They were early ...aaaand they didn't commit on the design.
They were too early to catch the cross-over trend.....and they marketed it as a "adventure vehicle".....but gave it 0 capability to actually do the adventure bit.
If they improved the off-road capability, and gave it slightly more aggressive styling, they would sell like hotcakes today.
Essentially they needed a "trail hawk" version
View attachment 8251022
View attachment 8251019
View attachment 8251020
C’mon man. Low angle shots make most any vechicle look good.
Just look at this mid-70s travesty of a Ford Mustang.
Now look at this approximately same model, different angle
This is not a ground-level shot, but it sure looks better to my eye (yeah, it’s in better shape, has a better color & light, but squint at both pics to see what I mean).
Go even lower, like as in the pics you showed, and this POS will look
even better.
I get what you are saying, that if they had the time to revisit the design they could’ve made it better-looking. Just look at the wheel well mods on your pics. Much better. But my problem is with what was, not what was possible.
Also re: the Aztek you posted: that large spoiler? On an off-road
truck car grocery-getter? Lol
I’m not commenting on how the Aztek was created or its reliability or anything. Just on pure design. The thing is a disaster.
You can almost see the delineation where different corp design teams worked on it…rear end, front fascia, wheel wells, ugh. Just completely not pulled together. Overall, it reminds me of a tortoise with two sets of huge nostrils.
In short, the Pacer and PT Cruiser
commit to their designs (and I use that last word lightly here lol) but design-wise, the Aztek commits to…nothing.
It’s a hodgepodge of taped-together design themes aimed at different market segments.