I have an idea, antp, how I about I submit what I think are the least attractive and bland-looking cars from the 80s (could cars released in the very late 70s count?) and you can comment on them and post pictures of ugly cars from the 90s, and possibly the 2000s, and I'll comment on them. Other people can join in, but I'm going to stick with cars from Europe and Japan, I'm going to leave American cars out of this.

Even though every decade produced ugly and beautiful cars, I just don't feel the 80s was the best decade for car design, too many of them were boxy (as in like a cheap box), flimsy and plasticky, no appealing curves. It's not just because the cars left are old bangers and haven't become old and rare enough to achieve classic status yet. But then to each his own.

Well, the fact is a lot of economy cars were produced during the time. Small, bland-looking vehicles that weren't really made for looks, but just to sell during hard times. I think Toyota would have to be one of the biggest culprits, but there were other car companies too, of course.

I have other things to do

OK, I understand.

1980s Toyotas actually had a certain flair to them, all Japanese did. The biggest culprit was perhaps Ford - I think in their 1983 lineup I can't find a vehicle that would even come close to "nice" - either strikingly ugly, just very bland or somehow inherently flawed...

Talking about Ford US here, unlike some other folks, I do like the Sierra a lot, and I am partial to the Fiesta, Granada and even the European Escort.

My choice would be the Falcon XE - both forgettably bland and repulsively ugly!

I laughed at the not including American bit. Good idea though, because there are quite a few fans of them (not just me). Ugly cars from the 1980's... I can't think of any really, not even from other countries. The 1980's were perhaps one of the greatest times for automobile design. It was the decade that shaped the car from boxy to aerodynamic. Its when the car as we know it today emerged.

Look above for the greatest examples of how the 1980s took car design from aerodynamic to boxy.

Oh, as concerns American cars of the 1980s...



Pure class, chic, good taste and a walking embodiment of aerodynamics...

Aw, come on! I think that looks nice. A little bland, maybe but definitley not ugly. As for 1983 Fords in the US, this was the first year for the aerodynamic Thunderbird/Cougar/Mark VII, and the Cougar was the best looking of all three. The others took some getting used to. I knew somebody who had a 1984 T-Bird, and I used to urge them to keep it as a collector's item.

I am sorry, but the 1983 Cougar would grace the upper echelons of the "ridiclously ugly" list. I don't know whether to start with the horrible C-pillar, the tacky "recessed" headlamps (wow, they must be sooo aerodynamic) or the disproportionaly short wheelbase...

I guess I meant the 1982 lineup, btw. Anyway, hardly any of the 1980s Fords would appeal to me, remember the 80s gave us the Tempo! *SHUDDER*

Example of car of the 80s that I really like but that is hated by many I think: Dodge Daytona / Chrysler Laser. I also like the 3rd gen of Camaro (1982)
There is also the famous Maserati Biturbo.

Those are actually nice, at least the Biturbo...

Bravada; not all were aerodynamic. In America, aerodynamics were made popular by Ford with the 1986 Taurus, 1988 Tempo and their other models. Compare the 1984 Tempo to the 1983 Ford Fairmont. The Tempo; FWD, gas/diesel I4, in '87 AWD became available, fully independent rear suspension, very aerodynamically designed body (for its time). Fairmont; RWD, gas V8 engine, very 1970's boxy look. Likewise compare the 1986 LTD to the '86 Taurus, the '81 Escort to Pinto, the Pinto-Mustang to the Fox Body Mustang.

Cars from the 1980's in America are excellent vehicles. It was a time when safety was becoming a good thing, cars were getting more miles per gallon then cars today (Tempo got 43MPG, Focus gets 35) and most of all it was a time when people realized they did not need a RWD V8 full size sedan to get around town. A FWD I4 compact would do the same, and perform better.

Now I get where people don't like the 1980's looks or cars in general. But you are comparing them to modern standards. Everything from several decades ago would be awful. The original Mustang or GTO by todays standards is slow, underpowered and in no way efficient. By todays standards the 1980's cars were not aerodynamic and were not safe, but for their time, they were.

I am sorry, the 84 Ford Tempo has a lot of feats, including the trip computer that monitors vital engine functions and all that with more interior room than a Mercedes 300D (Have you driven a Ford lately?), but this is the most disgusting vehicle I can think of:



Some of McDonald's packaging is less tacky and designed with more style. Those were great cars for their days perhaps (although not really, Ford Europe somehow fared better when it came to transition from old to new reality), but this was indeed a teething period and thus it couldn't be so pretty.

Let us applaud the great engineering behind the Tempo and the K-cars but let us pray their styling will never return.

There are Tempo that look (much?) better than the one you posted. Taking the worse image for illustrating a car is not fair I do not even think that this is a factory front, it looks modified.

However, I do not believe that a Tempo can do 43 MPG. Or maybe when going down a hill

It's specifically the 1984 Ford Tempo mentioned. This is exactly how it looked like. Europeans mostly know the "second generation" Tempo, restyled to look more like Taurus. Still looks like a mobile coffin though.

Of course it's fair, it's not a concept car or prototype, Ford saw fit to release the car into the market in that form. The fact the Tempo had a facelift meant they realised the design wasn't perfect. Yes, I realise not all Tempos looked like that.

I did not know that version. That explains why they "quickly" restyled it (1986 it seems)

Thank you so much for providing one of the worst images of the Tempo you could find. The Tempo is ugly by todays standards, but back in 1984, it was the future. It was a clean, popular change from the ugly boxes of the 1970's. No car I can think of sold 500,000+ units in its first year. Everything about it was new, innovative and was put on nearly all cars after it. For example, the bumpers. Ugly, no? In 1985 cars had to have bumpers strong enough to cause no damage to the vehicle in collisions 2MPH or under. Ford went over board, they made a bumper strong enough to withstand impacts of up to 5MPH. Later, 5MPH collision proof bumpers would become required. In 1985 Tempo came with standard driver and passenger front airbags. A first in the industry in America. All edges were refined and smoothed, its windshield was laid down at a steeper angle and the rear window was set at 60%. Even its doors! They were modeled after aircraft doors in that they cut slightly into the roof. This greatly improved aerodynamics, appearance and durability. They would later be adapted to all Ford's. The trunk and rear quarter of the car were raised making the air flow more smoothly off the car. Door handles and side mirrors were made as smooth as possible. As for power and engines, they even put modern cars to shame! Tempo offered from 1984 to 1986 a 2.0L Diesel made by Mazda. It was good for over 40MPG, which is just as good as the most fuel efficient car of today. And this was in 1984! Ford developed four transmissions (a three speed automatic, a four speed manual and two five speed manuals) just for Tempo. Three separate suspension systems as well for the average Tempo's (L, GL, Sport), a performance-oriented suspension set up for the GLS and GLX and a more comfortable "Touring" suspension for the LX. Two Tempo-specific engines as well, both 2.3L I4's. The HSO (the higher output of the two) was later revised as a 2.5L and put in the 1986 to 1991 Ford Taurus. Ford's monumentally successful and well-made 3.0L Vulcan V6 from the Taurus and Sable was also put in Tempo and Topaz (later it saw service in; Ranger, B-Series, Probe and Aerostar). 100HP was a lot for a compact in 1987, Honda's heavier Accord only had 76HP from a four cylinder at most. Ford spent over five years developing, testing and designing Tempo. Five years of trying to get it to be as aerodynamic as possible. The result? A coefficient drag of just .36. Insane for its time. Ford made yearly improvements in aerodynamics, most noticeable was in 1986 when it became legal for aerodynamically styled headlights to be used, Ford revised Tempo right away. You are all comparing Tempo by todays standards, which is very unfair. For its time, you could look at Tempo as the Toyota Prius or GM Volt. Tempo led up to the 1986 Taurus, and if anyone here can honestly say the Taurus was a "bad car" they really should do some research on them. For its time, Tempo was much more successful, popular and innovative then Focus is for today, for Falcon was for the 1960's and any other compact. If you have done as much research as I have you'd have a lot more respect for Tempo. I'm not saying you all have to like it or like its looks, but if you are going to talk about it, you should at least know what you're talking about and show it the respect it deserves. Saying its a crappy, ugly, boxy car is a very ignorant statement. Because you are only judging it my the most base standards.

Hate to sound rude, but that statment only shows how little you know on the topic of Tempo. Ford could not make Tempo look the way it did in the 1986 face lift because the law would not allow it. Its why every other compact before 1986 had square headlamps instead of lights molded into the body. If anything, the 1986 face-lift slowed sales. In 1984 Tempo sold over 500,000 units and in 1985 it sold around 450,000. It would never see sales like that again. Why? Because after Tempo's success everyone jumped on board with aerodynamically styled FWD compacts, and even with the 1988 redesign there was much more competition. I don't have a problem with people who don't like Tempo or similar cars, but I do have a problem with people who bash them and know nothing about them.

Edit; another reason Ford restyled Tempo in 1986 is because they promised no two years of Tempo would be identical. Their promise was good, because every year with the exception of 1994 the Tempo saw visual modifications. Even if slight. In 1984 Tempo was introduced, in 1986 (two years later) it got new tail lights, grill and head lights, in 1988 (two more years ahead) it was redesigned. In 1989 it got a slight revise with the addition of more sporting body side molding. In 1992 (three years after the Sport intro) Tempo got another slight redesign.