• Post the ugliest cars you can think of. V³
    1,095 replies, posted
[QUOTE=pawelte1;34618373][IMG]http://s1.blomedia.pl/autokult.pl/t/616x0/2012/01/ford-ecosport-13-616x410.jpg[/IMG] It really does look odd.[/QUOTE] The proportions of a small rodent. Gerbil, Guinea pig, Chinchilla etc.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;34529236]lego block ferrari [IMG]http://thumbsnap.com/sc/lHqdXv8D.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ferrari_f2012.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] The reason for the stepped nose is the changes in the required ground clearance, as well as a shit ton other changes this year, outlawing blown diffusers etc. It is not a pretty car, but it's not meant to be. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Dip;34586555]The clean lines of the 90's EU market cars are handsome in their own way. Especially the early 90's, like the Carina. [URL="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/6/171wd.jpg/"][IMG]http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3774/171wd.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [/QUOTE] The Lancia Delta is the prettiest car ever, for me.
[QUOTE=WubWubWompWomp;34632550] The Lancia Delta is the prettiest car ever, for me.[/QUOTE] You know what's prettier than that Delta? The '79 Delta! [URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/545/lanciadeltahfturbo002.jpg/][IMG]http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2149/lanciadeltahfturbo002.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[QUOTE=technicsix;34608972][URL]http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Honda-CRX-Honda-Crx-BEAUTIFUL-HONDA-CRX-TOTALLY-CUSTUM-/120855530093?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item1c238d0a6d#ht_948wt_1165[/URL] oh god no why ): [URL]http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/CRX-V-TEC-w-NOS-ALL-CUSTOM-Lambo-doors-NEW-Engine-ONLY-40K-miles-NO-RESERVE-/200711614429?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2ebb582fdd#ht_1601wt_1165[/URL][/QUOTE] I was gonna say the orange one didn't look too bad, but then I looked closely and stared at the front and back, and asked "why is the back from a mercedes and the front from an inbred?" The other one is ricey 101, a good example why I mostly hate to see CRXs around: either dustier than actual dust or riced to hell and back. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Tukimoshi;34610239]I think the guy played Need for Speed Underground and said "That. I want a car like that." Eugh.[/QUOTE] Funny because back in the days, I used to think all that looked cool in a car, and my nfsu2 save mirrored that perfectly. When I went to play it again last year, I thought "What the hell did I do to my 3000GT?!" then stripped it of the shit and strapped more shit to a 350Z just because of the visual rating that basically said "the more ricey it looks, the better"
[QUOTE=WubWubWompWomp;34632550]The reason for the stepped nose is the changes in the required ground clearance, as well as a shit ton other changes this year, outlawing blown diffusers etc. It is not a pretty car, but it's not meant to be. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] The Lancia Delta is the prettiest car ever, for me.[/QUOTE] just because its not meant to look pretty doesn't mean I can't comment on it, the lower nose regulation is stupid anyway
Formula 1 is shit. It's pretty sad that the cars' aero setups are so prohibitive of passing that they had to add a 'turbo boost'
What? That is just Bernie Ecclestone being a money grubbing retard, because the more passing there is, the more people watch, and the thicker his wallet is.
cant wait until that bastard is gone, but I dread to see who will take his place
I hate the changes they make to the F1 cars every year. I like the 2010 setup the most. [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] But I do love how Team Lotus just suddenly changed to TEAM CATERHAM.
Lotus will still suck, regardless of name changes. [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=rampageturke 2;34634277]just because its not meant to look pretty doesn't mean I can't comment on it, the lower nose regulation is stupid anyway[/QUOTE] It's to stop the front of the car going through the driver's face in a crash, which is what happened to Senna in 1994.
[QUOTE=WubWubWompWomp;34643637]Lotus will still suck, regardless of name changes. [/QUOTE] There's already Lotus-Renault, so to have Caterham would be cool. Either way, they're just names, the constructors are still the same.
[QUOTE=Dip;34586555]The clean lines of the 90's EU market cars are handsome in their own way. Especially the early 90's, like the Carina.[IMG]http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5332/mazdaeunoscosmo3.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Every one except this very much yes.
[img]http://images.v12soft.com/photos/nuz1BHZ/1054441/dgHNZ_640480.jpg[/img] My brother has one that is pretty quick.. But god its ugly and sounds horrible.
[QUOTE=!TROLLMAIL!;34617585][IMG]http://www.autointhenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Weber-Sportscar-back-image.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] That thing looks so depressed.
Dodge Intrepid [IMG]http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/2/3669/3861/21671930001_large.jpg[/IMG] [i]It's so spor [/i]- no. Look at that front end! It's a mile ahead of the wheels. Surely the designer was high on paint fumes or something. Did they really think this looked good?
Every Chrysler product from the mid 90s to the early 2000s was a piece of garbage LHS [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/1999-2001_Chrysler_LHS_--_10-04-2010.jpg/800px-1999-2001_Chrysler_LHS_--_10-04-2010.jpg[/img] 300M [img]http://i.imgur.com/WBPsE.jpg[/img] Sebring [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/01-03_Chrysler_Sebring_Coupe.jpg/800px-01-03_Chrysler_Sebring_Coupe.jpg[/img] Concorde [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Chrysler_Concorde.jpg/800px-Chrysler_Concorde.jpg[/img] Also, Volga copy of shit Chrysler made me lol [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Volga_Siber_front_Moscow_autoshow_2008_26_08.jpg/800px-Volga_Siber_front_Moscow_autoshow_2008_26_08.jpg[/img]
I kind of miss the first generation Neon. They weren't terribly ugly, the second generation ones were much worse off, too modernized. First gen had more character than the second -- I would much rather drive this: [t]http://img2.netcarshow.com/Dodge-Neon_RT_1998_1280x960_wallpaper_02.jpg[/t] Than this: [t]http://www.sportcarwallpaper.us/wp-content/gallery/chrysler-dodge-neon/chrysler-dodge-neon-2.jpg[/t] I've driven both on the road, the first generation neon actually drives REALLY well, very comfortable interior (albeit hideous!), and the manual transmission they came with is near bulletproof. Unfortunately the build quality isn't the best... Paint flaked within a few years, engines had defective valve cover and head gaskets, timing belts were made of rubber bands... But the chassis is surprisingly stiff and they do good on a track. My sister raced 1st gen Neons in a bomber class, 1/4 mile dirt oval, and they were [i]amazing[/i] on the dirt. They did so well that I picked myself up a DOHC Neon to throw around the track the year after she started driving Neons. It was an automatic, unfortunately, and I didn't bother changing it out -- Almost glad I didn't. The gear ratio was [i]phenomenal[/i] for the track setup. I led a points championship for the larger part of a year until my sister was in a large accident that destroyed her car and we quit racing for the remainder of the year (It wasn't my choice... If I could have, I'd have kept going and won me a big trophy and loadsamoney). Anyways, a lot of what they used on the first generation Neon (The cylinder head, suspension layout and other odds and ends) was learned from their DSM team with Mitsubishi. The rest is all ancient Chrysler tech from the early 80s -- If you examine the block of the Dodge Neon 2.0 and the earlier K car (and later used in basically every chrysler of the 80s and early 90s) 2.2/2.5, they are [i]extremely[/i] similar. If one could relocate the oil returns from the Dodge Neon 16 valve head (Fill them, run return lines to the pan?), it will bolt up to a 2.2/2.5 block. Anyways, I'm rambling again. Let me sum up my thoughts. The first generation Neon was a good car that got a [i]terrible[/i] production, resulting in arguably a rather garbage automobile. The second generation did [i]nothing[/i] to fix this, lost the charming character of the first generation, and is a worse car (in my opinion).
Speaking of Neons, I put this on /o/ the other day: [img]http://i.imgur.com/st3yM.png[/img] How many Neon fanboys does it take to write a Wikipedia article?
Citaitons
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34661497]Dodge Intrepid [IMG]http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/2/3669/3861/21671930001_large.jpg[/IMG] [i]It's so spor [/i]- no. Look at that front end! It's a mile ahead of the wheels. Surely the designer was high on paint fumes or something. Did they really think this looked good?[/QUOTE] Contrary to popular belief, I write like these. Probably because it doesn't look remotely like anything else on the UK roads. I like the unique and head turning cars. Oh, and the grass is greener of course!
[QUOTE=Super_Noodle;34662081]Speaking of Neons, I put this on /o/ the other day: [img]http://i.imgur.com/st3yM.png[/img] How many Neon fanboys does it take to write a Wikipedia article?[/QUOTE] It's funny actually, the only Neon that was any fast was the Dodge Neon R/T, which could do 0-60 in ~7.4 seconds, with 150hp. The base model Neon they are comparing to the other cars had 132hp, and a 0-60 time of 9 seconds. Let's compare that to the others in the article: Honda Civic DX: 0-60 in 8.4 Honda Civic EX: 0-60 in 8.3 Nissan Sentra: 0-60 in 9.5 (lol slow) Ford Escort ZX2: 0-60 in 8.3 Toyota Corolla: 0-60 in 10.1 (slow, but I bet a '95 Corolla was cheaper than a '95 Neon by far) Chevrolet Cavalier LS: 0-60 in 8.2 It's funny that the mediocre Neon can't even beat a shit tier car like the Cavalier, which has less horsepower. And if you look at the "performance" models of the cars it's being compared to... They still outperform it. It's actually really sad. I don't know how much a Neon costed in 1995-1999 but I'm certain a lot of the cars it's being compared to there would have been cheaper/more efficient/faster. [editline]12th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Dip;34666754]Contrary to popular belief, I write like these. Probably because it doesn't look remotely like anything else on the UK roads. I like the unique and head turning cars. Oh, and the grass is greener of course![/QUOTE] But they look like a hairlip snake.
pontiac grand am glorious 3100 with cat delete>>>> 0-60 5.9
[QUOTE=bradley;34667583]But they look like a hairlip snake.[/QUOTE] There are no cars in the UK that resemble a hairlip snake. That's why I like it! :D
[QUOTE=Concur;34667751]pontiac grand am glorious 3100 with cat delete>>>> 0-60 5.9[/QUOTE] Why sir, I do believe your speedo is off!
[QUOTE=Dip;34666754]Contrary to popular belief, I write like these. Probably because it doesn't look remotely like anything else on the UK roads. I like the unique and head turning cars. Oh, and the grass is greener of course![/QUOTE] They're pretty terrible cars, even if you ignore the questionable styling.
[QUOTE=Concur;34667751]pontiac grand am glorious 3100 with cat delete>>>> 0-60 5.9[/QUOTE] No fucking way the 3100 can do that stock with just a cat del.
The turbo Grand Prix with the big ol' Garrett snail on it did 0-60 in 7.1 seconds. [i]Not even a turbo 3100 can do it in 5.9[/i]
Turbo grand prick doing 0-60 in 7.1 seconds? Seems very fucking slow to me for a 3800. I don't know but last time I chronoed my snaily N/A 3800 I had readings just near 8 seconds for the 0-60, no clues if it's slower or faster than average, or if my chrono was off, but it took off as soon as I pressed the gas at some light, and went up to 60.
[QUOTE=Concur;34667751]pontiac grand am glorious 3100 with cat delete>>>> 0-60 5.9[/QUOTE] Your Grand Slow can only dream of going that fast. :>
He must mean 0-60 kph
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.