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
BMW 5 series E39 to E60
BMW 7 series E38 to E65
The infamous Bangle Butt era, when BMW took the 2 most beautiful sedans on the market and made them ugly for no reason.
And of course we can’t have this discussion without talking about the Porsche 911 996 fried egg edition.
Chris Bangle bangled his way through a few car manufacturers. Everything he touched turned to crap. Hopefully he never works in the auto industry again.
He did have a couple hits, like the Z8, but the 5 and 3 Series were by far his biggest sins.
Wasn’t the Z8 designed by Henrik Fisker?
Honestly that sounds right, but Google claims otherwise. Maybe Fisker was Bangle’s apprentice lol
Ford Festiva to Ford Aspire.
I know these are 2 different nameplates, but the cars underneath are mechanically pretty much the same car.
The Festiva was clean and boxy with subtle box flares. These are easy engine swap cars, so fitting a bigger Mazda engine with some lowering and nice wheels makes a nifty and quick little sport compact.
The Aspire was the next gen of the Festiva, with the same ability to accept simple engine swaps, but the body was replaced with an anonymous egg that can’t be helped.
I couldn’t agree more!! They not only destroyed the looks, but somehow the ridiculously fun Festiva toss-ability became a bland yawn.
I can attest that the Festiva was extremely and tossable. With a cheap engine swap, I embarrassed a few sports cars with mine back in the day.
I never drove an Aspire, but we used to use the rear axle for an easy brake upgrade IIRC.
1972 vs 1973 Gran Torino. It’s probably not fair to compare any vehicle between the ’72 and ’73 model years since those bumper regs hurt everyone. That being said, the nose job Ford was forced to do on the Gran Torino was a real letdown.
Chrysler Cordoba. Those round lamps on the front were distinctive and just suited the car. The quad rectangles of the ’78-’79 models chased a trend that just made them look anonymous.
2025 Ford Maverick. At least they didn’t mess with the profile, but that new front end is terrible. It’s like they were thinking, “Hey, we’re selling more of these than we can make. What if we ugly it up a little and see if that slows down sales.”
It’s my personal taste, but I feel that the 1966 Chevelle is one of the most beautiful cars of the muscle car era, with it’s lengthened C-pillars, wrap-around grill and slit-style tail lights.
Then they ruined it in 1967. Why couldn’t they leave the design mostly alone for a year? (Y’know, like they did in 1971-1972, or any other generation of the Chevelle/Malibu) Instead the awesome grill was turned into an egg-crate that had a concave shape instead of wrapping around and the tail lights were moved to the end of the “fins” for an awkward fit.
I’m probably the only one super bothered by this, but ugh.
Second gen Ford Focus; Euro or US, take your pick. Both are worse than the first gen.
I came to say this. The first gen Focus was a beautifully proportion car and great example of a world car. Plus the WRC Car looked like a muscled version you could buy off the lot. The second gen car looked like a car. It was a sad americanization of a beautiful European car.
The second facelift Saab 9-5’s scream “company in financial distress”. How do you modernize a car when you have no money to spend? surround the grille and new headlights with chrome, of course!
1967 USA Opel Kadett front grill/headlight trim.
1967 fairly conservative chrome slotted affair with decent headlight trim surrounds that fit the front end well, this style remained the European grill/headlight trim till this version of the Kadett ended.
1968 USA Kadett, black painted mesh with two chrome horizontal bars running across it, is ok, but matched with two oblong oversized headlight surrounds that stuck way out from the surface of the grill just killed any symmetry for the front end design. Every time I see one I always thought it looked like a take on the 68 Chevy Nova front end, just very poorly executed. I always wondered how the Buick salespeople felt about selling a car that resembled a shrunken Chevy Nova from the front.
Fiat Multipla.
Look at how they massacred my boy
I think the first-generation CR-V is much more handsome and characterful than the second, but not by as much as the second MOGS the third. The second generation is a bit bland and bulky, but the third is a lumpy, bumpy, frumpy thing with too many lines everywhere, it looks like someone tried to inflate a 2nd-gen while standing on both bumpers. Given, Honda in general was getting really experimental with design at the time, but I feel that the CR-V was hit the hardest and worst by it. Which is really unfortunate, because Honda was making some really cool interiors and drivetrains at that time.
The 2010 “smiley face” Mazda 3. Thankfully later generations are more attractive.
The 1991-2001 Lexus ES was a sharply styled sporty looking sedan, and I honestly wouldn’t mind driving one.
The 2002-2006 ES looks like the unholy amalgamation of a large bullfrog and a 1950’s Kelvinator refrigerator. Jarring at best.
Hey there. A 50’s Kelvinator refrigerator is design excellence (and it came in fun colors!). As you rightly note, the 4th gen ES is the antithesis of good looking!
Oh, I like both amphibians and 1950’s appliances just fine! But when these two things are forcefully combined into the same object occupying the same space, it is an affront to the eyes and the soul.
How are you going to ask this question without the ability to add picture to a comment?
They want us to sharpen our pens and are forcing us to hone our wits to rapier sharpness!
They should allow members to post images. That would absolutely drive subscriptions!
Cateye GMT800’s were a downgrade
i had a 1990 SS454 in high school. at the time it was parked by my dads 97 gmt400 ext cab chevy. both really good looking trucks, the move to the cateye in ’03 seemed like a logical step in aesthetic evolution for the truck though i much prefered the 99-01. what happened in 07 with the gladiator cheek plate bumpers put me squarely in the GMC camp just for the better looking front end. this isnt sparta.
Never heard the gladiator bumper comment, but after reading it, I can totally see that! I always thought that design was awkward looking, I didn’t care for the headlights either.
IMO the front of the same gen Tahoe looked good, but the Yukon looked terrible.
I hate the cateye so much, I even hate that it’s called “cateye”.
It’s like they designed it, then realized the hood needed to open, that cut line in the top of the fender kills me.
Luckily GMC did no such nonsense, the 99-06 GMC’s ALL look good.
Still in my 04 Denali, Paint looks like ass but the truck looks good
First- through third-gen RAV4 looked good; I’d say second-gen post-facelift looked great.
Fourth looked weird. The current models have been slapped with the Giant Grille Club and look like landed, gasping catfish…like so many other vehicles. (Looking at YOU, Genesis).
Second-gen Scion xB. The little X-box was a nippy Tardis in traffic, feeling bigger inside than the room it took to park. Second-gen was Toyota deciding hey, it’s old people buying these things, we need to make it like what old buyers like: bigger, more powerful. And in discounting the fact that the old buyers were snapping up the car in its smaller, less-challenging conformation, they ruined it with the second generation.
C5 Corvette. Ugh.
Second-gen Thunderbird. Oy. But then 3rd and 4th generations were…okayish. And then everything went to shit and Ford couldn’t get it back until the ninth gen in 1983. And then lost it again.
For a counterpoint, I’d like to hold up the Toyota Yaris (specifically the hatchback model, known as the Vitz to the rest of the world) as an example of an ugly duckling-swan-ugly duckling evolution. The first gen is dumpy and funny looking from the front in particular; the second gen got way handsomer…and then the third gen came out, and it too received its fish face.
First-to-second gen T-Bird was my first thought. I have never liked the second gen and the transition to the third gen was one of the best makeovers of the 60’s.
But I have to disagree with you on the sixth and seventh gens. Sure, the were malaisey land yachts for those who couldn’t afford the Lincoln Mark IV and V, but they were handsome enough, especially the seventh gen.
The only redeeming quality of the eighth gen is that it is on the Fox platform, and therefore able to be enlivened with a bunch of Mustang parts. Of course, that is also true for the vastly improved ninth gen.
Turbo Lima all the way. Intercooled and thoroughly muffled for maximum “thehellwuzzat?” effect, when your bricklike Tbird actually accelerates.
And since we’re talking about modding a Fox-based ‘Bird, drop in the five-speed and a posi rear. So the Tbird hooks.
Weird, to talk about a Tbird hooking. Maybe it talons?
Everything Ferrari after they dumped Pininfarina.
/thread
Mostly correct. I still like the the Roma/Roma Spider and the 12Cilindri, though I can understand why people might not.
I will not hear a word against the 296 though.
The 2018 Elantra was a perfectly nice looking car. Especially the hatch, which had a similar front end.
Then Hyundai decided to absolutely ruin the front end of the sedan for 2019 with headlights that somehow intrude into the grille, as if by accident. It looks like shit.
I’ll add, that I have no idea why they even did a refresh. This generation of Elantra only lasted 4 model years! So the front end only remained the same for two model years at a time. There’s no way in hell the refresh front end helped sell more Elantras so… who knows what the rationale for all that effort was.
Ahh, yes. The 2017-18 looked like a decent car (especially with the Sport trim!). 2019 had a bad case of the triangles. Seriously, they just made everything triangles, and for absolutely no reason. Not good.
had a 2018 sport, it was a great car and in my opinion is still a very handsome sedan to this day
i wouldn’t have even entertained the idea of a test drive had it looked like the 2019, absolutely vile redesign from end to end
Good call with the Durango
2nd gen Scion xB. I loved my 1st gen so much I bought another a handful of years ago because it was cheap and manual. I just couldn’t do the newer version.
Honda Civic and Accord. Around 2005 maybe? Went to full boring bland. As I remember, they did another refresh the following year after they figured out they messed up…
That was around 2010/2011 on the Civic.
The 03 Accord was a good looking car with a bad rear end. The 06 refresh kept the same body but went from full width taillights to triangular units. I bought an 06 because it was a much sharper looking car.
I know that one of these is part of the Tracy household, but I would say the 4th gen RX 350 when they introduced that awful grill and ruined the profile.
Whatever Cadillac is doing with its larger SUVs. Take the ugliest freezer you have ever seen, make it larger, add wheels and lights.
Every Challenger after the ’70 just doubled-down on ugly.
The ’71 was OK since it just had a slightly different grille. ’72 on was the car which looked like Dodge should have kept it locked in an attic.
FR-S -> GT86. Yes the facelift was better in most ways…other than the front bumper and taillights…
I had a ’14 BRZ and still think it looked better than the current models.
I found an HO scale model of a freezebreeze that had been genericified with a C6 Corvette-ish nose, and it still looks better than the facelift 86. I do like the GR86 though.
Most of them!
I’ll never forget when they unveiled the new ’96 Taurus. I remember a newspaper plastering a picture of the front of it and a catfish side by side.
One that always irked me was the 94/95 -> 96/97 Thunderbird. They got rid of the large, Nascar style intakes and replaced it with little pencil moustache intakes on the bumper and added unnecessary beltlines. And the large block THUNDERBIRD on the back was replaced with a little cursive script. Just feels like they tried to move it into a softer market.
The 96 Taurus and the Jellybean F-150 were both awful.