Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
The word 'room' can be a tricky in the context of the question raised. I recall the ute market here in Aus where Commodore ute sold at a rate of 350/month to top the ute sales market in the late 90s. These days, it's rare that the ute sales dip below 1500/month and that's for both Commodore ute and its rival from Ford.
What I am implying is that the ute market grew substantially from the lowly 300/month for both Holden and Ford. If the manufacturers build desirable machines, the consumers will come. There will always be enough room. That's just my opinion.
What I am implying is that the ute market grew substantially from the lowly 300/month for both Holden and Ford. If the manufacturers build desirable machines, the consumers will come. There will always be enough room. That's just my opinion.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,368
From: OR
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Originally Posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Ever since the second gen, the Camaro has been a different alternative to the Mustang in a number of ways and both had a following. Now, there will be 3 cars, with the Camaro comming out last, that are essentially very similar. We all want the Camaro to do well, but what is going to make it so great that the others don't offer? Is it just going to be just another offering in the same market segment like a Camry is to an Accord or will it really stand out and make people notice? I don't want to be tempted to check out what Ford and Dodge have to offer, I want to know without a doubt that the Camaro is what I want.
Ditto. Its because a new guy took over design and wanted to take the Camaro over to the new direction of low slung and sleek, like some of the exotic european supercars. That was ______'s direction (I forgot his name).. Even in the 70's commercials they pushed this.
This is why we're so heavily split.. because the Camaro itself took a turn in the 2nd gen, and didn't look back.. and you have people that liked that direction, and people that didn't.
IMO, going retro off the 1st gen is basically going back the family tree and disregarding what happened from the 2nd gen on.
Its like history all over again. Ford comes out with the Mustang.. Woo's the public and sells plenty of them. GM takes notices and comes out with the Camaro, to directly combat the Mustang..
Is the 6th gen going to be more like the 2nd gen's?
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,646
From: Portland, OR
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Originally Posted by Ken S
Is the 6th gen going to be more like the 2nd gen's?
Also, the Mustang took a much more dramatic turn with the Mustang II, which I thought tried to emulate the 240Z AND had some strong 2nd gen Camaro styling hints in the hood and front end. I know Iococca (sp?) was trying to get it back to it's original 'purpose', but to me it seemed to be trying to compete with a new wave of small, nimble, sporty imports.
Last edited by dream '94 Z28; Dec 27, 2005 at 11:38 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,688
From: Middle of Kansas
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Originally Posted by Aaron91RS
Remember the retro Camaro isn't coming out till 2009! Thats like betting an oil stock will be hot in 3 years because it is today.
By then who says the mustang will still be retro. By then fad's may have changed.
By then who says the mustang will still be retro. By then fad's may have changed.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Originally Posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I think it would be fine to have one retro car in the GM line-up for Chevrolet only. A retro car makes no sense in any of the other brands except maybe Pontiac with the GTO. So for Chevrolet that means that the retro car could be the SSR or HHR but now you are looking at 3 retro cars in the line-up and it is starting to get a little silly. If the Mustang wasn't retro, then I could understand a retro Camaro. I wouldn't like it but I could understand. Now, with both the Mustang and Challenger doing the retro thing first, it is a bit rediculus and sad with the Camaro following like this. I really want to like the Camaro, but I can't. I have only owned Camaro's and I was really looking to buy my first brand new Camaro but I may go for the GTO or Corvette now.
One way to create exciting and desirable designs again is to let the designers do thier job and let them loose. Don't play it so safe. The auto industry is starting to do this and it seems GM is too. The auto designers are some of the most talented in the world and they are capable of great things, they just need to be allowed to do so.
How about this: What would have happened if GM said "let's bring in some designs from the past for Cadillac's resurgence"? It would not have worked. You wouldn't have the bold new look of Cadillac and would probably have been stuck with the same older demographic buying thier vehicles. There would not have been the huge buzz about the new face of Cadillac and the whole world would not have taken notice. I don't see Cadillac trying to convice everyone that they are a new company ready to compete with anyone with new world class vehicles with designs from 30 or 40 years ago. Who would take them seriously? How would this lure import buyers? The Camaro needs to lure import buyers. How is this going to lure import buyers?
I'm saying that every design has to be 100% new because for certain vehicles, that would be a mistake. That includes the Corvette, GTO, maybe Impala, and of course, the Camaro. The name plates that are legends and have spanned many years should have some traces of the past but have a very modern and progressive look. One touch that I think is really nice is the portholes on Buicks. I think that is a great styling element and it connects and identifies the cars to the past without being retro. Just look to the Corvette for the perfect example of design touches from the past but staying modern and not going down the road of retro.
One way to create exciting and desirable designs again is to let the designers do thier job and let them loose. Don't play it so safe. The auto industry is starting to do this and it seems GM is too. The auto designers are some of the most talented in the world and they are capable of great things, they just need to be allowed to do so.
How about this: What would have happened if GM said "let's bring in some designs from the past for Cadillac's resurgence"? It would not have worked. You wouldn't have the bold new look of Cadillac and would probably have been stuck with the same older demographic buying thier vehicles. There would not have been the huge buzz about the new face of Cadillac and the whole world would not have taken notice. I don't see Cadillac trying to convice everyone that they are a new company ready to compete with anyone with new world class vehicles with designs from 30 or 40 years ago. Who would take them seriously? How would this lure import buyers? The Camaro needs to lure import buyers. How is this going to lure import buyers?
I'm saying that every design has to be 100% new because for certain vehicles, that would be a mistake. That includes the Corvette, GTO, maybe Impala, and of course, the Camaro. The name plates that are legends and have spanned many years should have some traces of the past but have a very modern and progressive look. One touch that I think is really nice is the portholes on Buicks. I think that is a great styling element and it connects and identifies the cars to the past without being retro. Just look to the Corvette for the perfect example of design touches from the past but staying modern and not going down the road of retro.
The thing you are missing that automotive design is 'art' and to apply the term 'Modern' to it implies a specific artistic style (like 'modern art'). While you might be biased towards that type of art (and that's fine), but its a mistake to think of 'art' in the same way you view 'technological' (or scientific) advancements.
While technology progresses and evolves , 'art' on the other hand has it own path that does not always converge with technology (at times it can even contradict it).
It wouldn't hurt GM to put a little more "Art" in their "Art and Science" slogan for next-gen Cadillacs and from what I've read thats exactly what Bob Lutz intends to do .
Last edited by johnsocal; Dec 28, 2005 at 01:42 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,646
From: Portland, OR
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Originally Posted by johnsocal
While technology progresses and evolves , 'art' on the other hand has it own path that does not always converge with technology.
What would retro style say about each?
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Originally Posted by dream '94 Z28
That is very but, BUT, (at least) in American culture car styling has historically followed cultural mood or technological advancements (example the jet plane styling cues of the '50s and the rigid 'computer equation' grids and squares of the '80s) which then drove the styling of other objects.
What would retro style say about each?
What would retro style say about each?
"Often I think 'Retro' is the physical manifestation of "The futher you are away from home the more you desire it"
Meaning: Western cultures 'rapid' technological advancements in conjunction with so many families being broken-up and/or spread out throughout the country makes people feel unsettled. This unsettled and/or uncomfortable feeling makes them look to symbols of the past (RETRO) as a reference to a simpler time when things were more defined. Retro items often have a way of bringing warm (comfortable)feelings to a person that can remind them of their youth, family, and home."
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,646
From: Portland, OR
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
On the level and meaning of the quote, collecting icons of your past does not solve the present problem, mearly masks it.
Philisophocaly speaking, retro would be the equivilent of sticking your head in the sand until your problems are solved (by someone else).
"Tomorrow's problems cannot be solved with yesterday's thinking." - Albert Einstein
Philisophocaly speaking, retro would be the equivilent of sticking your head in the sand until your problems are solved (by someone else).
"Tomorrow's problems cannot be solved with yesterday's thinking." - Albert Einstein
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Originally Posted by dream '94 Z28
On the level and meaning of the quote, collecting icons of your past does not solve the present problem, mearly masks it.
Philisophocaly speaking, retro would be the equivilent of sticking your head in the sand until your problems are solved (by someone else).
"Tomorrow's problems cannot be solved with yesterday's thinking." - Albert Einstein
Philisophocaly speaking, retro would be the equivilent of sticking your head in the sand until your problems are solved (by someone else).
"Tomorrow's problems cannot be solved with yesterday's thinking." - Albert Einstein
Again, you are confusing "art" with scientific progress (they are not the same).
One could easily argue that automotive designers over the last few decades became so consumed with technology that they let it dictate 'artistic' design, and in the process they lost touch with the (non-technological) needs and passions of their customers.
It could also be said that many designers had their designs dictated to them by the 'un-holy trinity'
of (1) windtunnel tests, (2) fuel efficiency requirements, and (3)focus groups and the end result were vehicles that became nothing more then souless appliances drifting aimlessly in the sea of automotive 'sameness'.No surprise that many cars created in the 70's, 80's, and 90's don't get refererred to as 'beautiful' by most but instead people talk about HP and performance #'s (or lack of) because that was the focus during that period of time.
Last edited by johnsocal; Dec 28, 2005 at 12:19 AM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,072
From: Lilburn, GA, USA
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Originally Posted by johnsocal
Again, you are confusing "art" with scientific progress (they are not the same).
One could easily argue that automotive designers over the last few decades became so consumed with technology that they let it dictate 'artistic' design, and in the process they lost touch with the (non-technological) needs and passions of their customers.
It could also be said that many designers had their designs dictated to them by the 'un-holy trinity' of (1) windtunnel tests, (2) fuel efficiency requirements, and (3)focus groups and the end result were vehicles that became nothing more then souless appliances drifting aimlessly in the sea of automotive 'sameness'.
No surprise that many cars created in the 70's, 80's, and 90's don't get refererred to as 'beautiful' by most but instead people talk about HP and performance #'s (or lack of) because that was the focus during that period of time.
One could easily argue that automotive designers over the last few decades became so consumed with technology that they let it dictate 'artistic' design, and in the process they lost touch with the (non-technological) needs and passions of their customers.
It could also be said that many designers had their designs dictated to them by the 'un-holy trinity'
of (1) windtunnel tests, (2) fuel efficiency requirements, and (3)focus groups and the end result were vehicles that became nothing more then souless appliances drifting aimlessly in the sea of automotive 'sameness'.No surprise that many cars created in the 70's, 80's, and 90's don't get refererred to as 'beautiful' by most but instead people talk about HP and performance #'s (or lack of) because that was the focus during that period of time.
So how is it that you can't get back to the essence of what made those earlier designs great without copying them? After all, the designs you so envy were not copies of anything else. They were new, exciting, and modern, which is exactly what the industry, and especially GM, needs.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,646
From: Portland, OR
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Since this has boiled down to an arguement about art which is a subjective arguement no one can win, let me leave the forum with this:
I love the originals for what they are for the time they are designed. The remakes are nothing special, and on a harsher yet all-too-direct note, an insult to my intelligence: why I am I supposed to get by, or be appeased, with another generation's design?
I love the originals for what they are for the time they are designed. The remakes are nothing special, and on a harsher yet all-too-direct note, an insult to my intelligence: why I am I supposed to get by, or be appeased, with another generation's design?
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Is There Room For 3 Retro Muscle Cars?
Originally Posted by SNEAKY NEIL
So how is it that you can't get back to the essence of what made those earlier designs great without copying them? After all, the designs you so envy were not copies of anything else. They were new, exciting, and modern, which is exactly what the industry, and especially GM, needs.
I agree, that we need to rediscover the "essence" of what made those cars great. I view Retro as a means of getting back to that very essence then hopefully we can move-on from that point forward with new designs.
Again, I don't view all Retro vehicle as copies/hacks because like the 911, they need to get back to the iconic designs that made those cars special to begin with and improve it from that point forward.
Just as it would have been a mistake to have called the '928' the 'new 911' in the 1970's it's wrong when automakers keep the same name on a car that no longer has the original formula of the car the made it a legend. Often its more then just HP and performance #'s (technology stuff) that makes a car a legend but also the way it exterior design captured the hearts of millions of people.
Like the qualities that make a beautiful women , the qualities that make a beautiful car don't change that much over the decades either.
Unfortunately "technology" and/or "modern" is often used as a scape-goat for producing ugly cars. Today's multi-million dollar advertising budgets often does nothing more then to hype-up medicore exterior designs and as soon as the ad budget drys up your stuck with an ugly car you can't wait to get rid of. While the car might be fast and handle great (no surprise those are the only attributes people talk about),but it's "focus group" design leaves you bored and wanting more. There is a 'reason' why people want a new car , even though the one they have is more then up to the task of getting you from point-A to point-B (todays cars are more reliable then ever).
There was a 'reason' why people use to give their cars a "womens' nickname back in the day, and their is a 'reason' why many 'don't' do that with today's vehicles.
Last edited by johnsocal; Dec 28, 2005 at 11:43 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CARiD
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Dec 26, 2014 04:20 AM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
Dec 3, 2014 12:30 PM