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

[AmericanMuscle]

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.

There is one car I can think of that has heritage that an Asian company could bring back, the Toyota Supra. I hate Toyota don't get me wrong, but there were and still are a lot of Supra fans out there, even from the 80s.

I think retro is a go-go if it is completed right and it definitley takes a special type of personality to want a retro styled car. A lot of the younger generations are used to sleek, quick handling foreign cars and don't really have a sense of respect for muscle cars. The muscle cars that are being brought back should be aimed at people about 35 years of age and up for two reasons: 1. they are the only people who can really afford them 2. the older generations have experienced american muscle and have a certain respect for an older bodied car. Some people might ask "why drive a dodge Charger when the cars nowadays are quicker, handle 10x better, brake shorter distances, have more luxuries like automatic electronics, and are way more reliable?" That type of person will not be buying a new Dodge Challenger or Camaro, although I think sometimes it takes the experience of driving a muscle car for those foreign-car lovers to change sides. I love the concept Challenger (not more than Camaro, don't worry) because it looks almost like a replica of the original car. A muscle car really is not about aerodynamics, it's not about luxuries, and it's not about handling, it's all about the power and muscle hence the name "muscle car." There is no replacement for displacement and I think the Challenger personifies that, screw handling and quickness, just give me that naturally aspirated big block v8 and I'm happy. Anyone who is a fan of American muscle should have no problem with either Challenger nor Camaro, unfortunately most of the muscle car lovers of the 60s and 70s are in their 40s and 50s and most of the younger generation is used to the foreign influence. If they wanted a sleeker vehicle that has handling and aerodynamics I think they should create a new name for the vehicle and leave the heritage alone, do not mess with the original formula for making a muscle car. The Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger all follow the formula and muscle car fans out their should have the car of their dreams back in their hands.

[04monteintimidator]

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? 

alright this is kinda a late response but this topic got buried until now so we'll hafta deal with it...

first of all the "60s" thing was probably a typo... notice how its next to the 7 n the keyboard... i apologize for not proof-reading my posts but this is a forum not english class...

and im fully aware that Ford and GM are guilty of badge engineering... did i ever say they werent? no i didnt... im just saying DCXs current designs are really lazy... GMs current designs (camaro, solstice, sky, etc) are not lazy... they are unique and innovative

an i dont like the Challenger because its a carbon copy... thats disgusting!! why would i not just buy a 1970 challenger and restore it myself for a total cost of like 20 grand instea of having DCX do it an buy it for 33 grand... the camaro has some retro cues... but they are subtle an tasteful... an i can tell the ifference between the camaro concept and a 1969 camaro... cant say the same for the challenger...

[balthazar]

That's all well & good. BTW- try and buy & restore a vintage Challenger to like-new condition for only $20K! But plenty of people want vintage looks with brand new equipment & powertrain and a warranty.

For years I idly thought about just how successful it would be if Chevrolet offered a carbon copy '57 Bel Air- every one would sell for years and years and years.

The new Challenger isn't for you, fine. But if you walk into a Chrysler/Dodge dealership with a fat wallet and a hankering for a new sporty car (you don't want something vintage), and you have a choice between a striped-up Sebring and the Challenger,... I at least would take the one that in 200(9) is the unique one, which would not be the Sebring.

[MyerShift]

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

It was not the Mitsubishi V6. It was Chrysler's own 3.5L. You know- 214 "asthmatic" horsepower in the old version, 250 in the new one.

Edited May 15, 2006 by MyerShift

[BrewSwillis]

70's "copy" or not.....this thing just looks wicked out in the public. It's a car you could take from the dealer's lot....put it into a car show....and probably win:

More awesome pics HERE

[balthazar]

Wow- sorry but: "That's hot!"

That shot alone makes me want to see more retro/modernized cars!

My request- a modern '63/'64 GP.

[Cory Wolfe]

[04monteintimidator]

[6t5frlane]

I like some retro..( ie Mustang ) The new Challenger will sell big. I do not really like the Camaro much except the rear view, but to each his own....So I'd take the Dodge first

[Sixty8panther]

That's all well & good. BTW- try and buy & restore a vintage Challenger to like-new condition for only $20K! But plenty of people want vintage looks with brand new equipment & powertrain and a warranty.

For years I idly thought about just how successful it would be if Chevrolet offered a carbon copy '57 Bel Air- every one would sell for years and years and years.

The new Challenger isn't for you, fine. But if you walk into a Chrysler/Dodge dealership with a fat wallet and a hankering for a new sporty car (you don't want something vintage), and you have a choice between a striped-up Sebring and the Challenger,... I at least would take the one that in 200(9) is the unique one, which would not be the Sebring.

YES< YES & YES!!!

The '57 Chevy idea is something every car nut has thought of at some

point... replace '57 Chevy w/ 1955 Porsche 550 spyder or '69 Camaro

or 1958 Plymouth Fury etc and you have a winning idea too. This is

why they already sell Porsche, Cobra, '32 Ford, Willys & more recently

'69 Camaro kit cars.

Car that are timeless can and will be copied and redone in a retro

fashion for years to come. I'd buy a Challenger in a heartbeat... if

the Camaro was not already even better looking that it and made by

GM. IF I was not such a rabid Camaro fan I might actaully like the

Challenger better... who knows.

[bowtie_dude]

Not to say the Challenger is a BAD looking car. But I mean, when you have an almost EXACT carbon copy of a classic muscle car, its going to look good by default.

HOWEVER, I would much rather see a modern version following Dodge's current design theme.

And I think the same for the future Camaro and, if it happens, GTO.

[-Camaro-]

Retro's good, if they mix it with modern styling. I.E. Mustang/Camaro.

[BrewSwillis]

Retro's good, if they mix it with modern styling. I.E. Mustang/Camaro.

Now which is the new one? ?.....I just can't tell

[Sixty8panther]

Swillis has a point.

[balthazar]

I was waiting for that type of pic to surface. Thumbs up from me!

-- --- --- --- --

For those that hate retro & the Challenger; don't forget this 'exact carbon copy':

[Bimmer325]

I was waiting for that type of pic to surface. Thumbs up from me!

-- --- --- --- --

For those that hate retro & the Challenger; don't forget this 'exact carbon copy':

Let's try this again...

That's called evolution.

Rehashing a design that past it's freshness date 3 decades ago (and hasn't been around since) is an entirely different practice. The 3-Series has evolved over several generations into what it is today, unlike the Challenger.

[Cory Wolfe]

Now which is the new one?    ?.....I just can't tell

Wow... they are even more similar than I thought... damn... except the lack of chrome and different body styles and height... they're practically identical!

For those that hate retro & the Challenger; don't forget this 'exact carbon copy':

There are more differences between those two than between the above two. And one came directly after each with a modernization of the other's design, AKA Evolution. Not retro, not a direct copy like the Challenger pretty much is. Thank you for giving me the chance to post this piece of information.

[BrewSwillis]

Wow... they are even more similar than I thought... damn... except the lack of chrome and different body styles and height... they're practically identical!

Except for the things that are different......those two cars are "exactly" the same too!

[Cory Wolfe]

Uh... no...

As I said... add a little chrome, chop the roof off to make it a conv, and lower the body height (damn LX chassis)... and they are practically identical. You want me to show you? I'll chop the damn thing. And that's not saying you won't be able to tell the difference between them. We're all enthusiasts and that pick out the slightest detail differences here, so don't play that game...

As for those Camaros... I see two completely different vehicles just with similar styling cues here and there. That's different from pactically identical with a few minor changes.... or are you just that stubborn? That's why the Camaro is acceptible... it's not a carbon copy like the Challenger. It's thoroughly modern but with classic Camaro inspiration. It's barely retro.

[BrewSwillis]

Will someone lock this damn thread already? Arguing over a person's personal preference for vehicle design is like arguing over whether round sealed beams are better than square.

It's not arguing about personal preference. It arguing about the Camaro being just as retro as the Challenger. I love the Camaro almost as much as I love the Challenger......and I love them both because they are retro!!

[Sixty8panther]

I'm not sure that the thread needs to be locked but I will agree

that there's some SERIOUSLY skewed subjectivity clouding

people's perception.

So just because the Challenger has not had UNINTERUPTED

production run it can not revive it's old styling when it returns

in all it's glory? THat's just silly IMO.

I love BMWs, esp. the 60s/70s/80s/90s models that share 80%

of their styling but the Challenger analogy is absolutely

correct. I still love BMWs but if they were not made between

1972 and 2001 the 2002 would be called overtly retro and

therefore lame. If you can't admit that then you're either

blind or just irrational.

If anything your "evolution" theory says retro is a great

thing, why not make a 2009 Challenger to look upscale

& sporty like the 1970s so that it's as if it just evolved if

it had stayed in production for the past three decades.

Beyond that let's leave Darwin out of this. :wink:

[pow]

I love BMWs, esp. the 60s/70s/80s/90s models that share 80%

of their styling but the Challenger analogy is absolutely

correct. I still love BMWs but if they were not made between

1972 and 2001 the 2002 would be called overtly retro and

therefore lame. If you can't admit that then you're either

blind or just irrational.

Yah shooor?

Now this on the other hand, sure...

ret·ro - Involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past; retrospective: “As is often the case in retro fashion, historical accuracy is somewhat beside the point” (New York Times).

[Cory Wolfe]

Will someone lock this damn thread already? Arguing over a person's personal preference for vehicle design is like arguing over whether round sealed beams are better than square.

You are so silly.

It's not arguing about personal preference.  It arguing about the Camaro being just as retro as the Challenger.  I love the Camaro almost as much as I love the Challenger......and I love them both because they are retro!!

Nah... you see... one's a carbon copy and one isn't. I believe that means there is a difference.

I'm not sure that the thread needs to be locked but I will agree

that there's some SERIOUSLY skewed subjectivity clouding

people's perception.

Oh really? That coming from you, is hard to believe...

So just because the Challenger has not had UNINTERUPTED

production run it can not revive it's old styling when it returns

in all it's glory? THat's just silly IMO.

So it should come back as a carbon copy? Great logic...

I love BMWs, esp. the 60s/70s/80s/90s models that share 80%

of their styling but the Challenger analogy is absolutely

correct. I still love BMWs but if they were not made between

1972 and 2001 the 2002 would be called overtly retro and

therefore lame. If you can't admit that then you're either

blind or just irrational.

Well... looks to me like its the exact opposite. Weird!

If anything your "evolution" theory says retro is a great

thing, why not make a 2009 Challenger to look upscale

& sporty like the 1970s so that it's as if it just evolved if

it had stayed in production for the past three decades.

Again... it's a carbon copy... no where near evolution. If you're blind, don't acuse others of it.

Beyond that let's leave Darwin out of this. :wink:

[balthazar]

>>"That's called evolution."<<

One man's reguritation.....

>>"Rehashing a design that past it's freshness date 3 decades ago (and hasn't been around since) is an entirely different practice. "<<

Sixty-8 is exactly right: if there hadn't been 22 (stale, out-of-date) versions of the '68 BMW in between it and the '91, it would be the exact "carbon copy" retro 'bad thing' that the Challenger supposedly is.

Evolution... {short!} that's a good one!

[BrewSwillis]

I'm not sure that the thread needs to be locked but I will agree

that there's some SERIOUSLY skewed subjectivity clouding

people's perception.

So just because the Challenger has not had UNINTERUPTED

production run it can not revive it's old styling when it returns

in all it's glory? THat's just silly IMO.

I love BMWs, esp. the 60s/70s/80s/90s models that share 80%

of their styling but the Challenger analogy is absolutely

correct. I still love BMWs but if they were not made between

1972 and 2001 the 2002 would be called overtly retro and

therefore lame. If you can't admit that then you're either

blind or just irrational.

If anything your "evolution" theory says retro is a great

thing, why not make a 2009 Challenger to look upscale

& sporty like the 1970s so that it's as if it just evolved if

it had stayed in production for the past three decades.

Beyond that let's leave Darwin out of this. :wink:

Ding ding ding........We have a winner!

That's the perfect way to put it. In fact, I could use that analogy to suggest that the Camaro is even more retro than the Challenger, because the Challenger is an evolution of it's last production model......and the Camaro has abandoned it's evolutionary styling to go back to a style from 1969.

[Cory Wolfe]

Or you could just admit that you are a very very legally blind man who lost his glasses in freak fluffy kitten accident. Because... carbon copies are the exact opposite of evolution in every way possible. But don't worry... you're secret's safe with me. I won't tell that you got mulled by a fluffy 3 week old kitten with an evil agenda.... I promise.

[Sixty8panther]

Oh boy... :AH-HA_wink:

[Cory Wolfe]

I know... I shot that horse 7 months ago with my .443 Rifle... it's rotting in my basement.

[pow]

Oh, by the way, the Camaro concept is retro, too, just to a lesser degree than the Challenger. An evolutionary Camaro would be one that continues off the F-body. Think Corvette, C5 v. C6.

[balthazar]

...carbon copies are the exact opposite of evolution in every way possible.

Your definitions are all F-ed up. A "carbon copy" would be an exact duplicate. Neither the Camaro, the Challenger or 25+ years of BMWs are that and you know it, so drop the tag; it doesn't apply here. (It does to the rear-engined Beetle, tho.)

All 3 examples bear overwhelmingly strong design heritage to much earlier versions of the same nameplates. So what- who cares? If the design is asthetically appealing, where's the downside? The alternative is change for change's sake- how's that work toward elevating good design? That's right; it doesn't.

[Sixty8panther]

I'm with you for the most part Balthazar...

BTW... the fact that the new Beetle is a reskinned

FWD, front engined, I4 powered Golf is what sux

about it the most. Even there the styling is not the

problem IMO.

Edited May 27, 2006 by Sixty8panther

[Cory Wolfe]

...carbon copies are the exact opposite of evolution in every way possible.

Your definitions are all F-ed up. A "carbon copy" would be an exact duplicate. Neither the Camaro, the Challenger or 25+ years of BMWs are that and you know it, so drop the tag; it doesn't apply here. (It does to the rear-engined Beetle, tho.)

All 3 examples bear overwhelmingly strong design heritage to much earlier versions of the same nameplates. So what- who cares? If the design is asthetically appealing, where's the downside? The alternative is change for change's sake- how's that work toward elevating good design? That's right; it doesn't.

Alright... on a scale of simularity, 10 being a carbon copy, 5 meaning perfect evolution, and 1 bearing no resemblance what-so-ever. The Challenger with the original would be a 9.5. The Camaro concept with the 1st gen Camaro would be 7. Those BMWs... a 6. Somthing like the 2nd gen to 3rd gen Camaro or C3 to C4 Corvette would be aroung a perfect 5. Still, evolution is a seperate thing from retro. Evolution is where the design evolves with each new generation while Retro is going back to modernize a certain design. That's why I say the Challenger is a carbon copy. While it may not be an actual carbon copy... there wasn't any modernization of the design. It looks as if the design was completely untouched, but lifted onto a modern chassis, some adjustments were made to fit that chassis, and it was given modern componants. With the Camaro, however, the design is completely modern, yet it is completely retro. And yes, you can tell the difference... unless you're blind.

Does that clear up things a bit instead of continued bickering?

[balthazar]

The original Challenger is barely a 9.5 with the 'cuda (did you know they had different wheelbases?), never mind the new Challenger. Not a single dimension is the same, even proportions don't match for the most part (cowl height, greenhouse/body ratio, sectional area, etc). I would give it a 8.0. The Camaro I would give a 7.0. The BMWs I would give an 8.5.

Guess it's all in the eye of the beholder...

[Cory Wolfe]

Yes... eye of the beholder. It just happens that I'm more right, though.

[balthazar]

Yes... eye of the beholder. It just happens that I'm more right, though.

Oh yes...... of course...... without question...... as we all know..... undeniably....

in your mind......

[redfox]

The f-body is done it's time to move on the 4th generation camaro was a flop.

[lostletters]

Retro is something that the US has over the Japanese. But is something that can only be used in limited amounts. I would say that sports cars (especially the mustang and its pony car brethren) is something that the big three can push the retro car feel. People even in thier twenties know the pony car look and prefer it.

But with sedans GM and the other big three need to look modern, classy and sporty. Three things that are tough to pull off.

Chrysler has probably done the best job at this. Largely because thier cars do a good job at striking a balance. The 300 does well, because it is not retro, but because it resembles a british luxury car.

I think Pontiac has made the right move with the Solstice. But I think for every right move they make, they make about three design moves which are wrong. This can especially be said with the Chevy division, which has been overall bland in its design cues. I can fault ford for much of the same.

Pontiac and Cadillac have done a better job with thier designs, but not nearly as well as the Chrysler.

Additionally the continued focus of GM on SUVs is a HUGE mistake. Gas prices will not be going down ANYTIME in the near future. If anything they will continue to go up as China and India become more competitive in the Oil market.

The problem is when Americans move out of SUVs they tend to move towards the Japanese as far as cars. It is not that the Japanese have a corner on design, but design is the only thing that can entice drivers to buy american cars in addition to comparitive reliability and pricing. Chrysler has exploited this to a significant degree of success. The Performance line (Dodge) and the semi-luxury line (Chrysler) have done very well while GM and Ford have floundered. They focus on well designed vehicles, instead of following the Japanese Pack. Proving that if you do your own thing well enough you can survive.

I think GM can do well by making using pontiac for ultra-modern designs and giving them the performance to back the cars up. I think they are doing what they need to do with Cadillacs. Chevy is hard division to crack, but I think it can be used as a division to blend modern and retro designs (the HHR is a step in the right direction). The bland designs of the Cobalt, Malibu, and Impala have hurt them. The reliability of the Malibu has helped. Also they need to dump either GMC or Chevy trucks. There should only be ONE division in GM making trucks and SUVs, it will be a shrinking market segment in the coming years. They need to focus on car design and SUVs need to be an afterthought, not the other way around as it is now. It was thier lack of focus with cars which has put GM and ford in the position they are in now. All the while Chrysler was putting millions of dollars in distinguishing themselves.