Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 321
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Originally Posted by SNEAKY NEIL
First of all, I don't think anyone is looking for a "revolutionary" design, they are looking for an evoltionary design. I think having a design that totally turns upsidedown everything we know a Camaro to be would be a big mistake. Evolution is the way to go and the Corvette is the best example of this which has been mentioned often. It can be done, after all, I bet some of the same people who worked on the Vette will/have worked on the 5th gen.
Second, you can have a better packaged car without having to have a total upright design like the Mustang or 1st gen Camaro. Both of those cars aerodynamics are are not very good for obvious reasons and of course that has a number of drawbacks. But most importantly, just because you have more useful interior packaging or a more upright design, it does not mean that the car has to look like a 1st gen. It is possible to be creative and come up with a solution that doesn't look to a 40 year old design.
I am not sure how you don't include the Mustang with the other retro cars you mentioned above. The Mustang looks like a 60's Mustang and nothing else. It is a modernized version of that vehicle, just like the T-bird. The 300 looks like no past vehicle from Chrystler but it uses the design language and design cues from the past that are not so literal to create a modern looking car.
The Camaro should look to the success of the 300 and not the Mustang. I would say thet the 300 is far more a success than the Mustang. The Mustang was going to sell well no matter what with a redesign but the 300 used a bold, modern design and good mechanicals to really make a huge impact.
Look to the past for design cues (NOT TOTAL DESIGNS) but abstract them and take them into the future.
Second, you can have a better packaged car without having to have a total upright design like the Mustang or 1st gen Camaro. Both of those cars aerodynamics are are not very good for obvious reasons and of course that has a number of drawbacks. But most importantly, just because you have more useful interior packaging or a more upright design, it does not mean that the car has to look like a 1st gen. It is possible to be creative and come up with a solution that doesn't look to a 40 year old design.
I am not sure how you don't include the Mustang with the other retro cars you mentioned above. The Mustang looks like a 60's Mustang and nothing else. It is a modernized version of that vehicle, just like the T-bird. The 300 looks like no past vehicle from Chrystler but it uses the design language and design cues from the past that are not so literal to create a modern looking car.
The Camaro should look to the success of the 300 and not the Mustang. I would say thet the 300 is far more a success than the Mustang. The Mustang was going to sell well no matter what with a redesign but the 300 used a bold, modern design and good mechanicals to really make a huge impact.
Look to the past for design cues (NOT TOTAL DESIGNS) but abstract them and take them into the future.
Otherwise I doubt GM will go overboard.As for groundbreaking, I don't think we'll see plastic body panels like the 4th gen had.
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 586
From: OHIO
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Ummm if you don't want a retro camaro you don't HAVE TO BUY ONE. Same for a "revolutionary" camaro.
TONY
I'd like GM to make the cobalt ss turbo and awd but all the crying in the world won't make that happen....
TONY
I'd like GM to make the cobalt ss turbo and awd but all the crying in the world won't make that happen....
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 228
From: South Bend, Indiana
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
I think I found what they should possibly base a modern Camaro off of!
Its a mix of a few generations and could do aay with some thing and do with some others but looks like a candidate possibly. Nix that rear lip or bring it down a little but Im diggin this alot. Sorry its not letting me make a hyperlink http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/fe...un/index.html#
Its a mix of a few generations and could do aay with some thing and do with some others but looks like a candidate possibly. Nix that rear lip or bring it down a little but Im diggin this alot. Sorry its not letting me make a hyperlink http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/fe...un/index.html#
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 228
From: South Bend, Indiana
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Hey the hyperlink worked! This is a better picture and I think if you dont want retro your going to possibly like this. The wheels areas stick out and remind of the first gen, something about the roof and the front remind me of the third gen, spoiler 2nd gen, and everything else is obviously 4th gen but it needs some changes. http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/fe...un/index1.html
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Originally Posted by Yossarian14
I think I found what they should possibly base a modern Camaro off of!
Its a mix of a few generations and could do aay with some thing and do with some others but looks like a candidate possibly. Nix that rear lip or bring it down a little but Im diggin this alot. Sorry its not letting me make a hyperlink http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/fe...un/index.html#
Its a mix of a few generations and could do aay with some thing and do with some others but looks like a candidate possibly. Nix that rear lip or bring it down a little but Im diggin this alot. Sorry its not letting me make a hyperlink http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/fe...un/index.html#
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,370
From: Germany
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Originally Posted by jg95z28
Ummm.... that's just a 4th gen with a body kit.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,306
From: Jersey Shore
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
I'd say the PT Cruiser, Thunderbird, Mini, and New Beetle are all "retro" in that they completely copy past design themes, down to wheel openings.
The Mustang and Chrysler 300 both reach to the past for influence, but look entirely modern and up to date. The sheetmetal is creased, the beltlines are unusually high, & the wheel opening stampings are exaggerated. The only thing retro about these 2 are the dashboards.
The Mustang and Chrysler 300 both reach to the past for influence, but look entirely modern and up to date. The sheetmetal is creased, the beltlines are unusually high, & the wheel opening stampings are exaggerated. The only thing retro about these 2 are the dashboards.
Mini and Beetle..Not to retro. They are mear evolutions of the past. It just so happens that neither of them had a major redesign or an update in over 30 years. The idea of the car going back to the 60's might just be a ploy for sales, but the car itself are not "retro", but only in the form of marketing. This is where the 300 fits in, even though most people have ZERO clue that there was ever a 300C 50 years ago. They might make the relation to the 300M FWD LH car, but I think the 300's success is based on PURE design. Hemi is a big one, and without RWD, you wouldnt get Hemi, so they go hand in hand.
Mustang is retro. I see as much SN95 in the new Mustang, as I see Fox body/5.0 body style in the SN95, in that outside of a Blue Oval and a name, there is ZERO.
What I do see is a direct moderinzation of a old design, i.e. retro. There is no way around it. You can try to say whatever you want...but 95% of the people will say "It looks like the old ones." Not "Wow...I totaly thought it was a 98 till I saw the nose."
You say that you want a popular design? Why not just go for the easy shot, go retro, and let the cards fall...I mean, who cares right? Mustang is selling like gangbusters, lets just do it. Hey, I mean who cares if Chevy gets called out, saying they copied Ford's idea, you know just like everyone does abotu teh HHR.
But hey? Its a 69...only its not!! I mean...who cares what the mags have to say right? All that stuff about GM not going out ahead and trying anything...forget it, just phone it in GM, and do the retro.
Dont put effort into it, dont even bother. Take a 1969 Camaro, put it in the microwave for 1 min, put an LS2 in it with updated quality, but same design interior, and just be done.
Forget about all that stuff about leading design and being ahead and all that BS that made the 1969 so hot when it was new, and just draw off what you already know, not what you might hope could become a hit.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,370
From: Germany
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
i sense a bit of sarcasm in that last post... But yea the mustang looks identical to the 60's models... and i dont like the 60's models to begins with so... Yuck! the new mustang looks like an old persons car at night from the back, looks ugly
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Originally Posted by Jason E
Well imagine that You mean, 1st gens weren't always prized possessions? Loved by all? You mean to tell me my father sold his well-cared-for (but rustily falling apart) '69 by '75 despite the fact the car was the paragon of the collector industry?
It amazes me how people can have such tunnel vision. A '69 Camaro by the mid '70s was an also-ran. My father's had 90k miles on it and had already gone through 3 clutches because it had a 3 on the tree (yes, not all '69s were SSs and Z28s) that the first owner abused the crap out of and never shifted right (he purchased in '72 with 35k on it). The white vinyl top was peeling and cracked. The driver door no longer unlocked from the outside. Rear 1/4s? What rear 1/4s? They were strewn rustily all over the highways of New England. The gagues didn't work half the time. Think about it people...imagine a '98 Camaro displaying these problems today.
Like Charlie just said, at one point these were ALL used cars...just like 3rd and 4th gens are today. And what looks worse to people's perception? A rusty 6 year old Camaro, or a somewhat beat 15+ year old one? Someday, all the 20 somethings will covet 3rd and 4th gens too...despite their "mullet factor" now.
The problem with history is that people fall in love with the image instead of the reality.
You mean, 1st gens weren't always prized possessions? Loved by all? You mean to tell me my father sold his well-cared-for (but rustily falling apart) '69 by '75 despite the fact the car was the paragon of the collector industry?It amazes me how people can have such tunnel vision. A '69 Camaro by the mid '70s was an also-ran. My father's had 90k miles on it and had already gone through 3 clutches because it had a 3 on the tree (yes, not all '69s were SSs and Z28s) that the first owner abused the crap out of and never shifted right (he purchased in '72 with 35k on it). The white vinyl top was peeling and cracked. The driver door no longer unlocked from the outside. Rear 1/4s? What rear 1/4s? They were strewn rustily all over the highways of New England. The gagues didn't work half the time. Think about it people...imagine a '98 Camaro displaying these problems today.
Like Charlie just said, at one point these were ALL used cars...just like 3rd and 4th gens are today. And what looks worse to people's perception? A rusty 6 year old Camaro, or a somewhat beat 15+ year old one? Someday, all the 20 somethings will covet 3rd and 4th gens too...despite their "mullet factor" now.
The problem with history is that people fall in love with the image instead of the reality.
By the mid 70's all muscle and pony cars were in hard times. Gas shortage anyone????
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Originally Posted by Jason E
Groundbreaking designs? Say what? Are we talking about the same General Motors, or is there another GM I didn't know about?
LX is ground-breaking, and proves following the leader will not necessarily win you sales. Ford didn't copy the PT in terms of retro. Ford pretty much copies ALL of its famous designs. Witness the T-Bird/GT/Mustang. Do you believe the PT had anything to do with it?
It is "me-too-ish" and way too much follow the leader to have a retro '08 Camaro...without a doubt. Everyone pans the HHR for doing the EXACT SAME THING...yet for a Camaro its ok?
Why is it the only "safe" way to make a killing on a Camaro is retro? Can't they do a ground-breaking, attractive, FRESH design?
LX is ground-breaking, and proves following the leader will not necessarily win you sales. Ford didn't copy the PT in terms of retro. Ford pretty much copies ALL of its famous designs. Witness the T-Bird/GT/Mustang. Do you believe the PT had anything to do with it?
It is "me-too-ish" and way too much follow the leader to have a retro '08 Camaro...without a doubt. Everyone pans the HHR for doing the EXACT SAME THING...yet for a Camaro its ok?
Why is it the only "safe" way to make a killing on a Camaro is retro? Can't they do a ground-breaking, attractive, FRESH design?
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Originally Posted by OctaneZ28
I think part of KNOWING it's a Camaro when you first see it or from down the road is the incorporation of heritage styling cues.
So we're gonna see some of that no doubt.
But an "updated copy" (which is what I call the 05 Mustang) I think would be the wrong direction to go.
Look at sales figures of retro cars...
The first 2-3 years they BOOM, then they disappear.
Take PT Cruiser for example: Couldn't touch one for $20K when they came out. Now you can get one new for $12K. Why? Sales slump in a big way.
I subscribe to the belief that retro is a "fad" nearing the end of it's cycle.
So I think we will see a Camaro that is revolutionary, yet has more of the shape of the 1st gen, with just enough heritage styling cues mixed in to scream CAMARO!
So we're gonna see some of that no doubt.
But an "updated copy" (which is what I call the 05 Mustang) I think would be the wrong direction to go.
Look at sales figures of retro cars...
The first 2-3 years they BOOM, then they disappear.
Take PT Cruiser for example: Couldn't touch one for $20K when they came out. Now you can get one new for $12K. Why? Sales slump in a big way.
I subscribe to the belief that retro is a "fad" nearing the end of it's cycle.
So I think we will see a Camaro that is revolutionary, yet has more of the shape of the 1st gen, with just enough heritage styling cues mixed in to scream CAMARO!
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Originally Posted by SNEAKY NEIL
First of all, I don't think anyone is looking for a "revolutionary" design, they are looking for an evoltionary design. I think having a design that totally turns upsidedown everything we know a Camaro to be would be a big mistake. Evolution is the way to go and the Corvette is the best example of this which has been mentioned often. It can be done, after all, I bet some of the same people who worked on the Vette will/have worked on the 5th gen.
Second, you can have a better packaged car without having to have a total upright design like the Mustang or 1st gen Camaro. Both of those cars aerodynamics are are not very good for obvious reasons and of course that has a number of drawbacks. But most importantly, just because you have more useful interior packaging or a more upright design, it does not mean that the car has to look like a 1st gen. It is possible to be creative and come up with a solution that doesn't look to a 40 year old design.
I am not sure how you don't include the Mustang with the other retro cars you mentioned above. The Mustang looks like a 60's Mustang and nothing else. It is a modernized version of that vehicle, just like the T-bird. The 300 looks like no past vehicle from Chrystler but it uses the design language and design cues from the past that are not so literal to create a modern looking car.
The Camaro should look to the success of the 300 and not the Mustang. I would say thet the 300 is far more a success than the Mustang. The Mustang was going to sell well no matter what with a redesign but the 300 used a bold, modern design and good mechanicals to really make a huge impact.
Look to the past for design cues (NOT TOTAL DESIGNS) but abstract them and take them into the future.
Second, you can have a better packaged car without having to have a total upright design like the Mustang or 1st gen Camaro. Both of those cars aerodynamics are are not very good for obvious reasons and of course that has a number of drawbacks. But most importantly, just because you have more useful interior packaging or a more upright design, it does not mean that the car has to look like a 1st gen. It is possible to be creative and come up with a solution that doesn't look to a 40 year old design.
I am not sure how you don't include the Mustang with the other retro cars you mentioned above. The Mustang looks like a 60's Mustang and nothing else. It is a modernized version of that vehicle, just like the T-bird. The 300 looks like no past vehicle from Chrystler but it uses the design language and design cues from the past that are not so literal to create a modern looking car.
The Camaro should look to the success of the 300 and not the Mustang. I would say thet the 300 is far more a success than the Mustang. The Mustang was going to sell well no matter what with a redesign but the 300 used a bold, modern design and good mechanicals to really make a huge impact.
Look to the past for design cues (NOT TOTAL DESIGNS) but abstract them and take them into the future.
See, in the late 90's designers learned that aerodynaics dont have to be handled by slick bubble designs. They can do just as well with trick grill and under car design. Not many people use the top end of the speedometer any way. The concern to the general population is gas milage and the new "boxy" designs dont do bad at all. You are wrong about the 300 not being retro. Look at the 300's from the past. The gril ont he 300 is just turned upside down. The car is clearly a nod to the past in every way. Its the same as the PT cruiser. While its not an exactl copy of any particular car, it takes cues from MANY past vehicles and combines them.
Registered User
Joined: May 1998
Posts: 317
From: Maumee, OH
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Can we start using another term here? How about "evolutionary" to replace both "retro" and "revolutionary". I wouldn't mind a '69 Camaro with nearly 40 years of evolution behind it. I sure as hell don't want a freshened copy (ala Mustang).
What I don't want:
A car that goes by and you say "what the f*** was that?"
What I do want:
A car that goes by and you say "What was that? Kinda looked like a Camaro..."
Point being, it needs to "look" like a Camaro. I'm not sure any single person here can make that decision. Only after it's unveiled can we say for sure.
I'm just guessing, but from what Guy said earlier, it looks like it's going to be at least retro inspired. Just please don't make it a copy. The new Mustang looks like someone over-used the blur and smooth functions in Photoshop on a '67 Mustang and then brought it to life.
What I don't want:
A car that goes by and you say "what the f*** was that?"
What I do want:
A car that goes by and you say "What was that? Kinda looked like a Camaro..."
Point being, it needs to "look" like a Camaro. I'm not sure any single person here can make that decision. Only after it's unveiled can we say for sure.
I'm just guessing, but from what Guy said earlier, it looks like it's going to be at least retro inspired. Just please don't make it a copy. The new Mustang looks like someone over-used the blur and smooth functions in Photoshop on a '67 Mustang and then brought it to life.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,977
From: SeVa
Re: Retro vs. Revolutionary: The 5th Gen’s Styling
Gawd, at Mustangsource.com the never ending debate is SLR vs IRS. Here it seems to be shaping up as revolutionary vs. evolutionary.
IMO, If you see it, you need to recognize it and be able to draw on all the fuzzy stuff from the past. ZL-1, SS, RS, Z-28, etc and there is nothing wrong with that. If you got the heritage might as well cash in on it and the F-body has a ton of it.