[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:

 

[BigAls87Z28]

holy crap you are going to tell me that the Vette is more retro then the Tbird!

im gunna pass out. 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. Long nose, short deck.
Then you have the Tbird whos design has went from 2dr sporst car, to 2dr, 4 seater larger luxury coupe, and have basicly stayed that way till they killed it in 97.
How can you NOT look at the new tbird and say, "that looks just like the old tbird."
When you look at the C6, you know its a vette due to its evolutionary style and progression from c2 to c3 to c4 to c5. I am purplexed that you guys are saying that the Vette is more retro then the Tbird. Desmo, you have said a lot of mindless things on here, but this one takes the cake. If you cannot tell that the new tbird is a near exact design replica of the old 54's-57's, then I would like for you to check out your eyes. This is not my opionion that the tbird looks like the old version, but it seems to be 99% of the populations opinion. Ray Charles could see that. You just chose to fight with me over this.

 

[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.

 

[Tone]

BigAl - note that neither Desmo or myself have used the term "retro." I can't speak for Desmo, but if you read my post, you'll note I think the term is kind of useless as nobody can seem to define where something stops being "retro" and where it becomes simply influenced by its heritage.

But, so-called retro and "heritage" designs have something in common - they are strongly influenced by a specific car. In the Vette's case - it's influenced by over 50 years of history. As you mentioned, the basic styling cues for the current car were set in place in 1963 and have evolved since then.

The Thunderbird's history ranges a ton more, as you noted. But, what if it hadn't? What if the format of the car had continued over the last 50-odd years as the Corvette has? Isn't is possible that the current T-bird might be the result of that evolution? If that was the case, would it still be retro? If not, whose to say the current design dirction could not be evolved with future generations. And yes, I know the T-bird is going away, but the question is relevant for other cars like the Mini, the New Beetle and the Mustang. Or perhaps even an CF5 Camaro that incorporates cues from the '67 - '69 cars.

 

[BigAls87Z28]

wow... thats all Im gunna say is wow.


I give up.

 

[paul8488]

this has been a very "active" retro thread...


retro... active...


oh i give up too

 

[paul8488]

to be serious now...

i agree that the term 'retro' has come to encompass too much. maybe at one point it had a specific definition, but now anything that even hints at something done before is retro. i had someone climb into my '03 vibe and say "oh i love the retro dash!"?!? wha? have you seen the vibe dash? can't say it screams "1939 pontiac vibe" to me! they saw the plastichrome rings around the gauges and thought 'retro'. someone call mr. webster and get him to redefine retro.

 

[yoblues]

The Mustang SELLS, period. The current Mustang is based on a really old platform and is a rattletrap. The interior bleeps and the seats are HORRIBLE. IT STILL SELLS! The new 05 Mustang will feel like a Rolls Royce compared to the current one. The new one really looks good. The current one does not look good but IT STILL SELLS. This is just one of those cars that has become an American Icon, just like the Vette. It is also affordable to a large audience. The 05 Mustang will do what Mustangs have always done, Sell, Sell, Sell...... I liked the 60's Stangs. From the 70's to the 04 I would not have bought one of them but they still SOLD,SOLD,SOLD. I do like the 05 Stang a lot but an 05 suprise Camaro would be even better ....... Hello! Mr. Lutz.

 

[SmallBlock]

If you put the cars side by side then you can obviously see the influence of the earlier Corvettes on the new C6. But that car has been with us all along, so our idea of what a Corvette should look like has been updated with each iteration. And each generation progressed.

The cars which draw the biggest ire for being too 'copycat' are those which have undergone a dramatic shift in their purpose throughout their lives. The Thunderbird is a case study. Sometime in the late 1970's (maybe earlier) the car loses its way, and becomes something that most people didn't agree with. By the 1990's it had totally lost touch with what a Thunderbird was supposed to be (in the public's eyes). Then the car tried to return to its roots in 2000 after a long time in the wilderness. Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way.

To summarize:

Even though the Corvette does draw upon many cues from its heritage, it agrees with John Q. Public's idea of what a Corvette should look like. They've always looked that way.

The Thunderbird (and PT Cruiser) had no evolutionary path to constantly update the public with. So when they came out, the public smelled a rat (although the PT Cruiser, having no ancestor, sold quite well).

I apologise if this is repeating someone else's post, but as usual, the thread has gotten pretty messed up.

 

[laserwizard]

I'd like to see some retro designs from GM that high light the awesome mid-sized coupes of the late 1960's and early 1970's like the Cutlass and the Chevelle. These cars had a stance to them that is still easy on the eyes.

I'm a big fan of the new Mustang for one reason....it finally looks like a Mustang. Having been an owner of a 1969, I find the new one to be a nice interpretation of the real Mustang lore while not being a knockoff. The dash of a Mustang does have a look and the new one is right there.

Similarly, I find that Corvettes have a distinct look (inside and out) and the C4 was a blemish on the record of a fine product. I personally love the C5 (wouldn't mind owning one) and the C6 seems to be even better.

In my eyes, retro simply means a car styled to look good, not to take what the engineers have handed off and trying to package things around that. I'm sick of mini-vans and dull suv's which clog our highways with their bulk and the whining brats wiping their nose snot on the windows.

I do have to wonder how it is that Pontiac can design a Grand Prix that doesn't look like a Grand Prix, has an interior with the same problems of a Ford Mondeo (no room), and has no character unless you option the hell out of it.

Don't forget retro. Design cars that have an attitude. Let those who want to drive tupperware to go find it at their Toyota or Honda dealership where they serve it en masse for any idiot to find.

 

[gmwsag]

I will agree to the fact of 'heritage', but then I begin to question heritage:

Why will we have heritage if the heritage never sold good. For example, the current T-Bird. The original wasn't a 'seller', and the recent T-Birds before this current-edition weren't carrying any type of tradition that the current T-Bird is showing. The old T-Bird, I would've thought looks like a coupe during the 90s' like any type of coupe:

....heritage is a lot to follow, because most of the time, things change. I remember when the pop-up lights in the Corvette used to be a tradition factor, but of course that didn't last for all of the Corvette's long-life. For 2005, Chevrolet has popped out the pop-up lights and made the current Corvette sleeker and lighter to make it look more like a Ferrari. Why do that? Because the times change. 'Heritage won't always live up to its name'.

Definition ala heritage: Something that is passed down from preceding generations; a tradition. (according to Dictionary.com)

Personally, the Corvette doesn't always have pop-up lights, the T-Bird doesn't always have the same convertible thing going on, and the Mercury Cougar isn't always what it is supposed to be. The point is, the times change, and we need to change with the times.....

As for GM, I do regret saying that the Nomad and SSR are cute, because once you look at them in true life, you see that they're really ugly! The point is, why can't we move on from the past..Yeah! This world has made some stupid mistakes in their life and moved on, why can't we just move on. Don't tell me 'because it sells' because personally, everyone looks at a Ferrari and says 'oh my gosh', and everyone wants to be the 'oh my gosh' car. Times change. A few decades ago, people could care less about Ferrari's. Everyone was buying muscle cars with big V-8's that made a rumble when started up and had a puff of smoke that could cause coughing. Now everyone wants their hands on a smooth, slick Porsche or Ferrari. :lol:

 

[casket_demon]

Originally posted by gmwsag@Feb 29 2004, 08:43 PM


As for GM, I do regret saying that the Nomad and SSR are cute, because once you look at them in true life, you see that they're really ugly!

I don't know about the Nomad, but the SSR is great looking in person!

 

[Tone]

Just because incorporating influences from the past to some degree or another works (IMHO) in some cases, doesn't mean it is appropriate in every case.

I think among the hundreds of models of new cars produced every year, there is room for both designs (and nameplates) that acknowledge the past and new nameplates that incorporate new ideas reflecting outside influences and new technologies.

I agree - you cannot only do "retro." But I do think reinventing older design ideas works with nameplates that have a significant history. Ignoring that history (as was done with the Cougar) is problematic - I think if you want to do something very new, give it a new name.

 

[gmwsag]

Tone, please do look at my post again:

"times change, so change with the times".

I don't care if they want to go back to all these stupid designs, but just change with the times as the times change.. if you do you won't regret a design, because everyone will like it!!!
I'm sure you have a pair of Nike's or Reebok's in your closet. A few decades ago, all people would care about is being able to actually WEAR shoes, since many couldn't afford them. Now, everyone's coughing up the $100 bill to pay for those Nike's and Reebok's; that is the golden example and the same should go for cars, foods, cd's, music, computers, technology, science & everything else that involves daily life!

 

[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???

 

[Tone]

Originally posted by gmwsag@Mar 1 2004, 04:57 PM
Tone, please do look at my post again:

"times change, so change with the times".

I don't care if they want to go back to all these stupid designs, but just change with the times as the times change.. if you do you won't regret a design, because everyone will like it!!!
I'm sure you have a pair of Nike's or Reebok's in your closet. A few decades ago, all people would care about is being able to actually WEAR shoes, since many couldn't afford them. Now, everyone's coughing up the $100 bill to pay for those Nike's and Reebok's; that is the golden example and the same should go for cars, foods, cd's, music, computers, technology, science & everything else that involves daily life!

As much as I've enjoyed considering this topic this is a sign that it's kind of played out.

"times change, so change with the times" - it would make a great Saturday Night Live catch phrase. Other than that, it's kind of meaningless in the context of this discussion. Designs influenced by the past are in fact attempting to reinterpret what came before in the context of our times. Ford's J Mays "retrofuturism" is a study in that. The new Mustang has many cues from the classis '65 -'69 era, but put it alongside those cars and you will notice fully modern proportions and shapes.

It's ironic that you brought up running shoes as classic styles - like Converse All Stars - continue to sell long after their utility as a running shoe has be eclipsed by more modern designs. There is actually a market for unusued vintage running shoes. Today shoe makers, like car makers, combine classic and modern cues across a wide range of shoes.

Like I've maintained before - the car market is big enough and diverse enough to support designs influence by past automobiles and more novel approaches influenced by new technology and non-automotive styles. The fact that both are available - and all kinds of approaches in between - make this a great time to be a car nut.