I've never really taken much notice of how my car looks, I've always admired it head-on, as though its some sort of intimate moment when I stare deeply into those headlights and lean forward to press my lips against that seductive, faded Volvo logo stuck to the grill before realizing... hey. there are so many dead insects stuck in my mouth right now.

Anyways... today I risked taking a look at the bum of my 360, and looked straight on from the back. IT LOOKS SO UGLY. I love every other angle of it except the one straight on from the back? I dunno, maybe its the exhaust pipe looking all mangled and weird, or that the bumper on mine is a bit dis proportioned, or something, but it just looks so stupid. This is just my car though, your cars would all look fine haha

Though my judgement of it tomorrow maybe completely different. We'll see.

Sorry for my annoying, random posts all the time

My personal opinion is that the bum of a MkIII is worse

Tom

I find my 360 (3 door 1988) looks ugly from front, but side and rear are great, rear being best, same for 343 (1981), but early models had nice looking front, they did modernize that though and like almost every time, modernization means it will get spoiled to some extent, at least in my eyes.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would call the 300-series classically "pretty" in a Pininfarina, Ital-design kind of way. The earliest Mk1s do look a bit dumpy, riding way up in the sky on their skinny tyres, and the boot on a MkII saloon looks like a bit of an afterthought, but people after "pretty" cars tend to look elsewhere anyway.

I like '79 and '80 cars from all angles (particularly with front spoilers), early MkII GLTs, bodykitted MkIII GLT hatches / saloons.

Tom

I think mk2/3s look pretty from the back. Not a big fan of the fronts but the mk2 front looks better. That's why I changed the front on my mk3

None of them are exactly pretty. Mk2's look 'right' though for their period.

I think that once the comparisons to other current cars of the time (late 70's through the late 80's) die away and a car is no longer seen against it's rivals of the it's time in the context of buying a new car, the deign reflects the spirit on the 70's rather than any particular ugliness/prettyness. My comments are aimed mainly for the Mk1 but also some of the things apply on the later cars.

Good points:

Big square bumpers (volvo tank style, well every car make needs an individual style quirkyness!)

Thinner window A and B pillars than modern cars (a good thing style/driving view wise, if not for strength!)

Thicker C pillar (in a very 70's style, in common with many (more) beautiful cars )

Lots of metal in the front and back wings low down instead of crappy painted plastic bumpers (rust traps but just look better)

The early front is very distinctive with the square wrap around glass lens and stainless steel trim, but with a round headlamp reflector. The later headlights and separate indicators are less 300 and more 'general 80's' style (Mk 3 escort, Austin Ambassador, Mk 2 granada, Mk 2 fiesta...... ).

Nice shiny stainless steel (Mk only )

RWD

I can see the bonnet from the drivers seat, always the sign of a proper car

Bad points:

High standard ride height (easily sorted)

Boat style comedy body roll (can at least improved with simple modifications, but if not, can give the appearance of speed at relatively low speeds, well it worked in the Sweeny anyway )

Lacking in power (again can be sorted with a bit of work)

Was seen as a car driven by grannies with strong arms. (something only remembered by us over the hill oldies now anyway so who's bothered)

Uglyness is in the eye of the beholder

As for the arse.......lowered, with wide wheels, fat tyres, a cloud of dust and the right camera angle, anything looks good! (even Jeremy Clarkson )