Question-of-the-day features tend to be vapid, so I usually ignore them. However, I must admit to getting drawn into a Jalopnik query about what are the ugliest cars on the market today (Bellwood, 2025). The range of proposals shows how styling can be quite subjective.
For example, I would agree that the BMW XM has an overamped design — particularly with its flaring nostrils and weird, double-decker lights. However, I would take issue with criticisms of the Tesla Model 3. Whatever else one could say about that automaker’s passenger cars, they have had unusually clean styling in an era dominated by what might be described as “brutalist” design. Here I am talking about cars and trucks with such a cartoonishly aggressive look that they may as well have been designed by — and for — 10 year olds.
By the same token, it made sense to criticize the swaggering beefiness of full-sized trucks — particularly the Chevrolet Silverado ZR2 and Ford F-150 Raptor.
However, I part company with those who call the Hyundai Ioniq 6 ugly. While its tapered lines may be unorthodox, at least they represent an admirable attempt to maximize aerodynamics (Mihalascu, 2022). Whether we like it or not, this approach better reflects the future of automobile design.
You can’t say the same thing about the Kia EV9, whose bulging surfaces have an exaggerated look, kind of like a body builder on steroids. In addition, the odd fascia reminds me of a sharknose Graham.
The Hyundai Santa Fe may be quite a bit cleaner, but it still has a rather chunky, almost military-style quality. This is a radical shift from the more nuanced (if busy) surfacing of the Tucson.
In general, we seem to be navigating a time period where automakers throughout the world assume that overamped styling is what sells. Yet none of the vehicles mentioned so far holds a candle to what is arguably the most outrageous car or truck design since World War II — the Tesla Cybertruck.
A number of factors support and undercut brutalism
The biggest question I have is how long will the auto industry be dominated by brutalist design. At least here in the U.S., a major factor could be the Trump administration’s deregulation initiatives, which could ease the pressure on automakers to make their vehicles more aerodynamic. Reducing wind resistance tends to go hand in hand with cleaner (and more beta) styling.
Also see ‘Why do Japanese automakers continue to make their vehicles look so scary?’
But even if U.S. regulations are significantly relaxed over the next four years, that likely will be at variance with at least some other major markets that global automakers compete in. So while some vehicles may be designed specifically for the American market, we may still see a steady increase in new-generation models designed to meet tightening emissions standards elsewhere.
In addition, the escalating cost of purchasing a new vehicle — perhaps in the face of trade wars — could result in declining popularity of larger and fancier trucks and sport-utility vehicles. They tend to have the most overamped styling.
Perhaps what we’re seeing right now is akin to the muscle-car mania of the late-60s. For a few years styling grew increasingly outrageous. But then the bottom fell out of the market beginning in 1970, and within a few years even aggressively styled sporty coupes such as the Dodge Charger were broughamized (go here for further discussion). So went another car design fad along life’s highway.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Bellwood, Owen; 2025. “These Cars Are Even Uglier Than The New Tesla Model Y.” Jalopnik. Posted on March 18.
- Mihalascu, Dan; 2025. “Hyundai Reveals Secrets Behind Ioniq 6’s Top Aerodynamic Efficiency.” Inside EVs. Posted on Nov. 10.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: AMC Rambler (1969)
My idea is that one of the problems of modern automobile styling is that too many people work on it at the same time, and more often than not those who sign off the design (once called styling chiefs) don’t or can’t clean up the design they end up approving.
Even the relatively clean Ioniq 6 has a busy front fascia with that hideous dark plastic element that reminds me more pf a scar than the feature line it supposedly is.
Also, I think it would be important for modern styling courses to include foundations of aerodynamics, so that stylists themselves can already draw lines with the wind tunnel in mind and avoiding painful compromises later on, moving from pen to clay to wind tunnel.
I’m in full agreement with the idea of this article, but I’d like to make a comment on word choice:
In the realm of architecture, the term “Brutalist” has a specific definition: modernist buildings constructed of raw unfinished cast in place or precast concrete. The name is derived from the French “beton brut” meaning raw concrete, and was popularized by the post WW2 work of Swiss French architect Le Corbusier.
Brutalist architecture is austere to the extreme and typically has little to no superfluous ornament. The Tesla Cybertruck may be in this vein.
The overwrought, angry, exaggerated stylings from most automakers seem more in the spirit of the over the top architecture of the Baroque period, with Men in Black alien bug overtones.
A challenge with coming up with one term that encompasses an entire generation of automotive designs is that it will almost inevitably be loose fitting. For example, the Cybertruck is quite different than the Silverado ZR2. So what qualities link them together? To me it is the coarse, aggressive and even scary look that these vehicles convey.
I agree that “brutalism” is a debatable choice. I was drawn to it because the very sound of the word embodies the basic vibe that the consultant Clotaire Rapaille was striving for in his proposed design direction, which is where vehicles should look like weapons. Literally — he wanted styling that was so intimidating that “(i)f you want to bump into me I’m going to crush you and I’m going to kill you” (go here for further discussion).
“Baroque” may be somewhat more accurate if one is going by historical definitions, but it just doesn’t capture the sheer anger of contemporary automotive design. Another term that comes to mind is “fascist” design, but I figured that this would be considered too overtly political. What do you think would work better?
There are examples of good design under fascist regimes … how about Reptilian or Late Cretaceous Revival?
I’ll take “Late Cretaceous Revival” for $300, Rod.
I’m with Steve!
To be honest most trends in architecture from the 1950s onwards have been different shades of ungainly and or depressing architetcure, at least this is what the brutalist cafeteria at my local Uni made me feel. Space dispersive, dark on the inside even with the lights on, and absolutely out of touch from the green hills it was located on.
Brutalism is a good choice in my opinion because there are indeed brutalist buildings which have elements that are not strictly structurally necessary but are there to create a “more imposing appearance” (or worsening an already bad apple, in my opinion).
Another option might be “Committee styling”, as it attempts to suit many different people while actually pleasing none, and highlighting the contemporary involvement of tens of stylists each with different ideas on how a car should look like.
These words come to mind, but I doubt they capture the essence of the madness:
overblown
fussy
exaggerated
mutant
Driving today, I did notice a truck that was remarkably restrained in its styling, the Ford Maverick pickup.
In some ways, the Ford F-150 Raptor and Chevy Silverado ZR2 are the 21st century muscle cars. They seem to attract the attention – and, when financially possible, the ownership – of the same type of people I remember buying muscle cars when I was young.
Other design approaches have their own problems. I initially thought that the current Toyota Prius is very handsome – the first good-looking Prius. Then I sat in one at the auto show. The extreme slope of the windshield, and resulting amount of space between the windshield base and steering wheel, reminded me of the infamous “Dust Buster” minivans from GM. That was enough to kill any interest in the car for me.
I’ll take the much more conservative approach of the current Honda Civic.
The Prius has an interesting trajectory. It started off as a nondescript and practical car for granola types. Then Toyota decided to expand the lineup and give its lead hatchback space-aged styling. That didn’t work well sales-wise, so the lineup was pruned and the latest-generation model seems to be a sporty-looking coupe sedan of sorts. So what is the point of the Prius now that Toyota is offering hybrid power throughout its lineup? Is the Prius’s niche unusually aerodynamic styling? If so, I wonder why the Prius name isn’t also used on Toyota’s all-electric models?
I have a Prius V and really like how the car is fairly tall and versatile but more aerodynamic than a RAV4. A good compromise design during an era where the market seems to be shifting to extremes, such as big, boxy SUVs over here and swoopy coupe sedans over there.
That is an interesting question, because I believe that the Prius name is strong enough that it could have served as a “sub-brand” within the Toyota line-up. Toyota probably should have used it on its all-electric vehicles, given that hybrid power has spread to other Toyotas.
In recent years I’ve found Toyota’s marketing rather muddled regarding the Prius brand. They spent a lot of time establishing the Prius brand, only to take it’s unique selling proposition (the hybrid system) and apply it to the entire line (in the USA, at least). But then they released a new, swoopy version of the car, with essentially the same driveline as the rest of the current line up. Where’s the unique selling proposition now? Is it just the styling? That seems rather iffy.
I think with Toyota’s adamant “no-BEVs” attitude, applying the very-highly associated with hybrid name on a BEV would be a mistake. If the Prius broke significant ground for making the hybrid cars well known, would that work to help establish BEVs, particularly Toyota BEVs? I think they’re very late to the BEV party, Tesla having captured the high ground (at least globally) and probably Ford in the U.S. Would there be confusion between BEVs labeled as Prius and hybrid vehicles labeled as Prius, also? I think so.
I would imagine that neither one of us has done extensive market research to back up our musings. That said, I would speculate that a goodly number of people haven’t viewed the Prius as a hybrid so much as what was once the most ecologically sensible car in the American market (remember how gearheads used to make fun of “Pious” owners?). At least that’s what I have seen anecdotally in my neck of the woods (the western Washington suburbs).
Well before Tesla showed up, the Prius was the favored nameplate for granola types who prioritized cutting their carbon footprint. Now that BEVs are the current ideal with many of these folks, why not keep them in the Prius tent rather than piss away brand equity on what amounts to a quasi-personal coupe of sorts?
Meanwhile, Toyota has tended to brand its all-electric vehicles as part of the bZ series (apparently standing for “Beyond Zero”). The bZ4X sounds like an email password — not very memorable. But perhaps the goal is to field “compliance” vehicles that live down to Toyota’s low expectations for BEVs.
I base my musings on local observations, so my Upper Midwest experience may vary from your Pacific Northwest experience. I still tend to think that the Prius name has more recognition as a hybrid vehicle than a BEV vehicle. In a way, I think Toyota sees that in a similar way, since they came up with the bZ name for their BEVs.
In some regards the current Prius is a very late reaction to the Tesla models, a four-door vehicle with fairly swoopy styling offering a decent amount of utility. Far from the “geeky” or “science fiction” styling Priuses of the recent past, the current styling seems to co-opt some Tesla themes. But it retains a familial link to the rest of the Toyota line, so no one will mistake the Prius for the Model 3’s little brother.
Maybe Toyota should have co-opted the Big 2.5 and cranked out a BEV Tundra. The current Tundra does have the “move over” grille that the other Detroit pick ups have. That would be a real Prius move, hitting them where they ain’t. Or is it?
I think there’s a lot of people who have taken to heart that their car is their public face. Apparently, many of us are existing in various levels of anger and desire to express that with our vehicle choices. I can remember when cars, particularly small cars were gifted with a “happy face”, making the car seem approachable. See the first gen Neon as an example. Now, to paraphrase Bob Lutz, everything is an “angry appliance”. That was his observation 20 years ago and it rings truer every year.
I don’t think we’re expressing this trend the right way, I saw an explanation of the brutalist school of architecture in the comments and I agree with that. I would even posit that the downsized GMs and the Ford Fairmonts of the late 1970’s are truly brutalist. Sheer surfaces without much ornamentation. These vehicles today are more offshoots of Chris Bangle’s “flame surfacing” and other Asian (read Chinese) trends taking over contemporary styling. It makes sense, appealing to that part of the world, as they purchase more cars than we in the West do.
18 months ago we bought a new version Chevy Trax; essentially the 2020’s version of the Cavalier wagon. It has the slit eyed fascia that almost all Chevys have now. As small as it is, I do find the car somewhat intimidating, as I’m not really sure what that big grille is supposed to represent. Will it try to eat me sometime when I’m washing it? I don’t know. Some of the Hyundais I’ve seen recently feel like they’re trying to revive some of the late 1970’s GM-esque brutalist styling trends. The late 1970’s GM cars looked “right” at the start. Some of the recent Hyundai vehicles seem to have off-putting proportions and details that I can’t wrap my head around. Time will tell.
Regarding pickup trucks and the large SUVs, I think that the combination of pedestrian safety standards and the ever increasing ride height of them plays to the insecurities of some of their drivers. They like being “high on the horse” and the biggest thing in their lane. It’s fun to roll up on smaller vehicles, intimidate them with your big grille and “push” them out of your way. I see this behavior frequently and find it appalling. But, while not maybe overtly discussed, I’m sure this becomes a selling point for a certain demographic. I fairly frequently drive a friend’s F-150 4×4 and have indavertatnty done this. On the other hand, with the tall grilles and the 4×4 ride height, it’s very easy to lose track of your following distances.
As long as these trends continue, the Brutalist, Baroque or Asian (as I call it) styling will continue.