Top-10 lists are inherently subjective, but Adam Wade’s (2026) ugliest “classic” cars strikes me as being particularly quirky.
On his YouTube channel called Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History, Wade focuses on American cars from 1957-90. His list has some obvious names, but he also throws in some questionable choices.
His rankings are as follows: 10) 1958 Lincoln/Continental, 9) 1958 Buick Limited, 8) 1974 Ford Gran Torino Elite, 7) 1977 Lincoln Versailles, 6) 1957 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser, 5) 1990 Imperial, 4) 1961 Dodge Lancer, 3) 1980 Lincoln Mark VI, 2) 1961 full-sized Plymouth and 1) 1977 Chrysler LeBaron.
A 1980 Lincoln is uglier than a 1958 model?
I can’t tell how much meaning Wade (2026) gives to where each car sits in his rankings. However, it strikes me as backwards if he considers the 1980 Lincoln Continental Mark VI to be the third ugliest car whereas a 1958 model was in 10th place. By the same token, I would consider the 1961 Plymouth to be uglier than the 1977 Chrysler LeBaron, which is the opposite of his ranking.
Another quirk of his list is that nine out of 10 cars come from 1957-80. Only one car — a 1990 Imperial — is from more recently. Why no cars from later in the 1980s, such as the 1981 Ford EXP, 1981 Chrysler Imperial, 1986 Buick Riviera or 1989 Chrysler TC by Maserati?
It’s interesting that Wade also does not include obvious candidates such as the 1958 Edsel, 1961 DeSoto and 1962 Dodge Dart. What’s also notable is that he doesn’t single out any cars from American Motors — even the 1956 Rambler six, 1957 Hudson Hornet, 1961 Ambassador, 1965 Marlin or 1974 AMC Matador sedan.
Meanwhile, he only includes one General Motors car — the 1958 Buick Limited. While I would agree that this may be GM’s all-time ugliest car of the postwar period, the automaker had its share of other questionable designs. As a case in point, how about the 1959 Chevrolet, 1970 Oldsmobile Toronado, 1971 Buick Riviera, 1971 Cadillac Eldorado, 1980 Cadillac Seville or 1986 Buick Riviera?
Is it truly ugly or merely less appealing?
Another quirky aspect of Wade’s list is that he includes cars that, at least in my book, were fairly innocuous looking such as the 1974 Ford Gran Torino Elite. Is he really going to argue that this car is uglier than the Chevrolet Monte Carlo? To my eyes the Elite may be less distinctive, but it is a cleaner design.
By the same token, I am perplexed as to why Wade is singling out the 1961 Dodge Lancer. While the first-generation Chrysler Corp. compacts were decidedly unorthodox in their styling, I think that the Dodge looked better than its Plymouth sibling because of a more conventional grille and taillight treatment.
Wade (2026) goes on to argue that the 1977 Chrysler LeBaron is ugly because it is a “hodgepodge of a bunch of different vehicles and it never really comes together.” I would agree that the styling wasn’t very good, but No. 1 of the top-10 ugliest? At most I would rank it around No. 9 or 10, if it made the list at all.
Also see ‘Adam Wade is wrong that the 1959 Continental flopped’
Wade (2026) muddies the waters by stating that LeBarons “were pretty miserable from a quality standpoint” and “not fun to drive.” Wait, this is more than a ranking of ugly styling? Here we have another example of how this top-10 list has a thrown-together quality. Nevertheless, I would imagine that it will get a whole lot of clicks.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Wade, Adam; 2026. “Top 10 Ugliest Classic Cars: The Stinkers from GM, Ford, Chrysler & AMC.” Rare Classic Cars & Automotive History.
PHOTOGRAPHS & ADVERTISING:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Limited (1958); Chevrolet Monte Carlo (1974); Imperial (1990)
Adam dislikes boxy styling. Some of the cars on Adam’s list like the Ford Elite, Chrysler LeBaron, Lincoln Versailles, 1990 Imperial, and 1958 Buick have good basic styling but too much gingerbread. My ugliest car list would include most pre-1963 Ramblers, most early 1960’s Chrysler products, 1959 Chevrolets, and 1960 Fords.
Yup, the 1959 Chevrolet would be a particularly good addition if one sought more than one GM entry on the list. I’ve added that to the article.
I really like the 1960 Ford. Flamboyant but good. I respect the opinion that it doesn’t really say Ford. The 1961 reskin on the same bones is more Ford and less zowie to its detriment IMO.
Regarding the Elite, I was not a fan back in the day, though I would have chosen it based on style instead of the grossly overstyled Monte. How Chevy could go from the beautiful and understated 70-72 Montes to this abomination, I’ll never know.
I’m one of the few who like the 1958 GM cars, over-chromed and swollen as they are. Of the group, the Buick may be my least favorite. I don’t think the Lincoln Versailles is ugly either (standard ’70s design), just a poor idea much like the Cimarron.
The points that Steve made in this article are certainly valid and like the video said, keeping the list to only ten cars, even restricting it to 1957-1990, is going to leave out a lot of duds. I consider most of the cars in the video to be unattractive rather than outright ugly, but you have to keep your content distinctive if you want views. The Edsel and Matador are over-represented on these lists.
I both like and respect Adam as a car enthusiast, but I’d personally disagree with most of this list. I think most of these were, and still are, attractive cars. If I were doing this list, off the top of my head, the ugliest car would be the bustleback Cadillac Seville that premiered in 1980. Ugh! The boattail Buick Riviera from 1971. WTF? The “bustleback” Oldsmobiles Cutlass from circa 1978. The Pontiac Aztek. The Chevrolet Nomad truck. The Mustang Mach I from early 1970s with rear window parallel to the sky. The last Mercury Cougar from circa 2000. The original (Plymouth) Valiant from early 1960s. The Dodge Calibre. And finally, the first Jeep Compass. And there you have it, my 10 ugliest vehicles, from 1960 – today.
I don’t think he often features cars from the 80s onward. Wasn’t he reacting to a different list of ugliest cars?
I hate most ’58s but I do like the audacity of the ’59 Chevrolets, even though they were a one year design. It’s more distinctive than ugly. Same with the boat tail Riviera.
I am not going to look everything up but…sticking with domestics:
Just about any 1958 car (The Olds/Buick/Pontiac plus I just don’t like the bass mouth Thunderbird, though I appreciate its place in car evolution)
That late 50s Lincoln with the tilted headlights
Exner early 60s MOPAR… perhaps Valiant or warthog Dart
Last gasps of Rambler & Studebaker
Some of the early 70s large Pontiacs with the huge noses and fenderskirts
Brougham-tastic early 70s Fords with the double opera windows, vinyl tops, and too much trim
2nd gen Pacer. The Gremlin is cute in its oddness, and the first Pacer at least had a cohesive look. That 2nd gen hood is horrible.
Bustle Back Seville. I was a teen when it came out and I knew it was bad even then. No one but Bill Mitchell had nostalgia for that look.
In general, I don’t like the Monte Carlo (usually customized in my region) or the sweepspear sides of Buicks.
The GM X body cars. Special shout out to the Cadillac Cimarron. A lot of the small 70s GM cars were just not going to get import drivers to switch back to the domestics.
I am not a fan of many Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth cars.
It’s not a car, but I really dislike that beige 70s color that looks like flesh. I particularly remember it on Delta 88s but it was everywhere.
It’s easy to pick on cars from ’73 on as they began adjusting to the bumper standards.
Probably peak years were 65-67… cars still had slim bumpers, slim A pillars, dashes that did not have so much plastic, colors were attractive, and there was just enough trim.
Just like all politics is local, all judgments about design are subjective.
And subjectivity itself depends on context and perspective.
In the context of the early to mid-seventies, the second-generation Chevrolet Monte Carlo was something of a breakthrough design. It was, in many ways, a Cadillac Eldorado for the working man. The initial offering in 1973 sold nearly a quarter million copies and even hauled home the coveted Motor Trend Car of the Year award.
Ford’s response, the Elite, came across more like a Torino that had eaten one too many plates at the K-Bob’s buffet.
Fifty years later, both cars look like what happens when a design committee spends too much time arguing in a fluorescent-lit conference room. Opera windows, landau vinyl tops, chrome trim everywhere you could possibly glue it. All of it layered onto otherwise ordinary midsize coupes to appeal to the rapidly swelling ranks of the American middle class.
To call one more attractive than the other is a little like choosing Mary Ann over Ginger. They’re competing characters in the same comedy. The answer says more about the judge than it does about the contestants.
As much as I enjoy Adam’s fine work and appreciate the automotive knowledge he displays on his channel, his Top 10 list of the ugliest cars misses the mark by a pretty wide berth.
The Lincolns on the list, both the 1958 and the 1980 models, are certainly not what anyone would call beautiful. But they don’t stand out in their grotesqueness any more than most of their competitors from those same eras. The same could be said for several of the other entries he included.
Granted, the 1961 Plymouth appears to have been penned during a design meeting where someone passed around a bottle of something that probably should have stayed locked in a pharmacy cabinet. But the truth is, most Chrysler products of the era were wandering around the same stylistic desert.
A buyer trying to choose between a brand-new 1961 Plymouth Savoy and a 1961 Dodge Dart faced a genuinely difficult decision. Mostly because whichever one he picked, he was going to spend the next several years explaining himself in parking lots.
If Adam’s goal was to spark polite debate in some places and bar fights in others, then mission accomplished. But if the intention was to produce a list that could stand up to serious scrutiny, the effort comes up a little short.
Any list of the ugliest American cars ever produced that doesn’t include the AMC Pacer, the Pontiac Aztek, or at least one of the many Nash experiments that rolled out of Kenosha simply can’t be taken entirely seriously. Every one of those cars was ugly the day it arrived at the dealership, and each of them has fought hard to hold onto that title ever since.
Some things age like fine wine.
Others age like a mayonnaise sandwich left on the dashboard in August outside the Dairy Twin.
PS
Troy, tap the brake pedal before you even think about putting the 1960 Ford on that list.
The ’60 Starliner was a beautiful car in 1960 and remains an icon today.
And the Fairlane 500 sitting in my garage isn’t exactly an eyesore either.
When you judge them against the competition they faced at the time, they were probably better looking than most of the cars parked at the dealership down the street… and certainly better looking than most anything rolling out of Detroit today.
You make some good points. The thing about subjectivity is that it can still be informed by meaningful criteria. For example, if one were to assess the styling of mid-sized personal coupes circa 1974-77, we might ask the following questions:
How was a design received by the automotive press of the time (and were any awards earned or “bought”)? How well did the car sell through its entire life cycle? To what degree did the design influence the industry’s subsequent direction — and with the wisdom of hindsight, was that an admirable direction or an evolutionary wrong turn?
Of course, the latter criterion requires one to make a judgment grounded in a set of aesthetic values. As a case in point, I may value efficient packaging and more “European” design cues than some Indie Auto readers.
I suppose one could downvote the Elite because it did not have unique sheetmetal like the Monte Carlo. But neither did the Cutlass Supreme — which for a number of years approached the Monte Carlo in sales before exceeding it in 1977. Or if we are focusing on weak sales, the Matador coupe could be pointed to as having most flagrantly misjudged the market — and being given increasingly ugly refinements in a vain effort to look more broughamtastic.
But then again the Matador coupe did have something lacking in any other mid-sized personal coupe — unusually clean-looking bumpers that didn’t have a bunch of cladding that made them look like battering rams. That was an interesting design innovation, but it didn’t get picked up by other automakers. A net plus, minus or who cares in the grand scheme of things?
The 1976 Cutlass coupes had new sheet metal below the roof, including the doors. It was shared with the Buick B body coupes exc that Olds had a Toronado style rib in the rear quarter and Buick didn’t. The elaborate lower body sculpturing was eliminated from the Olds and Buick coupes, which were the volume products. Olds was able to tone down its 1976 Cutlass sedans while retaining the 1973 doors. Buick didn’t or couldn’t and applied the Monte Carlo solution of stacked rectangular lights to fit its sculpted single headlight sedan and wagon bodies.
The heavily sculpted 1978 Monte Carlo is evidence that GM thought that exaggerated styling generally was good for a Chevy with ambition to sell head to head against the senior brands. The 1978 Grand Prix also had its own body but without exaggerated creases.
My answer is always Mary Ann. Ginger was uberhigh maintenance and Mr Howell’s side chick.
Oh yeah, cars.
Of all the PLCs, I think I liked the styling of the two headlight Cordoba the most. The Grand Prix was DOA styling wise for me. The Elite looked better, preferably in a sinister black without door guards. Then the Riveria, MC and in second place, the XR-7 Cougar.
As for ugly (as opposed to odd) it’s all subjective. Somehow, all the ugly cars made it off the easel, clay, past design committees with final CEO approval and into the dealerships past the eyes and opinions of all involved and was not changed.
Beauty and taste are in the eyes of the beholder. The non-Cruiser Mercurys of 1957-1958 are exciting cars, to me anyway, much nicer than a 1958 Oldsmobile. The Ramblers of 1955 to 1962 were more a concept rather than a cohesive styling exercise. Exner’s heart attack and Chrysler’s boardroom battle between Colbert and Newberg left Chrysler struggling for a direction after 1960. Ford had its own struggles as George Walker’s influence waned, but the post-1960 FoMoCo cars were consistent in their direction. (By the way, the 1960 Ford and Mercurys were great to my eyes.) The retirement of Harley Earl and the rise of Bill Mitchell created a time where Mitchell put his stamp on G.M. styling, but by 1961, Mitchell had set a thematic direction, in my opinion. All Studebakers were variations of a Lowey theme established in 1939.
The real problem, especially for G.M. after 1957, was too many models that overlapped going after imagined different market segments that only existed in product planners’ minds, but not in the thinking of the consumers in the showrooms. Robert McNamara turned out to be right: Ford did not need five distinct divisions. In 1961, three were more than enough (although I think Ford needs a true halo car or two: The Thunderbird and the Lincoln Mercury !). In 2026, watching G.M. try to make Buick a desirable brand again (think 1952-1953) is for me painful.
GM’s multiple brands were fine as long as they were selling a million units each per year, as in 1985. The excess overhead of those multiple similar brands when they didn’t sell that many cars was a trivial detail compared to actually not selling all those cars.
Hmmmm. l doubt that l’ve ever seen a more overly simplistic (and dismissive) automotive comment in many a day than the last sentence of your first paragraph, James. Indefensible, l believe.
At one time, l might have thot that Steve would post a sentence like that, but, after reading the last sentence of his third paragraph, above, l think that as of March 14th, he is now a postwar Studebaker fan!
Actually, I would not have posted such a sweeping statement. I would also not categorize myself as a “fan” of any automaker . . . and find the whole “you’re either with us or against us” schtick to be rather childish.
Chrysler Town and Country Convertible! With wood paneling like a station wagon. We just saw one today cruising down Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. Now that is one odd car.
Make that a Le Baron Town & Country Convertible.
I can’t remember which years the Town & Country option was available on LeBarons. I assume you mean the ’80s K-Car derivatives. Wikipedia shows an example on the 2nd Gen (’82-’88) and that’s an unspectacular boxy design. But the 3rd Gen (’87-’92) with hidden headlights is a design that I like very much and I wouldn’t reject one that had faux wooden appliques. I favor imitation wood siding for all station wagons. It’s and American tradition.
Chrysler and Mercury tried the woodgrain option on sedans and convertibles in 1968 as well. I think the Chevette did it also.
If one wanted to try to get away from a purely subjective discussion we could perhaps look at the styling changes that coincided with the largest reduction in market share for a particular product. That wouldn’t help for new products like the Pacer, and of course you can’t control for all the variables, such as the Falcon’s impact on 1960 full size Ford sales, but I suspect it would give a relatively accurate picture of which were the greatest styling errors relative to the tastes of their times.
Yes… some styles drove customers away. Some were stylistic dead ends (the next generation car looked decidedly different). Some were polarizing. Some were low quality (rust issues, sagging, poor fit and finish.) A lot of cars from the 70s suffered as the manufacturers and customers adjusted to changes based on safety and emissions regulations. (Thinking about many cars but I would never buy a 1975 MGB.) Badge engineering also made for some odd styling choices.
Also, some of these ugly cars are now quirky in retrospect (Gremlin comes to mind) or at least they are not boring.
Well, I stand by my list ;). Design is indeed subjective and everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. These are simply my thoughts. And, I think all of my choices are uglier than a Pacer or an Aztek—or a bustleback Seville or Imperial. Enjoy!
Great to see you here, Adam. I’ve been enjoying your videos for many years. It surprises me that anyone thinks that any list could have a single definitive order. It’s all relative.
Relativistic thinking in psychology is the cognitive capacity to recognize that knowledge, perception, and behavior are always shaped by context, and that most meaningful questions don’t have a single correct answer.
Feel free to use this idea whenever someone contradicts you!
Your suggestion that “anyone thinks there could be a single definitive order” strikes me as a rather flimsy strawman. But perhaps you did not see the very first line in my story, which stated that “Top-10 lists are inherently subjective.” My point was that Adam’s piece lacked analytical consistency . . . and made some quirky choices.
For example, do you really think that a 1961 Dodge Lancer is uglier than, say, a 1961 Plymouth Valiant . . . let alone a 1961 DeSoto? Or that no AMC cars deserved to be on this list, including the 1974 Matador sedan? I don’t — and while that’s an opinion, I can offer a coherent analysis as to why.
My baseline assumption as an automotive historian is that I should put more intellectual effort into my work than Joe at the bar. Alas, perhaps that attitude has become too old school in this field.
I enjoy Adam Wade’s videos, but I agree that the list had some strange choices.
The 1961 Dodge Lancer is an improvement over the Valiant. The front clip is decidely cleaner. That alone makes the car the more handsome of the two. The Lancer was easily the best-looking car offered by Chrysler Corporation in 1961.
I never thought of the 1977-79 Chrysler LeBaron as being an unattractive car. The turning signals OVER the headlights was a distinctive touch – if Chrysler had used a conventional layout, the car would have looked too much like a first-generation Cadillac Seville. The vinyl padding along the top of the doors on the sedan? Well, it was the 1970s…
At any rate, the car sold well, and helped keep the lights on for many Chrysler-Plymouth dealerships during this era. I thought Chrysler had actually done a very good job of distinguishing the car from the more plebian Aspen/Volare for not too much money. Our neighbor had one of the first ones in town – a dark metallic blue sedan with a gray vinyl top – and it looked better than the Mopar B-bodies and Ford intermediate sedans of that year.
As for the Ford Gran Torino Elite – it’s not a great design. Neither the Monte Carlo nor the Elite is a beauty queen, but the Monte Carlo somehow works – although I prefer the original design with the round headlights. The Elite seems contrived. The front overhang, in particular, looks awkward. The Ford did have a nicer interior.
Ford got it right with the “downsized” 1977-79 Thunderbird, which worked, and looked better than the 1977 Monte Carlo, as well as the 1978-80 downsized Monte Carlo. Of course, in 1980 Ford came out with a real stinker for the Thunderbird. The sharp 1983 model redeemed the nameplate.
It should be added that calling the Dodge Lancer “the best-looking car offered by Chrysler Corporation in 1961” isn’t really saying much…
Agreed, Steve – intellectual effort and analytical consistency is what we’re here for. I like your efforts to challenge dogma and groupthink by comparing historical facts and by analysing data.
I particularly enjoy studying your colour-keyed charts, because you have invented a style that displays a considerable amount of information in an uncomplicated way.
I think ugliness is a visceral feeling for many people. It’s difficult to change the average person’s opinion if their gut tells them a design is just plain wrong. It seems to me that consensus among enthusiasts evolves as the decades pass, perhaps because the availability of newer products can change perspectives on what came before.
I can think of many instances where context is relevant. Here are a few:
1
Mustang II was a huge hit for Ford in 1974. It was compact and affordable, and it hit the market with perfect timing. Yet many people look at it retrospectively as the ugliest, most ill-proportioned Mustang generation of all.
2
In its day, 1973 Monte Carlo was a huge sales success for GM. Buyers loved its distinctive look. Yet its heavily sculpted flanks now look odd to many people.
3
Bill Mitchell created a classic with his 1963 split window Corvette. So he tried to do it again with 1971 Riviera and bombed badly. Wrong car, wrong time. It turned out that glassy fastbacks were out and vinyl roofed notchbacks were in.
4
Cadillac’s 1971 Eldorado easily outsold its 1967 predecessor, but the taut lines of the earlier car are more admired nowadays than the flabby fenders of the farkle that followed it.
5
Chevrolet’s 1957 Bel Air is a design classic that epitomises the decade, but it was outsold by the fairly plain looking 1957 Ford.
6
I absolutely loved Cadillac’s 1975 Seville on debut, but now I look at its proportions and see the squared off Chevy Nova that lay beneath.
I accept that Adam wasn’t arguing an objective case with indisputable facts. I reckon he was simply setting up for a subjective discussion in the YouTube comments section (which is good for his ranking by the YT algorithm). Best of luck to him. I’m grateful that he’s showcased so many American classics and I’m pleased that he’s bought so many of them, because I reckon they’re in good hands.
I question the LeBaron. The two-door was a hodgepodge but the four-door was well proportioned— basically a scaled up, dressed up Aspen/Volare. The unconventional parking lights above the quad headlights would be a turn-off for some. Compare its clean lines to its rival (?) same-size Versailles. The 1971 Eldorado must must be on the list, especially as it was meant to be the “Standard of Excellence”!