guionM

I know there's already a thread on the upcoming "Impala influenced" Chevy large car, but I wated to toss out a bigger issue.

1st, there's been alot of talk about "Retro" vs whatever the alternative is thrown around so much since Camaro and Challenger went on display, it sounds like background clutter.

American car design is never going to be successful going the Euro or Asian direction of sensible design. The new Impala is probally the most foreign looking Chevrolets ever made, yet is still relying on rebates to match the old Impala's sales numbers. In short, the design, though not a failure, isn't a success. Grand Prix is all over the map: selling like gangbusters one month, and becoming dust collectors the next. Malibu, Cobalt, Lecrosse, Lecerne? Yawn!

The problem is that a designer sitting down and doing a foreign design influenced car is doing a version of what's out today. Unfortunately, it tales 2-3 years for a design to reach the assembly line. Result? You get Impalas and Malibus that look like something Honda made 3 years before.


What's going at GM design is something that is simply amazing by every account. Instead of keeping up with the latest import trends (which will leave US cars looking forever dated when they come out, needing incentives to move) the plan is to create designs that blow peoples socks off. That's easier said than done.

The "Retro" term has been bent almost to a complete circle here, and there's some who feel a car should be chancy and edgy. But if it were YOUR life's savings on the line, or your job and family's existance on the line, what would YOU do?

Now take that and multiply it by 327,000 family members (not including the multitudes of retirees who have put in most of their lives to build your company), and each one has families of their own. Then there's the family members of many other companies that depend on you directly. Your decision affects hundreds of communities and cities. Your decision is so important that a wrong move or a bad decision can drop the entire U.S. economy a couple of percentage points. Consider that you are on a loosing streak, in debt, and scrounging around for money to bring out new products not just to save a "company", but also to keep people, businesses, communities, cities, and even a national economy who depend on you going.

Knowing you can't have business as ususal, would you gamble on something untested or take a formula you know has worked in the past and modernize it?



Your 1st reaction is going to look at what worked in the past. Get back to the basics. Stop being like everyone else, and do what you do best. GM has (belatedly) discovered that doing distinctly American designed cars is a winning strategy. Making cars as good as imports while looking like imports is always going to favor imports.




It's fun for some to attempt to degrade the Chrysler 300 or a Cadillac Escalade as "ghetto", or a PT Cruiser or Mustang a "Retro" car, but because these vehicles are extremely successful across all lines (and neighborhoods, despite some comments of the more simplistic thinkers here) and with the general public, degrading these cars begins to look pretty pathethic, and saying that GM shouldn't pay attention to their success is about as irresponsible as you can get.

Point to Cadillac's design change as an example of modern design success and you miss the boneyard of Lumina/Silhouette/TransSport minivans, the 4th gen F-bodies, Azteks, Auroras, & Reattas that it took to get there. But take a theme from the heyday of automotive design, expand and give it a neo-futuristic look, and you have not only a car far removed from the aerodramatic bread & butter sedans from Asia and Europe & cut their own direction, but also something that actually excites the public without risking a catastrophy. The Taurus would have wiped out Ford in the 80s and the LH would have destroyed Chrysler before the mid 90s if both had failed. (GM hedged their mid 70s downsize gamble by making the cars look like updated, tighter versions of existing ones)



GM isn't reintroducing a 1967 Impala. But GM is looking to former cars for inspiration instead of the latest Honda or Toyota. Chrysler's 300 is an evolution of the Chrysler Nassau concept which was derived from the Chrysler Chronos concept which was influenced by a combination of luxury cars from both the 30s and 50s. The 300 has a neo-classic look, not retro. GM's designs (including Camaro) are going the same route.

Now, stop and look at the direction everyone else is going.

Ford (when they aren't dismantling SVT... sorry, bad dig) is betting on interiors, understated sheetmetal. and distinctive grilles. BMW looks like a number of random creases, cuts, and seams. Honda has never been a design leader, and isn't going to change. Toyota seems to fund their design department just enough to no make sure their cars blend in with the scenery.


When I was a kid, it was exciting to see the latest car designs. Lately, only periodically (and rarely) are there new vehicles that make me stop and stare. PT Cruiser, CTS, the new Mustang, & the 300 are the only ones that fall into this catagory. The new Buick Enclave is a step in that direction (1st time i've ever complemented a SUV). The Zeta line of cars promises to be the ultimate "aspirational car" (what these Zeta sedans are actually called by some at GM).

You want "Gotta-have-it" cars?

By every account, the Zeta group of RWD sedans, coupes, and (?) are it.

91_z28_4me

What no winkie? I gotta add one to even the score.

Darth Xed

I don't know that that is really the case, though...

Impala has ZERO rebate dollars right now, and has been that way for at leats a month. I have been watching Impala rebates, since I have a bit of an interest in an SS...

Unless they are "hidden" rebates, I don't think this is true.

http://www.chevrolet.com/specialoffe...=north_central


Again, I will point back to Cadillac.... it worked incredibly well for them.


Perhaps, but there are other non-retro domestics that have been quite successful. Impala, I think has been successful. 300 and Charger are different... I don't know that they are really retro, so they kind of straddle the line... are they "Cadillac different" or "retro different"? I think they are probably a mix... personally, I think they lean more toward "Cadillac different" than retro. I don't think Cobalt has been a faliure by any means, either.

Finally, SSR & Thunderbird... examples of retro styling that have languished on dealer lots for long periods of time and are generally regarded as failures.



If I can say one really positive thing about the retro movement, as far as the domestics point of view.... if it REALLY catches on, wide-spread... they can really freeze out the imports... who basically do not have the heritage designs from their past to fall back on and follow suit if this indeed becomes a wide spread thing.....

Z28Wilson

I agree. I think it is very wise for the American manufacturers to return to bolder, "American" styling. But who says "American styling" for today must equal American styling from the 50's and 60's? Cadillac has done an awesome job of providing distinctly American luxury designs without heavily relying on cliche cues from Cadillacs past. No tail fins here!

By the way, I really like the Cobalt coupe. I'll be looking at one as a much-needed replacement for the Jimmy in the fall. I think it looks just fine.

km9v

GM & Ford need to shed the image that American cars are not up to par w/ the *** brands. That is what the majority of car buyers think (image is everything). GM needs to do better interiors (that's what you look at most) & increase warranty to at least 5 yr./60K mi. & advertise more.

Z28x

Chrysler 300 vs. Ford FiveHundred ..... thats all that needs to be said.

Or are they examples of car that got over priced. You could group every $40,000+ japanese sports car in this group too.

I bet a $25,000 Colorado based SSR would have sold a lot better.

Yup, put that rebate money into interiors and the warranty. I got a $1000 rebate on my Colorado, but I would have given that $1000 back to GM in a heart beat for a H3 interior and a 5/60,000 warranty.

Darth Xed

Agree totally. Five Hundred is bland to the extreme. Even in a catagory when bland isn't necessarilly a bad thing.


Hard to argue with.... I really wonder if SSR-like styling could be done at that price though... I would think the powertrain would be different. The retracting hardtop would be long gone, and I even question how much of the extreme styling would survive... I've read more than one article on how difficult it was to produce the SSR's very complex body panels... I don't know how that translates to costs... but it sounds like it could make for more expensive pieces...

guionM

You just summed up my entire post in less than 6 lines.

But consider that the CTS has stacked headlights, and thin verticle tail lights, just like Cadillacs past.

What if an Impala had 3 circular horizontal tail lights, a full width grille with chrome accents, and a single well placed character line much like the '67 Impala, on a car with wheels pushed out to the ends and modern proportions?

Both Cadillac and the 300 relied on past styling and "feeling" on modern proportions to get a dramatic effect. IMO, it's going to work worlds better than what influenced the noses on the new Impala, Monte Carlo, Malibu, and Cobalt, do you agree?

Z28x

Good point about SSR body panel cost and you're right that the hard top would be gone. Maybe the SSR was doomed from day one due to these things I think if you took a ZQ8 and gave it the SSR styling or a Z71 the Dodge M80 styling for maybe $1500-$2000 over the cost of an existing Colorado it would have been a hit. You can get a ZQ8 reg cab 5 speed w/ the 220HP engine for $20,000 very well equiped. Plus a V8 fits in the 2WD Colorados with little or no modification. Add $2000 more for a 4.8L or 5.3L V8 and you have a $24K hardtop V8 SSR (asumming body panels don't cost more than $1000 extra).

I also think a 4x4 niche truck that looks tough, like a Tonka or M80 would be cool. Maybe give it to GMC, make it nothing more than a GMT355 with unique body and interior panels and bigger tires. Sell it for under $25K.

stars1010

Yeah I'm really excited about GM's products over the next few years

1fastdog

Upright designs seem to be gaining buyers, as opposed to "jellybeans".

Sharper lines are showing up again as well, even with some of the "aero" look cars there's a sharp edge or two included.

I think it's also a mistake that 2 year styling refreshes which was once quite common, has been sadly missing from most makers.

formula79

I think the Impala/Bel Air will be a new age classic. Everyone who has seen it seems to have the "holy crap" response....like they were unaware GM was capable of something like that. GM needs cars that have an emotional effect on buyers and almost spark a touch of Nationalism and American can do. Cars that make you grin when you open the door, and make you tell you wife there is no way in hell you are buying that Camry. Cars that scream "Get your battery powered import *** out they way...Detroit Iron coming through". American's are excessive, and SUV's had become the vehicular symbol of American excess. Now I think that pendulum us swinging towards big RWD cars from Detroit. If GM can match the 300 at it's entry price level, they will on all likelyhood have a winner.

Chuck!

People who have seen the new Malibu seem to say 'holy crap,' too. That begs the question, when the heck does GM want to start showing us these products?

ckt101

Even if the zeta line of cars is a styling success, GM still has to price them properly, or watch them go down in flames.

SSbaby

Call it retro, heritage or whatever... GM will survive as long as they build cars with character. integrity and back it up with value! It's Chrysler's formula... and it works. Detroit cannot build whitegoods on wheels (which Toyota does very well) because it would be suicidal. Btw, I don't believe Toyota know how to build cars with character so Detroit definitely has an advantage there.

EDIT: I left out the important term "VALUE"