Let's define the word "retro"
02-06-2003, 03:34 PM
#16
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
Originally posted by guionM
Retro, smetro! I still like the way they both look.
Retro, smetro! I still like the way they both look.
To be quite honest, I think a retro car can be a nice looking car.
...OK, everyone pick yourself up off the floor now...
But, I think where retro styling is applied is very very important. A continuous line of a nameplate shouldn't suddenly jump backward in it's looks, IMO.
And an ironic thing is that one place I think GM had an excellent oppourtunity, barring realistic cost-of-change problems since Monaro was already done, in the new GTO!
Here you have a car that has been absent for a LOT of years, and it is one situation where I could actually see retro styling being justified... yet it was not applied here (for a lot of reasons, I know, but still) ...
If there was ever a case to be made for the application of retro styling, this was it!
02-06-2003, 04:10 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
Originally posted by 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...
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...
You really think the '05 car would just blend right in with the Galaxies, Impalas, Novas, Fairlanes, Corvairs, Cudas, and other stylishly curvy/round bubbly cars of '65? or the super-square flat-paneled boxes of '70?
I luv ya too man, I really do... but now I'm starting to get worried for you...
Do me a favor, and rent (or buy) Gone in 60 Seconds this weekend. Not the Nick Cage version, but the original done in '74. That movie is ALL ABOUT CARS. (For cars, the Nick Cage remake is lame in comparison - I promise.) There must be 2 hours of nothing but vintage cars scenes and a 45-minute chase that is simply THE ULTIMATE - BAR NONE. Take a good look at the vintage cars you saw on the average streets in '74. You'll see oooodles of early Mustangs, a few M-IIs, several Camaros, Mercury Montego, Pintos, Fairlanes, Impalas, a '68(?) GTO, Caddys, Chargers... you name it - it's there. I have never seen a movie that came so close to literally taking you back in time as this one. It was NOT shot with a set, or corporate-sponsored cars, so you see the real streets of L.A. as they looked back then. Then sometime while it's on and there's a street full of those oldies, picture an '05 Mustang in there. It'd stick out like a turd in a punch bowl, man!
Oh well, I guess it really doesn't matter anyhow. I've already given up - call it retro. I call it "Just what I told 'em I wanted back in '99 ". I guess it's 3-years-old already that way.
"But would not a rose, by any other name, smell just as sweet?"
- Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet", Act 3
Last edited by ProudPony; 02-06-2003 at 04:14 PM.
02-06-2003, 04:31 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Lilburn, GA, USA
Posts: 2,072
Has Mays created a design that was not totally retro? I can not recall one. The first thing I was told when i started the Industrial Design program at Georgia Tech was "Be mindful of the past but always look foward". This is a great quote. If the discussion on the 05' Mustang came up, it would be blasted because the design is a cop-out. You are taking the talents and visions of others and tweaking them ever-so-slightly and then calling it your creation. If I turned in a project like that, I would get an F. I would be told, "Nice, but that is not your design". The real credit for the 05' Mustang should be given to the designers from 35 years ago.
02-06-2003, 05:46 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Has Mays created a design that was not totally retro? I can not recall one. The first thing I was told when i started the Industrial Design program at Georgia Tech was "Be mindful of the past but always look foward". This is a great quote. If the discussion on the 05' Mustang came up, it would be blasted because the design is a cop-out. You are taking the talents and visions of others and tweaking them ever-so-slightly and then calling it your creation. If I turned in a project like that, I would get an F. I would be told, "Nice, but that is not your design". The real credit for the 05' Mustang should be given to the designers from 35 years ago.
Has Mays created a design that was not totally retro? I can not recall one. The first thing I was told when i started the Industrial Design program at Georgia Tech was "Be mindful of the past but always look foward". This is a great quote. If the discussion on the 05' Mustang came up, it would be blasted because the design is a cop-out. You are taking the talents and visions of others and tweaking them ever-so-slightly and then calling it your creation. If I turned in a project like that, I would get an F. I would be told, "Nice, but that is not your design". The real credit for the 05' Mustang should be given to the designers from 35 years ago.
02-06-2003, 05:57 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,873
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Has Mays created a design that was not totally retro? I can not recall one. The first thing I was told when i started the Industrial Design program at Georgia Tech was "Be mindful of the past but always look foward". This is a great quote. If the discussion on the 05' Mustang came up, it would be blasted because the design is a cop-out. You are taking the talents and visions of others and tweaking them ever-so-slightly and then calling it your creation. If I turned in a project like that, I would get an F. I would be told, "Nice, but that is not your design". The real credit for the 05' Mustang should be given to the designers from 35 years ago.
Has Mays created a design that was not totally retro? I can not recall one. The first thing I was told when i started the Industrial Design program at Georgia Tech was "Be mindful of the past but always look foward". This is a great quote. If the discussion on the 05' Mustang came up, it would be blasted because the design is a cop-out. You are taking the talents and visions of others and tweaking them ever-so-slightly and then calling it your creation. If I turned in a project like that, I would get an F. I would be told, "Nice, but that is not your design". The real credit for the 05' Mustang should be given to the designers from 35 years ago.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...003/0001872758
"Designer's Design Award -- Ford Mustang
According to the judges, this is the vehicle that must be built. It is
the best in the show. The Mustang exemplifies innovation, emotion,
refinement, and the ability to transcend the common. "The first time I saw
the new Mustang, I wanted to buy it right on the spot -- and I still do," said
Molinari. "It's a real challenge to redesign such an icon, but its heritage
has been successfully captured."
..But I say who cares. EVERYBODY will recognize this car as a Mustang (even people who aren't car people) and it's a great looking car. I'll take it over another wedge or pod car any day of the week.
PS: The MINI isn't retro. It was a car that was discontinued only a year before it was replaced... It never really "left and then came back" Technically, it isn't any more retro than the new accord, which looks a lot like the old one.
02-06-2003, 07:04 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
To add fuel to the fire, quotes from an Autoweek article on J. Mays:
And MOST telling:
Gotta admit, regardless as to whether he's an "idiot" or not, (or what type of design "cop-out" debates he stirs in whatever art class one of you may take) he obviously knows how to make impressive style. Especially with those who it actually matters: Customers, fellow designers, and critics.
complete article: http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=03438859
"Ford Motor Co.'s design chief unwrapped concept and production models that were well-received by journalists and analysts. "Ford had to prove they were alive to Wall Street, prove they were alive to the consumer," said AutoWeek Editor Dutch Mandel. "And I think they did that."
"Mays' strong performance at last month's Detroit show is good news for Ford Motor Co."
"The Mustang sucked your heart away - it is just breathtaking. Freestyle was an exceptional vehicle that got kind of pushed off to the side by the Mustang and the 427."
"Senior transportation design students at the College for Creative Studies in Detroit awarded the Mustang the "Designer's Design Award." The prize is given to the car that "the designers would personally lust after," said Imre Molnar, the college's dean. That suggests it will resonate with young buyers, not just baby boomers, he said."
Mays' awareness of each vehicle's heritage is mining an opportunity other American automakers are missing, Molnar said. For example, the Pontiac G6 concept unveiled at the Detroit auto show was a "beautiful stand-alone design, but any firm could have done it. There is no lineage."
complete article: http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=03438859
Last edited by guionM; 02-06-2003 at 07:07 PM.
02-06-2003, 08:21 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 3,749
okay styling cues of the cars of the past like the Mustangs grill, side scoops, tail lights and such and so forth...much like in the debate these features passed down to you by your parents heredity (sp) or Heritage..yes Ford could of amalgamated all of there previous stangs into something thats now.. but thats to hard to do..might as well make a clean sheet of paper and be done with it. But to put heritage cues..no matter how many you can make a Mustang from 04 look like a 67 stang through heritage cues..
and flame me now..but if you put a 66 stang up to a 67 Camaro..took all the badging off the two cars no emblems or bowtie or running horse in the grill and painted them both black..with black interiors..presented them to a non car group and said "you think these two cars are the same but the one of the left is a 66 model and this one is a 67 model?"..you know something people would belive you....now 35 years later..things have changed..now put the two cars together and see how alike they are?? not at all...BUT if you put a 66 stang against a 03 stang..its got cues of what the original was..the hood, the wheels, the lights, you can draw all these to the 66 stang..and I think your just evolving with more of a stronger stylin cues to what a mustang was in designing the new one. Basically they are changing the grill and tail lights basically to match the car thats already there to a point..its already got the side scoops the hood the rake of the car down just adding more deffinition to what it was that made it a mustang..what about the FR500 or whatever show car from a few years ago..take a look at that and tell me that dosnt look like the 05 stang?http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/car...angfr500_4.jpg and then go to the 05 stang and say its not any different.
you put a 02 Camaro to a 67 Camaro and where is the similarities? none that strike me at all...just one thing that the 02 has with the 67..nothing..nada..
what Im saying there is not alot of cars on the road that can go back enough to do a heritage thing..most cars are new nameplates or on totally diffrent platforms than what they were origianally conceived to do..Monte, Impy and Malibu to name the 3 I think about..but they must invoke an image and when alot of people think Camaro they think of a few specific years...when they think of Mustang they think of those years represented in the 05 stang..the heritage of that can be shown on a car to make people go..WOW that is a Mustang..and should be done with a Camaro..
IMO..I think the 02 T/A looked more like it had heritage to its 69 T/A than the 02 Camaro that roled off the lot to its 67 brotheren..
but this is a good debate that I think gets peole to say what they think words mean to them..cus alot of the same words mean diffrent things to diffrent people..Retro to me is to bring back a copy of the original..the GT40 and the GT are RETRO..yes..but a 05 and a 97 Stang..heritage..maybee to much but it is heritage..
and flame me now..but if you put a 66 stang up to a 67 Camaro..took all the badging off the two cars no emblems or bowtie or running horse in the grill and painted them both black..with black interiors..presented them to a non car group and said "you think these two cars are the same but the one of the left is a 66 model and this one is a 67 model?"..you know something people would belive you....now 35 years later..things have changed..now put the two cars together and see how alike they are?? not at all...BUT if you put a 66 stang against a 03 stang..its got cues of what the original was..the hood, the wheels, the lights, you can draw all these to the 66 stang..and I think your just evolving with more of a stronger stylin cues to what a mustang was in designing the new one. Basically they are changing the grill and tail lights basically to match the car thats already there to a point..its already got the side scoops the hood the rake of the car down just adding more deffinition to what it was that made it a mustang..what about the FR500 or whatever show car from a few years ago..take a look at that and tell me that dosnt look like the 05 stang?http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/car...angfr500_4.jpg and then go to the 05 stang and say its not any different.
you put a 02 Camaro to a 67 Camaro and where is the similarities? none that strike me at all...just one thing that the 02 has with the 67..nothing..nada..
what Im saying there is not alot of cars on the road that can go back enough to do a heritage thing..most cars are new nameplates or on totally diffrent platforms than what they were origianally conceived to do..Monte, Impy and Malibu to name the 3 I think about..but they must invoke an image and when alot of people think Camaro they think of a few specific years...when they think of Mustang they think of those years represented in the 05 stang..the heritage of that can be shown on a car to make people go..WOW that is a Mustang..and should be done with a Camaro..
IMO..I think the 02 T/A looked more like it had heritage to its 69 T/A than the 02 Camaro that roled off the lot to its 67 brotheren..
but this is a good debate that I think gets peole to say what they think words mean to them..cus alot of the same words mean diffrent things to diffrent people..Retro to me is to bring back a copy of the original..the GT40 and the GT are RETRO..yes..but a 05 and a 97 Stang..heritage..maybee to much but it is heritage..
02-06-2003, 09:44 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Lilburn, GA, USA
Posts: 2,072
What was the award for "best modern interpretation of an already existing design"? That quote from "the judges" is an absolute riot.................."innovation".
I don't think anyone called Mays an "idiot" as you say. I don't really like that "art class" crack either..........INDUSTRIAL DESIGN like I stated earlier. About the G6, it is a new design for a new car, if you want to still have old designs, you will be stuck in the past and never create anything new. I think Ford needs to go back to thier roots and make Model A's and model T's, screw making new designs, any car maker can do that. I think we all know what Ford is doing and it has been stated in many magazines, journals, and other places: They have been not doing that great the past few years and so to "bring back memories of the glory days" they have come up with all these retro cars to bring back some fond memories of when Ford was doing well(Thunderbird, Mustang, GT). This is no coincedence. To me, they all have the same degree of retroness.
If you like the design of the Mustang, great, super, go buy you one, that is not the point here. The point is that this car is nothing but recycled design updated for the moment. Even if you think it looks good, I don't see how anyone can deny where the design came from. I will state that I myself don't think it's a bad looking car. It's not great to me and I would not buy one. I will say that if the F5 is a car along the lines of the 05' Stang, I will not purchase that either.
I don't think anyone called Mays an "idiot" as you say. I don't really like that "art class" crack either..........INDUSTRIAL DESIGN like I stated earlier. About the G6, it is a new design for a new car, if you want to still have old designs, you will be stuck in the past and never create anything new. I think Ford needs to go back to thier roots and make Model A's and model T's, screw making new designs, any car maker can do that. I think we all know what Ford is doing and it has been stated in many magazines, journals, and other places: They have been not doing that great the past few years and so to "bring back memories of the glory days" they have come up with all these retro cars to bring back some fond memories of when Ford was doing well(Thunderbird, Mustang, GT). This is no coincedence. To me, they all have the same degree of retroness.
If you like the design of the Mustang, great, super, go buy you one, that is not the point here. The point is that this car is nothing but recycled design updated for the moment. Even if you think it looks good, I don't see how anyone can deny where the design came from. I will state that I myself don't think it's a bad looking car. It's not great to me and I would not buy one. I will say that if the F5 is a car along the lines of the 05' Stang, I will not purchase that either.
02-06-2003, 10:36 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,873
I'd take May's retro over Chris Bangle's "Flame Surfacing" Futurism Crap anyday!
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Even if you think it looks good, I don't see how anyone can deny where the design came from.
Even if you think it looks good, I don't see how anyone can deny where the design came from.
02-07-2003, 07:30 AM
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Right, but don't say it's "new" or "innovative" or "fresh" or "revolutionary" or "evolutionary". Let's just call it what it is, a copy of the 67'.
Right, but don't say it's "new" or "innovative" or "fresh" or "revolutionary" or "evolutionary". Let's just call it what it is, a copy of the 67'.
02-07-2003, 07:33 AM
#27
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
Ditto....
Originally posted by Caps94ZODG
okay styling cues of the cars of the past like the Mustangs grill, side scoops, tail lights and such and so forth...much like in the debate these features passed down to you by your parents heredity (sp) or Heritage..yes Ford could of amalgamated all of there previous stangs into something thats now.. but thats to hard to do..might as well make a clean sheet of paper and be done with it. But to put heritage cues..no matter how many you can make a Mustang from 04 look like a 67 stang through heritage cues..
and flame me now..but if you put a 66 stang up to a 67 Camaro..took all the badging off the two cars no emblems or bowtie or running horse in the grill and painted them both black..with black interiors..presented them to a non car group and said "you think these two cars are the same but the one of the left is a 66 model and this one is a 67 model?"..you know something people would belive you....now 35 years later..things have changed..now put the two cars together and see how alike they are?? not at all...BUT if you put a 66 stang against a 03 stang..its got cues of what the original was..the hood, the wheels, the lights, you can draw all these to the 66 stang..and I think your just evolving with more of a stronger stylin cues to what a mustang was in designing the new one. Basically they are changing the grill and tail lights basically to match the car thats already there to a point..its already got the side scoops the hood the rake of the car down just adding more deffinition to what it was that made it a mustang..what about the FR500 or whatever show car from a few years ago..take a look at that and tell me that dosnt look like the 05 stang?http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/car...angfr500_4.jpg and then go to the 05 stang and say its not any different.
you put a 02 Camaro to a 67 Camaro and where is the similarities? none that strike me at all...just one thing that the 02 has with the 67..nothing..nada..
what Im saying there is not alot of cars on the road that can go back enough to do a heritage thing..most cars are new nameplates or on totally diffrent platforms than what they were origianally conceived to do..Monte, Impy and Malibu to name the 3 I think about..but they must invoke an image and when alot of people think Camaro they think of a few specific years...when they think of Mustang they think of those years represented in the 05 stang..the heritage of that can be shown on a car to make people go..WOW that is a Mustang..and should be done with a Camaro..
IMO..I think the 02 T/A looked more like it had heritage to its 69 T/A than the 02 Camaro that roled off the lot to its 67 brotheren..
but this is a good debate that I think gets peole to say what they think words mean to them..cus alot of the same words mean diffrent things to diffrent people..Retro to me is to bring back a copy of the original..the GT40 and the GT are RETRO..yes..but a 05 and a 97 Stang..heritage..maybee to much but it is heritage..
okay styling cues of the cars of the past like the Mustangs grill, side scoops, tail lights and such and so forth...much like in the debate these features passed down to you by your parents heredity (sp) or Heritage..yes Ford could of amalgamated all of there previous stangs into something thats now.. but thats to hard to do..might as well make a clean sheet of paper and be done with it. But to put heritage cues..no matter how many you can make a Mustang from 04 look like a 67 stang through heritage cues..
and flame me now..but if you put a 66 stang up to a 67 Camaro..took all the badging off the two cars no emblems or bowtie or running horse in the grill and painted them both black..with black interiors..presented them to a non car group and said "you think these two cars are the same but the one of the left is a 66 model and this one is a 67 model?"..you know something people would belive you....now 35 years later..things have changed..now put the two cars together and see how alike they are?? not at all...BUT if you put a 66 stang against a 03 stang..its got cues of what the original was..the hood, the wheels, the lights, you can draw all these to the 66 stang..and I think your just evolving with more of a stronger stylin cues to what a mustang was in designing the new one. Basically they are changing the grill and tail lights basically to match the car thats already there to a point..its already got the side scoops the hood the rake of the car down just adding more deffinition to what it was that made it a mustang..what about the FR500 or whatever show car from a few years ago..take a look at that and tell me that dosnt look like the 05 stang?http://www.fantasycars.com/derek/car...angfr500_4.jpg and then go to the 05 stang and say its not any different.
you put a 02 Camaro to a 67 Camaro and where is the similarities? none that strike me at all...just one thing that the 02 has with the 67..nothing..nada..
what Im saying there is not alot of cars on the road that can go back enough to do a heritage thing..most cars are new nameplates or on totally diffrent platforms than what they were origianally conceived to do..Monte, Impy and Malibu to name the 3 I think about..but they must invoke an image and when alot of people think Camaro they think of a few specific years...when they think of Mustang they think of those years represented in the 05 stang..the heritage of that can be shown on a car to make people go..WOW that is a Mustang..and should be done with a Camaro..
IMO..I think the 02 T/A looked more like it had heritage to its 69 T/A than the 02 Camaro that roled off the lot to its 67 brotheren..
but this is a good debate that I think gets peole to say what they think words mean to them..cus alot of the same words mean diffrent things to diffrent people..Retro to me is to bring back a copy of the original..the GT40 and the GT are RETRO..yes..but a 05 and a 97 Stang..heritage..maybee to much but it is heritage..
02-07-2003, 09:22 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
And a NEW IDEA comes over the horizon...
Let me take a moment to throw a new spin on this Ford/Retro smackdown party we're all enjoying. Something I have had in the back of my mind but haven't brought out yet because it never seemed pertinant 'til now.
Ford has gone "retro-wild" in the last year or two - given.
Look at the T-bird, the 49 concept, GT, even the reclamation of the Marauder name - these all harken to past models with historical significance, right?
Look at the Mustang offerings over the last few years too...
Bullitt - legendary moniker of the '68 movie starring Steve McQueen and that awesome green fastback (that probably resulted in 50K units sold that year!) .
Mach 1 - going back to the legendary '69 model that introduced the new "performance Mustang for the handyman". It sold so well, Ford dropped the GT option next year due to lack of orders for the option.
The '05 concepts - Ford definitely making a statement that they want you to see history in the car, where it came from. Favoring the most popular of all the Mustangs ever built.
Again - these all harken to past models with historical significance, right?
Why would Ford be reaching into it's past, bringing out cars that are either identical, or very similar to, the models it made from 1949 thru 1973 (more or less)? Picking models that had the most significant public appeal, sales, desireability, or mystique? It's pretty simple IMO...
Happy 100th Birthday FoMoCo!!!
I think everything you have seen in the past 2 years or so, and some things we have yet to see, and especially the '05 Mustang concepts are all part of a general theme that Ford has planned and executed in anticipation of the year-long party that starts this summer. It's an intentional "trip to the past" to revive memories and to pay tribute to models that are now milestones in the company's past - models that have even defined the company itself. I also don't think it will last long. The party will end, and the cars like the T-bird and Mustang will change and evolve again. But for a year or two more, we are going to enjoy the "olden days relived". I love it too.
The irony (if it is one) is that the '05, that is so unabashedly "retro" (I would have chosen a different word, but somebody posted a webster's definition and... well... you know.
) could very easily be introduced in the exact same manner as the first Mustang - exactly 40 years ago, even to the day. Doesn't it make more sense to publicly honor the original car on a milestone anniversary?
They have all-new models currently selling, like the Focus and the Escape, and "new" models on the way like the F500 too. We were given some new tidbits to chew on at NAIAS like the new Mercury and the 427 concepts. But for a year or two, and done selectively with models that have a true history, I think it's just kinda downright neat. It also takes big brass ones to risk doing things like this with your bread and butter too, so Kudos to them for doing it.
I'll be anxiously waiting to see what GM comes up with for their big bash in a few years...
At least they will have had the benefit of seeing how Ford's party comes off before they decide what to do! Should be a blast either way.
Ford has gone "retro-wild" in the last year or two - given.
Look at the T-bird, the 49 concept, GT, even the reclamation of the Marauder name - these all harken to past models with historical significance, right?
Look at the Mustang offerings over the last few years too...
Bullitt - legendary moniker of the '68 movie starring Steve McQueen and that awesome green fastback (that probably resulted in 50K units sold that year!) .
Mach 1 - going back to the legendary '69 model that introduced the new "performance Mustang for the handyman". It sold so well, Ford dropped the GT option next year due to lack of orders for the option.
The '05 concepts - Ford definitely making a statement that they want you to see history in the car, where it came from. Favoring the most popular of all the Mustangs ever built.
Again - these all harken to past models with historical significance, right?
Why would Ford be reaching into it's past, bringing out cars that are either identical, or very similar to, the models it made from 1949 thru 1973 (more or less)? Picking models that had the most significant public appeal, sales, desireability, or mystique? It's pretty simple IMO...
Happy 100th Birthday FoMoCo!!!
I think everything you have seen in the past 2 years or so, and some things we have yet to see, and especially the '05 Mustang concepts are all part of a general theme that Ford has planned and executed in anticipation of the year-long party that starts this summer. It's an intentional "trip to the past" to revive memories and to pay tribute to models that are now milestones in the company's past - models that have even defined the company itself. I also don't think it will last long. The party will end, and the cars like the T-bird and Mustang will change and evolve again. But for a year or two more, we are going to enjoy the "olden days relived". I love it too.
The irony (if it is one) is that the '05, that is so unabashedly "retro" (I would have chosen a different word, but somebody posted a webster's definition and... well... you know.
) could very easily be introduced in the exact same manner as the first Mustang - exactly 40 years ago, even to the day. Doesn't it make more sense to publicly honor the original car on a milestone anniversary?They have all-new models currently selling, like the Focus and the Escape, and "new" models on the way like the F500 too. We were given some new tidbits to chew on at NAIAS like the new Mercury and the 427 concepts. But for a year or two, and done selectively with models that have a true history, I think it's just kinda downright neat. It also takes big brass ones to risk doing things like this with your bread and butter too, so Kudos to them for doing it.
I'll be anxiously waiting to see what GM comes up with for their big bash in a few years...
At least they will have had the benefit of seeing how Ford's party comes off before they decide what to do! Should be a blast either way.
Last edited by ProudPony; 02-07-2003 at 09:27 AM.
02-07-2003, 10:37 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Lilburn, GA, USA
Posts: 2,072
I have to disagree with all these Ford retro cars being made as a build-up to the 100th anniversary. I think it's just a coincedence. The only car I can see that might fall into those lines would be the "GT". What is the point of bringing back all these old nameplates or models and making so many retro concepts and production designs to celebrate the 100th birthday. I would think just one model(like the GT) would have a much bigger impact than turning half the company into retro cars.
02-07-2003, 10:38 AM
#30
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I have to disagree with all these Ford retro cars being made as a build-up to the 100th anniversary. I think it's just a coincedence. The only car I can see that might fall into those lines would be the "GT". What is the point of bringing back all these old nameplates or models and making so many retro concepts and production designs to celebrate the 100th birthday. I would think just one model(like the GT) would have a much bigger impact than turning half the company into retro cars.
I have to disagree with all these Ford retro cars being made as a build-up to the 100th anniversary. I think it's just a coincedence. The only car I can see that might fall into those lines would be the "GT". What is the point of bringing back all these old nameplates or models and making so many retro concepts and production designs to celebrate the 100th birthday. I would think just one model(like the GT) would have a much bigger impact than turning half the company into retro cars.