Reading through the comments in the post about Alfa/Fiat returning to the US I was shocked to see our own William C. Montgomery say the following in regard to the Fiat 500's looks, "…or out-ugly the Aztek." Now, I'm picking on William because I can. But, what?!? Ugly? Fiat? Maybe the Panda, the car the new 500 is based on, but… Huh? Of course, it's not just William. My girlfriend for instance doesn't think very much of the Audi A5, while I think it's the most stunning car I've seen in months. And she knows good looking cars when she sees them (usually), as she's still fawning over the Maserati GranTurismo. Then of course, there's me. Most people look at the R8 and schwing! When I went to see Iron Man they had Tony Stark's R8 parked out front of the theater and the people just loved it. Yet when I look at one, I see a porpoise with thalidomide poisoning. Why? Mid-engine cars (almost) always have odd proportions, and Germans can't do sexy. They just can't. But I'm asking you — what makes a car ugly in your eyes?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Lack of imagination.
The BMW 1 series is a god-awful car, but the styling isn’t too bad. It looks like someone has bothered. Same with the Mondeo. The first generation was OK, the second was bland as hell and the third (current) generation is interesting, it looks like someone gave a damn about the styling.
I had a Kia Spectra saloon when I was in the United States ad although it was a good car, it was boring as hell because it was just a car, nothing else.
Ugly, thy name is Accord.
KatiePuckrik:
See? I think the 1-series is beyond ugly. And you should trust me, I’m an automotive journalist.
The driver ;-)
One of the easy-to-find uglifiers (and also one of the worst) HAS to be when the car’s front and rear overhangs and slopes are identical. When, from the side, a car’s front and rear are only distinguishable by side-view mirrors, the car should be slaughtered on sight… [Hello, Town Car]
Right next has to be rear wheel well covers!! It’s hard not to vomit a bit when only 1/3 of a tire can be seen… [No examples needed…..]
The last and also most widely used uglifier; significantly under-flared rear fenders with heavily overdone fronts. While it’s next to impossible to find any sort of car that has more pronounced rear fenders anyhow, nothing is much uglier than a car with sports-car like front fenders that curve and expand, while the rears look like cuts straight from the sheet metal. What makes matters worse is when the car is level – you get a nice 4-5 inch difference in fender arch front-to-back. Combine that with 2 rear passengers and said car looks as if the shocks and springs are nonexistent…
My last major complaint – ugly lines. It doesn’t matter how nice every panel and part might be, nor the special paint, or anything.. if the lines don’t flow, the car looks goofy. Example: my recently sold Armada. The cargo area was about as ugly as they come. From the back, the narrow top and fat bottom was nice, but Smooth Lines are a must; having an Arch cut in half with an odd-angle line reminds me too much of 2nd grade art class.
One proportion that’s been bothering my lately is the long front overhang on fwd cars in general. I think it just looks wrong when the distance from the nose to the front of the wheelarch is several times the distance of the back of the wheelarch to the leading edge of the door.
One of the big reasons the A5 looks so good is that Audi finally put the motor behind the front wheel centerline.
The problem is badge snobbery often gets in the way. The 6-series looks like a bad Pontiac, but most of my friends are enamored of the badge and can’t see what a dog it is. Mercedes S-classes have poor proportions, too many stupid boy-racer details, but they are S-classes, and by god, they are elegant or whatever… The Boxster still looks like a jellybean and isn’t quite aggressive enough (and I even own one).
And that is just the Germans.
Just look at Ford. That is the pure definition of Ugly. The Flex, F-150, Focus, Superduty, E-Series, Taurus, etc.
Bumps, ripples, etc. added to give a car “character.” See the Grand-Am, or the last generation Eclipse’s doors.
The other big ugliness, fake hood scoops.
Ugly = Toyota, across the board, without exception, with Honda a very close second.
I used to hate the Bangled Bimmers, until Toyota decided it was its mission in life to offend the visual senses every time it brought out a new model. Now, even the 7-Series looks OK. The 1-Series, not so much.
It seems to depend on whether or not you see details or proportion (and your definition of such) as important, and if you’re a fan of avant-garde or conservative design themes. Those seem to be the primary axes upon which people operate.
Personally, I like avant-garde design and will accept atypical proportions. However, I don’t at all like egregious detailing. This means that I’ll accept the first Scion xB and Ford Mustang (excepting the Shelby’ed versions) as they’re clean, unadorned and I don’t care about proportion as much. I don’t like the BMW 6-Series, Honda Accord or Chrysler Sebring because the detailing on those is a little too overdone, in my opinion, regardless of the shape.
Another example: I especially like the Genesis sedan and Lexus LS: they nail the proportions without resorting to the oddball detailing of their counterparts at, say, BMW or Cadillac.
I’ve had disagreements with people who value proportion to the point where they’ll forgive details; usually these are sportscar people. The last discussion involved the R8, which I like the shape of, but find a bit overdone. My colleague has the same issue with my love of kei car: I like them (or at least the cleaner-looking ones) while he feels they violate laws of nature.
We both agree on the Aztek: the details were wrong and the proportions were strange. I like the idea, because I like novel design, but I didn’t like it that much.
One proportion that’s been bothering my lately is the long front overhang on fwd cars in general. I think it just looks wrong when the distance from the nose to the front of the wheelarch is several times the distance of the back of the wheelarch to the leading edge of the door.
Forgot to mention that one! Most of this problem, of course, is that manufacturers like dropping the engine/transaxle straight above the wheels. Build more cars Right Wheel Drive and we will have less and less fugly cars on the road ;-)
I like the 1-series and the Accord. Of course, that could be because I am ugly…
Ugly is putting huge wheels and tires on a car (or truck) and not upgrading the suspension and brakes to handle the extra mass; ugly and dangerous.
Cayman’s so freaking ugly. The bulbous roof makes me shiver, literally. What do I know? I just got a Camry, which is even uglier on the inside.
And the new Mercedes is over-styled and looks like a Korean car!
1. Any design element that is not functional is ugly: I’m sort of in the whole “design for purpose” camp. I can’t stand little design details or features that are supposed to add interest but don’t add any real function to the vehicle. The recent use of port holes (ahem, Buick!), front fender vents (like on the new Focus and Taurus), and non-functional exhaust finishers (like on the Lexus IS-F..UGLY!) drives me crazy. All that stuff looks like something that was ordered from JC Whitney.
I like clean, functional designs. The Jeep Cherokee was and is a really nice looking vehicle to my eyes.
2. Long front or rear overhangs used to disguise a short wheelbase is ugly: The Buick LaCrosse is one of the world’s ugliest cars to me, not because of the generic shape or weird headlights, but because of the long front and rear overhangs used to disguise the painfully short platform-engineered wheelbase.
I also don’t like it when designers try to hide their long front overhang by tapering the hood or front bumper, or by adding little embellishments to trick the eye. The current generation (not the new one coming soon) Mazda 6 offends here…they ineffectively disguised the long front overhang with the v-shaped grill and shape of the headlights. Not a fan.
3. Unnecessarily large wheels, fender flares, wings, spoilers, or body kits: I don’t think I need to say much here…silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Ugly is when a car looks as if it wasn’t designed, just assembled. American mark cars from the 1980s, for example…
Also, Nissan, when they decided in the late 1990s and early 2000s that the downward-sloping trunk was a good idea…really ugly. It looks broken.
-Matt
P71_CrownVic:
The Flex? See now… I think the Flex is the best looking crossover/minivan/SUV… ever.
BMW 7-series. Misshapen is one thing, but styling your luxury flagship to look like a marine monster from the depths is just not cool.
Non-functional crap on cars is almost always ugly. Fins, gills, scoops, anything that spoils sheetmetal usually looks lousy rather than ‘sporty’.
Also, simplicity always looks good and ages well. The Aztek is ugly because it has something different going on depending on where you look. The rear-quarter window doesn’t match the other windows, the exposed gas cap is entirely out of left field, and the bare-black cladding only made things worse.
Beautiful cars look like they were designed by one person using broad strokes, while ugly cars almost all look like they were designed by commitee.
I agree with Katie that ugly cars often look like the designers didn’t put any care into the design. The Dodge Caliber looks like it was designed by third graders. And makes the Neon look, well, pretty good–in the same way that Bush2 makes Nixon look quite good. The Toyota Matrix is another good example of where the desgners just slapped something together. Even most of the Volvos look like the designers got tired and didn’t finish the job, although they got further than the designers of most US cars–I give them C+ to B-. (The Matrix is a D+.)
Also, only the best designers should be allowed to use a lot of lines, creases, flourishes etc. I happen to like the Bangle 3series and the Bangle roadster. He can pull it off. Whoever was doing the lines at Pontiac might have been in high school, though.
Part of the ugliness of the Aztek is that it looks from the front like one car was crumpled on top of the other. Sort of like something you’d find in a junkyard, or an archeological dig. Aztec: get it?
The B9 Tribeca is an example where the designers really didn’t even try. They just slapped some stuff on, like a couple of second graders playing with clay.
Lack of artistic integrity is another cause of ugliness. A car that has true artistic integrity is the VW Real Beetle. That car is actually amazingly good looking–in an unusual way–which I think is part of the reason why it attained such cult status.
All of my favorite records took multiple listenings to “hook”; likewise any car that looks good right off the bat is dull. And dull is a far greater crime than ugly. Dull is likely to stick. But what’s ugly often becomes beautiful.
There was a great piece in the New Yorker about how our minds warp around new designs until we “get” them. So, in early surveys, people hated the look of the Aeron chair. Now they love it.
Likewise with cars. When the current generation of BMW’s emerged their design was nonintuitive. But now I prefer them to their predecessors.
Then there’s sentiment. Is a bulldog ugly or endearing?
All of that being said, nothing saves the Aztek.
Oh come now, David…we all know that most second and third graders can color inside the lines, and that they have more pride than some of the designers out there!
Like several others here, I also dislike the fake fender ports. My BMW Z3 had them and they looked okay, but I was really disappointed to find that they were fake.
At least on my ’83 Trans Am, the “gil slits” actually could have provided venting from the engine compartment, because they went all the way through.
Function over Form!
That is why cars like the orginal Bettle and 911 have stood the test of time. The shape of these vehicles is a product of their function. It is amazing how if you engineer the functionality and than design the shape around it you come up with actual works of art.
I for one like the look of the Enzo. To me that car is the current best example of function defining the form. Some may call an Enzo ugly but that is because they are incapable of seeing the engineering that went into creating the shape of that vehicle. To my eyes a see a body that actually is making use of many of the aerodynamic and downforce lessons learned in F1.
The Gm cars that tappered vertically so much that at the bottom of the fender the whole tire tread was visible. Made the bottom of the door a catch-all for the front tires. I remember ALOT of cleaning trying to get tar and all sorts of junk off the paint. My VW is not as bad but I added factory mudflaps which do that work for me.
I agree on the long front overhangs. Move the engine back a little. The distance from the front wheel to the door is much too small on alot of FWD cars, mine included. I like short overhangs. I’ll bet some focus group determined that idiot consumers thought these cars looked safer or something.
Tires that don’t fit the fenders or vice versa. You know the cars with 14 inch stock tires with fenders better suited for tires with about another inch in diameter?
Tiny brakes inside HUGE wheels…
HUGE wheels on large domestic sedans – like 24s or something. There are a couple of those cars around here. They had to jack UP the car to make it all fit. The rear trailing arms are so angled that the rear wheel moved forward and they had to section the bottom of the rear doors to make it fit. Is on one of those Caprice Classics that looks like a Jellybean. Ugly stock, ugly with the wheels.
Big vehicles with tiny 13″ wheels. The other way around can be ugly too.
Wheels that don’t fit inside the fenders on cars. At least the top of the tire ought to tuck under the fender lip at the top.
And I could go on and on. Details like wheels can make or break a car’s looks.
not trying = ugly.
example: Toyota, WRX
trying too hard = ugly.
example: BMW, Dodge
Then you have the happy medium, i.e. Audi and Aston Martin.
BMW Z4 = ugly. Random lines, random curves, random angles, all intersecting at random points.
’nuff said.
I’d vote for any car where there has been a disconnect between the marketing dept and engineering.You can tell they asked for something that the engineers just couldn’t mass produce.Lost in translation i think it’s called. I think the new Imprezza fits this bill exactly.
Scion Xb, Honda Element
I want to add the Veryon to the ugly stick list. Sorry, it may have impressive numbers, but it’s just horrendous, both in photos and in person.
Maserati Gran Turismo and the Alpha Romeo 8C are goegeous. IMO.
Bangle makes ugly.
New Camry, New Accord
Battering ram front end of many Audis…please return to the grill being split by the bumper.
Bangle makes ugly
Ford 500, yuk
Dodge Aspen, ugh
Did I mention Bangle makes ugly?
I think Beauty is about loving who you are. Ugly is perhaps about hating who one is, and dull is being indifferent. Thinking about that, the Maxima looks beautiful by this definition, although I don’t love the Max’s styling. The S5 looks pretty good, but you cant get its bad proportions passed me. Its styling does not match its functions. Aggressive corner destroyer my ass. So its not really beautiful (in many ways), its just beautifully styled. I think the old 65′ Alfa 166 GTA was beautiful. Some 911s look really good. I’m not sure I think any car is beautiful, atleast not as completely.
I agree with several other people here-fake anything is ugly. Fake hood scoops, fake spare tires on old Cadillacs, fake carbon fiber, fake anything.
The front headlights and back tail lights is what makes a car ugly, follow by the shape of the car. An example a ugly shape car would be the Scion xB or the Mini Cooper.
I know when I see it.
Ford Focus make me turn my eyes away every time. I just can’t look at poor souls driving them.
It looks like Ford locked up every individual designers in the basements to prevent any communication between them. Looks like a guy who designed the trunklid didn’t know how taillamps are gonna look like or front door designer didn’t know that the other guys put side-grill thing in front of doors.
The worst devolvement in (recent) automotive history. The Subaru WRX. The 2006’s were beautiful in a boy racer, drift up and down the street in a snow storm kind of way. ( i did that, wow! never had so much fun and a near death experience wrapped up into 1!) The new one is too grown up! I think it should have gotten even more aggressive, but now it’s just a Camry with awd and a hood scoop!
I think “proportions” and “cohesive designs” are what make cars look good — the lack thereof is what makes cars look ugly. I also agree with those who think along the lines of “added junk just for styling” is ugly.
I think a simple look at “Camry vs. Accord” gets us pretty close to my line of thinking:
I actually like the Camry. Yep, it’s got a bit of a Bangle butt, but that actually increases trunk space, provides a bit of a “spoiler” effect for the rear of the car, and doesn’t really look “bad” in any way whatsoever. The nose took some “getting used to,” but I think most folks are OK with it now. In other words, the new design “pushed the envelope a little bit,” and I think the styling has ultimately attracted a lot of buyers who wouldn’t have touched a previous-generation Camry at all.
Mainly, though, the Camry design is a rather properly-proportioned sedan, and I’d call the “surfacing” of everything as coming together into a truly cohesive design.
The new Accord sedan, though, doesn’t have a cohesive design at all. It’s proportions are far off the mark, with a too-long bug-eyed nose, and a C pillar that’s well too far towards the back of the car. Toss in the really awful copy of the BMW “Hoffmeister kink” curve in the C pillar, the Ridgeline pickup grille, the ten-year-old-Saturn rear end, and really uninspired details such as the “character” line across the sides and the upside-down door handles, and it just adds up to an uncohesive, ill-proportioned mess.
Oh, sure, we’ll all quibble over this car or that, but I think this is a decent quick study of what good styling looks like (or not).
I’ll take a different path to answering this question: process.
I think ugly is the result of commitees and group think. Ugly comes from trusting focus groups and not your own vision. Ugly comes from dumbing down design because it is too controversial or costs a few bucks extra.
Reading the comments today from the guy who sort of, kind of was responsible for the 09 Pilot, but the grill wasn’t really his idea, blah blah blah reinforces the point
I don’t think designers like Pinin Farina, or Giorgio Guigiaro ever made an ugly car. Controversial? sure. Difficult to manufacture? Absolutely. But never ugly.
Pininfarina designed my favorite family car of childhood–the Peugeot 404.
Proportion is everything. When an object, any object, is poorly proportioned my eyes know in an instant that something is wrong. It’s just not pleasing. While personal taste does count, I challenge anyone to tell me that the Pontiac Aztec and Buick Rendezvous are “good loooking.”
The problem for both is that GM tried to make SUVs from minivans. The hard points are not compatible. Even the new-gen GM CUVs are still ungainly looking, and for the same reason.
Ugliness is rarely about homely front or rear ends or bland side views. My favorite example was the previous GMC mid-size SUV, the badge engineered twin of the Chevrolet Trailblazer. The standard 5 passenger was no beauty, but is was inoccuous and I would maintain, well proportioned. But raise it and stretch it to create the 3-row version and it becomes an egregious stinking pile.
‘sniff…Peugeot 404…saw plenty of those and the updated 405 and 406 models during my West Africa days. The horn is on the signal stalk. I’m guessing that is the most-ordered spare part for a Peugeot.
Oh…yes…I have an ugly one for everyone. Please clear food/drink out of your mouth.
1986-era Plymouth Voyager minivan in at least a dozen colors of primer, faded paint, and rust.
A faded “Bush/Quayle 1988” sticker. A soot residue left from the smokestack in the back. A sliding door that looked like it would need three people to keep closed.
…and the clincher?
Those tacky beyond words oval fake fender vents all over the place – 6 on each front fender. I wish I was able to get a picture. I’m getting the chills just thinking about it.
I love rural Kentucky…
Totally subjective subject here ;)
To my eye ( and there are always exceptions to these “rules”) . . .
Good = symmetry, understatement, streamlined, flowing lines, front sides and rears that reflect a unity of design theme, a distinctive design theme, and functionality.
Current favorites ’09 Fit, Prius(I know-sorry), Mazda5, Mazda6, Mustang, 09 Dodge Ram, Altima, Suzuki SX4, New Beetle, Boxter coupe, 911,Chevy HHR, Jeep Patriot, Hyundai Santa Fe, Yaris 3-door, Lamborghinis, Ferraris, and Dodge Challenger.
Bad = tack on things like spoilers, cladding, oversize corporate logos, gaudiness, shaping the sheet metal to accommodate said oversized corporate logos-hello Toyota ! , overly busy and festooned surfaces, asymmetry-hello Bangle BMW’s, blocky right angles, overly complex lines and shapes, bulging and bug eyed tail lights and headlights, and function hampered by form.
Personal Puke awards go to, Toyota FJ Cruiser, Hummers, Wranglers, Element-especially with the black body panels, all BMW’s, all Mercedes, Honda CRV,
Many here are complaining about spoilers, body kits, and the like, but if they’re done right (normally people who add them don’t get it artistically) they can add a lot to the appearance of a vehicle. A few examples come to mind:
The last Cavaliers (02?-05) had an available sport package that added a spolier, body kit, and aluminum wheels. All were done tastefully and it looked a LOT better than a Cavalier without it (as if that was hard to do)
The 2nd Gen Stratus, current Avenger, and the Cobalt all seem to beg for a trunklid spoiler. They just look more complete with the factory spoiler than without.
Pretense is the root of ugly for me. Thus a Volvo 240 is beautiful because it simply is what it is without artifice. All modern BMWs are ugly because they just drip pretense. A E-type is beautiful because it is sexy and doesn’t have to pretend to be. The Fiat 500 is gorgeous because it looks like a fun little car, which is exactly what it is.
Ugly… Virtually ALL Toyotas, especially the Prius, almost ALL Hondas, especially the Element, the Aztech, the Prius, most Porsches except the 928, Kia, Hyundai, the Prius, most Ford products except the new Mustang, GT400 and some of the pickups, many GM products, the Prius, the new Dodge “Charger” and most everything else designed by Daimler, anything that REMOTELY resembles a Camry (that covers 90% of the cars), the Prius…
Beauty… 69 Camaro Z28, 69-71 Mustangs, 05 and up Mustangs, many TransAms, Dodge Challenger (any year), 68-73 Dodge Chargers, GTX, 74 Road Runner, Dodge Ram RT-10, Dodge Viper, 1st Durango, Chevy Tahoe, 90-2000 Silverado, Aston Martin Lagonda, Rapide, DB9, most Ferraris, most Lamborghinis, a (very) few Cadilllacs, 2005 Ford Shelby Concept, Fisker Latigo and Tramonto, Lexus LF-A concept, the Bell 430 Helocopter, the Mellinium 140 yacht, Shania Twain, Sandra Bullock, Paula Abdul, Catherine Zeta Jones…
Someone else here said it best…I know ugly when I see it. What might look okay on one car might look horrific on another. For example, the bustle back style trunk on some of the 1930’s classic era cars looks fine, but when Cadillac tried that design theme on the 1980-85 Seville, the result was not at all pleasing.
Having said that, there are a number of current cars that I find to be atrocious: the Camry. The whole car looks strange and the front end reminds me of a rhino for some reason. The Honda Accord with its bloated 10 year old Saturn look is pretty bad. The Avenger and Sebring are just…so wrong. The Caliber is nasty looking too. These are but a few examples.
Going back to the past, the 1958 Oldsmobile was ugly-overchromed and mismatched side trim was the main culprit. The 1960-62 Valiant and its Dodge Lancer cousin were ugly in a bizarre sort of way. 1970’s era Japanese cars were (with few exceptions) rather ugly, and more recently, the 1996 and newer Taurus/Sable and 1999 and newer Grand Am stand out as exceptionally ugly. The Taurus/Sable were just too round and oddly proportioned. The Grand Am offended the eye with ripples, bulges, plastic, scoops and spoilers in almost every conceivable spot. And then there’s the Aztec…no explanation necessary there.
There are individual elements that can make any car look bad. Those cheap aftermarket plastic wheel covers look terrible; running with bare steel rims would actually look better. On the other end of that spectrum, those huge 20+ inch flashy chrome rims are equally awful, especially if they’re spinners. And whenever I see huge wings, fender flares and ugly cladding all over a Civic, Cavalier or Neon, it makes me cringe.
Beauty is simple and elegant; ugly is complex and contrived. Look at some of the Pontiac nostrils and strakes from the 1990s and you see ugly personified. The tormented metal in some of the Bangle BMWs are just as ugly. There’s no functionality in the creases and lumps and bumps. I particularly hate the high-waisted gunslit-windows look. Those huge expanses of blank door panels with tiny greenhouses perched on them look awful. And the current most faddish crease that I hate the most? Well, it’s that rising line from the front fender up to the upper rear fender. The Mercedes B & C classes have it; so does the Accord; and so do any number of other cliche designs. The nose-down-ass-up look makes me think that the cars are just waiting to be mounted. Ugly, ugly, ugly. Is there a beautiful sedan available today? Maybe the Genesis. The VW Phaeton looks great. A couple of Volvos look nicely integrated. Not much else. Why can’t we have something like the Lancia Flaminia sedan, or the 61 Lincoln Continental, or the 1965 Chrysler New Yorker, or the 1960s Mercedes-Benz 250S/SE-280S/SE Sedans and coupes?
I agree with the sentiment that a beautiful design is a functional one and side cladding/fake hood or side scoops/etc are ugly. I also think there must be some harmony to the design. Even with modern purposefully asymetric or disjointed designs, the elements can have a unifying theme (maybe not to the RX-8 extent) that makes the overall design beautiful. This is why the Bangle but is so ugly. It isn’t related to anything else in the design.
We left one out; fake convertable tops! I believe they’re called Landau Roof’s or something like that. Who’s responsible for those?
I used to think that the latest-gen Hyundai Elantra was pretty “meh” with its “character line” down the side seeming a bit too much and its top-heavy appearance. Now that I own one, it looks better every day, because I was actually considering (shudder) a new Focus. (I actually feel sorry for people who drive those things.)
Just make sure to get the Elantra SE with the wider wheels; it really tones down the top-heavy look…
Shapes should flow into each other and lines should connect. Angles should mirror each other. Forms should look balanced like they would stand up on their own weight and not fall over. These qualities are found in organic forms and we are evolved to appreciate what looks like a strong, successful organism (a jungle cat, an athlete, a race horse). Of course that still leaves plenty of room for differences of opinion, beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that.
Ugly: The new Accord. The angles of the lights do not match any other angles, the lines of the grill do not connect to anything, they come out of nowhere and hence look like they don’t belong.
Beautiful: Any Aston Martin. All the lines follow through and angles are mirrored throughout. Forms look perfectly balanced.
I agree with MagMax—-where are the Lincoln Continentals of the early 60’s, the Jaguar XK-E and the Lancia Flaminia when you need them. Those are all cars that hardly anyone would not think of as beautiful designs.
As for ugly its all about proportion and function. The Checker Marathon was a perfect design for a taxi cab while the Aztek lacked grace and proportion for being a multipurpose vehicle. Other ugly attributes were: Opera windows, vinyl tops, fender skirts and continental kits.
SherbornSean
I don’t think designers like Pinin Farina, or Giorgio Guigiaro ever made an ugly car.
I quote from “The World’s Worst Cars” by Craig Cheetham:
In 1998, Italdesign issued a book to celebrate its thirtieth anniversary. The only model missing from the publication was the one car to bear the name of the famed Italian styling house – the Morris Ital. And it’s easy to see why.
The A5 is ugly. What makes the A5 ugly is the ugly corporate grill. The rest of the A5 doesn’t flow with that grill but then again what does? The A4 and TT design integrates the Audi crap mouth the best.
Unbalanced design=ugly but then there are total disasters like the
Aztec and 99% of all Chinese cars.
If you think the Audi R8 is ugly, then you have not seen this one!
http://www.europeancarweb.com/features/epcp_0903_oemplus_2008_audi_r8_knight_industries/photo_03.html
This car is flat out sexy!!!
Chris