20 Beloved Cars That Are Surprisingly Ugly

Some cars gain popularity despite their looks, proving that beauty isn’t everything. These vehicles may be loved for their performance, reliability, or features, but their design leaves much to be desired. Here are some popular cars that are actually quite ugly.

Pontiac Aztek

Image Editorial Credit: Alexander Migl / Wikimedia Commons

The Pontiac Aztek, produced from 2000 to 2005, is often cited as one of the ugliest cars ever made. Its awkward, bulky design with clashing lines and oddly placed headlights makes it visually unappealing. The Aztek’s 3.4-liter V6 engine provided adequate performance, but its poor aesthetics overshadowed any practical benefits. Despite its practicality and innovative features like a built-in tent, its design flaws made it a commercial failure.

Nissan Juke

Image Editorial Credit: Alexander Migl / Wikimedia Commons

The Nissan Juke, introduced in 2010, has a polarizing design that many find unattractive. Its front end features large, round headlights positioned below slim, angular daytime running lights, giving it a bug-eyed appearance. The Juke’s 1.6-liter turbocharged engine offered decent performance, but its unconventional styling and odd proportions detracted from its appeal.

Fiat Multipla

Image Editorial Credit: Corvettec6r / Wikimedia Commons

The Fiat Multipla, produced from 1998 to 2010, is notorious for its unconventional and unattractive design. Its wide, boxy shape and unusual placement of a second set of headlights above the main ones make it look strange. The Multipla’s 1.6-liter engine provided modest performance, but its unique but unappealing styling overshadowed its practical interior layout.

SsangYong Rodius

Image Editorial Credit: Charles01 / Wikimedia Commons

The SsangYong Rodius, also known as the Stavic, produced from 2004 to 2019, is often criticized for its ungainly appearance. Its elongated body, mismatched lines, and awkward rear end give it an unbalanced look. Despite its spacious interior and 2.7-liter diesel engine offering decent performance, its design failed to attract positive attention.

Chrysler PT Cruiser

Image Editorial Credit: IFCAR / Wikimedia Commons

The Chrysler PT Cruiser, produced from 2000 to 2010, aimed for a retro look but ended up with a design that divided opinions. Its high roofline, rounded body, and exaggerated fenders gave it a cartoonish appearance. The PT Cruiser’s 2.4-liter engine provided moderate performance, but its polarizing design made it a target for criticism.

Honda Crosstour

Image Editorial Credit: MercurySable99 / Wikimedia Commons

The Honda Crosstour, produced from 2009 to 2015, is often considered one of the ugliest cars due to its awkward, hunchbacked design. Its sloping rear end and bulbous shape gave it an unappealing silhouette. The Crosstour’s 3.5-liter V6 engine offered good performance, but its unattractive design and lack of identity between a sedan and an SUV turned many potential buyers away.

Toyota Prius (Second Generation)

Image Editorial Credit: OSX / Wikimedia Commons

The second-generation Toyota Prius, produced from 2003 to 2009, is known for its eco-friendly credentials but also for its uninspiring design. Its wedge-shaped body, narrow rear, and awkwardly tall profile make it look odd. While its hybrid 1.5-liter engine offered excellent fuel efficiency, its aesthetics left much to be desired.

Subaru Tribeca

Image Editorial Credit: OSX / Wikimedia Commons

The Subaru Tribeca, produced from 2005 to 2014, featured a controversial front-end design with a three-part grille that many found unattractive. Its bulbous body and oddly shaped headlights added to its visual awkwardness. Despite its 3.6-liter V6 engine providing decent performance, the Tribeca’s design flaws overshadowed its functionality.

Ford Taurus (Third Generation)

Image Editorial Credit: IFCAR / Wikimedia Commons

The third-generation Ford Taurus, produced from 1996 to 1999, is often criticized for its oval-inspired design. Its rounded body, oval grille, and teardrop-shaped headlights made it look unconventional and unappealing. The Taurus’s 3.0-liter V6 engine offered good performance, but its unattractive design led to a decline in its popularity.

AMC Pacer

Image Editorial Credit: Christopher Ziemnowicz / Wikimedia Commons

The AMC Pacer, produced from 1975 to 1980, is remembered for its distinctive but unattractive design. Its wide, bulbous body and large glass areas made it look odd and disproportioned. The Pacer’s 3.8-liter inline-six engine provided moderate performance, but its design was widely mocked and became an icon of automotive quirkiness.

Nissan Cube

Image Editorial Credit: GFDLr Ziemnowicz / Wikimedia Commons

The Nissan Cube, produced from 1998 to 2020, is known for its boxy and asymmetrical design. Its unique, but not necessarily attractive, shape features a wraparound rear window and unusually placed windows and doors. The Cube’s 1.8-liter engine provided efficient performance, but its unconventional aesthetics were a point of contention for many.

Chevrolet HHR

Image Editorial Credit: IFCAR / Wikimedia Commons

The Chevrolet HHR, produced from 2005 to 2011, was designed to resemble the retro style of the 1940s Suburban, but its execution was less than appealing. Its rounded fenders, high roofline, and overall boxy shape gave it a dated and awkward look. The HHR’s 2.2-liter engine provided adequate performance, but its unattractive design failed to win over many buyers.

Hyundai Veloster

Image Editorial Credit: EurovisionNim / Wikimedia Commons

The Hyundai Veloster, introduced in 2011, features a unique three-door design with one door on the driver’s side and two on the passenger’s side. While innovative, this design, coupled with its aggressive and angular lines, makes it look unbalanced and odd. The Veloster’s 1.6-liter turbocharged engine offered spirited performance, but its unconventional styling was divisive.

Citroën C4 Cactus

Image Editorial Credit: M 93 / Wikimedia Commons

The Citroën C4 Cactus, produced from 2014, is known for its quirky design, particularly the plastic air bumps on its sides. While intended to prevent dings and scratches, these air bumps give the car an odd and unappealing look. The C4 Cactus’s 1.2-liter engine provided efficient performance, but its unusual styling was not universally appreciated.

Lincoln MKT

Image Editorial Credit: IFCAR / Wikimedia Commons

The Lincoln MKT, produced from 2010 to 2019, features a polarizing design with a large, split-wing grille and a bulbous rear end. Its elongated body and mismatched proportions make it visually unappealing. Despite its 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6 engine offering good performance, the MKT’s design flaws overshadowed its luxurious features.

Jeep Cherokee (Fifth Generation)

Image Editorial Credit: EurovisionNim / Wikimedia Commons

The fifth-generation Jeep Cherokee, introduced in 2014, faced criticism for its controversial front-end design. The narrow, slanted headlights and awkward grille design gave it a strange look compared to previous models. While the Cherokee’s 3.2-liter V6 engine provided good performance and off-road capability, its unusual styling was a turn-off for many traditional Jeep fans.

Suzuki X-90

Image Editorial Credit: OSX / Wikimedia Commons

The Suzuki X-90, produced from 1995 to 1997, is remembered for its odd and impractical design. Its two-door coupe body on a compact SUV frame, along with its unusual proportions, made it look awkward. The X-90’s 1.6-liter engine provided modest performance, but its design was widely criticized and it failed to gain popularity.

Plymouth Prowler

Image Editorial Credit: Jiří Sedláček / Wikimedia Commons

The Plymouth Prowler, produced from 1997 to 2002, aimed for a retro hot rod look but ended up with a polarizing design. Its open front wheels, elongated body, and exaggerated fenders gave it an unconventional appearance. Despite its 3.5-liter V6 engine offering decent performance, the Prowler’s design was more of a novelty than a practical or attractive vehicle.

Pontiac Trans Sport

Image Editorial Credit: IFCAR / Wikimedia Commons

The Pontiac Trans Sport, produced from 1990 to 1999, featured a futuristic design that was ahead of its time, but not in a good way. Its long, sloping front end and large, plastic body panels made it look more like a spaceship than a minivan. The Trans Sport’s 3.1-liter V6 engine provided adequate performance, but its unusual styling was widely panned.

Renault Avantime

Image Editorial Credit: Charles01 / Wikimedia Commons

The Renault Avantime, produced from 2001 to 2003, combined elements of a minivan, coupe, and hatchback into one unconventional design. Its large glass areas, high roofline, and odd proportions made it look strange. Despite its 3.0-liter V6 engine offering good performance, the Avantime’s design failed to resonate with buyers, leading to its short production run.

This article originally appeared in MyCarMakesNoise.

More from MyCarMakesNoise

13 Most Expensive Motorcycles Ever Sold at Auction

Image Editorial Credit: SunflowerMomma / Shutterstock.com

In this article, we explore the 13 most expensive motorcycles ever sold at auction, showcasing the allure and prestige that make these two-wheeled treasures so highly prized. Read More.

10 Prestigious Car Brands That Fail to Impress

Image Editorial Credit: Lanski / Shutterstock.com

Luxury car brands have long thrived on this allure, creating a sense of exclusivity and prestige that sets them apart from the crowd. However, not all that bear the ‘luxury’ moniker truly live up to the expectations associated with it. Read More.

20 Expensive Cars Destroyed for Cinematic Spectacle

Lamborghini Murcielago LP-640
Image Editorial credit: Jack Skeens / Shutterstock.com

This list features 20 of the most expensive cars wrecked in films, a sight that might make car lovers mourn. Read More.

Avatar photo

Author: Dave Johnston

Dave is a hands-on automotive technician with experience in performing service, diagnostics, and repairs on domestic and imported vehicles. He enjoys writing and sharing his knowledge far and wide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *