Caps94ZODG

I was thinking today and read so many threads before I went to work. Alot of bellywhooing about RETRO RETRO..and so on. Got me thinking.

Why are we calling it RETRO..

what it is the whole sum of it bringing back american styling of cars. Now just think and bear with me, that era of the muscle car till the gas crisis was the last horahh of true American style. Even before the gas crisis the 2nd gen Camaro and Firebird got the "Euro" treatment to the tailend and Euro inspired look, yes it is what was said in may magazines at the time of the style Camaro and Firebird were going in..a Euro-style... When the gas crunch went into effect on the mid 70's, the days of large american cars and big styling were gone. They shrunk the once mighty and larger 73 Mustang into a Mustang II. Import cars were gaining recognition of thier small size, cute looks and great gas milage. This was the norm in Japan and Europe for cars and was a direct 180 to what Detroit was building. Detroit went and copied these cars, building small american cars to appeal to the people now looking at gas sipping cars, the monza, the chevette, pinto, and so on. these new cars were inspired not by american design it was by import designs.
A few cars survived the downsizing of the American automobile, The F body, The Monte carlo and so on. But these cars too shank to a smaller size.

In the 80's we had many of the mid size and larger cars being Euro inspired, styles, euro interiors and so on. Remember Corinthian Leather? What is Corinthian Leather? sounds good though right? The economy cars were import inspired and took what the import car had copied it almost to a T.
Many of our small cars were rebadged imports, even some of our small trucks were imported from Japan. This happened alot more then than it does now it was almost textbook to have an import car rebadged by an american company. The Plymouth Laser and Mitsu Eclipe are good examples. Only a few "muscle cars" were left during the 80's. Sure there were bright spots like the GN's and the restyled Camaro. All great cars but were they really muscle cars anymore? They were performance coupes now. Another Euro inspired addon to its handling and performance..its not a bat out of hell but it can carve corners now. Its a plus for sure but a car like Mustang or Camaro. They should not be Euro inspired. Heck even some early Vette adds said it had euro like handling..

Enough of the big hair days, onto the 90's were a period of re thinking and play it safe styling..cars really had started to loose there personality as individual marks, alot of cars blended together and all looked the same. Fords whole car lineup had almost the same exact front ends . Many of these cars turned into colorful jellybeans. The best example is the Taurus. It turned into a joke. The once proud cars now were rounded into shapes that were delicate to the eye, soft and uninspiring like many of its counterparts the Celicas, to the Concordes to the Intrepids to the Luminas to the once edgy Camaro and firebird were now softer in style. No more hard lines that followed the last remaining link to a Muscle car.
The late 90's brought a rethinking to the car market..the most popular one was the New Beetle from VW..this car that was Retro...this was the big one that made people think again, why not bring back what cars used to have..style..though the bug had not much style to it by any standards it was diffrent than whats out there. It caught peoples eyes. Eveyone was saying I saw a new bug! This attention gets people thinking and soon automakers..The funny thing is that an European company gave us the idea to bring back our heritage.

That brings us to this century..2000 pretty much is where you started seeing many of what was not seen in a long time. Style. Eye catching cars.Concepts that were full of history.
whole divisions changing directions. The industry infusing itself with what it lost. The art of a car. Looking back to the time where they left this part of automobile making. The end of the muscle car era was the end of the art and style that made american cars what they were. Yes there were a few cars that were not part of this group feeling of vanilla cardome for the last 30 years. We relied on trends set forth by the Import makers, dictating the rules. American car companies have seen what American style can become again we just have to start where people remember the style that made a car a rolling peice of artwork. For this we look to our past. Something that many import or euro companies cannot do, they cannot create a 300C, or a SSR, PT cruiser, 05 Mustang, OR CAMARO concept that inspires and embodies the elements of what these cars symbolize.
American style.
American Art.
This Camaro Concept is an American Automobile!

turbo96z28

BEST.......POST.........EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

slvrbullet98

I Agree That was really good and every word true !

EXCELLENT POST !!

RighteousReaper

Great post. I especially agree w/ the last paragraph.

Chocolate Apocalypse

Exactly why I prefer the style of older cars (love my Cutlass ) as compared with the newer, uninspired carbon copies on the road today. Great post!

shock6906

Excellent post, but I think the car that got retro going...although slowly, was the prowler...what an edgy design when it first debuted

Caps94ZODG

Yes shock, i was thinking about the Prowler too, it came out the same time as the bug, for eye value yes I agree, the bug had more street credit as it was more for mass production. Not a limited production car.
But i agree...Thanks for the addition.

damon_Z

Great post. I thought you were a college student who just showed us an essay due for a communications class or something.

Caps94ZODG

Damon Z

thanks, nope far removed from any college. I was just getting tired of the same one or two line post all saying the same thing " Its retro...why cant GM make a newer looking camaro..it looks like a Mustang..GM you failed us...and so on"
I gave my explination on why the Camaro has to go back to its roots, very thought out and not just the one liners. Why it has to be a car like this, why GM cant go forward without looking back for the camaro...This is why you get the 69 feel to the car, the last time it was an American design not inspired by something else. Dont get me wrong I love all the years of the Camaro especially the 4th gen, but as far as the sould of the car it really needed to be woken up again, only way to do that was to go back to when its soul was new. And the "looks like a Mustang" guys...Well yea it looks like a mustang..look these are pony cars, same formula for all of them..long hood short deck with an agressive stance...well what can you do really? They are more alike and play off eachother than you think and going back to a true muscle car stance like they have now make the Mustang and Camaro look like they belong to that pony car family again, heck throw in he new challenger too.
That takes me back to the " you let us down, I could of done a better camaro, its not better than a 4th gen" comments, well tell you what if its that easy, why did it take the cancelation of the car and the ground pounding from Red Planet and the likes to get the car even noticed again?
Camaro could not go forward. ESPECIALLY taking a look at the way Mustang was selling? It had to be a competitor again with the mustang. So yes it had to go back to its heritage and be what it was...

A MUSCLE CAR

unvc92camarors

Plain and simple, the front, gills, and C-pillar are the cause of the retro comments. The rest of the car doesn't really look retro to me at all, unless some of the third gen influence I see is "retro". Ok, I'll concede the interior is straight retro, but seeing as it will change drastically for production, I didn't think about it til now.

It's hetro, I'm telling ya...

BigDarknFast

Yep!

dfmoeller

Great posts and great thread! Well thought and accurate.

I just have a couple of thoughts to add. In the 70's, downsizing, for several valid reasons, became the trend of the day. What was done at that time, due to the need to take action immediately, was the current cars (at the time) were squashed in the downsizing effort. What I mean is that the flowing lines of the early 70's, which worked well on the bigger models, didn't change in the downsizing (think 73 mustang into the mustang II, or the late 70s TBird into the early 80s model, or the mid 70s Grand Prix into the '78 model - same or similar styling in these generations of cars, just boxier, more upright, and smaller - also much worse looking!). This boxiness reached its pinnacle on the late 70s Ford Granada! Along came the eighties, and the styling pendulum swung way in the other direction, as always happens when extremes are reached, (I actually believe the trend setter in this case was the Ford designer who had spent many years in Europe - I forget his name, but he designed the early 80s TBird, Taurus, Tempo, etc); voila, the jellybeans we've been suffering with for 20 years now. This styling trend drove me away, and others too. Granted, the F-body took a somewhat different road, but the end effect was the same - the roundedness drove many buyers away (sorry to those who love the F4, but the sales, and the reviews when it was introduced, back this up).

Finally, the auto companies are taking an approach that may make more sense. When you lose your way, go back to the last point you were certain you knew your direction and rethink the progression. That is exactly what is happening now, and I for one (others may disagree, to each his own) am overjoyed to think that I can finally start dreaming about a current model car and not 40 year old antiques.

American cars used to be the clear market leaders in ALL aspects of automotive excellence except handling and fuel economy. They can do this again. I now look forward to the day in the near future when I can write a check for my new Camaro! If Lutz will build it, I promise to buy it.

Doug

flowmotion

The issue with downsizing is that the American companies did a very poor job of it. For the most part, they shrunk the interiors and kept the long hoods and trunks. A car like the Olds Delta 88 went from having a gigantic back seat, to having a small back seat, to having a really uncomfortable back seat. But it was still a relatively huge car. Plus the engines were overly large and inefficient -- Honda had a 2.0 liter 4 that was only a few HP shy of GM's V8s. It took them a long time to build a midsized car that was actually midsized and not a cruel parody of a 60's boat.

The other problem was "boxifying" the cars basically destroyed GM's and Ford's brand identities. From about 1979 to 1990, all of their cars looked absolutely identical. You could even see the ill-fitted seam around the front where they "branded" the car by screwing a different grille on. It completely destroyed the illusion -- and even 15 years later the brand reputations have not recovered. Everyone knows Chevy=Pontiac=Buick -- there was no 'meaning' behind them anymore. This still has enormous repercussions for brands like Saturn and Saab.

They took the European idea of "Same Sausage, Different Sizes" and did a very hamhanded job of integrating Brand Identity and American Design cues. That's the reason the Taurus was so successful -- it looked like a modern car, not a joke version of the 1972 model.

So, everyone's right on -- American Design Heritage is a great place to re-start -- for niches like large cars (300C) or for muscle cars (Camaro/Mustang). But in terms of building a Camry or Accord competitor, the design language is still missing-in-action.

SNEAKY NEIL

Remember that the muscle cars and the designs vanished because of market forces, not because they forgot how to design cars or lost thier way. I would agree that this is true for the latter part of the century as US automakers tried to emulate other makers that were more successful. It isn't really the designs that were inferior as much as the vehicles and mechanicals themselves. I guess you can't really blame them because that is what people wanted, so it seemed. Don't forget that all these retro vehicles are comming at a time when the auto maker has hit a very low point. I don't know if I buy that the US automakers are trying to find thier design groove back in this manner, I think they are trying to conjure up feelings of good times from when the automaker was on top and to quickly sell some automobiles. Look at Ford, they for a few years, EVERYTHING they came out with was retro, right down to concept cars. They released the Mustang, T-bird, and GT when everyone was discounting Ford. Now they are trying to distance themselves from that fad and everything they put out is new. They even have a concept that is dubbed "anti retro". The Mustang isn't going to save Ford, vehicles like the Fusion are what's going to do it. It is new, good looking, a little bold, and this will gather sales and draw the attention of a large market.

The perfect example of a US automaker getting design right and in thier own manner is Cadillac. If they did retro Cadillacs, it would have been a disaster. The great thing abot Cadillac is that they took the essense of what an American car was and should be and brought it into the moment. Look at thier success. This could have been done with the Camaro and that is why I am a little disapointed in this concept.

Retro is a fad wather you like it or not. Who knows when it will die but I would imagine that the more vehicles released that are retro, the quicker the backlash will be. You know, I don't even think it would be that bad to have one retro car in the line up(only for Chevrolet), but now thins will make it at least three. Now you risk becomming what Ford was a few years ago, the "retro brand". People were wondering if they could come up with anything new or only rehash the past. It has a negative effect on the perception of the brand. You may think it is called "finding American design" but it is not, it is remembering the past and what is gone, a lot of past tense. You have to admit that the level of creativity and innovation is way down for a retro concept, because lets face it, the design is already done, you start in phase two, the refinement stage. Maybe it is a way to cut costs because the development time is reduced. Look how quickly the GT, Challenger, Mustang were produced. That is a little off topic.

Anyway, I think that Chevy needs to be careful with the number of retro cars they put out. Chevy is at the almost identicle place that Ford was a few years ago. They are in a hurt time and they bring out the Camaro instead of the Mustang. The problem is, the timing is much worse, there is more competition, and it isn't an original idea (comming out with a retro muscle car). I again would not call this finding American design, they are just putting a spotlight on the past. Americans are not about imitation and instead of imitating other automakers, they are imitating themselves (which is not as bad).

I really hope the Camaro does well, I really do. I wish it nothing but the best even if it might not be the car for me.

Dan Baldwin

Could be argued the whole "retro" thing was started with the VW New Beetle, with the Americans simply playing catchup again.

In any case, good design is good design, be it retro or neuvo, American or European or Asian. Plenty of bad examples and a few good examples in any of those slots.

I like the '94 era Mustang WAY better than the CAD-sterile current Mustang, I like the 300M's style (not its fwd, though!) WAY better than the Dick Tracy 300C/Charger, and, truth told, I like the '93-'97 Camaro's styling better than the new concept.

I do *like* the new concept, MUCH better than the Mustang or Challenger, which look rather slab-sided and refrigerator-like in comparison.

But, IMO, it is a more fitting tribute to a legend to break new ground than to try and cash in on nostalgia.