Do The Rest of The Population Have A Brain?? - Rover 75 In Top 10 UGLIEST Cars!

[620Turbo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/12/ncars12.xml

:soapbox:

I am gob smacked. I have just read a piece in the telegraph in which one of the greatest cars to come out in the last 10 years and one of the prettiest in the last 20 has been voted into "the 10 ugliest cars".

:cry:

I really feel that I have very little in common with the rest of the UK populous and things like this seriously make me wonder about the future of this country and the intellect of the people in it. I understand that the Rover 75 is not to everyone’s tastes and that beauty is a subjective thing, but this is tantamount to sacrilege.

What total philistines.

[Tony]

:shock: whats the matter with people! :banghead:

[Dave Clark]

In my opinion I'd say the 04MY Rover 75 was a huge let down for me. It brought the car into the modern design of being wedgy with the bumpers and making things more simple - and I liked the addition of the light oak (I prefered that than the walnut) - but the exterior lights at the front looked ugly (funnily enough suited the ZT more) and the indicators looked like the 03MY ones but put vertically and higher up - rather than horizontally. The loss of all the chrome inserts was also a bad move - it was part of the 75s character. Its like seing a Saxo VTS without a chav at the wheel - its something you come to expect!


Apart from that this mulit-award winning car - is better in design than say a Kia Rio, Perodua Nippa, Kia Pride, BMW 1 or 3 series, Peugeot 806, need I go on!

[Lukiep160]

i can't see how anyone would think the 75 is ugly, i like the early 75 more becouse i think it looks more elegant but thats not saying the 04 my is ugly coz there are parts of that i like

[MartinW]

Even the Streetwise and Allegro got a mention! Obviously still fashionable to knock BL/ARG/MGR.
Mind you, I think it was one of these cardata surveys with a population sampling of 2 votes :)

[jld]

I saw this and noticed the sample size that was quoted. I remember thinking that 3 or 4 votes would probably get something onto the list.

[620Turbo]

In my opinion I'd say the 04MY Rover 75 was a huge let down for me. It brought the car into the modern design of being wedgy with the bumpers and making things more simple - and I liked the addition of the light oak (I prefered that than the walnut) - but the exterior lights at the front looked ugly (funnily enough suited the ZT more) and the indicators looked like the 03MY ones but put vertically and higher up - rather than horizontally. The loss of all the chrome inserts was also a bad move - it was part of the 75s character. Its like seing a Saxo VTS without a chav at the wheel - its something you come to expect!


I agree that the facelift was a total dogs breakfast. Looked OK on the ZT as you say, but still arguably no improvement over the MK1.

The article just states Rover 75 and does not differentiate between the facelift models. The article reeks of incredibly sloppy journalism to me, still putting the boot into the company, even when it is in the ground.

IMO the article should have made mention that they were "surprised to see the multi award winning Rover 75" or suchlike. . . . . .

Also, the sample size was 1500 so some people must have voted. Or perhaps the thing was rigged with people only being able to choose from 11 cars, the 11th being a Vantage or something. . . . . . .

Still, it really peeved me off to see that. Richard Wooley must have drawn a blank look when he was shown this pile o rubbish.