Ask the Car People.SM


Modern Muscle with Classic Names - READ ONLY

175 messages,  Last post on Nov 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Dodge Charger SRT-8, Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Concept Cars, Coupe

Messages Page 6 of 18

#51 of 175 Retro... by andre1969

Jan 24, 2006 (11:35 am)

I would say the Altima and Impala have a touch of retro to them. At least, the 2005 Impala did, not so much the '06.
 
In its purest form, "retro" simply means a fashion reminiscent of the past. Well, as time goes by, more and more things have been tried when it comes to automative styling, and there's less and less new, original stuff to try, so eventually, I think everything will ultimately default to retro. At least, by this definition.
 
Now, you have some vehicles that try to ape something from days gone by, such as the PT Cruiser, the new Mustang, and the Chevy HHR. But then you have other vehicles, like the '05 Impala, which just had some retro cues applied. It was boxier and had some crisp angles to it, like cars used to be. The greenhouse was reminiscent of '94-96 Impala SS. The round headlights were definitely a retro touch. With the exception of BMW, round headlights went out of style in the 70's, replaced by rectangular lights and then composites really hit the scene in the mid-late 80's. Even Jaguar was doing composite headlights by the late 80's or early 90's...dreadful, last-minute looking things that ruined an otherwise good looking car. Oh, and the back of the '00-05 Impala was definitely retro...it recalls the '62 Bel Air.
 
I'd say for the best examples of retro, and how retro can be evolved, look no further than the Dodge Ram, Dakota, and Durango. It's also called the big-rig look, but let's face it, the conventional-nosed big rig really isn't that far, style-wise, from the way cars and trucks looked back in the 20's, with upright cabs, separate fenders, tall grilles, etc.
 
Anyway, the Ram was redesigned in 1994, with retro 50's touches applied to a modern truck body (think of it as a brand-new truck with a 1955 truck front-end clip). It also suddenly became a major player in the truck field. Previously, the Ram languished in sales, and barely registered as a blip on anybody's buying radar. But with the 1994 redesign, it suddenly became a strong #3 contender, regularly selling at about 40-50% of Chevy or Ford volume and simply blowing away the GMC Sierra. It had a profound effect on the way trucks are styled, too, and today there is not a truck on the market that's not influenced by the Ram. Oh, maybe not directly, as nobody's actually aping the Ram, but since the '94 redesign, all trucks have gone for a bolder, more macho look. The typical truck of today has much more presence than, say, the typical 1993 truck.
 
And the redesigned Ram of 2002 continued the success. For CY2005, full-sized truck sales were as follows...
 
F-series: 901,463
C/K: 705,981
Ram: 400,543
Sierra: 229,488
Tundra: 126,529
Titan: 86,945
And if you want to count them in...
Avalanche: 63,186
Mark LT: 10,274
Escalade EXT: 7,766
 
Now I doubt if the Ram will ever overtake C/K or F-series sales, but the '94+ retro Ram has definitely proven itself. It's given Dodge a larger market share in big pickups than any previous design ever did.
 
Now in the Dakota and Durango lineups, I don't think the latest redesigns have been such smash hits. But back in 1997, when the Durango was launched and the Dakota went for the retro baby Ram look, they were smash hits. In the case of these two, I also don't think the updates work as well, style-wise, as with the Ram. IMO the latest Dakota and Durango just look clumsy, where the previous styles had it together.

#52 of 175 Re: Retro's are no goes! [socala4] by john_324

Jan 24, 2006 (11:46 am)

Replying to: socala4 (Jan 24, 2006 10:46 am)
"Exactly -- it's a fad, and not likely a sustainable approach to car design. At the end of the day, the muscle car makers would be wise to follow the path of the Corvette -- maintain the concept (in this case, a coupe-style body with a powerful motor and RWD), but to improve the breed so that they are good choices for those who are attracted to something more than nostalgia and heritage."
 
That's a good point I think. That's one of the reasons I'm somewhat ambivalent about the new Mustang's design.
 
Yeah, it's beautiful. But I can't help but notice that Mustang history up until this point has been about an evolution of styling (much like the Vette's).
 
Sure, there have been "classic" design touches before, but this is first time we're seeing such wholesale copying of a previous generation. I can't say it's a bad choice for the market today, but I also wonder how it will be viewed 40 years from now.

#53 of 175 Re: Retro's are no goes! [kirstie_h] by carlisimo

Jan 24, 2006 (12:51 pm)

Replying to: kirstie_h (Jan 24, 2006 10:59 am)
The thing with fads sticking is that there has to be more to the car than just style. The New Beetle isn't that great a car. The SSR isn't either. The Mini is, the Mustang sorta is... they'll sell well once the fad's died down. Sometimes low price is the only thing going for a passe car, but that's good enough. They'll sell despite their styling, albeit in smaller amounts.
 
Cars that survive the fad will eventually grow stale and have to change. The next Mustang can't look the same... they can keep some of the angles but it'll have to be a new car in order to sell.

#54 of 175 Re: Retro's are no goes! [carlisimo] by dialm4speed

Jan 25, 2006 (6:04 am)

Replying to: carlisimo (Jan 24, 2006 12:51 pm)
The New Beetle was a chic car!
The SSR is very cool but it's too expensive and sits too high!
The Mini.... chic car
The Mustang is just OK!
 
"Cars that survive the fad will eventually grow stale and have to change. The next Mustang can't look the same... they can keep some of the angles but it'll have to be a new car in order to sell."
 
That was my point, some time down the line there gonna have to update it. How are they gonna do it? Bring back the Mustang II?? The King Cobra? LOL!

#55 of 175 Re: Retro's are no goes! [dialm4speed] by andre1969

Jan 25, 2006 (7:15 am)

Replying to: dialm4speed (Jan 25, 2006 6:04 am)
That was my point, some time down the line there gonna have to update it. How are they gonna do it? Bring back the Mustang II?? The King Cobra? LOL!
 
There is no reason that history has to repeat itself. The reason the Mustang II came to be was because of skyrocketing insurance rates that were killing truly high performance cars, and increasingly stringent government emissions standards, and the CAFE restrictions that were looming on the horizon.
 
The gas crisis actually had nothing to do with it, as it didn't hit until the last month of 1973, while the Mustang II was probably in development since 1970-71. It was just luck that it came out around the same time as the fuel crisis, so it was popular for a few years...until gas got cheap again and people started flocking to Camaros and Firebirds in droves.
 
So basically, there's a reason that originally the Mustang evolved into the Mustang II. Had it not been for those external forces, it's doubtful the car would have taken that turn, and it would have carried out the 70's being a much more muscular car.
 
So it's doubtful that whatever replaces the current Mustang will be a crib of the Mustang II, or, more properly, that fat Mary Tyler Moore generation, since that came between the cool 'Stangs and the Mustang II's. History doesn't have to repeat itself.

#56 of 175 Re: Retro's are no goes! [andre1969] by socala4

Jan 25, 2006 (7:46 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 25, 2006 7:15 am)
So basically, there's a reason that originally the Mustang evolved into the Mustang II. Had it not been for those external forces, it's doubtful the car would have taken that turn, and it would have carried out the 70's being a much more muscular car.
 
I'm pretty sure that the Mustang II comment was intended as a joke.
 
The serious side of this, though, is where does Ford go from here for its next redesign?
 
-- On one hand, if it evolves the car as a variant of the current design, as automakers tend to do, the next car will also be highly derivative (or "retro", if you prefer), which may cause Ford to stay on this retro track long after it has gone back out of style.
 
--On the other hand, if it develops a more modern car, it may prove disruptive to the name plate. Changing from retro faux-60's to a more modern design ala early 21st century may confuse the buying public (i.e. the customer's gut feeling sense about the Mustang may become confused), and seriously harm the Mustang brand for the next generation of cars.
 
In other words, while I can appreciate the desire to reach back to its glory days, and while the sales of this car have been good enough to call it a success, that success could hurt Ford's long-term opportunity to define the Mustang as anything more than a nostalgia trip. If Ford tries to fashion the next Mustang into a modern sports coupe, will the marketplace be able to understand what the car is about?

#57 of 175 I know this debate has been had around here for years.... by seminole_kev

Jan 25, 2006 (8:25 am)

...I know this has been beat to death for years and years in the Townhall, but my take on "the next restyle after a retro design" is:
 
Take the cues of the current retro model and produce a new model with similar themes, but an obviously new car. Not explaining this well, but just like you would have in 1971 after the end of the 69-70 Mustang model for example. Just produce a new car inspired by the old one. Obviously your styling influences and marketing environment will be different, so the car won't look like a 1971 model (thank God), but could still be of a modern take on 60's Mustang styling.
 
Or I think you could make a "new" style that still has some key design points to tie it into the previous model/Mustang heritage.
 
It isn't a dead road as I see it.

#58 of 175 Re: I know this debate has been had around here for years.... [seminole_kev] by socala4

Jan 25, 2006 (8:29 am)

Replying to: seminole_kev (Jan 25, 2006 8:25 am)
I think you could make a "new" style that still has some key design points to tie it into the previous model/Mustang heritage. It isn't a dead road as I see it.
 
I agree with that. My only point is that a radical shift between one body style and the next could create some marketing challenges for the next generation of buyers. Mustang is a very strong brand for Ford, it needs to be careful to avoid tainting or confusing it as much as possible.

#59 of 175 Simply by default... by andre1969

Jan 25, 2006 (8:35 am)

a new design is going to look different from the old one, even if you're trying to go with a retro theme. For instance, while the current Mustang does have a strong '68-69 resemblance, if you parked them side-by-side you'd see how different they really are.
 
Well, unless the next generation of Mustang has exactly the same "hard points" (wheelbase, width, roof pillar location, cowl location and height, A-pillar slope and so forth) then even if you took the next design and tried to apply '68-69 styling cues to it, you'd end up with a different car, simply because you're working with a different platform.
 
I've seen examples in the past where people would take a modern car and try to graft on parts of an older car, in an attempt to have the best of both worlds. Somewhere around I have some pics of a project where a guy was trying to graft 1957 DeSoto sheetmetal onto a Mark VIII. Don't go running to the can just yet, it wasn't as horrible as it might sound.
 
Well, let's suppose you took two totally different 2006 cars (or any two cars, for that matter) and tried to do the same trick. Well, if you try to graft '57 DeSoto sheetmetal onto a 2006 Monte Carlo, you're still going to end up with a different look than doing it to a Mark VIII. And that's how it would be with retro styling. It will change to fit whatever new platform it gets applied to.

#60 of 175 I also think one thing... by andre1969

Jan 25, 2006 (8:42 am)

that the Mustang has going for it is that a lot of younger people think the old ones are cool. It's not just aging baby boomers that like them; it appeals to a wider audience.
 
In contrast, the '55-57 T-bird is more of an aging baby boomer car. I can see a lot of younger people looking at one and going "oh, cool!" but not exactly inspiring lust. That might be one reason that the revival didn't go over so well.

Messages Page 6 of 18

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement