Not surprisingly, designing a new car is not easy, which is why automotive designers work hard to properly combine themes and concepts into a single, integrated package.
Most of the time it’s not just an automated designer who has complete control over the whole project, but a team of designers who lend their skills to create a beautiful product.
However, sometimes it seems that people who designed the front of the car never even talked to those who designed the rear, resulting in a design crash that lacks a completely coordinated theme.
One of the best examples of this lack of design coordination is the 1981 Cadillac Seville “Bustleback”. The car was written by Bill Mitchell, one of GM’s best designers. Mitchell was responsible for countless cars in the brand’s portfolio, including the 1963 Buick Rivera and the C2 Corvette race car.
Read more: So you hate BMW’s current grills, what are you looking for the best so far?
The bustleback was Cadillac’s attempt to bring back some Rolls-Royce styling in the 1930s, but it turns out they started to pull it back and about a third of the way they thought it was a scary idea, and then stopped and made it look like a regular Cadillac. Shows.
As it turns out, not all car buyers in the 1980s were interested in Rolls-Royce design before World War II, and the car was highly polarized, almost as polarizing as the difference between front and rear styles.
Other top competitors in the two-way automotive design include the second-generation Renault Megan and the BMW “Clown Shoe” Z3.
So what do you think? Which one, in your opinion, is a car that looks normal on the front but strange on the back?