After I labelled the Volvo P1800 ES a hideous mutation, TTAC commentator beetlebug questioned my aesthetic sensibilities. The usual reply to such cavil: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My fellow pedants will have grasped the facile nature of this aphorism long ago. Hearing is also in the ear of the listener. And? Of course, this oft-repeated gem is nothing more that a rhetorical upraised middle finger to anyone who disagrees with its proponent's idea of beauty. In other words, your opinion of beauty is as subjective as mine. So if I think a Pontiac Aztec is a beautiful vehicle who the Hell do you think you are to tell me it isn't? Nonsense. I once read a study wherein an anarchic academic set out to prove the fallacy of this shibboleth. He schlepped a range of pictures of female beauty all over the world and asked representative of over a hundred different cultures to identify which photographed females were babes, and which ones were dogs. Some eighty percent of ALL respondents identified the same ten percent of subjects as the most comely amongst them. This is not a long-winded and unctuous way of saying I'm right and beetlebug's right. I mean, wrong. OK, it is a bit long-winded, but my main point is this: I'm satisfied with both our readers' initial Ten Worst nominations and the TTAC writers' final twenty. Just as humans have an innate ability to choose which women deserve a little genetic blending, pistonheads are a reliable indicator of automotive excellence or lack thereof. We may not be the ultimate arbiters of which cars suck and which cars soar– the commercial marketplace serves that role– but we are pretty damn good at identifying a pile of steaming crap when we see one. If someone then steps in it, well, disgust is on the foot of the easily offended.
Find Reviews by Make:
who cares about the car, that woman has an amazing ass in those amazing tight pants gotta love it, nice heels too. damnnnnn
Robert: Thanks for the vote for tolerance of disparate opinions of beauty. In fact, I even owe you for not pointing out how I butchered a sentence in that post. However, you still use the work “abomination” to describe said Volvo in the pod cast. I mean, that’s a strong word. The Pontiac Aztec might come close to justifying that word, but even I wouldn’t use it to dis that sad example of automotive(?) design. After all, it had an optional tent that gave it some utility, and utility goes a little ways to counteract retina burning ugliness. Lastly, I think I should remind you that having fun driving a car does not always equate having the modern luxuries such as power steering and air conditioning. I had a great deal of fun driving our 1970 Beetle (now residing in my garage waiting for the long delayed restoration). Why? Not for its driving dynamics, per se, but for the mechanical connection you have with such a simple beast. Also, I could fix most of its problems at a red light with a screw driver. Now there is something you can’t experience anymore.
Beetle isn’t the only one who finds it gorgeous. Count me in.
Almost enough to stop me from buying a Mercury.
The aztec wasn’t actually the rolling horror everyone made it out to be. the real problem was that it was expensive as well as kind of ugly. it never plumbed the depths of the Austin Allegro Vanden Plas.
You can keep the P1800 in the picture, I’ll keep the Swedish brunette. Seriously, that picture in today’s terms is a Chrysler Sebring right beside Julianne Moore.
The aztec wasn’t actually the rolling horror everyone made it out to be.
Yes. Yes it was.
any diesel engine idling at red lights intersection or district has worse vocals, than Paris Hilton doing audition at American idol. almost any german car has more boring looks than a british royal ceremony. Any british luxury sedan is more overpriced than any Manchester footballer. Any american car is as pure american as michael jackson is pure black man, or white lady. american cars are as defect – proof as G. Bush`s math skills. stating the most ugly, is satisfying curiosity, not tasting the real facts of statistics. but we do have tastes, don`t we?
No, that’s an ugly car… Christ that’s bad
Although the rear window/hatch shape seems to have come back on the new C30
Can’t say for sure, but if seen today (if both were properly cared for) that the Volvo probably retained its “beauty”, whereas the model (wow) may have lost something by now. I guess that’s why cars are cool; they represent enduring esthetics, whether “beautiful” or not.
(I think the Pinto-style hatch window is the biggest eyesore — fixed on the new one.)
I didn’t see it at first, but there is a car in the picture. If you look past the woman in the picture you will see a car in the background. Oh, and it is an ugly car.
The boxy car that Richard Hatch won is spelled “Aztek.” Apparently he got what he deserved.
The P1800 ES wagon (and of course the coupe it is based off of) is stunningly beautiful.
Of course, since most people here are Americans and Americans just love to hate on wagons, I wouldn’t expect anyone else to think it is good looking.
Personally, I don’t understand sedans –at all. Why even bother? hatchbacky-coupes I get, but sedans.. why the 3-box design, it just doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me. Just continue to the roofline back a foot and slap on some rear glass and make it a wagon. Fold down the back seats and remove the cover over the hatch area, and BAM you have a massive amount of storage space in a car that need not be any larger than it’s sedan counterpart (in some cases they are even smaller, like the Protege5 that is 4-6″ shorter than the Protege sedan).
Sure, I might buy an MX-5 in the future, but I’ll always have to keep a wagon of some sort in my garage because they are just so darn useful.
I’ve been looking for a P1800ES to restore for years, but they are so hard to come by because they didn’t import many of them here :(
I tend to agree with you kansei. I was excited when the Dodge Magnum was introduced. It was the antithesis (atleast in concept) to most American wagons up to that point. The commercials really drove the point home – “The Dodge Magnum. It hauls.”
That is why I like the Caliber and the Mazda 3 5-door. That is not to say that I don’t think sedans are asthetically more appealing, but I see your point.
I must confess, I always liked the ES as well. While it may not be one of those obviously beautiful designs, I liked it.
Think about what kinds of houses that you find attractive.
Do you like houses from a certain period, ranch, modern, big, brick, victorian, etc.
If we were to show you a bunch of houses that experts said were beautiful, you would likely agree with most of them (just like the study on faces that they did). You would agree mostly whether they were a style you liked or not, objecting only to the styles you really don’t like.
There are objective standards to architecture that will make a house stand out as well designed to both a panel of experts and most people.
However, when it comes to the style of house you like best, you would find houses attractive that the experts would quickly find plain and common. OTOH, you will find plain houses, and even some nice ones unattractive if you dislike the style.
Unfamiliar styles which are very foreign and unknown to us often register just like styles we hate. Gisele Bundchen would still look good to us if her earlobes were enlaged with big loops, but not many other women would.
Bringing this back to cars – Americans tend to like sedans better than hatchbacks. The standard for a hatchback to be considered attractive is much higher. Even though by objective standards of design agreed upon by experts, both cars can be made attractive. In the US, the bar is higher for cars that are not sedans.
Now, back to the ES. I think it has nice proportions, and I really like the glass hatch. However, it is so different that it’s practically alien (especially in hot pink). It’s harder to find attractive.
Just a thought.