A few posts back I clearified my use of the term 'carbon copy'.

I see the SN95 in the roof line, but not the back end.

 

The sn95 style is the closest thing to it.

Ahh, thanks for clarifying your "liberal" use of the term "carbon copy".

 

RiceEating5.0,
do you consider either the beetle or new ford thunderbird to be retro?

 

There's varying degrees to retro. Ex: I think Mustang GT looks a heck of lot more modern than PT.

Some cars like the new beetle and Ford GT are considered to be retro, yet both look at home in the 2000's. Both are fairly modern in appearance. Another thing, the GT40 wasn't sold as a street car (maybe a few dozen race cars to public), and there was no model between the old beetle (which just ended production), and new beetle. So you can consider both evolutions of the older models.

As for the thunderbird, again, it harkens back to the image the original, but they look drastically different to me. A lot smoother. No crazy fins. Old school appearance, new car flavor. No different than porsches 911's imo. The difference between it and Mustang is that the new mustang has sn95 cues, and the TB doesn't have any cues from the 97 or previous gen TB...it went way back.

Overall, both would fall somewhere in the middle. It all depends on your definition of retro, and how/where they fall into the retro-ness spectrum (varying degrees of retro).

 

Well, it should... the PT takes it's styling from the 30's... the Mustang from the 60's... that's 30 years newer!

 

That's what I was thinking too

 

What's wrong with starting over again if the current path has been worn out?

The Mustang will evolve again and it won't take the same path twice even if the starting points are the same. Add the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and the evolutionary path will not make the mistakes of the Mustang II or the Fox bodies.

It makes no sense to say that retro designs are a dead end. They weren't a dead end 40 years ago and they aren't today. I'm no wanna be designer, but even I can see possibilities for the body to evolve. First off go fatter and more muscular from behind. The front end could swoop more like Benz's do. I dunno, who knows? Who cares? I don't at this point.

 

Which retro design from 40 yrears ago are you referring to exactly?

As far as not making past mistakes...only hindsight informs you you made a mistake. The Fox chassis was probably a good idea in the fuel crunch 70's.

How the heck did this thread get started again?

 

That would be my fault... I just asked a question...and the thread took a life of its own

 

Yeah, that happens every now and then around here.

And they say there are no passionate people left in the world.

 

J Mays said that his goal was to take the car back to its roots, which would provide a platform to move forward from in the future.

That said... If they just changed the front end (bumper, headlights, etc.) and Tail Lights...and put "modern" ones on, like the current model mustangs... would you still call it retro? Because even w/o changing any of the sheet metal, they can make it look totally different in 3-4 years.

What I really want to know is how they will redo the beetle. Retro or not, how do you improve a dome? Maybe they will streamline it into a saucer?

 

The '64.5 mustang.

Yes hindsight is valuable and useful when you can go back to the past design like Ford just did. Nobody's arguing chasses here. It's the skin around it.

The main anti-retro position on here is that it's dead end. "Where do you go from retro" is the mantra. Total BS.

The '60s muscle cars look good compared to today's crap. Picking the peak design era to start from again is smart, given the obvious lack of talent in today's designers.

 

The new mustang is inspired by the past, but its design and mechanics are as modern as they come.

Retro means inspired by the past which is true. It does not mean that this new car is a 68 Mustang with a new paint job.

Unfortunately, people who were anti-mustang turned the "retro" label into meaning uninteresting, desperate and outdated. Like interior house colours out of the 70's.

Do the corvette's round tailights make it a "has-been" car also? No they don't. They are an instantly recognizable, much adored feature on the car.

Those of us who are fans of the mustang are extatic at the direction ford has taken with the new stang. To have the looks of the 60's mustang in a completely modern car is the perfect marriage IMO.

Whether people realize it or not, this car is one of the best things that could happen for American RWD V8's and the chance at having a new Camaro And that is good for everyone.

$0.02.

 

Whoa! Them be fightin' words

This is a quote from your previous post, "It makes no sense to say that retro designs are a dead end. They weren't a dead end 40 years ago and they aren't today. "

What you're inferring, even though I don't think you mean it, is that the original was a retro design and it evolved over 40 years. The original wasn't retro.

In very, VERY, basic terms, what I call retro is where the designer took a piece of tracing paper over the original design and just added a few modern touches, usually for current safety and aerodynamic mandates. That's exactly what I see in the Mustang, inside and out. It's also what I see in the SSR, HHR, Cruiser, and Beetle.

This is very different than "being inspired by" or "have a design theme of brand X" Yes the Viper GTS kinda looks like the Daytona Coupe, BUT there's enough design features through-out the car that is/was new and original that (to me) it does not fall under retro. The SN95 can be considered "inspired by" the original, the side vents, three vertical taillamps, twin pod dash. The big difference is that those feaures in that car differed significantly from the original.

The 2005 doesn't. That is where I draw the retro line.

And as for today's stuff looking like cra compared to the old Musclecars, that's all in the eyes of the beholder. I can name quite a few cars that are just as beautiful as cars gone by.

 

I think this has a lot to do with today's cars looking Cartoonish or fake, I mean with all of the liberal use of plastic and plastic looking finishes they look kinda like big toys...
Where as the "Old"Muscle Cars were "solid" Steel and Chrome and though some were mono-chromatic, they didn't wrap the entire car in plastic and paint...I mean, just try to enjoy an evening at the "Drive In", on the hood of your new Camaro without scrapping it!...