Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Modern Muscle with Classic Names
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I dunno though, if the 500 has enough flash to snag those who are lured in with the Mustang. At least with the Jetta, it's not that big of a jump from a New Beetle. And the Altima is one of the sportier midsized family-type cars out there, so it ties in well with the Z. IMO though, the 500 just doesn't have that pizzaz. Now the Fusion does, IMO. I could see someone getting lured in by the Mustang, and driving home with a Fusion. Or maybe a Focus.
While I am not in the market for a new car right now, I would look at a Mustang to see how it invokes the memories of cars I have owned. Would it be enough to make me pull the trigger? Now no, but if I were looking, yes. Will the charger/challenger 2 door put more people in the showroom for Chrysler group, yes. A retro Camaro? Yes.
I agree with the previous poster about the tbird. If the angles were right and the hood and trunk fixed you would be a sweet ride. But ford could sell a lot of them at 30k. It is a cruiser not a performance car. If it were priced to compete with the Solara in price and even the SLK/Crossfire group, I think the market would see a few more on the road. The other option is the give it the squarebird treatment, extend the wheelbase and give it 4 seats. Volvo and Saab, Mercedes, Chrysler and Toyota all have fair to good selling 4 seat convertables. There is a market there, I think.
Depends. For Ford, the track record is 50-50 -- worked for the Mustang, failed miserably for the T-Bird. The Beetle was definitely retro (had to be, by definition), but the Z was certainly not, just a sharp evolution of the last design based upon the essential concept common to all Z's (six-cylinder two-seater on a RWD platform.)
The Mustang has obviously sold a lot of Mustangs -- in that sense, it is an unqualified success -- but I doubt if it helps to sell any of the other Ford cars. The ideal Mustang would do both.
I would love to also see an update on the early 60's Lincoln continental convertables with the suicide doors. My father had 2 he restored and the were just a blast to drive. Nothing like the 460 lincoln engine for effortless crusin'
The family had the good fortune of owning a 65 e type. Bad condition and all, we sold it during restoration, we were able to drive it a few times before really taking it apart. When I saw the new XK8 for the first time, my eyes kind of unfocused and I was back in the garage with my father, using old tools and muscle power to carefully remove parts from an old jag. I swear I could still smell the leather, the oil... It was fantastic. That is the emotional response I think a retro car envisions.
The new crop of Asian cars do not have that connection to long ago. I had an old RX-7 with the alpha engine, when the RX 8 came out, I thought it was a good design with some bold directions. It did not take me back though to the old RX.
As for low tech performance cars, my GTO was just slightly under $30k. A bargain.
I have kids, strollers etc and bought the GTO as my 2nd car. The backseat is just as roomy as a 4 door Grand Prix or Accord etc. Just the pain of getting in and out. We get all of our stuff to fit, You have to pack smart. Many people think because they have 1 or 2 kids that they have to run out and buy a minivan or SUV. Not always.
I always thought the GTOs hit their peak, style-wise, in '66-67.
It worked for you, but for some others, it won't (or at least they believe that it won't, which is all that counts.)
The point is that it would be beneficial to Ford to have a performance car that helps customers to get interested in their other cars. If the Mustang is a one-trick pony that does nothing to move customers to look at other Ford cars, then that would be to the detriment of Ford.
The point of the retro is to get some blood flowing in the potential consumer, or ride the coattails of a trend started by someone else. I see a lot of families driving small 2 door civics, accords, corollas and Scions, not because its a great choice, but likely because its a cost issue. If we are discussing Muscle cars, or image cars with retro styling, the issues of utility are secondary. The prime focus is attacting attention. If you see an old GT-350 rolling down the road, you stare, you glance, but it gets your attention. For people interested in image cars thats what they want. Why else would the average person throw down 50k for an H2. Most of the ones I see on the road are single drivers commuting. Other than, say an H1 or 85 Suburban I cannot think of a vehicle that makes less sense for its use. But it pulls people into the dealership. If you have a good experience with that car you are likely to purchase another or something from within that family for your next one.
Thats why so many people still buy from the big three, even though qualitatively they are a little behing the asian manufacturers. My mother in law owned an old chrysler something in the 70's. She and her husband had tranny problems. She will not even ride in a chrysler product now. (30 years!) She saw a 300 the other day in a parking lot and asked me what it was. I asked her if she liked it, she said yes. Then I told her it was a Chrysler and she said, oh no then I don't like it. She has had great experiences with Buicks, thats all she will drive.
The point is if a retro mustang, or charger, or camaro gets you into a ford, chrysler or GM, and you have a good experience you will be more likely to give them a shot the second time around. With most of these retro vehicles the smile factor is higher.
Would I buy a mustang now because it resembled some that I owned in the past. Absolutely.
My message here is that part of the purpose for a car such as a Mustang is to get non-Mustang buyers into Ford showrooms -- people who would never actually buy a Mustang, but for whom the car resonates greatly enough that the s/he would be more inclined to take his or her needs for a sedan, econobox, etc. into a Ford showroom than they otherwise would.
The car should be there to create buzz even among people who wouldn't dream of getting one, for whatever reason (but likely because they would not view it as a practical purchase). You want the magic of the car to rub off on everyone looking at Ford products, not just the would-be Mustang buyers.
I hear ya. My thought though is that for retro to work well, and for it to affect an entire product line, you would need those touches on an entire product line, don't you think?
I just think the design of almost all fords except the mustang and the GT, do not intantly evoke a connection to the past. I agree, I do not think that someone seeing a mustang drive by is going to say, wow I think I need to by a fusion because that mustangs fantastic.
I agree with your point. But as far as nitch, retro vehicles go, I think there will always be a place for them.
Chrysler could market a good set of cars with fondly remembered cars like the Barracude, GTX, Superbird, Demon. Ford really only had the Mustang that made people swoon, nobody really wants a torino. By the virtue of size, GM has Chevelles, Camaro's Firebirds, Nova's, Le Mans (although thats you lowpo GTO).
Another retro themed vehicle that could make a splash would be a ram derived powerwagon. With the right stylist a retro powerwagon would sell well to the mopar truck set.
When I bought my 73 mustang, the original owners still had the window sticker in the glove box. It cost about $3400 new and I paid $3600 in 1985.
In 73 3,400 was not cheap, but it certainly was not breaking the bank either. Today, the equivelant car would be somewhere in the low 20's.
I do not see a retro vehicle with good performance being made at that price point. You would have to make to many, and then it just becomes another civic type vehicle.
Rocky
P.S. I will sure miss the GTO, and thus I'm seriously considering getting me a copy. With a good rebate and my GM discount it might be the best money one could spend for 400hp.
In most cases it works the other way around with Retro's. You have the guy that just must have it and the one that is looking at the Fusion and the Stang catches his or her eye and drives it away.
Ford has to build more then just one car of interest for the public to enter their show rooms or any other manufacture for that matter. Sedan and econobox buyers are just that and you have to talk them into buying a Mustang if you catch them looking at it.
This Holden-GTO definitely evokes the spirit of the GTO which is a big V8 (6.0 Liter) in a midsized 2 door car & very fast performance. This new GTO is the fastest-most powerfull GTO EVER BUILT. Unlike the original GTO's it can actually handle and brake quite nicely. Orig. GTO's were just straight line cars.
"Today, the equivelant car would be somewhere in the low 20's. I do not see a retro vehicle with good performance being made at that price point. You would have to make to many, and then it just becomes another civic type vehicle."
The new 2006 retro base $20k Mustang V6 with 210hp V6 does 0-60 in 6.9 seconds. 6.9 is quite fast. Which is just as fast or faster then any 1973 Mustang.
I guess I better do some hard thinking if I want a copy.
Rocky
P.S. If I get one it will be a 6 speed Black ext w/Red leather int. Plus sport package
But that is not significantly faster than most sedans and might accually be beaten by some.
Muscle cars did two things well, they went fast and they raised the hair on your neck.
If you have a V6 mustang today (remember everything is relative), you are not pulling away from an accord at a stop light.
Now that said, my 73 had one of the most gutless 302's ever made with a red line of only 5900 and a 3 spd stick. I could do 105 but the car was howling, and forget about block racing, you had to get out of first gear at 20 mph and the shift patern was a reversed small h first was down and left, you had to up and right to second and down to third, and the shift gates were widely spaced. It was absolutely a cruiser not a muscle car.
Let me also correct a statement made before about the spirit, certainly the go fast capability of the GTO captures the spirit, it just looks to much like everything else on the road. Maybe I was expecting more visual presence. You know a Corvette or Viper, a Mustang or Camaro/Firebird, hell even the somewhat stealthy GNX was painted in such a way that you knew something was different.
The GTO body just resembles to much else on the road, and I think that detracts from its overall strength.
I agree that I wish the GTO was a little more aggressive looking, but it's not a bad looking car. It does have arguably GM's best seats and interior quality. BTW the Azteck stands out on the road from far away too, so that isn't saying too much. 1 of the advantages sof the dull styling is that it's not a cop (traffic enforcement) magnet like the Mustang is. GTO has slight similiarties in appearance to the 2004 Mercedes CLK55 AMG 2 door. Look at the Motor Trend May 2004 article when they do the comparo and comparo pictures. The problem with the Mustang-Camaro is that they are a dime a dozen, you see way too many of them. Even Vettes in my area. I don't see many GTO's.
For such a dull car, many people give me the thumbs up or say nice car or ask about it when I'm stopped in traffic or when I pull into a parking lot. It's gotten more attention that way then my Transam did years ago!
The GTO was a Tempest/Lemans with a small hood scoop and a Catalina engine.
The GTO isn't retro, but a direct decendent of the Monaro which was the Austrailian Chevelle SS.
Didn't handle? Just a small "detail," huh?
I don't claim to know diddly squat about cars, and am definitely outclassed by the discussion here, but when I was a kid, I drove my father's late late 60's metalic gold Riviera. That mother hauled A! Heavy and steady on the road. Endless amounts of torque. 450 V8. Sleak and low, with a bullet fastback. Low leather buckets. Power everythang. Got me hauled before a judge one summer Sunday afternoon when I hit 80 shortly after the light turned green. How come all you hotrodders never mention this beast? How come it has been totally forgotten? (The sucker could leave a stock '60's Mustang V8 wondering what time it was.) :shades:
'96 Chevy Caprice:
If you do get one, please don't put lambo doors on it.
Now, with age your insurance will go down...provided you don't do anything stupid. I knew a guy who was 25 and paid $2600 per year for insurance on a 1989 VW Fox! Idiot had full coverage on it! Plus, he had a very naughty driving record. He also caused a 4-car chain reaction on the interstate once with someone else's Ford Focus, leaving her with a heap of debt. Oh, and he drives big rigs now, cross-country. And can barely see over the dashboard, unless they put booster seats in those things. So be afraid...be VERY afraid!
Oh, as for a Caprice/Roadmaster, don't let their massive size fool you. They had a 260 hp 350 V-8 with gobs of torque. 0-60 times are in the mid-7 second range, which still isn't Camaro/Mustang V-8 territory, but when something that big moves that fast, and still handles well, it can be a very pleasant surprise.
Plus, they're very spacious inside, so you can do things inside them that in a Trans-Ero or Mustang would give you back problems for life! :P
There is an old saying among hot rodders, "Its not what you got, its what you do with it." For example, locally there is a 10 second Ranger (street legal). The fastest car around? No. The fastest truck around? Maybe. Which brings us to another old hot rodder saying, "put your motor where your mouth, is meadow muffin."
Just be careful. No offense intended to you personally, but this is can be the sort of outlook that gets tons of beginning drivers in a lot of trouble. There's a reason why your insurance is sky-high...your age segment is the most dangerous group of drivers on the road. Adding a high-power car to the cocktail of testosterone and lack of experience can very quickly make for a dangerous situation.
So not saying you shouldn't get one (I wish I had one when I was 16 ), but rather know your limitations and respect them. Considering trying a high-performance driving school...you'll improve your abilities, and nothing impresses chicks more than telling them you've driven your car on a racetrack.
We want you to keep posting here for a long time to come.
Rocky
Or better yet, an '80-85 Delta 88 or LeSabre coupe would probably be a good candidate for modding. Buick and Olds used more weight savings techniques in their cars so something like a Delta or LeSabre from that time weighs around 200 pounds less than an equivalent Parisienne or Caprice/Impala.
Or, just imagine something like an '80's Monte Carlo SS with the LT-1 drivetrain! That would almost be scary! But in a fun way! :shades:
Often they end up getting sold off and end up in taxi fleets though, where they get pounded into the ground.
Rocky
The good part about that movie was that it managed to replicate the tv show very well. The bad part was that it managed to replicate the tv show very well. Hollywood, enough with the remakes...hire some writing talent, eh?
Rocky
Is there even any such thing as a "New" movie anymore? Yesterday I went to see "The Hills Have Eyes", and saw that "The Shaggy Dog" was playing in the same theatre. Gawd, is there any movie/tv show out there that HASN'T been remade?!
BTW, I thought one of the best parts of the Dukes movie was when they got caught in the traffic jam going into Atlanta, and everybody was making disparaging remarks about the flag painted on the roof! That whole anachronism/out of their element thing made me think of the "Brady Bunch" movie! It was also pretty funny when Bo was sitting in the General, by himself, and started singing along to an old Air Supply song. Remind me again why they were so big in the 80's? :confuse:
It's an options package...Ford brought back the old "California Special" designation.
And before it was available, I saw plenty of Mustangs with added aftermarket scoops etc.
Funny how despite the fairly common press about buyers liking the new Mustang design because it is less cluttered, style-wise, than the 99-04s, there are apparently enough people out there who *want* the added gingerbread...
Is this possibly true? Or were speedometers WILDLY optimistic back then?
That would mean the car is geared for 250 mph in 3rd gear at 6500 rpm. And in 4th gear maybe 350 mph or so?
(Was this guy just blowing hot air?)
Well, I think a Mopar with a torqueflite and a 2.76:1 rear would be pulling around 3500 rpm @ roughly 100-110 mph. At least, I had a buddy with a '66 Charger 383-4bbl, and it pulled 2500@75 mph. So extrapolating that out, that would come out to 3333@100 mph.
But 3rd gear in a 4-speed transmission is going to be a quicker ratio than the 1:1 top gear of a Torqueflite. And a Roadrunner is most likely going to be geared quicker than a 2.76:1! So I'm sure that at 100 it would be running quicker than 3500 rpm, let alone 135!
Also, those old Mopar engines, even the hairier big-blocks, tended to get their peak hp around 4800 rpm, and would redline around 5500 or so IIRC. In 1972, the 440 six-pack had something like 285 hp, according to the net rating that became the norm that year. It would've been around 370-380 gross.
Still, a '72 Roadrunner with a 440-6pack was one of the fastest domestics around by that time. Ford pretty much gave up on performance by then. About the most power you could get was maybe 224 hp out of a 460, but you'd have to buy a T-bird or Lincoln to do it. I think the cheaper Fords and Mercurys were toned down from that. You could still get a 300 hp Pontiac/Olds 455, or a Buick 455 with around 270 hp. Or a Chevy 454 with 270 hp. There was also a 440 option at Dodge that put out 330 hp! Maybe that was a dual quad, and not a 6-pack?