What do you think of the retro craze?

[trinacriabob]

Now the Challenger! I saw it on the homepage. This is getting out of hand. Have auto designers lost their creativity to the point that they have to re-release such literal translations of old classics? Granted, the Camaro is the best looking of the lot. But the Mustang, the TBird and the Challenger? Way too similar. Heck, the Mustang's dash is an almost direct rip-off. I said NO. We need some fresh pony car designs.

Edited February 9, 2006 by trinacriabob

[Sixty8panther]

New Beetle: C+

T-Bird: C- (too retro and bland)

PT Cruiser: B

SSR: C+

Mustang: A

Challenger: B- (too retro and a little bland)

Camaro: A+

[razoredge]

styling is up against a wall and has been for over a decade. Retro-derieved-weird-strange-bazaar-weak-bland-lame-dull-boring-ugly

all words recently used to describe current styling trends...........so Id say givin my choise.........I'd take some great retro derieved variants..........like the Camaro

[Camino LS6]

After 2 decades of bland I'll take retro any day.

[NOS2006]

I'll only consider the ones worth considering..

Mustang: C+

Mustang GT: B+

Challenger: D+

Camaro Concept: A+

[Hudson]

After 2 decades of bland I'll take retro any day.

This is the problem. We've been given the same-ol'-same-ol' for so long that designers have gotten lazy. When was the last time you saw a truly distinctive design come out of the Big3?

I don't have a problem with the new Mustang, the PT Cruiser, the HHR, the SSR, or the various concepts...as cars. My problem lies with the designers who've not been asked to do any work in years....decades, perhaps. Even the 1986 Ford Taurus was derivative of the Audi 100 (Audi 5000 in the US), which probably started the current blandness/sameness that covers the automotive market.

Why can't the Big3 designers come out with a modern equivalent of the Lincoln-Zephyr/Continental, 1949 Cadillac, 1953 Corvette, Continental Mark II, Avanti, 1963 Corvette, Mustang, etc.

Not a retro car...but a ground-breaking design. Something that non-car people will talk about. "Did you see the XXX on that TV commercial? It was beautiful! I'm heading down to the YYY dealer to take a look."

It doesn't happen. Why? Has the Art Center lost its way? Are vehicles really designed by committee? Why hasn't anyone stepped up to take the place of Virgil Exner, Raymond Loewy, Harley Earl, and Bob Gregorie? Have we really lost talents like this to time or corporate greed?

[tmp]

I don't think the Camaro is nearly as retro as the Challenger, and the Mustang is about halfway between the two. The Camaro has the stance of a modern car, the Challenger looks like a car from the 70's that Chip Foose got his hands on. Not that I don't like it, I just don't think it's as good as the Camaro.

[Enzora]

I wouldn't call it much of a craze. Outside of the pony cars, there's not a whole lot new going on in the world of retro.

But anyway, a few retro superlatives:

Least Retro (tie)

Beetle--It shares a basic beetle-like shape with its predecessor, and that's about it. I hesitate to even call it retro.

Mini--Again, hardly retro, since the Mini's styling barely evolved in the first place

Biggest lemming (also a tie)

Challenger and HHR. Convince me that either isn't, and you'll win a cookie.

Most Confusing

SSR and FJ Cruiser. The SSR is sort of an ugly/funky/cool confusing, the FJ is a sort of "why are the people who designed it allowed to live?" confusing.

Worst All-Around

Thunderbird--Take a sports car, make it huge, then give it only two seats and styling that is simultaneously too retro and too bland. THEN make it underpowered and overpriced. Bloody brilliant, Ford.

Best All-Around

Camaro. Still tenative, since it's still only a concept, but that concept completely destroys everything in its path.

[mute]

mustang = A

challenger = A

camaro = A

thunderbird = C

beetle = D

pt cruiser = F

ssr = C

hhr = D

mini = B

fj cruiser = F

in the 70's we started towards a trend called ugly and were just not starting to get back towards good looking...... it took 30 yrs to recover i want more cars that are sleek and muscular not more bullhonkey

[ehaase]

Cars produced after 1964 still look modern to me, so I don't mind 1960's retro styling like the Mustang and Challenger. Cars earlier than the mid 1960's look baroque to me, so I don't care for vehicles like the PT Cruiser, SSR, or HHR.

[Cory Wolfe]

Why can't the Big3 designers come out with a modern equivalent of the Lincoln-Zephyr/Continental, 1949 Cadillac, 1953 Corvette, Continental Mark II, Avanti, 1963 Corvette, Mustang, etc.

Not a retro car...but a ground-breaking design. Something that non-car people will talk about. "Did you see the XXX on that TV commercial? It was beautiful! I'm heading down to the YYY dealer to take a look."

It doesn't happen. Why? Has the Art Center lost its way? Are vehicles really designed by committee? Why hasn't anyone stepped up to take the place of Virgil Exner, Raymond Loewy, Harley Earl, and Bob Gregorie? Have we really lost talents like this to time or corporate greed?

Basically, retro is just as bad as a bland design. They're both unoriginal to the point that some look like exact clones of others. How can anybody like this? If you like the Challenger, you should love vehicles like the Camry. The way I see it, they're equal from a designer's standpoint. Again, they're aren't unique in any way. Those who like retro... make me laugh.

So, I voted no. Ask me if I like the bland craze and you'll get the same answer.

[Mach5GTP]

Agree w/ Enzora almost entirely- except that I don't like the new Camaro, it's trying too hard to look both modern and like a 69. Pick one and run with it, jeez.

Also agree w/ BV- retro to me is just laziness wrapped in a pleasing candy coating. Take a great, timeless design from ages past and smooth it out here, stretch it there, and call it an homage. How unfulfilling.

Back in the 90s, I always thought that car makers would go nuts for the 2000MY and beyond, giving us truly unique cars that really made it clear that this was to be a whole new century for the automobile. I'm still waiting for that.

[Enzora]

I don't like the new Camaro, it's trying too hard to look both modern and like a 69. 

I always thought the 67-69 Camaro was one of the most modern styles of any car from the 60s, so that's probably why I think it's better for a retro update than its competition.

[balthazar]

Hudson= >>"This is the problem. We've been given the same-ol'-same-ol' for so long that designers have gotten lazy. When was the last time you saw a truly distinctive design come out of the Big3?"<<

'Distinctive'; as in different & unique? Most of the ones mentioned in this thread. Mustang comes right to the forefront- it's completely distinctive on the road.

BTW- when's the last time a truely distinctive design came out of any of the foreign brands?

>>"Why can't the Big3 designers come out with a modern equivalent of the Lincoln-Zephyr/Continental, 1949 Cadillac, 1953 Corvette, Continental Mark II, Avanti, 1963 Corvette, Mustang, etc."<<

The answer here is simple- too many constraints: aerodynamics, minimized dimensions, shared platforms & parts... these things and more all must be dealt with today but rarely were for the aforementioned. The silhouette of the family car has not changed in 25 years- design progress has ground to a halt. I too would love to see a unique icon such as those you mentioned (I was looking at a Mark II yesterday- so gorgeous), but there are just too many mitigating factors.

>>"Something that non-car people will talk about. "Did you see the XXX on that TV commercial? It was beautiful! I'm heading down to the YYY dealer to take a look.""<<

Hm-mmm, heard that very comment from a non-car person about the...... Mustang.

See, the car it's loosely based on hasn't been in the showroom in like thirty-five years, so the non-car people really have no reference to the '69. Just because enthusiasts happen to know about it really means little in the consumer market.

>>"Are vehicles really designed by committee? Why hasn't anyone stepped up to take the place of Virgil Exner, Raymond Loewy, Harley Earl, and Bob Gregorie?"<<

Yes, they are. I believe the instances of 1 person designing an entire exterior are long gone, tho there may be some exceptions. It's not right.

However, these new designs... these "retro" designs are striking, they are distinctive, they are fresh. Under most criteria, they're also good.

Who cares if some distant past variant has similar cues- you can't buy a brand new '69 anything anymore.

Just because a design is different, doesn't make it 'good'. What we want is 'good' design. Because 'distinct' for the sake of being distinct sometimes results in this:

Bob Gregorie = genius.

[razoredge]

I got a good laugh out of that one...thanks !

This new Camaro is such a good job. Its nothing like the origional Camaros when viewed side by side, yet it brings out all that aggresion and edgyness that has been mostly gone from us for 30 years.

Styling is now back on track and can finally advance in a good direction.

We have traveled down that dead end street and came to the end, now we have turned around and gone back to the main drag, before the bad turn, and a new search will begin.

[mute]

i think that the only thing that makes the camaro and mustang and challenger retro is the recessed grill andheadlights otherwise youd say they were normal no joke

the charger has no recession and its not really that retro its exactly where dodge looked to be going

[76ChevyTrucker]

I know that there is probably going to be some hazing for this one, but I like retro, give me a car that takes some styling cues from a '55-58 Belair and put it on the road today at a reasonable price and great options and I'll buy one in a heartbeat, just as I would if I had a chance to purchase the Camaro....I'm not horribly fond of the Challenger simply because it looks TOO retro. Now on the same note, the Mustang looks good as it is, sure it takes a whole lot of styling cues from the '69 Mustang, and in fact looks like a very modernized '69, which although I dislike Ford in general, I've always had a liking towards the late 60s, very early 70s Mustangs. On the same note, there are way too many cookie-cutter cars that have to work on similar architectures, share parts, meet collision and aerodynamic standards that are around today that weren't back in the 60s and earlier. If a retro craze and styling time is what the automotive industry and the Big 3 in particular have to go through, then so be it.

[Hudson]

balth:

As much as I want to agree with you, I can't. I do like some aspects of the designs of the Mustang/Challenger/Camaro trio, but they started with an old car (1969-70 Mustang, 1970 Challenger, 1967-69 Camaro) and updated it. It's not new...it's modernized. It's retro.

Now...had they taken those designs as a starting point, and designed each progressive generation to follow...and arrived at the 2005-2008-2009 car and I wouldn't have complained. But what they did was take the old car and find a way to give it modern proportions.

razor:

I beg to differ. Each of these cars provides the mental image to make the connection between the modern car and the historic car on which it's based. The Chrysler people pointed out the differences between the Challenger concept and the original, but it's not enough to reduce the overhangs and say it's an original design...it's not. Neither is the Camaro nor is the Mustang.

mute:

The Dodge Charger is retro. The thing Chrysler did was go TOO far with the Super 8 Hemi concept a few years ago and they backed off...thankfully.

Chevy:

You have every right to like what you want. I'll defend your right to like whatever you want...even if I don't like what you like.

[2b2]

For me, retro is just another design theme, if it turns out good - fine - no extra points for bringing back something bland, ugly, or where the 'original' was already a copy/me-too.

(borrowing mute's list)

camaro = B+

mustang = B

mini = B

hhr = C+

ssr = C-

pt cruiser = D (B when it first intro'ed)

thunderbird = D (mainly cuz impractical)

beetle = D-

fj cruiser = F

challenger = X for Xerox

styles I'd like brought back (with modernized proportions)

'63-65 Riviera

'67-68 Cougar ('69-70 is ok too)

'70 Toronado (iirc only year with 'blister' fenders)

[balthazar]

Hudson>>" balth: As much as I want to agree with you, I can't. I do like some aspects of the designs of the Mustang/Challenger/Camaro trio, but they started with an old car (1969-70 Mustang, 1970 Challenger, 1967-69 Camaro) and updated it. It's not new...it's modernized. It's retro."<<

Well, this is basically fact, so it's not arguable. But I see nothing 'wrong' with that whatsoever. A modernized vintage design- sure. And? Should I flat reject a car so awe-striking because I know one similar to it with the same name was in the showroom 35 years ago??? Who does that apease?

>>"Now...had they taken those designs as a starting point, and designed each progressive generation to follow...and arrived at the 2005-2008-2009 car and I wouldn't have complained. But what they did was take the old car and find a way to give it modern proportions.""<

Again- I see absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Why should having or NOT having interrum '69-esque models between 1969 and 2009 have any bearing on your opinion of the 2009? Unless you are buying a complete set of all years of Camaro for your public display somewhere?........

To me it smells like justification of brands that have pumped out unchanging designs for 20 years or more; they're always somehow 'unique and fresh' when in fact they are stale and reguritated. Look to bmw, rolls, volvo, saab as a starter group of this very practice. mercedes managed to create new looks over the same period, why could the others?

>>"Each of these cars provides the mental image to make the connection between the modern car and the historic car on which it's based."<<

But the "non-car" person -the average consumer in general- has little idea and even less evidence of this. The cars they are based upon are long gone in day-to-day traffic. We (as enthusuists and all-around car nuts) can't escape the association because we will be able to identify a '69 Camro when we are 101 yrs old and drooling. But that's immaterial to 80% of the consumer pool today.

>>"The Chrysler people pointed out the differences between the Challenger concept and the original, but it's not enough to reduce the overhangs and say it's an original design...it's not. Neither is the Camaro nor is the Mustang."<<

No, it's not 'original'. Why should anyone give a flying rat's ass?

It IS striking and refreshing and aspirational and soul-stirring. It's quite good on top of that. No one is waxing orgasmic over the GTO design, I don't have to tell you. Is that 'better' or 'original' enough to suit you then? Legions of car nuts would respond 'Knock yourself out' as they run to the line for the Camaro.

[Charger4U]

mustang shelby gt500 = A+

challenger = A+

camaro = A++++++++++++++

thunderbird = F

beetle = C

pt cruiser = D-

ssr = D+

hhr = B-

mini = F

fj cruiser = words/letters cant expalin

[trinacriabob]

I am surprised that the retros are getting as much acceptance as they have been. I would have thought that, with a group as interested in avant-garde design as C&Gers are, they would not have flown. I thought the ugly-ass Dodge Ram/Dakota disgustingly ultra-macho trucks would have fallen flat on their faces...was I wrong.

Edited February 10, 2006 by trinacriabob

[Hudson]

Hudson>>"...It's not new...it's modernized. It's retro."<<

Well, this is basically fact, so it's not arguable. But I see nothing 'wrong' with that whatsoever. A modernized vintage design- sure. And? Should I flat reject a car so awe-striking because I know one similar to it with the same name was in the showroom 35 years ago??? Who does that apease?

If you like this style, great. I have no problem with that.

My problem is that designers are now updating 30- and 40-year old designs instead of coming up with something new. Remember when concept cars showed something radical? Something you thought couldn't be built for another 10 or 20 years? Now concept cars look like a car that was built 10 or 20 years prior but updated by Boyd Coddington or Chip Foose. And that's fine for a few cars. But why can most cars look FORWARD not backards?

I've stated it before...I'm all for paying homage to history. But I also want to look ahead. Give me something new. Give me the car of tomorrow. Currently we've got three choices: retro, jelly bean, and sad attempts at being radical.

Why can't someone shake up the motoring world by coming up with the modern equivalent of the Cord 810 or the 1949 Cadillac or the 1956 Continental Mark II or the 1963 Studebaker Avanti? Is this not possible anymore?

[z28luvr01]

I'm with Hudson, 100%. His statements echo exactly why I'll never, ever like the current Mustang or forthcoming Challenger, no matter what's under the hood. The Mustang looks like a bloated, melted copy of the 1968 Mustang, while the Challenger looks EXACTLY like it did in 1970. Camaro is at least a few notches above these, because it draws from all generations (to varying degrees) and the overall effect (to me)is "futuristic".

I think the A&S Caddies come closest to ground-breaking designs (at least the CTS). They signlehandedly brought the jellybean era to a screeching halt.

[Hudson]

New Cadillac designs didn't bring "the jellybean era to a screeching halt," but they have provided something different...and that's a step in the right direction.

[MyerShift]

No! I don't see the appeal of something designed to look old. What about the next version of it? What will it be?

But to me, the BMW Mini Cooper didn't look as much of an incarnate as the Mustang, etc. The PT? I just viewed it as an eccentric blob.

[mrmonte]

I like Retro or whatever its called . I think there should be even more. As far as new styling there is nothing wrong with styling cues from years past Mercedes always does it and it shows the heritage of the Mfg. If it was done more there would be a lot more better looking cars.

What is terrible is when they take a name and destroy it with some piece of crap like the Lemans based on the Vauxhaull from years ago.

[Carguy]

I think the RETRO CRAZE so far has been good being that MENY of the cars have been INSPIRED by the 1960's! To me the BEST time for DOMESTIC AUTO STYLEING both in DETAIL and OVER ALL LOOK. The CAMARO consept is MORE PROOF of this in its CREASED FINDERS and LONG NOSE/SHORT DECK HARDTOP 67/68/69 STYLING!

[balthazar]

Why can't those objecting to retro see that their main reasoning is 'because it's not new'? You are fixated on the fact that you recognize it's cues from a past model. Again I say- so what? Why does that matter?

Just judge the car compared to other new cars you can buy, not to 40 year old cars! Like I have been told here more than once: "It's 2006, not 1966!"

Hudson- car design progress for the most part has slowed to a crawl. It's all been done before. The peak is long past and it's not coming back. Bell Curve City.

[Ravenfreak13]

The PT Cruiser really wasn't based off of anything,just retro styling...which is why it gets my pick for most original!

I do like some rerto cars when they are done tastfully. Chrysler 300 is a perfect example.

[Hudson]

Hudson- car design progress for the most part has slowed to a crawl. It's all been done before. The peak is long past and it's not coming back. Bell Curve City.

I don't believe that. "Design progress" isn't a destination...it's a journey. There's alway somewhere to go. It's an evolutionary process...constantly evolving. But I do agree that progress itself has slowed to a crawl. It needs a new leader to break moulds and come up with something new. J Mays isn't it. Ed Welborne isn't it. Trevor Creed isn't it. But hopefully the new leader is graduating from college right now or starting his/her new job with a car company...and hopefully not getting fed up with the system.

[76ChevyTrucker]

Thanks Hudson for supporting me, even if you don't like what I think. At least we can agree to disagree. And I agree with a lot of what everyone says, as far as the styling goes, its slowed to a creep, so in the interim (sp), everyone is looking back to the years when there were multiple cars in the market that reached out and grabbed you. And believe me, I hate to call cars like the Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro "interim", but lets face it as far as styling is concerned, its something to take up the space. Hopefully, however, the time period won't be too long and there will be some new designer who comes around and knocks all our socks off with designs that blow us all away. Although I don't see that happening with the restrictions that have to be placed on cars today to meet safety and fuel mileage regulations. And I like the new Cadillacs, especially the CTS, its sporty looking, very modern and it strikes you, even though the car has been out for a full year now, I still have to admire one when I see it on the road. Although if I see a 1972 Chevelle SS454 cruising or sitting, I'm goign to admire it just as much because the cars catch you.

[Hudson]

The biggest problem I see with "retro" designs is how do you follow them up? Is the next generation Ford Mustang supposed to be a "modern Mustang II?" Will the Camaro be followed by a modern interpretation of the 1970-1981 Camaro? Will Chrysler reinvent the late 1970s Dodge Charger/Magnum boulevard cruiser to replace the Challenger? How do you replace the Volkswagen New Beetle, PT Cruiser, Ford Thunderbird (not that you have to now), or Chevy HHR?

If you replace any of these with a truly modern design (no retro styling at all), then you're not keeping the lineage. If you replace them with an evolution, you're replacing retro with retro. What's the answer?

If you use them as a starting point and take, for example, the Mustang into the direction it should have gone if the gas crisis hadn't happened, then, perhaps, I can be persuaded to like this direction.

[Ravenfreak13]

I agree...the PT is due for a redesign in 08/09...how can you change it?