TheSamba.com :: View topic

Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:25 am

localboy wrote: Agree on the Toyota - Scion xB. The "new" body style is an improvement...but not much. Still ugly as hell and probably a POS to boot.
Actually, the XB topped consumer report's list of used cars that hold their value, and made their used cars to buy list. You know they're made by Toyota, right? Reliability always equates to value retention.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:30 am

First thing that pops into my head is a '38-39' ford pickup.

That is the ugliest nose I've ever seen.

Maybe it doesn't help that a 1940 ford pickup is one of my all time faves. It's hard to believe they're only a year apart.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:25 am

dms wrote: coad wrote: end of story.

My mom had one , not the pimp wagon though .
But it was junk , bad motor , bad front brakes , leaky gas tank , broke down everywhere . really bad gas milage IMHO one of the worst cars ever made .
nothing better than going for a nice long walk , to call a tow truck
:twisted: :twisted: I HATE FORD PINTO's :twisted: :twisted:

You forgot the propensity to burst into flames at the most minor rear end collision.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:34 am

You're nutty. That 39 is 10X better looking than that 40. The 39 is classic. The 40 looks like it has a snowplow attached to the nose.

chickengeorge wrote: First thing that pops into my head is a '38-39' ford pickup.

That is the ugliest nose I've ever seen.

Maybe it doesn't help that a 1940 ford pickup is one of my all time faves. It's hard to believe they're only a year apart.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:11 am

Pinky wrote: Subaru Tribeca (Flying Vagina!!!)

Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:20 am

chickengeorge wrote: localboy wrote: Agree on the Toyota - Scion xB. The "new" body style is an improvement...but not much. Still ugly as hell and probably a POS to boot.
Actually, the XB topped consumer report's list of used cars that hold their value, and made their used cars to buy list. You know they're made by Toyota, right? Reliability always equates to value retention.

Toyota does make quality vehicles, albeit expensive. But that thing is just so damn ugly it probably influenced my opinion. It's a box on tiny little wheels and the windows are too big for the body. I really feel like I could have designed it.

I had some "youngsters' (20-somethings) in our club rave on about how "cool" they were. I told them if someone gave me one, I'd sell it without hesitation.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:50 am

Bugs'n'Pugs wrote: Pinky wrote: Subaru Tribeca (Flying Vagina!!!)

That's a better looking nose. I think he was talking previous model years.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:58 am

coad wrote: You're nutty. That 39 is 10X better looking than that 40. The 39 is classic. The 40 looks like it has a snowplow attached to the nose.

chickengeorge wrote: First thing that pops into my head is a '38-39' ford pickup.

That is the ugliest nose I've ever seen.

Maybe it doesn't help that a 1940 ford pickup is one of my all time faves. It's hard to believe they're only a year apart.

I realize one may look more "classic" than the other, but I'm talking about flow, design, beauty. If there is one thing, and I mean only one thing, that I am 100% positive of, is that I know what looks good. Not good to me, or good to the masses, but honest to goodness beauty. I may not always practice what I preach, but my opinion on what is beautiful and what is not, is irrefutable. Sorry...

Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:26 pm

coad wrote: You're nutty. That 39 is 10X better looking than that 40. The 39 is classic. The 40 looks like it has a snowplow attached to the nose.

Gotta agree with Coad on that one.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:29 pm

and anything else 4 lug!

Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:06 pm

Anyone ever think of these? The engineers at Wolfsburg were taking alot of holiday in Amsterdam for this thing to be concieved.

www.rossvw.com/harlequin/picturepage/hq3-4.jpg

Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:12 pm

DMNCLNR wrote:
and anything else 4 lug!

:lol: Brutal.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:13 pm

localboy wrote: DMNCLNR wrote:
and anything else 4 lug!

:lol: Brutal.
That is! I was just looking at those and how cool I thought they were, only lowered though.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:20 pm

DMNCLNR wrote:
and anything else 4 lug!

Just for that, you can never own another T-34. Corvairs yes, T-34's no.

Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:43 pm

The moderators should combine the Corvair thread with this one. :lol:

Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:58 pm

elements rule. scions are ghey.

my wife has an element. the seats are uncomfortable and it is extremely underpowered. but its not ugly!

Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:59 pm

Glenn wrote: AMC Matador
Ford Edsel

Ah c'mon now, Edsels are cool:

As for the 1961 Plymouth line...well, that was just Crazy Virgil Exener at work...

But at least these cars were designed! My vote for ugliest car (and I'm a Mopar guy) is the Chrysler K-Car - an automobile devoid of ANY hint of style:!

Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:12 pm

ho-dad wrote: Glenn wrote: AMC Matador
Ford Edsel

Ah c'mon now, Edsels are cool:

It has been suggested that the Edsel line failed partly due to the front grill looking lile a vagina. America in the 50's was pretty uptight concerning female business...

Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:22 pm

DMNCLNR wrote:
and anything else 4 lug!

Speaking of '61 Plymouths and Type 34s, anyone else see a resemblance here?

There was a lot of back and forth between Ghia and Chrysler during the Exner years, and Exner's son Virgil Jr. was working at Ghia when the Type 34 was in development. :-k

Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:14 pm

Someone staed that the Fiat Twingo was ugly, but I kind of like this one.

Edit: This is a concept car. The production one is not all that good looking...
CONCEPT

PRODUCTION