Does anybody know why that is? Manufacturing technology today is light years ahead of the 60's, and increased plant flexibility would only make the changeover easier. The Big 3, despite losing market share, are selling about the same number of cars now as they did then. Are there much stricter government tests for refreshed models now? Does recertification take too long, too expensive,or both?

A moderate redesign is a sure way to get your product into the car mags, not to mention giving your customer a reason to trade in their perfectly competent 2-3yr old car for a new model.

 

Short reason why? It saves money running a single design into the ground.

4th gen Camaros had plastic body panels specifically for frequent changes, and it still wasn't done.

About the only car that still has frequent updates to any degree is (ironically) the Mustang.

 

And that is a big reason I lot of people I know switch brands or models when they get a new car every 3 years. If I was forced to buy a new compact/midsize truck for 2007 I'd buy a new Ford Sport Trac. The main reason is for the Mustang V8 and 6 speed automatic. Both things GM won't give me.

At least GM is keeping Caddy freash. Escalade is on Generation 3 and it only can out in 1999.

 

Gm really need to hop on the bandwagon for transmissions that's for sure. I think they're about the only "BIG" manufacturer that still has ALL 4 speed autos. After reading the first post I couldn't help thinking how much the Cobalts front fascia looks like a mazda 3. Whenever I see new Impalas I think they're mid 90s monte carlos or luminas (ick). Oh and another reason they don't redesign often anymore is because it costs a lot of money and they're (especially GM) is using most of that money to keep up with emission standards. We lost the F-body because it wasn't selling to the point where it would be worth the costs for emissions changes.

 

GM's 6 speed auto just debuted in the Corvette, and will surely filter around very quickly. It may even be going in the GMT-900's presently (I don't know for sure).

 

Nissan is the posterchild of what can happen with aggressive design changes.

The main thing I would like to see from GM is a styling change. Well that and more Navigation and AWD options on their car lineup.

 

I still have the M80 on my computer screen saver. I'd also like to see an agressive small truck. I read somewhere a month or two ago (here, Lutz?) that GMC and Chevy trucks would look dramatically different. I got the impression it would not be with the GMT 900's but with the next gen, or at least a refresh on the GMT 900's.

 

What would a retro / heritage / neo-classical Cobalt be themed on? A 1984 Cavalier or a 1980 Chevette?

 

I'm thinking something older like a 67 Chevy II or a 70 Vega.

 

As part of the CamaroZ28.Com Podcast each week, we choose a thread on the board that we like to consider the "Thread of the Week". This week in Episode #27, we have chosen this thread because it coincidentally addresses a specific listener e-email that we received and read on the air.

You can hear the episode directly at https://www.camaroz28.com/podcast, and click on the "Listen Now" button. If you have an RSS reader, you can point that at http://feeds.feedburner.com/camaro - we are also available in the Itunes music store (free download).

Also visit the CamaroZ28.Com Podcast forum!

Thanks for the good thread, guionM! It has a lot of great points to it!

 

Wow!

 

I don't care if its "retro" or what, all I car about design wise, is that it a)looks solid as a statue carved out of a single piece of marble, b)has the sporting/athletic stance. The 300/Charger are exactly what I'm talking about. If this new Impala looks as "classic" as the 60's Impalas in the sense of looking bulky, overweight and lazy, then GM is done.

Flame if you must, but just take a look at the new Lexus IS. It may look "bland" to you if you're looking for tail fins and disjoint body panels or gherish pontiac cladding. To me it looks like a wild animal stalking its pray. All the proportions are JUST right. THAT is the kind of design GM needs to be doing.

"American" design in the classic sense is overrated. And since neither GM, Ford or Chrysler (before ze germans) bothered to modernize or update it, over the course of 30 odd years, it's dead as a "design phylosophy" to the buying public. THAT is the reason people dispise GM. Because of its outdated design cues and proporitons.

I said it before, and I'll say it another million times. Design a car people DESIRE and they'll look past the badge to get to it. "I can't believe its a Buick!" Give that Buick 3 years, and it'll be the Buick that BMW owners will respect because the product is worthy of respect, not the brand. Look where Saturn is heading. Would any of us even consider one 2 years ago? Not me! But with Sky here and the Aura on the way, I don't CARE that its a Saturn because it has NOTHING to do with the Saturns of old.

How much simpler could it be?

 

It would be great if SSR's face could come back without the gimmicky fold-down roof and other non-fashionable pieces that put that vehicle out of reach of most consumer's wallets. I tend to think that HHR should have the SSR's face. Maybe Chev could release a serious crossover (with V8) using an updated version of SSR's face?

To me, SSR is the purest face of Chevrolet.

 

The Retro Mentality is really the cause of GM's problems, not necessarily the solution.

They took their legendary "distinctly American" styling of the 50s and 60s, squared it off, watered it down, and regurgitated it repeatedly throughout the 70s, 80s, and even into the 90s. The primary reason GM has such a huge perception problem is because their 1990 lineup looked like a bastardized parody of their 1970 lineup, right down to the wheelskirts.

Nostalgia Syndrome seems to infect GM -- both it's fanboys and it's management ranks. GM has a great history, sure, but it's one that was being pissed on and wrung-out until relatively recently. This is a Camaro board, so maybe this isn't obvious, but at some point you have to stop living in 1968. The average guy doesn't think of GM's brands in terms of musclecars and luxury boats, they're still stinging from all the generic FWD boxes with benchseats.

The 300 worked for Chrysler because, while nominally "retro", it is totally discontinuous with any Chrysler produced in the last 25 years. GM seems to be wollowing in a in their fasded glory days where the remnants are still rusting on the side of the road.

Not that one can blame them. They've clearly failed to compete for the center of the middle class American mindshare (what you call "foreign"), and it certainly doesn't pay to be bland when you are perceived as third best. Might as well take a styling gamble and see if it pays off. Just so they are acutally doing something about the interiors/engines/transmissions at the same time.

I also don't buy that Impala/G6/Lucerne were trying to invoke euro/asian sensibilities. None of these cars matches the stylistic refinement of Honda or VW. If anything, they are falied attempts to bring back the relatively good old days for GM in the early 1990s with the Lumina/Grand Am/Century. In short, more nostaliga.

 

I'm not sure I follow you on that last paragraph, and I'm not convinced that you follow you either. If you look at the new Impala, G6, and Lucerne, and don't see foreign influence, and instead see a Lumina Grand Am and Century, and then point to Honda's (of all things!?)..... "Stylistic Refinement", I can't help that you're either:

a) A member of Honda's Board of directors (go check out Honda's percentage of the US market. )

b) Just got time-warped from the domestic-bashing 80s.

c) Are a closet ricer

d) all or some grouping of the above.


As for the meat of your post:

1. GM has 2 "retro" vehicles, the SSR & the HHR. SSR had an astronomical price tag, next to no practicality and is not doing well. HHR is a steal, has plenty of utility, and is all but flying off the shelves. Hardly an endorsement of the view that GM's "Retro Mentality" is the cause for it's problems.

2. That "watered down & repeatedly regurgitated through the 70s, 80s, and 90s" styling doesn't hold an once of water. You don't follow the styling trends from the 70s, to the 80s, to the 90s? Riiight. BTW, what was GM's market share during the 70s, 80s, and 90s, compared to today?

3. Chrysler's Chronos concept based 300, though while retro, and does look alot like Chrysler's Ghia cars of the 1950s, can also easily be linked to 60s era slab sidedness and a garish 50s era grille and lighting, modernized. It looks nothing like anything made in the past 25 years (1981) and neither does anything else.... save, nominally, the Corvette.

4. You make a rabid indictment of retro styling at GM throughout your post, yet GM has but 2 models. You then mention the need to stop living in '68, and I immediately see what your issue is. You are pissed about the new Camaro's looks.


I'm glad you aren't running decisions at General Motors. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean everyone else doesn't as well. Camaro was a huge success. It stole the NAIAS. I was there. So were alot of other people here who watched it 1st hand. Not only with what you call "GM fanboys", but with the media, and reps from other car makers and investors who were on the scene.


You point to some type of 36 year long (?! ) design issue, but GM's problems can be traced to one issue: They stopped investing in better cars. Period. Design became watered down by comittees and clinics. Outsourcers became obsessed with the lowest bid and forgot all about perception of quality. Management gecame starry-eyed over SUVs and their mammoth profit margins and ignored cars because they were low profit. Retro had zilch to do with it. Styling, which was once refreshed ever few years at least, dissappeared completely, and cars became stale.

PT Cruiser is still selling well over 100K per year, still over initial predictions over half a decade later. Mustang is still selling at capacity. Minis constitute 2% of the entire US car market...alone.


If you personally prefer the old style "doorstop" look of the 4th gen Camaro, nothing wrong with that. Just like people who prefer 3rd gens, 2nd gens, and 1st gens, or even Mustangs. But 4th gen Camaros are generally viewed as failures and the new Camaro concept seems to have nothing but praises sang.

Being that GM is a company who's purpose is to make money selling cars and trucks, I think they are going to follow the public praise of Camaro and the reactions of everyone who has seen the 2009 Impala, and look at the sales numbers of the Mustang and PT Cruiser, and I think GM would thank you for the opinion, and promptly discard it.

GM is on the right track. The only problem is they need to get these things out quicker.