I think perhaps we can file this under 'generation gap'. I'm 32, and I really like the old styling from the 50's and 60's, but I also really love some modern designs, like the RX8, Celica, Mitsu Evolution, and some of the milder modified import tuners.

 

I was inferring something but it's exactly the opposite. Neither the '64.5 nor the '05 are retro. They're just GOOD designs. Fantastic starting points for evolution, 40 years ago or today. Retro is a weak term that adds no value to disussing whether a design is good or not. It's a cop out, allowing the criticizer to avoid explaining what EXACTLY is his problem with the design.

The new stang will evolve differently than it did the first time. The environmental conditions being radically different will ensure that. But it helps to have the best genetic material to start with.

 

I humbly disagree, and I think my previous thread makesenough of a case I'm not using Retro as a cop out.

 

Well this is the only "retro dissing" thread I've ever bothered to read, let alone post on. So if you have specific things you don't like about the '05, that's totally legitimate. Or even if you don't like the general look, that's plenty legit too.

It's the simpleton "say no to retro" that is ridiculous.

I happen to think it looks aggressive, muscular. It's got a nice bulge in the hood line. It looks like the best body stang ever, the '68 Cobrajets.

 

"Just say NO! to Retro!"

 

I don't thik it's simpleton at all. It's a very passionate opinion about styling in general and our (non retro opined) ultra passioned plea that the next gen 'coupe' not look blatantly like something that's already been here.

I think the Mustang looks extremely good in profile. IMO there are too many details that just turn me off. I don't think of the Mustang in any worse regard than the Beetle, Cruiser, or SSR, and vise-versa. For what they were trying to do they succeeded very well. It's not just the Camaro crowd here that has labeled the new Mustang retro. Some of my friends who drive imports exclusively have opinioned it's retro.

We (the non retro thinkers) are just very strongly aligned with revolutionary and evolutionary designs.

 

Evolution works both ways...it's a myth that it only goes in one direction. Look it up.

 

Hmmm, OK, here's what I found:

Evolution:
"n 1: a process in which something passes by degrees to a more advanced or mature stage; "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer" [syn: development]"

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. "

..now the opposite:

Devolve:
"To degenerate or deteriorate gradually:"

Regression:
"Relapse to a less perfect or developed state"
"Reversion; retrogression"
"returning to a former state [syn: regress, reversion, retrogression, retroversion]"
"an abnormal state in which development has stopped prematurely [syn: arrested development, fixation, infantile fixation]"


Evolution only marches forward.

 

If we're speaking biologically, evolution doesn't produce a "better" organism, it produces an organism right for the times. The dinosaurs were far more formidible creatures than today's animals, but environmental conditions(giant asteroid creating a nuclear winter) made bigger, faster, stronger obsolete in favor of smaller creatures which consumed far less food. Kinda like what '70s gas crisis did to cars.


Point 2: The skin around a chassis is art. Modern art has "evolved" from classical art, and it's crap.

I'd say the same about most modern car design.

 

Notice is says "usually" not ALWAYS. Thus both ways...