risdo
Posted: 03 September 2008 09:38 AM
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 3931
Joined
Oh, and I agree with Mr DB: the poor little Bugeye Sprite should never have been on that list.
Signature:
Ego is the anesthetic for the pain of stupidity.
fyreline
Posted: 03 September 2008 10:58 AM
Speed Freak
Total Posts: 486
Joined
Let's remember that these cars should be at least partially judged in the context of their own time; most 1958 and 1959 American cars were not considered ugly at the time they were produced. The 1959 Cadillac was considered a work of art when it was new. Today, it's largely admired for it's "too much is never enough" hubris. Likewise the Virgil Exner designs . . . viewed against their contemporaries, they are no worse than most and better than many. Some designs age gracefully, some don't. Cars such as the Avanti were considered beautiful by many, and abysmal by others. It's largely a matter of taste (or the lack of it). Cars such as the E-Type Jaguar, the 300SL Gullwing, or classic Duesenbergs and Mercedes were rightly considered masterpieces when they were new, and time has not diminished that fact. Sure, the mark of a true classic beauty is timeless design . . . and cars such as the Pontiac Aztek were undeniably ugly even as they rolled off the production line. For a challenge, try to think of a car that wasn't especially admired or considered good-looking when it was new, but is now. There aren't many.
boffam
Posted: 03 September 2008 11:17 AM
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 2394
Joined
fyreline - 03 September 2008 10:58 AM
Let's remember that these cars should be at least partially judged in the context of their own time; most 1958 and 1959 American cars were not considered ugly at the time they were produced. The 1959 Cadillac was considered a work of art when it was new. Today, it's largely admired for it's "too much is never enough" hubris. Likewise the Virgil Exner designs . . . viewed against their contemporaries, they are no worse than most and better than many. Some designs age gracefully, some don't. Cars such as the Avanti were considered beautiful by many, and abysmal by others. It's largely a matter of taste (or the lack of it). Cars such as the E-Type Jaguar, the 300SL Gullwing, or classic Duesenbergs and Mercedes were rightly considered masterpieces when they were new, and time has not diminished that fact. Sure, the mark of a true classic beauty is timeless design . . . and cars such as the Pontiac Aztek were undeniably ugly even as they rolled off the production line. For a challenge, try to think of a car that wasn't especially admired or considered good-looking when it was new, but is now. There aren't many.
275 GTB?
Signature:
Originally Posted by Rootski:
Every time you buy an automatic, Jesus kills a baby seal. With a kitten.
fyreline
Posted: 03 September 2008 12:17 PM
Speed Freak
Total Posts: 486
Joined
The Ferrari 275 GTB "wasn't especially admired or considered good-looking when it was new, but is now" ?
Wow, that's harsh. It isn't my favorite Ferrari either, and nearly all early Ferraris are more treasured now than they originally were - but I think it would be hard to make a case that the car wasn't pretty highly thought of from day one.
Mr. dB
Posted: 03 September 2008 12:42 PM
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 2339
Joined
The Plymouth Prowler surely deserved a slot on this list.
And the 1960 Valiant/Lancer.
fyreline
Posted: 03 September 2008 08:08 PM
Speed Freak
Total Posts: 486
Joined
OK, how did my reply to the post BELOW this one get in ahead of it? Oh well - computer gremlins, no doubt.
Not a bad example, but the 1983 Thunderbird actually previewed the "Aero Look" that the 1986 Taurus featured. I certainly agree that Ford styling took a real chance with that whole theme, but hit a solid triple if not a home run. As you say, they set the trend for the next ten years. I recall when that '83 T-Bird first came out, it was pretty well liked by the press and the public alike. I believe the original Taurus was as well.
McMike
Posted: 04 September 2008 07:15 AM
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 1194
Joined
fyreline - 03 September 2008 10:58 AM
For a challenge, try to think of a car that wasn't especially admired or considered good-looking when it was new, but is now. There aren't many.
First gen Taurus? People gasped when they saw it, thinking it was just terrible looking. Little did we know that everything in the next 10 years would start looking like a half-melted block of ice.
Was it good looking then or now, no. I do, however, admire Ford for taking that chance in styling.
Signature:
~ Mike
David Hobbs Kablammo Consortium Member #104
ok_66
Posted: 04 September 2008 11:19 PM
Rookie
Total Posts: 20
Joined 04/19/2008
While some are truly ugly many are just bland, a good example on the list being the '80's era Mustangs, I wouldn't consider it ugly, but it lacks the character of the original '65 model. Compared to the Camaro of the time the Mustang was roomier and more practical for day to day driving.
LongHack
Posted: 05 September 2008 08:45 PM
Ultimate Insider
Total Posts: 919
Joined
88 - Aston Martin Bulldog
Aston Martin Bulldog
Built in 1979, this 235mph prototype was always
destined for low-volume production. In the end they
built only one.
Can't get any more low volume than that.
Signature:
No.1 FAN of the Porsche 917
Rookie
Total Posts: 12
Joined 04/04/2008
Yeeesssshhhhh
Signature:
Use your head for something other than a hat rack!