[liquidsmoke]

I think we may be focusing too much on the word "exotic" and what cars we consider to fall into that category. I think the op is really just trying to say " good looking cars", or a lot better than average looking cars. Not specificly a ferrari or Bugatti Which everyone considers exotic, but more along the lines of an Audi TT. it's not an R8, but it's not a cheap looking bucket either. It's not 20 grand, but nothing about its looks says it couldn't be 20 grand. They start at 38 grand and are common enough cars and they look good. On the flip side, you have the VW bug which is very similar to the TT and if it's anything like the passat or a4 I owned, they share a lot of parts too. The bug starts at just under 20 grand. Has an iconic look, but isn't exotic and while I personally don't like the look of the bug I don't believe VW held anything back in its design.
But there are plenty of cars in this price range and below, where it's pretty clear the designers didnt give rats ass how it looked.
I don't think it specificly has anything to do with race car looks. Like some one said earlier, race car looks are form following function, and since the function is high performance they look that way and cost that much because of the performance. But a cheap car can look just as good, and at the same time not look like its trying to be a sports car when it's not.
Also, like someone else said about people not wanting to fake it. I think some design elements are off limits and others don't get used because designers don't want to fake it for a car that clearly isn't a sports car, or a luxury car.
It would be cool if we had an actual designer from a crappy car speak about what the hell happened and why it looks the way it looks.
After reading everyone's replies, I see it's not as simple an answer as I believed at first.
While I still don't believe expense is the sole reason ugly cars are ugly, I think it's just one of the many reasons things don't turn out looking good.