Detroit Designers: "'Retro' is a no-no."

[Variance]

Detroit Designers: "'Retro' is a no-no."

Designers for Ford and Chyrsler offer their views on "retro" cars. (Don't let Pat Schiavone know I used a bad word.) Could Chyrsler be bucking the retro trend in favor of a different design direction? How much of their own roots will Ford tap?

Read "Retro Is Evil: Detroit Designers Warn Against 'Craptastic' Cars" @ Edmunds

[Croc]

That's funny...what's DCX gonna do with their LX cars? PT? I call bull$h!.

[Sixty8panther]

Here's my semi-humble opinion:

Camaro Concept: YES!

Challenger Concept: eh... not so much.

FJ-Cruiser: God no!

[Cory Wolfe]

Um... yeah... retro sucks. That's a given.

[Intrepidation]

Challenger rocks. Go wank

[Ravenfreak13]

*snifle* How dare they put down the PT....it and the LX cars are some of the best ever introduced onto the market....Look at how the PT is still selling very well and how 300's are seen eveywhere. Scion xB...yeah right.

[Drew Dowdell]

What's wrong with retro?

Some cars can be retro <PT Cruiser, Challenger, Mustang>

Some cars can be modern <Fusion, Milan, Sky, Caliber>

Some cars can be neither <Lucurne, Sebring, Camry>

All I see here is that I have lots and lots of choices..... what's wrong with that?

[Ravenfreak13]

What's wrong with retro?

Some cars can be retro <PT Cruiser, Challenger, Mustang>

Some cars can be modern <Fusion, Milan, Sky, Caliber>

Some cars can be neither <Lucurne, Sebring, Camry>

All I see here is that I have lots and lots of choices..... what's wrong with that?

Exactly.

[Imaj]

If they give Pontiac a Fiero I want mind 'retro'.

[balthazar]

It's not (or shouldn't be) about "retro" or not; the issue should only be about good, lasting, engaging design. Which a vast majority of the so-called "retro" cars have in great quantity. Thusly: bring it on!

[zhawk]

To me its more about each inidvidual design. Some cars can carry a 'retro' design well. But it should be used on very few designs otherwise it dilutes the effect and makes everything just look OLD.

[mjdecker]

I don't mind retro.. just as long as the vehicle isn't underpowered and overpriced

Examples:

-Plymoth Prowler (Still looks damn good even today IMO)

-Ford Thunderbird

-Chevy SSR

[grandmarquis]

I don't mind retro.. just as long as the vehicle isn't underpowered and overpriced

Examples:

-Plymoth Prowler (Still looks damn good even today IMO)

-Ford Thunderbird

-Chevy SSR

i don't think the prowler's looks were an issue, it was the powertrain. a wussy mitsu v6? get real.

[CARBIZ]

If done right (new Mustang), this is one area where Japan INc. can't follow. Asian marques certainly don't have any heritage vehicles on this side of the ocean, and if you've ever seen any of the vehicles they were forced to drive in the 50s and 60s over there - well, you would see what I mean!

Retro has to harken back to the good ol' days while at the same time, bring a modern and fresh interpretation to the great old design.

There is nothing wrong with reminding 40 year olds of what their parents drove when we were kids, or pointing out to 30 year year olds that there were better cars than their parents' '83 Citation!

Maybe create some interest in Detroit's heritage and it might even give the odd customer or two reason to PAUSE before they plunk down $40 k on their Toyota.

[Variance]

If done right (new Mustang), this is one area where Japan INc. can't follow.  Asian marques certainly don't have any heritage vehicles on this side of the ocean, and if you've ever seen any of the vehicles they were forced to drive in the 50s and 60s over there - well, you would see what I mean!

I wouldn't say they don't have any hertiage vehicles here. There's the Nissan (Datsun) Z cars. Admittedly, that's the only one that comes readily to mind.

[Drew Dowdell]

i don't think the prowler's looks were an issue, it was the powertrain. a wussy mitsu v6? get real.

That was probably all they could fit in that nose since it was OHC and all.... had they used an engine with pushrods.... wait... what's that noise?

<14 black foreign luxury sedans pull up and fire machine guns into Oldsmoboi's house>

[Sixty8panther]

Dodgefan:

The Chevy Rep Girl said it best at NYIAS.

The Challenger is flat, it's like throwing a

brick down the highway, versus the

Camaro which is sculpted, aerodynamic

and flows air throughout & around the

car in a 21 century maner. The Challenger

is very cool, don;t get me wrong, but

when GM said the Camaro borrows styling

from the YF22 they were not just saying

that like most B.S. marketing/P.R.

[Flybrian]

That was probably all they could fit in that nose since it was OHC and all.... had they used an engine with pushrods.... wait... what's that noise?

<14 black foreign luxury sedans pull up and fire machine guns into Oldsmoboi's house>

Uh. You wouldn't hear any noise since those foreign luxury sedans are all Lexus hybrids. DUh!

[04monteintimidator]

Challenger rocks. Go wank

heres my opinion with DCX lately... and ive caught crap for this elsewhere and ill catch crap for it here... but im going to say it anyway...

DCX's current design themes can be summed up in one, single word: LAZY

what is the avenger? a charger that has been shrunk down... LAZY

what are the LX bodies? a lux, wagon and sport version of the same damn car... LAZY

what is the challenger? nearly line for line... the exact same car produced in the 60s... LAZY

retro is fine... but when it goes over the top its bad (challenger) and there is nothing i hate more than lazyness... innovation is key...

the camaro while being slightly retro is innovative... theres something new in that design that just draws your attention...

my english teacher has a picture of the camaro and a picture of the challenger on his wall... and ive looked around the class multiple times and seen all but one or two kids staring at the camaro...

the design is inspiring, original, fresh, the challenger just isnt

[Guest Josh]

I've come to the conclusion that writers of automotive pieces know absolutely nothing about the business and write just to collect a pay check.

[regfootball]

If done right (new Mustang), this is one area where Japan INc. can't follow.  Asian marques certainly don't have any heritage vehicles on this side of the ocean, and if you've ever seen any of the vehicles they were forced to drive in the 50s and 60s over there - well, you would see what I mean!

  Retro has to harken back to the good ol' days while at the same time, bring a modern and fresh interpretation to the great old design.

  There is nothing wrong with reminding 40 year olds of what their parents drove when we were kids, or pointing out to 30 year year olds that there were better cars than their parents' '83 Citation!

Maybe create some interest in Detroit's heritage and it might even give the odd customer or two reason to PAUSE before they plunk down $40 k on their Toyota.

nah, the 'intellectuals' don't want that. they want 'tight panel seams' and 'finely grained low glass plastics'

[MyerShift]

*snifle* How dare they put down the PT....it and the LX cars are some of the best ever introduced onto the market....Look at how the PT is still selling very well and how 300's are seen eveywhere. Scion xB...yeah right.

That's right!

The LX's aren't even retro in the sense of the Mustang, and the 300/Magnum aren't at all.

The PT was introduced when the craze was peaking, and it's an all-around great car, and it doesn't look something old-made-new-again to me like the Mustang.

To me, the PT is oddly modern and chic.

Edited May 1, 2006 by MyerShift

[Cory Wolfe]

Say "no" to retro. No one wants photocropped design.

[balthazar]

Say 'no' to bad design- no one wants another maxima.

[Cory Wolfe]

Say 'no' to bad design- no one wants another maxima.

Say "yes" to originality. no one wants something that looks like something else.

[balthazar]

"originality" is overrated. The Aztek & element are "original". You can have them.

[Cory Wolfe]

Retro is in the same boat as bland. You can have your Camry.

[balthazar]

Mustang is "bland"? HAHAHAHAHA.

Don't change your stance; you were all about retro=bad. Bland is another pointless discussion.

PSST- that bmw we can't talk about IS retro. Wanna shift ground again?

[BrewSwillis]

heres my opinion with DCX lately... and ive caught crap for this elsewhere and ill catch crap for it here... but im going to say it anyway...

DCX's current design themes can be summed up in one, single word: LAZY

what is the avenger? a charger that has been shrunk down... LAZY

what are the LX bodies? a lux, wagon and sport version of the same damn car... LAZY

what is the challenger? nearly line for line... the exact same car produced in the 60s... LAZY

retro is fine... but when it goes over the top its bad (challenger) and there is nothing i hate more than lazyness... innovation is key...

the camaro while being slightly retro is innovative... theres something new in that design that just draws your attention...

my english teacher has a picture of the camaro and a picture of the challenger on his wall... and ive looked around the class multiple times and seen all but one or two kids staring at the camaro...

the design is inspiring, original, fresh, the challenger just isnt

For someone who hates lazyness.....maybe you should have been a little less lazy and did some research to find out that there were no Challengers in the 60's. The first Challenger debuted in 1970.

If you think the LX cars are "all the same car", then I guess you havent seen some of the Ford twins or triplets. Or the GM trucks, SUV's , and minivans? The 300 and Magnum share similar body panels, but one is an upscale sedan, and the other is a sporty affordable wagon. The Charger doesn't share ANY body panels with either of them.

I don't see how anyone that likes the Camaro, wouldn't like the Challenger. The Camaro is amazing, and so is the Challenger. People are going crazy over both of them, because these are the cars that people have been waiting for since they stopped making them in the 70's. Do you think there is a reason why the Camaro concept looks more like a '69 then an '83?

[bowtie_dude]

Retro is bad, I hope the actual Camaro doesn't follow in the Mustang's footsteps.

[Ravenfreak13]

That\'s right!

The LX\'s aren\'t even retro in the sense of the Mustang, and the 300/Magnum aren\'t at all.

The PT was introduced when the craze was peaking, and it\'s an all-around great car, and it doesn\'t look something old-made-new-again to me like the Mustang.

To me, the PT is oddly modern and chic.

Yes exactly

[CaddyXLR-V]

For someone who hates lazyness.....maybe you should have been a little less lazy and did some research to find out that there were no Challengers in the 60's.  The first Challenger debuted in 1970.

If you think the LX cars are "all the same car", then I guess you havent seen some of the Ford twins or triplets.  Or the GM trucks, SUV's , and minivans?  The 300 and Magnum share similar body panels, but one is an upscale sedan, and the other is a sporty affordable wagon.  The Charger doesn't share ANY body panels with either of them.

I don't see how anyone that likes the Camaro, wouldn't like the Challenger.  The Camaro is amazing, and so is the Challenger.  People are going crazy over both of them, because these are the cars that people have been waiting for since they stopped making them in the 70's.  Do you think there is a reason why the Camaro concept looks more like a '69 then an '83? 

While I agree with the rest, I disagree with the Challenger. I can't see any reason to take that car over a Camaro or Mustang. It's not retro, it's a carbon copy. I'd rather have a 2 door Charger, now that would be a nice car.

[sciguy_0504]

DCX's current design themes can be summed up in one, single word: LAZY

what is the avenger? a charger that has been shrunk down... LAZY

what are the LX bodies? a lux, wagon and sport version of the same damn car... LAZY

what is the challenger? nearly line for line... the exact same car produced in the 60s... LAZY

Using the same platform for different vehicles is not lazy. I hate the Challenger so I agree with you there but the same could be said for GM. 'Nox/Torrent, Cobalt/G4/5/10 whatever, minivans, etc.

[Cory Wolfe]

Mustang is "bland"? HAHAHAHAHA.

Don't change your stance; you were all about retro=bad. Bland is another pointless discussion.

PSST- that bmw we can't talk about IS retro. Wanna shift ground again?

Let's read my comment again: "Retro is in the same boat as bland. You can have your Camry." Do you have any idea as to what I possibly meant by that? Guess not... well, looks like I have to explain it to you. I was saying that retro is just as bad as bland since both styling trends dabble in unoriginallity. I didn't change my stance and I certainly didn't say Retro is bland. However, I did say it was as bad as bland, being that they are both pointlessly copied. Do you understand anything I just said, or do I have to further evaluate my statement?

Also, evolutionary design isn't the same thing as retro. So no, E36s aren't retro, just evolutionary.

Where did I say you couldn't talk about it? You guys were the ones being ignorant. Never did I ask anyone to tell me what I should or should not buy. I simply didn't want people to continue blabbering on about a mute point. It had nothing to do with the car, just that trying to change my mind wasn't going to work. And that you guys were no better than the import humpers who try to dissuade anybody from buying Domestic because of reliability. Same thing. Read my posts again since you seem to have nack for not understanding my words.

Try again.

[balthazar]

blackviper8891= Let's read my comment again: "Retro is in the same boat as bland. You can have your Camry." Do you have any idea as to what I possibly meant by that? Guess not... well, looks like I have to explain it to you. I was saying that retro is just as bad as bland since both styling trends dabble in unoriginallity.

Maybe you need to work on your 'explainations' more, hmmm?

We were talking about retro and you bring up bland and the poster child for bland, the camry. As you yourself are so fond of admonishing others to do: stay on topic.

But since you brought it up unbidden; what does 'bland' have to do with retro? Nothing. Bland design has no neccessary predisposition toward being unoriginal whatsoever. Bland adj: dull, insipid. Insipid adj: lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate or challenge. Dull, flat.

Loads of fresh dullness rolling off assembly lines all over the world.

I didn't change my stance and I certainly didn't say Retro is bland. However, I did say it was as bad as bland, being that they are both pointlessly copied. Do you understand anything I just said, or do I have to further evaluate my statement?

I don't believe further 'evaluation' will clear the mud, no. See definitions above; bland has nothing to do with being copied.

Also, evolutionary design isn't the same thing as retro. So no, E36s aren't retro, just evolutionary.

coughhorse&#036;h&#33;cough. bmw has a long history of churning out the same reguritated design over and over and over with ZERO originality. I know- you're waiting to trip me up when I call it 'bland'. HA, I'm on to you! It's not bland because it's retro, it's bland because its stale!

What the hell is an e36? Jesus- you haven't even gotten the pig and already you are elbowing your way into the secret handshake club of mystical bmw internal code references. Its pathetic. If you're so head-over-heels you should be proud to say "1997 318ti", because guess what; that's what bmw calls it.

I simply didn't want people to continue blabbering on about a mute point.

Not much different than being told to call the responsible parties and ask them directly to get accurate info yet being answered with blabbering about 'seeing proof' like someone is going to scan & post personal loan papers & legalese phamlets.

And that you guys were no better than the import humpers who try to dissuade anybody from buying Domestic because of reliability. Same thing.

There's a big difference between erroneous, outmoded perception and reality. Not the same thing at all.

Try again.

Because you asked, I did. Happy?

[Ravenfreak13]

blackviper8891= Let's read my comment again: "Retro is in the same boat as bland. You can have your Camry." Do you have any idea as to what I possibly meant by that? Guess not... well, looks like I have to explain it to you. I was saying that retro is just as bad as bland since both styling trends dabble in unoriginallity.

Maybe you need to work on your 'explainations' more, hmmm?

We were talking about retro and you bring up bland and the poster child for bland, the camry. As you yourself are so fond of admonishing others to do: stay on topic.

But since you brought it up unbidden; what does 'bland' have to do with retro? Nothing. Bland design has no neccessary predisposition toward being unoriginal whatsoever. Bland adj: dull, insipid. Insipid adj: lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate or challenge. Dull, flat.

Loads of fresh dullness rolling off assembly lines all over the world.

I didn't change my stance and I certainly didn't say Retro is bland. However, I did say it was as bad as bland, being that they are both pointlessly copied. Do you understand anything I just said, or do I have to further evaluate my statement?

I don't believe further 'evaluation' will clear the mud, no. See definitions above; bland has nothing to do with being copied.

Also, evolutionary design isn't the same thing as retro. So no, E36s aren't retro, just evolutionary.

coughhorse&#036;h&#33;cough. bmw has a long history of churning out the same reguritated design over and over and over with ZERO originality. I know- you're waiting to trip me up when I call it 'bland'. HA, I'm on to you! It's not bland because it's retro, it's bland because its stale!

What the hell is an e36? Jesus- you haven't even gotten the pig and already you are elbowing your way into the secret handshake club of mystical bmw internal code references. Its pathetic. If you're so head-over-heels you should be proud to say "1997 318ti", because guess what; that's what bmw calls it.

I simply didn't want people to continue blabbering on about a mute point.

Not much different than being told to call the responsible parties and ask them directly to get accurate info yet being answered with blabbering about 'seeing proof' like someone is going to scan & post personal loan papers & legalese phamlets.

And that you guys were no better than the import humpers who try to dissuade anybody from buying Domestic because of reliability. Same thing.

There's a big difference between erroneous, outmoded perception and reality. Not the same thing at all.

Try again.

Because you asked, I did. Happy?

O Snap he got you!

[Sixty8panther]

Retro just might save GM if they can do as nice of a job with

the Impala/Invicta/Bonneville as they did with the Camaro.

In other words, mostly excellent original lines and design

cues blended and morphed togeater in a way as to elude to

the golden era... which ended in the earlty 1970s.

[Cory Wolfe]

blackviper8891= Let's read my comment again: "Retro is in the same boat as bland. You can have your Camry." Do you have any idea as to what I possibly meant by that? Guess not... well, looks like I have to explain it to you. I was saying that retro is just as bad as bland since both styling trends dabble in unoriginallity.

Maybe you need to work on your 'explainations' more, hmmm?

We were talking about retro and you bring up bland and the poster child for bland, the camry. As you yourself are so fond of admonishing others to do: stay on topic.

Hah... what?

But since you brought it up unbidden; what does 'bland' have to do with retro? Nothing. Bland design has no neccessary predisposition toward being unoriginal whatsoever. Bland adj: dull, insipid. Insipid adj: lacking in qualities that interest, stimulate or challenge. Dull, flat.

Loads of fresh dullness rolling off assembly lines all over the world.

Don't take things so literall. Vehicles that are given the "bland" description are commonly associated with being the most unoriginal ones you can buy. Nothing unique about them as they take design elements from numerous existing vehicles, intentional or not. Look at the Camry, it's a shining example of that. Again, unoriginality and copying are two things bland and retro vehicles share. As I said, they are no better than each other. That's why I brought it up, and being that I relate it retro, the topic of this thread, I'm staying on topic.

I didn't change my stance and I certainly didn't say Retro is bland. However, I did say it was as bad as bland, being that they are both pointlessly copied. Do you understand anything I just said, or do I have to further evaluate my statement?

I don't believe further 'evaluation' will clear the mud, no. See definitions above; bland has nothing to do with being copied.

See my above comment.

Also, evolutionary design isn't the same thing as retro. So no, E36s aren't retro, just evolutionary.

coughhorse&#036;h&#33;cough. bmw has a long history of churning out the same reguritated design over and over and over with ZERO originality. I know- you're waiting to trip me up when I call it 'bland'. HA, I'm on to you! It's not bland because it's retro, it's bland because its stale!

Um... whatever you may think, still, tell me how that isn't evolutionary?

What the hell is an e36? Jesus- you haven't even gotten the pig and already you are elbowing your way into the secret handshake club of mystical bmw internal code references. Its pathetic. If you're so head-over-heels you should be proud to say "1997 318ti", because guess what; that's what bmw calls it.

What? "Secret handshake club of mystical BMW internal code references?" Are you still bitter over that? Come on... it's simply an easy way to refer to specific BMWs, just as C1, C2, C3, C4, C4, and C6 are an easy way to refer to a specific Corvette. No difference, what so ever, besides the Corvette codes being much more simple. Why bother mocking such a common thing used between automotive enthusiasts. We all use them, so you shouldn be mocking it... why?"

I simply didn't want people to continue blabbering on about a mute point.

Not much different than being told to call the responsible parties and ask them directly to get accurate info yet being answered with blabbering about 'seeing proof' like someone is going to scan & post personal loan papers & legalese phamlets.

Again with the bitterness... why? I was simply asking for something that said anything about certain requirements for getting loans. Mainly because I was getting different responces. Honestly, this goes hand in hand with asking for the advice I wanted. Then you cut in with your bitterness... I'm sorry that I was asking because I didn't know.

And that you guys were no better than the import humpers who try to dissuade anybody from buying Domestic because of reliability. Same thing.

There's a big difference between erroneous, outmoded perception and reality. Not the same thing at all.

Perception? Look at my Grand Am and the Blazer we just got rid of... then all the problems with GM's 4wd system that relatives of mine have and our Blazer had... Would it be fair to base GM's quality off of that? Or how about Consumer Reports? So if I wanted to get that hypothetical compact RWD coupe Pontiac made in the mid nineties, tell me why I shouldn't take all that as reality and I'll show you why its the same thing. Including the fact that I don't care about any reputation known by Domestic humpers just as alot of C&Gers don't care about any reputation known by Import humpers.

Still, I'm honestly asking... why are you so bitter towards me?

Try again.

Because you asked, I did. Happy?

You might as well try once again as I will once again roll my eyes at you.

Anyways, wow... I love you, Balthy. You really let me express myself in posts.

[Cory Wolfe]

Pointlessness hasn't stopped anyone on this board from discussing/pissing/moaning/spewing about anything. Why start now? :AH-HA_wink:

Please people, if you feel the need to force feed your incoherent and ill-concieved positions as well as your half baked theories down the throat of the general public, don't do it on an internet forum where the whole world can bear witness to and suffer through your ass-clowning. Do as all the other great blowhards do and get a talk show on AM radio. 

Hmm... okay. Since none of that relates to me... I'll just take it that it wasn't directed towards me.

[ponchoman49]

Um... yeah... retro sucks. That's a given.

Retro does not suck if done right. It sure beats 98% of the "I can't tell what the hell i'm looking at" styling of todays cars.

[ponchoman49]

That was probably all they could fit in that nose since it was OHC and all.... had they used an engine with pushrods.... wait... what's that noise?

<14 black foreign luxury sedans pull up and fire machine guns into Oldsmoboi's house>

The prowler ended it's life with the same 3.5 250 hp V6 as in the current Charger/300/Magums vehicles so it wasn't a Mitsu motor.

[bdubsee]

Retro inspiration isn't bad per se. While I don't care for either the Camaro (go ahead and flame me..) or the Challenger, the Camaro looks like a modern design with "heritage" cues while the Challenger looks like Chip Foose overhauled a 1970 model. It's nice and all but more of a caricature of the original than an homage.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Retro inspiration isn't bad per se.  While I don't care for either the Camaro (go ahead and flame me..) or the Challenger, the Camaro looks like a modern design with "heritage" cues while the Challenger looks like Chip Foose overhauled a 1970 model.  It's nice and all but more of a caricature of the original than an homage.

Thats what I was thinking, except that I actually like the Camaro.

[BatmanGTO]

If done right (new Mustang), this is one area where Japan INc. can't follow.  Asian marques certainly don't have any heritage vehicles on this side of the ocean, and if you've ever seen any of the vehicles they were forced to drive in the 50s and 60s over there - well, you would see what I mean!

  Retro has to harken back to the good ol' days while at the same time, bring a modern and fresh interpretation to the great old design.

  There is nothing wrong with reminding 40 year olds of what their parents drove when we were kids, or pointing out to 30 year year olds that there were better cars than their parents' '83 Citation!

Maybe create some interest in Detroit's heritage and it might even give the odd customer or two reason to PAUSE before they plunk down $40 k on their Toyota.

Dang skippy! love the classics love the classic design. a little bit here and there in every american car couldnt hurt. Its what distinguished us from foreign cars from the beginning.....ever think there was a reason GM was top dog from everyone else?

[BatmanGTO]

Um... yeah... retro sucks. That's a given.

ok i dont mind if people think something sucks even i think things suck. but can we have something to back our feedback up? posts like that are counterproductive to the site. we are trying to get ideas out and hear everyones point of view. if everyone just said this sucks or this is cool and we wouldnt know why they thought that.... the site would suck

[BatmanGTO]

Ok what we are seeing is a new trend once again. It always happens over each decade the designs shift.

The trend today is everything old is new today. It was like when wearing camoflage when i was in junior high came back.... and bell bottoms for a short stint but i digress.

Over the years cars have changed from domestic to foreign.

60's 70's was about muscle cars and big boats of all models

late 70's 80's we saw cars start to all get boxy from mustangs to camrys

90's cars started to get more rounded on the edges

i.e. the big change of the 5.0 mustang 97ish when it was much more rounded.

i.e. camrys started to get the rounded edge... much different from the 89 i had

and now in the 00's we see a new trend a small one if that retro

alot of american cars in attempt to IMO get back to their roots to remember why they even started to build cars in the first place. Quality, a stand out look, power, and affordability.

at this point in history we have never had more cars domestic or foreign availible with more total horsepower than now. its what 1965-1972 was to the car owners of that generation now available today.

i dont mind seeing a retro mustang, challenger, camaro and it brings a grin to my face....and even though it was before my time i know where it came from... and what it stands for.

[motorman]

Dodgefan:

The Chevy Rep Girl said it best at NYIAS.

The Challenger is flat, it's like throwing a

brick down the highway, versus the

Camaro which is sculpted, aerodynamic

and flows air throughout & around the

car in a 21 century maner. The Challenger

is very cool, don;t get me wrong, but

when GM said the Camaro borrows styling

from the YF22 they were not just saying

that like most B.S. marketing/P.R.

that is GM problem,too much wind tunnel designs and all the cars look the same. you can hardly tell the new models from the old ones. the reasons DC cars are selling so well is they look different. no one wants to spend money on a new car and have the new one look like the old one

[Sixty8panther]

But it's the Challenger that looks like a pimped out &

customized 1970 one with HIDs. The Camaro is

instantly recongnizabe as a Camaro BUT it will not be

confused wiht a 68/69 from 40 feet away.

I think the Challenger is a great car and will sell well,

but the Camaro is above and beyond just another great

car. It represents the General finally "getting a clue".

It's revolutionary and bold and yet very original... the

Challenger is a bit too retro. It wasn't designed as much

as te 1970 model was "modernised".

[Cory Wolfe]

ok i dont mind if people think something sucks even i think things suck. but can we have something to back our feedback up? posts like that are counterproductive to the site. we are trying to get ideas out and hear everyones point of view. if everyone just said this sucks or this is cool and we wouldnt know why they thought that.... the site would suck

Well... I've explained my views alot in the past and anyone who isn't new knows how I feel about it. Explaining it get olds... unless I feel the urge to. I don't, but even a few of my other posts in this thread pretty much give you what you want.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I agree with this to an extent...

Retro IS NOT crap, it is an opportunity for Detroit to really cash in. BUT! Being too retro isn't realistic. I like designs with HERITAGE influences, but there truly isn't many NEW vehicles that can pull of retro and sustain it.

The icons aside (Mustang, Beetle, Camaro, Challenger, etc.) what other cars car SERIOUSLY sustain a "retro only" theme?!?!?!

HHR, no. PT, no. (Still sells well on it's traits--the style is TIRED and bland now) T-Bird? Apparently not. SSR? We all know the answer to that.

Now, the cars that are "HERITAGE INFLUENCED" are doing VERY well... 300, Charger, C6, the new Cadillacs etc.

That said, for Detroit to completely turn it's back on it's heritage is a HUGE mistake!!! And I think they know that and I think they're just trying to convey that "Yes, we can still innovate"