What's retro?...and why putting names from the past on new cars isn't a great idea

The term retro is used to describe almost every new car that come out that has some type of link to a past car, but it seems that what's labeled retro has gotten way out of hand, and bring back old car names is nothing but trouble.

One looks at a PT Cruizer, and it's design is from another era. Fenders, a hint of a running board and the general shape is far removed from anything on the streets today. The new Ford Thunderbird also is a throwback with it's chrome eggcrate grille, it's tapering rear profile, even it's removable hardtop with the round porthole window.

The Beetle is a little more slipery. It recalls the original, yet it's done in a completely modern way. Even though it's been around for 5 years & has become commonplace, it still looks almost futuristic. But the new Mustang is far removed from this group. It has a sharklike front end & a fastback, but what is there on the new Mustang that can honestly be called "retro"?

The side scoops have been on almost every Mustang since the begining. 350Zs have fastbacks. The car has a wide stance. It looks throughly modern. I can't pinpoint a single retro item on the car (save the rear fuel cap) that isn't on something else. Mustang looks sharp, futuristic, & agressive at the same time. But "Retro"?? :think:

Calling the new Mustang retro is like calling the F4 Camaro retro because it look like a futuristic version of a '78 Monza Spyder or a '82 Z28.

Is the C5 Retro? Point made. :rolleyes:

The other thing I want to hit, is the slippery slope of introducing car names from the past. If a name's been discontinued, maybe it should stay discontinued. Why? There will always be the diehard crowd, who will always have a beef with a new version, no matter how good it is, or what said car's history actually is, or you'll be faced with the other group who rewrites automotive history.

I came to this conclusion, not just by some things said about GTO, but by some really bizzare things comming out in other threads here, that's really baffling.

Chevelle was midsize car. Nothing more (Judging all Chevelles based on the few SS models is like judging all Focuses on the few SVT versions). Someone posted that the SS isn't worthy of the Chevelle name !!:confused:
Yea, right.

Another person mentioned bringing back the Nova name...if done correctly!! :confused: :confused: Someone else some time ago felt Chevy discraced it on a car that Toyota(!) made in the 1980s, as if Nova was some special hallowed car in Chevrolet's history. :dead:

It's really amazing how history get's twisted as time goes by.

Some of the older crowd here will remember Novas the way the younger crowd remember's Cavaliers. It was a cheap car bought by students, women, and the basic transportation crowd (my neighbor had one...she worked at my school district...and most every other Nova owner I remember was either female or near poor) Newsflash: Not every single car made prior to 1972 was a muscle car, or even fast! Most all Novas had Inline 6s, or 307 V8s. You'd smoke one in a 2003 Malibu for chrissake!! :p

Almost all Chevelles made had small V8s that are no faster than a Ford Focus....the base model. The Malibu name was never on any fast midsize Chevrolet. Until the 1994-97 version came out, Impala was a name just above Belair and Biscayne, but below Caprice & Caprice Classic in the fullsize pecking order at Chevy. There within lies the other danger on bringing back names. The car name becomes transformed into something it never was.

The current Impala is basically what Impala always was in Chevrolet, a high value family car. But after the mid-90s, that idea was over. The Impala SS of the 90s so severely broke that mold, that noone remembers how the exact same body was ridiculed for 3 years as bloated, fat..(not phat), and in cop car trim, Shamu. :eek:

I suspect the upcomming supercharged Impala SS, though possibly faster than the 90's version, will still be reamed. I wouldn't buy one, but I'll be the 1st to admit, it's a modern version of the traditional Impala SS (though I question the 4 doors......).

Are there cars that shouldn't wear a name, that GM has whored out? Sure there are. Grand Prix is one. Why is a 4 door sedan named after a 2 door personal luxury coupe named after a racetrack? The forementioned Impala SS (SSs shouldn't have 4 doors). Great car, and it's becomming a collector's item, but it did stray from what was the formula for at least 3 decades.

The original Monte Carlo SS at the very least had different look from the rest of the line, even though the engine was basically the same (don't start about the 80s SS being greatly faster than the current version.... it isn't).

Why the twisted view of history? Because the only old cars people took the time to maintain was the muscle versions.

No one is going to lovingly referbish a midline Chevelle or Nova or Impala, even though those cars made the sales of their SS versions look miniscule. Finding a mint '66 Tempest is near impossible. But finding a good performance version of this car, the GTO, is much easier, because people took care of them. Heck, there are some people who don't even know what a Tempest looks like (hint see GTO... some even had GTOs hood scoop :eek: ) even though there were once scores of them compared to Goats.

I'm guessing that's why some people feel Chevelle is a performance car name, or Nova is a name that needs to be brought back correctly.

The past is anything you want it to be, because it doesn't exist anymore. Seems in a vaccum you can create any ideal you want, regardless of fact.

And that's why maybe it's a bad idea reaching to the past to name a modern vehicle.... no matter how true to history it is.

.....figure out what it is that really sticks in my craw about these debates and I think one part of it is the "hit & miss, stop & start" use of nameplates.......especially the legendary ones.

It really comes off as whoring out names to sell a few cars based on past success........something I sincerely dread about this hiatus we are under with the Camaro. No continuation of heritage....unconnected models with no same direction or purpose....

Much less the important issues like V8, RWD, 2 door sports cars.......

What will be the "target" market for the 5th gen??

Who will it attract?

What will it cost?

Will it be instantly recognizable as a Camaro?

Will GM try to please too many in it's execution?

Will the younger people at GM (i.e. Brian Nesbitt and Franz whatshisname) be so disconnected from it's past that they flat miss the target?

Will GM tell us older Camaro enthusiasts to just get over it?

See why I'm getting loaded for bear here?! I don't trust for one second that if we just sit back it'll all be OK........some car companies could screw up a one car funeral........beat the drum long and loud I say.........

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guionM
[B]









I suspect the upcomming supercharged Impala SS, though possibly faster than the 90's version, will still be reamed. I wouldn't buy one, but I'll be the 1st to admit, it's a modern version of the traditional Impala SS (though I question the 4 doors......).

QUOTE]

It will be reamed...bigtime. The 94-96 Impala SS may have had 4 doors, but at least the V8 drove the preferred wheels, and the car had a body on frame constuction that was very true to the original (even though b.o.f may not be the best build style, it is very durable and tough) The new Wimpala is a great car....with the wrong name.(how would you guys like a fwd Camaro??)

Camaro's history is a bit more interesting & performance driven than Impala's is.

Not defending FWD (by no means!), just making a point.

Doug, I think I get you on that start-stop method GM has of bringing car names back. On that I agree 100%

Originally posted by IMPALA64
The new Wimpala is a great car....with the wrong name.(how would you guys like a fwd Camaro??)

Once again though you miss guionM's point. Impala's mission was always family transportation in a large package. The fact that the car was RWD for all those years had NOTHING to do with performance. In fact there WAS no true performance-oriented Impala until 1994!!! Today's Impala does EVERYTHING Impala always has done. Large, comfortable family transportation.

Contrast this with Camaro in that RWD is an essential part of Camaro history, because it's mission was SPORTY driving and PERFORMANCE. Comparing Impala to Camaro just because both had RWD is ludicrous!

I'm glad somebody brings this point up. Let's not forget the Impala. Only the Impala SS was ever truly fast, and the last real Impala SS was made in, what, '69? The only revival of the name was on a four-door, where the traditional SS was a coupe. But the real, basic Impala was always a bread and butter, large sedan. The current Impala carries this out quite nicely, and I still think its styling is quite smooth (John Cafaro had his hand in this, no?).

On the subject of what is retro and what is not, it is certainly an interesting question. The new Mustang--I see a whole lot of late 60's in it. I guess that isn't a bad thing if you're a big Mustang fan. Look at the front facia. Look at the back of it. The fastback style. I consider the car retro. The interesting thing about Mustang (and maybe why it has always been so popular) is that it never seems to change whole lot, with the exception of the fox body years. It's basic shape and cues are always there. I guess I'd rather have a Camaro that continues to evolve and doesn't go round-and-round styling wise. While I guess people would love different interpretations of a 1st generation Camaro over and over again starting with the 5th Gen, I'm not one of them. There's a difference between a forward-thinking car with some cues that still makes the car a Camaro and just different variations of a 1969 Z28.

I hope some of that makes sense. :D

About the name thing: I read alot of messages where people say they should make a new chevelle/nova/vega etc. Sometimes I think it's time to move on, come up with something new and exciting. Alot of people in the new generations do not feel a connection with the past (ie the muscle cars of the 60's), and want their own generation of legends. I kind of agree with that to some extent. I'd like to see chevy come up with something fresh and new, including the name, that today's youth generation can say was a part of their youth.
I don't know if I'm making much sense here, maybe I'll come up with a better way to explain what I'm trying to say some other time.

Well put and said.

I guess people only see and remember what they want to see and remember. Not many really take the time to look at the whole picture.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
In fact there WAS no true performance-oriented Impala until 1994!!!

The 1961 Impala SS WAS performance oriented. The SS option in 61 was different than the following years. ALL 1961 Impalas equipped with the Super Sport option had one of three high performance 348 engines, or the the new 409. They all had a four speed manual transmission, heavy duty springs, a factory installed tach, power steering, and power brakes.

Oh yeah, RPO Z11 in 1963 was available to the public, and it was the only car Chevrolet ever built specifically for drag racing.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Contrast this with Camaro in that RWD is an essential part of Camaro history, because it's mission was SPORTY driving and PERFORMANCE. Comparing Impala to Camaro just because both had RWD is ludicrous!

But the Camaro has always been about Sporty and affordable performance. It was based on the economical Nova chassis. It was never a true sports car, so RWD wasn't critical. It spent much of its life with less than 200HP. A low cost, FWD, sporty coupe would be true to the original. Hey, don't shoot me - I'm just playing the devils advocate here...but you can spin that argument a lot of ways...

BTW, in regards to retro -

I don't care if its retro or not - Just don't make it BORING. The only bad thing about retro is that it kinda emphasizes the point that the domestic car companies haven't had many great cars in the last 15 years or so.

Originally posted by WERM
But the Camaro has always been about Sporty and affordable performance. It was based on the economical Nova chassis. It was never a true sports car, so RWD wasn't critical......

The f-body platform was based on Chevy's big car designs....in fact it was advertised as having that big car ride....or something along those lines. The Nova got the attached sub-frame design as a spin-off of the f-body's use of it.....not the other way around.

The Camaro is / was always an answer to the Mustang...a pony car......affordable and had decent performance....sometimes extreme performance....to the point Chevy advertised it as the closest thing to a Corvette.

And YES, RWD was always critical to the Camaro!!! FWD is for econoboxes.....:rolleyes:

I agree and disagree with GuionM.

Agree, People have changed the percieved truth about what most of the Cars GM made in the past. The only Car that has ever been a true "Sports Car" has been the Corvette. Even the first Gen Camaros were built off Nova underpinings.(correct me if im wrong)

Disagree, They are GMs Trademarked names and they can use them how they please. If bringing back a old name plated that people "think" means performance and puts it on a performance car helps sell them in good numbers so we can have performance cars. Then do it. All the bickering about the GTO name just brings more awareness and free advertising to the new car. In this case any publicity is good publicty holds true. As I said before, they could call the new GTO the Crocodile Dundee special or The crazy Pigmi Mobile. Its Still A 360- 400 Hp RWD Sporty/Sports Coupe.

I would be happy if Chevy introduced a truly sporty FWD small 2 door in the meantime, but still expect to see a Camaro as RWD. There's no reason that Chevrolet should not have a performance car, and they should cash in on the sport compact market with a competent little sportster at some point very soon. They should not be without performance...

Originally posted by Evil Turbo SS
..... Even the first Gen Camaros were built off Nova underpinings....(correct me if im wrong)...

The Nova didn't get the seperate sub-frame until 1968!!! That and it was below the f-body on the GM food chain....so why in the world do you think the Nova set the platform for the f-body???

I seem to also remember Nova being at the bottom of the barrel too. If you were driving a Nova, it was a sure sign that you either were unwilling or were unable to afford more.

A Chevelle was one notch above.

That doesn't mean I don't like those cars....but that's just the way it was. For every Nova SS, I'd see a hundred Nova 4-doors with straight six or 307. You'd see about a thousand base Chevelles for every big block.

With all that said....I believe that old names can carry alot of equity. Like an inheritance...you can respect it, nurture it and make it grow.

Or, you can blow it all , like a drunken sailor.

Or you could resurrect it and really screw things up. This applies most to names which have already had their reputations killed.

Nova, Fiero, Malibu: Goodbye!

I am again with the Pres DH here. If no regard is given to a name, it won't get any, unless it is almost as good or better than what it was or is percived to be. Fact is, when most hear Chevelle or Nova, they think of high powered musclecars and don't care about the models that were V6's or whatever. When people hear the name Impala they think B-Body, they think of a full-size, V8, RWD sedan, with an available higher performance option. The current Impala is not that and shouldn't have been called it. They should have came up with something new. FWD is BS and shouldn't be used on cars that were RWD, its for use on cheap econo cars. Even F**d didn't leave RWD as much as GM did and certain markets, now they all want to bring it back because they were idiots to switch in the 1st place.

Lets be real here, the GTO should be an American car, a new design, have some ties to what it was visually, a car without a limit on production, and be more affordable. It is none of those things. It is a rushed, imported car with the name GTO on it and turned into a Pontiac. I am a believer in doing things right and to the fullest to make the best and greatest, something GM used to do. Now they've taken a great name and used it on a car that isn't a Pontiac and should not be a GTO, as said before, it should be a Monaro. The GTO and Pontiac however, are not as popular/known as Chevrolet and the Camaro is, if similar tactics are used with a 5th Gen, it will work against them, maybe on a Chevelle too or any other name they decide to bring back. I feel the GTO being what it is, is working against them because every1 I talk to away from the boards doesn't like the idea, and you always get 1 of these :rolleyes:, or "GM is stupid," or "cars today just aren't done right," and to be honest, if I was working on these kinds of cars or any cars and heard alot of people say those things, (they wouldn't cause I'd do things right) I would want to improve and change things completly so people would say different and have high regard for what I was doing because it means that much to me, its called passion. I just don't think they have it enough or care that much, and that needs to change. All we get are lousy decisions, excuses, non-spectacular cars, and vehicles that are about nothing but money and not the car or what the buyer really wants.

Originally posted by IZ28
Fact is, when most hear Chevelle or Nova, they think of high powered musclecars and don't care about the models that were V6's or whatever..

That's probably true. But let's not forget one all important fact.

For the thousands of high powered muscle cars that everyone thinks of today.....millions of plain jane 4 doors rolled off the assembly line to make them possible.

Originally posted by IZ28
I am a believer in doing things right and to the fullest to make the best and greatest, something GM used to do.

Like when? Over the past 20 years, the best thing GM has been able to do is bleed money like they've just had their throat cut ...

I think a lot of people have some seriously thick Rose coloured glasses on at the moment ...

Originally posted by IZ28
I feel the GTO being what it is, is working against them because every1 I talk to away from the boards doesn't like the idea, and you always get 1 of these :rolleyes:, or "GM is stupid," or "cars today just aren't done right," and to be honest, if I was working on these kinds of cars or any cars and heard alot of people say those things, (they wouldn't cause I'd do things right)

Do all of your friends think the 3rd gen is the best looking Camaro, too?

:)

GM forgot how to make a RWD car. They're still making badass RWD LS1's in Australia, so GM imported one, rather than waiting 5 years to design a new one.

There will always be the closed minded types who hate the car because it's not American, or whatever random nitpicky reason, but for every closed minded guy who's too old school for his own good, there are 5 who are glad to see RWD performance back at GM, with at least some semblance of affordability.

Every "boo hoo, they're ruining the GTO name by making a high powered Pontiac sedan out of it" whiner has several other "Hey, a new GTO with more HP than most every car out but the Cobra and Corvette? Cool!" guys right behind him.

"Not agressive enough, needs more hood scoops and tachs and spoilers, the only GTO I remember is the one I saw in Dazed and Confused" doesn't really get much attention anymore, it's the same old tired record.

The way I see it, the difference between "legendary" names of a bygone era and "legendary" names today is: RWD performance potentials vs FWD dead ends. Whan I mean is that when you think about those 60s-70s cars, even the dinky little 6cyl's, you think "Oh man, the things I could with to that car!". The things you COULD do. If you so chose. You could mod the hell out of it and make yourself a street killer. It has the basic setup inherently built into it. The potential is the same, whether an original SS or an original 6cyl stripper. Not so today. I don't care if a Focus can outrun those old cars. Does anyone feel real passion for a Focus, Neon, et al that look like imports and have "Domestic Rice" written all over them? I know I could never feel that. Style and chassis have no relation in this. I don't feel the passion for FWD Cadillac Eldorados, regardless of how gorgeous they are. Those old RWD cars, ALL of them, not just the performance models and the SS models, it's like they're soldiers on a field, like beasts waiting to come out of hibernation. Those are the cars of preference for most of us on here. I would get tons more automotive satisfaction driving a bone stock I-6 60s car with zero power options than I would any fully loaded 90s+ FWD safetymobile. I mean RWD is the main common denominator we are MISSING today, the minimal requirement. At least give us THAT. Please. Give us the potential to build on it ourselves by spending our own money to make it a beast if we choose to, at or beyond factory specs.

Every time you turn around there's a new music video or a new movie where they're sliding around and crashing and burning one of those old cars like it doesn't mean a thing. They'll use a classic Nova but never an 87 Nova.. They'll put an old Malibu through its paces but never a modern Malibu. Honkin' Grandvilles and land yacht Fleetwoods get killed for entertainment, but never an 80s Grand Am or Cavalier, for examples. Why is that? It's for the wow factor.. it's like "hey there's a respectable heavy old RWD mean machine hunk of steel getting its balls handed to it in a blaze of glory.. yeeeeah.. now I feel like a tough guy and I'm bored and I have no attention span and this show sucks.. what else is there to do?". Well there's nothing "mean machine" about today's cars regardless of their speed. They don't garner nearly as much respect out of the box, they have NO mysticism about them, and there's no legend potential about them. When I see those original cars from way back when, I automatically feel a sense of awe, like that car was built to serve a purpose, and there it is, loyally still serving its purpose and looking damn good doing it. Like it's got a face it's looking back at you with, and deserves respect. Most of you even like the decidedly modern 90s Impala SS that's slower than so many 2002 cars. Why do we get along with the "Whale Body" so well and seek it out? Inherent RWD potential, that's why. RWD to FWD is like a tiger to a cat. If a 1970 Chevelle LS6 was somehow turned into a FWD with the same motor, then fully restored to sparkling brand new condition, I'm sure most of us on here would feel uneasy about ever wanting to own it. I can't see how anyone wants to take a modern FWD junkcar and baby it and store it in the garage and hand it down to their kids. WTF. I just don't see how that can be done genuinely. I think that's a major difference between then and now. RWD vs FWD. Styling is a whole 'nother issue, but at least give is the right underpinnings to work with. We need RWD econoboxes. I'll take a Chevette over a Z24 Cavalier.

Just MHO, GT

Originally posted by MunchE
Do all of your friends think the 3rd gen is the best looking Camaro, too? :)

Yeah dude, :rolleyes:. I'm talking not only friends but any1, people that own all kinds of cars, at car shows, anywhere, etc., any1 I get to discuss cars with.

GM forgot how to make a RWD car. They're still making badass RWD LS1's in Australia, so GM imported one, rather than waiting 5 years to design a new one.[/B]

Yes, but they should have thought of that ahead of time, again lousy business decisions.

There will always be the closed minded types who hate the car because it's not American, or whatever random nitpicky reason, but for every closed minded guy who's too old school for his own good, there are 5 who are glad to see RWD performance back at GM, with at least some semblance of affordability.[/B]

Don't get me wrong I'm glad alright, but I would've liked to see it done differently/the way it should have been.

Originally posted by kizz
The way I see it, the difference between "legendary" names of a bygone era and "legendary" names today is: RWD performance potentials vs FWD dead ends. Whan I mean is that when you think about those 60s-70s cars, even the dinky little 6cyl's, you think "Oh man, the things I could with to that car!". The things you COULD do. If you so chose. You could mod the hell out of it and make yourself a street killer. It has the basic setup inherently built into it. The potential is the same, whether an original SS or an original 6cyl stripper. Not so today. I don't care if a Focus can outrun those old cars. Does anyone feel real passion for a Focus, Neon, et al that look like imports and have "Domestic Rice" written all over them? I know I could never feel that. Style and chassis have no relation in this. I don't feel the passion for FWD Cadillac Eldorados, regardless of how gorgeous they are. Those old RWD cars, ALL of them, not just the performance models and the SS models, it's like they're soldiers on a field, like beasts waiting to come out of hibernation. Those are the cars of preference for most of us on here. I would get tons more automotive satisfaction driving a bone stock I-6 60s car with zero power options than I would any fully loaded 90s+ FWD safetymobile. I mean RWD is the main common denominator we are MISSING today, the minimal requirement. At least give us THAT. Please. Give us the potential to build on it ourselves by spending our own money to make it a beast if we choose to, at or beyond factory specs.

Every time you turn around there's a new music video or a new movie where they're sliding around and crashing and burning one of those old cars like it doesn't mean a thing. They'll use a classic Nova but never an 87 Nova.. They'll put an old Malibu through its paces but never a modern Malibu. Honkin' Grandvilles and land yacht Fleetwoods get killed for entertainment, but never an 80s Grand Am or Cavalier, for examples. Why is that? It's for the wow factor.. it's like "hey there's a respectable heavy old RWD mean machine hunk of steel getting its balls handed to it in a blaze of glory.. yeeeeah.. now I feel like a tough guy and I'm bored and I have no attention span and this show sucks.. what else is there to do?". Well there's nothing "mean machine" about today's cars regardless of their speed. They don't garner nearly as much respect out of the box, they have NO mysticism about them, and there's no legend potential about them. When I see those original cars from way back when, I automatically feel a sense of awe, like that car was built to serve a purpose, and there it is, loyally still serving its purpose and looking damn good doing it. Like it's got a face it's looking back at you with, and deserves respect. Most of you even like the decidedly modern 90s Impala SS that's slower than so many 2002 cars. Why do we get along with the "Whale Body" so well and seek it out? Inherent RWD potential, that's why. RWD to FWD is like a tiger to a cat. If a 1970 Chevelle LS6 was somehow turned into a FWD with the same motor, then fully restored to sparkling brand new condition, I'm sure most of us on here would feel uneasy about ever wanting to own it. I can't see how anyone wants to take a modern FWD junkcar and baby it and store it in the garage and hand it down to their kids. WTF. I just don't see how that can be done genuinely. I think that's a major difference between then and now. RWD vs FWD. Styling is a whole 'nother issue, but at least give is the right underpinnings to work with. We need RWD econoboxes. I'll take a Chevette over a Z24 Cavalier.

Just MHO, GT i agree with everything exept the part about the videos thing,i think they drive old cars in them it's because they like them as much as us.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
On the subject of what is retro and what is not, it is certainly an interesting question. The new Mustang--I see a whole lot of late 60's in it. I guess that isn't a bad thing if you're a big Mustang fan. Look at the front facia. Look at the back of it. The fastback style. I consider the car retro. The interesting thing about Mustang (and maybe why it has always been so popular) is that it never seems to change whole lot, with the exception of the fox body years. It's basic shape and cues are always there.

Z28Wilson, nice post... well written and clear. I see your side, and I can't pose a counter-point to what you say there. All I can offer is that I -personally- see a lot of cues and links to the 1st gen Mustang too, but I also see LOTS that is totally new and never before done. General detail, specific lines and creases, flow lines, belt line, wheels, exhaust, interior(?!?!), materials, engine, drivetrain, etc, etc. I don't dee it as "retro". Well-linked to it's past for sure, but not "retro". I think judging what we see as retro or not is a subjective thing - it's based on personal taste, not some equations or rules. That's where we have differing opinions - and I think that's OK.

So, aside from that, I am totally with you on the rest. Maybe links to it's past IS why it remains popular. As I said in another post, you can add a little, or change a little from time to time, but don't stray from the recipe that sells. I'm SURE this car has been seen and judged by MANY PEOPLE as it has gone from concept sketches to prototyping, and I doubt seriously if Ford would have approved it if it didn't get overwhelming acceptance from the focus groups - both Mustang-loyal groups(like clubs, etc) AND the general public groups that are "randomly selected". It's OK for a few of us to "not like it" or not like "something about it", nobody can win 'em all, but I'm betting the majority of the public with real $ to spend will "approve" of it enought to buy it.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
I guess I'd rather have a Camaro that continues to evolve and doesn't go round-and-round styling wise. While I guess people would love different interpretations of a 1st generation Camaro over and over again starting with the 5th Gen, I'm not one of them. There's a difference between a forward-thinking car with some cues that still makes the car a Camaro and just different variations of a 1969 Z28.

I hope some of that makes sense. :D
But if Camaro "evolves and changes", would it still BE CAMARO? I mean, if it loses the iconic traits or spirit that we identify with that car/body, should it really have the same name? This is gross example, but I could have easily called a '73 Maverick a Mustang because it had a 302 V8, RWD, 2-door, economically priced, similar sized car that shared many peices with the Mustang (i.e. the general formula for a pony car), but it didn't have the running horse emblems, long hood/shortdeck ratio, side scoops, etc. like a MUSTANG ALWAYS HAD. Was Monza V8 a Camaro? Could it ever be? Not in my eyes... but that doesn't take anything away from each car being "special" in it's own way.

I think the guys that desire to see Camaro continue to change and evolve would really be happier just seeing "new" cars developed; remembering the Camaro for what it was, but loving the new car for what it is.
This is such a goofy example, but it's like me changing my name...
I was named at birth, and that's who I'm gonna be throughout my whole life. Sure, I'll change... I'll get older, my hair will turn gray (or fall out! :eek: ), I may get a little shorter, less muscular and less attractive(not that I ever was), hopefully a little smarter and wiser, and so on. BUT, I will ALWAYS be a white male, with hazel eyes, tall and slim, with a dimple or two, some freckles, my voice will be the same, my ears the same shape, my head the same shape, my arms the same length, and my passions the same (hopefully). So for me to suddenly become a black man, or a Chinese woman, would create chaos to those who have known and loved me all my life, and called me by name... they just wouldn't recognize me by that name anymore.
Likewise, if I physically stayed totally the same, but changed my name, now look at the confusion! Everyone that knew me would still call me by my old name - because they recognize me from my traits - but I would not respond to that name anymore. It would be crazy.

I think car model names should be treated similarly as people's names are - give it one at birth, associate characteristics with it, and leave it that way. If the formula doesn't work out, let it die gracefully - don't try to change a white male into a black female and keep the same name, or let an old model die then bring it back again as something new with the same old name. Likewise, if the model withstands the test of time and it's traits and characteristics prove themselves "timeless", then leave them there and leave the name with them, but let it age and evolve.

This is making my head hurt! It's a hard thing to explain.
I think guionM was on the right track in his initial post. Most of us are in general agreement too I think, but there are gonna be subtle differences between our thoughts and desires - that's what makes us individuals, and variety is a good thing.

I think all four generations of Camaro and Firebird have been true to the Camaro name... they have been their time's interpritation of the Camaro (or Firebird) , while taking it into a new era.... yet all were unmistakably Camaro/Firebird, without resorting to recycled styling.

If you want to know what I think the most eratic moniker of all time has been... it's Thunderbird.

Think about Thunderbird... what it started as... all the things it became over it's life, and what it is back to now... It's just all over the place. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by IZ28
.....Fact is, when most hear Chevelle or Nova, they think of high powered musclecars and don't care about the models that were V6's or whatever. When people hear the name Impala they think B-Body, they think a a full-size, V8, RWD sedan, with an available higher performance option. The current Impala is not that and shouldn't have been called it. They should have came up with something new. FWD is BS and shouldn't be used on cars that were RWD, its for use on cheap econo cars.....

Lets be real here, the GTO should be an American car, a new design, have some ties to what it was visually, a car without a limit on production, and be more affordable. It is none of those things. It is a rushed, imported car with the name GTO on it and turned into a Pontiac. I am a believer in doing things right and to the fullest to make the best and greatest, something GM used to do. Now they've taken a great name and used it on a car that isn't a Pontiac and should not be a GTO, as said before, it should be a Monaro...

...if similar tactics are used with a 5th Gen, it will work against them, maybe on a Chevelle too or any other name they decide to bring back. I feel the GTO being what it is, is working against them because every1 I talk to away from the boards doesn't like the idea, and you always get 1 of these :rolleyes:, or "GM is stupid," or "cars today just aren't done right...

...All we get are lousy decisions, excuses, non-spectacular cars, and vehicles that are about nothing but money and not the car or the what the buyer really wants.

I have never in my life seen a post that serves as so clear of an example of something I've ever written.

This post demonstrates pretty much every point I made at the begining of this thread about the perils of reserrecting a car name from the past, and how history is anything one wants it to be, regardless as to what history was... in reality.

I'm not going to say anything else beyond my point's been proven beyond all doubt. ;) :D

....percieved reality. ;)

I would ask......why bring back a name that has been mothballed, unless the intent was to recall something from the past models that made them legendary......and want to use that to simply sell the new model?

The danger in this is if you do it half-@$$ed you'll be lambasted.....and rightfully so.

Some would ask, if it failed the 1st time, why bring it back??

In every situation there are variables........

In the case of the Camaro.......it's mission has always been an answer to the Mustang and one-upmanship in the horsepower wars. The 6 banger versions only existed to increase sales to allow for the high performance versions. There were only the hardtop and convertible 2 door models to choose from....a pony / sports car for sure. Kinda' like building a legend from the top down.

The Impala was the family sedan....it was given the performance SS editions in part because there weren't any other platforms available in the early 60's. But it's mission was good basic transportation. It was available in many configurations, 2 door, 4 door, convertibles & station wagons. If I'm not mistaken, the Bel Air was actually an upgrade from the Impala. Built from the bottom up.

The Nova was also a car built from the bottom up, so to speak. Also available in multiple configurations. A V8 was a real tight fit in the early models.....even required a different block casting to fit the oil filter. Chevy's small car of the day....not discounting the Corvair of course.

The Chevelle was also available in 2 door, 4 door, convertible and station wagon configurations...truly a good mid-sized car.

Both the Nova and the Chevelle shared in the horsepower wars and some true legends were built off these platforms....but you could not say this was their true mission.

Cars like the Lemans, Tempest, Grand Prix, Monte Carlo had certian niches carved out for themselves...mostly personal luxury sedans.

The SS moniker has always been an add-on performance designation to nearly every Chevrolet...... you just could never be sure what car someone is refering to if they said they had an SS.......

But certian option codes and performance models made their own legends.....i.e. the GTO and in a similar fashion the Z/28....both were eventually known by those names alone.

I don't believe there is any doubt as to what the mission is / was for these cars......and I also know that anyone you ask will also know what these cars represent. The Beach Boys didn't write songs about the Catalina or Vega...LOL!

Things get real foggy as time goes by and it doesn't help when car companies slap nameplates on cars at will.....with no reason other than hoping some familiarity will lead to additional sales.

Originally posted by Doug Harden
The Beach Boys didn't write songs about the Catalina or Vega...LOL!

Things get real foggy as time goes by

Just wanted to mention that "Little GTO" was never a Beach Boys song, it was by Ronnie and the Daytonas. ;) http://www.gto.vg/default.html

For people interested in car songs in general, this is an awesome link: http://cartalk.cars.com/Radio/Music/song-index.html

Yup Guion and DH, I gotta agree with you guys. Don't bring back a name if its not gonna be what people think it should be. I know RP thinks this way. He has stated time and again how he has no desire at all to make a new Camaro that is not really a Camaro and use the name on something that isn't true to what it is or what it's percieved to be.

Originally posted by kizz
Just wanted to mention that "Little GTO" was never a Beach Boys song, it was by Ronnie and the Daytonas. ;) http://www.gto.vg/default.html

For people interested in car songs in general, this is an awesome link: http://cartalk.cars.com/Radio/Music/song-index.html

......that I'm a Bluegrass musician? I feel like such a dope....LOL!!

BTW, thanks for the link!;)

What's really hilarious is that in the late 50's there was a band named Doug Harden & the Desert Suns that had their one big hit "Dig That Ford".....LOL!!!!

That's awesome, I had no idea you were into that. Whenever I get a chance to listen to bluegrass, that's some awesome stuff.. sincere, unpretentious, heartfelt. Especially older vintage. There had to be something for us to agree on, after the whole GTO thing which I generally disagree with you on ;) That show "Car Talk" is on every weekend. It varies by location, but usually on NPR on Saturdays, 1 hour long, and they use 1 or 2 of those songs between their segments. if I could find even 10% of those songs on that page I'd be happy. About the show itself; funny car conversation, cool car songs. Well worth checking out!
TTYL, GT

Originally posted by MunchE

GM forgot how to make a RWD car. They're still making badass RWD LS1's in Australia, so GM imported one, rather than waiting 5 years to design a new one.

There will always be the closed minded types who hate the car because it's not American, or whatever random nitpicky reason, but for every closed minded guy who's too old school for his own good, there are 5 who are glad to see RWD performance back at GM, with at least some semblance of affordability.

Every "boo hoo, they're ruining the GTO name by making a high powered Pontiac sedan out of it" whiner has several other "Hey, a new GTO with more HP than most every car out but the Cobra and Corvette? Cool!" guys right behind him.

"Not agressive enough, needs more hood scoops and tachs and spoilers, the only GTO I remember is the one I saw in Dazed and Confused" doesn't really get much attention anymore, it's the same old tired record.

Hi THere! I'm close-minded and nit-picky. Who starred in "Dazed and Confused"? And I liked records... when that was all you could get before 8-tracks and cassettes came out!

Just a theoretical question for you regarding your feelings about the new GTO... Forget past names for a second... new models only...

IF there was a 2004 Camaro with LS1 or LS6, M6 or A5, IRS and some other "neat goodies available for $25-35K, and
IF there was a 2004 Trans Am with LS1 or LS6, M6 or A5, IRS and some other "neat goodies available for $25-30K, and
IF there was a RWD 2004 Monte Carlo SS with LS1, M6 or A5, leather, HUD, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $25K, and
IF there was a RWD 2004 Impy SS with an LS1, M6 or A5, leather, HUD, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $25K, and
IF there was a RWD 2004 Grand Prix GT with an LS1, M6 or A5, leather, HUD, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $25K, and
IF there was a RWD 2004 Buick Regal GN with a TT-I6 or V6, M6 or A5, leather, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $30K, and
IF there was a 2004 Olds Cutlass 442 with an LS1, M6 or A5, leather, HUD, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $25K,
etc. etc. ...

What would YOU buy?
How do you think a $35k 2004 GTO from Oz would sell then? 18K of them against +100k units of the others? Profitability? Popularity?

My point here is this - I wholly agree that the GTO will sell out given current conditions and offerings from the General, but if a car sells out because it is the only thing available in that class - it hasn't really EARNED anything. If it sells out amidst worthy competition and peer-offerings, THEN IT HAS DONE SOMETHING SPECIAL. That is what happened with the Z/28, GTO, Trans Ams, Mach 1s, and many other back in the '60s and '70's - they had same-class-competition, and lots of it. The one's that didn't have the goods died quick, like Javelin and Charger. The better cars lasted longer, and the best (Camaro, Firebird, and Mustang) made it all the way until 2002 on their merits, while 'Cudas, 240ZX, 300Z, RX7, Supra, Challengers, Impulse, Torino, Cougar, and oodles of others strayed, varied, and/or died.

Don't y'all get emotional when you hear those names like Trans Am, Z/28, etc.? Do you only see futuristic models ahead? Don't you see any historical relation or value of these cars at all? :confused:
I get the feeling guys like this didn't do well in History in school, and don't garner much respect for their own grandparents or senior citizens because they are "old". After all, for every 1 old-dude, there must be 5 young dudes in the world! :rolleyes:

In my opinion, naming this new car a GTO has already done more harm than good... it has
1) Created a debate between "old-timers" :rolleyes: and the young crowd over what the car should be/used to be.
2) Done a dis-service to the designers of the wonderful Monero by forcing them to re-design it into something they didn't originally want it to be (or it would have looked that way to start with:alert: )
3) Drawn attention to GM's need to "RUSH" something into the marketplace - Camaro replacement or not - somebody dropped the ball and this is a band-aid solution.

ALSO in my opinion, the introduction of this CAR into our domestic market could have been brilliantly done if it had been called the Pontiac Monaro, giving...
1) The new car a new chance to make a new reputation all it's own.
2) The designers/builders the satisfaction of seeing their original efforts go global - endorsing their quality "as-is", not "Americanized".
3) GM a chance to tout "a new level of refinement and power for the US buyer" instead of "our rush-job, stop-gap, GTO from somebody else".

Like it or not, naming this car HAS alienated some of the most LOYAL GM SUPPORTERS... was it really worth it to draw a little media attention? As loyal supporters, they deserve to have their thoughts heard and acknowledged more than anybody, but they feel shafted. Anybody heard from GOATCRAZY on this board in a while?

At least Nissan had the intelligence to see that people would want the "old" 300Z back again if they called the new car by that name. Instead, they maintained associativity with the Z-family of cars for recognition, but digressed to the new 350Z name, allowing it to stand or fall on it's own, but not take the 200, 240, and 300Z cars of the past down with it if it flops. NOBLE CONCEPT, EH? :rolleyes:

And like others have said recently... beware your beloved Camaro name... it too is now on the auction block at GM. I beleive RP will do everything possible to prevent an injustice in using that name, because he feels that magical "passion" in the name. But if the bean-counters and steering committees and board members WANT to name a hydrogen-fuelled electric hybrid scooter a CAMARO because it is quick, small and sleek, sporty-looking 2-door, economically priced, and "peppy", RP can't stop them alone - he is only 1 guy on a BIG ship. Again, what traits defined a Camaro in the marketplace??? Sounds like a close-enough match to me. :(

Hypothetical food for hypnothetical thought.
Proud.

Originally posted by ProudPony

Just a theoretical question for you regarding your feelings about the new GTO... Forget past names for a second... new models only...

IF there was a 2004 Camaro with LS1 or LS6, M6 or A5, IRS and some other "neat goodies available for $25-35K, and
IF there was a 2004 Trans Am with LS1 or LS6, M6 or A5, IRS and some other "neat goodies available for $25-30K, and
IF there was a RWD 2004 Monte Carlo SS with LS1, M6 or A5, leather, HUD, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $25K, and
IF there was a RWD 2004 Impy SS with an LS1, M6 or A5, leather, HUD, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $25K, and
IF there was a RWD 2004 Grand Prix GT with an LS1, M6 or A5, leather, HUD, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $25K, and
IF there was a RWD 2004 Buick Regal GN with a TT-I6 or V6, M6 or A5, leather, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $30K, and
IF there was a 2004 Olds Cutlass 442 with an LS1, M6 or A5, leather, HUD, GPS, and some other goodies for @ $25K,
etc. etc. ...

What would YOU buy?
How do you think a $35k 2004 GTO from Oz would sell then? 18K of them against +100k units of the others? Profitability? Popularity?

My point here is this - I wholly agree that the GTO will sell out given current conditions and offerings from the General, but if a car sells out because it is the only thing available in that class - it hasn't really EARNED anything. If it sells out amidst worthy competition and peer-offerings, THEN IT HAS DONE SOMETHING SPECIAL.

I see what you are saying, but take a look at your list of potential competitirs... every single one of them are from GM...

In that regard, while I am all for choices, there are virtually NO competitors from outside sources (IE. Ford, Chrysler, etc...) so, why should GM compete with itself when they can sell out their production of GTO's anyway?

(That being said, I am all for seeing some of those cars you proposed... :D )

Originally posted by kizz
That's awesome, I had no idea you were into that. Whenever I get a chance to listen to bluegrass, that's some awesome stuff.. sincere, unpretentious, heartfelt. Especially older vintage. There had to be something for us to agree on, after the whole GTO thing which I generally disagree with you on ;) That show "Car Talk" is on every weekend. It varies by location, but usually on NPR on Saturdays, 1 hour long, and they use 1 or 2 of those songs between their segments. if I could find even 10% of those songs on that page I'd be happy. About the show itself; funny car conversation, cool car songs. Well worth checking out!
TTYL, GT

kizz and DH,
This is SOOO off-topic, but you guys both need to check-out a group named Nickel Creek (http://www.nickelcreek.com/listen.htm). They are a young trio (each is @ 20) and bring a new sound and vibrance to bluegrass with old instruments... their music is GREAT!
They are doing to bluegrass like we've been talking about "new flair" in an old car - Like the "retro Mustang" vs "non-retro GTO".

Sorry it's off-topic, I'll say no more!

Originally posted by Darth Xed
I see what you are saying, but take a look at your list of potential competitirs... every single one of them are from GM...

In that regard, while I am all for choices, there are virtually NO competitors from outside sources (IE. Ford, Chrysler, etc...) so, why should GM compete with itself when they can sell out their production of GTO's anyway?

(That being said, I am all for seeing some of those cars you proposed... :D )

EXACTLY. I wanted to use an all GM lineup.
The question is this...
If given a choice of performance cars from GM, would the buyer go for the GTO the same way as they do now - with NO other choices from GM (Save the Vette, of course.)?

I think lots of guys just see the car, regardless of it's name, and that's OK for them. But don't trod or begrudge on those who feel a passion associated with names.

BTW, there were also some serious in-house competitiors for the T/a and Z/28 through the years too, like the Chevelle 396, Nova SS cars, etc. They may not have been quite as well known, ut there were fast alternatives to the F-bods on the same showroom floor! ;)

Originally posted by ProudPony

At least Nissan had the intelligence to see that people would want the "old" 300Z back again if they called the new car by that name. Instead, they maintained associativity with the Z-family of cars for recognition, but digressed to the new 350Z name, allowing it to stand or fall on it's own, but not take the 200, 240, and 300Z cars of the past down with it if it flops. NOBLE CONCEPT, EH? :rolleyes:


They're not as noble as you think...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 240, 260, 280 and 300ZX have to do with engine sizes of 2.4, 2.6, 2.8 and 3.0 litres? Doesn't the 350Z have a 3.5L V6?

Ah, who cares - its ugly!

Originally posted by Doug Harden
[B]..... If I'm not mistaken, the Bel Air was actually an upgrade from the Impala.

The Bel Air was the top of the line only until 1957. The Impala was the top of the line model from 58 until late 65...then the Caprice was added as the top model.(4 door only in 65):)

Originally posted by WERM
They're not as noble as you think...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 240, 260, 280 and 300ZX have to do with engine sizes of 2.4, 2.6, 2.8 and 3.0 litres? Doesn't the 350Z have a 3.5L V6?

Ah, who cares - its ugly!

Yes, I think you are correct about the engines, but my point wasn't the peformance level or the engine size, but the NAMING of the car. If Nissan had called it a 300Z or 300ZX, everybody would be thinkg about the old one that was dropped, and expecting it to "come back" in similar form. I think they were wise to link it to the Z-family of cars for history-sake and recognition, but giving it a NEW name to stand or fall on it's own merits.

Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by IZ28
Yup Guion and DH, I gotta agree with you guys. Don't bring back a name if its not gonna be what people think it should be. I know RP thinks this way. He has stated time and again how he has no desire at all to make a new Camaro that is not really a Camaro and use the name on something that isn't true to what it is or what it's percieved to be. Just remember what they did with "NOVA" in the 90s.:barf: