The use of circular tail lights, large analog gauges and so on is not retro design. You can see the difference between designs like the Challenger, Mustang, T-bird, etc. and the abstract and basic design themes of the things you mentioned.

If a new car design is released and you can immediatly pinpoint where in the past that design design came from(year, make, model), then it is retro and too much so at that.

 

I would actually call that a smart design. In an industry thats overcrowded, it makes sense to have a car that instantly recognizable for what it is. When someone sees a new Stang they know instantly what it is, and that is exactly what you need to survive in todays marketplace.

I would agree that Retro can be a gimmick but when the recipe is done right it will sell alot of cars and at the end of the day that what car companies are all about.

As Americans we are told to respect everyones culture, but our own. Somewhere down the road we as Americans need to except that we as well have our own unique culture and particular design elements in cars are symbols of Americana and are permanent elements of our culture.

 

You can have it both ways, and that is what some people don't understand.
You can have a design that is new, groundbreaking, and is easily recognizable as that vehicle. It does take more effort and imagination but the result could be a real classic.

People know instantly that the previous generation Camaro and Mustang were camaros and Mustangs but they didn't have to be copies of past designs.

It would definatly be wrong to have a car like these and not have them be recognizable as the vehivles they are, but you don't have to copy a past design to do so.

 

I agree, but why would you make an updated version of a car that was on a sales decline or had little cultural regonition? Wouldn't make more sense to make an updated and modern interpetation of an American Legend that has a huge fan base and is easily recognized be even the most Auto-illiterate?

 

No one said the car had to look just like a 4th gen or even show direct liniage. The car was on a sales decline for many reasons and it wasn't because of what the car looked like as we know.

The most auto-illeterate have NO idea what a 1st gen looks like so that argument doesn't really hold water. It seems if anything, it could be mistaken for a Mustang.

I think what would have made the most sense would be to make the Camaro have a new, exciting, modern design in and out with modern mechanicals to quiet the people who will always say the Camaro is stuck in the past. A retro design will not help this. With an exciting new design, Chevy could say that this is the Camaro of the future, and a car that is ready to battle any and all opponents. Now with a retro muscle car from each of the big three, it only seems to make sense to compare them to each other and not modern vehicles from other auto makers. The Camaro will be lost in the pack and will not have the opportunity to really shine unless it is far and away the best of the bunch.

 

Not nessesarily. Look at the '84 T-bird. I've read in a couple of history books the previous gen 'Bird wasn't setting sales records and actually (IIRC) saw declining sales it last two or three years. Then in '84 (maybe '83?) the aero 'Bird comes out and it's a huge success through the rest of the decade.

Additionally, IMO, constantly bringing fresh new products to market develops a very positive reputation and image in the makretplace in general. Take Apple for instance. Apple had been losing it's already small piece f the market through the '90s until the iMacs and G4 towers arrrived. Their sales turned around big time. Then they released the Cube which was a commercial bomb. Even after that misfire, Apple still generated alot of buzz with the iPod and new iMac.

As for the arguement of recognizing Amercian culture in retro design, I personally don't subscibe to it. If American culture is about brazen innovation, risk taking, and courage, IMO your not celebrating that by bringing out a new product that looks like it's 20-30-40 year old ancenstor.

 

Ironically, a 2005 Apple ipod wouldn't look out of place inside a 1957 Bel-Air.

What you guys are missing is that good styling like a beautiful women is good anytime. Simplicity will always always survive the test of time.


Often current or even modern design 'trends 'are backed up by huge multi-million dollar budgets and as soon as those marketing budgets begin to dry up (or the car becomes seen everyday) people lose interest.

Its those particular designs that catch peoples imagination for one reason or another and are worthy to be reinterpeted.

While the new batch of Lexus vehicles are attractive modern-designs none of them appeal to me even though they are all great cars in their own right. The auto industry to too large and too competive to make a cars that suits everybodies taste and its better to create niche designs that appeal strongly to a smaller segment.

"Emotion" is a huge selling point. There's a saying: "People's wallets are closer to their heart than their brains". If you can affect people emotionally you are more likely to be able to sell them and unfortunately many (not all) modern-2005-designs often lack that certain something that stimulates emotion in alot people (other than huge HP numbers) and the car becomes nothing more then a boring appliance.

What car (below a $100,000) that's being produced today do you find the most attactive?

 

Sure some might confuse a 1969 Camaro with a 1969 Mustang, but they know what a 1969 muscle/pony symbolizes. It symbolizes speed, freedom, Americana, and those who couldnt afford one back then or if they were just a kid its their chance to attain their dream (attaining your dream is what Americas all about).

While I agreee nothing beats the genuine article, but alot people can't afford a weekend car (especially a top quality 1969 Stang or Camaro), and want a new daily driver that evokes some emotion.

What car (below a $100,000) that's being produced today do you find the most attactive?

 

If a great depression hits in the next decade like predicted (baby boomers retiring, stock markets today are still 1929 levels of over valuation) and China over takes the USA as the worlds #1 economic power in the 2020's then the US will be fighting to get to the top once again like they were in the 1950's and we will have an all new space race to get to Mars and the moon again. We need a challenge like we had in the 40's 50's & 60's. Modern Americans are too complacent, we are too used to being at the top and take too much for granted (just look at the work ethic of most middle class teens). Most non-1st generation Americans today don't have the drive that Americans from the 50's had.

Maybe people in 2030 will have the optimistism of those in the 50's

 

Do young people really know this? Certainly people who grew up during the time know this but does the average young person know this or care? Muscle car to them means something different. With the word "muscle car" thrown around so much in relation to today's ricers, who knows what the average person believes is a muscle car.

Also, do the people who grew up on muscle cars really want one of these? Maybe they do, I don't know but if they can now afford a Z28, GT500, SRT vehicle (~40k+), then they can probably afford to get the real thing and would probably be more happy with it because it is the actual car they wanted and grew up with.

 

Corvette.

I love everything about it.

The design aesthetic I like the most are the Cadillac designs, especially the V-Series.

 

I like the new Vette and v-series CTS as well. I just think the auto industry is large enough to deploy different design-themes (some Retro and some modern) in order to meet the desires and needs of different customers.

Some of my favorite cars in production right now are the Mini Cooper, Solstice (the Saturn Sky to but it's not offically out yet), Lotus Elise, and Chrysler 300. I have to admit that I didn't care for the new Stang at first but after seeing more on the road it has grown on me significantly ( I have always been more of a Camaro guy then a Stang guy). While the new Stangs interior in up-level trim packages is very attactive it is absolutely awful in its base black-plastic form.

 

Hear, hear.

 

I've heard this arguement too, and I guess I can't really argue against it on an objective level, only a perosnal subjective level. Is buying a '05 Mustang really fullfilling your dream (not you personally) of owning a classic car? To me it's not. It again like listing to a cover band, although at over $20K, to me it's more like paying $2000 for a knock off Rolex from a Taiwanese street hustler.

To each their I suppose......

RX-7
Corvette
CLS500

 

I was born in 1971 and I do. I had an 1990 Mitsubishi eclipes before my 1994 Z28 Camaro and even though I sold my Camaro over a year ago and bought a 2003 Saturn Ion Quad Coupe (daily driver) and a 2004 New Mini Cooper (fun car) to replace it, I plan on buying a new Camaro in 2010 (if it looks anything like the leaked pic).


Alot of those babyboomer who were old enough to truly remember the 1969 Stangs and Camaros are in their peak earning years and can afford to buy a loaded 2005 Stang and a loaded 2009 Camaro and pay the insurance premiums. While these people can afford a new BMW, Mercedes, and Caddy they want a new Stang or even a new 2009 Camaro to help them re-live their youth or attain a childhood dream, and thats something few cars today can do at any price.

The strong demand for the genuine articles is what has driven the price up on mint versions to the point that most would be happy to get a new RETRO version with a warranty, modern amenities, and etc for less money that they can drive to work everyday.