Have you ever noticed just how many different types of dogs there are? Have you also noticed that you really don’t like those little yappy ones with the bugged-out eyes, while people like Kim Kardashian can’t get enough of them? Yes, people have different tastes, and while many of us fall into very clear dog-preference categories, when it comes to cars there are some that are almost universally loved for their appearance.
I say almost because there’s always one in every crowd—that person who has to be contrarian. Today, when it comes to crowd-pleasing cars, we want to know which of those makes you that one. What is a car that is generally considered beautiful but just doesn’t do it for you?
Image: chrisoncars
Hooniverse Asks: What Universally Accepted to be Beautiful Car Do You Actually Find Unattractive?
By Robert Emslie
Feb 29, 2016
Kamil Kaluski 
Jeff Glucker
For the guy who has too much of everything, here is too much more.
http://f.images.boldride.com/ferrari/1995/ferrari-f50-1319052072-30973.jpg
Too much.
See, I don’t think that’s ever been on the ‘beautiful cars’ list. For
me, the F50 and the Enzo are the ‘I was wrong about you in high school,
and now you are super hot.’ And the overrated prom queens are the Gen 5 Maserati Quattroporte and Audi A7. The rest of the class thinks they’re gorgeous, and I think they land off to the something weird or completely bland sides of the runway.
True, I was a bit in doubt about the beautiful part myself – but the case is made by the general adoration of the product. It’s supposed to be the bare top end of a slim market. Aerodynamics should force it to look somewhat organic and inevitable in the force it produces just while standing still. Instead, to me, it looks like a bored, ungainly, supercar-ish doodle. No offense to Ferrari-folks, it’s just not where I expected it to be.
To me it’s more a matter of the giant panel gaps making it look like a Fauxrrari kit car.
I know these adorned thousands of bedroom walls across the land; but I think the Lamborghini Countach, though it might be brutal, certainly isn’t beautiful.
The early models looked way better without all the wings and flairs and etc…
http://bestcarmag.com/sites/default/files/559091lamborghini-countach-1974-1.jpg
No. I understand your position, but I emphatically disagree. The Countach may have been penned in the seventies, but it embodies the eighties, and the flares and wing made the Countach what it was always meant to be…
…right up until the flares and wing jumped the shark with the 25th anniversary model.
Have to agree. For some cars, I could go either way (early, clean-looking Pantera, or later, be-winged Pantera? Those massive fender flares, too…), but a Countach without the 80s awesomeness/craziness somehow looks naked. Regardless, it is definitely more in the brutal than the beautiful camp.
Tangentially related, a while back I saw a gallery of images of cars that had been Star Wars-ified in some way or another, with captions detailing who/what they were meant as a tribute to. This one made me laugh out loud:
http://a38898d4011a160a051fb191.gearheads.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/wedge-antilles-lamborghini-countach-a-wing.jpg?dc1e0f
The tribute was to the A-Wing fighter, and the pilot Wedge Antilles. I see what you did there, awesome mashup artist.
I’ve never found the Porsche 911 to be attractive. To me it looks awkward. And not in a good way.
I’m not sure this was ever considered really beautiful, but IMHO it’s really an ugly car, with ungainly proportions and weird styling. I think it remains popular because of the movie
No doubt popularised by BTTF, but probably found bedroom door space by virtue of having really cool doors. Same goes for the Countach.
See, I expected this to come up. Personally, I really like it: The big, brutal spaces in rustfree steel, the gorgeous wheels, the very clean and uncluttered lines, the whole concept of “here, take this ‘colour’ – no options”. I’d like it even without the freak doors.
It does have great proportions and detailing, just like Giorgetto Guigiaro’s first sketch showed for their new client…
http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/gallery_slide/public/images/car-reviews/first-drives/legacy/delorean-giu-1.jpg?itok=qEGSjI4s
He did have a consistent style, Here’s the first Golf as well
http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/gallery_slide/public/images/car-reviews/first-drives/legacy/vw-golf-giu-2.jpg?itok=x3qYwP0b
And the ‘Sud
http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/gallery_slide/public/images/car-reviews/first-drives/legacy/alfasud-giu2.jpg?itok=9Pu2L5_h
And the first Hyundai, the Pony.
http://i0.wp.com/formtrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/hyundai-pony.jpg?resize=495%2C330
Ferrari Breadvan.
http://www.murileemartin.com/UG/LTW11/LTW11-UG-0181.jpg
I’ll personally go one further and state ANY shooting brake. Clown shoe, 1800ES, you name, I don’t care for it.
Isn’t that just the bread warmer?
http://www.driversgeneration.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bmw-m5-E391.jpg
Everyone acts like it’s the last good looking 5-series, but to me it just looks dumpy, fat and inert.
::clutches pearls::
*whispers*I actually kind of prefer the E60 to the E39, looks-wise. Don’t shun me much*/whisper*
Next, you’ll tell us you prefer the E60’s V10 and 7-SMT gearbox to the E39’s timeless V8/6M combo.
I wouldn’t go that far, but a four-door sedan with (in absurdly simplistic terms) an F1 engine is respectably bonkers.
The e34 design is timeless. e39, not so much.
I do slightly prefer the E34’s sharper edges to the E39’s very mid-90s bubble look, but for a car designed in the mid-90s, it’s a fantastic looker.
Concur, I do have an E34, and I might say that I prefer the aesthetics of the E39 over the E34. Why? It seems that the E39 conveys the brutish pose and muscular hinting that BMW wanted out of the 5 more so than the E34. Could be a function of age, as I am 27 now, E39s were to be lusted after when I was doing my car awakening period (which means reading car mags/watching car shows more than playing with toy cars/models).
I’ll just leave this here for comparison (’95 540i M-Sport).
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Mbkw61wKan4/VnM0wD34cqI/AAAAAAAANYQ/G_36LeoXD-I/s640-Ic42/DSCN1298.JPG
People seem to have been going nuts over the Alfa Romeo Disco Volante since it was on Top Gear, but I just can’t bring myself to call it beautiful. It’s a little too “out there” for me.
http://i.auto-bild.de/ir_img/1/0/6/9/2/7/1/Alfa-Romeo-Disco-Volante-560×373-a54be3ba24986e6e.jpg
Disco Volante: You’re wrong.
Regular 8C: Complete agreement.
I’m the exact opposite. lol. The 8C does it for me. I love it.
Same here. The Disco looks like a 13-year old wearing braces headgear.
Concur. It’s an over-inflated mess. And this is coming from a guy who thinks that the bar-of-soap 90s cars are sexy.
“…Disco Volante…it’s a little too ‘out there’ for me.”
Well, there will always be skeptics.
*X Files theme plays*
That song is going to start playing in my head whenever I look at this car now.
Might I just have both?
Lots of people go crazy over it, but…it just looks like a box.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/AlfaRomeo_164_front.jpg
Speedster. It might have been a great car, but it looks like a bathtub had sex with a cockroach.
http://www.porschery.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Porsche_356_speedster_7.28672746_large.JPG
http://zombdrive.com/images/2008_mercedes-benz_cls-class_sedan_cls550_fq_oem_1_500.jpg
Many people seem to think the original CLS is an attractive car. I am not one of those people. I think it looks like a mid-2000’s Benz (not a good start) that was left out in the sun too long. The 2nd gen is better, but I still don’t want one over an E-Class.
Benzo had some big styling missteps in the 00s, but they’re starting to come back, I think.
Very much so, Bruno Sacco and Paul Bracq are my homeboys, but they’ve gotten back to what’ll hopefully be fairly timeless.
Specially when you bear in mind that it was originally going to be a four door pillarless version of Peter Arcardipane’s sublime C215 Coupe instead of a slit windowed silver slug based on the curve of a banana. (He’s the guy that brought us the ‘Mad Max’ XB Falcon.)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/2003-Mercedes-Benz-CL55-AMG.jpg/1024px-2003-Mercedes-Benz-CL55-AMG.jpg
http://www.thenational.ae/storyimage/AB/20090411/ARTICLE/304119949/AR/0/AR-304119949.jpg
In Mopar circles the ’97-’04 Dakota styling is widely praised, for reasons that have never been entirely clear to me. I thought it had too much of the mid-90’s blobbiness and I never liked the headlight/grille area.
http://hooniverse.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Dodge-Dakota_Quad_Cab_2000_1024x768_wallpaper_08.jpg
I preferred the subsequent ’05 (shown), and particularly the ’08-’11; but no “why did the quit making Dakotas” discussion seems to be complete without a ’97-’04 partisan saying something like “it was so ugly they should have had vomit buckets at every station of the assembly line”.
http://i2.wp.com/hooniverse.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Dodge-Dakota_2005_1024x768_wallpaper_01.jpg
Though I’m firmly of the opinion that looks were a serious drawback to last-generation Daks, the Mitsubishi version was even worse.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Mitsubishi_Raider_crew_cab.jpg
First time I see it. Novelty bonus aside, it seems to have a face too big for its body.
I am of the opposite opinion, but I’m definitely biased since my first car was a rebuilt 1999 Dakota. I think the 1997-2004 Dakotas (with the exception of the extended cab) were great looking trucks, and I’d go so far as to say one of the best looking small/midsize trucks ever. To me they seem like a well-proportioned, sleek design. I think the 2005-2007 Dakotas were horrendously ugly (the front end looks like a bulldog with a really bad underbite), but I also think that the 2008-2011 Dakotas weren’t too bad. That picture you posted makes it look okay, but from other angles, and especially in other colors, I think it looks terrible.
Four door “coupes”, except for the Panamera (yes, I like it). With a couple of notable exceptions, anything Zagato.
Many of those attempts are horrible, and as with many cars, it comes down to trim level. Personally, I originally found the example below rather hideous, but in the metal it’s rather sexy.
http://bestcarmag.com/sites/default/files/29618562015-volkswagen-cc-2.jpg
https://file.kbb.com/kbb/images/content/editorial/slideshow/2015-aston-martin-rapide-s-quick-take/02-2015-aston-martin-rapide-s-600-001.jpg Are you sure?
I do not like 1968-1972 GM A-body cars. Sorry Sir Mix-A-Lot, I DON’T like big butts
http://www.thelingenfeltercollection.com/wp-content/uploads/Chevell_SS_20.jpg
The “initial” generation (1964) A-body was great looking, and got less so with each generation.
Thank goodness I’m not the only one. I’ve always found that generation in all GM guises to be graceless and putrid, especially considering how pretty the earlier-gens were.
Might have to do with how it seems there is a law of the universe that if there is a car show in the US, there must be a 70′-72′ Chevelle with a 454 and SS badges (regardless of its actual provenance). Oversaturation.
Every car guy in Brazil loves the BMW E36, but I always consider it too boxy and dated for a 1990’s car.
http://i.wheelsage.org/pictures/b/bmw/318i_sedan/bmw_318i_sedan_1.jpeg
I prefer the E30 or E46. The E36 is too wedgy, and I don’t like those weird ground effects, or the headlights. No sir, I don’t like it.
Não todo “car guy” no Brasil pensa assim! Tem que falar que os Bangle’s foram pior, mas os modelos até o e30 são os mais bonitos com o e9 Csl o pico mais alto.
Current 350Z (and the last one too), really weird and misshapen from the headlights on back.
I don’t care how much hp it has, Bugatti Veyron is just ugly. In fact all the “new” bugs are terrible.
In fact, I’m glad it’s got so much power just so it can get the hell out of my sight!
Ugly, supremely expensive and useless as an actual car, always a winning combination.
And now there’s a new one.
The Chiron.
1479 bhp, 261 mph, €2.4 million http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/2016-bugatti-chiron-revealed-veyrons-260mph-successor
http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/hero_block_main/public/images/car-reviews/first-drives/legacy/stan-020_1.jpg?itok=_u2Xklea
The Tuesday Answer: original CB750
An odd assemblage of frumpy, bulbous, disproportionate shapes.
http://i2.wp.com/hooniverse.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CB750-ad.png
You savage!
Compare and contrast…
http://www.nortonownersclub.org/models/commando/norton-models-commando-large-images/0068.jpg
It’s a different shade of blue and the exhaust is on the opposite side!
*buzzer*
And this will drop oil for sure!
I thought this was a Savage.
http://thekneeslider.com/images/suzuki-s40.jpg
I thought all motorcycles were an odd assemblage of frumpy, bulbous, disproportionate shapes? *Ducks*
Wait, let me get my flame suit on…okay now…
http://fcollect.com/images/bugatti-atlantic-3.jpg
Ace and Gary approve.
Heathen. Good thing you don’t design stuff for a living…
Savage!
The original clown shoe, that Bugatti.
The Clown Shoe. E36/8 Z3 Coupe.
These gems will always be collectable. I owned one and could never fall in love with the ascetics.
http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/gallery/bmws-that-will-be-missed-the-bmw-z3_3.jpg
http://autogaleria.hu/autok/bmw/z3-coupe-e368-1998-01/bmw_z3-coupe-e368-1998-01_r7.jpg
Toyota 2000GT. Sure, it’s pretty by japanese standards, but that’s it…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Toyota_2000GT.jpg/1024px-Toyota_2000GT.jpg
http://carakoom.com/data/blogs/543/17662/image/6.jpg
I’ve always thought the front end is a big odd with all the lighting. Might not be strictly beautiful but it is interesting looking.
Pudgy with odd little taillight pods and double finlets – the C1 Corvette. GM would do much better in a heavy 1956 facelift.
All due respect to the performance, I’ve never found the 911 attractive in any iteration.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Porsche_911_Carrera_S_(7522427256).jpg
All due respect to the performance, I’ve never found the 911 aesthetically pleasing.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/1969_silver_Porsche_911E_coup%C3%A9_Auto_Salon_Singen_Germany.jpg/220px-1969_silver_Porsche_911E_coup%C3%A9_Auto_Salon_Singen_Germany.jpg
I go back and forth on it. Sometimes it looks like a surprised frog, sometimes it looks pretty good, depends on a bunch of factors. I’d argue the 993 is the best of the lot.
Never did like the C pillar area. The rear window is too far forward. The design rule of thumb is that the rear window/C pillar should meet the fender directly above the back edge of the rear tire.
Either that or they should simply have skipped having a rear side window. One big pillar would have been better thatn this fussy mess.
The first generation Camaro – its, to me, the least attractive generation. The second generation that gets a lot of the mullet comments is a real beauty.
http://www.camaros.org/images/pages/model/pic_69SS.jpg
Also, you see a billion of the first gens in the US, but a handful of the 70′-72’s.
If you could possibly explain the rationale behind this I would undoubtedly understand my father a bit better. He drove a ’72 for many years in his youth but does not care for the first gen in the slightest, and I do not understand. Frankly, the beakiness of the second iteration ruins the appeal of the earlier cars to me.
Its not that it is massively ugly but its more just bland. Overall a bit boxy with stripes, hidden headlights, etc to distract you from the overall meh of it. Like a generic 60s pony car. Then heaps of praise is dumped on it for some reason. The second generation by contrast is low, long, swoopy with a pronounced long hood, short deck.
I much prefer the first generation Firebird to the first generation Camaro.
At least the 1967-1968 versions. The 1969 Firebird is a bit of a mess up front, especially with that black beading around the grille and headlights.
Ferrari Daytona. Never did a thing for me. I don’t know why.
Cobra Daytona coupe. From the guppy mouth to the awkward inclined roof to its heavy tail, it’s a mess from front to back. The wheels don’t fit in the wells, the hatch is ugly, and the whole car looks lifted.
But some cars you’re supposed to like, because everyone around you is… ahem, Porsche 911.