More often than not, a new-model-year facelift makes me say, “Yeah, that’s better.” And even more frequently than that, I think an all-new model drop is better looking than the “old” car of the same name. Like, that’s why they pay car designers the big bucks, right? To keep us looking, and keep us wanting the latest and greatest? “Cadillac is getting rid of tail fins!”
But a refreshed design or facelift doesn’t always achieve the desired result, beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that, and sometimes new or facelifted models seem to take a step backwards as well-intended designers try to move automobile styling forward.
As the topshot shows, one example that came to mind for me was how Acura took the perfectly handsome (though not exactly exciting) RL sedan and “upgraded” it for the 2009 model year with the “shield” grille design. Shield, right? If I’m not recalling that correctly, it’s because I always thought it looked like a beak. I didn’t love it when the look was grafted onto other Acura models, either.
When I asked the gang if any attractive-to-ugly situations came to mind for them, Thomas said all that needed to be said of the Hyundai Tiburon:
Indeed, its entire shit was fucked up. I didn’t love the first gen’s original look, but man, Hyundai really hold-my-beer’d that thing for the facelift.
Your turn: What Cars Went From Attractive To Uggo With A Bad Facelift Or New Model Year?
Top graphic images: Acura
I wouldn’t say uggo, exactly, but the 1968 Oldsmobile Toronado always seemed like a downgrade over the ’66 and ’67 cars. Bill Mitchell had intended it to be a retro-inspired tribute to the 1936 Cord 810, and the facelift removed a lot of those details
Also, the 1974 Vega, styling was about the only thing GM didn’t get wrong on those, but the facelift took it from looking like a baby Camaro to sort of anonymous
Ditto for the Riviera.
Yeah, I had thought about that one, too. It just kept getting a little clumsier and a little heavier looking
The 1st gen Lexus IS looked amazing – the 2nd gen is injury and the 3rd is insult.
I’m old so here goes! The body change in the VW Type 3 from the ’68 to the flatter squarer ’69 just wasn’t my thing. I am biased as I have a ’67 squareback.
I don’t know if this qualifies as a facelift, since it was pretty extensive even if it isn’t considered a generation change, but the ’71 Mustang. The ’69 and ’70 Mustang were amazing designs and then ’71 rolled around and…yuck. Sure, it looks okay in Mach 1 and Boss trims, but still nothing as good as the prior year.
I like the big boat Stangs! Grabber blue sits on those really nice.
I like the insane rake on the rear of those – despite the huge expanse of glass, the view out the back from the driver’s seat is like looking through a mail slot.
All the reason to throw some louvers back there. Mullet for cars.
That is an excellent point. There’s nothing worse than louvers on only slightly angled windows (looking at you, guys with late model Chargers)
I’m not a Ford guy, but I think my favorite Ford was one of these at Mecum, Grabber Blue with white interior, louvers, white powder-coated Torque Thrust rims, and tires with huge raised white letters. I wouldn’t even care what motor it had.
I’m another one of those guys who actually likes the looks of the ’71-’73 Mustangs, though I think of them as completely different cars from the ’64-’70 ones. But actually, I’m a Cougar guy, but only the first four years (’67-’70) because the only thing worse than what Mercury did to the Cougar in 1971 is the horrific land yacht they made it into in 1974.
993 to 996 is pretty damn egregious.
I prefer the 996.
Well…they are cheap after all.
They’re not what I’D call cheap. Not anymore anyway.
Fair. Cheap for a 911.
Pre pandemic I was seeing them for as low as 11k for high mileage examples.
I remember reading about the 8th generation Ford Thunderbird described as the only car that was ugly from every angle.
Even Ford brass were embarrassed to drive them. And the next gen was a knockout!
The Ugly Bird phase, at least they admitted their mistake pretty quickly and worked fast to correct it.
Every Taurus after the first generation, but especially the jellybean/oval models.
The final gen was fairly cool, though it derived some of that from appropriating the Crown Vic’s swagger rather than being classically Taurus.
The oval generation Taurus gets my vote. Ford was printing money with the next selling car. Then they tried too hard to be clever. I was ….okay…. with it, but clearly most folks won’t. Sales never recovered.
2009 Subaru outback was far uglier than the prior gen. The 2025 is also far uglier than the 24.
Mk8 golf/gti is uglier than the refreshed mk7
Current Mazda cx5(0)? looks like someone stepped on the last gen and squished it.
Whenever they slapped the beaver teeth on the BMW 3/4 series was a huge appearance downgrade.
When Lexus slapped the spindle grill on everything it made their entire lineup 50% uglier.
Ditto for Acura with the beak.
Almost every new pickup introduced since the mid 90s is uglier than it’s predecessor. There may be exceptions, I don’t follow trucks that closely.
Hot take incoming: 1979 Fox body mustang was substantially uglier* than the outgoing mustang 2. Ford didn’t make another good looking mustang until well into the 90s.
*Just taking looks here.
I would argue that once your ugly your just ugly. The different generations of outbacks went from one flavor ugly to a different one. None particularly worse than the other.
Touche, ugliness is pretty much part of Subarus brand identity.
However, 08 outback wasn’t bad to look at. The legacy wagon it was based on (discontinued in 06 or 07) was actually pretty goodlooking.
ive always liked the legacy’s looks in general. it was like .. handsome but never flashy. but that is not what moves metal sadly.
There was a Subaru that had an ugly vertical grill reminiscent of an Esdel.
Tribeca. If they haven’t done a “Meh Car Monday” on it yet, they absolutely should.
That could have been the Impreza I think. The Tribeca came out with that ugly snout.
They unuglified the Tribeca in 08. Didn’t help my 07.
Technically, the facelifted Tribeca was supposed to be a Saab! They ended up scrapping the Saab Tribeca (or whatever they would have named it) and Subaru used the design.
Oh man. I’m so sorry.
We named it miss piggy. The car was fine otherwise.
Ooops, duplicate
The Benign Tribeca, that was a case where the facelift was a huge improvement. They also made the name less confusing
CX-50 is its own model, and, yes, it does look a bit like a squished CX-5. But it gives it a neat long cowl + short greenhouse look somewhat reminiscent of “chopped” hot rods, but in crossover form. Similar to how the Infiniti FX SUV was.
The CX-50 is basically a CX-5 with box flares and a slightly lower roof line. I think it looks great.
We bought a CX5 earlier this year. We really preferred the look of the CX-50, but the interior felt more cramped, had worse seats, and had an unusually stiff ride for a crossover; plus it cost more to get the same features the CX5 had in the CX50.
It’s funny, we had a 2018 CX-5 and replaced it a couple years ago with a 2023 CX-50. While I like the handling, looks, and some of the interior bits of the 50, the 5 definitely rode better thanks to the independent rear suspension vs the twist beam in the 50. Also, curious that you found the 50 more cramped than the 5; the 5 definitely had less room inside, especially in the rear seats and hatch.
I might be confusing the 50 with the 30 regarding the crampedness. We drove nearly every car Mazda sold, and a bunch of competitors since it was my wife’s first new car.
I didn’t know the Cx-50 was a twist beam rear though. That makes a lot of sense.
All of the newer FWD-based Mazdas (The 3, CX-30, and CX-50) have the twist beam. The current CX-5 was based on the old chassis it shared with the last-gen 3, 6 and the CX-9, and those had IRS. That said, the CX-50 we have handles really well for a big car with ground clearance. The rough ride is more due to the 20″ wheels than anything else. The ones with smaller wheels do ride better.
Thank you for pointing out the Fox Mustangs. They’re hideous! Zero styling, just an oversized Escort.
Christ, can we get a spoiler tag or something on that Tiburon? I’m trying to have an appetite again sometime in my life
COTD
Since it’s fresh in my mind, the 2027 Kia Telluride took a classy, clean design and butched it up. It looks like a Hans and Franz muscle suit. Interior is nice, though.
The 1970 and 71 Challengers looked fantastic. The sad face on the 73 looked droopy.
I think the Telluride’s whole market is having a well thought out interior with a “be different” exterior. Many automakers were starting to copy styling ques from the telluride because of how popular it was. If kia just tried to keep the exterior the same like its some sort of legend like the 911 it would slowly get lost in the crowd and look ‘old’.
The ’71 Cuda wrecked the ’70 too.
Agree. Way too busy.
6th gen Camaro. First few years the car looked very good (massive blind spots yes, but still good looking). Then the mid cycle refresh dropped and it was the death knell for the car. Made it into a weird, goofy front end that was so badly received that GM had to rush a revised fascia out for the next year, which is unheard of in turn around time. Terrible. Took one of the best chassis ever with great powertrains and just ruined it, then killed it.
i loved the 6th gen camaro. the economy was just going into the toilet. The camaro was never a HUGE seller and GM had to justify selling both the Camaro AND the corvette and the sales weren’t there. Mustang is a household name, Challenger has the vintage styling and its also a good bit bigger so its actually practical for a small family. The camaro swallowed up the “because race car” segment of the market but it was always held back by the existance of the corvette. GM couldn’t risk the Camaro being faster.
And the revised fascia really only took the edge off the ugly. From Gawdawful to plain only fugly, if you will.
It may not have been the reason for the car’s demise, but it sure didn’t help the situation either.
And add to that the S650 Mustang which looks like a blend of a Camaro, Mustang, and Charger.
The Mk1 Focus
Yeah, they gave us that stupid, cheapened facelift instead of actually giving us the Mk2 Focus. They also took away the cabin filter and started using that stupid air filter shit (you made an article on it)
Also, the Euro-market E110 Corolla (late 90s/early 2000s)
the original version looked really cool
https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/gallery/TOYOTA-Corolla-3-Doors-3586_5.jpg
the update made it less cool
https://bilmodel.dk/images/cars/364_1.jpg
Too bad that first one never made it over here, or the really awesome wagon either.
True enough on the mk 2, but I do enjoy my facelift-of-a-facelift ’10 for bringing back some of the edgy weirdness of the original. The ’05 softening of that design gets my vote for worst.
I remember when that Focus facelift came out and thought- What were they thinking?! But then after a minute I thought, Hmm, I bet that will be a good used car. In 2014 I bought a 2010 and indeed it was an excellent used car. It was only meant to be a stopgap that I’d keep 3 or 4 years, but it got me thru mid-life crises, loss of parents, graduate school, career change, and 2 moves. It was the longest ownership experience of any car I ever owned (11 years) but not the most mileage. Not a great car, but a very good car that way exceeded my expectations. It’s still on the road and I commanded the new owner to take good care of it and it should last until 250k. I honestly miss the little turd some days.
Those beak-nosed Acuras from maybe 15-20 years ago. They looked like a giant squid’s face with that protruding point.
2008-2011 Mercedes-Benz R230 SL
They took what was a cohesive design – Bruno Sacco’s last – and put an angular, pointy nose on it.
i like both versions. i don’t think the 2008 got hit with the ugly stick. But it is sad when an iconic design like that has to retire.
oops- replied to wrong comment.
Everything Ferrari did moving from 1985 to 1986. The Mondial QV, 308, and OG Testarossa were all wonderful and awesome, and then they defanged everything with the body color noses and bumpers on the Mondial 3.2, 328, and later on the 512TR. At the time it was “modern,” but in my book it was the beginning of the end of distinctive Pininfarina design.
The refreshed Chrysler Pacifica looks way worse.
We need more tail fins. Designers have convinced the car driving sheep white,grey and black are the only colours. Real design takes it to next level. Current design takes us to adult sized power wheels. Release the Bishop, think Release the Kraken, to stop the dull
The entire lineup of Hondas in the ’08-’15 range were all practically hot messes.
8th Gen Accord were bloated (Sedan was enlarged to be a Buick; Coupe looked like a Monte Carlo); 4th Gen TL had the same beak issue as the aforementioned RL combined with the Accord bloat. Crosstour and ZDX were also nightmare designs. 3rd and 4th Gen CR-Vs were meh. 2nd Gen Pilot was inspired by the dead Hummer brand and trying too hard. Even the 2nd Gen Fit was a 1st Gen that encountered a bee hive. We all know the release of the 9th Gen Civic was an also-ran of the 8th Gen, just worse.
All just bleh.
Excellent take right here.
2nd gen Pontiac Firebird, with the refreshed front end in 1979 that went to 4 separated headlight binnacles.
Counterpoint: That refresh turned the Firebird into an icon. IMHO, the post-facelift Gen 2 is THE Firebird/Trans Am. I think the pre-facelift Gen 2’s were meh at best. YMMV, etc., but that’s my opinion.
I dunno…when I think pre-79, I think Smokey and the Bandit; when I think post-, I think of Kid Rock’s in Joe Dirt.
Ah, it seems we were referring to different facelifts. I thought you meant the mid 2nd gen facelift that took it from 2 to 4 headlights in 1976 (I mis-read your original comment). The 1976 – 1979 Firebirds were peak Firebird, in my book. You’re correct that the second 2nd gen facelift in 1980 didn’t do it any favors.
While I realize that molded front end was very much of its time (and I wouldn’t say no to one it it were offered to me, there was just something about that seemed to take away the sleekness of everything, which wouldn’t return until the car went to pop-ups in ’82.
70 RAM Air III firebird was the last decent firebird IMO.
Obviously came here to say this, as per my profile pic. For my money, the Trans Am wouldn’t look that good again for another two decades, until the last ones they made. There’s just something about a 00s WS6 in Darth Vader black.
I suggest Mazda and the facelifts they applied to almost the entire line with the grotesque smiling face motif.
I don’t understand how a company that can make what might be the most beautiful car of the 21st century (Mazda Vision concept car) could come up with something that looks like plastic surgeons’ nightmare!
Mazdaspeed below for an example
https://www.edmunds.com/assets/m/mazda/mazdaspeed-3/2010/oem/2010_mazda_mazdaspeed-3_4dr-hatchback_sport_fq_oem_1_815.jpg
I’ll bet if that had been an angry frown it would have sold better.
As someone relatively seriously in the market for an MS3 at that time, everything about the 2010 – the interior, the stupid smile, even the damned wheels – was a downgrade. I sat in a 2010 new on the lot and remember just feeling I could maybe get over the smile, but not the weird 90’s hotel-wall textile quality and patterns. I say this as an avowed angry-car-face hater; I just thought the Mazdas looked bad. *Especially* after what came before and, with the benefit of hindsight, what came after (though not speed3s, the cowards).
The PR people at the petit le mans each year have not heard my supplications to bring it back. I light a burnt valve offering and whisper my prayers anew.
I like the happy Mazdas. They’re the antithesis to the angry brodozers that have become more and more widespread.
I didn’t like them at first, but they are st least interesting. Not ugly, just different.
My family was sold. No angry cars for them!
Yeah they lost me, I had a 2008 Mazdaspeed3 that I loved but wasn’t going to upgrade to a newer one after they added the demented smiling face front ends.
And the next generations of the Mazda 3 never looked that great to me either, the front end was too long so the proportions were off. And they quit doing Mazdaspeed editions of vehicles, which had been getting them a lot of automotive press and enthusiast attention.
My other Audi-based contribution: How about the C7 to C8 model changeover of the Audi A6? I’ve always disliked the front end of the C8 unless it was the RS6/A7 design. The sedan looks frumpy as hell.
When Chevy updated the Silverado around 2020.
Agreed. I’d also say the generation change from gmt400 to gmt800 in ‘98 was an aesthetic downgrade too. But, the 800s did have LS engines, so there’s that.
It’s a truck. It’s a work vehicle. It’s like caring what a toaster oven looks like.
Data is a toaster.
Oooooooooh deep cut
2014 was the best looking the Silverado (and Sierra) had looked since the 1990s. Then they ruined it (and continue to worsen it) with the 2017 or whatever refresh.
At least they finally got the steering wheel, seat, and pedals to all actually seem like they were designed for a single human adult human to use, finally.
This. I really liked the look of those 18-19 GM trucks and SUV’s, I thought they had the best design out there. I recently shopped full size trucks, I did not even consider the GM trucks.
You can probably guess what I bought, what I consider the cleanest fullsize pickup.
The 2006-2009 Saab 9-5’s facelift (the model’s second) was…interesting. It’s lovingly referred to as the “Dame Edna,” thanks to Clarkson, and I’m not sure it’s ugly, but there is a lot of chrome, and it doesn’t work with the proportions of the car. They flattened the nose, I assume for pedestrian safety reasons, and the result is that the whole front-end is just too long. Contrast it with the earlier 9-5s, which were basically perfect as far as I’m concerned.
As a former owner of an ‘03 9-5 I don’t disagree. There were times when I looked at that car from the front and I saw some resemblance to a 99 (it’s a stretch and it has to be the right lighting).
The ‘dame edna’s can be pretty sharp, too. I think a lot depends on the color. The less contrast with the chrome the better.
But the change they made to the rear is where I just don’t get it. Would love to grab a beer with Torch to discuss what his take is on those taillights. Were they trying to emulate an Infiniti I30 or a Maxima? If so why?
I owned a B9 Audi A4 Allroad – a beautifully understated wagon (aside from the grilel). When the B9.5 facelift came out – yuck. It’s still an attractive car, but it’s wildly overstyled and has needless complexity. They took away the single flowing bodyline crease on the side of the car and came out with a stupid disappearing line, the grille is worse, the taillights and headlights are worse. They must have replaced the bumpers, hood, front and rear doors, etc. The facelift was shite – a precursor to all the garbage that Audi just came out with in the last year and also the reason why Marc Lichte is no longer at Audi.
The 1995 Volvo 960 facelift was bad news bears. There were a rough few years of transition after Jan Wilsgaard retired as head of Volvo design in 1991, before Peter Horbury could do anything from a clean sheet, where Horbury was trying to smooth the edges of the super-boxy Wilsgaard Volvos, and it just did not work. Same thing happened when the 850 became the S/V70 in ’97, though that one didn’t look quite as bad as the 960. The first C70 was just bizarre.
The facelifts also came with interior updates that made it more apparent than the old ones had done that interior material quality was not a Volvo strength. Try to find a post-facelift 960/S/V90 or S/V70 with door panel upholstery that hasn’t come unglued, I dare you.