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.
"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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
...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.
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.
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.
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.
Honestly I liked the new retro Thunderbird BUT it was just so expensive for what you got (in my opinion). A "luxury" two seater is a bit of a tough sell to begin with, but I just though the price was too high.
the retro T-bird looked more like an attempted revival of the first Corvette than the first T-bird. One problem is that the front-end was raked back like a Vette, whereas the '55-56 T-bird had a bit more of a forward thrust to it, which was emphasized even more for '57. And the way the rear of the retro T-bird tucked down, it looked more like a Vette than a T-bird anyway. The Vette's rear tucked down, while the T-bird had little fins that gave it more of a lift in the rear.
Proportioning was all wrong too, but this just harks back to what I said about applying retro cues to a modern car, and where all the "hard points" are. The original T-bird had a long hood, small passenger cabin, and a long-ish rear deck. On the revival, the passenger cabin just seemed like it was moved ahead too far, and correspondingly the hood was too short.
I would liken the retro T-bird to that Bel Air concept that Chevy was parading around a few years ago. It had a few generic retro touches here and there, but unless someone told you what it was trying to ape, it just wasn't readily apparent.
But then with the T-bird revival, I guess it was overpriced for what you got, and it was more of a cruiser than a bruiser. Most people who want a luxurious 2-seater want some muscle to it, even if the real reason they bought the car is to flaunt their money (or credit). And as I recall, the T-bird revival just wasn't that exotic when it came to performance.
Interestingly, the Mustang has faced this dilemma before, and its history provides examples of both when it worked and when it didn't.
Consider the leap from the retro design of the Mustang II (an attempt to get back to the proportions and style of the orignal 1964 1/2 car) to the Euro-futurism of the Fox body. Now that was a bold change...and it worked well.
But on the other hand, there's what happened in the early 1990s...convinced that the car needed to "get with the times", Ford was developing the next Mustang as a super-aerodynamic fwd coupe with a V6 as the big engine.
Word got out and Ford was assailed with compliants...so many so that Ford radically changed course and the Mustang SN95 project was begun (it would eventually result in the 1994-2004 Mustangs).
And what happened to the doomed fwd Mustang? You may remember it as the Ford Probe. :P
Just because Ford has looked to the '68 and '69 models as inspirations for the design of the current Mustang, don't try to extrapolate that as Ford must look at the Mustang II for future designs.
Perhaps what we'll see with future Mustangs will be what the '69/'70 models SHOULD have evolved into rather than the bloated flatback designs of '71/'73 or the Mustang II.
When I bought my 05 Mustang, my dealer told me that this current style would only be built for 3 years, then they were going to come out with a 1972 Mach 1 style.
That's a good summary of the history, so thanks for that. (Yes, I remember the Probe -- the second generation was actually pretty attractive, IMO but by then, the coupe market was heading the wrong direction for that one to work.)
I'm no stylist, so I am unable to translate my vague mini-rant into a coherent design sketch, but I would think that the basic premise of the car should dictate that a Mustang forever be (a) rear-wheel drive, (b) two-door and/or fastback-hatch-based body style with (c) a small-block V-8 and (d) a "sporty" style, whatever that means, at (e) a reasonable price, i.e. below that of a European sports sedan, and at about the price of a mid-sized family sedan.
What that means in terms of borrowing styling cues from which generation, I'm not quite sure. But it strikes me that rather than branding these with a corporate face (front end/ grille/ headlight style), as automakers are often inclined to do, the Mustang should stand apart in presenting a unique visage and style to the market.
IMO, it's important for Ford to find a way to retain positive, distinctive qualities for the car, yet inspire enough potential buyers so that the Mustang brand can move customers to other products in the Ford lineup. While the Mustang seems to do a good job of standing on its own, I wonder whether it's doing much to bring people to the rest of Ford's product line. If the Mustang can move a family car buyer to also crave a Ford sedan, then that would be a successful product.
"When I bought my 05 Mustang, my dealer told me that this current style would only be built for 3 years, then they were going to come out with a 1972 Mach 1 style."
"...Mustang forever be (a) rear-wheel drive, (b) two-door and/or fastback-hatch-based body style with (c) a small-block V-8 and (d) a "sporty" style, whatever that means, at (e) a reasonable price, i.e. below that of a European sports sedan, and at about the price of a mid-sized family sedan."
Don't forget long hood/short rear proportions.
I could see the next gen being a blockier, more angular version of the current one...think sorta like a modern Shelby Daytona (if people know what that looks like...)
The last thing Ford is going to do is significantly alter the look or design of the new Mustang. Why mess with a good, no great, thing? And it took Ford 24 years to change the Mustang in the first place.
The Mustang is the 10th best-selling car in the US, according to a list posted in one of the discussions in this forum. I find this amazing, considering that it is basically a specialty item, an aggressive sports car, in competition against all-purpose nondescript cars like the Camry (#1) and Accord (#3).
The only thing "retro" about the redesigned Mustang are stylistic references to the past, the ethos of the American muscle car. The car is functionally all new, from the ground up, engine, suspension, chassis, brakes, drive train, weight distribution, rigidity, etc etc. It's tight, fast, light on its feet, with very good steering and manual transmission. The V8 engine was named 10 best by Wards. I never even cared much for Mustangs till this one. I certainly didn't buy it to relive old memories. It stands on its own as a new, perfectly modern car.
Hello all, I am contemplating whether or not to buy my friends 94 camaro 2 door coupe. It is in good physical condition but it has 130,000 miles and eats up oil. Is this a bad decision? And how many miles does a camaro usually reach if taken good care of?
What engine does that Camaro have? If it's a V-6, I think that year they were using the Chevy 3400. IIRC they didn't switch to the Buick 3800 until a couple years later.
Hard to say, really, how long a car can last because it often depends more on how it's taken care of than who originally built it. I've heard it thrown around in general that cars are usually engineered to last around 150-175,000 miles.
If it's a V-8, I'd say go for it. Even if the V-8 was shot you could easily throw in another. But if it's a V-6 and the engine's shot, would probably be expensive and complex to swap in a V-8. Also, how much are they asking?
BTW, I'd suggest finding a Camaro topic on Edmund's and post your question there. You'd get a better response.
I'd agree with Andre...if it's a Z28, might be worth it, but if a V6, probably not.
Key with pony cars is how well their owners take care of them. Since Camaros (and Mustangs) are relatively inexpensive, they often tend to be really beaten on. So ask alot of questions and check the maintanence records carefully. If it were me, I'd feel alot better considering buying one from a friend like you are.
I think the 3800 V6 engine appeared in 1995, but I'm not sure.
The 6.1 Liter powertrain that is speculated to be used in the Challenger is the same powertrain that was installed in the 300C SRT 8 and subsequently the Charger SRT 8. Just because it says HEMI on it doesn't make it old. That engine is in fact by no mean "old"...rather...quite the oppposite.
My wife is in the fashion industry, and has plenty of experience with old fashion coming back into style. It is a truism in that industry that styles rotate full circle every twenty to forty years, so why shouldn't the same hold true for the auto industry?
Me personally, I'll cheer just a loud when the newly designed Challenger hits the streets as when Mini-Skirts make a complete comeback. :shades:
That's a pretty selective list. If you look at the top 10 passenger cars sold in the US during 2005 that I posted elsewhere on this thread, I'd call only one of them (the Mustang) "retro." The Corolla, Camry, Civic, Matrix, etc. are not particularly retro in styling.
is that cars tend to cycle back and forth between rounded and angular. Also, I guess as history goes by, there's only so much left to do, style wise. In 1920, for example, cars had barely progressed beyond the horse and buggy stage and there was a whole future out there to be explored. But now, 86 years later, we've seen cars go through wraparound windhsields, tailfins, single headlights, quad headlights, round headlights, square, and just about every shape. We've seen the cars get longer and lower, then shorter and taller, and then bigger again. We've seen just about every material known to man used as an interior style, and also seen a facsimile of just about every material interpreted with plastic.
Basically, as time goes by, there's just less of an unexplored frontier out there, stylewise.
Muscle car buyers will laugh off a 'retro' muscle car with a 2.0 vvt turbo engine!
Can you imagine GM rolling out a new camaro, and saying things like, it will incorporate the very latest in hybrid engine technology, and be mated with our most advanced CVT. We feel strongly that it will get 40 miles to the gallon on the highway. :P
The reason these cars existed, and return is that they represented an image of irrepressable protest. They were loud, they were fast, quit often uncomfortable, and some had some to the worst road manners ever. But they were fun, you could work on them without a computer engineering degree and at least early on, you could almost build a unique model with all the various options.
As posted the reason they went away is due to insurance and fuel costs. Fuel costs are not a deterent anymore (as evidenced by all the Hummers, etc running to the mall and to soccer practice everyday). So all that remains is insurance.
Can someone tell me if insurance has increased for Civics lately? With all the modifications done to these cars they should be seeing an increase in rates due to the way kids drive them.
American manufacturers put a big 'jack up my rate' sign on cars when the do a performance version. The Neon SRT is a good example. Rather than make that an aftermarket performance oriented vehicle, ala the Civic, its right up there in front and you know insurers are charging increased rates.
A long time ago (86) a girl I dated bought a mustang, 4 cyl. She wanted the hatchback rather than the coupe body but because the hatch back had a spoiler on it her insurance company wanted and extra $600 per year. The car was a slow 4, it was not going to get faster with the extra weight of the hatchback, but the spoiler was considered sporty and somehow that meant that it would be more expensive to insure. Huh?
In the meantime, GM had produced a really good car in the Camaro/Firebird of the 90's. It was faster than just about anything on the american roadways with the exception of the Corvette and the Viper, they consistantly offered better performance than the Mustang GT and even in some years the SVT cobra. They were lightyears better than anything manufactured in Japan at the time, especially where it really mattered down low in the rev band. Its great that all these little engines can generate good horsepower and torque at high rpm, but how often do you run your car at 5000+ RPM? Traffic is to heavy to be buzzing around like that. The advantage of that old tech, overhead valve, design is gobs of low end torque. Thats what makes a car go, not the 250 hp at 7000 rpm. People are amoured with hp numbers but you thats not what kicks you in the seat when you press the go pedal.
Yes there will always be a market for 'low tech' performance cars. The real sales issue will be if they are affordable enough to lure a buyer in the door. Not everyone has 30 to 40 k or 500 to 700 a month to throw at a less functional car to use as a second or third vehicle.
And I don't mean that to be a slam, as I had an '89 Gran Fury, and it was a pretty good car. Well, except for the gas mileage. Oh, and it kept eating the little lightweight Honda-style starters that they were using by then. Oh, and the GM carburetor gave me fits! :mad: Remember the old Goodrench slogan? Keep that genuine GM feeling, with genuine GM parts? Or something like that? Too bad Mopar didn't feel the same way when they built my Gran Fury! :sick:
The front-end of the 300 also bears a strong resemblance to a 1979 Newport, although IMO the Newport actually looks sleeker! And the high beltline and smallish windows, and thick C-pillar do recall the 1963-64 Chryslers.
I think really, this all ties back to what I said earlier. Everything's been done, and there's just not that much out there that hasn't been done, stylewise. So as time goes by, we're only going to see more and more designs that remind us of something that's come before.
Dude, I owned a 72 Plymouth GTX with the 440 six pack. This car would do 135 in THIRD gear, at 3500rpm with 3000 left in 3rd and another gear to go. The only thing that kept me from finding out how fast was the friendly, profession Connecticut state police and the fact that I ran it on true bias plys to keep it stock. At the time there was nothing outside of Ferrari, Lamborghini, or Porsche that could keep up.
Now granted it didn't handle worth a darn, but it was the flower of 1972 technology and could beat brand new 1990's cars. I also owned a 67 GTO, 65, 66, 67 and 73 Mustangs, 69 Firebird convertable, and a 68 Camaro. Nothing made today comes close to the raw excitement these cars gave you. How exciting is a civic? Wow, my civic looks just like everybody elses on the road, how exciting for me! Gee even that grandma over there bought a red one like I did, she must be sporty :P
I regret selling all of those cars. Had I been able to see the future I would have hung on to a couple of them.
Tell me that in 40 years a Civic Si is going to be worth 50k. If you go to a dealers lot for a used car and you not 17 to 25, you do not want an electric blue, neon'd 4 foot tall rear winged honda, that at best was raced all over the place and is likely worn out. You would have to invest 10k just to get it back to looking like a car not a video game. Eventually you have to put down the Xbox controller and actually buy a car. Which do you think would have better resale? A stock, retro muscle car, will appeal to a wider range of buyer, you and old, than a hyper civic. A friends father (70's) buys a new mustang GT convertable every three years. There is a market at every age group for these cars.
How is bad, to take body designs that have presence and mate them with a more reliable set of mechanicals. Who wouldn't have driven a big three car if it had and exciting body and good mechanicals in the 80's and 90's.
Let me guess...was the friendly Connecticut state police officer driving a Chrysler product when he caught you? There's an old saying that it takes a Mopar to catch a Mopar! :shades:
Supposedly some of those old Polara interceptors from around 1969 or so could top out at around 147 mph. When you figure my '89 Gran Fury could top out around 126, and was a wuss compared to most of those old "real" police cars, 147 doesn't seem too far of a stretch.
How is bad, to take body designs that have presence and mate them with a more reliable set of mechanicals.
I never said that it was -- obviously, a more reliable car is better than a less reliable car.
My point is that over the long run, Ford needs to create a brand image for its nameplate that will sell all sorts of cars. At this stage of the game, in the US, it is thought of more as a seller of full-size trucks and pony cars than the bread-and-butter sedans that many people need to buy.
One purpose of the Mustang is (or at least, should be) to sell non-Mustang Fords to would-be Ford customers. You want the guy who lusts for a Mustang but who has practical needs that prevent him from owning one to project his lust onto another Ford product, instead.
If Ford and GM just become truck sellers that happen to sell a nostalgia car, they will continue to lose market share in the passenger car categories to their competitors. While the Mustang doesn't need to be a showcase for technology, it should be modern enough that consumers can see the tie-in to other Ford passenger cars. VW succeeded in using the New Beetle to do this, and Nissan got similar benefits by reviving the Z.
I could be wrong, but at this point, the Mustang seems to be a speciality product that doesn't help create buzz for the other models. I don't bet that too many people are going to want to buy a Five Hundred to ease their hunger pangs for a Mustang.
"Let me guess...was the friendly Connecticut state police officer driving a Chrysler product when he caught you? There's an old saying that it takes a Mopar to catch a Mopar!"
Nah, it was a grand national, and I was slowing down at the time or he would have locked me up. As it was he clocked me at over 90 and didn't light me up until he was right behind me.
After he wrote me the ticket, we talked about the car for about 20 minutes, he had me open the hood, looked inside (pistol grip shifter rock), and then followed me for 5 miles until I got off my exit at 55 mph. Even with the ticket he was cool, he got it.
My point is that over the long run, Ford needs to create a brand image for its nameplate that will sell all sorts of cars. At this stage of the game, in the US, it is thought of more as a seller of full-size trucks and pony cars than the bread-and-butter sedans that many people need to buy.
I agree, but were is the sedan that pulls you in? If you were the driver of a Stealth :P , or for that matter an avenger then you would likely at least take a 300 for a test drive. It does say performance with the chopped look, even with the 6. It does give a sort of logical prgression from a 2 door coupe to a 'family' sedan.
Ford does not have that vehicle. You are not likely to find buyers jumping from a Mustang to a 500. First the current 500 has a very underwhelming engine. Second it is styled more like the art deco look of south beach. All the mercury and ford products are starting to look this way. Kind of a chrome soft art science caddy look. I do not think we need to bring back fins and all but don't you think ford could make a more masculine sedan with the 4.6l in it?
In some respects the 500 does have a shape resemblence to the 63 Galaxy. But it is not a muscular vehicle, and I agree I do not think you average mustang buyer is going there for the family sedan.
You are not likely to find buyers jumping from a Mustang to a 500.
I agree, but the point is somewhat different than that.
You are going to have a class of buyers who would love to buy a pony car or sporty car of some sort, but won't buy one because it can't hold enough kids, strollers, groceries, etc. to justify the purchase.
The idea here is to get that warm, fuzzy feeling generated by the Mustang to stick to other Ford products. For VW, the main benefit of the New Beetle was that it sold more Jettas -- it got many people who had ignored the VW lineup but who liked the Beetle to look at the rest of the VW line, even though they would have never actually bought a Beetle for themselves.
Likewise, I have little doubt that the 350Z has helped to sell more Altimas -- indirectly, it makes the entire Nissan line more interesting, even though a Z car otherwise has very little in common with the Altima itself. As Nissan stood at the abyss before the Renault buyout, the management figured out that it was essential to have a Z car available, even if few people actually bought one, in order to get people excited about the other cars. (As it turns out, the Z was successful in its own right, which was even better for the company.)
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still like them though.
Proportioning was all wrong too, but this just harks back to what I said about applying retro cues to a modern car, and where all the "hard points" are. The original T-bird had a long hood, small passenger cabin, and a long-ish rear deck. On the revival, the passenger cabin just seemed like it was moved ahead too far, and correspondingly the hood was too short.
I would liken the retro T-bird to that Bel Air concept that Chevy was parading around a few years ago. It had a few generic retro touches here and there, but unless someone told you what it was trying to ape, it just wasn't readily apparent.
But then with the T-bird revival, I guess it was overpriced for what you got, and it was more of a cruiser than a bruiser. Most people who want a luxurious 2-seater want some muscle to it, even if the real reason they bought the car is to flaunt their money (or credit). And as I recall, the T-bird revival just wasn't that exotic when it came to performance.
Consider the leap from the retro design of the Mustang II (an attempt to get back to the proportions and style of the orignal 1964 1/2 car) to the Euro-futurism of the Fox body. Now that was a bold change...and it worked well.
But on the other hand, there's what happened in the early 1990s...convinced that the car needed to "get with the times", Ford was developing the next Mustang as a super-aerodynamic fwd coupe with a V6 as the big engine.
Word got out and Ford was assailed with compliants...so many so that Ford radically changed course and the Mustang SN95 project was begun (it would eventually result in the 1994-2004 Mustangs).
And what happened to the doomed fwd Mustang? You may remember it as the Ford Probe. :P
Perhaps what we'll see with future Mustangs will be what the '69/'70 models SHOULD have evolved into rather than the bloated flatback designs of '71/'73 or the Mustang II.
I'm no stylist, so I am unable to translate my vague mini-rant into a coherent design sketch, but I would think that the basic premise of the car should dictate that a Mustang forever be (a) rear-wheel drive, (b) two-door and/or fastback-hatch-based body style with (c) a small-block V-8 and (d) a "sporty" style, whatever that means, at (e) a reasonable price, i.e. below that of a European sports sedan, and at about the price of a mid-sized family sedan.
What that means in terms of borrowing styling cues from which generation, I'm not quite sure. But it strikes me that rather than branding these with a corporate face (front end/ grille/ headlight style), as automakers are often inclined to do, the Mustang should stand apart in presenting a unique visage and style to the market.
IMO, it's important for Ford to find a way to retain positive, distinctive qualities for the car, yet inspire enough potential buyers so that the Mustang brand can move customers to other products in the Ford lineup. While the Mustang seems to do a good job of standing on its own, I wonder whether it's doing much to bring people to the rest of Ford's product line. If the Mustang can move a family car buyer to also crave a Ford sedan, then that would be a successful product.
:surprise:
Oh lord help us.....
Well, if nothing else, such a move should help prop up the resale values on the '05 through '07 models.....
Don't forget long hood/short rear proportions.
I could see the next gen being a blockier, more angular version of the current one...think sorta like a modern Shelby Daytona (if people know what that looks like...)
The Mustang is the 10th best-selling car in the US, according to a list posted in one of the discussions in this forum. I find this amazing, considering that it is basically a specialty item, an aggressive sports car, in competition against all-purpose nondescript cars like the Camry (#1) and Accord (#3).
OR... they could lose the retro and move forward with a modern 21 century design.
No matter how you slice it your just retreading an old design.
I am contemplating whether or not to buy my friends 94 camaro 2 door coupe. It is in good physical condition but it has 130,000 miles and eats up oil. Is this a bad decision? And how many miles does a camaro usually reach if taken good care of?
Hard to say, really, how long a car can last because it often depends more on how it's taken care of than who originally built it. I've heard it thrown around in general that cars are usually engineered to last around 150-175,000 miles.
If it's a V-8, I'd say go for it. Even if the V-8 was shot you could easily throw in another. But if it's a V-6 and the engine's shot, would probably be expensive and complex to swap in a V-8. Also, how much are they asking?
BTW, I'd suggest finding a Camaro topic on Edmund's and post your question there. You'd get a better response.
Key with pony cars is how well their owners take care of them. Since Camaros (and Mustangs) are relatively inexpensive, they often tend to be really beaten on. So ask alot of questions and check the maintanence records carefully. If it were me, I'd feel alot better considering buying one from a friend like you are.
I think the 3800 V6 engine appeared in 1995, but I'm not sure.
Ford Mustang-160,975
Modern
Infiniti G35-68,728
Mazda RX-8-14,673
Pontiac GTO-11,590
Retro
Chrysler PT Cruiser-133,740
Chevrolet HHR-41,011 (introduced mid-year)
Modern
Toyota Matrix-109,442
Pontiac Vibe-64,271
Scion xB-54,037
Also, IMO, there's a bit of retro influence in the RX-8. Something about those flared fenders makes me think of 30's and 40's cars.
Me personally, I'll cheer just a loud when the newly designed Challenger hits the streets as when Mini-Skirts make a complete comeback. :shades:
Best Regards,
Shipo
Basically, as time goes by, there's just less of an unexplored frontier out there, stylewise.
Retro has not hit the mainstream sedan market, and I would be surprised if it did.
Its possible that someone may compare a 6 cyl. Mustang to a Camry Solara. In that comparison Ford still sold more than twice as many V-6 coupes.*
*I dont know actual numbers but as I understand it Toyota sold nearly 30,000 Solara's and Ford says about 1/3 of Mustang sales are the V-6.
It already has. Chrysler 300 based to look like the old 300 letter series.
Looks like
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Can you imagine GM rolling out a new camaro, and saying things like, it will incorporate the very latest in hybrid engine technology, and be mated with our most advanced CVT. We feel strongly that it will get 40 miles to the gallon on the highway. :P
The reason these cars existed, and return is that they represented an image of irrepressable protest. They were loud, they were fast, quit often uncomfortable, and some had some to the worst road manners ever. But they were fun, you could work on them without a computer engineering degree and at least early on, you could almost build a unique model with all the various options.
As posted the reason they went away is due to insurance and fuel costs. Fuel costs are not a deterent anymore (as evidenced by all the Hummers, etc running to the mall and to soccer practice everyday). So all that remains is insurance.
Can someone tell me if insurance has increased for Civics lately? With all the modifications done to these cars they should be seeing an increase in rates due to the way kids drive them.
American manufacturers put a big 'jack up my rate' sign on cars when the do a performance version. The Neon SRT is a good example. Rather than make that an aftermarket performance oriented vehicle, ala the Civic, its right up there in front and you know insurers are charging increased rates.
A long time ago (86) a girl I dated bought a mustang, 4 cyl. She wanted the hatchback rather than the coupe body but because the hatch back had a spoiler on it her insurance company wanted and extra $600 per year. The car was a slow 4, it was not going to get faster with the extra weight of the hatchback, but the spoiler was considered sporty and somehow that meant that it would be more expensive to insure. Huh?
In the meantime, GM had produced a really good car in the Camaro/Firebird of the 90's. It was faster than just about anything on the american roadways with the exception of the Corvette and the Viper, they consistantly offered better performance than the Mustang GT and even in some years the SVT cobra. They were lightyears better than anything manufactured in Japan at the time, especially where it really mattered down low in the rev band. Its great that all these little engines can generate good horsepower and torque at high rpm, but how often do you run your car at 5000+ RPM? Traffic is to heavy to be buzzing around like that. The advantage of that old tech, overhead valve, design is gobs of low end torque. Thats what makes a car go, not the 250 hp at 7000 rpm. People are amoured with hp numbers but you thats not what kicks you in the seat when you press the go pedal.
Yes there will always be a market for 'low tech' performance cars. The real sales issue will be if they are affordable enough to lure a buyer in the door. Not everyone has 30 to 40 k or 500 to 700 a month to throw at a less functional car to use as a second or third vehicle.
And I don't mean that to be a slam, as I had an '89 Gran Fury, and it was a pretty good car. Well, except for the gas mileage. Oh, and it kept eating the little lightweight Honda-style starters that they were using by then. Oh, and the GM carburetor gave me fits! :mad: Remember the old Goodrench slogan? Keep that genuine GM feeling, with genuine GM parts? Or something like that? Too bad Mopar didn't feel the same way when they built my Gran Fury! :sick:
The front-end of the 300 also bears a strong resemblance to a 1979 Newport, although IMO the Newport actually looks sleeker! And the high beltline and smallish windows, and thick C-pillar do recall the 1963-64 Chryslers.
I think really, this all ties back to what I said earlier. Everything's been done, and there's just not that much out there that hasn't been done, stylewise. So as time goes by, we're only going to see more and more designs that remind us of something that's come before.
Now granted it didn't handle worth a darn, but it was the flower of 1972 technology and could beat brand new 1990's cars. I also owned a 67 GTO, 65, 66, 67 and 73 Mustangs, 69 Firebird convertable, and a 68 Camaro. Nothing made today comes close to the raw excitement these cars gave you. How exciting is a civic? Wow, my civic looks just like everybody elses on the road, how exciting for me! Gee even that grandma over there bought a red one like I did, she must be sporty :P
I regret selling all of those cars. Had I been able to see the future I would have hung on to a couple of them.
Tell me that in 40 years a Civic Si is going to be worth 50k. If you go to a dealers lot for a used car and you not 17 to 25, you do not want an electric blue, neon'd 4 foot tall rear winged honda, that at best was raced all over the place and is likely worn out. You would have to invest 10k just to get it back to looking like a car not a video game. Eventually you have to put down the Xbox controller and actually buy a car. Which do you think would have better resale? A stock, retro muscle car, will appeal to a wider range of buyer, you and old, than a hyper civic. A friends father (70's) buys a new mustang GT convertable every three years. There is a market at every age group for these cars.
Supposedly some of those old Polara interceptors from around 1969 or so could top out at around 147 mph. When you figure my '89 Gran Fury could top out around 126, and was a wuss compared to most of those old "real" police cars, 147 doesn't seem too far of a stretch.
I never said that it was -- obviously, a more reliable car is better than a less reliable car.
My point is that over the long run, Ford needs to create a brand image for its nameplate that will sell all sorts of cars. At this stage of the game, in the US, it is thought of more as a seller of full-size trucks and pony cars than the bread-and-butter sedans that many people need to buy.
One purpose of the Mustang is (or at least, should be) to sell non-Mustang Fords to would-be Ford customers. You want the guy who lusts for a Mustang but who has practical needs that prevent him from owning one to project his lust onto another Ford product, instead.
If Ford and GM just become truck sellers that happen to sell a nostalgia car, they will continue to lose market share in the passenger car categories to their competitors. While the Mustang doesn't need to be a showcase for technology, it should be modern enough that consumers can see the tie-in to other Ford passenger cars. VW succeeded in using the New Beetle to do this, and Nissan got similar benefits by reviving the Z.
I could be wrong, but at this point, the Mustang seems to be a speciality product that doesn't help create buzz for the other models. I don't bet that too many people are going to want to buy a Five Hundred to ease their hunger pangs for a Mustang.
Nah, it was a grand national, and I was slowing down at the time or he would have locked me up. As it was he clocked me at over 90 and didn't light me up until he was right behind me.
After he wrote me the ticket, we talked about the car for about 20 minutes, he had me open the hood, looked inside (pistol grip shifter rock), and then followed me for 5 miles until I got off my exit at 55 mph. Even with the ticket he was cool, he got it.
I agree, but were is the sedan that pulls you in? If you were the driver of a Stealth :P , or for that matter an avenger
Ford does not have that vehicle. You are not likely to find buyers jumping from a Mustang to a 500. First the current 500 has a very underwhelming engine. Second it is styled more like the art deco look of south beach. All the mercury and ford products are starting to look this way. Kind of a chrome soft art science caddy look. I do not think we need to bring back fins and all but don't you think ford could make a more masculine sedan with the 4.6l in it?
In some respects the 500 does have a shape resemblence to the 63 Galaxy. But it is not a muscular vehicle, and I agree I do not think you average mustang buyer is going there for the family sedan.
I agree, but the point is somewhat different than that.
You are going to have a class of buyers who would love to buy a pony car or sporty car of some sort, but won't buy one because it can't hold enough kids, strollers, groceries, etc. to justify the purchase.
The idea here is to get that warm, fuzzy feeling generated by the Mustang to stick to other Ford products. For VW, the main benefit of the New Beetle was that it sold more Jettas -- it got many people who had ignored the VW lineup but who liked the Beetle to look at the rest of the VW line, even though they would have never actually bought a Beetle for themselves.
Likewise, I have little doubt that the 350Z has helped to sell more Altimas -- indirectly, it makes the entire Nissan line more interesting, even though a Z car otherwise has very little in common with the Altima itself. As Nissan stood at the abyss before the Renault buyout, the management figured out that it was essential to have a Z car available, even if few people actually bought one, in order to get people excited about the other cars. (As it turns out, the Z was successful in its own right, which was even better for the company.)