Horsepower breeds excitement...if you want to charge mid $30k ++ for a car and it looks sporty it sure as heck better be able to compete with other cars in it's class and be able to get out of it's own way.

The T-Bird didn't do anything well other than look good....and some argue that point.

The Crossfire has all the bells and whistles to be a neat car.....but it is horribly underpowered........

No-one is asking these cars to be quarter mile kings...but they should be an embarrasment to drive either....

 

I think price and market demand have more to do with it than anything.

Look at the PT Cuiser, Beetle and Mini. All three are successfull because of two common features... Retro and Inexpensive. Notice how "Horsepower" doesn't play into it? Now that they have been successful, manufacturers are looking at producing higher optioned models with more performance in mind.

Now look at the T-bird. Its high ticket price basically killed it. SSR and perhaps crossfire may have the same problems. Great retro looks... but way overpriced for the market.

That leads to the Chevy Belair. If produced, GM needs to price this in the same range as the PT's, Beetles and Minis to be successful (around $20k - 25k?). After a couple years with popularity then add a performance model to suck it the folks that didn't buy one because they were too mild.

Retro isn't a failure when its done "cheap".

 

So... you are saying horsepower is not an issue, and yet T-Bird still failed?? Hardly an arguement to say retro-bashing is a bad thing!

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Retro in and of itself isn't to blame for any car's decline, but relying only on a retro style to sell a car doesn't seem to be a smart move.

PT Cruiser is still actually doing well, and isn't too far below projections. It's just that the PT's initial 2 years was far beyond what Chrysler predicted, and now by comparison it seems weak to some people, even though Chrysler is still making a pretty penny on it. The fact that it's a very practical Minivan is what's keeping it going.

On the flip side, there's the current Thunderbird. Every 2 seat convertible on the market does something sporting very well. Either speed, handling, or acceleration. The Thunderbird does nothing well because Ford figured that it didn't have to. Now that the gee whiz factor is gone, there's nothing left to sell the car (even though Ford had some fantastic cures on display at the LA Auto Show back in January, seems they decided to give up instead! )

All cars seel well the 1st few years, and all cars sales peter out soon after without updates or a very strong enthusiast base. VW went the right route with the turbo & convertible Beetle (though they waited till too late in the game) and I've already seen plenty of GT Cruisers around here, so I know they brought people into the showrooms.

A retro car is good for drawing in showroom traffic (the real purpose of the SSR, Thunderbird, even the original retro, the Viper). But for a regular production, high volume vehicle (like the PT perhaps) unless the company is going to do something every year to keep it fresh, or unless it's practical (again like the PT), they probally should keep it to just hints & touches (like the Corvette and the current & next Mustang).

 

Retro is moronic and pretty much every car should stay away from it. (just throwing that out there in case 5th Gen designers are reading)

IMO the next M*stang will be less retro than the concept, and if it isn't, I bet interest will leave quicker than it should as it almost always is with retro because of the near completly reused designs instead of using some cues and creating a new look at the same time.

 

To say the T-Bird doesnt do anything well is anything but the truth,Sure it isnt going to beat a Z06-It isnt intended to.But there has been great reviews to its handling.The BIGGEST problem with the Bird is the price (power is DEBATABLE),Nothing more nothing less.I for one dont know what the bean counters were thinking.Why would they price the car basicly the same as a 4 door Lincoln LS???

Im not trying to justify the stupidity that was used in making the buisness case for the Bird,Only to state my opinion on the car as it is.Nothing on the car is exactly cheap,SLA front suspension,Very nice engine other then not being 1000hp to suit a chevy guys need and thoughts that HP sells the car by its self.Which it doesnt.The car has a fiberglass body on it as well.Im sure one can think for a minute about that and come to a conclusion.
The car wasnt intended to have a high sales number,And most here know that the greater the production-generally the cheaper it is to build.

TO ALL:
plz excuse my first reply to this thread.I come here quite often and was under the impression the Admin. isnt wanting threads to be redone as often as they are.

 

When I say the Bird doesn't do anything well, I mean it doesn't stand out. Ford never intended the current Thunderbird to be a performance car, and actually came out and said so many times. If I remember correctly, the term was "Boulevard Cruiser". It has good handling and good power, but it isn't meant to carve up the road like a Corvette or even a Miata or Z3, and it certainly wasn't meant to melt tires.

On the question of price, you are dead on there! But that also makes Thunderbird's performance even more obvious. At $40,000+, it's playing in a neighborhood full of fast cars. In that company, once the styling wears off, and it has to rely on it's merits, there are plenty of 2 passenger convertibles in that price range that offer alot more excitement. Judging by the Bird's sales drop compared to the still strong sales of it's competitors seems to bear that out.

Thunderbirds should never have been priced over $32-35,000. With Lincoln LS sedans priced $10,000 too high, and the equally overpriced Aviator, it's going to be interesting if Ford's policy of pricing the heck out of their new high intrest vehicles will carry over to the next Cobra and Lightning.

 

Where else can we go for car design? Not saying retro is the only answer. Just where else can interesting car design go without it being a bubble on wheels?

 

Something new and not a bubble:

Cadillac CTS.

There are limitless designs... we just need to find the creative people to brig them out.

 

If I remember correctly the new Thunderbird does 0-60 in the high 6's and the 1/4 mile at around 15.1 seconds. Those numbers aren't blazing fast by any stretch of the imagination, but they are "quick" for a luxury convertible. Its competitor the Mercedes CLK-430 convertible is no quicker. The CLK-430 has 275hp, the CLK-320 215hp, and the TB 280hp.

Its problem wasn't lack of power, but more its price. Ford should have priced it $5k cheaper.

I personally didn't think selling near 20k units was bad. Sure it's a few thousand below projected sales, but it's also a best-seller in its class of premium convertibles.

 

I think one of the problems with retro is that you alienate a lot of people who have no ties to what the car originally was. I could care less about a retro Mustang, I was hoping for some flashy new design that would set the world on fire. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement.

 

Completly agreed. I also feel that way.

 

My main complanint about retro, besides being uncreative, is; how do you redesign a car deemed retro? The PT Cruiser has already been sold for 4 years, and to me, it looks dated already. The Beetle is already there. You guys did bring up a point that, even if designed futuristic, it could be a flop. Well, look at Scion sales. They're actually doing okay. And the Nissian Maxima, and Mazda RX8 are designed futuristiclly, and seem to be doing well.

I just HOPE GM reads this board, because they've been introducing too many reto vechicles in the last few auto shows. And usually, only car magazines and enthusits notice them.
(SSR, Bel Air, Chevy SS).

 

Retro is a worthless styling ploy. It stimulates excitement and interest and thats it. Car companies love it because people love to buy trendy, retro, new crap. I personally think designs should be progressive. New mustang looks like old ? Lame! T bird looks like old? Lame! Why doesn't some car manufacturer just RE-release there cars from the 50's. Crap, they are already designed and ready to go. The only designs i want to see are attractive to the eye on first glance, updated frequently, and improve based on customer opinions.

5th gen f-body better not be retro and the GTO, thank god, is NOT retro

 

Hate to break it to you, but the new Mustang did set the world on fire.

That was the ONLY car at that show that was talked about. I'd see people post about new Lambos and all sorts of high end cars, and people would come back and ask them for more details on the Mustang. Which car was on the cover of all the auto mags a few months ago? It wasn't the Chevy SS, that's for sure.

Retro doesn't equal failure at all. The Beetle, Mini and PT Cruiser all seem to be doing just fine. Overpriced gimmick cars like the T-Bird fail, but why is that a surprise? The SSR likely will fail as well, and I don't think they sold very many Prowlers either. You just don't have much market for 2 seat convertables that aren't performance minded for $40k+.

I see plenty of these "failed" retro cars on the streets. I see a lot more PT Cruisers, Beetles and Minis than I do anything from Chevy. The idea that they are the same car is silly. The new Beetle and Mini look enough like the old ones to remind you, but have a lot of major differences. Size for one, try setting them next to their 30 year old bretheren and see how similar they look. The new Beetle is vaguely the same shape as the old car, same goes for the new Mini. If you squint your eyes in dim light after a few beers and look at them both from half a mile away maybe you'd mix them up.

Nothing wrong with cars that are reminscent of days past. That just shouldn't be used as an excuse to put out crappy cars that are nothing but a gimmick. T-Bird, SSR....cars that are trying to sell based on their looks alone. And that's why they won't do well.