the "just plain ugly" car thread
- Thread starter land sea air
- 3,689 comments
- 343,016 views
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
"So, what will we do with the lights this time?"
The87Dodge
(Banned)
- 3,186
- Seattle, WA
- rizkeat
I actually don't find this ugly at all."So, what will we do with the lights this time?"
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
Shape of the car is ok, but those lights are so... uninspired, and subsequently they screw the whole design up for me.
General trend though this year, they really don't know what to do with them anymore so it would look original.
- 15,393
- TRAPPIST-1g
- ProjectWHaT
It looks like someone took a Cadillac and hit it with a hammer a couple times so that the lights were bent.
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,762
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
It would be better if the bottom of those LED strips were flush with the bottom of the light assembly."So, what will we do with the lights this time?"
- 3,023
- Peruibe, SP
Here's a daring one. I can name one. Dodge Charger.
INB4: "Out, now. Are you off your high horse?"
Well, chill boys. I have the right idea. this one, a 1975 Dodge Charger. When I did a poll with the nominations of some chargers, I saw this one and I was like "What in the holy crap in this?" The front reminds me of a Chevy Monte Carlo.
And the rear reminds of the Dodge Magnum, a bit too much. It's hard to believe the Charger became this in the Mid-70's.
INB4: "Out, now. Are you off your high horse?"
Well, chill boys. I have the right idea. this one, a 1975 Dodge Charger. When I did a poll with the nominations of some chargers, I saw this one and I was like "What in the holy crap in this?" The front reminds me of a Chevy Monte Carlo.
And the rear reminds of the Dodge Magnum, a bit too much. It's hard to believe the Charger became this in the Mid-70's.
Last edited:
- 16,357
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
How is that a Charger????Here's a daring one. I can name one. Dodge Charger.
INB4: "Out, now. Are you off your high horse?"
Well, chill boys. I have the right idea. this one, a 1975 Dodge Charger. When I did a poll with the nominations of some chargers, I saw this one and I was like "What in the holy crap in this?" The front reminds me of a Chevy Monte Carlo.
And the rear reminds of the Dodge Magnum, a bit too much. It's hard to believe the Charger became this in the Mid-70's.
- 3,023
- Peruibe, SP
You tell me. Apparently, In the mid 70's, Dodge thought it was a good idea to make it a freaking personal luxury car.
Bud.
That is very wrong, on a car that used to eb a muscle car in the past. Kinda is in reality still, sorta, thankfully but man, those years..jeez-us.
Bud.
That is very wrong, on a car that used to eb a muscle car in the past. Kinda is in reality still, sorta, thankfully but man, those years..jeez-us.
The87Dodge
(Banned)
- 3,186
- Seattle, WA
- rizkeat
It actually was a good idea, except the Charger was poorly executed. It doesn't look super ugly, and it is not a junker either, but the Charger nameplate is known for muscle and high power and torque. But after the crisis in '71, many muscle cars died out, and personal executive cars would sell better than them, since the muscle cars could not achieve the power and macho-ness that they had before the crisis.
That being said, Dodge could've done better. They could've increased the power and torque up to 235 horsepower and 260 lb-ft or so without breaking emission laws. They could've made it look more macho or sporty, and less humdrum. The Charger could combine the two classes of cars, being a "performance luxury car" instead of a "generic luxury car". An average, unspectacular car like the late 70's Charger doesn't deserve the Charger nameplate.
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,762
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
For once, this actually seems like a reasonable comment on this era of Charger. I'd drive one just so people look at it and say "What the hell is that thing?"
- 29,914
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Probably not terribly unlike the way the GTO of a year earlier was just a Ventura.
Last edited:
MedigoFlame
Premium
- 6,219
- Maine
- MedigoFlameX
Saw a Cadillac XT5 in person. Not liking it. 
The87Dodge
(Banned)
- 3,186
- Seattle, WA
- rizkeat
Not crazy about it, but it's better looking than the bland SRX.Saw a Cadillac XT5 in person. Not liking it.
- 3,023
- Peruibe, SP
I know it's your opinion and all but, you've got to be kidding. I'd rather be bland and boring than being an ugly bastard.
- 3,023
- Peruibe, SP
I'd put that as Ugly but Appealling. I'm not even joking, there's something about it that is making me like it. Looks kinda wrong that it's sorta right. It's unique, I'll tell you that much.
- 3,023
- Peruibe, SP
The cocept verrsion. The concept looks to be way worse from the actual car. Yuck.
The87Dodge
(Banned)
- 3,186
- Seattle, WA
- rizkeat
- 3,023
- Peruibe, SP
...You find that Aztek concept BETTER than the multipla?! And have in midn the Multipla is older than the Aztek...
Looking at the multipla, I'd say is not as bad as this Aztek, but to find it worse...
I'm legit done at this point. Seriously, I'm so done.
Looking at the multipla, I'd say is not as bad as this Aztek, but to find it worse...
I'm legit done at this point. Seriously, I'm so done.
The87Dodge
(Banned)
- 3,186
- Seattle, WA
- rizkeat
They both look like poop, but if I had to choose, I'd go for the Aztek.
R5
(Banned)
- 7,527
- Location, Location
How much of that is to do with looks though?
