Darth Xed

According to the Webster's English Dictionary:


By definition, the 2005 Mustang has to be considered retro.



Talk amongst yourselves...

jg95z28

Well, the text on cover of the new issue of Hot Rod calls it "Fords 400-hp RETRO Concept".

You can't argue with that!

Caps94ZODG

well I am thinking Retro is an exact copy of the past...miniskirts, go-go boots, disco revival..stuff like that ..retro...like the NFL Throwback "retro" games..

stylin cues of what was..heritage cues..

I mean retro would be to slap a 57 Chevy on a new frame engine and interior..and call it a new car, or Camaro..or whatever..
I mean look at the 4th gen t othe 3rd gen...I mean its an evolution to the car..but could be deened retro..per say..took stylin cues from the 3rd gen to make the 4th..so is it retro?

I think the Mustang is to much of a "copy" of a old Mustang..an artist interpretation of a new mustang based on a 67's design..
Is it retro..not really just an evolution of the car...if it was to evolve..I guess

I think it was just penned retro in the car mags..kinda like rice..its used for everything now..
kinda lost its specific meaning....

ProudPony

OK - you busted me. Now I'm gonna have to start calling it a retro design.

But you are gonna have to make a concession to me, too. The F4 had indeed lost it's design and styling heritage. At the end, it looked nothing like it did in the beginning.

Main Entry: her·i·tage
Pronunciation: 'her-&-tij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from heriter to inherit, from Late Latin hereditare, from Latin hered-, heres heir -- more at HEIR
Date: 13th century
1 : property that descends to an heir
2 a : something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor : LEGACY, INHERITANCE b : TRADITION
3 : something possessed as a result of one's natural situation or birth : BIRTHRIGHT <the nation's heritage of tolerance>

Deal?

jg95z28

Actually I've always thought the late F4 Camaros look a lot like the early second gens. For anyone to say the Mustang doesn't have "retro" styling cues is complete lunacy IMO.

Darth Xed

I love ya man, I really do, but I'll challenge your view by saying that the 4th did indeed have plenty of heritage ...

By the difinitions you posted, the 3rd gen was an obvious predecessor the the 4th gen...

Likewise, the 3rd gen carried on the 2nd gen flavor... especially through the rear treatment...

If there is a hole in my theory here, anywhere, it'd be the transition from the 69 to 70 1/2...

But, let me use the 2nd to 3rd to 4th example as a son who received his genes from his father (3rd Gen) who received his genes from HIS father (2nd Gen)...

ProudPony

LOL!!! I'm just tuggin' your rope friend!

I think you have confused HERITAGE with EVOLUTION...

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved

Park a '02 beside a '71 and show me similarities.
(Besides 4 wheels, 2 doors, and 1 windshield! I've already tried that one and it failed miserably! ROTFLMAO!! )

Darth Xed

Well, I won't argue with the term Evolution, as I have used that one many of times!!

But I still think the 4th gen could be said to have carried on it's Hertiage as well.


Aren't these fun conversations?!?!

formula79

Quoteing myself yet again

Quote:

Retro is like **** in that it is hard to clearly define..but you sure know it when you see it

I am sorry but J.Mays is an idiot...name one non retro design he has been responivle for besides the Audi copied 500?

Chris 96 WS6

I think we're mixing up terminology too much. Heritage is a much more abstract thing.

I think the Heritage of pony cars can be said to be rear drive, v8, 2+2, small to mid-sized coupes.

Carrying on a heritage can be done totally independently of cosmetic design. Retro defines a cosmetic attribute, not the basic "DNA" of a car. Camaro and Firebird clearly carried their "heritage" for all the 35 years.

Now, were they ever retro..I think anyone would have to say no. Did the LS1 Camaro recall hints of the early 2nd gens? Yes, but just hints, nothing more. The rest of the car was entirely evolutionary, as each generation was since the 2nd. Comparing Gen 2 to Gen 1, Gen 2 was 100% revolutionary since it really looked nothing like the 67-69 cars whatsoever. These were the first real F-bodies IMO. NOt that I don't like 1st gens, because I do, but they were based off the Chevy II platform and therefore were very limited from a design standpoint.

Back to the point. So what is retro then if heritage can be independent of it? I think retro is not a black line on the ground, its a gray area, but as Branden said you know it when you see it. I think basically anytime you are trying to capture the look and feel of the original in a modern version, that's retro.

The Mustang concept is clearly retro. it is literally loaded with design cues literally taken from mid to late 60's mustangs...basically everybody's favorite mustang cues are on this car. Its all wrapped in a modern body with a much more modern overall shape in terms of overhangs, ground clearance, roofline, etc. etc. etc.

Retro can be applied to certain parts of a car, like you can have a retro styled nose while the rest of the car is modern or evolutionary/revolutionary. I think its clear cars like the 05 Mustang and New Beetle are retro in their entirety. The PT cruiser is retro as a whole as well becaue the overall vehicle from nose to tail is trying to recall not even a specific car but an era of design from the past.

Lastly, Retro has to be a pretty literal interpretation of the original. That's why the LS1 Camaro's nose is not retro. It is not a literal enough rendition of the 2nd gen. It has a big mouth flanked by headlights, but the grille is not that big, the lights are dual beam composites rather than single sealed beams, and those cues are mounted in a nose that, if you removed the grille and lights and just had a blank nose, is much more 3rd gen like than the basic shape of the 2nd gen.

I think the Mustang concept is a very literal interpretation of older mustangs, all wrapped up in a modern package, which is really what retro is.

99SilverSS

J Mays is more than an idiot he has not design talent. At VW he just resurected the old Beetle and blended in some modern plactic and whala New Beetle!

He goes to Ford and the first thing he does is bring back the T-Bird. Straight from 1956!

Then he basicly re-introduces the GT40 as the GT.

If thats not enough he brings the Mustang back as a 67 fastback!

Does this guy have any talent for style??

guionM

If you can honestly tell me GM wouldn't kill to have him take over as head of their styling department, then I'd perhaps let that statement stand. If he did a 1969 based Camaro, I'd say half the people here would loose it & say how great a designer he is.

To respond to the purpose of the thread, my own rule of thumb on the definition of "Retro": If you removed all required safety equptment, and sent the vehicle back to the timeframe of it's inspiration, would it blend in?

If it does, then it's retro. If it doesn't, then it's heritage.

Examples:
1. Can you take a Mini, a Thunderbird, and a PT Crusier, remove the bumpers & modern lights, send it back to a place in time, and blend it in? Yes. Therefore, it's Retro.

2. Would anyone in 1967 blink if a Ford GT zipped by on a racetrack? No. Means it's retro.

3. Could you take a 93 Z28 back to '78 and blend it in? No, but it's blackened recessed square headlights (when everyone else was going aero) teardrop taillights, wedgelike shape, hood scoop design, Corvette-type greenhouse display heritage.

4. Could you take a 2004 Mustang with bumper & light changes and drive it around in 1969 without getting much attention? Most definately not! It has an upright grill, a fastback, the Mustang "scoops", even the tri-section taillights. But calling it retro is like calling a 2002 Camaro retro because it's grill resembles the 1970 1/2 split bumper Camaros.

Darth Xed

I agree with you on everything except #4... I think it would blend in the same way that the examples you used in #1 would...

Meccadeth

If I look at a certain model car, and am reminded about a car from the past from its looks, then I consider whatever those looks are, to be retro-ish. And if there are a lot of retro-ish looking parts on a modern vehicle, then of course im going to call it retro. More or less just to save on wording. Are you going to say "Heres the new retro-looking tail lights, retro-looking hood, retro panel flared '05 mustang" or just say "Heres the new retro '05 mustang". You cannot HONESTLY tell me that there aren't retro-ish styling cues from past Mustangs in this new concept.

guionM

Retro, smetro! I still like the way they both look.