I don't get why the 'toy' issue is so thorny for some. I consider my 1:1 '67 Plymouth Fury a toy, so why not my models.
But anyway- toy-like models? I've got a few
Lindberg '48 Lincoln- I won't get into what an epic fail that kit is in terms of detail and accuracy. But when built up box stock, doesn't it kinda remind you of an old pressed steel toy?
Revell '56 Ford F-100- Looks like the cab blew a bubble, and those rear fenders are just awful. I used to have a Nylint F-100 diecast toy that had better body proportions. Heck, as a kid I had a plastic Tootsietoy '56 F-100 that looked more like the real deal than that kit.
Ertl Scout II- it's that grille. Other than that the body looks pretty good, but that incorrectly-rounded-on-top, all-chrome grille just rings toy-like to me. I've actually seen 'toy' Scout IIs with better-looking grilles (dig out a Johnny Lightning Scout II and compare it to the kit and you'll see what I mean).
Revell AAR 'Cuda- Another kit that just reeks of fail, even though it was introduced in a time when the manufacturer should have known better. Again, the typical Hot Wheel or Matchbox Barracuda has better body proportions. The Revell AAR kind of reminds me of one of those cheap RC or friction drive toy cars you see at dollar stores- looks enough like a real car to be recognizable, but it's proportions have been tweaked a bit to make it look 'cool' to kids.
Not to say a good looking, accurate model can't be built using from any of these kits (well, that first one might be a stretch unless you're Jeff Sauber), but they're the ones that immediately stick out in my mind.