Why We Still Adore Them: A Deep Dive into the Most Gloriously Awkward ’80s Cars That Were So Ugly, They Became Icons

The 1980s. What a time to be alive, right? It was a decade of neon, big hair, shoulder pads, and frankly, some truly questionable fashion choices. But you know what else it was? A glorious era of automotive design that swung for the fences, sometimes missing spectacularly, but always doing it with an unforgettable panache. As the aesthetics-free 1970s limped to a close, the ’80s burst forth with a bold vision, promising innovation and style. And oh, did it deliver… sometimes in ways that made us scratch our heads, shield our eyes, and then, inexplicably, find a place in our hearts for the sheer audacity of it all.

Now, don’t get us wrong. The ’80s gifted us some absolute stunners, cars that still make us drool today. But for every sleek supercar or stylish sedan, there was another machine that rolled off the assembly line looking like it had lost a fight with a geometry textbook. These weren’t just “unattractive” cars; these were *statements*. They were the automotive equivalent of that eccentric aunt you adore, even though she insists on wearing a sequined tracksuit to Thanksgiving dinner. They were flawed, often mechanically suspect, and frequently, undeniably ugly. Yet, here we are, decades later, still talking about them, still poring over their bizarre details, and yes, still harboring a strange affection for these rolling curiosities.

This isn’t just a list of bad cars; it’s a celebration of character, a deep dive into the quirky corners of car culture that only the 1980s could produce. We’re going to pull back the curtain on the initial wave of these magnificent automotive misfits, the ones that kicked off the decade with a bang (or perhaps a whimper, depending on your perspective). So, buckle up, prepare for some serious automotive lore, and let’s take a glorious, irreverent trip down memory lane to revisit the first batch of ’80s ugly cars we just can’t bring ourselves to hate.

Why We Still Adore Them: A Deep Dive into the Most Gloriously Awkward ’80s Cars That Were So Ugly, They Became Icons — 1980 Cadillac Seville Glamour Sedanne | By American Custom … | Flickr – Photo Sharing!, Photo by staticflickr.com, is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

1. 1980 Cadillac Seville

The early 1980s gave us many things, and among them, the “bustle-back” Cadillac Seville stands as a visually perplexing monument. A luxury car aiming for elegance instead delivered a design so baffling, so disconnected from conventional beauty, it instantly etched itself into automotive peculiarity. “We can’t find much in the way of explanation for the ‘bustle-back’ Cadillac Seville,” the original text admits. Who could? It looked like someone glued an unhappy trunk onto an otherwise standard sedan.

Some tried to rationalize this stylistic aberration, suggesting the Seville’s “droopy butt” was inspired by the stately Daimler DS420 Limousine. That regal ride was favored by royalty. But this comparison “just goes to prove that old Billy Joel lyric: ‘You can’t dress trashy ’til you spend a lot of money.'” The Daimler had dignity. The Seville’s rear end looked less like a noble carriage and more like a poorly executed avant-garde sculpture. It was a bold swing that landed squarely in the “what were they thinking?” category.

The Seville’s aesthetic challenges weren’t just skin deep. GM decided to double down on the ‘ugly’ experience mechanically. This beast hosted “many of General Motors’ worst engines”: the undersized 4.1 liter V-8, the “abominable Oldsmobile diesel,” and “the disastrous V-8-6-4.” These were notorious for problems and mechanical blunders.

Despite these glaring flaws, the 1980 Cadillac Seville somehow defied expectations. It “sold steadily, if not strongly, for its six-year run.” There’s a perverse admiration for a car so flawed, yet so stubbornly enduring. It was a bizarre, expensive experiment, a testament to ’80s excess and engineering ambition gone awry. For that, it remains an unforgettable, if challenging, icon of its era. We look back and chuckle, but we can’t help but appreciate its sheer, unadulterated nerve.

Car Model Information: 2002 Cadillac Seville Base
Name: Cadillac Seville
Caption: 1998–2004 Cadillac Seville
Manufacturer: Cadillac
Production: 1975–2003
ModelYears: 1976–2004
Class: luxury car
Layout: FR layout
Predecessor: Cadillac Calais
Successor: Cadillac STS
Categories: 1980s cars, 1990s cars, All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with short description, Articles with unsourced statements from October 2016
Summary: The Cadillac Seville is a mid-size luxury car manufactured by Cadillac from the 1976 to 2004 model years as a smaller-sized, premium model. It was replaced by the STS in 2004 for the 2005 model year.

Get more information about: Cadillac Seville

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: Cadillac Model: Seville
Price: $3,795 Mileage: 104,812 mi.

2. 1980 Chevrolet Citation

Ah, the 1980 Chevrolet Citation. If ever a car screamed “GM on a budget,” it was this one. This front-wheel-drive X-car was supposed to be GM’s answer to sleek European hatchbacks. Instead, it was an “American interpretation: Fat, lazy, and damned proud of it.” While its engineering was awful, its appearance often gets a pass. We’re here to give its visual shortcomings the attention they richly deserve. Its insides weren’t the only mess.

The Citation’s stance was less than athletic. It possessed a peculiar way of “sink[ing] down over its undersized wheels,” giving it an air of automotive apathy. You looked at it and instantly got a vibe it was less interested in spirited driving. The context paints a vivid picture: “it would spend all of its time lying on the couch watching Jerry Springer, scratching its genitals, and gorging itself on sour cream and onion potato chips, if only it weren’t so busy breaking down and being taken back to the dealership for warranty repairs.” That’s not just an ugly car; that’s an entire personality profile embodied in sheet metal!

It makes you wonder, what were 1980s buyers seeing? How could they not foresee the misery? Perhaps the era’s enthusiasm for “new” and “front-wheel-drive” blinded them. The Citation was a masterclass in how *not* to design a car. It was bland, bulbous, and utterly devoid of the European flair it supposedly emulated. It shouted “compromise” from every angle, without the benefit of being affordable or reliable.

Yet, for all its faults, the Citation holds a peculiar spot in the pantheon of ’80s cars. It represents a pivotal, albeit disastrous, moment for GM, a cautionary tale that became legend. It’s the car that taught a generation of American car buyers about front-wheel-drive woes. We don’t “love” the Citation for its dynamics or looks. But we cherish it as a cultural touchstone. It’s a symbol of everything simultaneously ambitious and terribly wrong with early ’80s American auto manufacturing. It’s a car you remember, even if you try not to.

3. 1980 Excalibur Series IV

If the Cadillac Seville was a bit much, prepare for the unadulterated glory that is the 1980 Excalibur Series IV. Excalibur Motors started with Brooks Stevens, a designer with a penchant for “retro-mobile[s]” mimicking classic Mercedes-Benz SSKs. Early models weren’t entirely offensive. But then came 1980, and a decision for a complete restyle. The result? The Excalibur Series IV was “unleashed on an unsuspecting public.” And boy, was that public unprepared.

Imagine taking a vintage luxury car concept and applying every garish, over-the-top styling cue you could find. All while forgetting basic principles of proportion and elegance. That’s the Excalibur Series IV. With its “split windshield, squared-off backlight, and faux wire wheels,” it didn’t just look retro; it looked like a caricature of retro. The context hits it perfectly: “it looked like a pimpmobile that had undergone deeply-discounted (and ultimately unsuccessful) reconstructive surgery.” Ouch! It was less a car, more a statement of questionable taste, delivered with the subtlety of a brass band.

This car was designed to turn heads, no doubt, but perhaps not for the right reasons. It was the automotive equivalent of wearing a full tuxedo to a casual barbecue—utterly out of place, overdone, and a little bit embarrassing. The faux wire wheels, the exaggerated lines, the general air of trying *way* too hard to be opulent—it all screamed “new money” in the most ostentatious way possible. It was a vehicle that simply didn’t know when to quit.

And in a twisted, Jalopnik-esque way, that’s precisely why we have to give it its due. “Happily, Excalibur went bankrupt in 1986,” the context notes, and was revived multiple times before finally dying for good in 2003. This car was a glorious, persistent anachronism. It’s a testament to the belief that someone will want a car that looks like a gaudy interpretation of a bygone era. We love it because it’s so unabashedly *itself*, a loud, proud, and undeniably ugly piece of automotive history. It’s the car that makes you ask, “Hasn’t anyone read The Monkey’s Paw?”

Car Model Information: 2019 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring Reserve
Categories: All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with short description, Articles with unsourced statements from December 2023, CS1 German-language sources (de), CS1 Swedish-language sources (sv)
Summary: The Excalibur automobile is a car styled after the 1928 Mercedes-Benz SSK by Brooks Stevens for Studebaker. Stevens subsequently formed a company to manufacture and market the cars, which were a standard Studebaker chassis with special bodywork (and soon got an upgraded engine as well). The Excalibur has a Neoclassic design, a term used to designate automobiles produced in the 1960s–1990s in the elegant and prestigious style cars of the 1920s and 1930s. Zimmer and Tiffany are two additional examples of Neoclassic design.

Get more information about: Excalibur (automobile)

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: Excalibur Model: Series IV
Price: $20,961 Mileage: 52,000 mi.

4. 1980 Ferrari Mondial

Hold onto your hats, purists, because we’re about to discuss an “unattractive Ferrari.” Yes, you heard that right. While the Prancing Horse badge usually conjures images of sleek lines and automotive poetry, the 1980 Ferrari Mondial is the jarring, visually challenging exception. “Anyone who says there is no such thing as an unattractive Ferrari clearly hasn’t encountered this visual horror,” declares the context. And frankly, they’re not wrong. This wasn’t just a misstep; it was a stumble, a trip, and a face-plant all rolled into one.

Other Ferraris are “svelte and y,” models of Italian design prowess. The Mondial, however, is described as “long and lumpy.” These adjectives are rarely associated with a supercar. This aesthetic conundrum was “the disagreeable result of combining a back seat, a mid-engine layout and a transversely-mounted V-8 all in the same car.” Engineering demands seemingly trampled design principles, resulting in a car that felt stretched, awkward, and fundamentally unbalanced.

But wait, there’s more to this visual symphony of woe! The “awkward proportions aren’t the Mondial’s worst styling trait.” “It’s that awful bent-down nose with the Venetian blinds running across its full width.” Venetian blinds on a Ferrari! It sounds like a bad joke. This front-end treatment was a stylistic decision so puzzling, so devoid of usual Ferrari grace, that it begs for an explanation. The context playfully suggests, “Though we don’t have proof, we’re pretty sure the Mondial was the result of a bet at Pininfarina: ‘A hundred thousand lire says I can design a Ferrari that can’t get its owner laid!'” It’s a harsh assessment, but one delivered with irreverent humor.

So, why do we “love” this ugly duckling of the Ferrari family? Because it’s a Ferrari, damn it! Even a flawed Ferrari is still *a Ferrari*. It stands as a fascinating, if aesthetically painful, anomaly in the marque’s history. It teaches us that pedigree doesn’t guarantee perfection. The Mondial is the automotive equivalent of that cult film that’s so bad it’s good. It’s a conversation starter, a reminder that even among automotive deities, there’s room for the wonderfully, gloriously, utterly ugly. It might not get you laid, but it’ll certainly get you noticed, and that’s almost as good.

Car Model Information: 1988 Ferrari Mondial
Name: Ferrari Mondial
Manufacturer: Ferrari
Production: Mondial 8: 1980–1982,703 produced,Mondial qv: 1983–1985,1,145 (coupé) produced,629 (cabriolet) produced,Mondial 3.2: 1986–1988,987 (coupé) produced,810 (cabriolet) produced,Mondial t: 1988–1993,858 (coupé) produced,1,017 (cabriolet) produced
Assembly: Modena
Designer: Pininfarina,Pierangelo Andreani (1976),Leonardo Fioravanti (engineer)
Class: Grand tourer
BodyStyle: coupé
Related: Ferrari 308 GTB,Ferrari 328,Ferrari 348
Predecessor: Ferrari GT4
Categories: 1990s cars, Articles with short description, CS1 French-language sources (fr), CS1 German-language sources (de), Cars discontinued in 1993
Summary: The Ferrari Mondial (Type F108) is a mid-engined, V8, grand tourer manufactured and marketed by Ferrari between 1980 and 1993 – with styling by Pininfarina and bodywork by Carrozzeria Scaglietti. Offered as either a 2+2 coupé or cabriolet, the Mondial has the slightly higher roofline, greater dimensions and increased weight to accommodate occasional rear seating for children or small adults. The Mondial replaced the Ferrari 308/208 GT4 coupé and remains the last V8, rear mid-engined, 2+2 Ferrari. The name Mondial, French for global, reflected its worldwide conformance with 1980 safety and emission standards — as well as the company’s prominent motor racing victories. Ferrari had used the nameplate in the 1950s to celebrate Formula 1 World Championships and again in the 1970s to mark its Formula 1 World Constructors Championships.

Get more information about: Ferrari Mondial

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: Ferrari Model: Mondial
Price: $57,959 Mileage: 26,096 mi.

5. 1980 Fiat Panda

From the sublime to the utterly utilitarian, we arrive at the 1980 Fiat Panda. Fiat’s grand ambition for the Panda was to create a “back-to-basics economy car.” A noble goal. The problem, as the context puts it, is that “it seems it carried the theme way the hell too far.” What started as minimalist design quickly descended into an ode to parsimony. It was a car that made no apologies for its stark, unadorned existence. It was designed not to impress, but simply to *be*.

The exterior was a masterclass in aggressive cost-cutting. “The straight-edge sheetmetal stampings, unpainted bumpers and flat glass indicated a level of parsimony usually reserved for the feeding of prisoners.” You read that right – *prisoners*. This wasn’t just basic; it was Spartan to the point of being almost confrontational. It dared you to find a curve, a flourish, anything suggesting a designer spent more than five minutes contemplating its aesthetic appeal. The Panda looked like it was assembled from the cheapest available industrial offcuts. It was a box on wheels that prioritized absolute function.

Step inside, and the “Panda had the most unfinished-looking dashboard this side of a Telsa Model 3.” We’re talking about “an unadorned cloth-covered shelf with a small box containing the speedo and heater controls, which appeared to be glued on more or less in front of the steering wheel.” This wasn’t ergonomic design. And the seats? “As thin as pizza boxes and only slightly less comfortable.” The overall ambiance was that of “a folklift, but without the comfort or performance.” It was a penalty box, plain and simple.

And yet, “Amazingly, Fiat kept this penalty box in production for twenty-three years.” That kind of longevity, for a car so unapologetically spartan and visually challenged, speaks volumes. The Fiat Panda wasn’t beautiful, comfortable, or fast. But it *was* honest. It was a car for the people, built to be cheap, durable, and repairable. We love the Panda because it embodies a certain no-nonsense spirit. It’s a testament to raw utility, a car that proves sometimes, the most basic, even ugly, machines can become enduring legends. It’s the ultimate anti-status symbol, something to genuinely appreciate.

6. 1980 Toyota Corolla Tercel

Toyota, typically a paragon of sensible, if sometimes bland, automotive design, had its own moment of ’80s aesthetic confusion with the 1980 Corolla Tercel. This was a big deal for Toyota, marking their “first transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive car.” But while engineering broke new ground, styling seemed to have an existential crisis. The result? A car with a “ridiculous-looking docked tail.” It was a design decision so abrupt, so visually jarring, that it instantly invited questions. And not the good kind.

Our car historians have a few theories about this curious design choice. Perhaps “the engineers asked the stylists to emphasize the compactness of the powertrain, but neglected to tell them which end of the car housed the engine.” Or, “there was a typo in the specs, and the designers didn’t find out until moments before design sign-off that the car needed to be ten inches shorter than they thought.” Whatever the true story, the outcome was a car that looked accidentally truncated. Its rear end was abruptly chopped off, defying conventional elegance or simple coherence.

The result of this blunder was that the Tercel, already described as “tinny, cheap-looking,” wound up “looking even tinnier and cheaper-looking than it needed to be.” This wasn’t just a minor aesthetic flaw. It undermined the entire visual presence of the car. It made an economy car look even more like a budget afterthought. It was devoid of the subtle charm some minimalist designs achieve. The docked tail wasn’t sleek; it was just… there. An awkward punctuation mark at the end of an otherwise forgettable sentence.

But, like all the cars on this list, the Tercel holds a certain fascination. It’s a reminder that even reliable, mass-market brands can, on occasion, produce something truly bizarre. The 1980 Corolla Tercel is a relic of a time when manufacturers scrambled to embrace new technologies, sometimes at the expense of coherent design. We love it for its sheer earnestness, its unpretentious commitment to getting from point A to point B, even if it looked perpetually missing a piece. It’s a humble, workaday car, made all the more memorable for its distinctive, if not exactly attractive, rear end.

Car Model Information: 2019 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring Reserve
Name: Toyota Tercel
Caption: The fourth generation Toyota Tercel DX sedan (EL42, US)
Manufacturer: Toyota
Aka: unbulleted list
Production: August 1978 (extended production as Soluna until 2003)
Assembly: Toyota, Aichi
Class: Subcompact car
Successor: unbulleted list
Categories: 1980s cars, 1990s cars, All articles with unsourced statements, Articles containing Japanese-language text, Articles with short description
Summary: The Toyota Tercel (Japanese: トヨタ・ターセル, Toyota Tāseru) is a subcompact car manufactured by Toyota from 1978 until 1999 across five generations, in five body configurations sized between the Corolla and the Starlet. Manufactured at the Takaoka plant in Toyota City, Japan, and sharing its platform with the Cynos (aka Paseo) and the Starlet, the Tercel was marketed variously as the Toyota Corolla II (Japanese: トヨタ・カローラII, Toyota Karōra II)—sold at Toyota Japanese dealerships called Toyota Corolla Stores—and was replaced by the Platz in 1999. It was also known as the Toyota Corsa (Japanese: トヨタ・コルサ, Toyota Korusa) and sold at Toyopet Store locations. Starting with the second generation, the Tercel dealership network was changed to Vista Store, as its badge engineered sibling, the Corolla II, was exclusive to Corolla Store locations. The Tercel was the first front-wheel drive vehicle produced by Toyota, although it was the only front-wheel drive Toyota to have a longitudinally mounted engine. For example, the E80 series Corolla’s frame (except AE85 and AE86) is similar to the L20 series Tercel’s frame. Also, Toyota designed the A series engine for the Tercel, attempting simultaneously to achieve good fuel economy and performance and low emissions. Choice of body styles increased as well, with the addition of a four-door sedan. The name “Tercel” was derived from the Latin word for “one third”, with “tiercel” referring to a male falcon which is one-third smaller than its female counterpart. Similarly, the Tercel was slightly smaller than the Corolla. The early Tercels have a logo on the trunk with a stylized falcon as the T in Tercel. All Tercels were assembled at the Takaoka factory in Toyota City, Aichi or by Hino Motors in Hamura, Tokyo. Hino assembled the third generation Tercel from 1986 to 1990 for the two-door and some three-door models. When Japanese production of the Tercel/Corsa/Corolla II (and the related Cynos/Paseo coupés) came to an end in 1999, 4,968,935 examples had been built.

Get more information about: Toyota Tercel

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: Toyota Model: Corolla Tercel
Price: $20,961 Mileage: 52,000 mi.

7. 1981 AMC Eagle Kammback

If the ’80s couldn’t get any wilder, allow us to introduce the 1981 AMC Eagle Kammback. If your first thought upon seeing this beast is that “some redneck took an AMC Gremlin and made his-self a 4×4,” you’re “half right.” The truth is stranger: “What really happened was that some car factory took an AMC Gremlin and made itself a 4×4.” This wasn’t some backyard hack job. This was a legitimate, factory-built marvel of engineering… or perhaps, desperation.

Back in the late ’70s, American Motors Corporation was in a pickle. They had “outdated cars and no money.” But they had a secret weapon: the legendary Jeep division and its valuable 4×4 know-how. Necessity, they say, is the mother of invention. So AMC cooked up the Eagle line of 4x4s. The Hornet-based wagon was pretty cool, a forerunner to today’s crossovers. Even the sedan, while “silly,” was “sensible.” But then, they pushed the envelope, taking things “just a little too far” with the Gremlin-based (or “Spirit-based”) Kammback.

The Kammback was the cheapest of the Eagle models. It wore its budget status, and its Gremlin heritage, like a neon sign. It was, quite literally, a Gremlin on stilts, jacked up with four-wheel drive. While the Wagon variant “sold like hotcakes, presaging the success of the Subaru Outback and other crossovers,” the Kammback found a measly “5,603 buyers.” This car was such a visual enigma that AMC’s own marketing department “never show[ed] the Kammback from the rear, probably because they knew people would recognize it as a Gremlin on stilts.” That’s a marketing strategy if we’ve ever heard one!

And yet, despite being recognized as a “Gremlin on stilts” and having sales figures that barely registered, the 1981 AMC Eagle Kammback is an absolute treasure for car culture fanatics. It embodies the audacious, out-of-the-box thinking that AMC was famous for. It was a pioneering effort in the crossover segment, albeit one wrapped in the most polarizing body imaginable. We adore it for its sheer weirdness, its unique place in history as a desperate, ingenious, and ultimately aesthetically challenged attempt to leverage existing assets. It’s ugly, yes, but it’s *our* ugly.

Alright, so we’ve kicked off our glorious tour through the automotive oddities of the early ’80s, reveling in the kind of audacious, sometimes baffling, design choices that only that decade could deliver. But hold onto your hairspray, folks, because the party isn’t over yet! If you thought the first batch of beauties (and beasts) was something to behold, just wait until you see what the latter half of the ’80s had in store. The decade just kept on giving, serving up even more profoundly ‘ugly’ cars that somehow, against all odds, burrowed their way into our hearts.

This next round isn’t just about controversial styling; it’s a deep dive into the questionable engineering choices, the corporate head-scratchers, and the sheer, unadulterated nerve that went into creating these machines. These aren’t just cars; they’re automotive sagas, each with its own bizarre tale to tell. So, let’s keep this irreverent road trip going, explore the cultural quirks that made these vehicles unforgettable, and give a proper shout-out to eight more legends of the aesthetically challenged. You might still wince a little, but trust us, you’ll be glad we brought them back into the spotlight.

Car Model Information: 2019 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring Reserve
Name: AMC Eagle
Aka: Eagle Wagon (MY1988)
Caption: 1981 AMC Eagle Sport Wagon
Manufacturer: American Motors Corporation,Chrysler Corporation
Production: August 1979 – December 1987
ModelYears: 1980–1988
Class: Compact car
Layout: Front-engine, four-wheel-drive layout,four-wheel drive
Assembly: United States,Canada
Related: AMC Concord,AMC Gremlin,AMC Hornet,AMC Spirit
BodyStyle: coupé,hatchback,sedan (car),station wagon,convertible
Engine: unbulleted list
Abbr: on wagon
Transmission: Manual transmission,5-speed manual,TorqueFlite
Wheelbase: {{convert,97.2,in,mm,0,abbr=on
Length: {{convert,166.6,in,mm,0,abbr=on
Width: {{convert,73.0,in,mm,0,abbr=on
Height: {{convert,55.2,in,mm,0,abbr=on
Successor: Eagle Summit,Eagle Talon,Eagle Medallion,Eagle Summit
Designer: Dick Teague
Categories: AMC vehicles, All-wheel-drive vehicles, All Wikipedia articles written in American English, Articles with short description, CS1 German-language sources (de)
Summary: The AMC Eagle is a compact four-wheel drive passenger vehicle manufactured and marketed in a single generation by American Motors Corporation (AMC) for model years 1980 through 1987 and continued by Chrysler Corporation following its acquisition of AMC in 1987, for the 1988 model year. Introduced in August 1979 for the 1980 model year, the coupe, sedan, and station wagon body styles were based on the AMC Concord. In 1981, the two-door subcompact-sized AMC Spirit-based models, the SX/4 and Kammback, joined the Eagle line aimed at both first-time buyers and fleet sales. A Sundancer convertible conversion for the larger Eagle two-door model was available during 1981 and 1982. By 1984, only sedan and station wagon versions were available. For 1988, its final model year, only a station wagon was offered, marketed as the “Eagle Wagon”. However, the name continued to be used by Chrysler Corporation as the Eagle brand of cars through 1998. The AMC Eagles were the only four-wheel drive passenger cars produced in the United States at the time. All models featured “passenger-car comfort, plus 4WD security for all-weather security.” Marketing materials of the time refer to the Eagle as a “vehicle,” “automobile,” “car,” or “sport machine.” Although the description was not in use at the time, the AMC Eagle is widely recognized as the first crossover vehicle.

Get more information about: AMC Eagle

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: AMC Model: Eagle Kammback
Price: $20,961 Mileage: 52,000 mi.

8. 1981 Maserati Biturbo

Now, when you hear “Maserati,” your mind instantly conjures images of sleek Italian elegance, roaring engines, and an undeniable sense of *cool*. So imagine the collective gasp, the sudden drop in jawlines, when the 1981 Maserati Biturbo rolled onto the scene. Our source says it best: “Masers are supposed to look cool. They are supposed to look y.” This one, however, seemed to have missed the memo entirely.

What did it look like instead? Get ready for this: “They are not supposed to look like Chevy Citation coupes.” Ouch. That’s not just a criticism; that’s a full-blown automotive insult, a comparison that strips away every shred of Modena mystique. The Biturbo, with its boxy, uninspired lines, seemed to embody the very antithesis of Maserati’s glamorous reputation, a jarring reminder that even the most prestigious marques can hit an aesthetic brick wall. It was a generic shape that offered little in the way of visual excitement.

And yet, despite its visual shortcomings, the Biturbo has a certain perverse charm. It represents a fascinating, if sometimes painful, chapter in Maserati’s history, a period when the brand wrestled with mass production and market demands. It’s a testament to the idea that a badge alone can carry a car through rough aesthetic waters, turning an otherwise bland design into a memorable (and endlessly debatable) icon. It’s the car that makes you wonder, “What were they thinking?” while simultaneously admiring its sheer will to exist.

Car Model Information: 1985 Maserati Biturbo Base
Name: Maserati Biturbo
Caption: Maserati Biturbo E
Manufacturer: Maserati
Production: 1981–1994
Assembly: Modena,Rho, Lombardy
Related: Maserati Shamal,Maserati Ghibli#Ghibli (AM336),Maserati Barchetta,Maserati Quattroporte#Quattroporte IV,Maserati Karif
Designer: Pierangelo Andreani (1977),Marcello Gandini,Zagato
Class: Grand tourer
BodyStyle: 2+2 (car body style),coupé,sedan (car),Cabriolet (automobile)
Layout: Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout
Engine: twin-turbocharged,2.5 L twin-turbocharged 90° V6,2.8 L twin-turbocharged 90° V6
Transmission: ZF Friedrichshafen,Automatic transmission,ZF Friedrichshafen
Wheelbase: {{convert,2,514,mm,in,1,abbr=on
Length: {{convert,4,150,mm,in,1,abbr=on
Abbr: on (228)
Width: {{convert,1,710,mm,in,1,abbr=on
Height: {{convert,1,310,mm,in,1,abbr=on
Successor: Maserati Ghibli#Ghibli (AM336),Maserati Quattroporte#Quattroporte IV
Sp: uk
Categories: 1990s cars, All articles needing additional references, All articles with unsourced statements, Articles needing additional references from November 2019, Articles needing additional references from October 2010
Summary: The Maserati Biturbo is a family of executive grand tourers produced by Italian automobile manufacturer Maserati between 1981 and 1994. The original Biturbo was a two-door, four-seater notchback coupé (of somewhat smaller dimensions than the BMW 3 Series of the time) featuring, as the name implies, a two-litre V6 engine with two turbochargers and a luxurious interior. The car was designed by Pierangelo Andreani, Chief of Centro Stile Maserati up to 1981, somewhat influenced by the design of the then recent Quattroporte III (penned by Italdesign Giugiaro). All Maserati models introduced from the Biturbo’s inception in 1981, until 1997, were based on variants of the original Biturbo architecture, including the later grand tourers like the Shamal and Ghibli II, as well as the 1994 fourth generation Quattroporte, which used an evolved and slightly stretched (to 2.65 m / 104.3 in wheelbase) Biturbo Saloon platform. The Barchetta, while of a different layout entirely, used an ultimate version of the Biturbo V6 engine.

Get more information about: Maserati Biturbo

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: Maserati Model: Biturbo
Price: $13,899 Mileage: 18,319 mi.

9. 1982 Nissan Stanza wagon

The 1980s were undeniably a fertile ground for automotive innovation, and many pundits rightly point to this era as the true birthplace of the crossover SUV. Think about it: a car with the practicality of a wagon but with a slightly taller stance, blurring the lines between sedan and utility vehicle. The Nissan Stanza wagon, in theory, was one of these pioneers, poised to lead the charge into a new segment.

But here’s the rub, and where we diverge from some of those pundits: they’d tell you these early crossovers “didn’t sell because the public just wasn’t ready for them.” We say, and the context explicitly confirms, “Wrong! They didn’t sell because they looked like this.” The Stanza wagon wasn’t just uninspiring; it was a shapeless blob, an anonymous box on wheels that failed to capture any imagination. Its design was so utterly bland, so devoid of personality, that it made its pioneering spirit almost irrelevant.

Despite its aesthetic failings and limited sales, the 1982 Nissan Stanza wagon holds a curious place in automotive history. It’s a reminder that even groundbreaking concepts need a palatable package to succeed. It’s the ugly stepping stone to the wildly popular crossovers of today, a historical artifact that shows just how far design has come (thankfully!). We appreciate it not for its beauty, but for its role as a humble, if visually challenged, ancestor of a dominant automotive species.

Car Model Information: 2019 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring Reserve
Name: Nissan Prairie
Aka: Nissan Multi,Nissan Stanza Wagon,Nissan Liberty,Nissan Axxess
Manufacturer: Nissan
Production: 1982–2004
Class: Compact MPV
BodyStyle: minivan
Layout: Front-engine, front-wheel-drive layout
Successor: Nissan Lafesta,Nissan Serena
Categories: 1990s cars, 2000s cars, All-wheel-drive vehicles, Articles containing Japanese-language text, Articles with short description
Summary: The Nissan Prairie (Japanese: 日産・プレーリー, Hepburn: Nissan Purērī) is an automobile manufactured and marketed by Nissan from 1981 to 2004. Considered a mini MPV or a compact MPV. It was also marketed as the Multi in Canada and the Stanza Wagon in the United States. In Japan, it was exclusive to Nissan Bluebird Store locations, then later at Nissan Blue Stage sales channels. The Prairie had a very flexible seating capability and sliding rear doors on both sides of the vehicle, with a liftgate in the back. The name “prairie” was derived from French which means an extensive area of relatively flat grassland, similar to “steppe” or “savanna”. The second generation was marketed as the Nissan Axxess in North America, and replaced there by the larger Nissan/Ford joint venture called the Nissan Quest, and in Europe it was partially replaced by the Nissan Serena. When the third generation of this vehicle was introduced in Japan, it was renamed initially Prairie Liberty, with the “Prairie” name eventually dropped in November 1998. This vehicle was replaced with the Nissan Lafesta in 2004.

Get more information about: Nissan Prairie

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: Nissan Model: Stanza wagon
Price: $20,961 Mileage: 52,000 mi.

“1986 Ford Tempo LX 4-Door Sedan” by aldenjewell is licensed under CC BY 2.0

10. 1984 Ford Tempo

The 1984 Ford Tempo arrived with big ambitions. It was meant to be the vanguard of Ford’s “new aerodynamic design language” in North America, boasting sleek, European-style flush-mounted headlights. This was a vision of modernity, a break from the boxy past. Except, as the context so perfectly puts it, “those headlights weren’t approved in time for the Tempo’s 1983 launch, so it had to make due with square sealed-beam headlights in chrome buckets. Oops!” Talk about starting on the wrong foot, visually speaking.

Ford’s design misfortunes with the Tempo didn’t end there. After the promised, flush headlights finally appeared for the 1986 model year, you might think they’d sorted things out. Nope. In 1988, they “restyled the Tempo sedan with a frumpy, squared-off rear end—so within the space of two years they fixed one end of the car and ruined the other. Oops again!” It was a two-act play of aesthetic blunders, a car perpetually out of sync with its own intended design language.

And the challenges weren’t just skin deep. Underneath its cosmetically confused exterior, the Tempo struggled with mechanical shortcomings. Its “crude engine (created by lopping two cylinders off Ford’s ’60s-era 200-cid straight six)” and “cheaply-engineered suspension” didn’t exactly inspire confidence. It was a vehicle plagued by compromises, an embodiment of the ’80s struggle to blend efficiency with a distinct identity.

But despite being a textbook example of design and engineering missteps, the Ford Tempo holds a special place in our hearts. It’s a relatable underdog, a car that tried so hard to be modern but kept tripping over its own feet. It represents a significant era of transition for Ford, a period of experimentation that yielded some truly memorable (if not beautiful) results. The Tempo is an honest, if aesthetically challenged, piece of everyday automotive history, a car that reminds us that progress isn’t always pretty.

File:1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC in red, front left.jpg – Wikimedia Commons, Photo by wikimedia.org, is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

11. 1984 Lincoln Mark VII

When we talk about ’80s personal luxury coupes, the 1984 Lincoln Mark VII often comes up. And the LSC (Luxury Sports Coupe) variant? It was, in fact, “a pretty slick performance car.” With its air suspension and potent powertrain, it was a genuinely capable machine. So, how on earth did it end up on our list of beloved ugly cars? Ah, therein lies the rub, or rather, the chrome-y overhangs.

The very thing that made the Mark VII LSC a capable performer also contributed to its aesthetic downfall. The context explains: “what made it so good was the same thing that made the styling so bad: It was basically a Mustang GT with big chrome-y overhangs stuck on the ends.” This was a case of engineering prowess being visually sabotaged by luxury aspirations. The sleek, sporty core of a Mustang was buried under an attempt at traditional Lincoln grandeur, resulting in a stretched, unbalanced look.

And let’s be honest, for the “non-LSC cars,” which lacked the performance credibility, they “basically had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.” They were just… long. And chrome-laden. The design was a confusing mashup, a classic example of an identity crisis played out in sheet metal. It tried to be both a European-style performer and a traditional American land yacht, and in doing so, pleased neither sensibility entirely.

Yet, we can’t help but appreciate the 1984 Lincoln Mark VII for its bold, if awkward, experiment. It’s a fascinating snapshot of an era when American luxury brands grappled with changing tastes and performance demands. It’s a car that had genuine sporting aspirations hidden beneath a visually incongruous exterior, a true ‘sleeper’ in more ways than one. It’s the automotive equivalent of a brilliant mind dressed in a questionable suit—you respect the intellect, even if the attire is a bit much.

Car Model Information: 2019 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring Reserve
Caption: Lincoln Mark VII LSC
Name: Continental Mark VII , Lincoln Mark VII
Manufacturer: Lincoln (automobile)
Production: 1983–April 1992
BodyStyle: coupe
Engine: 4942 cc
Abbr: on
Transmission: Ford AOD transmission,Automatic transmission
Wheelbase: 108.5 in
Length: 202.8 in
Width: 70.9 in
Height: 54.2 in
Weight: 3748 lb
Layout: Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout
Predecessor: Lincoln Continental Mark VI
Successor: Lincoln Mark VIII
Platform: Ford Fox platform
Class: Personal luxury car
Assembly: Wixom, Michigan
Related: Ford Mustang (third generation),Ford Thunderbird (ninth generation),Mercury Cougar
Designer: Jeff Teague (automotive designer)
Categories: 1990s cars, All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with short description, Articles with unsourced statements from December 2016, Articles with unsourced statements from February 2025
Summary: The Continental Mark VII, later changed to Lincoln Mark VII, is a rear wheel drive luxury coupe that was produced by Lincoln. Introduced in August 1983 for the 1984 model year, the Continental Mark VII shared the Ford Fox platform with the Ford Thunderbird, Mercury Cougar, and Lincoln Continental, the platform having been introduced for the 1978 Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr and used for the 1982–1987 Lincoln Continental sedan and Mark VII four-door. Like its predecessor the Continental Mark VI, the Mark VII was manufactured at the Wixom Assembly Plant in Wixom, Michigan through 1992. It was replaced by the Lincoln Mark VIII in 1993. The Mark VII featured standard equipment including an onboard trip computer / message center and digital instruments (on all except the LSC models after 1985), and four wheel air suspension. The 1985 LSC was the first American vehicle with electronic 4-channel anti-lock brakes.

Get more information about: Lincoln Continental Mark VII

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: Lincoln Model: Mark VII
Price: $20,961 Mileage: 52,000 mi.

12. 1984 Zimmer Quicksilver

Welcome to the wild world of Zimmer, a company that specialized in what are known “in polite circles as ‘neo-classic’ cars,” which is a fancy way of saying they excelled “at taking perfectly good automobiles and ruining them with tacked-on old-timey styling bits.” And of all the visual crimes committed by Zimmer, the 1984 Quicksilver stands out as “arguably the worst offender.” Get ready for a masterclass in automotive kitsch.

The Quicksilver’s absurdity began with its foundations. Zimmer “started with a production vehicle and stretched the wheelbase 15 inches, providing for a basketball-court front end that was filled with… nothing.” Why nothing? Because, in a twist that could only happen in the ’80s, “the Quicksilver was based on a Pontiac Fiero.” You read that correctly, a mid-engine Fiero was given a “tennis-court-sized hood designed to recall the giant V-8s and V-12s of yesteryear” while actually being powered by “a crummy little V-6 located behind the passenger compartment.”

The design continued its assault on logic and good taste. “Despite the giant chrome bumper, the Quicksilver kept the Fiero’s pop-up headlights, because why throw away a perfectly good set?” This was a car that screamed ‘look at me!’ without any coherent design philosophy. And for this ostentatious heap, Zimmer commanded “around $50,000, the same price as a contemporary Mercedes 500 SEL.” The context wisely concludes: “We can think of better uses for that kind of money, like gathering it into a pile and setting it on fire.”

So, why do we celebrate such a profound visual misstep? Because the Zimmer Quicksilver is a glorious, unabashed monument to ’80s excess and the audacity of creating something so utterly bizarre and expensive. It’s a car that’s so bad, it’s undeniably *good* for car culture. It serves as a hilariously extreme example of stylistic ambition gone awry, making it an unforgettable, if visually challenging, legend in its own right. It’s a reminder that sometimes, the most magnificent ugliness comes from trying to be too grand.

13. 1985 Alfa Romeo Milano

Oh, Alfa Romeo. A name that usually evokes passion, beauty, and a certain *je ne sais quoi*. But then there’s the 1985 Alfa Romeo Milano, a car that makes you wonder if the designers were having an off day, or perhaps, an existential crisis. The most appropriate response, as our context points out, is a simple, bewildered question: “What the hell happened here?” It’s a design that feels less like a careful creation and more like a happy accident, or perhaps, an unhappy one.

The leading theory for the Milano’s perplexing proportions is that “the Milano was originally designed as a large car, then the decision came to downsize it, and halfway through the conversion the CAD software crashed.” This humorous explanation perfectly captures the disjointed, unfinished look of the car. It’s a vehicle that seems to be in a perpetual state of awkward transition, its lines not quite resolving into a harmonious whole, losing that quintessential Alfa elegance along the way.

This wasn’t the svelte, aggressive Alfa that enthusiasts knew and loved. The Milano was bulkier, with an odd upright greenhouse and a rear end that looked like it belonged to a different car entirely. It lacked the visual cohesion and sensual curves that defined its predecessors, leaving fans scratching their heads and wondering if the spirit of Italian design had temporarily gone on holiday. It was an aesthetic departure, to say the least.

Yet, despite its visual oddities, the 1985 Alfa Romeo Milano maintains a cult following. It’s an ugly duckling of the Alfa family, a car that dared to be different, even if “different” meant aesthetically challenged. We love it because it’s a tangible piece of automotive history, representing a period of adjustment for the storied Italian brand. It’s a reminder that even automotive deities can occasionally produce something that is profoundly, uniquely, and wonderfully ugly.

Car Model Information: 2019 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring Reserve
Name: Alfa Romeo 75
Caption: Alfa Romeo Milano
Manufacturer: Alfa Romeo,Lancia,Fiat Auto
Aka: Alfa Romeo Milano (North America)
Production: 1985–1992
Assembly: Arese,Alfa Romeo Arese Plant,Lombardy
Predecessor: Alfa Romeo Giulietta (1977)
Successor: Alfa Romeo 155
Class: Compact executive car
BodyStyle: Sedan (car)
Layout: Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout
Engine: Petrol engine,Alfa Romeo Twin Cam engine,1.8 L Twin Cam I4,Turbocharger,2.0 L Twin Cam I4,Alfa Romeo Twin Spark engine,Alfa Romeo V6 engine,3.0 L Alfa Romeo V6,Diesel engine,2.0 L turbo I4,2.4 L turbo I4
Transmission: Manual transmission
Wheelbase: cvt
Length: cvt
Width: cvt
Height: cvt
Weight: cvt
Related: Alfa Romeo Alfetta,Alfa Romeo GTV6,Alfa Romeo SZ
Designer: Ermanno Cressoni
Categories: 1990s cars, Alfa Romeo vehicles, All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with short description, Articles with unsourced statements from October 2024
Summary: The Alfa Romeo 75 (Type 161, 162B), sold in North America as the Milano, is a compact executive car produced by the Italian automaker Alfa Romeo between 1985 and 1992. The 75 was commercially quite successful: in only three years, 236,907 cars were produced, and by the end of production in 1992, around 386,767 had been built. The 75 was the last model released before Alfa Romeo was acquired by Fiat. (The Alfa Romeo 164 was the last model developed independently.)

Get more information about: Alfa Romeo 75

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: Alfa Romeo Model: Milano
Price: $20,961 Mileage: 52,000 mi.

14. 1985 Cadillac deVille

The story of the 1985 Cadillac deVille is a poignant one, marking a significant downturn for what was once “the Standard of the World.” Contrast it with the “1977 Cadillacs, which managed to survive GM’s corporate downsizing mandate with some modicum of dignity and individuality.” They were still recognizably Cadillacs. But when the time came for another round of downsizing in ’85, that hard-won distinctiveness vanished.

The result? The 1985 Cadillacs were “runts, tiny and undignified and way the hell too similar to the Oldsmobiles and Buicks with which they obviously shared most of their parts.” This wasn’t just a design misstep; it was an identity crisis on wheels. Cadillac, the epitome of American luxury, had become indistinguishable from its plebeian siblings, a move that fundamentally cheapened the brand in the eyes of buyers.

Indeed, while the much-maligned Cimarron often gets the sole blame for Cadillac’s struggles, our context is unequivocal: “these half-pint excuses for luxury cars deserve a gallon-sized share of the blame.” It was a symptom of a larger problem, a GM that, as the context so eloquently states, “in the 1980s had its corporate head firmly up its corporate rectum.” This kind of corporate myopia led to a slew of vehicles that lacked character, quality, and, frankly, beauty.

Attempts were made to fix these issues, with “the 1989 DeVilles get[ting] a wheelbase stretch, a longer trunk and better proportions.” But as with many things in the ’80s, “by then the damage was done—the brand that was once the Standard of the World was now the Laughingstock of the World.” The 1985 deVille is a powerful symbol of a once-great automotive titan stumbling badly. It’s ugly not just in its diminished stature, but in what it represents: a period of profound misjudgment. We love it because it serves as a stark, unforgettable lesson in brand management and the perils of corporate indifference.

Car Model Information: 1964 Cadillac DeVille Base
Name: Cadillac DeVille
Caption: 2004 Cadillac DeVille DHS
Manufacturer: Cadillac
Production: 1958–2005
ModelYears: 1959–2005
Class: luxury car
Layout: FR layout
Predecessor: Cadillac Series 62
Successor: Cadillac DTS
Categories: 1950s cars, 1960s cars, 1970s cars, 1980s cars, 1990s cars
Summary: The Cadillac DeVille is a model name used by Cadillac over eight generations, originally to designate a trim level of the 1949 Cadillac Series 62 and later for a standalone model in the brand range. The last model marketed specifically as a DeVille was the 2005 full-size sedan, at the time, Cadillac’s largest model. For 2006, the DeVille nameplate was retired, when the model line was carried forward (with minor revisions) as the Cadillac DTS, using a nomenclature adopted by the Cadillac STS and CTS.

Get more information about: Cadillac de Ville series

Buying a high-performing used car >>>
Brand: Cadillac Model: deVille
Price: $36,000 Mileage: 36,453 mi.

And there you have it, folks! Another glorious, irreverent romp through the most wonderfully peculiar and profoundly ugly cars that the 1980s could dish out. From the audacious experiments to the corporate blunders, each one of these machines tells a story. They might not win any beauty contests, and they certainly wouldn’t be gracing the cover of any glossy fashion mags (unless it’s a ‘what not to wear’ edition!), but they carved out their own unique place in automotive lore. These ’80s relics, with all their flaws and questionable styling cues, remind us that true character often comes in the most unexpected, and yes, sometimes the most unattractive, packages. So, here’s to the misfits, the head-scratchers, and the automotive underdogs—may their wonderfully ugly legacies live on in our collective car-loving consciousness!”