What's the ugliest new car on sale today?

[High-Test]

I'm giving a list Of automotive sins that have Harley Earl spinning in his grave. (to anyone that brings up the 1958 "50 lbs. of chrome order", we can discuss that in PMs or another thread.

1.The entire line of smart cars. even the forfour and formore, which aren't out yet. The two seater and the roadster are ugly as sin. Why do they sell? they have less cargo space than a plymouth prowler with it's top down. What's the point of getting 39 mpg when it can only haul one person comfortably?

2. Bangle creations. Even the Fiat. If any further Explanation is required, take a look at the older 5 series, and then lookat the new one.

3. Perodua Kernari. It screams "i wanna look like an 80s lancia!" And it's Fugly, and probably FUBAR and SNAFU, as well.

4. That Ssanyongyyongyyongy thing. It's hideous!

5. The entire line of Suzukis. period. Especially the Aerio.

6. THe B9 Tribeca, and the "new look" of Subaru.

7. That thing Famine posted. The Pitz's fugly and fat big sister.

8. The Mercedes A and B series

9. THe Audi A2

10. Finally, The Pontiac sunfire.

 

[Emohawk]

Hasn't the Sunfire ended production yet? The sooner the better.

 

[1X83Z]

Production on the Sunfire ends next week, ironically - and thankfully - enough.

 

[McLaren'sAngel]

Hiya! Meow! (='.'=)

Pontiac sunfire! ARG!

http://www.pontiac.com/sunfire/index.jsp?brand=home

 

[Victor Vance]

I think a Pontiac Aztek. The car looks like it has hit a tree, not once but a few times:

Actually, it got a bit less ugly thanks to the removal of body cladding and wheel changes in '04. Still butt-ugly... however, that new Subaru SUV takes the cake. (especially when you consider the Aztek is close to death)

Although the Buick Terazza takes the award for ugliest minivan

 

[Emohawk]

Closely followed by the other three GM quadruplet vans. That SUV styling thing they tried with those really fell hard. On it's face. Into a pile of ugly sticks.
They look even worse when compared to the Dodge Caravan, which I think is the best looking minivan ever.

 

[TheCracker]

1.The entire line of smart cars. even the forfour and formore, which aren't out yet. The two seater and the roadster are ugly as sin. Why do they sell? they have less cargo space than a plymouth prowler with it's top down. What's the point of getting 39 mpg when it can only haul one person comfortably?

Because its designed for and used in cities where space is tight and fuel is expensive. People use them for commuting, so usually there is only the driver and maybe a passenger in the car - why have more seats? - people who drive to work don't often have much luggage. The 'roadster' and 'four four' are ugly - the original smart is quite cute IMO.

The BMW 1 series is just a lumpen, badly proportioned freak.

 

[High-Test]

Because its designed for and used in cities where space is tight and fuel is expensive. People use them for commuting, so usually there is only the driver and maybe a passenger in the car - why have more seats? - people who drive to work don't often have much luggage. The 'roadster' and 'four four' are ugly - the original smart is quite cute IMO.

The BMW 1 series is just a lumpen, badly proportioned freak.

I got to get in one when I was in the UK, The cargo tray in the back looks like it can barely fit one grocery bag! Right it's small and gets good gas mileage, but it goes against the concept that the car has become to be the definition of: something you can take another person and the groceries, drycleaning, etc. around town comfortably. That's what most of us use the car as. a way to get from A to B comfortably, and also to run errands around town. Sure it might help that the car can perpendicular park in a parallel parking space, but it can't possibly hold two grown human beings, three grocery bags and her purse comfortably. I think when you factor in that a Peugeot 106 or a toyota Vitz/yaris can get City fuel economy in the 30's or 40's, and hold two adults and the groceries more comfortably than the smart, it makes the smart almost seenm like a waste of gas and metal. Why boast about a car getting 39-43 MPG when it can hardly hold two people? I'd hate to see what happens when a van hits one.

 

[Firebird]

Why boast about a car getting 39-43 MPG ... ?

39-43?


The smart fortwo cdi is rated 52/63 (62/75 in miles per imperial gallon) ....

 

[High-Test]

Oops. Sorry about that. I need to check the facts before I post a guess.

 

[Ev0]

Production on the Sunfire ends next week, ironically - and thankfully - enough.

Thank god. There are way too many smacktards in this country who drive them (When combined with the Cavailer, it's the 4th best selling car in Canada). I bet nearly everyone who drives one of these doesn't realise they're getting what is in essence a rebadged and rebodied Cavalier.

 

[Hell Raiser]

The Ssangyong Rodius/Stavic

Which, incrediby, looks even worse from behind..

I can't even spell the damn name!!!!!

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

My vote would have gone to the Multipla, but the new version isn't so bad. I saw a half dozen of the old ones in Italy last year, nearly puked when they went by.

So, I'm voting for the Tribeca, with the upcoming Impreza on the list, too.

I actually like Bangle's BMWs. What I've realized is that his overall shapes are really good, he just screws up on things like headlights and grilles. He's getting much better on that front, though.

 

[Drifting Thunda]

Chrysler PT Cruiser is the absolute ugliest.

 

[G.T]

Chrysler PT Cruiser is the absolute ugliest.

You don't like the styling? We nearly bought one once because we liked it. We didn't in the end because the interior was very tinny and wasn't as comfortable as other cars.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I don't mind the styling, I just hate the shape. Looks like a tiny hurse (sp?). My dad also likes the styling, and thatw as before he started winding me up saying he wanted a multipla.

 

[Drifting Thunda]

I guess it's just not my cup of tea.

 

[G.T]

I don't mind the styling, I just hate the shape. Looks like a tiny hurse (sp?). My dad also likes the styling, and thatw as before he started winding me up saying he wanted a multipla.

We had a Multipla before we looked at this car. He nearly owned the most radical looking MPV's on sale today.

Edit: Instead we got a Chrysler Voyager.

 

[Drifting Thunda]

When it comes to American automobiles I'm not a big Chrysler fan. I'm much more partial to Fords and GMs.

I will admit though that I like some of what Chrysler has done lately.

 

[G.T]

When it comes to American automobiles I'm not a big Chrysler fan. I'm much more partial to Fords and GMs.

I will admit though that I like some of what Chrysler has done lately.

Mind you we got rid of the Voyager in the end because it was expensive to run and the manual gearbox was CRAP. Chrysler replaced it with another one and was a little better but it was still so useless. Sometimes it wouldn't go into second or third, it was that bad.

 

[Drifting Thunda]

Sometimes my SC wouldn't go into reverse without grinding even with clutch to the floor. I later found out all M5R2 trannies are like that and people found out if you put it in 3rd then reverse it's fine every time. Kinda weird huh?

 

[Blackbird.]

Whoever said the Eclipse isn't on sale. It is. Go check a mitsu dealer. I saw one that very day you posted saying it wasn't.

 

[Emohawk]

Ah, the new Eclipse. Utter crap.

G.T: You had a minivan with a stick shift?

 

[G.T]

Ah, the new Eclipse. Utter crap.

G.T: You had a minivan with a stick shift?

My Dad did. An automatic with a 2.4 litre which is already underpowered for the car won't match well, plus fuel consumption will be much worse. It was already doing 20mpg around town and god knows what it would to with an automatic. I heard there problems with the auto transmission anyway. It gets confused easily.

 

[1X83Z]

Ah, the new Eclipse. Utter crap.

Why would you say that?

G.T: You had a minivan with a stick shift?

A lot of early Chrysler minivans had manual transmissions; it's pretty common on first-generation models. At one point they sold a manual/turbo combination, too - still was slow as hell. You'd think a mid-80s manual/turbo Chrysler would be pretty quick, but no. Meanwhile, the Toyota Previa was a supercharged/all-wheel drive mid-90s Toyota. You'd think that too would be quick but again, no.

 

[Emohawk]

Besides being hidious? It's big, much bigger then the previous generation, but with less interior room. Fast in a straight line (with the big lazy V6), but the squidgy suspention and heavy nose cripple it's handling.
Sounds like a Crown Vic, only without all the good parts.

 

[G.T]

BTW it was the latest generation Voyager my Dad had. (not the very latest facelifted version)

 

[1X83Z]

Besides being hidious? It's big, much bigger then the previous generation, but with less interior room. Fast in a straight line (with the big lazy V6), but the squidgy suspention and heavy nose cripple it's handling.
Sounds like a Crown Vic, only without all the good parts.

I have strong feelings little of this is true. I'm driving one Saturday - I'll report back.

BTW it was the latest generation Voyager my Dad had. (not the very latest facelifted version)

Such a vehicle was never sold with a manual transmission in the US. You're referring to the 1996-2000 style, I assume. Automatics only.

 

[Firebird]

Such a vehicle was never sold with a manual transmission in the US. You're referring to the 1996-2000 style, I assume. Automatics only.

Probably the reason the manual sucked so bad. I doubt the American designers accounted for a stick shift linkage.

 

[Emohawk]

I have strong feelings little of this is true. I'm driving one Saturday - I'll report back.

Please do, I've now read three reviews, all of which are contradictory;
1: Pathetic
2: Awesome!
3: It's bad, but we'll say it isn't.
1: Horrible torque steer.
2: No torque steer whatsoever!
3: Some torque steer, but it's really good torque steer. It's a really great car.
1: Cramped interior with low rent materials
2: The drivers seat is so comfortable! My ass doesn't hurt at all!
3: It's, umm, class leading.
1: But it's so cheap and crappy. And there's no storage space in the cabin.
2: Everything lights up blue though.
2&3: Blue!
1: It understeers like a freighter.
2: Attacks corners like a vicious cat, fabulous!
3: You can hardly tell it's got more then 60% of it's weight on the front axle. And by hardly, I mean it doesn't matter, because it's all good. And the stuff lights up blue!
2&3: Blue!