We could also ask, "Can you ever go home again?" Lots and lots of retrofitted metal is coming our way. Dodge is rolling out the fatty Challenger, Chevrolet is (maybe one day) offering up the Camaro and it looks like Pontiac is (gulp) actually bringing back the El Camino, although who knows what they're actually calling it (Pontiac Davey G8 if they're being honest). Don't get me wrong, truck-cars have always been cool, but this one? I was stuck at a red light over the weekend, staring at a Honda Element and I realized it, in fact, has suicide doors. Back in the day, suicide doors were the very definition of cool. I mean, a big old Lincoln Continental? Fuhgedaboutit. But an Element? I'll forget all about it, but for very different reasons. When I was in high school El Caminos and muscle cars were cool because you just knew the driver had an STD. A cool one. But this new Pontiac? What sorta disease you going to get from that? Gingivitis? So is there anything positive to say about all the retro shit they're giving us now?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Nostalgia can be fun?
A couple weeks ago I had a meeting with the CEO where I work. Unrelated to the business at hand, he asked me what I thought of the new Challenger. I responded, “If you want retro, buy an old car.” He seemed unimpressed; I can only assume that he has a Challenger SRT8 on order. (Fortunately, I was wearing my strawberry flavoured socks that day, so my foot didn’t taste so bad.)
The retro-nostalgia craze is trying to bring back the style of these cars, but they are not bringing back the spirit. And that is where they are failing.
They are merely trying to cash in on the boomer generation’s nostalgia for their youth. While that is not necessarily bad, it has a short shelf-life and doesn’t resonate well with younger generations.
If they captured the spirit of these cars, in a modern package (with modern design) I believe they would succeed tremendously. The original Challenger was a big motor stuffed into an otherwise standard car, with some styling differentiation. It wasn’t a retro body style on an existing car that already has a big motor option. All the new Challenger can offer is appearance. Once everyone that is nuts for appearance buys one, where is the market then?
JL,
Shit is shit. Retro has nothing to do with it. If they do it right, it works, if not, no. No difference from anything else.
It’s very important when we decide to criticise something that we get the criticism right. If we merely look for the obvious characteristics of a failure, and then declare those as undesirable we are doing no good at all.
Similarly, the Element was not built to be a style exercise, it is an exercise in functionality. Those doors add functionality, and are a good thing. When you critique them as being a bad attempt at cool, you do a disservice.
All the little quips about retro won’t help Detroit.(My favorite: “How do you refresh retro?” Sounds great, means nothing. We get enough of that during the election already). Detroit badly needs to execute some solid, classic designs. If they have to go retro to get those things in the line up, then so be it.
“It wasn’t a retro body style on an existing car that already has a big motor option.”
I see no difference in concept from the original Challenger to this one. The original was also based on the midsize Dodge platform which had plenty of big motor options.
I agree with Dean, “the spirit of the car” is a good way to put it. A car with a memorable historic name should be a worthy successor to the original. Cars that are stylistically knock-offs of nostalgic designs don’t necessarily have “it”.
Bluecon is right though; the 1970-74 Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Barracuda (E-bodies) were modified and shortened from the B-body platform, which was an existing car(s) that already had a big motor option…. The styling wasn’t retro at the time though.
The new Charger, on the other hand, is a car that is NOT retro except in name. This could be a good thing, but IMO it also misses the “spirit” of the original because it’s exclusively a 4-door sedan. REAL Chargers have two doors, just like REAL Jeeps have round headlights.
Ford and BMW seem to have pulled it off with the Mustang and Mini, but unfortunately I think Chrysler and GM are going to fail in their efforts.
Mike66Chryslers:
Agreed. Although I probably would have crouched it in some double-talk about not liking J. Mays brand of retrofuturism but understanding the continuation of the iconic 911, Morgan, et al. And I would take a new Ford GT in retina-searing or gender-bending colors and not care.
So what is Detroit going to do when the boomer’s kids take the keys to Camaro away?
Well she got her daddy’s car
And she cruised through the hamburger stand now
Seems she forgot all about the library
Like she told her old man now
And with the radio blasting
Goes cruising just as fast as she can now
And she’ll have fun fun fun
‘Til her daddy takes the T-Bird away
Well you knew all along
That your dad was gettin’ wise to you now
And since he took your set of keys
You’ve been thinking that your fun is all through now
But you can come along with me
‘Cause we gotta a lot of things to do now
(You shouldn’t have lied now you shouldn’t have lied)
And we’ll have fun fun fun now that daddy took the T-Bird away
I drive the original Audi Quattro to work everyday… its old, but looks new… and is completely awesome!
> So is there anything positive to say about all the retro shit they’re giving us now?
IMO, no. As much as I like the image of myself tossing my surfboard into my G8amino and heading for the beach, it not actually going to happen. (But maybe image is all that matters?)
When the last mullet head cuts his hair, the market for these retro vehicles is gone. While the D3 are busy trying to revel in ’60s nostalgia, Toyota is on what – the 3rd generation Prius? Honda and Toyota both have decent small cars in preparation for $4/gal gas.
’59 El Camino is a thing of beauty. Had a ’59 Impala 4 door growing up, and I pine for the convertible. For a while they were the most reviled of the ’50s Chevys, but I think their beauty has become more appreciated over time.
Dean and Landcrusher — well said. I’d add that the trouble with the New Beetle is that while the Real Beetle was an exercise in practicality–cheap to run, easy to fix, tight, and the antithesis of fashion, a fashion statement is all the New Beetle is, and othrwise, its the antithesis of practicality. Trunk space? We don’t need no trunk space!
The MINI, on the other hand, matches the original’s driving dynamics, in fact, undoubtedly exceeds them, while hanging onto the original style. The original mustang was about style at (relatively) low cost with the option of a fast engine; so’s the current one, and it does a damn good job on the style. The old Charger was not particularly attractive, but it could go. In the world of muscle cars, I’m not sure what the attraction of that one was. The new one is ugly–maybe not in the way of a typical modern appliance,but if you’re looking for retro cool in a Chrysler package, I’d rather have something that looked like Richard Petty’s ’64 Ply. That was a good looking car, unlike the Charger.
I would refer everyone to Paul Niedermeyer’s article abut the original xB–the modern incarnation of the Real Beetle’s practicality.
Is it just me or is the new Mustang a perfectly proportioned great looking car that works in the new century.
Will the new Camaro and Challenger will be the same size as their concept cars?
Well those concept cars were bigger than they were in 69,and 70. They were pigs!!!
Why did they make them so big ! I am so disappointed.
My first car in high school was a ’68 El Camino; bumblebee yellow and black, 357, headers and glasspacks.
It still didn’t get me an STD though. But not for lack of trying.
Talking about Lincoln and retro, they should retrodesign the ’61 Continental. If it is ANY car that would make or break Lincoln as a brand, it is that car. It “made” Lincoln in the 60’s, and the question is if Lincoln would even be here right now if it weren’t for that car. They needed it badly then, and they need it badly now. And it would be perfectly slotted against the Mercedes S-klass. Beauty like a brick of lead. The ’61 Conti is arguably the best designed american car of the entire 60’s, if not ever. It’s such a simple, clean and worked-through design, and it has prescense like Grace Kelly, and it is beautiful. Doing it all over again is a no-brainer, and why they haven’t is simply mind-boggling…
David Holtzman, you knock the New Beetle for lack of trunk space and lack of faithfulness to the original. Did the old Beetle have lots of trunk space? In which end, did I miss it? Then you paise the MINI, which has a trunk less than half the size of of the New Beetle’s. Personally, the New Beetle seemed impractical until I started looking at MINIs instead. Then I bought a New Beetle TDI, for the same reasons folks bought the old ones– “It’s the economy, stupid.” But if I thought it “matched the original’s driving dynamics,” I would have run away fast.
I Ain’t crazy, but I actually think that the really old-time 20’s/30’s step-up design could work today. What is needed today is a “new” Ford Model T. Think about it. Simple mechanics, hybrid technology, several body configurations on body-on-frame. It could be manufactured in India, for like six pence…
I love the way the new Camaro looks! It’s not quite so retro as either the Challenger or the Mustang and just looks sickeningly muscular. I don’t like the Mustang and Challenger’s styling nearly as much but I bet they’ll both end up doing tons better than the Camaro (cause a car needs to be available before someone can buy it). Heck, the Mustang has already won (a shame IMO).
New cars today are all about as interesting as watching paint dry. Globalization has created a sea of uniformly well engineered vehicles, but about as much personality as oatmeal. If you take the badge of the typical European, Japanese, or American car for sale in this great country, they are about 99% the same, and many have the same DNA.
Old car harken back to a day when American companies had pride in themselves, and not just about selling their soul for an extra dime of profit.
No guts, and no glory anymore.
Nostalgia is all about what was unobtainable when this generation were little children. It is what those that have the money today remember the most from when they were small. That the Beetle and Mustang is made now in new clothes just proves the point, because those were among the strongest icons from that time.
What frightens me is what is going to be retrodesigned in twenty years when the “2 fast 2 furious” crowd has gone middle executives. The Miata? Hyundai Tiburon? Honda Accord? Jeep Cherokee XJ? Hopefully the last, as that is a really good car as well.
Or will a freshly minted retrodesigned Pontiac Aztek be the in-thing to have for the post-post-post ironic generation of the 2040’s ? Stranger things have happened, like retrodesigned Trabants in the 21st century:
http://www.herpa.de/herpa_cms/(S(qjiah2msrzdq3m45gxko0a55))/en-GB,406,0,1,0.aspx
The new Challenger is just like the old one, and like the original it’s about to land in a market where it’s too big, too thirsty, and too expensive for all but a handful of buyers. What killed the Challenger was the fact that a well-equipped version could top $5,000 and cost a driver under 25 an extra $1,200 or more a year for insurance; young buyers bought Dusters instead.
Not all Challengers were either big-engined or fast. Base engine was the slant six, and a fair number had the 318 or 383 (which was torquey, but not a drag monster). The 440, 440 Six Pack, and Hemi were pretty rare, which is why they’re so expensive today.
Ingvar :
Talking about Lincoln and retro, they should retrodesign the ‘61 Continental. If it is ANY car that would make or break Lincoln as a brand, it is that car. It “made” Lincoln in the 60’s, and the question is if Lincoln would even be here right now if it weren’t for that car
You are SO right. That is a gorgeous car!
Wheatridger: David Holtzman, you knock the New Beetle for lack of trunk space and lack of faithfulness to the original. Did the old Beetle have lots of trunk space? In which end, did I miss it? Then you paise the MINI, which has a trunk less than half the size of of the New Beetle’s. Personally, the New Beetle seemed impractical until I started looking at MINIs instead. Then I bought a New Beetle TDI, for the same reasons folks bought the old ones– “It’s the economy, stupid.” But if I thought it “matched the original’s driving dynamics,” I would have run away fast.
Wheatridger, first of all, regarding my last name, no “t”, just coffee please.
The REal Beetle had a decent amount of trunk space in front. The engine was in the rear. Re the MINI, I’m praising it for being true to the original, which was big on driving dynamics–amazing compared to American cars of the day, but which had even less trunk space than the new MINI.
I wasn’t praising the Real Beetle for driving dynamics, at least not at speed. But it was quite sporty compared to my parents’ various Chevies–tight suspension, tight steering, etc.
The Honda Fit looks like a retro vehicle to me. Late 80s early 90s type. The Hyundai coupe (think 84 Celica), Genesis, LS460 and C-class fit the bill also. Better than the 80s and 90s in a lot of ways. The spirit of older cars are out there we just need to look. The Industry is offering us lousy perspectives. I love uncovering, recovering and discovering the spirit of the past. Its a more efficient way then starting from nothing sometimes and also its easy to love again. New things can even be added. The G8 looks like an old Cressida, mixed with a little S500, mixed with some old Maxima and some old Honda. Although heavy, its a cool car.
But where to go when you need to refresh your retro cars? For example, the new mustang is styled after the late 60’s Mustangs. Where does Ford go now? To the 74-78 Mustang II style for the 2012? It’s going to be hard to keep the magic going here…
We need a retro Colt Vista!
dean:
They are merely trying to cash in on the boomer generation’s nostalgia for their youth. While that is not necessarily bad, it has a short shelf-life and doesn’t resonate well with younger generations.
Yup.
It’s like trying to do a new Woodstock. You can make a few bucks at it, but it’s just not the same.
I want something along the lines of a 2010 Honda CRX…
I don’t think we necessarily want the cars of years past, but there is gold in some of the classic nameplates of the past. I think Pontiac would be better served selling Tempests, Catalinas and Bonnevilles, than G5s, G6s and G8s.
‘course that assumes there are proper cars under those badges.
It’s true that the new Challenger is not the same. Nor is the new Charger anything like the classic Charger.
As someone who owned a ’69 Charger as his first car and a ’71 440 Challenger as his third, I have to say that neither of these cars was particularly well-built. The 440 was a monster motor. But the Challenger was nose-heavy and ill-handling to the point of being downright scary. And the less said about the brakes, the better. The Challenger’s interior was one of Detroit’s lowest points, managing, at the same time to invoke both claustrophobia and agoraphobia. I suspect that Dodge combed the world for the lowest-quality vinyl. And then there’s the electrical system. True Mopar fans are all familiar with the voltage regulator and ballast resistor that needed replacement on a regular basis.
By way of comparison, the new Challenger will handle well, run much better, get much better fuel mileage, have a better interior and will certainly last much longer. It won’t have that scary, raw quality which is, I suppose, both good and bad.
Am I likely to buy one? No. I’ve moved on and don’t need to scratch that particular itch.
The Mustang has one big advantage over the Challenger and the Camaro – it never went away. It has been on the market since April 1964, and it has always been a sporty two-door that offers style and simple mechanicals at a relatively low price.
People also forget that during the 1960s the Mustang was regularly outperformed by its GM and Mopar competition (Bullitt aside). It was more of a secretary’s car (remember the opening for The Mary Tyler Moore Show?).
The Mary Tyler Moores of the real world saved it in the long run, because its appeal was not as limited as that of the Camaro/Firebird and Barracuda/Challenger.
Today the V-6 models still appeal to buyers who want something with a little bit of style that is reliable and relatively inexpensive. The convertible model is also important – it’s relatively affordable (especially in V-6 form), and much better-looking than the GM and Chrysler convertibles in that price range (Pontiac G6 and Chrysler Sebring).
The Mustang may take a hit when the Camaro and Challenger appear, but I have a feeling that, just as before, when the smoke clears it will be the last one standing. Even people who don’t know much about cars know what a Mustang is…the same cannot necessarily be said about the Camaro and Challenger.
As for the MINI – remember that the original was sold only briefly in America, and never sold in large numbers over here. WE know that it is based on the original, but the majority of Americans are unfamiliar with the original MINI. To them, the new MINI really is a NEW car.
All retro crazes are based on the faded rose colored view of the past when we thought that life was somewhat better (which most likely it wasn’t). Let’s face it, by any scientific measure new cars are better than old – just take any old Mopar for a spin to be reminded just how bad they really were.
With all this retro styling, what will our kids get nostalgic about as they get older – the Dodge Challenger? That would be second hand nostalga. It would more likely a Scion.
Maybe we should be looking towards the future for our transportation design and rather than live in the past?
In many ways the Mustang is just like other cars like the Accord, Civic, and Corolla. It has been around forever and Ford has continuously followed a simple yet effective formula for keeping it viable in the market place.
When you look back to the 1980s you will find that all of the attributes that made Camaros and Firebirds better performing and looking cars are also the reasons for their eventual failure in the marketplace.
While the Fox platform Mustangs were no beauties they were actually fairly practical cars to live with; normal sized adults could fit in the back seats without any problems, the cargo space was quite decent, the car was easy to get in and out of. They also cost a few thousand $$$ less, were equiped with smaller less expensive tires.
Unlike the over the top styling of the Camaro and Firebird, with the Mustang all you needed to do was change the tail light to LX model ones and remove the red strip down the side and you had a nice understated ride. Hell if the GT was still too much for you you could just buy an LX 5.0 and call it a day.
On the otherhand the Camaro was the poster child for impractical cars in the 1980s; low to the ground with doors that weighed about 100lbs each, a big heavy glass hatch that was poorly mounted, leaky T-Tops that made the body quiver to no end, an unuseable backseat, a cargo area dominated by an enormous axle hump, a hood that also severly overweight.
With all the draw-backs of the F-Body Camaro what the hell was the point of owning one if it was not a Z28 or IROC? Truthfully there was none. A v6 Camaro amounted to a big doofy car that was easily outclassed by many simple FWD sport compacts. For a guy, owning a v6 Camaro was the equivalent of wearing a pleather jacket. To sum it up a v6 Camaro was over-sized, over-weight, under-powered, under-tired, poorly handling, no room inside havin, poorly built, a penalty-box of a car.
In otherwords a very bad formula for designing and building cars.
So once again GM and Chysler have big, heavy, inefficent cars coming to market. on the outside they are big yet they will have all of the practical drawbacks of their orginial counterparts; big heavy doors, hard to access rear seats, limited cargo room for the size and weight. Outside of a some high-speed runs and some stop-light burn-outs you have at best a one-trick-pony all over again.
Once again we have a top down marketing approach were each lower level model loses a great deal of the appeal of the “super” decked out muscle machines. Rather than start with the basics, GM and Chysler start with the “wet dream” and are forced to engineer backwards leading to the usual crappy products.
But, hey a few older retired gents are going to rediscover their hard-ons without the help of some viagra.
Turbo G :
“But where to go when you need to refresh your retro cars? For example, the new mustang is styled after the late 60’s Mustangs. Where does Ford go now? To the 74-78 Mustang II style for the 2012? It’s going to be hard to keep the magic going here…”
Hmm, that sounds familiar. Here is a better question. If your customers think that your old product is more aesthetically pleasing than your present product, why would you NOT make your next product look more like the old one?
At any rate, how about they go in a different direction than the one that lead to near zero sales? (Mustang II). The NEW mustang is a NEW mustang after all. They took the basic look of the old one, but they used modern materials and influences. Now they give themselves another chance not to go wrong. IT’S A NO BRAINER.
Oh, and here is the real killer benefit: If the next version doesn’t sell, then they can go back to the last one that did, and update from there again. BRILLIANT!
Jeremy Clarkson can bash Porsche all he wants, but they make a LOT of money with this formula. Ford would do well NOT to kill the goose.