You make alot of good points here john but I think this statement really shows why retro has succeeded.

Too many auto manufacturers make cars that are ho hum and boring because they try to make them appeal to everyone, or at least the majority. Since the Camry was the icon of this design strategy, it seems everyone wants to try and mimick that, thus we get boring looking cars. Throw in the fact that auto manufacturers seem to be on this "design as a family" boat and now not only do you have a boring design, but that boring design is now bred all the way across the board.

A retro car is completely different and makes people look at a stylish, or at least different car again. Im not supporting retro here, but an 05 Mustang certainly looks more stylish than a Camry, Corolla, Accord, Impala, FiveHundred, etc. And my belief is while boring designs continue (and this seems to be the case at least in the mainstream markets) so will retro designs and they will continue to be successful.

Maybe all it will take is one hot looking, truly modern mainstream sedan to hit the market and sell in huge quanity to buck the trend. In this way, everyone would copy it some way and bye bye boring design.

 

You totally missed the point I was making since your statement of "small increments" only exists because the 911 never went away. "If" the 911 was replaced by the 928 (which at the time it was considered more 'modern') and replaced the 911 for 30 years. Only to be returned in 2006 in its same basic shape as it was in 1975 and many (like yourself) would claim it to be a "Retro" design because it exterior lines can be traced back to a particlar model year in the past.

Don't forget that alot what many consider "modern" exterior styling elements are nothing more then 'cost-cutting' measures to stay competitive in price by offseting the huge cost increases in healthcare and advertising.

Again 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 safety 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.
__________________

 

Yes, then it would be retro.

 

Fitrst off you cannot compare styling a Mustang directly with a Camry or Impala. They have different priorities. You could and should be comparing it to cars like the Corvette, 350Z, RX-8 and Audi TT.

Second, if the 911 were to have gone away and come back 20-30 years later looking exactly of mostly like it did then, yes it would be colled retro for the same reasons we're calling the Mustang, Challenger, and first glimses of the Camaro retro.

To make the Porsche analogy parallel the Camaro timeline however, the new Porsche would've not come back looking like the next year model (which would be 1976 in your story line), BUT like the first porsche 356. And while the 356 is a very fine automobile, to rehash it today would be a silly excercise.

I don't view nor believe that by bringing retro cars to the market Detroit is/has found it's artistic soul. Any hack can copy the past. What makes those designs classis is that they WERE brave, fresh, new designs that turned heads in that era. Today, they are just old. Patting someone on the back for copying someone else's work is really desperate on both parties' part.

And why is it only America needs to bring out retro models to move forward? BMW didn't with the 7 series, Audi didn't with the TT and previos generation A6, Mercedes hasn't with their enitire line, VW has limited retro to the niche market bug, Mazda's 3 and 6 series offer stiking design elements and the new CX-7 crossover looks to be the sportiest of the bunch.

What modern styling elements do you consider cost cutting elements?

 

Actually all the cars you listed have different priorities as well since the Vette and 350Z are 2 seaters and would classifed as a sportscars (which the mustang isnt).While the TT might be closer its really in a seperate catagory since in its base form its FWD and an AWD version is really more expensive then the Stang. Ironically the TT was J Mays attempt at a modern car with alot of retro touches and in fact J Mays VW bug and TT could be considered the two vehicles that started the RETRO ball rolling. The RX-8 is probably the closest in comparison to the Stang in both price and performance. While the RX8's quad-doors is a great feature and the RX8 is a great performer in its own right , I think the RX-8 has and will slip through automotive history un-noticed by most.

The new Porsche would come back larger, heavier, and more expensive just like the Camaro, Challenger, and the new Mustang (to a degree).



The main difference betweem Modern designer of today and Modern Designers of the past was that designers of the past designed cars from the 'outside' first while car designers of today have to design cars from the 'inside first'. This change in priorities has severly hampered the artistic exterior designs while on the postive side we have seen huge leaps in technological advancements in handling, quality of the ride, braking , and etc.

Now that many of these great internal advances have trickled down to even the cheapest cars, its time to put the focus back on the exterior of the car again. While I would agree it would be a total hack to copy an old car exactly but it is quite an art to to mix retro/classic design ques in a modern vehicle and I think what J Mays did with the Stang was "True" art. Its design looks so simple and gives the impression any could have done it, and its that very fact that makes it a true success and history might prove it to be J. Mays most significant design of his career (time will tell) because the T-birds half-baked design and poor sales shows its not that easy.

BMW did bring out the RETRO convertible 5 years ago called the Z8, While its high priced killed it I think it was far more attactive then the MODERN "Bangle" designs that dominate BMW's today. - In fact Im willing to bet the Z8 will become the most sought after BMW by collectors over the next 20 years. (time is the best judge of beauty)





Many in the auto industry consider J.Mays TT along with the full RETRO Bug the two vehicles that started the resurrection of classic cars themes on top of modern cars.

Mercedes 'should' bring back some old styling ques because their vehicle are looking more Japanese every decade and if Mercedes continues down this design path they are going to get murdered by Lexus and even Mercedes own Maybach looks like oversized and over-priced uninspired verision of their own S-class (two-tone paint scheme cant save it either).

While the new Mazda 3 and 6 are great vehicles they will be forgotten like most all other Mazda's with the exceptions being their 2-seater sportcars like the Miata and Rx7 (in which their performance/handling are their biggest attributes and NOT their styling).


Here's just a few:

1. All plastic interiors (no paint, no metal, no chrome, and etc). Sure crash safety influenced this in the past, but there are safe ways to implement these things but their high cost usually is what stops it from happening.

2. The use of monochrome paint scheme which is far cheaper then sending car into the paint shop twice to do two-tone. Except for the Mini-Cooper no cars offer two-tone paint options today.

3. The deletion of chromed steel. The high expense of steel in conjunction with the expensive of chroming it, has forced automakers to create auto designs that are painted one solid body color. While I would agree that this is 'not' a bad thing in many circumstances it has certainly limited design options. Sure crumple-zones in cars has also played a huge role, but regardless its cheaper not use chromed steel in the end.

4. Most modern cars use very flat steel stamped body panels. These are cheaper to produce then some of the very complex and curved stamped steel body panels that you would see on some classic cars.

 

I'm sorry, but I just do not understand your arguements here. The examples you cited as cost cutting soul robbing I see as changes in taste and public attitude.

The reason MB cars be looking more Japanese is that the Japanese adopt many of MB's latest styling elements. And 'inside out' design hasn't seemed to hampered MB, BMW, Inifinity, Mazda, or Chrysler.

As much as I like the cars from the '50s and the styling elements you mentioned, today I'd find a car th at came out like that really gaudy and unattractive.

And lastly, regarding the quote at the bottom, why are the Americans that need to relive the past 30 odd yersw to find this supposedly lost soul?

 

Ironically trucks/suvs have been such great sellers because they have carried the torch of the "classic American' styling theme for years. People liked classic sedans because of their upright driving position, large size, v8 engine, lots-of-metal-&-chrome, large trunk to carry lots of stuff, and etc. No surprise that up until recently those qualities were more likely to be found in a truck/suv and not in a "modern" car.

I believe that the auto industry is large enough to offer lots of different styling themes and it would be a big mistake for GM,Ford, Chrysler not to bring back some of their iconic vehicles intact with the classic icononic shapes.


I think those modern manufacturing technics that the Japanese perfected have been fully adopted by Mercedes as well as the rest of the industry and unfortunately this has (in many ways) made cars look the same. I do think "Modern" design has hampered BMW's because Chris Bangle's "Flame Surfacing" is ugly in most applications (except maybe for the 6 series coupe), Infinitis cars are nice but inspiring, Mazdas are forgettable (like always) and Chrysler has only in the last few years started to head in the right styling direction.

I do to. I certainly would NOT want a car with big-ole fins in the back but there is alot of styling elements that are remarkable and its those beautiful things that should be incorporated into new cars.

Im just referring that at one point in the past America reached a pinnacle of iconic automotive design (Soul ). Im 'not' saying that American hasn't produced a great car since (it has), only that "as a whole" it has lost those qualities that make them special and uniquely American (Japanese Car Corps. will always be better at designing Japanese-styled cars).

A few years back when GM resurrected 'Harley Earl's' name to try to sell modern Buicks and that was a total scam IMO, especially when they were using it to try to sell the awful Rendezvous (not as bad as the Pontiac Aztec (it's sibling), but close). If GM was going to use Harley Earls name it should only be applied to vehicles that had incorporated some genuine styling Element that he created.



from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley_Earl

Harley J. Earl (November 22, 1893–April 10, 1969) was an automotive stylist and engineer and industrial designer. He is most famous for his time at General Motors from 1927 until 1959. Earl was instrumental in establishing automotive design as its own discipline, and demonstrating the critical place of good industrial design in the automobile field. He is credited with many innovations, some practical devices and ideas and some that were purely a matter of styling and artistic flair. Among automobile features pioneered by Earl were chrome trim, two-tone paint, hardtops, and wrap-around windshields, but he is probably best known to the general public for beginning the tailfin craze that dominated automobile styling in the 1950s and early 1960s.