Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People tend to make looks their number one priority. Looks are absolutely my last priority. I REALLY like the Cube. It is reliable, spacious, and economical to drive. It's a box on wheels, and boxes have enclosed, protected, and transported the goods of the world for centuries. The simple cube design is most efficient. I would definitely buy a Nissan Cube.
There are only two cars that I think are too ugly to own. Number one, of course is the Pontiac Aztek, and the other is the Nissan Juke. The Aztek had other bad traits like being a GM vehicle, unreliability, and a thirst for gasoline. The Juke is a fine car, but just a little too bizarre looking to be seen in my driveway.
Ugly vehicles have always had their appeal, because they are unique and not like other bland vehicles found on the roadways. Consider the long history of very popular very ugly vechiles. VW Thing; Allard; AMC Pacer and Gremlin; Ford Pinto and Mustang II; Volvo 240; Aston Martin Lagonda; Toyota early vans and more recently, Prius;The Chevrolet vega; Hummer; VW Bus. All very ugly and still popular. In may cases they are popular specifically becasue they are ugly. That is probably the case with the current popularity of the Aztec. Ugly vehicles will always have a following, especially the extremely ugly.
Not a fan of the styling, but I don't hate it, either.
However, all those types of cars have been primarily designed to appeal to younger buyers, 16-25 I'd say. I know that's all I ever see driving them, mainly high school kids. I wonder if the people who say they dislike the car so much actually dislike the CAR itself, or the demographic that is usually seen in them is what turns them off to it. I know whenever I see one on the road I can typically expect to see some kid texting while driving and doing a miserable job of it, and I try and keep my distance from them.
T Aztek was ugly for sure but quite a practical vehicle.
How was the Aztek practical? I have not owned one, but my undrstanding is they were underpowered, uncomfortable, holds only 4 persons with the back seats extremely difficult for adult use, had minimal cargo space, achieved poor fuel efficiency, handled poorly on roads and could nto be used off road due to extremely low ground clearance. I am aware one could purchase a tent to connect to the back of an Aztek, but an ordinary tent pitched next to the vehicle seems more practical. So in what way is the Aztec practical?
It is not for all ages. I can't see a couple in their 50s arriving at a wedding in a Cube. It is kind of juvenile. But heck, if you like it that's all that should matter.
I think this is the answer. The car was made for young millennial types who are more hip and trendy. The car goes great with a coexist bumper sticker and it should be parked outsided of a coffee house in Portland Ore. lol My generation would find it unattractive, ive never seen anyone over 35 driving one. Cars are made for certain demographics and that one is made for young people. Nissan knows that a 40 something soccer mom will have no interest in it, and they know that Grandpa wouldn't drive it either. Those groups drive SUVs or big cars.
Um, you just described every SUV made, except at least the Cube gets better fuel economy. Lets face it, if they could show the Cube blowing through a snow drift and people camping like they do with all the dumb SUVs out there, it would be a hit just like the other countless boxes on wheels.
A SUV and the Cube are not comparable. There are different classes of SUV, which class are you talking about? Many of which get the same MPG as the Cube.
The Cube cannot ever blow through snow drifts or have any off-road capability, the ground clearance is too low and does not have 4x4 capability; so there will be no blowing through snow drifts nor going on a trail out to a camping area.
In comparison with say a mid-size SUV, the Cube does not have near the payload nor towing capacity. The Cube does not even match this on small SUVs.
The Cube is simply a car but with the focus on cargo room.
Nissan does make SUVs for doing these things, like the Xterra.
How was the Aztek practical? I have not owned one, but my undrstanding is they were underpowered, uncomfortable, holds only 4 persons with the back seats extremely difficult for adult use, had minimal cargo space, achieved poor fuel efficiency, handled poorly on roads and could nto be used off road due to extremely low ground clearance. I am aware one could purchase a tent to connect to the back of an Aztek, but an ordinary tent pitched next to the vehicle seems more practical. So in what way is the Aztec practical?
It's actually cleverly contained. it was a crossover before there were crossovers, and was based on the Montana AWD minivan, but priced about $10k cheaper than said minivan. There was a lot of room inside, comfortable to be in, good carrying capacity, and clever touches throughout. People that got past the looks and bought them loved them, and they were actually quite reliable.
And to be frank, the later versions with the body color side cladding and 5 spoke wheels weren't that bad looking. If these were introduced today, with all the bizzare formed vehicles on the road, they'd be quite at home:
I like the Cube, it's like a modern version of a boxy car from the 1980s. I'm not a fan of the rounded look for cars. Looks cheap to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.