Except for maybe GuionM, the 1984-early 1990's has been forgotten about by most. While it certaily wasn't a bad car (good sales proved otherwise) its overall design was weak and didnt represent anything particular. Even the Retro t-bird from 2000-2004 was bad because its recipe was only half-baked. A retro t-bird could have been great but j.Mays came late in its design and made it look European and thus it lost its American roots/soul. J Mays corrected his t-bird mistakes and made the new Stang right on the money (except for some minor issues i have)

I own macs exclusively at home but Apple only controls a tiny share of the PC market while they monopolize the mp3 market. What makes Apple OS better and more stable then M$ Windows is that Apple 'controls' all the hardware elements that go into their computers (Apple makes most profit on their hardware not software). This allows Apple to refine their OS and since their hardware variations are limited/controlled it prevents crashing and driver conflicts. Since M$ makes most all their profits from software they have to make 'Windows' run on a huge variety of different hardware combinations from 1000's of different suppliers (also attempting to be compatible with older software)and thus making 'Windows' more unstable (its bloated code doesnt help either).

There's nothing wrong with celebrating our Automotive heritage (its better then celebrating Japanese or German heritage IMO) especially if many think we lost our automotive artistic soul during the 70,80,90's when most innovation was happening under the sheetmetal.

 

Until car designers can design rolling works of art again and not appliances, retro will always be around.

 

I think you're dead on. Just because someone can afford a classic muscle car they might have loved, doesn't mean it's practical to do so, especially since you can't actually drive an original / nicely restored car without completely clobbering it's value.

So back to the cover band analogy. Real classic muscle cars are like your favorite band, and as they've aged, they keep playing smaller and smaller venues so ticket prices keep going up and up. at the same time, they're getting old and frail, so they don't crank up the amps to '11' anymore, and pete townsend isn't even doing 'the windmill' anymore because of arthritis. Yeah they're technically the real thing, but who cares if they aren't jamming anymore?

So you go see a cover band instead. Amps on 11, all riffs and distortion intact, stage theatrics in effect, etc. While it's cool to say you saw the who live before they started to drop, if you're looking for entertainment, cover bands provide great bang for the buck and are a lot easier to see on a regular basis if you like to go to shows.

That's what heritage/retro styling gets you. ALL of the fun factor with none of the handicaps, and if it's missing some of the original character, it also makes up for it in many other ways. Even if the cover band doesn't play the solo exactly like the original, they might add some something that make it that much better, or maybe it has better drums or a stronger bassline, etc.

And sometimes, covers blow the originals out of the water. I love the beatles and all, but the motley crue version of helter skelter should be included with the white album because it's how that song should have been done from jumpstreet. Or the death version of Kiss god of thunder. roflmao



To make sure this tangent is sufficiently off course, i recently saw twisted sister live. Pretty good show, but i wasn't blown away, but hey, they're old. funny thing was, one of their best songs of the night was a cover of 'it's only rock and roll'. Point, i don't know, but all this talk of cover bands made me think of that.

 

That might be correct if there wasn't such a thing as restoration. So now you have the original band playing at the original level and it is as good as it was when you saw them rock out the very first time.

 

True, but depending on how you restore it , you might actually make it worth less. Also restoring an old car is rather expensive and especially if you are not doing it yourself.

To go with the rockband analogy, sometimes bands just need to replace a member from time-to-time to either add some new energy, creative talent, or replace a dead band member

 

So if I understand correctly you'd both pay upwards of $500-$1000 to be front row center of a Rolling Stones or The Who cover band?

I've got some tickets you might be interested in......

That's exactly the equivilent of buying a brand new Mustang, and appearently Challenger.

 

What kind of moron buys a mint condition 40yo car and actually drives it any MEANINGFUL distance? Actually races it?

I once had the privilege of being in a rich mopar nut's garage, must have been 30 cars in there, everything form the ugly *** 50s cars with the original hemis to 2 vipers, and of course, a hemi-cuda. He'd owned the car for over 10 years, and when asked, he was PROUD that he'd NEVER floored it in the few times he'd driven it. The precious hemi is too valuable to risk any wear on was his excuse.

Which is why i say the original band is old and frail and can't jam anymore. THis analogy isn't perfect since it's not the age of the cars that keep them from rocking, instead it's their value, but the idea is the same.

 

That is fine for people who want the car to sit and gather dust and keep the car as an investment, but people do buy classic cars to drive. You can fix and repair everything on that car, everything is replaceable. Now if you want an all original car with numbers matching and all that, then yes, it wouldn't be that smart to beat the crap out of it.

The bottom line is, there is no way that these new retro muscle cars are the same or equal the satisfaction as having the original.

 

Way to twist it around. You're missing the point.

If you're going to pay $1000 to see a rock show, would you rather:

- see the real band, but their amps are all turned down and ethy're all sitting in wheelchairs barely able to strum a chord, and they only play 2 songs before they quit because the drummer keeps falling asleep.

- see a cover band, amps on full blast, dancing on the stage, pyrotechnics, the works.

Now neither show is really worth $1000. A smart man would probably catch the cover band in a smaller, more cost effective venue (this is the used car part of the analogy), or sit in the nosebleed seats

BUT, if you're going to spend the $1000 on a show, you absolutely must get the front row seats at the ampitheatre show, then the cover band DOES give you a lot more tangible value. When i go to a show, that's what i'm there for primarily, the show. Just like when i drive a car, that's why i'm in it, for the drive. I do NOT go to a show just so i can SAYi saw the rolling stones live if that means i'm going to get keith richards on life support making guitar noises with his mouth, just like i would not buy a car just so i can SAY that i own an original 196x xxxx.

 

how do you figure. My GTO has bucket seats that will cradle me comfortably for hours, starts on the first turn of the key in any weather, gets better gas mileage, stops faster, accelerates quicker, top ends higher than any other GTO except an 05.

I wouldn't trade my 04 for ANY classic GTO becase all the things i listed matter more to me than saying i have an original '64 GTO. I've been in classic muscle cars, and except for the 'oh jesus, there's no way we're avoiding an accident with the brakes and suspension on this thing' feeling you get when you exceed the speed limit, there's really no thrill in 'em to me. fast cars are fast cars, it's not better just because it's old.

 

Let's face it, the rock-band analogy is "played out" (pun intended )

If you want to talk RETRO, nothing is more RETRO then a Chevy push-rod V8

If you want to compare auto design to something, it would be better to compare it to home designs.

People thought back in the day that fireplaces would no longer be wanted because of central heat, people thought fluorescent lighting would replace traditional lighting because it was brighter and used less electricity. People also covered up their wood floor with linoleum because it was easier to clean and the examples can go on an on.

Fireplaces, traditional lighting, and wood floors are desired more then ever , not because they are more efficient, but how they make a person feel and the ambience they provide a home. People will pay Big-buck$ for how those things just based on how they look and how they make them feel.

It should be no surprise that alot of the ultra-modern home designs have been abandoned for more traditional homes and one could argue a similar trend is occurring in the auto industry. People like having all the high-tech modern amenities like surround sound, wifi & wired networks, central heat and air, etc, but they want that technology integrated into a traditionally styled home. People don’t like the “cold” ultramodern look because they don’t want to conform their lifestyle to machines and computers, they want machines and computers to conform to them with cosmetically pleasing designs that evoke a good “feeling” of simplicity.

IMO The future will look much like the past. (Not in an Orwellian 'Newspeak' sort of way)

 

I'm not sure how the Chevy pushrod V8 can be considered retro.

If at one time it was universally available as an OHC engine, then I guess being a pushrod engine now could be argued as retro.

Or if they brought back carbs and distributors....

The home design arguement (linoluem et all) isn't a paralell argument to retro auto design unless realtor start hawking log cabins on us.

 

While I personally love the v8 push rod. Its concept is very old and many would consider it to be outdated by German and Japanese standards. While the push rod has been refined over the decades its basic functionality is still the same.

I have to say the home design argument makes far more sense then the rock-band analogy ('notgetleft' proved that). And yes, realtors do hock log cabins in mountain resort areas for people who want to escape the fast pace and hectic lifestyle of modernity.

Even big fat 1960-style racing stripes are RETRO

 

The one question I would like to ask to whomever would like to answer is the following:

Could you entertain the thought that at one point in history the American auto industry really had it's own grove and particular style down to an art. That pinnacle of American automotive art was erroded by great leaps in technological innovation underneath the sheetmetal as well as considerable new saftey and fuel economy restrictions (as well as bad management). These things in conjunction with new (at the time) low priced competition from overseas assisted in the US auto industry losing it's artistic soul in which now it is soley trying to rediscover (all their energy/resources was trying to play catch up). Their 2nd phase in their rediscovery (their 1st phase was resurrecting 'classic nameplates) is to go back to those eras in which their cars stlying is historically viewed as 'classic' and take those styling elements (many would consider Retro) and rebuild from that point on.

Ask youself 'if' (for pretend) Porsche made a horrible decision back in the 1970's and permantly dumped the 911 for the 928, and in an attempt to stop collapsing sales they brought 911 back (in it's most recent form) in 2006, would you consider it Retro? Does it (2006 911) not have almost the same body shape as it did in the 60's and 70's? (minus the larger size, weight, and higher price)

Is the only difference in that Porsche was smart enough not to ditch their iconic 911 design, while GM, Ford, Chrysler were not as smart with their own iconic vehicles?

No surpise that the vehicles GM, Ford, and Chrysler kept closest to it's herritage/roots (the Truck and it's basic iconic design) is whats been keeping them alive.

 

The 911 in that instance would still NOT be retro because the 911 has always been about small increments in an evolution of it's design.

The main criteria of a retro car is that through the evolution and progression of a design, there is a break in the lineage and a "going back" to an older design that is significantly different than the one it replaces. The 911 never significantly changed thier design so there would be no "going back" to a different design.

The reason the big 3 do well with trucks has nothing to do with iconic design or really design at all. They are the best at trucks because they have done them the longest, know what they are doing, and built up a very loyal following and let's face it, they are still the best. That's why they sell so many trucks.

The Mustang has made no apologies for being retro. Ford plays it up with everything from design, to commercials, to bringing back Shelby, and so on. I am sure the Challenger will do the same and I am willing to bet that GM will do the same with the Camaro. The only way I think Chevy won't is if the fad is dying or dead by then and they want to distance themselves from retro design (I don't see that happening). You don't make a design like that and then pretend it isn't retro. Maybe if GM fully admits it, then all the hold-outs will aknowledge that the car is in fact, retro.