GMs Homliest Car?

[Guest Skyking]

If you want to see ugly cars, just look in today's showrooms. I'll stop there!

[John_S_in_Penna]

 ...Please, guys, lets not start this all over again...

 

Mr. Wudsy, this is an interesting thread, especially as posters

think beyond the 1942 Oldsmobile and Pontiac Aztek.  I'm sure that

professional stylists think about the good, the bad, and the ugly

all the time, learning from successes and mistakes in the past.

 

For many years, even in the 1980's, automotive writers wrote that the

1958 GM cars (especially Buick, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac)

represented a "low point" in GM styling.  I'll agree in part,

particularly with the '58 Cadillac Fleetwood and high-line '58 Oldsmobiles;

but now these cars are being appreciated more, as

defining cars of their era.  Here's the '58 Cadillac Fleetwood:

Edited February 24, 2016 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[John348]

"and I'm a Chev guy too but it's the '59's that trip my trigger....... 

 

I agree the 59 and 60's really do it for me, myself partial to the 1960

[John_S_in_Penna]

Wow!  This thread has had 162 replies so far,

and over 6000 viewings.  It's obviously a popular

and thought-provoking topic.

 

We've tended to think of GM cars from the 1940's onward,

since those are the models we're most familiar with.

But if you asked this same question 50 or 75 years ago,

I'll bet there would be entirely different answers.

 

Someone might critique the "pregnant" 1929 Buick,

whose sides bulged out rather awkwardly, making the

body seem a bit bloated.  Seeing pictures,

I never understood, until I saw one in person.

[Bleach]

If you want to see ugly cars, just look in today's showrooms. I'll stop there!

X2.

[Dandy Dave]

X3. Yep. They sur nuf don't make em Sexy like a 1915 C-36 Buick roadster any more.   Dandy Dave! 

 

X2.

 

 

If you want to see ugly cars, just look in today's showrooms. I'll stop there!

[John Byrd]

  OK, disclaimer first, I like the looks of most Oldsmobile's, and absolutely love the 64 to 67 Cutlass series.  But then, this Cutlass came along !  Looks like the only decent looking parts on it are already gone.....  sorry if anyone is offended, but you can "get me back" easily as I drive an old Anglia, ha !

[padgett]

I always liked the '58 Caddy tailfins/lights better than the '57s

[Guest Yolanda Lefebvre]

Very nice cars.  I wanna have one of those vintage cars!

[Guest]

I always liked the '58 Caddy tailfins/lights better than the '57s

I like them both, but the 57 has fins more restrained rear fins and are canted forward. The headlamps are the single type and don't crowd the front fender. The "A" pillar is canted back past 90 degrees and rear "C" pillar are Items that will show up on 1958 Chevrolet and Pontiac. 

No homely car here;

[cheezestaak2000]

theaztek wins by a nose over everything with a saturn nameplate on it. but pretty much auto vstyling kinda stopped, and everybody tried to make thier version of the 1986 ford taurus

[CarFreak]

Curious if at least some of the responders indicated Aztek is ugliest because that's what the mass media wants them to say.  IMO, there have been many fuglier vehicles through the years including most Honda, Datsun, Nissan, VW vehicles, Maverick, Pinto, the hatchback 79-80 Cutlass, 74ish era Nova & Olds Omega, GM X-body cars, most of the cars from late 1980s of the Big 3, fox-body Rustangs, I could go on and on.  None of these appeal to me at all. 

 

On the other hand, I'm of the other believe, the Aztek is unusual and has its own appeal. I like Pontiacs and that is definitely a Pontiac front end. 

 

FWIW, Aztecs actually have a cult following - vehicles in good condition, prices would amaze you $$$.  Particularly sought after are the sport models and specific colors.  So much that an article last year in FORTUNE magazine discussed the situation:   http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/10-used-cars-millennials-buy/   

 

And if you ever took the time to speak with an owner, you'd find they really like their Azteks - good visibility, good mpg, many useful options & standard features. Last year my early 30s son mentioned out of the blue that if he didn't already have several vehicles, he'd like to own an Aztec.  He's got his eye on grandma's late 1980s F/S Olds wagon first though. 

 

 

 

The only problem is that a lot of people bought Azteks, loved them, and are still proudly driving them today.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” says Rhyno. “People where I work drive Honda Elements, which I think are pretty ugly.” Still, he says, “Nothing draws the fire like the Aztek.”

Edited February 28, 2016 by CarFreak (see edit history)

[padgett]

Have always said the Aztek is more confused than ugly as if parts of three different cars were stacked together and then what started ass a sedan was extended into a fastback.

 

Functionally, any moisture on the rear window and you can't see out the back. Inside was pleasant but GM cheap. The Buick Rendevous on the same platform was a much more pleasing design that  was much more integrated. It flowed where the Aztec hit jarring stops.

 

Conventional turn signals and removing the 71-72 GTO snorkels would help.

[Guest]

Curious if at least some of the responders indicated Aztek is ugliest because that's what the mass media wants them to say.  IMO, there have been many fuglier vehicles through the years including most Honda, Datsun, Nissan, VW vehicles, Maverick, Pinto, the hatchback 79-80 Cutlass, 74ish era Nova & Olds Omega, GM X-body cars, most of the cars from late 1980s of the Big 3, fox-body Rustangs, I could go on and on.  None of these appeal to me at all. 

 

On the other hand, I'm of the other believe, the Aztek is unusual and has its own appeal. I like Pontiacs and that is definitely a Pontiac front end. 

 

FWIW, Aztecs actually have a cult following - vehicles in good condition, prices would amaze you $$$.  Particularly sought after are the sport models and specific colors.  So much that an article last year in FORTUNE magazine discussed the situation:   http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/10-used-cars-millennials-buy/   

 

And if you ever took the time to speak with an owner, you'd find they really like their Azteks - good visibility, good mpg, many useful options & standard features. Last year my early 30s son mentioned out of the blue that if he didn't already have several vehicles, he'd like to own an Aztec.  He's got his eye on grandma's late 1980s F/S Olds wagon first though. 

 Matter of opinion. Frugly , hardly a appropriate acronym to use on this forum,  anyroad in my opinion this is hardly frugly;

[John348]

I think right up there with the Aztec was the Lumina APV that was pretty bad, don't forget the Cadillac Cimmaron another vehicle in search of an identity. The Monte Carlo Aero Coupes were on the ugly side to me. The Cadillac Escalade's picked up where the Cimmaron left off, just seems (to me anyway) that it is nothing more then a Yukon or a Yukon XL with some bolt on plastic trim for 20K more. I was at the Cadillac dealer in the fall getting some service done on my CTS and he was asking 10K over the window sticker for the new ones that just came in, bringing the cost to over six figures. The Cadillac pick-up (far from a) truck was pretty ugly also. The Chevrolet Avalanche was another truck with no purpose, I rarely ever saw one in NY but they are common here in Florida and all of the black plastic body treatment is turning to grey chalk from the UV light.

What about the Citations.......UGLY!!!! That was another car that just vanished off the planet. I have not seen one of them in 25 years 

Edited February 28, 2016 by John348 (see edit history)

[Guest]

I think right up there with the Aztec was the Lumina APV that was pretty bad, don't forget the Cadillac Cimmaron another vehicle in search of an identity. The Monte Carlo Aero Coupes were on the ugly side to me. The Cadillac Escalade's picked up where the Cimmaron left off, just seems (to me anyway) that it is nothing more then a Yukon or a Yukon XL with some bolt on plastic trim for 20K more. I was at the Cadillac dealer in the fall getting some service done on my CTS and he was asking 10K over the window sticker for the new ones that just came in, bringing the cost to over six figures. The Cadillac pick-up (far from a) truck was pretty ugly also. The Chevrolet Avalanche was another truck with no purpose, I rarely ever saw one in NY but they are common here in Florida and all of the black plastic body treatment is turning to grey chalk from the UV light.

What about the Citations.......UGLY!!!! That was another car that just vanished off the planet. I have not seen one of them in 25 years 

 Don't like that hey. As for most cars it depends on how they are done up;

[Bleach]

Curious if at least some of the responders indicated Aztek is ugliest because that's what the mass media wants them to say.  IMO, there have been many fuglier vehicles through the years including most Honda, Datsun, Nissan, VW vehicles, Maverick, Pinto, the hatchback 79-80 Cutlass, 74ish era Nova & Olds Omega, GM X-body cars, most of the cars from late 1980s of the Big 3, fox-body Rustangs, I could go on and on.  None of these appeal to me at all. 

 

On the other hand, I'm of the other believe, the Aztek is unusual and has its own appeal. I like Pontiacs and that is definitely a Pontiac front end. 

 

FWIW, Aztecs actually have a cult following - vehicles in good condition, prices would amaze you $$$.  Particularly sought after are the sport models and specific colors.  So much that an article last year in FORTUNE magazine discussed the situation:   http://fortune.com/2015/09/09/10-used-cars-millennials-buy/   

 

And if you ever took the time to speak with an owner, you'd find they really like their Azteks - good visibility, good mpg, many useful options & standard features. Last year my early 30s son mentioned out of the blue that if he didn't already have several vehicles, he'd like to own an Aztec.  He's got his eye on grandma's late 1980s F/S Olds wagon first though. 

 

I don't think the Maverick was such a bad looking car. It had a somewhat sporty appearance and was a very good daily driver.

[John348]

 _{Don't like that hey. As for most cars it depends on how they are done up;}

 

_{Very true, but again this is a very subjective subject, We need to remember somebody bought all of these cars new. My grandfather used to buy the ugliest color cars on purpose. He lived in 'Da' Bronx and felt nobody would steal a car with an ugly color. I understand it, but.... it is a horrible way to have to live} 

[John348]

I don't think the Maverick was such a bad looking car. It had a somewhat sporty appearance and was a very good daily driver.

The thread is "GM's ugliest car" easy misake

Edited February 28, 2016 by John348 (see edit history)

[Bleach]

I'd rather have an Aztek than one of these atrocious things that Chevy currently offers.

The Aztec looks good compared to this rolling wart.

[John_S_in_Penna]

I'd rather have an Aztek than one of these atrocious things that Chevy currently offers.

The Aztec looks good compared to this rolling wart.

 

Good point, Mr. Bleach.  And you have a way with words!

 

Whatever happened to grace in styling?

Even small cars don't have to be angular and deformed

to fit people into their small package.

[Bleach]

It seems that aerodynamics is dictating designs these days. Unfortunately most of them look like they're mimicking turbulence.

[Guest]

I don't think the Maverick was such a bad looking car. It had a somewhat sporty appearance and was a very good daily driver.

 X2 !

[padgett]

More government at work, they all have that pedestrian diverter bar now. At least the Chevvy design flows in kind or a stretch Smart car look, Aztek front end kept changing direction.

[Paul Dobbin]

John_S_Penn said,

"For many years, even in the 1980's, automotive writers wrote that the

1958 GM cars (especially Buick, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac)

represented a "low point" in GM styling.  I'll agree in part,

particularly with the '58 Cadillac Fleetwood and high-line '58 Oldsmobiles;

but now these cars are being appreciated more, as

defining cars of their era.  Here's the '58 Cadillac Fleetwood":

 

Automotive writers are not always correct.  Today I saw a 1958 Cadillac Sedan DeVille 4 door hardtop in gun metal grey with only 22,000 miles.  It was all original and nicely buffed out!  WOW! spectacular! The new owner was waiting for the truck to come pick it up.  That paint and all that chrome glistening in the Florida sun was awsome.

Now my wife wants one.  That's so unusual, I think I'll have to look for one..  

Edited February 28, 2016 by Paul Dobbin (see edit history)

[Curti]

You are RIGHT Bleach ! That thing is uglier

[Bleach]

Curti, I looked and looked an I couldn't anything uglier from GM. However, there were even uglier things made by other automakers.

[Guest]

John_S_Penn said,

"For many years, even in the 1980's, automotive writers wrote that the

1958 GM cars (especially Buick, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac)

represented a "low point" in GM styling.  I'll agree in part,

particularly with the '58 Cadillac Fleetwood and high-line '58 Oldsmobiles;

but now these cars are being appreciated more, as

defining cars of their era.  Here's the '58 Cadillac Fleetwood":

 

Automotive writers are not always correct.  Today I saw a 1958 Cadillac Sedan DeVille 4 door hardtop in gun metal grey with only 22,000 miles.  It was all original and nicely buffed out!  WOW! spectacular! The new owner was waiting for the truck to come pick it up.  That paint and all that chrome glistening in the Florida sun was awsome.

Now my wife wants one.  That's so unusual, I think I'll have to look for one..  

Yes, and here is one that's getting very high dollar. One that I can't figure out and for the 40's wins the title of the subject here.  

 

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest]

Look at these 1942's. This car seems to have lost the identity of a Oldsmobile.

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/oldsmobile-cars-3.jpg

And this as a Pontiac;

http://149.255.34.50/listimg/img1_0815/10/img_x3FUHAZpjB.jpg

Edited February 29, 2016 by helfen (see edit history)

[Bleach]

I never thought Tuckers were ugly even when they weren't worth the big bucks they are now.

The 42 Olds and Pontiac look similar but really don't look that bad to me. GM's of the 80's were a lot more similar.

[Guest]

It seems that aerodynamics is dictating designs these days. Unfortunately most of them look like they're mimicking turbulence.

Boy, you got that right! And how about those days !

http://s3.amazonaws.com/convo-production/images/3154/huge.jpg?1291270149

Another car born from the wind tunnel;

http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Airflow/1934_Chrysler_Airflow_2d_sVr.jpg

another; http://images.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/525654.jpg

the car above led to this;

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbCmZfwpvIkWyCh0KKkpKQhyPDxurUuycxBMC3pYHvXFcU0y1-ug

How about this SAAB 92 of 1948;

http://cartype.com/pics/7297/full/saab_92_wind-tunnel_47.jpg

Edited February 29, 2016 by helfen (see edit history)

[John348]

Yes, and here is one that's getting very high dollar. One that I can't figure out and for the 40's wins the title of the subject here.  

 

 

GM???????

[Guest]

GM???????

John I put it there because of Bleach's comment;

" Curti, I looked and looked an I couldn't anything uglier from GM. However, there were even uglier things made by other automakers."

And I put those 30's & 40's cars that were designed by the wind tunnel because of this comment;

" Bleach, on 28 Feb 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

It seems that aerodynamics is dictating designs these days. Unfortunately most of them look like they're mimicking turbulence. "

[Bleach]

This is the worlds ugliest non-GM car according to many opinions. I agree. I'm glad it's not available in the US. It would make me "car sick" for sure.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Bleach (see edit history)

[John348]

I saw today a Buick Rendezvous and that was butt ugly

Edited March 1, 2016 by John348 (see edit history)

[CarFreak]

 Matter of opinion. Frugly , hardly a appropriate acronym to use on this forum,  anyroad in my opinion this is hardly frugly;

I said HATCHBACK, meaning this thing not the Notchback Coupe you posted. 

[John_S_in_Penna]

I said HATCHBACK, meaning this thing not the Notchback Coupe you posted. 

 

I actually LIKE those fastback Cutlasses of 1978 and onward,

especially the fastback coupes.  But then again, I appreciate

the cars that aren't popular.   The brown example pictured doesn't

make that style look especially good, but some are really nice looking.

Since they didn't sell well when new, however, they are quite rare today.

I challenge you to find a nice one for sale!

 

Obviously the buyers at the time didn't agree with my taste...

Edited March 1, 2016 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[Guest]

I said HATCHBACK, meaning this thing not the Notchback Coupe you posted.

Sorry I didn't add. Incidentally I like the car and the owner of this one seems quite happy. I'm sure you wouldn't want to spoil his day would you? Hardly homely though.

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt336/SteveCurry/79%20Hurst%20Olds/78442grille_zpsd82309f4.jpg

Edited March 1, 2016 by helfen (see edit history)

[Bleach]

Indecently Helfen? I'm sure you meant incidentally.

[Hudsy Wudsy]

Indecently Helfen? I'm sure you meant incidentally.

Wouldn't Freud have fun with that.