These Car Models Were Ruined By Their Redesigns

The over-ovalled 3rd Gen Ford Taurus

Submitted by: ConnieHawkinsesHawkConnie

I know it did actually ruin the Taurus’s public image, but I have a soft spot for the jellybean Taurus.

The Jaguar XJ.

Don’t get me wrong, the newer one is still a good looking car. But man, they essentially threw in the trash a designed language that over decades had been honed to perfection. We have to go back!!

Submitted by: OutForARip

Again, I love the redesigned Jaguar XJ. When it first came out I was so blown away by how radical and sleek its looks were, but I do feel like it was too big of a departure for Jaguar’s American clientele.

Chevy Monte Carlo, started out ok, got better in the end of the 70s and early 80s, then came the fifth-generation and sixth-generation cars. :(

Submitted by: towman

Sorry towman, I had to re-format your comment but kept it as authentic as possible. This is totally fair, I can’t believe the fifth-generation was ever called a Monte Carlo. It’s a Lumina. RIP the Monte Carlo.

I present the Oldsmobile Aurora. First Gen, a completely unique design and identity on a unique chassis only shared with the Riviera A futuristic interior that was genuinely nice. Gen 2, a blobby car on the ubiquitous chassis and design shared with other GM cars (Park Avenue, Bonneville, etc.), filled with the cheap extruded plastic common on every GM car at the time. The only redeeming quality of the second gen was that it at least kept the 4.0 engine from the first gen.

Submitted by: Curtis

I fully agree, Curtis. The first-gen Oldsmobile Aurora will live on in my heart forever. I had a friend growing up whose mom had a champagne-colored one that I’d obsess over as a child.

BMW 4 Series G22.

It absolutely ruined the extremely good looks of the F32.

It used to be an elegant, classy and badass car. Now it’s an incoherent, disproportionate mess of a design, ugly as sin and with a front reminiscent of the “Angry Birds” pigs.

Submitted by: Pedro Macedo

This is totally fair. The glow-down from dashing F32 to the gawky G22 is real. I’d still own one, to be fair, but I’d always park it nose-in.

Everyone knows the last “Real M5" was the one that was on sale two generations ago. This statement became true with the introduction of the 3rd gen M5 and will remain so until BMW cancels the M5 altogether. Or until the M5 gets so heavy it pulls the moon into the planet and kills us all.

Submitted by: Give Me Tacos or Give Me Death

I remember the F10 M5 getting roasted for being such a departure from the E60, but then again the E60 was originally hated on for being such a departure from the E39 M5. I feel like the E39 was the last M5 that wasn’t hated on.

The new Nissan Z.

It’s impossible to justify new Supra/Mustang GT money for a car on a 20 year old platform, especially since the car looks like what you would get if you asked Mitsuoka to make a 240Z tribute car out of a 370Z.

More controversial take, the R35 GTR also ruined the name that the R32, R33, and R34 Skyline GTRs made almost mythical, It’s just stuck around way too long and gotten way too expensive.

Submitted by: Connor 

Connor, I think you’re on to something. My colleague Amber agrees wholeheartedly with you, and I see what y’all are saying.

4th to 5th gen Discovery is such a disappointment, although as much as the new Defender is a sad Defender, it’s a half-decent Discovery.

Submitted by: Maymar

THIS! I’m glad someone said it. The Disco was founded on being a boxy upright model, and I think Land Rover realized the error of its ways when it took another stab at the Defender. I know it’ll just bankrupt me but I really want a white LR4, they look so damn cool.

*cute the torches and pitchforks*

The second generation NSX. Honda had a chance to capture the magic and completely fumbled it. The original NSX was popular because it out-perform cars twice its MSRP while being able to start up every time. It was simple, reliable, and could out class the best from Europe (it forced Ferrari to build the 355)!

The second generation NSX, I feel, Honda got lazy and just decided to throw the hypercar formula at it: turbocharged, awd, and hybrid. While I have no problem with that formula, it did not work on the NSX (Honda even billed it as the ‘every day supercar’). What Honda should have done with the second generation NSX is completely remove the hybrid system, keep it RWD only, and keep hydraulic brakes (instead of brake-by-wire). That would have not only significantly reduced cost and weight, but it would have been just as powerful for its class (the 3.5 TT alone made 500hp). Which reminds me, with the hybrid system, combined output was only 573. At the time, you could get a C7 Z06 with 650 hp for about 50k less. Hell, the McLaren 570s was a better NSX than the NSX.

While I would have liked to see NA + manual transmission, I feel Honda should have kept the NSX simple: rwd, and ICE only. RWD and ICE only, I think the NSX would have costed 30-40k less. That would have brought it back to its roots. I have no problem with the design. I think it looks great. Instead, they tried to copy the hypercar formula and the car became too complicated and bloated. Which caused it to have an MSRP that some people could not justify. Spend about 20k more for the McLaren 570s and get a better NSX than the NSX.

Submitted by: Dano

I totally agree with ya, Dano, and I don’t think your answer will be met with many pitchforks, honestly. The original NSX was a perfect storm that had a special je ne sais quoi about it that just worked. It was helped by the fact that its competitors were still resting on their laurels when the NSX first pounced, the second-gen car was introduced to a very different world than the first.

Scion xB2

Submitted by: Mister Man

Eloquently put, Mister Man. The second-generation Scion xB literally and figuratively took the original xB’s sharp edges and rounded them off, and by doing so totally sucked the quirky fun out of the original box on wheels. The second-gen xB wasn’t a bad car, it just lost the character of the original. We used to call first-gen xB’s toasters growing up, and we didn’t have a name to call the second-gen car. It didn’t deserve a fun name.

A couple of Toyotas to consider:

The original Toyota MR2 went from being a Miata-sized, zippy, runabout with really sharp handling and controls (I used to own an ‘85) to a borderline GT that went up an entire size class (over 10” longer and 500 lbs heavier) and lost most of the what made the original so fun to driver.

Objectively, hardly a bad car, but that massive bloat cost it the toss-able, zippy feel that made the first car so engaging.

The Scion xB is the other one. The original had a similarly tiny footprint with shocking amount of interior space and surprisingly fun to drive with the manual. Then it also grew over a foot, gained over 500 lbs, and even though it still had a manual option, it became a Corolla that was left in its box.

Submitted by: Dan-E K

Sorry to snub you on your great explanation for the xB, Dan-E K, but I wanted to focus on your MR2 answer. The purity and innocence of the original MR2's eager demeanor was diluted in the second-gen car. It did, however, make it harder to snap oversteer to your demise, but it also lost some of the fun.

This upside-down bathtub is so bad it managed to destroy my memory of the car that preceded it.

Submitted by: Yo...MTV Raps!

I totally forgot that this was even marketed as a successor to the Toyota Supra-based Lexus SC of the ‘90s. I never liked these, even when they were sold new. It was just a solid miss, especially following up on the SC of the ‘90s.

The 4th gen Pathfinder turning into a blob with a CVT

Submitted by: LeftyLooseyGoosey

Another great answer, thanks for remembering that the Pathfinder used to be cool before the fourth-gen model came along.

Mazda RX-7 to RX-8. I know that side-impact had a lot to do with it, but still...

Submitted by: namesakeone

Oof, this is so fair as much as I hate to admit it. The FD RX-7 was going to be a difficult act to follow, but Mazda did a very un-Mazda-like thing and made the RX much bigger and heavier. The RX-8 wasn’t a bad car, in fact it was revered for its driving characteristics, but it doesn’t come close to the specialness of the FD RX-7.

The Mini Clubman moving from 2.5 doors to 4. It lost one of the signature charm points of the model, and was part of the overall ‘bloat’ of Minis. My Clubman with passenger side half door might as well have been a Tardis for the amount of luggage or other cargo it could handle, while still being sporty, agile, and easy to park. A drive in a Countryman as a loaner was uncomfortable and felt like wearing cement shoes on black ice, so when my Clubman died and the redesign was in the market, I parted ways from the brand entirely.

Submitted by: backlash3906

As much as it pains me to admit, I agree with you. The first-gen Mini Clubman was such a wacky little car, and the second-gen grew up way too fast. The second-gen car is a more complete and usable vehicle, but I miss the quirky first-gen car. I wonder if Mini will make a third-gen Clubman...