Pig-Ugly or What? The 2019 Mitsubishi Triton

Yes, my BT50 benefited greatly from the addition of an ARB Deluxe bar. Perhaps because in the fitting much of the plastic has to be cut away! LOL

Well put Michael H9.

When the 80 series came out - you should have heard the carry on. You'd have thought Toyota had designed a pram - nowadays an 80 series is considered an icon.

For me the outside shape isn't that important - its whats underneath that matters, 'beauty is only skin deep' the bride keeps reminding me.

Just my thoughts.

There's me, next to my Pajero Sport god ugly tail lights, since I do all my driving at the front, I hardly notice them at all and very rarely do I see them when reversing unless I look at a shop window. When I do actually walk past them, I check for cracks and stone chips, some days if I'm feeling lazy, I'll give the ol girl a scrub and wash the dust off those god ugly tail lights.

To me like all other ppl who don't relate cars as sexy ??????? I don't see what the problem is, the lights are just that, lights inside a red plastic covering, I don't stand there thinking WOW aren't they sexy tail lights, how in gods name you equate tail lights as sexy is beyond me along with other parts of the vehicle, you do know what sex is, don't you? WOW what a sexy looking car you have. Damned if I can relate sex to cars, unless we're talking about the back seat.

To me all vehicles are built for a purpose, to move ppl from Point A to Point B.
Many variants are built for those with different tastes, I myself as a driver for the Royal Australian Artillery drove a 6WD International Tractor towing a 105mm howitzer, I think my squad would have funny thoughts if I started thinking about my bitch as being sexy, it was pig-ugly, it wasn't built for luxury, it was built for war and what a fine vehicle it was, it was our home-away-from-home.

No A/C for this crew, no carpets, no radio except the squawk box, some-times no roof, no cushy seats, no air-bags, no seat belts for those in the back, no protection for those in the back or the front should a shell hit our 5 tonnes of high explosive our motto " One Flash and Your Ash " nothing beats driving through a dust storm inside your cab wearing goggles with front windshield down and trying to not run up the a of the gun in front. WOW, thats one sexy tractor you have there

Does that post hold the forum record for using the word sex? Personally, I've always had a platonic relationship with my cars but we do live in liberated times these days. If most people didn't care what their car looked like, the car polish and associated industries would go broke. Perhaps in times of war, things would be different?

You'll probably become more aware of your ugly tail lights when it comes time to trade-in...

Allan - Yeah, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, don't they say.

I just have this opinion that the current crop of Japanese car stylists have no idea what constitutes good styling appearance in a vehicle.

It was long a given, that attractive styling led to increased sales. Ford led the way for many decades with a lot of attractive styling.

Could you ever beat the early 1950's F-series utes for sheer attractiveness of appearance?
These utes are classics, still sought after today by hot-rodders for their superb styling.

Even the HQ Holden ute was attractively styled, and is becoming a classic collector vehicle.

I think there's even a few people collecting early FJ40's, which are still reasonably attractive-looking.
But I'll wager no-one will ever rate this 2019 Triton as a stunning collectible for it's outstanding styling, that stood the test of time.

Cheers, Ron.

God damn Alan old son, that's not a truuuuck, this is a truuuuck and it ain't even a jacked up one.

Personally, I think Mahindra take the cake for dog ugly utes. They have no redeeming features.

I don't know, Michael - even though I have to agree the Mahindra is bloody ugly, I reckon the Koreans are right up there in the ugly stakes.

I mean to say, the Ssangyongs make the Mahindra look good, what with that dreadful Actyon, and the just plain ridiculous Korando.

What is worse, these products were styled by a British designer formerly of MG!

Cheers, Ron.

Hey Ron, Ssangyong is a subsidiary of Mahindra, ugly is in their DNA. :-)

.
Of course Ron, about the 'beholder's eye' I mean.

It's just that I have never been much of a critic of automotive design. Except those awful square boxes that Jeep produce. Especially when painted black! I really do not want to socially mix with people who buy them!

So long as my vehicle reliably gets me from 'A' to 'B' in reasonable comfort I am satisfied. (Not all of them did!) I mean, look at me..... I drive a Troopy!!!!!

.
Hi 9900Eagle, now I know where your nom de plume comes from.
Just shows how much I know about trucks.

I thought that anything bigger than a Camry was a "Truuuuck". lol

"Could you ever beat the early 1950's F-series utes for sheer attractiveness of appearance? "

I thought American designers produced ugly vehicles? So I gathered from your OP. :)

Candace, I guess I didn't make my opinion clear as regards American auto stylists.
The Americans have produced extremes in automotive styling.

They have produced some of the most stunning auto designs in the world - while, at the same time, they have produced some of the ugliest.
IMO, some of the butt-ugliest cars were produced in the U.S. from the 1950's to the 1980's.

Many times, it appeared that the U.S. Auto manufacturers must have shipped in some Russian auto stylists, who produced these monsters after a months bender on Vodka.

Just a few examples ...

1956 Nash Ambassador Super
1957 Rambler Cross Country
1958 Lincoln Continental
1974 Ford Torino Elite
1980 Cadillac Seville
1985 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais

Cheers, Ron.

Ron,

Maybe those vehicles simply needed bigger tail fins? Like this '59 Caddy? :) (Spotted in May at the Automobile Driving Museum in El Segundo, CA)

P.S. Speaking of Ramblers, though it may not look beautiful today, I have fond memories of the turquoise 1965? Rambler station wagon we had when I was a kid. :)

Rocco: "And I couldn’t see how ugly it was from the inside. "

You've hit the nail on the head. THAT is Mitsubishi's clever marketing strategy - make them soooo ugly that you'll want to hide from their nauseating appearance, and the only safe place is inside.

I must be missing something re your comment. Many 4WDs have aftermarket bullbars fitted. Why would this one weigh any more?

ahhh, to replace the extremely large piece of plastic that's on the front of it.

So by removing some plastic and adding a bullbar it will weigh more than adding a bullbar to a vehicle that doesn't have plastic removed. Must be a new maths I'm not familiar with....

For many on the forum modern vehicles do not have the timeless beauty of old landcruisers and patrols, but they do have safety features that older vehicles do not:

Stability control
Airbags
Crumple zones
ABS

In the case of the upper model Tritons you can add AWD which is a huge advantage on wet tar roads when you cannot use 4WD.

Get used to these new 4WDs as the old ones die off and mandatory safety regulations get further strengthened.

What will you buy when your old Landcruiser finally dies?

One word Tom,
Sarcasm.

You should have used the Sans Sarcastica font :)

Hey Tom, The day they announce they are stopping building the land cruiser ute will be the day I go to the local dealer and buy 5 of them.


I wouldn’t be seen dead in one of those utes Ron pictured.


Cheers Greg.

Well Tom,
With only 50,000 K's on it and me being close to retirement I doubt I'll see the Cruiser die.
Greg, great idea.

John, I have to agree, a "proper" ute is a single cab with tray back and drop-sides - but the sad fact is, "proper" utes are outsold about 5 to 1, by tizzied-up dual-cab shopping trollies, or dual-cabs used for camping and caravanning.

This is what sort of puzzles me about the 2019 Triton. Rangers have come from behind to be a best-seller, simply because they look stylishly good - and they look even better, "tizzied up".

In a booming market where probably 3/4's of the dual-cab utes sold are sold to families, in lieu of the old Commodore or Falcon - and they are sold, more often than not, on stylish looks, more than anything else - I'm surprised that Mitsubishi couldn't come up with a stylish body shape, that posed a real threat to Ranger and Hilux, in the "good looks" dept.

I suspect, that as in many things Mitsubishi, not only is all the engineering done on the cheap - but they got in the cheapest styling team that they could find, as well! (ducks for cover in the same foxhole as Johnat!)

Cheers, Ron.

Most families seem too pre-occupied with counting cupholders and airbags to worry too much about the external looks (at least that's the impression you get from reading professional reviews).

"Looks" are very subjective... I still remember reading a magazine article years ago which was drawing attention to what the writer considered to be the ugliest car models announced by various manufacturers. I particularly remember reading about a Subaru which the writer obviously didn't like, but I thought looked alright apart from the front grille (which is a minor change - a lot of Subaru owners change them to Crimsafe mesh anyway).

A year or so later, Subaru released a mid-size station wagon which looked remarkably similar, although with a different grille. You might have heard of it, or even seen one or two around - Subaru called it the "Forester". In fact, despite a motoring journalist telling us that this car was so ugly that no one would buy it, the result was that Subaru more-or-less started a boom in sales of soft-roaders so significant that the other manufacturers all ended up adding soft-roaders to their line-ups.

I was always told that a true utility has the tub integral with the cab, such as early Holdens, Falcons etc. & that cab chassis style vehicles with separate tray/tub were pick-ups.

That's right, if you want to be 100% correct.

Body style is defined in Road Traffic Authority designations, and a utility is defined separately to a vehicle with a "tray top" or "tray back" body.

The original Lew Bandt-designed '34 Ford utility was designed as the first "crossover vehicle" after a farmers wife wrote to Ford Australia's MD in mid-1933, saying her hubby couldn't afford both a car and a truck, but that they would like a vehicle that would be, "a car go to church on Sunday, and a truck to take the pigs to market on Monday."

The Ford MD thought that it could be done, and 23 yr old Lew Bandt was given the job - and produced the now-classic integral utility body.

It was a long time before the Americans produced a similar integral body "pickup" - they always preferred the separate "tub body" on their pickups.

Cheers, Ron.

My earlier point Ron.

Frank, you could enter a Hilux in the first race at the Dapto dogs.

Photo link Just scroll down to the photo.

Harsh but fair, Eagle. LOL

Gee, that CarAdvice review on the current model Hilux, in the link posted by 9900Eagle, looks like it was written by a Toyota salesperson!!

Speaking to quite a number of new Hilux owners, they can get used to the ugly looks - but they're less than happy with the performance of their new Hiluxes.

Pathetic air cleaner design that lets in dust, a new engine that has a maximum torque range much narrower than the old 3.0L engine, the DPF problems keep raising their heads, oil leaks on the new engine, tailshaft clunks a la the Landcruiser, no improvement in fuel economy over the old model - you'd think Toyota would be able to get it right, by now!

My 2013 Hilux looks better every day. Particularly when blokes tell you they wish they'd kept their old Hilux.

A mate has not long bought a 100,000km used Mazda BT50, and is very happy with it - despite all the Ford part numbers on it! He previously owned a 2009 Patrol.

I give him heaps about the pig-ugly BT-50 front end - but he's been a pig-breeder, and he reckons pigs are very useful animals, and you end up learning to love them! LOL

Cheers, Ron.

Don't mind this new Triton, Ron, EXCEPT that funny bit across the front, just under front of the bonnet. Looks like Jamie Dunn's puppet, "Agro", when he's squinting. And those lights on each side..............what are they? An afterthought?

At least the new model has lost that horrible curve on the rear botttom edge of the rear doors!

Ron, where I came from, the term is Pug-ugly, as in the looks of a somewhat battered pugilist. Pigs are cool, as your friend noted, and I'm sure that they'd be upset at your use of that term. Feral pigs excluded!

Bob

Hey, Ron,

With a bit of help from ARB, it doesn't look so bad. :-)

Bob, you gotta stop loving pigs and start loving pugs or get into trouble with both animal camps. LOL. your a marked man.