They were good in the beginning (Warning: Opinionated Content!)...

I was driving home tonight and saw the latest Mazda 5...it got me thinking. Car designers are under pressure to make changes every year, usually not for the better in my opinion. Usually they make cars "longer, wider and heavier" but the marketing people always cheerfully chime in and proclaim "its got more shoulder room this year!" In some cases designers end up making their cars uglier as well... here are a few car designs that come to mind (sorry in advance to all who are offended) where the designs got worse, feel free to add your own.

Mazda 5: My neighbor has two of the older models and they look sharp, the new ones, not so much...

Mazda Miata: First generation was the bomb, later generations....well....

64-68 Mustang Fastbacks: Both generations looked cool, the original morphed in the the Steve McQueen mobile and it was downhill from there.

67-68 Camaros: 69's were so bad they only lasted one year.

Latest Honda Minivans: Have you seen those rear side windows? EGAD!

65-66 Cadillacs: Go rent "A Bronx Tale" and tell me that Sonny's black 65 isn't ten times better than his newer, red caddy that he drove backwards...

The list goes on and on....

addendum to your Mustangs.... add Shelbys 5 and 6 are the only ones worth having...

I'd argue that the 69 and 70 Mustangs were just as good-looking, if not better, especially in fastback/Mach 1/Boss guise. I have a soft spot for the 71-73's, but I can see where they "went wrong".

I'd also argue that the 70 Camaro is actually better looking than the 69, which is pretty plain IMHO. Of course, I also say that for any given year of Camaro, the same year Firebird looks 2x as good, minimum.

I do hear what you are saying though. My list of "So nice!" to "Oh Bleh!" models:

• NB to NC Miata
• 70 to 71 Charger
• 73 Mustang to 74 Mustang II to 79 Mustang fox
• 10 Mazda5 to 11 Mazda5
• 08? Mazda6 to current Mazda6
• 07 WRX to 08 WRX
• 08? Legacy to current Legacy
• All previous Acura's to the current beaked monsters
• 59 Buick to 60 Buick to 61 Baby Buicks

This is highly subjective. I largely agree with the idea, but some of your examples (the Miata specifically) I downright disagree with. In fact, I'd rank it NB>NC>NA in terms of looks.

One car I've always put in this category is the Countach. The first version, without all the flares and wings and whatnot, was much more attractive in my opinion.

I'll take all Mustangs and Shelby's to '70.I prefer '64 1/2 to '68 though.

I was thinking in terms of models and years. GM from '55 until '62-'63....then went rectangle until '68 when they rounded off a lot (GTO/Chevelle/442/Skylark etc.)

The letter cars were cool until '62.

The T-bird looked good until '68.

The Buick Riviera looked good until the late '70s.

I think a lot of detroit iron can be forgiven from '74-'78...they were too busy playing catch up.

'69 is my favorite Mustang.

But if you want a good look at how wrong things can go styling wise, look at the '81 to '82 Celica. I thought the '78 to '81 was really nice looking. In fact, they got better with the minor update in '80 when they updated the mirrors and headlights. But the '82 was, well, not an improvement. Though, they again made it better, I think, in '84 with a nose update.

First gen T-bird, vs all of the following.

The problem is when the marketing people realize that big cars sell more than small ones. which is incredibly frustrating.

Supra, Z car.

Tale as long as the car.

I read in one of the books I have outlining the "gestation" of the Mustang that the '67 was about to be "locked-in" just about the time the 1st ones (the '641/2s) were going on sale. The design team admitted they weren't really sure which way the public and the company wanted them to take the later Mustangs. BTW, I've driven/ridden in '66s, '67s, '68s, '69s, and a '73.....as the Mustang "matured" the company took the car on a path to being a "mini-T-Bird". Even the Mustang IIs I've driven/ridden in, were styled to be T-Birds with more compact dimensions.

As far as the Camaro, well, GM kept many models in the '60s going a bit too long. The '69 looks like they really didn't have a clue and were just hanging on til the really radical (at the time) '70 Camaro/Firebird came out.

BTW, there is/was no 2011 Mazda5, the new on is a 2012 model.

For all the examples you gave of "good cars going bad", there are also examples of the opposite being true. Look at the '81/'82 box T-Bird and the swoopier '83-'88 model. The Continental Mark IV, Mark V (looks the same, but is actually smaller), Mark VI....then the Mark VII in LSC guise. Or, at GM, the Cadillacs of the '90s versus the Cadillacs of 2005 and beyond.

In Japan: the first 300ZX of the mid-late '80s and the model that followed....1990-1996. The 1st, 2nd, and finally, the 3rd gen. Toyota Supra.

Honda Accord: I've driven every shape since the pop-up headlight days and they seem to get less fun to drive with every generation. I'm sure this stems from the fact that the 1981 Accord could fit in the 2011 Accord's trunk.

New mini was ok - then it got bigger, then it got a bunch bigger - and uglier. Looks like an suv next to an original.

Good to happyface Mazda 3, '05 to '06 Saab 9-5, E39 to the next 5 series,

integraguy wrote: In Japan: the first 300ZX of the mid-late '80s and the model that followed....1990-1996. The 1st, 2nd, and finally, the 3rd gen. Toyota Supra.

Call me crazy, but I like my Supra's in reverse order...

I like NB Miata's over NA or NC.

You guys are all berkeleying nuts. The 69 Camaro is a classic, best looking of all of them, and the basis for the 10 model. 64-67 Mustangs are cute little secretary machines. 69 and 70's have not yet been improved upon.

The Mazda 3 is the shining example, but here is my list:

Impreza/WRX/STi. Leaving out the GC8, which most everybody loves, they just get uglier and more lumpy with each passing generation. Ditto the Legacy GT.

Any Audi... screw it, I'm going to go ahead and say any car made between 2005 and 2010 was nowhere near as good looking as the car it replaced. Across the board. They are only just now beginning to show even the slightest improvement.

In reply to Duke:

You'd take this:

Over this?: [/URL]

No sir, I don't like it. Not one bit.

Alfa Spider.

ShadowSix wrote: Honda Accord: I've driven every shape since the pop-up headlight days and they seem to get less fun to drive with every generation. I'm sure this stems from the fact that the 1981 Accord could fit in the 2011 Accord's trunk.

The pop-up headlight Accords were indeed the best Accords. Stylistically, all Accords since have aged very, very badly. Although I do much prefer the previous generation Accord to the current offering.

Streetwiseguy wrote: 64-67 Mustangs are cute little secretary machines. 69 and 70's have not yet been improved upon.

Definitely agree!

if the 69 Camaro was so bad, then why did they build them for a year and a half?

oh, yeah, there was a labor strike and they had some tooling issues holding up the switchover to the all new 70 models.. it was the last year for the Camaro on the old Nova chassis. they totally redid it for the 70 model year and made it better in pretty much every way that matters.

you also left off the 87 Buick GNX- if it was such an awesome car, then why only 547 of them made in only one year? because it was a last hurrah special edition farewell to the Buick Regal on the rwd G body chassis.

stuart in mn wrote: One car I've always put in this category is the Countach. The first version, without all the flares and wings and whatnot, was much more attractive in my opinion.

For me the Countach lost some lustre after the LP400S (first flared/scooped Countach). The Anniversario edition is an abomination despite that it's said to be the nicest one to drive.

Don't get me started on Civics. The last of the great ones ended in 2000 when they last had full IRS. The most recent ones are nice, but they're so damn big.

JohnW wrote:

ShadowSix wrote: Honda Accord: I've driven every shape since the pop-up headlight days and they seem to get less fun to drive with every generation. I'm sure this stems from the fact that the 1981 Accord could fit in the 2011 Accord's trunk.

The pop-up headlight Accords were indeed the best Accords. Stylistically, all Accords since have aged very, very badly. Although I do much prefer the previous generation Accord to the current offering.

I agree that the 3rd gen Accords are the best looking, but we didn't get the best looking body style.

It's on my "import when eligible" list. There's one model with a 160 HP motor, which is quite a bit for a car of that weight in the 80's with no boost. It's a shame it is a FWD car.

Miatas? NB > NA > NC. IMHO, the NB is one of the prettiest cars ever designed and Mazda really missed the mark with the redesign... although I'll say the NC is better looking than the rest of the Mazda line right now. I just wish the NB was a better (more competitive) auto-x car in something less than CSP spec.

But I do agree: automotive car and truck designs have gotten really ugly over the past 5 years or so. The styling just seems 'forced', if you know what I mean.

DaveEstey wrote: In reply to Duke: You'd take this: Over this?: [/URL] No sir, I don't like it. Not one bit.

Your Option #2 there was not introduced after 2005! I'm specifically referring to how much better the previous Legacy GT looks compared to the current version, introduced in 2010:

I'm sure we agree that is a giant step backwards. Even the one 2 generations old that you posted above is better looking than the current version.

I have trouble understanding the inclusion of the non USDM cars in this comparo. For example, I cannot distinguish the most recent Accord from a Camry, from a 3 series BMW. They all seem to have 2 gaping holes in the snout, with tear shaped frontal Light units, and that trophy Bass look about them. I call them Modules. We won't go any further on the Factory Faux APC LEDs either.

m