Are you shopping for a new vehicle and having trouble finding one, or have you been waiting a long time for a factory order? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by Tues. 5/11 for more details.

Modern Muscle with Classic Names

79customd79customd Member Posts: 87
edited April 2014 in Chevrolet
Between Ford, Dodge, and Chevy, the muscle car has been revived. Ford started the trend with its throwback exterior on its new Mustang. Dodge has since came up with a barely historic revival of the Charger nameplate and a Challenger concept both equipped with retro "Hemi" V8s. The Chevy group has revived the Camarow after a short rest of the previous generation Camarows. This is clearly an engaugement in a modern muscle car shootout. With all that said what is the best bet at what cars gonna win the king of muscle in modern times.

I'd place my vote with that Camarow concept. 6.0L V8 in a light frame. That things a gonna fly!
«134

Comments

  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H EdmundsAdministrator Posts: 11,114
    A newspaper would like to interview a female consumer who has been turned off by Dodge: either she shopped for a Dodge vehicle but couldn't find anything to meet her needs, or she did not like the macho approach that Dodge uses in its ads. Please respond to [email protected] before Friday, March 3, 2006 with your daytime contact info, your vehicle's year, make and model, and a few thoughts on the subject of interest.

    MODERATOR

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 21,899
    I wouldn't get too excited. I like most of the neo-retro muscle cars but I haven't forgotten what happened last time. Insurance companies and gas shortages killed the firs muscle car era, I'm not sure that won't happen again.

    BTW, there's no W in Camaro.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,435
    I'd place my vote with that Camarow concept. 6.0L V8 in a light frame. That things a gonna fly!

    You can forget about that "light frame" part. I'll be amazed if the production Camaro weighs an ounce under 3600 pounds, and it will probably be closer to 3700.
  • 79customd79customd Member Posts: 87
    Compared to the power of the 6.0L the weight of the vehichle will be easily powered. The 6.0L moves the Silverado SS down the road in tests so the same engine in a lighter frame such as a car, will be a speedster :)

    BTW I knew I wont spelling that right.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,435
    It might be a few tenths quicker than a GTO, but that's about it.
  • 79customd79customd Member Posts: 87
    Probably correct,
    The Camaro is gonna want to slip out due to very uneven power to weight ratio, and while your spinning you aint going no where. The 5.3L would probably be quicker than the 6.0L all thing said and done unless they do like Chrysler and make a heavier platform such as the LX.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,722
    The odd thing about the retro Challenger and Camaro concepts (and let's remember that they're concepts and not production cars....if produced they could look very different) but:

    I really like 67-69 Camaros, but have never liked any of the Challangers, regardless of year (Chargers are another story though...). But I love the new Challanger concept and cannot stand that Camaro concept at all.

    Odd to me that I see it that way.
  • irnmdnirnmdn Member Posts: 245
    So called modern muscle cars still use outdated engines, antiquated suspensions and transmissions by cotemporary sports cars standards from Europe and Asia. So where is is 'modern' in all this? They have one thing going for then - styling. The title of this thread might as well be "Pig with lipstick"
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,722
    and some of us don't mind (believe it or not)...although I think you do overstate it a little....
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    I realize there's a big market for well done old-tech, but it has the potential to scare away buyers in other segments. The Big 3 have been known to glorify "old tech" and that's led people to go to Toyota and Honda.

    While it's probable that new muscle cars get more sales than they scare away, the Big 3 will have to be careful in their marketing to avoid an old-tech, living-in-the-past stigma.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Member Posts: 1,722
    Anything that aides in automotive diversity and keeps things from getting too "anti-septic" is fine by me. Also doesn't hurt to revist the 60's as that is personally my favorite era for automotive style.

    Besides we're not talking about manual chokes, carburators, drum brakes or adjusting points. These are modern cars.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHMember Posts: 21,899
    I'd be more interested in the new pony cars if they were more efficient and up to date in terms of use of available space and running gear.

    The market for such vehicles is too limited, some of these cars are bound to fall by the wayside.
    There won't be a revival of the three way battle for supremacy that took place from '67 to '73 (actually it was a four way battle if you count AMC).

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • ron_mron_m Member Posts: 188
    The odd thing about the retro Challenger and Camaro concepts (and let's remember that they're concepts and not production cars....if produced they could look very different) but:

    I really like 67-69 Camaros, but have never liked any of the Challangers, regardless of year (Chargers are another story though...). But I love the new Challanger concept and cannot stand that Camaro concept at all. Odd to me that I see it that way.


    It's funny that you say this, because my sentiments mirror yours exactly on this particular subject. When I was about 10 years old, most of my older brother's friends drove cars like Mustangs, RoadRunners, Challengers, GTOs(including 'The Judge') and Camaros. Back then the Camaro was my personal favorite. Never cared much for the Challenger at all. But I have to say that I liked the recent Challenger concept car much better than the Camaro concept car. The Challenger more closely resembles the original for sure. However, I'd still like to have a production version of that Camaro concept car if GM would just tone it down a bit. At this point, it's just too garish for my particular taste. Well, at least for a retro muscle car anyway.

    Ron M.
  • twaintwain Member Posts: 185
    I really like 67-69 Camaros, but have never liked any of the Challangers, regardless of year (Chargers are another story though...). But I love the new Challanger concept and cannot stand that Camaro concept at all.
    ----------------------------------

    I like the Challenger better too. It's clean and simple, the Camaro design looks too busy. I'd like the Camaro better if it looked more like the 67-69s.

    And I'd like them both better if they weighed under 3000lbs and cost under 25k. They don't need 500hp hemis if Dodge and Chevy would just make them smaller and lighter. Even a 250hp V6 would be quick at under 3000lbs.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    the original '70-74 Challenger/Barracuda weren't exactly lightweights, either. Most Ponycars are based on a compact platform (Falcon for the Mustang, Chevy II/Nova for the Camaro, and Dart/Valiant for the first two Barracudas). The '70-74 Barracuda/Challenger were built on the midsized Satellite/Coronet/Charger/Sebring et. al. platform.

    I think some of the big-block models probably got up to around 3,600 lb, but when you figure that many of the regular models on that Mopar B body (the Barracuda/Challenger was called the E-body though) easily topped 4,000 lb, that WAS light!

    For the Charger concept, all Dodge did was take 4 inches out of the LX wheelbase, so like the original Charger, it's based on a larger, heavier car, instead of just a fragile compact. I doubt if they'd be able to get the weight down much on a production model without coming up with a whole new dedicated platform. Consider that a BMW 3-series is around 3200 lb, and compared to something Challenger-sized, they're practically microcars!
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    So called modern muscle cars still use outdated engines, antiquated suspensions and transmissions by cotemporary sports cars standards from Europe and Asia.

    Several sources I've read say if GM made a Camaro, it would be based on a less expensive variation of the Cadillac Sigma platform. It would come with either the new GM 6 manual or automatic. All pretty modern and competitive.

    The V8 engine, as has been argued death in Corvette forums, is lighter and produces more power per gallon of gas than just about anything from Europe and Asia. If this is outdated, then the modern technology has taken a wrong turn somewhere.
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    In that vein, also consider that the current Mustang's 4.6l V8 engine is pretty high-tech itself, variable valve timing and all.

    Also, the Mustang's new live rear axle, though old in design, actually performs quite well and does better than many fully independent set-ups.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    Also, the Mustang's new live rear axle, though old in design, actually performs quite well and does better than many fully independent set-ups.

    Especially when you consider the cost. The Mustang provides front engine, rear wheel drive fun with a relatively quiet, roomy cabin and large trunk for under 30k loaded.

    I'll live with the 'your low tech' comments, invest the difference in cost and laugh my way to the bank.
  • pony_piratepony_pirate Member Posts: 317
    Based on appearances, all we have to go on thus far, I think the Mustang is way ahead of the Camaro and Challanger. The Challanger looks boxy and stubby, worse even than the original (see the Edmunds video: the designer even admits the original looked bad). The Camaro just doesn't hang together stylistically, not like the original. They both look like rush jobs, something the automakers threw out in a hurry in order to capitalize on a hot market opened up by Ford.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    with the Challenger is the front-end. It almost looks too soft and "friendly" compared to the '70-74, which had a more serious, you-don't-wanna-mess-with-me look to them. I think if the car had at least some suggestion of a front bumper it would help things alot. As it is, that smooth front with the lower air intake has a slight curve to it that almost makes it look like the car is smiling at you.

    I'd say by today's standards, one thing that looks awkward about the old Challegner/Barracuda is that the wheels are too "tucked in"...cars today tend to be more slab-sided and have a wider track. It was decent for the time, though. Actually, they did have a fairly wide track, being based on midsized cars. A friend of mine has a 1959 Dodge Coronet, and he has the rear end from an E-body. They're so close in the critical dimensions that it's almost a perfect fit.
  • pony_piratepony_pirate Member Posts: 317
    In the Edmunds video, the designer of the new Challanger also admits the wheels were too small and tucked-in on the original Challanger. Also, the Challangers were never that much of a big deal, never that desired or hot, unlike the Camaro, which, like the Mustang, was an American classic. A lot of the current interest, one would have to admit, is based on the Dukes of Hazzard revival, hardly a strong recommendationn for any car.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    the '70-74 Challenger/Barracuda is a pretty hot item now, especially if it's a convertible, Hemi, or 6-pack model. Even the 340's and more mundane big-blocks are worth a decent amount. The typical 6-cyl and 318 cars aren't worth a whole lot, but then neither is a low-performance version of a Mustang, Cougar, Camaro, or Firebird of the same era.

    The problem with them is that they came onto the scene just as emissions controls and insurance companies were clamping down on ponycars and musclecars.

    As for the Dukes, that was a Charger, and again, interest in these has been climbing for a long time. The original Dukes of Hazzard was probably one thing that put the Charger back on the public's mind, but again here, the Hemi and Big Block models bring in a pretty penny.
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    And the Charger is pretty much the highlight of that movie, aside from the considerable if non-acting-related charms of Jessica Simpson. ;)

    Baby boomer nostalgia has driven the prices of the vintage muscle/pony cars through the roof. A good condition 1969 or 1970 Mustang Boss 302 (the road-racer one) will fetch in the neighborhood of $50 grand today, and the Hemi-powered Challengers/'Cudas are even more expensive. :surprise:
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    1) "Camaro and Challanger = Mustang Wannabe's..."
    2) "The Challanger looks boxy and stubby, worse even than the original..."
    3) "Wouldn't Buy a Challanger without Jessica Simpson in the Front Seat..."
    4) "In the Edmunds video, the designer of the new Challanger also admits the wheels were too small and tucked-in on the original Challanger."
    5) "Also, the Challangers were never that much of a big deal, never that desired or hot, unlike the Camaro, which, like the Mustang, was an American classic."
    6) "A lot of the current interest, one would have to admit, is based on the Dukes of Hazzard revival, hardly a strong recommendationn for any car."

    Dude, you're really grasping at straws to come up with something negative to say about the Challenger, aren't you?

    After all, looks, which is what you base several of your comments on are subjective at best. For my part, for as nice as I think the new Mustang looks, it simply doesn't even come close to the looks of the new Challenger. I mean, "Really!", what the hell does Jessica Simpson have to do with how a car looks and performs.

    Speaking of performance, unless the folks over in Dearborn pony up with a few more ponies, the Mustang is going to get its doors sucked off by the Hemi Challengers.

    As for the Dukes of Hazzard, get your cars straight, the Challenger has nothing to do with that revival. Now, if we're talking about a remake of Vanishing Point, well then I'm all ears. ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    "Now, if we're talking about a remake of Vanishing Point, well then I'm all ears."

    Putting aside the tv-remake, I wonder how well the original's plotline would do today...pointless cross-country car chase from the police after ingesting a heroic amount of drugs... ;)

    But I'd watch. "We're gonna free the vipers!" :D
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    Isn't Pontiac supposed to get GM's exciting cars? Aren't all the overlaps supposed to go away?
  • pony_piratepony_pirate Member Posts: 317
    Challanger ... Charger ... Schmanger, Schmarger ... they're all the same. Chrysler never had a muscle car (or, for that matter, a luxury car) worth a damn. It was all GM and Ford. If it weren't for gov't bailouts and Daimler-Benz, there wouldn't even be a Chrysler anymore. If we're talking Camaro, fine. But, please, a Dodge? Even the Viper is an overpriced mistake, a modern-day Edsel.
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Oh touché. Your logic is just too much for me.
  • pony_piratepony_pirate Member Posts: 317
    Logic? What does logic have to do with anything? The Charger is for toothless hillbillies. :shades:
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,361
    john_324: "Now, if we're talking about a remake of Vanishing Point, well then I'm all ears."

    Putting aside the tv-remake, I wonder how well the original's plotline would do today...pointless cross-country car chase from the police after ingesting a heroic amount of drugs.


    Obviously not too well, as the plot line was changed (or, one could say, whitewashed) for the television movie. Instead of transporting drugs in the Challenger (as Barry Newman was doing in the original movie), Viggo Mortensen was trying to get to his wife, who was, if I recall correctly, expecting a baby. Shows how times - and mores - have changed since the early 1970s...
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,361
    The original Dodge Challenger sold fairly well its first year, although Chrysler was disappointed with the final tally (about 80,000 units, if I recall correctly). It beat the Mercury Cougar, the car that originally served as its target. But Challenger (and Barracuda) sales dropped dramatically and never recovered after 1970. After 1970, I don't think either one scored over 30,000 annual sales.

    Even Camaro and Mustang sales dropped dramatically after 1970. People forget that GM was on the verge of discontinuing the Camaro and Firebird after 1973...only intense lobbying by division officials won the cars a reprieve. Interestingly, by 1978, the Camaro and Firebird were selling well over 200,000 units each, even without a major body change!

    The Challenger and Barracuda are exceptions to the rule that a car must have been popular when new to gain collectible status down the road. Both cars were considered disappointments in terms of sales from day one, but both are now highly desired collector cars, at least with the high-performance engines.

    As for the new one - I like it better than the Camaro show car. If anything, the new Challenger is BETTER than the original one. But, like the original, I see it getting creamed in the sales charts by the Mustang, which will still have broader appeal.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    now that I think back on it, didn't Daisy Duke drive a Challenger early on in the run of the tv show? IIRC it got blown up, and then she moved on to the Jeep Wrangler that she's more often associated with.

    As for musclecars and Mopar, all I'll say is this...for "Bullit" the Charger was left mostly stock, and the Mustang had to be built up because otherwise it just couldn't keep up!

    And in "Smokey and the Bandit", they used Pontiac LeManses for police cars in all the chase scenes because the Bandit's Trans Am couldn't outrun the Coronets! And that was AFTER they swapped out the 400 for a 455! :P

    (okay, so I kind of embellished the Smokey and the Bandit part, but I do remember reading that they had to do some extensive work to the Mustang in Bullit)
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    another strong contender for the likes of the Barracuda/Challenger et al was, believe it or not, the Demon/Duster with the 340 (and later the 360) These things would outgun many big blocks, and the light weight of the Demon/Duster only helped them. By 1975-76 they were the fastest domestic cars around.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,361
    Andre, Daisy drove a souped-up 1971 or 1972 Plymouth Satellite Sebring, if I recall correctly. She then switched to her Jeep.
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    "As for musclecars and Mopar, all I'll say is this...for "Bullit" the Charger was left mostly stock, and the Mustang had to be built up because otherwise it just couldn't keep up!"

    Max Bulchowsky (sp?) worked over the Mustang's suspension, so that it could handle the pounding from the jumps...better springs, shocks and some improvements to the stiffness of the frame.

    Engine-wise, it's the stock 390 in there...you can see in certain parts of the chase where the Charger just easily pulls away from the Mustang... :mad:
  • dialm4speeddialm4speed Member Posts: 110
    I'm glad that Chrysler, Ford & GM are putting things back the way it should be. Front enging and power to the REAR wheels!! Hell YeS!! But enough with the retro crap! They are painting themselves into a corner with this nonsense. In X amount of years there going to have to "freshen" these things... how are they gonna do it? And that Camaro concept... WOW! Just awful. I don't know which is worse looking the Challenger or Camaro. What they need to do is push the design envelope not try to rewind time. GM had it right with the SS concept but where is that car???
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    Sorry dude, I'm thinking that you're in the minority on this one. Personally I really like the retro Challenger, Mustang and 300C, and I don't really don't even mind the Camaro concept either.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H EdmundsAdministrator Posts: 11,114
    Whether I, personally, like them or not isn't all that relevant. The fact is that Chrysler learned a lesson from their retro success story - the PT Cruiser - and others are following. Pretty much a lousy vehicle IMO, but they managed to sell a ton of them on the novelty/retro styling.

    Retro is the new modern.

    MODERATOR

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • 79customd79customd Member Posts: 87
    I dont agree with that. Chrysler's retro styled PT Cruiser was a desighn of excellence. Chrysler had been working on a car to really establish its identity as a car maker since 1994. Chrysler had the already existing PL platform used on the neon series cars of plymouth and Dodge so Chrysler descided to build a car around that basic platform. They took all the bad things with the neon and improved on them. What is wrong with the neon... jittey, tinny, no personality, uncool car. Chrysler took to making a car to improve on that. Chrysler built the PT on the Platform Tall( PT ) platform. They tweaked the suspension put the hefty supercharger 2.4L DOHC four of the Neon in the GT, and put Prowler flare in the exterior styling and created the modern hatch that everyone now has a copy of today. That is why the PT Cruiser has sold so well. The Matrix, Vibe, and more specificly HHR are copies to say the least.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    Retro is the new modern.

    Sorry, I don't agree with that. Retro is the new niche product, and not largely part of the mainstream. Look at the top-selling passenger cars in the US, and you won't find retro players on the list.

    IMO, the last thing that Detroit makers need are yet more cars that provide American consumers with the impression that they are only capable of building dinosaurs that bank on their former legacy.

    While I see the benefit of having some heritage cars (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger) in the lineup, Ford and GM each need to have competitive, desirable cars in the compact and mid-sized sedan segment. If they are known only for pony cars and trucks, they won't stand much chance of going the distance and regaining market share.

    BMW can afford to remain as a niche player with cars such as the Mini, but Ford and GM are the Proctor & Gamble of the auto industry, so they need to sell mass market, reliable and efficient cars that work for many people. Sadly for them, they became so fat and happy with the SUV and truck markets that they never planned well for what would happen if demand in these segments shifted. And now that this shift has happened, they seem ill-equipped to do much about it.
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    "Retro is the new modern."

    Ever notice that in sci-fi films, a cool way to set a futuristic atmosphere is to invoke retro styling?

    Makes sense for the domestics to design cars that invoke the era when they led the automotive world, esp. in a the modern world where they no longer do.

    I think the return to classic designs reflects our view of society and our prospects. In the 1980s and 1990s, futurism was the style; from 1980s high-tech wedge through the 1990s areo-organic, the look reflected our national optimism.

    These days, we're less optimistic for a variety of reasons...so we like styles that remind us of the "good old days" (rose-color, perhaps, but).

    Retro is riding high right now, but it'll change...
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    has been good for Chrysler. Now, it was a lousy vehicle for the initial price, which with price gouging could easily climb to $25-26K back when they were new, but now that prices have come down to a more reasonable level, I'd say it's a decent vehicle at its price.

    FWIW, I sat in an HHR about a week ago, if forced to choose would probably go with the PT. The HHR just seemed claustrophobic inside, and didn't have a good seating position for me. As for sales, they ran off around 134,000 PT Cruisers in CY2005. Not a bad showing for something that's getting a bit long in the tooth.

    As for who copied whom, though, I'd say the PT Cruiser actually owes a bit to the Ford Focus wagon. The Focus style was anything but retro, but it was the same basic idea, a tall wagon with a high seating postition. I think the PT is a bit taller, but it's still the same basic idea. The Focus was a pretty tall car for its time though, and one of the earier examples of the current trend towards taller passenger cars.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    Sorry, I don't agree with that. Retro is the new niche product, and not largely part of the mainstream. Look at the top-selling passenger cars in the US, and you won't find retro players on the list.

    Looking at everywhere else people's taste is concerned, retro clearly is the rage.

    Houses: Modern architecture is a niche. The vast majority of new home buyers want modern takes on themes that have been part of US design in some cases since before the US (the Colonial, the SaltBox, etc.) Even in Sunny SoCal, where modern was once the rage, where you do not have retro Spanish style it is people going wild over mid-century ranch style houses.

    Music: Everyone is still listening to rock. If Buddy Holly were to suddenly walk out of that Iowa corn field, he would recognize all we listen to as variations on themes he was playing around with 50 years ago.

    Clothes: I was out and about this weekend. It struck me that everyone I saw was wearing blue jeans and solid color pull over shirts. Not at all different from what the scene would have been on the same street 50 years ago.

    Why should people's taste in cars be any different?
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    Why should people's taste in cars be any different?

    I'm not offering a judgment, just pointing out that for the most part, the cars sold most don't tend to be retro. The ten best selling cars during 2005 in the US were:

    1. Camry
    2. Corolla/ Matrix
    3. Accord
    4. Civic
    5. Altima
    6. Impala
    7. Cobalt
    8. Taurus
    9. Focus
    10. Mustang

    On that list, the Mustang is the only one that I'd consider to be "retro."

    A couple of retro cars have been successful (Mini, PT Cruisers), while one notably flopped (Thunderbird). Many other successful models have fairly modern or quirky styling cues -- hard to think of the Prius, Scion Xb, or Civic as being particularly retro.

    So I just don't see much reason to believe that retro designs are destined for success, or that a few of them will be enough to change the destiny of any of the larger companies. If the Camaro accomplishes anything (assuming that it gets built), it will be to cannibalize Mustang sales and to divert some FoMoCo customers to GM, and not much else, IMO. I don't see these cars, by themselves, turning the fate of GM.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    1. Camry
    2. Corolla/ Matrix
    3. Accord
    4. Civic
    5. Altima
    6. Impala
    7. Cobalt
    8. Taurus
    9. Focus
    10. Mustang


    Well, one through nine are, with a few exceptions neither modern nor retro. Rather, they are bland. The listed cars do not sell on styling. They sell on price and content. The real question is what does the person driving the practical Camry or Impala think is cool - money and other practical considerations not included. More likely than not, they would say the Mustang or Camaro, not the Xb or Prius.

    The Matrix is out there. But if its sales numbers were provided stand alone, I would guess it does not sell all that much.

    The new Civic is clearly modern. It is too soon to see where sales are going to go with the new styling.

    Even with the hybrid craze, the Mustang alone easily outsells the Scion and the Prius.

    The Mustang has not saved Ford, obviously (though even with its big announcement yesterday came the counter announcement it made money). The Challenger and Camaro are not going to save Daimler and GM respectively. But they have a good chance to sell in this market.

    The US is not Japan. In Japan, the people live in out there houses, wear out there clothes, buy gadgets primarily because they are new - with little heed given to their quality - and like to buy new cars with modern styling as often they are able. For the most part, the US seems to prefer the traditional - but, as you point out, buys the bland.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    On the other hand, profits are what matter. And the Impala, Taurus, Cobalt and Focus probably earn less money than the Mustang has.

    If it works in the short term, great. But I wouldn't bank on retro over two generations of one car.
  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    If it works in the short term, great. But I wouldn't bank on retro over two generations of one car.

    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.

    Ultimately, I'd try to design something worthy of export, so that overseas drivers start to get a taste for quality uniquely American design and performance. IMO, designing them as throwbacks gives them a short shelf life and a novelty value that will translate into poor residuals for those who own them a few years down the road.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H EdmundsAdministrator Posts: 11,114
    I dont agree with that. Chrysler's retro styled PT Cruiser was a desighn of excellence.

    Sorry, I should have been more clear - I meant that when the PT Cruiser first came out, it sold like hotcakes based on the styling alone. You almost had to push that sucker to get it to go uphill, and it had the turning radius of the QE II. There's a lot to be said for improvements made over the years.

    MODERATOR

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H EdmundsAdministrator Posts: 11,114
    Exactly -- it's a fad, and not likely a sustainable approach to car design.

    Well, there's a lot of "fad" in car design... some of 'em stick, some of 'em don't. Fins are long out, but they sold a lot of cars with fintails. The VW Beetle styling was out, and then in... and now appears to be out again.

    That's why vehicles get phased in & out, and that's why there are re-designs. IMO, these "fad" cars are a great way for manufacturers to attract new buyers and win back old buyers to the brand.

    MODERATOR

    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • socala4socala4 Member Posts: 2,427
    That's why vehicles get phased in & out, and that's why there are re-designs. IMO, these "fad" cars are a great way for manufacturers to attract new buyers and win back old buyers to the brand.

    I agree with you that they can be a good way to woo customers, and the Beetle and Z are both good examples of using past mystique to lure new customers to an entire brand.

    I just have to wonder whether Detroit's reputation for producing low-tech, crude cars is somewhat exacerbated by turning their most noteworthy cars into throwbacks from the late '60's. If they have any intention of appearing ahead of the curve, recreating the gas-guzzling muscle car in an era of $2-3 gas just doesn't seem to be a very forward-thinking approach. How do these cars contribute to building positive sentiments for the rest of the product line?
This discussion has been closed.