Chrysler - did Cerberus blow it?

No styling and butt-ugly are two entirely different things. Styling is a
matter of taste, the other is simply inexcusable.

 

With all due respect, I must disagree...

How about plain old 'bad styling' or possibly worse, 'functional styling'?

The original Beetle was styled for the functionality of that car, and with
Third Reich artistic standards.

The Citroen 2CV the same, minus the Third Reich artistic constraints.

Many more examples up to the time of those you've mentioned; again, styled
for the function only.

And my favourite for sheer ugliness, The Aztek. Had to pass one at my
corner -- a bright yellow brick -- for many months, and frequently had to
answer the question, "What in hell is /that/ monstrosity?" It too was
styled for it's function.

People these days drive more 'vehicles' than 'cars', and the vehicles
generally have the artistic appeal of any military vehicle. And the cars
have been homogenized to aesthetically offend nobody, with the
side-effect of pleasing very few. Which is why a typical highway today
looks like a mass of military maneuvers mixed with mostly
undifferentiateable little buglets milling around like bees in a hive or
ants in a hill.


Just my $0.02 Canadian....

 

No, there isn't. There's "deliberately styled to look as if it was
just an industrial produce", but trust me -- just as much money went
into the styling of a Scion XB as a Mazda RX-8.

 

Piero Drago had little money but designed a car which introduced many new
design features. It's at the opposite end of the scale as the most desired
car of all time, the 1967 Ferrari 330 P4. Probably a lot more money went
into the "style" of cars which no one wants.

http://www.ferrariworld.com/FWorld/fw/index.jsp

 

Oops. I meant Piero Drogo. Very interesting story...

http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/drv-dropie.html