Why do ugly cars exist? How is it that designs like these make it all the way to production and sale when everyone seems to agree that a model is ugly?

[-]

Stohnghost@reddit

Everything French can be just because French.

Everything else is because too cheap for anyone to care with the only exception being the Aztek which was just ahead of its time

[-]

frenchieguy81@reddit

the 2002 Citroen C3 is the most generic French car I've ever ridden.

[-]

Simoxs7@reddit

Yeah its kinda hilarious how people hated the aztec despite it being the blueprint for basically every modern CUV (which personally I also hate but they are quite popular for some reason).

[-]

You know I want to be a sedan guy but if you have a kid and a dog it's hard. I have a Prius and my poor golden retriever barely fits in the back with one seat folded down. On long trips it's rough on her... That's probably why. The one that kills me is like 1 kid and a 3 row extendo SUV

[-]

PretzelsThirst@reddit

That makes no sense lmao. The interior space is the same

[-]

Simoxs7@reddit

But a crossover is just a compact car on stilts you basically get no advantage besides higher seating (and worse handling) compared to a hatchback. And to be honest I‘ve yet to see an SUV that has more usable space than a wagon yet families still buy SUVs for some reason.(I know the US Full size SUVs are more comparable to a Van here but I‘ve yet to experience one so I can’t really judge on them)

[-]

BlackCatFurry@reddit

I have a seat arona, it's the crossover version of ibiza and the advantage it gets over ibiza is more cargo space. Which is important when i want a small cars due to parking (parking anything larger is annoying as fuck in europe).

A lot of crossovers achieve similar. E.g. skoda kamiq vs fabia, toyota yaris vs yaris cross, opel corsa vs mokka, vw polo vs t-cross etc to my knowledge have the same trunk size situation where the crossover has more cargo capacity.

That and finnish (my country of residence) roads are absolutely fucked, the extra ground clearance of the crossover is very welcome.

[-]

No_Pizza5016@reddit

Extra luggage space in Arona is mostly because it’s slightly longer, not taller. Unless you often load it up to the roof, but even then an MPV would be better

[-]

BlackCatFurry@reddit

I however have zero interest in driving a minivan sized car as a person who 95% time drives alone in cities in finland.

In the size class with the features i wanted and with the budget i had, the arona had the biggest trunk.

Some of the parking spots i need to park in have pillars where even the arona needs to fold in mirrors to fit there, i am not about to stuff a wagon sized car in there.

The arona boot is taller because the whole car is taller, which for my transportation needs is more important than length, because a snowboard or skis won't fit in there anyway without folding down one seat or using a roofbox, but the extra depth is damn convenient for loading in ikeabags full of gear.

Not everyone wants a pickup and lives in america.

[-]

Simoxs7@reddit

Yeah sorry the parking is a skill issue, I live near a medieval historic city it doesn’t get much narrower than that and I didn’t have an issue parking my old Passat there when I was 20, and while modern cars have all the sensors you could wish for this passat only had the standard issue eyeballs.

Now as to the cargo space, if I compare the Arona to the Ibiza we‘re talking about 355liters vs 400 liters of trunk space, I dunno doesn’t really seem like a lot of difference especially as its mostly achieved by more height and the things I put in the back of my car tend to fall towards the ground so I rarely use the upper part of my trunk. Also the now discontinued Ibiza ST (wagon) had 50 liters more space in the rear than your crossover.

Can‘t really say anything about the roads in Finland, but at least here in Germany we have the best roads we‘ve ever had but conversely people drive offroad (looking) vehicles on them now.

As I said in the other comment I don’t even have an issue with people driving SUVs if manufacturers gave us options, like any would be fine really but to me the free market doesn’t really work if there are no alternate options and the marketing still is hyper focused on SUVs.

[-]

BlackCatFurry@reddit

Yeah sorry the parking is a skill issue, I live near a medieval historic city it doesn’t get much narrower than that and I didn’t have an issue parking my old Passat there when I was 20, and while modern cars have all the sensors you could wish for this passat only had the standard issue eyeballs.

Yeah, i have a skill issue in not being able to magically make my car narrower. The spots i need to park in are roughly 5-10cm wider than my car with mirrors folded in because of concrete support pillars.

Now as to the cargo space, if I compare the Arona to the Ibiza we‘re talking about 355liters vs 400 liters of trunk space, I dunno doesn’t really seem like a lot of difference especially as its mostly achieved by more height and the things I put in the back of my car tend to fall towards the ground so I rarely use the upper part of my trunk. Also the now discontinued Ibiza ST (wagon) had 50 liters more space in the rear than your crossover.

Well i am not carrying your stuff so it doesn't matter what you need to carry. And the discontinued ST lacked features i wanted in a car so it was not an option.

Can‘t really say anything about the roads in Finland, but at least here in Germany we have the best roads we‘ve ever had but conversely people drive offroad (looking) vehicles on them now.

Well that's great to hear. Finland has more patches and wheel sized holes than original asphalt on the roads, and abysmally bad snowblowing in cities because it was something the cities have decided to save on.

[-]

Simoxs7@reddit

But you talked about length when arguing about the parking. Last time I checked wagons are pretty much the same width as SUVs so there isn’t an inherent advantage there.

Also I didn’t want to tell you that another car would’ve been better for you specifically, just that if there was options available there could’ve been alternatives for you to consider which might be more practical. The thing is that the decision to buy an SUV is basically forced by car companies on car buyers at the moment, thats what I‘m actually pissed about.

Also iirc you started trying to tell me that an SUV is better than a wagon so I can argue against that I‘d say.

[-]

BlackCatFurry@reddit

You are likely confusing two different commentators here. I am not stonhghost whom you replied to originally.

I actually never stated anything about wagons, SUVs or car length to begin with. Seat arona (small crossover) is the absolute maximum car size i, as a mostly alone driving young adult with hobbies that take up trunk space am willing to consider, because i hate driving big cars.

I need space to lug snowboarding gear around, for which a crossover is far more useful than a hatchback of same size due to larger trunk space with the same width and length.

And if you meant me when telling there probably would have been other options: yes, i listed those before in the hatchback vs crossover listing, however seat arona was the only one which had all the features i wanted for the budget i had set. For my needs, the arona handles plenty well. I don't need to bolt it 70km/h down a hairpin ramp.

[-]

Plyphon@reddit

The problem is wagons are longer - which is actually far more difficult to manoeuvre into tight UK and European spaces than an CUV/SUV.

The SUV gives enough space for your daily bits, but is also easier to get in and out of - especially with kids.

[-]

Simoxs7@reddit

Yeah sorry, the nearest city to where I live in Germany is basically still a medieval city with accordingly tight parking spaces, my second car was a Passat B6 and it didn’t have any parking sensors and I never had an issue parking, meanwhile I see people struggling every day with their oversized SUVs to get into spaces despite having sensors and 360 degree cameras.

Also the easy to get in and out of thing kinda bothers me as well, like does everyone have bad knees now? I wonder how my parents back then managed to get by with „just“ a wagon and their parents with a two door car.

Anyway, I wouldn’t have an issue with SUVs if manufacturers would actually give us any other options but basically every normal car nowadays gets replaced by such an oversized generic shitbox.

[-]

Plyphon@reddit

I mean - this is a common discussion with people who don’t like SUV’s or crossovers - you tell someone the reason why they’re so popular and then they retort why that’s false or not true and actually the wagon is superior.

But it comes to a point where you’ve got to look inward and understand that whist your opinion may be different, it’s clearly the outlier because SUV’s are wildly popular and have outsold all other types of vehicle by a large margin, to the point manufacturers have stopped making anything but SUVs.

People say why they prefer SUVs, and whilst you may not agree, it’s still the reason people buy them hand and fist over anything else

[-]

Simoxs7@reddit

Ok so according to you the SUV is objectively the best shape a car can be in (and definitely wasn’t shaped by American regulations) so why are we still making different kinds of SUVs they’re practically the same nowadays why not make one generic brand that makes 3 sizes of SUVs and everyone has to be satisfied, right?

Capitalisms advantage has usually been stated that its better at reacting to the publics needs because people basically vote with their wallets, but how are we supposed to vote with our wallets if there are no other options available? Especially with EVs you can basically only choose what size SUV / Crossover you want.

I could see people in the 90s arguing that a sedan fits all their requirements and thats why they bought just like you but at that time the car market was still quite diversified, different options were available. Now people who want a new car can either choose an SUV or Crossover or some luxury oversized sedan, sales numbers of other cars can only be low because they’re usually an after thought and not nearly advertised as much.

I don’t dislike you for having an SUV, at most I think you‘re a bit basic because of it, I don’t like the trend and I hate it being forced onto me, thats some soviet union peoples car stuff. I just think that more options are always better for the consumer, let me choose whats most rational for me and please don’t tell me my needs are less important than yours. You or I can’t do anything about it so theres no point in actually arguing which car is better in general because I believe we can agree on different cars being better suited for different uses.

[-]

Plyphon@reddit

Bro I ain’t reading all that 😂

[-]

Stohnghost@reddit

My last car in addition to my Prius was an Outback. I love wagons!

[-]

Simoxs7@reddit

Yup they’re a great compromise, I really don’t get why they’re so unpopular with EVs though. Like they have a long wheelbase to store the battery, but are also low enough for way better aerodynamics than an SUV all the while having enough storage room still theres like no electric wagons available (only the ID7 comes to mind)

[-]

Stohnghost@reddit

I think because wagons are unpopular and EVs are even less popular so combining the two would prob result in failure.

I am part of the problem because I have a 3 row EV

[-]

franzn@reddit

I don't blame people for buying crossovers because the wagon market is slim in the USA but can't believe how practical my wagon is. Fits kid and dogs easily.

[-]

iforgotalltgedetails@reddit

I remember stating this multiple times on car sub Reddit’s years ago and just being lambasted for it.

[-]

jzach1983@reddit

It's ugliness was greater than the sum of its parts.

[-]

MerciKreepy@reddit

France does not have a car culture. In France having a passion for cars is almost taboo.

[-]

iandix@reddit

and Italian.

[-]

nullpassword@reddit

Aztek honestly... Looks ok from any angle but the rear..

[-]

Pleasant-Swimmer-557@reddit

"too cheap for anyone to care" - and then there's an Oshkosh NDVG.

[-]

SlyClydesdale@reddit

Counterpoint: Renault 19 Chamade

[-]

SlyClydesdale@reddit

The Aztek was ahead of its time on specific design elements.

But the design was also quite clumsy and badly proportioned due to its use of a shortened minivan chassis.

[-]

Flffdddy@reddit

Exactly. The Aztek was AWESOME. The Aztek they were allowed to build was so compromised that it was a joke. Literally.

[-]

whitefox250@reddit

I knew a guy with a Buick Rendezvous and it just wouldn't die, still drives it today.

[-]

SlyClydesdale@reddit

The Rendezvous is pretty underrated IMO. Its design was also compromised by minivan hard points, though.

But it is quiet, smooth, cavernous (some seat 7 in the same body length as the Aztek), capable, and comfortable. The later cars with the 3.5L and 3.6L V6s were about optimal.

The the Buick, comparably equipped, cost a little less than the Pontiac did.

[-]

loulan@reddit

Does the new Renault 5 look awesome because French too?

[-]

Herbie2189@reddit

Yes.

[-]

Legitimate-Lab9077@reddit

I want a multipla so god damn bad. The size of a mini cooper, can carry six adults, or can carry three adults and have a cargo area bigger than a Tahoe? Fuck yah!

[-]

NonReality@reddit

Hell yeah, totally agree with the Aztec abd multipla

[-]

randomtuner@reddit

1 - designed for practicality, form follows function hence the very tall roof. Aesthetically, it was playful and emphasized the spaciousness.

2 - made for markets where sedans are very popular but a bespoke sedan would cost too much to produce alongside a hatchback. If the customers are fine with it, it gets produced.

3 - don't really see this among ugly cars very often, but it's just accounting not wanting production costs to go too high. Same for most bland cars

4 - this is just cute idk what you're on about. Meant to be fun and cute and does that quite well imo

5 - combination of trying to be bold and different but also not wanting to spend to make that happen. It looked weird, especially back when it was revealed, and that draws attention. It has also to it's credit paved the way for crossovers and honestly has aged well compared to when it was first released

[-]

Wirecase@reddit

You must have an incredible way with words taking such designs to a meeting and being able to convince your boss to start building them…

[-]

Noobing4fun@reddit

Where's the first generation Mercedes-benz A-Class?

[-]

Jamaidian@reddit

Not including the PT Cruiser in this post is like not including Batman in a list of bat-themed fictional characters.

[-]

Burque_Boy@reddit

We’re you around when they came out? People went ape shit for it, they were pretty hard to get ahold of.

[-]

Jamaidian@reddit

Yes, which is how I know how disgusting they were. Popular =/= good.

[-]

Burque_Boy@reddit

I’m not arguing that but they certainly weren’t considered ugly back then, they were super popular

[-]

Jamaidian@reddit

Again, popular =/= good

Taco Bell is popular, but is it good?

The Toyota Echo was popular, but was it pretty?

The cybertruck sells well enough, but like.... No

[-]

Burque_Boy@reddit

The argument isn’t if it’s good it’s if it was considered ugly. Neither of those vehicles were/are very popular. Together they didn’t even come close to Cruiser sales.

[-]

Jamaidian@reddit

My point is that popularity has nothing to do with objective truth. Just because a lot of people bought it, doesn't mean it wasn't always hideous. People listen to Chris Brown. People eat at Applebee's on purpose. People will spend money to see the Fast and the Family 23: Vin Diesel does quarter miles in space on a mobility scooter. People breed dogs in a way that makes their entire lives a suffocating torture, so that they have stubby snouts.

I'd also point out that sometimes a thing's ugliness is part of what draws people to it. See the Scion xB, Nissan Cube, Honda Element, etc.

The PT Cruiser is ugly. It was ugly. It will continue to be ugly. This is my opinion, of course, but you can't say that I'm wrong just because it was popular.

[-]

Burque_Boy@reddit

Yes it does, it’s literally the only objective way to measure truth when it comes to art. If the majority of a market finds something palatable then it’s objectively not bad. They sold 1.3Million Cruisers. I don’t like, I didn’t enjoy driving it either, but that doesn’t mean it was bad.

[-]

Jamaidian@reddit

Beauty is not objective. It is entirely subjective, and our perception of it is influenced by innumerable factors throughout our lives. Personal experience, social pressure, family upbringing, cultural norms, economic status, etc. all play a part. Look at beauty standards for people in various cultures - they vary wildly and even moreso if you consider different time periods.

The PT Cruiser, to me, has never not been ugly. So it sold really well... Okay? I'm supposed to change my opinion?

Don't let others form your opinion for you so easily. If you thought it looked good then, but now think it's ugly, that's valid. If you think it still looks good now, that's also valid. But if you thought it was ugly then, and allowed its popularity to convince you otherwise, that's not awesome.

[-]

Burque_Boy@reddit

I didn’t say it changes anyone’s opinion. I don’t like the PT Cruiser lol What I’m saying is that our opinion is not the majority and that means on a market scale our opinion is wrong

[-]

Jamaidian@reddit

What does "the market" have to do with my personal tastes? What does it have to do with yours? If I let the market decide for me, what separates me from an automaton?

Form and hold your own opinions, friend. It's better for you and those you care about. If they happen to line up with popular opinion, great. If they don't, and as long as they're not harmful, then who cares? Like what you like and don't capitulate.

[-]

Moderately-Whelmed@reddit

And the Nissian Juke.

[-]

No_Pizza5016@reddit

Juke worked commercially though, people liked it

[-]

throwawaynoided@reddit

A shit ton of (not car) people love the look of the PT Cruiser. My buddy got one when they came out, he got more compliments than anyone I've ever seen

[-]

Jamaidian@reddit

People listen to Limp Bizkit on purpose, that doesn't mean I should let their opinion sway me!

[-]

Hinloopen@reddit

Because it's fun driving a metaphorical middle finger. It's fun making someone's day a little uglier.

[-]

Far-Telephone-7432@reddit

I'm sorry but the Hyundai Tucson is one of the ugliest cars ever built. It's over-stylised like most recent Hyundai cars. The Tucson just takes the cake. The front face a hundred little lights concealed into a huge grill. The side profile looks like a blob with weirdly defined character lines. The back is a weird unibrow with aggressive teeth. Nothing is pleasant on the Tucson. The sight of this car gives me anxiety.

[-]

So_Full_Of_Fail@reddit

I'd rock one of those, but make it rowdy.

[-]

Culkeeny1@reddit

That’s not ugly. It’s distinctive. It makes a statement. Anybody got any feed back about what that statement is? Because other than “I must be a little nuts to be driving this thing” I got nothing!

[-]

Pinedale7205@reddit

Because there’s always a fool like me who’s a sucker for a Multipla.

Man is it ugly, but I don’t love it any less…

[-]

Bursickle@reddit

It offers a visual experience compared to the blandness of cars that were (and still are) on the roads.

[-]

quastenflosser4life@reddit

Because it is practical.

Its a miniscule car with loads of room, 6 seats (3front), great visibility, ...

Plus its endearingly ugly.

[-]

BigDickBiggms@reddit

None of these are ugly to me. They are all cool looking economy cars.

[-]

tadeuska@reddit

I can't find this Mazda 121 ugly. It is just so small, there is a limit to what you can do design wise. Thalia is uglish, but that is the compromise of keeping design changes (and price) to minimum while adding a trunk. Others are just wild.

[-]

Educational_Ad6547@reddit

Keep my mazda 121's name out of your god damn mouth!!

[-]

NoNietzsche@reddit

The Multipla is an incredible design. Which we had more of these quirky models instead of the drab SUV slop that we're witnessing in the last decennium.

[-]

_Administrator_@reddit

Reddit will upvote anything as long as you end it with “SuV bAaAaD!!!1!”

[-]

Swiss__Cheese@reddit

Unfortunately, most of them were converted into cars specifically for the elderly.

[-]

Tango91@reddit

Damn straight

[-]

Slow_Description_773@reddit

Lol, Multipla and aztek today turn heads tho..

[-]

Stohnghost@reddit

The Multipla has an ample greenhouse, great seating arrangement, visibility over the hood, and an incredible wheelbase which allows for extended legroom

[-]

jcforbes@reddit

There's no real reason for the hood not to be sloped from the base of the windshield to the nose of the car, though.

[-]

AtomicBombSquad@reddit

Fiat themselves agreed with you. In 2004 they gave it a nosejob which did exactly that. It ran in production until 2010.

[-]

makerspark@reddit

And those were so boring! Give me gen 1 anyday.

[-]

Stohnghost@reddit

Do you not understand DESIGN. A SLOPING HOOD?

[-]

cleaner007@reddit

Taxi services used it in my country, i remember it was really great and wide, ton of space for usually European cars, I see them still from time to time

[-]

Slow_Description_773@reddit

Amazing car, i sold my sectional couch to a friend of mine and he fitted it perfectly in there.

[-]

ConfidentHouse@reddit

Breaking bad put Aztec on the map

[-]

EccentricBolt@reddit

Exactly. Aztec is fine, just boring.

[-]

halcykhan@reddit

They’re trying to get them out the window to vomit

[-]

ko51bay@reddit

I had a Multipla as a loaner car for a Scotland trip once, and i came to the conclusion that it was designed from the inside. It is actually an awesome family trip car despite it’s awful outer appearance. Comfortable, roomy and extremely useful.

[-]

Ep3_Pnw@reddit

Cult classics

[-]

Styro_Goblean@reddit

It's a social experiment made by the illuminati

[-]

SlyClydesdale@reddit

You have hindsight bias. When these were in the design phase, nobody outside the studio had seen them or called them ugly yet.

And auto design would never progress if manufacturers stuck only to safe designs that offended nobody, either.

Polarizing designs move the game forward. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don’t.

Sometimes manufacturers do something wild to draw attention to a vehicle type (like an MPV or CUV) that would be typically dismissed as bland if they only followed convention.

[-]

koffiezet@reddit

Indeed, many 'radical' and at the time of launch controversial designs are now perceived as classic or beautiful. Look at BMW's with the bangle butt now vs 20 years ago.

And one quirk in car-design is that it's often to show-case certain production capabilities, where suddenly certain designs become possible to make reliable and accurate at scale, and designers experiment with it. When looking at the difference in what metal stamping now vs 10, 20 and 30 years is capable of for large body panels, it's pretty impressive. Another driving thing was paint that both adheres to metal and plastic, or colormatching tech for the paints for different applications to look and especially age the same that could be applied at scale and low cost.

[-]

thiccancer@reddit

TBF, I think the bangle butt era BMWs are all nicer as wagons. E60 rear end? Kind of weird. E61? very nice.

[-]

Admirable_Nobody_771@reddit

Ask the designers of the latest BMWs.

[-]

RepresentativeOk3692@reddit

Waltuh. Your car is ugly Waltuh.

[-]

HSVMalooGTS@reddit

The multipla is the only one ugly lol. The Aztek could use a different deisgn from the front but man the rest look OK.

[-]

mrsuperflex@reddit

I don't think it's significantly more difficult to design a cool sportscar than an ordinary cheap family car. The sports car is obviously cool to look at, but that's only because for this range of cars, the designer is allowed to do something cool. For cheap family cars, the job is to make something that's recognisable, but doesn't look like luxury. It doesn't make sense for a lower range car to look like a luxury car.. and also, who'd pay big bucks for a luxury car if the multipla looked like a million

[-]

chinmakes5@reddit

At least in the US, at one point the engineers had all the power. In the early 2000s there were some cars that on paper were awesome. I remember getting into a cab. It was like a midsize Ford Taurus, the back seat was so big, I couldn't believe it. The Chevy Maxx was similar. the interior was amazingly big for its size, but it was ugly and boring as sin. At the same time Chevy had an SS option through their entire line, making the car look and run a bit better. There were people who got that ugly car with the SS package.

[-]

Apprehensive-Ebb7647@reddit

You leave the mazda 121 out of this she didn't do nothing to you! /j

[-]

Substantial-One1934@reddit

Well there are some ugly sweet cars like Fiat 500 , that was renewed and are selling pretty good.

[-]

buttstouchmysoul@reddit

Same reason why i exist

[-]

spindledick@reddit

It would help if you posted some photos of ugly cars.

[-]

Gwarballs@reddit

Thing is, if 75% of people hate it but 25% love it, then it's worth it. I'm not talking about liking it either. There are people who have different tastes and needs.. 75% hate is a lot. But 25% love will sell a lot more cars then 100% indifferent.

[-]

Itchy_Morning_3400@reddit

I didn't think the 121 deserves to be called ugly... It's just a little bubble.

[-]

Altruistic-Fun5062@reddit

Yeap. It's good looking vehicle as Mazdas generally

[-]

rapzeh@reddit

Since when is the Symbol / Clio ugly?!

[-]

Altruistic-Fun5062@reddit

And 121

[-]

shadow18x@reddit

Somebody notify Dank Pods. These goobers are right up his alley.

[-]

Reddit_User6286@reddit

I think you mean Garbage Time, but peak reference.

[-]

shadow18x@reddit

Same guy, close enough

[-]

ProwerTheFox@reddit

Nah they just sound alike, just like that guy that does the drum thing and dankmus

[-]

OreoBoss69@reddit

not everyone thinks the same as you. some people call this a pretty thing, and someone is thinking that this is inovative... i think that if i would buy ts i should first slap a new wide-body build on that thang

[-]

imahumanbeing1@reddit

lol it’s a good question , but I think that multiple is beautiful. Beautifully ugly I guess, it’s got character

[-]

jaykaelano@reddit

You forgot the nissan prairie

[-]

PumpKing096@reddit

I am probably one of few. But I actually like most if them, because they are different than the boring cars you see everywhere.

People complain about cars looking all the same, but when someone produces something out of the norm, it is seen as ugly.

[-]

Quaiche@reddit

Those ugly cars sold very very well, so I don’t think it matters much.

[-]

Mammoth_Duck4343@reddit

I quite like the multipla. Form follows function, that's why it looks so strange.

[-]

markinapub@reddit

I had a Fiat Multipla as a hire car on holiday in Spain once. I'd never want one on my driveway because, look at it, but as a holiday hire car it was genius.

It could fit six of us comfortably, when my mum and step dad went home we put the middle seats down and it was like riding around in a Hummer, and the Fisher Price My First Car giant plastic controls were rental car user proof.

It was a clever car with a face only a mother could love.

[-]

Meister1888@reddit

That Fiat was very roomy and practical. It looks funny however.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Unfortunately your comment has been removed because your Reddit account is less than a day old OR your comment karma is negative. This filter is in effect to minimize spam and trolling from new accounts. Moderators will not put your comment back up.

If you're a new user, you'll have to wait 24h to post in this subreddit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Cosephtaughtyou@reddit

Aye its tory lanez

[-]

Left-Equipment7137@reddit

The Multipla was a great piece of design that was ruined when they redesigned it in 2004. Three abreast seating and 430 to 1900 litre luggage space with under 4 meter length.

[-]

MagikSkoolBus@reddit

The Pontiac Aztek was just ahead of its time judging by many SUVs that came out around 2020. Especially from Mitsubishi.

[-]

gomurifle@reddit

The ugliest baby still looks darned cute to it's mother.

[-]

UnknownAnonAnonAnon@reddit

They get paid to make not ask questions.

[-]

Accurate_Handle_229@reddit

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And on top of that lot of people are not interested in cars at all. So they just don't care how their personal transportation looks like. And also there's a lot of people who don't care about design or how the things look in general. That's why 3/4 pants, socks and sandals etc. exist.

[-]

c172fccc@reddit

Well the Renault is an easy one. It was designed as an hatchback for Europe and then the sedan was made for other market, but they kept the same rear doors as the hatchback as a cost-cutting measure.

[-]

loulan@reddit

I've seen a lot of Renault Clios in my life but none that looked like OP's picture. When is this model from?

[-]

Ronaldinjchina@reddit

It was sold as Renault Thalia or Symbol in some parts of europe. It was called Clio in some other markets.

It was only available in some European countries as it was intended to be a low budget car, so if you've never seen one, it probably means you don't live in a poor country 😅

[-]

acolombo@reddit

Where is it from, not when is it from. They were not for the main European market, they were sold in Africa, South America and Eastern Europe. Other brands had the same strategy in the early 2000s, for example Peugeot did the same with the 206, Fiat had the Linea in Brazil instead of the Punto, etc.

[-]

someexgoogler@reddit

some people don't care if others think their car is ugly.

[-]

Soros_G@reddit

Ay hands off the Mazda

[-]

Fit_Equivalent3610@reddit

It’s clearly too cute to be ugly.

[-]

Wheredafukarwi@reddit

Wait until you see one with teddy bear alloys...

I have a set of these on my 1991 Mazda 121 as an original dealer option (mine came with even the spare wheel as one of these).

[-]

Altandettaget@reddit

We called it "the cunt".....it wasn't pretty, but the ride was ok

[-]

Turbulent_Goose_772@reddit

This is what I was going to say

[-]

That_One_Guy_Flare@reddit

what model is it?

[-]

Soros_G@reddit

It's a Mazda 121 (second generation I think)

And my mom had one before she was forced to sell it for cash, but she still talks about that car. I think it's a cute little car

[-]

Ecstatic-Network4668@reddit

They make these ugly cars so people are more willing to spend more money on a better looking car.

[-]

Juuldebuul@reddit

How dare you

[-]

Mr-Blackheart@reddit

“Design by committee”.

Lots of fugly cars are a collab effort.

[-]

idkeverynameistaken9@reddit

Maybe it’s another sign of the end times but at least from this angle, the Aztek looks kinda nice ngl

[-]

pauldy@reddit

I don’t think everyone agrees on the Aztec, just some really vocal anti Pontiac pretty much everything people. Certainly has more character than the rest of the cross over clones.

[-]

ubpfc@reddit

Obviously not everyone thinks they are ugly. Everyone has different tastes.

[-]

Remarkable_Ad5011@reddit

Because there’s an ass for every saddle…

[-]

Gavekort@reddit

Because of regulation and design by committee. This was the Aztec concept car, that was subsequently destroyed by compliance and carelessness for the designers intent.

https://www.below-the-radar.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Pontiac-Aztek-03-1500x1000.jpg?v=1675705623

[-]

SlyClydesdale@reddit

Compliance and carelessness weren’t the problems.

GM needed to get more volume out of its terrible U-body minivan platform to defray costs. So they screwed up the Aztek’s proportions so it could adapt the minivan platforms hard points.

The clumsy detailing had more to do with making them easier and cheaper to build.

[-]

Gavekort@reddit

Sounds like design by committee to me. The scenario you are describing is one of the many ways a car can be thoughfully designed, but get ruined in the execution. Probably because the development was done in a waterfall, instead of in conjunction with the designer.

[-]

SlyClydesdale@reddit

Every car at every volume manufacturer is designed by a committee.

In this case, that committee was trying to keep production costs low so GM could have a decent shot at making a profit on it. But that goal ultimately compromised the product.

[-]

Gavekort@reddit

Design by committee refers to a specific organizational dysfunction, which GM had a lot of back then.

[-]

Due_Sample_328@reddit

Not that ugly tbh

[-]

MadTha02@reddit

Honestly they are fun to look at.

Better than the copy & paste shit we get now.

[-]

SoyEseVato@reddit

What in the world was the first one?!

[-]

superpowerpinger@reddit

Aztek is ugly because you are told it's ugly.

[-]

friendlysaxoffender@reddit

I imagine because cheaper designers produce worse designs. (Can you draw a cool car design? From all angles ready to produce? Probably looks like an Aztec right?)

Cheaper engineers will make the cheap concept look even worse ready for production (remember all those cool concept cars you’ve seen that look so much less cool once they go into production due to regulations and limitations?)

[-]

Meister1888@reddit

Aztec looks pretty modern today. Too futuristic at release I suppose.

These drive great and have a ton of space. Very practical.

[-]

breadman889@reddit

My guess is that they are either trying to start a new trend, or, they want you to buy a more expensive car

[-]

AustrianMichael@reddit

That Clio is just a first gen Dacia Logan with a Renault Clio front. Cheaper tooling and manufacturing to just use your cheapo car and slap another badge on it.

[-]

superparet@reddit (OP)

It’s not actually, it’s a special version for Turkey because they want trunks

[-]

OwnedByTheHound@reddit

Don’t you dare diss the Multipla and the Mazda 121!

The Multipla’s a wonderful, crazy insane thing that made perfect sense to someone at Fiat. I’d hate to live in a world where such devices weren’t possible thanks to focus groups and humorless committees.

I actually owned a 121 and it was a brilliant little thing with a huge amount of charm. Calling it ugly triggers my you-just-insulted-my-kid-and-kicked-my-dog reflex, dude!

(The Clio sedan, Koleos and Aztek? Yeah, fair call…)

[-]

Its_Teo_Mate@reddit

Whats worse is that so many cool concept cars never get produced, while the ugly ones do.

[-]

Kroooza@reddit

azteks are cool

[-]

Paullasvegas@reddit

ask AMC they made the Pacer

[-]

Hour_Tangerine9075@reddit

Well, looks are only a matter of opinon (eye of the beholder). It's not alway what you see is what you get. I even wrote a little opionon about Multipla's potential future - https://www.reddit.com/r/whatcarshouldIbuy/comments/1s9syk9/comment/odqyovm/

[-]

superparet@reddit (OP)

Well it looks like everyone doesn’t seem to agree so the question itself becomes irrelevant.

[-]

xinxs@reddit

/r/carscirclejerk

[-]

Reddit_User6286@reddit

I am studying to be an automotive designer and I can assure you, car companies don't just sign a document and give orders saying, "now we shall make ugly cars!". Rather, designers usually have little clue how a design will be received. They have to create a balance between modern fashion trends and simple classic proportioning. Then they test it via customer clinics

Sometimes they are successful and they know it. The first Mustang and it's pony car styling was new, it was unique, but the designers liked it and the customer clinics reinforced that likability.

Other times, they might be unsuccessful and know it, but it's too late to change the styling. The Mk2 Ford Scorpio's styling was liked by the team that designed it (and personally, I think the rear, at the very least has potential) but the public found it too boring and some found it downright weird. The balance between the then Ford styling trend of making their cars look American and the classic styling of a three-box sedan was lost.

Yet other times, they might fail and refuse to acknowledge it. The Pontiac Aztek was based on the Aztek concept car, which honestly isn't bad. But the conversion from concept to production had disastrous effects on it's styling, and the head of the styling team refused to accept the criticism he was receiving, believing that it was just a knee-jerk reaction and that people would eventually warm to the car.

And in the oldest of times, they may be successful but not realise it. The Mk1 Ford Focus was lauded for its "New Edge" styling direction, but not many know that merely months before its launch, Ford hired a new head of design: J Mays. Mays had come from Volkswagen, freshly having designed the Golf (I don't recall if it was the Mk3 or Mk4), and he hated the Focus, redesigning a new version that now looks incredibly dull, but he preferred it. Luckily, his design did not make production for the same reason the Scorpio didn't: it was too late to change the styling. The design had been locked in.

TL;DR: Designers have to strike a balance between interesting forms that they like (stuff that'll get them recognition in the industry) and the generally more plain styling preferences of the general public. Sometimes they get it spot on, like the new Bronco, other times, they're not so successful, like the Aztek

[-]

JayyBeeee@reddit

Honestly, I thought the PT Cruiser was going to turn into a collector's car...still do

[-]

JP147@reddit

Most of them are pretty ugly but I don’t see how they are worse than the average modern car today

[-]

Con_Bot_@reddit

People listen to Coldplay and voted for the Nazis Jeremy, you can’t listen to people

[-]

b3rn13mac@reddit

Sorry you just have shit taste. Multipla is Car of the Century.

[-]

Mallthus2@reddit

Style is fundamentally subjective.

Some people will actively seek out an interesting design over a more conventionally attractive design to make a stylistic statement. Some automakers have figured out that it’s better to have a polarizing design than one that’s merely acceptable, knowing that a car’s success is based on being at least some people’s first choice, not everyone’s second or third choice.

[-]

Real-Edge-9288@reddit

fiat panda is also an ugly ass car

[-]

austinmiles@reddit

The multipla and the Aztek are both know for having very good driving experiences. Especially at the time. The aztek just had an ugly grill and the back was just ahead of its time as it was early in the crossover space. The multipla had crazy visibility.

[-]

Ancient-Tax-8129@reddit

I love this ugly Lil car

[-]

EricHaley@reddit

So that beautiful cars can exist

[-]

edsavage404@reddit

Lots of Yes Man in the corporate world

[-]

blchpmnk@reddit

None of the vehicles you've shown are half as ugly as the USA's best-sellers list.

I'd rather stare at the Sun than see another Silverado.

[-]

F_U_If_U_like_Trump@reddit

I actually really like the Pontiac Aztec. Super cool it has the little see-through window on the back

[-]

prancing_moose@reddit

I can forgive the Multipla - sure it’s ugly, but Fiat was really going for something here. There wasn’t ever and hasn’t ever been any car that remotely looked like this. And from a pure utilitarian perspective, you can’t haul the same amount of people in any normal car unless you get a van. So it’s a van without being a van.

The rest of the selection of cars have no excuse - they’re just butt ugly. But to me the Multipla is something else. Not that I would ever buy (or need) one but you got to give it props for being a lot more than just ugly.

[-]

Small-Usual3169@reddit

Don't you ever disrespect the multipla like that or else

[-]

FullBodyScammer@reddit

“Don’t talk to me or my Multipla ever again”

[-]

tony_saufcok@reddit

lol i think the symbol looks alright

[-]

SteelerNation587543@reddit

Sometimes the elements that make a car attractive also make it impractical. Sometimes design elements are so identifiable with one manufacturer that they cannot be used by another one and the engineering solution isn’t attractive. Sometimes the desired look cannot be reproduced inexpensively for mass production so changes are made that affect the appearance. Sometimes the designer/manufacturer is trying to create a new, identifiable design language and it doesn’t succeed.

Lots of possibilities. Pick one.

[-]

zespak@reddit

A lineup of ugly cars but not one BMW? WTH

[-]

Forsaken_Pickle92@reddit

First one is the biggest question for me.

[-]

vanmutt@reddit

I like the koleos and multipla.

[-]

Lapis_Wolf@reddit

Most of these look fine

[-]

SlyClydesdale@reddit

Also, the Mazda 121 was acclaimed for its styling at the time.

The Clio Symbol was an after-the-fact addition to the product range to appeal to developing markets. Adapting an already established 2-box supermini body into a 3-box sedan style was always likely to look awkward.

[-]

_A_Dumb_Person_@reddit

Multipla is great, original, quirky design, and I will not let anyone insult its glory

[-]

_A_Dumb_Person_@reddit

Oh, and the Aztek also looks cool

[-]

freeski919@reddit

Every car designer is trying to capture the next trend.

I remember reading my dad's Popular Mechanics back in the 90s, and they had an article that showed concept drawings of what the next generation of Cadillacs might look like. They were sharp, angular designs. This was at a time when most cars had rounded body lines.

I thought to myself, "oh god, those are hideous, I hope they never get made."

Then in 2003, Cadillac released their Art and Science design language, with sharp, angular lines. And guess what? They were wildly popular.

So some of these ugly cars were an attempt to capture the next trend that failed. Look at the Aztek. It was derided as hideous, but you can find the same design cues in many modern CUVs.

[-]

crankbot2000@reddit

Where Juke?

[-]

Funeral_Goat_1446@reddit

I like it

[-]

nedovolnoe_sopenie@reddit

what do you MEAN

symbol is giga based

[-]

Scrap!

[-]