
A blog devoted to RANTS ON AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN, car reviews, and - above all - fugly autos. whether looking for vehicular plagiarism or rides of extreme tastelessness, you've come to the right place.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Mohs Ostentatienne Opera Sedan


The main difference visually from that of the SafariKar covered previously is that it's NOT covered in pleather. Overall the look is somehow better but worse - it's front end is marginally better due to the fact that the body isn't as tall, but the combo of the huge wheels and the equally tall, Pacer-like fishbowl of a greenhouse give the car a kind of toy car appearance.
Another noticeable change is it's complete lack of doors. The sole entry is through a hatch in the rear - kind of a reverse Isetta. So I guess you'd have to pray no one rear ends you. The reasoning behind this was actually safety - huge steel side rails ran the length of the car to protect the occupant in the event of a side-on collision. Which I suppose is a threat due to the fact that the styling may blind oncoming traffic.
Powered by an ever-so-refined International Harvester truck engine, the car offered fewer out-there interior features than the SafariKar, but you could order one with a refrigerator and Ming style oriental rugs. Prices ranged from $19,600 to $25,600 - in 1967.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Packardbakers
Packardbaker is the term for late model Packards. Why? Because then owners Studebaker though it would be a good idea to dissolve the once great luxury brand into two ill-conceived models in it's final years, both based on overstyled versions of existing Studebaker models.
Sure - you're probably thinking that GM has gotten away with this for the past 30 years, so why is this a big deal? For one, being one of the first to popularize the idea. But for the most part it's because the Studebaker designed seemed to barely even try. For example, look at the tacked on fender extensions. They basically just stuck on fibreglass extensions to the body and called it a day. And they looked like - well - tacked on fender extensions.
Same goes for the headlight pods, that blatantly bulge out from fenders clearly designed for a single unit. Adding to the hap-hazard "Packardifying" was the overall homely look of the front end. It seems as if they ran out of ideas and just decided to stretch the grille from one end to another, leading to a dustbuster meets catfish look.
The Packard Hawk takes a similar route and turns out looking a bit better, but still gets a mention due to the fact that they ruined one of the most beautiful designs to come out of the 50's - the Studebaker Golden Hawk. Come on - couldn't you have at least thought of an original name? It's vacuum catfish look is a bit more extreme as well on the Hawk. At least they look like each other.
The rear end is slightly better again in that it's devoid of tacked on fin extensions, but then it's mainly that of the Golden Hawk with a huge fake spare tire in the trunk, a la Imperial. Got to do something to make it unique I suppose.
Sure - you're probably thinking that GM has gotten away with this for the past 30 years, so why is this a big deal? For one, being one of the first to popularize the idea. But for the most part it's because the Studebaker designed seemed to barely even try. For example, look at the tacked on fender extensions. They basically just stuck on fibreglass extensions to the body and called it a day. And they looked like - well - tacked on fender extensions.




Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Not just for tacky shoes anymore...

Ungenuity
The bigger the wheels, the harder they fall.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Sbarro Autobau
Bufugli



The 2010 Geneva Auto Show was actually pretty fug-free, which is why I hadn't really posted anything. One of few fugtastic entries was the ingeniously named Bufori Geneva, a huge Bentley inspired semi-neoclassic limo that looks vaguely Russian in my eyes. That and it kinda reminds me of this and this. And each time I see the headlights I think of Koenigsegg taillights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)