and the "C" body from Cadillac. This only lasted for two years and was taken away from Pontiac for 1942 because it didn't fit Sloan's formula for each division having a niche. 

 As far as Saturn goes, it was never known as a Japanese car fighter. By the late 70's ( in planning ) and in reality by the mid 80's the big three Japanese automakers were never going back to Japan, first because they were global corporations and by the mid 80's were in the U.S.A. manufacturing, had their own product planning departments, marketing department's. Design didn't come until the 90's, but engineering was here from the mid 60's. They were never going away. Their formula was a simple adaptation to the formula Ford and GM had used in the 20's and 30's in Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia.  

Edited May 19, 2015 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest Skyking]

But Don,  even you'll have to admit the Japenese would have never taken over the market in this country if it weren't for our government helping them do it, and (I'll always say) that each and every congressman profited big from it!  Nothing will ever change my mind on that.  Now it's out of control.

[Rusty_OToole]

But Don,  even you'll have to admit the Japenese would have never taken over the market in this country if it weren't for our government helping them do it, and (I'll always say) that each and every congressman profited big from it!  Nothing will ever change my mind on that.  Now it's out of control.

What is really sad is the government did not get paid for destroying the auto industry. They did it for nothing.

[Guest Skyking]

What is really sad is the government did not get paid for destroying the auto industry. They did it for nothing.

 

 

Rusty, keep in mind, we do pay them, and very well as a matter of fact.

[Guest]

But Don,  even you'll have to admit the Japenese would have never taken over the market in this country if it weren't for our government helping them do it, and (I'll always say) that each and every congressman profited big from it!  Nothing will ever change my mind on that.  Now it's out of control.

 Sorry to all as we are drifting off topic, however cars from Japan and Germany in the late 60's and 70's took over niche markets because they made better quality cars. Since I am the original owner of the Olds Omega in the above thread # 107, I can tell you all the things that was wrong with my car before delivery and can still show you some of those faults. I can speak for one of those Japanese companies because I worked for one of them and that if a car came like my Olds did to me it would have been a miracle. First, the car would have never got past the factory doors, if it did it would have never got past the port distribution facility where repairs would have been made, and if somehow it slipped by that line of defense the dealer would have corrected it before I got to it. As far as the U.S. government is concerned, all imports were threatened with high tariffs which led to factories being built here with I think VW being the first in 1978, quite unlike some U.S. automakers who could not compete who bought into German and Japanese companies, used their rebadged vehicles and did nothing for American workers and produced competitive cars in those respective countries to be sold here, the majority of those cars were built in Japan. 

Like I said before, this was all learned before from American companies and with the help of our government in Europe, all of the United Kingdom which includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India ( at that time period), South Africa. Southeast Asia, and Latin America.

[ScarredKnightfan]

 

Ohhhh ... nice!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Cort www.oldcarsstronghearts.com

1979 & 1989 Caprice Classics | pigValve, paceMaker, cowValve

"Every song, another scene" __ Dierks Bently __ 'Every Mile A Memory'

[8E45E]

The problem with Chevrolet actually started in the mid sixties. It was only natural for Chevrolet to respond to it's main competitor Ford. Ford LTD required a response from Chevrolet and so the Caprice was born. Caprice, when optioned a certain way had almost everything you could get in a Cadillac-at a much lower price sans automatic climate control and a few other things.

The Caprice line was not the real problem at first, as it was a 'much lower price' than Cadillac, and their unique, individual designs could be identified a block away.  When the redesigned 1977 B & C line came out, it was panel sharing to the extreme.  Even the doors interchanged between the cars with only the front & rear ends, side trim and the dashboards differentiating each five marques for the most part.  True, they sold extremely well at first, but sales started to wane, especially once it was revealed engines were shared between the various divisions after that famous lawsuit where a Cadillac owner found out he had a Chevrolet engine.  GM thought they could fool the public as they also repeated the extreme body-sharing exercise again with the J-bodies and the fwd A-bodies in the early 1980's.  This is where GM could have learned a LOT from British Leyland then, notably the 'Farina body' line of cars which was sold under SIX different nameplates, and would actually correspond with GM's top-to-bottom lineup for price & prestige, (Austin=Chevrolet; Canadian Pontiac=Morris; US Pontiac=MG Magnette; Oldsmobile=Riley; Buick=Wolseley; Vanden Plas=Cadillac).  The Farina line sold well in the 1960's, but the traditionalists despised them as they were much too 'corporate'; especially the MG and Riley fans.   It was the start of BMC/BL;s downfall, and today, only the MG name, and the Vanden Plas designation as a Jaguar trim level lives on. 

 

Craig

[R.White]

" The '42 Olds that you don't seem to like is very right up to the minute pre WW2." 

Terry Wiegand

South Hutchinson, Kansas

 

Careful !  

 

[Guest]

The Caprice line was not the real problem at first, as it was a 'much lower price' than Cadillac, and their unique, individual designs could be identified a block away.  When the redesigned 1977 B & C line came out, it was panel sharing to the extreme.  Even the doors interchanged between the cars with only the front & rear ends, side trim and the dashboards differentiating each five marques for the most part.  True, they sold extremely well at first, but sales started to wane, especially once it was revealed engines were shared between the various divisions after that famous lawsuit where a Cadillac owner found out he had a Chevrolet engine.  GM thought they could fool the public as they also repeated the extreme body-sharing exercise again with the J-bodies and the fwd A-bodies in the early 1980's.  This is where GM could have learned a LOT from British Leyland then, notably the 'Farina body' line of cars which was sold under SIX different nameplates, and would actually correspond with GM's top-to-bottom lineup for price & prestige, (Austin=Chevrolet; Canadian Pontiac=Morris; US Pontiac=MG Magnette; Oldsmobile=Riley; Buick=Wolseley; Vanden Plas=Cadillac).  The Farina line sold well in the 1960's, but the traditionalists despised them as they were much too 'corporate'; especially the MG and Riley fans.   It was the start of BMC/BL;s downfall, and today, only the MG name, and the Vanden Plas designation as a Jaguar trim level lives on. 

 

Craig

Caprice IS the first scale successful attempt to take Chevrolet into the higher price market even though it is not a "C" body car. As far as the law suit regarding GM it was not Cadillac owners, it was Oldsmobile owners in the mid 70's who discovered Oldsmobile Rocket engine decals on a small block Chevy in their new Oldsmobiles. Those lawsuits are well documented. I don't remember ever hearing Cadillac owners in 1975 getting upset about 350 Oldsmobiles being put in their Sevilles. 

1977 full size Cadillac shares no sheet metal with 1977 full size Chevrolet, also 1975-1979 Seville, while based on Nova, shares no sheet metal with Nova.