[desmo9]

The 300C is retro? How so?

V8 and RWD is how we used to do it here in America, so if a platform goes back to that theme, it's retro?

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by i am bill@Feb 22 2004, 11:49 PM
Here's what I heard: 'I don't like it when other people do retro, I like it when GM does retro.'

Also, if you want a car that gets good mileage, go buy one, they're on the market. Just realize that you can have preformance or mileage, but not both. And that is how it is going to be for a long time to come.

Yeah, I read the same anti-competition rhetoric. ...Nomad and SSR are OK, but all the other retro is bad. Even cars that are not retro...

As for performace vs. mileage? You can have them both, to a large extent. I mean, look at the Corvette's highway mileage. In fact, if a performance car has great aerodynamics, it might achieve better highway figures than an econobox. Performance cars often appear to have lower mpg figures because the testers romp on them from stoplight to stoplight or on high-speed passes. But if you feather the throttle, and induce the same type of performance as a Cavalier, then you'll achieve mileage similar to a Cavalier (assuming weight, aerodynamic drag, and rolling resistance are comparable).

 

[desmo9]

In the early 90s, what became the Probe was going to be the next Mustang. Even ignoring the FWD driveline, this original design didn't look anything like a Mustang. Enter the Mach 3 concept from about 1996 or so. This had some Mustang cues, but it was too much of a reach. Is that what I personally would want instead of the '05? Heck no.

It seems to me that cars with alot of heritage are the most ripe for a retro job... like Mini or Beetle, and possibly Mustang. Take the current Mustang (2004). It's catchy, has alot of design elements that tell you it's a Mustang, but was it ever all that special? I recall vividly when the first variant appeared in 1994. It was nice, but didn't seem to bring out the passion of the '05. This is subjective, of course, but I do think the original redesigns on legendary cars ('93 F cars come to mind) got stale quickly. The 350Z is not meeting expectations in sales, either.

I think one needs to step back and ignore whether something is retro or not, and take it for what it is. When you see the car, does it reach out to you? How many people buying Mini or New Beetle really lust for the original versions? Probably few. The new versions of the cars simply reach out to the market the way the original ones did. That's the key. If you step back and examine why the original Z car stirred the market, how it made people feel when they saw it and drove it, you begin realize why the new one is not as successful.

 

[desmo9]

I'm glad you put the pictures up, Tone, because they say 1000 words. The Vette's family tree is obviously more slender, because the T-Birds share alot less resemblance. If it were not for the new T-Bird's hardtop and porthole window, the common lineage would be even tougher to detect. I've maintained throughout many posts that the new Vettes are derived from their ancestry as much as the Mustang, exterior-wise, and this picture makes that clear.

And I concur that the CTS draws alot of heritage from old Cadillacs, not that there's anything wrong with that. The taillights, fender creases, stacked headlights, etc... are all cues meant to "evoke" the classic Caddys.

Finally, drawing comparisons between cars and other consumer goods is quite an appropriate thing to do, particularly if the analogous goods stir up passion (like guitars).

When you figure out how to bite your tongue and simply not respond to messages like the above, please let me know the trick. :huh:

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by bigals87z28@Feb 26 2004, 06:38 PM

You cant tell that the tbird isnt an almost exact replica of the old tbird?  But you some how can see the retroness of the Vette better? 
On one hand you have the Vette whos basic shape has stayed the same since 63

That's right, apparently you really can read, because I did say that the new T-bird is no more like the old one than the C6 is from the old one (style-wise). In fact, a Ford rep at NAIAS told me they'd analyzed the problems with the car in the market. One key issue with the T-bird, other than its high price, it that it lost some key styling cues people identified with in the old one...especially the way the headlight nacelles are done. I never said the new one does not resemble the old one at all..don't put words in my mouth... I was comparing T-bird resemblances to the Vette's. It seems you're saying "Vette has always been that way, so as a result it is less inspired by heritage." Huh? So if the C4 and C5 had taken a new direction and the C6 went back to Mako Shark, it'd be a different story?

Let's look at your quote again to be sure..."On one hand you have the Vette whos basic shape has stayed the same since 63. " ... 1968, actually. I don't see much '63-'67 in this Vette, nor is there much C2 in C3. Mako-Shark turned a big corner for the car, and every one since has been inspired by that concept...'68 and on. But the C6 draws upon that heritage alot more than C4 and C5 have. Alot more. Which is a good thing, I think.

 

[desmo9]

Originally posted by gmwsag@Mar 1 2004, 10:57 PM


I don't care if they want to go back to all these stupid designs

Credibility shot. Move on.

Sneaker analogy hard to understand, too. What does people "having gone without" have to do with retro? If anything, make more of the classic-looking stuff so they can now experience what they missed???