Top 20 Ugliest Cars of All Time

#20: BMW Isetta

Also in:

Top 10 Most Dangerous Cars Ever Made

On one hand, we totally get it: the idea of microcars is cute, right? The BMW Isetta was initially born from the Italian Iso SpA firm, which specialized in refrigerators, scooters and tiny trucks. This sort of tracks, as the Isetta is also, shall we say, compact. But the bumper-car design of the Isetta feels like an eyesore, and it’s unsafe, to boot. When BMW took over, it didn’t get any prettier. Yet, these single-cylinder, single-door vehicles were actually popular in their day, primarily due to their fuel economy. Still, this doesn’t change much about their squished appearance, making this side-benefit one that arrives armed with a side order of ugly.

#19: The 1976 Rolls-Royce Camargue

Also in:

Top 10 Ugliest Cars From the 90s

Automobile journalists have historically held mixed opinions when it came to the Camargue line from Rolls-Royce. Some see the car as one of the worst to ever come off the assembly line, while the Camargue’s appearance has been both defended and rejected over the years. For the most part, however, the Camargue has been lambasted for its ugly front and back ends. The 1976 model in particular looks like a Frankenstein’s monster of small compact in the back and perceived luxury in the front. The headlights and grill make this Camargue a bad dream best left forgotten.

The Marcos Engineering company from Britain no longer exists, and it’s easy to see why, with car brands like the Marcos Mantis. Production of the Mantis began in the late sixties, and it would take some serious re-branding in the ‘90s in order to bring the model back to life. That’s because the 1970 iteration was somewhat infamous for its hideous appearance and lack of popularity. In fact, Marcos was actually offering the Mantis in component form in early 1971, effectively putting the kibosh on this experiment, and heading back to the drawing board.

It’s a pretty telling fact that the esteemed Aston Martin Corporation only produced 645 of the Lagonda between 1974 and 1990. Aston Martin is largely associated with cutting-edge James Bond cars, not junky, ugly mistakes. In the Lagonda’s defense, the interior does its best to impress with a space-age design that’s very indicative of the era. However, the lines of this thing are all wrong, the hood and headlights disconcertingly narrow and the vibe as a whole just unworthy of the name Aston Martin. We wouldn’t even wish this car on a Bond villain.

#16: SIN Model S1

Also in:

Top 10 Best First Cars

You’d be forgiven for not being aware of the Sin Cars company from Bulgaria. The private company was founded by Rosen Daskalov in 2012 and initially built their brand around ultra-fast supercars, such as the model S1. On the one hand, we totally understand the built-for-speed concept around its light design, as well as the options for customizable components. That said the SIN Model S1 looks like the results of a “create-a-car” video game mod gone horribly wrong. Like, “let your little brother or sister” play with the controls level wrong. SIN cars may be fast, but they’re certainly not easy on the eyes.

Don’t get us wrong: we totally appreciate retro, as well as the sentiment by DaimlerChrysler to turn back the clock with the design of their Plymouth Prowler. Yet the end results just don’t justify even the best of intentions, since the Plymouth Prowler doesn’t really do justice to the old school hot rods it’s attempting to mimic. The bumpers appear misplaced and the wheel design makes the Plymouth Prowler feel more like a Hot Wheels experiment come to life than a proper sort of retro revival. This one was a nice try, but no dice.

There is…well, a lot going on with the design of the Nissan S-Cargo. Getting the obvious out of the way, yes, the name is absolutely meant to sound like the food, escargot. Beyond this, however, the S-Cargo looks more like something that would be hanging in a museum than running on the road. The boxy design is tall and unwieldy, with weird windows (including ones that look like a ship’s porthole) and a disastrous back end. Let’s face it: nothing short of a miracle would allow anybody to look cool in a Nissan S-Cargo.

A Volkswagen Type 181 was known by a number of names over the years following its initial production for the West German Army. Call it a Kurierwagen, a Trekker, a Safari, or, perhaps tellingly, “The Thing,” a Type 181 by any other name would still be ugly. This piecemeal vehicle could literally be taken apart, featuring removable doors and roof and a windshield that could be folded flat, like some sort of “Looney Tunes” cartoon. That said, the Type 181 branded cars are reliable, and possess good fuel economy, but struggle to escape their image of being the sort of thing you’d see scooting around in an old war movie.

#12: The 1957 Aurora

Also in:

Top 10 Best Cars To Have Sex In

The conception and production of the 1957 Aurora feels like one of those stories that defy description. The car was only produced for a year and was the brainchild of a Catholic priest named Father Alfred A. Juliano. The Aurora was developed by Juliano, who possessed knowledge of both art and auto manufacturing, with safety on his mind. The car succeeded in this aim, as well, existing as a well-made car with the long haul in mind when it came to a safe and reliable driving experience. It achieved this, however, at the expense of style, with the Aurora becoming a bulbous and bloated example of space-age design gone horribly wrong.

Hey, think that electric vehicles are just a modern-day invention? Think again, because the Sebring-Vanguard Company actually tried taking this route way back in 1974. The Citicar enjoyed production for about three years, and served as an inspiration for EVs of the future, including the Buddy cars over in Norway. Don’t think for a second that this goodwill makes the Citicar (or the Buddy, if we’re being honest) look stylish or cool, however, because this thing looks more like a doorstop. The sliding windows are weird, the slanting lines unattractive and the headlights look small, cold and dead. We understand there was a fuel shortage back in the ‘70s, but come on.

#10: AMC Gremlin

Also in:

Top 5 Iconic Muscle Cars

We’re not quite sure who thought it was a good idea to name this car a Gremlin, but you know what, it’s pretty damn accurate. The two-door subcompact is about as beautiful as its namesake. In production from 1970 to 1978, the Gremlin featured a similar body to the AMC Hornet, but it was shortened. And it boasted, if you can call it that, a nearly vertical hatchback tail. The Gremlin was designed to compete with fuel efficient European and Japanese offerings, but it failed to live up to those global standards. With cars like the Gremlin, it’s no surprise AMC couldn’t hang in with the big auto-manufacturers.

If only they’d spent as much time on the design as they did on the name... While the car manufacturer based out of India didn’t exactly strike gold with the Tata Nano, its real crème de l’caca is the Magic Iris. Entering production in 2010 and still in production as of 2024, this three-door, four-to-five-seater microvan looks like a toy kindergartners would run around playing with, not a car you’d actually drive. But it does have an interesting purpose: within the cramped streets of Indian cities, the tiny Magic Iris is designed to compete with auto-rickshaws. It’s... a niche market...

It’s hard to define exactly what kind of car the PT Cruiser really is. In some ways, it resembles your standard four door car, while in other ways it looks like an SUV. If you look at it just right, you may also think it looks like the Monopoly car, or at least, a malformed one. A Mo-blob-oly car, if you will. It was in a category all its own, but fortunately it was one that didn’t stick around. The five-door hatchback was produced for ten years, halting in 2010, and actually had surprisingly decent sales throughout its run. But, of course, the benefit to driving a PT Cruiser is it’s one less PT Cruiser you have to look at on the road.

So many of the cars on this list just don’t make any sense, and were likely the products of designers trying to create that next big thing. The Suzuki X-90 has to be an example of that, because there’s no other explanation for its existence. Between 1995 and 1997, Suzuki produced this fusion of a car, truck, and… despair. With a truck-like nose, the profile of a Fisher-Price pedal car, and the abbreviated rear end of an SUV, the X-90 failed to carve out a desirable identity. We would give them credit for trying, but ... it’s not clear that they actually were.

The Pontiac Trans Sport has the best nickname on this list, by far: The Dustbuster. The similarities go deeper than just a nickname, though, because like a Dustbuster, this confused attempt at a minivan sucks. When the Trans Sport was introduced as a concept back in 1986, it received rave reviews for its futuristic look and features. It had the “dream car” appearance and feel so many consumers desired, so the Trans Sport was given approval for production. Fast forward to 1989, when the 1990 model was officially released, and the Trans Sport had lost all the features consumers craved, instead boasting nothing new but an ugly design.

Nissan has a lot of attractive, eye-pleasing cars... the Juke is not one of them. Before we get into the model, let’s just stick on that name. When you hear the word “Juke,” you think football; you think shifting and bypassing a defender, you think agility. Now let’s look at the car. It’s big, bulky, and has wide, protruding wheel arches. It also claims a high waistline, leaving its side window small and narrow. Meanwhile, the front end has a bunch of what can only be called random, obtrusive lights. Bottom line: there’s nothing agile or sleek about the Juke.

The Robin, famously, has three, rather than four, wheels. Beyond this, there is little in the way of visual excitement to behold here. Even as far back as the 1970s, when the Mk 1 was first produced, the automotive world was seeing regular gains in steering technology, so we’re not quite sure why three wheels seemed like an attractive investment, but Reliant went for it. Perhaps more surprisingly, the public went for it. The Robin sold well, though that was likely a result of its fuel efficiency and an odd reduced tax and licensing loophole, which were all appealing features in a fuel-short, cash-strapped UK.

Maybe you don’t got ‘er, Pontiac. From 2001 to 2005, Pontiac sold this absolute hunk of an implosion of a mid-size crossover, billing it as a utility vehicle for the modern family. When your vehicle’s big features are a removable cooler, grocery compartments, a tent, and cupholders, you know you’ve gone wrong. And those were on the interior; the real problems were on the exterior, where the car was too bulky, had strange plastic cladding, narrow windows, and a crazy front end. Still, it did eventually earn a welcome place in pop-culture... but only thanks to meth-chef Walter White and only after the Aztec left the market.

Everyone’s bound to make a mistake every once in a while, and you could make a fairly strong argument that Italian car manufacturer Fiat is among the best when it comes to producing sleek, stylish cars. Still, they couldn’t escape botching at least one model: the Multipla. Where to even begin? The Multipla is a clunky, misshapen mess. Its front end looks like the bill of a duck, and the car boasts way too many lights to make sense. The design is bulky in every area, except in the back, where there’s very little trunk room. We could use more words to describe the Multipla, but this is definitely one of those “a picture says a 1000 words” scenarios.

Nissan strikes out again. Almost universally considered the worst car of all time, the Cube appears exactly as its name suggests. Sold from 2009 to 2014 in the world at large, the Cube we’ve come to know and ... well, know... was actually the third attempt, with the first two being sold in Japan only. Oddly, however, while the Cube is, as the name implies, boxy, its designers did attempt to inject some style. Notably, it claims an asymmetric, wraparound rear window. While that does break up the design a bit, it doesn’t do much to overcome the whole “it’s a box” vibe and really only amplifies the uggg factor. Feel like defending any of these cars? Ever owned one? Do you CURRENTLY own one? Let us know in the comments!