Point/Counterpoint--Retro Cars
Cookie the Dog’s Owner: Not too long ago, we Car Lust contributors had a lively discussion on the philosophy of automobile design and styling which was sparked by an e-mail from distinguished automobile designer Virgil Exner Jr. In the course of the discussion, my brother contributor Rob the SVX Guy said some things about “retro” cars that I felt compelled to respond to.
Rob wrote:
"You're wrapping modern internals around an outdated design language, which can be amusing, but it isn't really good design. For example, take the new Mustang, or the new Challenger. I mean, yeah, they're kinda neat, but over the long run I doubt they'll have the appeal of a car designed for today's era, with today's technology, and today's style. They exist because an aging demographic has the money to finally buy what they wanted 30 years ago, and that's what sells."
With all due respect, Rob, I think you are entirely too negative about retro styling.
Any automobile has to be successful at two things. First, it must succeed as a piece of engineering. It has to transport some specified load of people and/or cargo; meet certain performance objectives, incorporate particular features, comply with all the legal requirements, cost no more than a certain amount to manufacture, and not break down with unseemly frequency in normal service. Those parameters are dictated largely by the fact that the car has to succeed as a matter of economics. As our friend Virgil Exner Jr. said, “one must try to insure a decent return on investment to stay in business so that we can live to design another day.” If the manufacturer can’t sell enough copies of a design at enough of a price to yield a sustainable return on investment, then management isn’t properly using the shareholder’s money.
One way to make the car a more positive economic proposition is to make it establish an emotional connection with the people you want to sell it to. If a car can have a certain special appeal, a distinctive personality, then it will transcend what would have resulted from merely solving the cold equations of interior volume, MPG, lateral-G, 0-60, and price point. In certain instances, a car will so marvelously succeed at making that emotional connection, will have so much personality, that owners will organize clubs around it, there will be glossy coffee-table books and die cast 1:25 models memorializing it, specialty manufacturers will build line-by-line copies or even exact reproductions fifty years later, and Chris Hafner will write misty-eyed Car Lust postings in its honor.
Retro styling is just one available method of giving a car personality. It’s cheating, in a sense, because you’re borrowing the older model’s personality, and all of the emotional associations it has accrued over the years. It’s also risky, because the new product has to live up to the reputation of the old and the expectations that its legacy generates--and that may be all but impossible.
To be done right, a retro car should capture the personality of its ancestor, but improve on its engineering and functionality. The New Beetle is, I think, a great example of retro done right. Visually, it perfectly captures the look of the old Beetle, and all of its personality. It’s built off of a modern FWD platform --the A4 (4th generation) Golf--giving it driving dynamics that the original Beetle could never dream of.
I like New Beetles and PT Cruisers, and Challengers, and Mini Coopers and HHRs and Nissan Figaros--they add variety and personality to the roads. I wish there were more deliberately retro-looking cars out there.
Rob the SVX Guy: I'm not entirely against retro design, but I think it needs to be taken in context. The original and the new 2008 Challenger is a perfect example. In 1970, the Challenger was the apex of American automotive performance. They took a fairly small, aggressively styled body, and shoved the most potent engine they could come up with (at the time) along with performance oriented suspension. Today's Challenger uses a body that looks similar to the original, but it's bigger. The new version weighs over 4,000 lbs, and is bigger in every single dimension. When equipped with the Hemi, it achieves around 12-18 mpg. Sure, it's probably fun to drive, but my point is this: the original 1970 Challenger achieved about the same MPG and the same performance, so in forty years of automotive progress, Chrysler has achieved nothing. Sure, it might be safer, but it's heavier, sucks just as much gas, and goes just about as fast. How is that progress? To me, I find the whole thing insulting.
I understand that people want to relive their youth, and drive a badass American musclecar, but why bother with an imitation? If the new Challenger was actually challenging something, I'd be interested in it. Think pony car styling, about 2,700-3,000 pounds, all-wheel drive, and a boosted 4- or 6-cylinder. That would compete on today's playing field, to today's market.
In summary, I don't have a something against retro design, when it takes the idea of the original in context. The new Mini Cooper is a good example of retro done pretty well. It took the idea behind the original car, and updated it with today's technology. The result is a car that outperforms the original in almost every single category, and Mini is currently the only automaker posting any increase in sales. Americans want fun to drive, fuel efficient cars with a bit of personality. Instead of building them, Detroit is making cars that were popular 40 years ago. Why?!
Mochi Mochi: Personally I have a thing against the MINI Cooper--but it is not the styling. I just think it's overblown and a bit too precious, too easily acquired as a statement about design. To make a modern Mini relevant to me, you need to strip it and toughen it up. However, I'm an extremist and in the minority on this ... something I accept. No one doesn't like the Mini from what I can see, and no one assumes that it is a car for an "aging demographic"... just the opposite.
Regarding the Mustang, the drivers I see are all 20-somethings. Personally I was really happy when the new retro design came out because to me it seemed to capture some of the best qualities of the best years and clean up the Mustang's act.
The Miata is another example. Its design was lifted from a 1960s Lotus. It’s a great car. Its design is now current and as far as the larger population is concerned, they don't know from Lotus--they know Miata.
There's no inherent merit or shame in making a retro-styled car and putting modern components in it. I'm open to possibilities … something completely new … something skinned in a familiar and interesting way that references the past but also puts a better driving experience under that skin.
Big Chris: I think the modern Corvette stands as a good example of keeping the theme of the old (not specifically in styling cues, just theme) and making it work every generation in a modern way. Is the new Corvette far different than the first-gen? Certainly, but not in a bad way. Both are fully Corvettes, both fantastically executed for their time. That is where many of the "updated" retro cars are failing. I'm fearing the new Camaro will take the bad path like the Challenger.
David Colborne: Speaking of retro cars, I found this review of the 1967 Imperial. Granted, there's not a strong chance that Chrysler is going to revive the Imperial--heck, at this point, I'm not entirely sure that Chrysler will continue producing Chryslers--but it's still an interesting read.
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame: The original Challenger was about function. People fell in love with the form because the function was so awesome. The current Challenger is about reproducing the form only, and as such, it pretty much betrays the original.
Incidentally, I agree with Rob: I want substance, not style. I favor function, not form. Sell me on the substance/function, and my love of form/style will follow. I used to hate the appearance of BMWs, old Volvos, and Hondas, until I really understood how each of them were kick-ass in their own way. I love the look of my 626 now mainly because I've loved driving it. There is nothing about the new Challenger that makes it worth buying, except for the name.
Am I way off, Rob?
Rob the SVX Guy: Well ... no ... the new Challenger is just as functional as the old one. Even the performance and gas mileage is about the exact same. With today's vehicles, though, I want the functionality of turning, stopping, and accelerating. I want a balanced vehicle, not something that drives like a 40-year-old car. Granted, I still enjoy driving classics, but if that's what I'm after I'd rather just buy the real thing.
Mochi Mochi: My final comment is that Rob's critique of the new Challenger is essentially similar to my critique of the Mini. Imagine what the new Mini would be like stripped down and weighing in 1,000 lbs lighter. The new Mini bloated more in absolute weight increase, and way more by percentage, than the Challenger. The original Austin Mini weighed 1,360 to 1,512 pounds. The new Mini weighs 2,500 pounds. That's an increase of 160-180%. And a 6'3" Englishman could comfortably fit in the original.
While the original was a cool car, the new Mini has become a design icon, and status symbol for "good taste" which as far as I'm concerned is way worse than old codgers wanting a car from their youth (if that is even true).
Chris Hafner: I agree with Rob's larger point. Rather than rewrite what I already wrote, here's a blurb from the Corvette CERVIII post:
"If I was in charge, I wouldn't limit my design and engineering teams to continually remaking a car according to a 40-year-old formula. Instead, I'd reconsider the definition of what a Corvette really is. I'd define it very broadly--as a uniquely American sports car that provides near-exotic performance, without pricing the car out of the reach of the upper-middle-class.
"How you get there isn't nearly as important as the final result, and I find it hard to believe that the best approach to building a sports car hasn't changed over the last 40 years. Perhaps a big sports car with a V-8 and a fiberglass body really is the best way to hit that target, but at the risk of blaspheming, might not a much smaller twin-turbo V-6-powered AWD Corvette be an interesting possibility? And why must we continue to riff on the styling of the 1968 Corvette rather than look back to the more groundbreaking earlier Corvettes?"
So, yeah. And if this is a debate on the styling aesthetics of the new Challenger, I won't argue. I think it apes some of the features of the old Challenger without capturing the long, low, menace that made that car special. The newish Mustang made the retro look work in a way that the Challenger doesn't quite manage.
But Rob's other criticism isn't quite fair, I don't think. The Challenger doesn't really drive like a 40-year-old car--it handles and stops vastly better than the old one. I understand he's using hyperbole, but the Challenger is a tight, modern, well-suspended vehicle. It might not be as sharp a handler as, say, a Nissan 350Z, but that doesn't mean it's not capable. It wouldn't be a complete mess on a race track like the original Challenger.
I think the quibble here is that the Challenger makes some sacrifices compared to, say, a Nissan 350Z. It's not quite as well-balanced as the Nissan, its fuel mileage isn't quite as good. That quibble is totally valid--but nobody's stopping anybody from buying a 350Z. The Challenger is just another option, and those sacrifices involved are made to achieve a different flavor of sporting car--a retro, muscular sporting car with an American feel.
Depending on my mood, I could definitely see myself preferring the
blunt force trauma of a Challenger SRT8's acceleration to the 350Z's
balance. And I think the performance car world is richer for having
both options.
Cookie the Dog’s Owner: The Challenger is a musclecar, and a large part of the appeal of a musclecar is the drivetrain. Therefore, if you want to build a retro-styled pseudo-musclecar, it's pretty much got to have to have a V-8 up front and rear-wheel-drive or it's just not going to meet customer expectations. Certainly nobody's going to complain about a modern independent rear suspension in place of the leaf-sprung solid axle, or modern ABS discs with slotted rotors, and you could probably "get away with" AWD, but a FWD 4-cylinder "new Challenger" or "new GTO" would push the envelope past the breaking point.
For most retro designs, the engineering specifics are not as critical to their appeal. The PT Cruiser and HHR are built on modern unibody FWD platforms, even though their prewar antecedents were traditional body-on-frame RWD designs. Specific nostalgia for 1970-vintage musclecars plays a large part in the Challenger's appeal, but I doubt that very many people bought PT Cruisers out of a longing to re-live the good times they had in the family's old '36 Graham-Page Cavalier. Most PT Cruiser owners don’t even know that there ever was such a thing as a Graham-Page Cavalier.
So the Challenger is a traditional RWD V-8 muscle car at heart--I don't see that as a downside. If you want to have a traditional American musclecar, what's wrong with having one fresh off the factory floor, with a modern suspension, ECM, fuel injection, and a lifetime powertrain warranty? Not everyone has the time or the skill to restore and maintain a 30-40-50-year-old "barn find," and classic iron is not necessarily a good choice for a daily driver.
We can disagree on the specific merits of particular cars, and a well-executed retro design alone is no guarantee of success. (Remember the SSR? the 2002-05 Thunderbird?) Still, there are many classic, timelessly beautiful, timelessly appealing, and even iconic designs out there that today's manufacturers would do well to take another look at:
- If Chrysler had styled the Concorde after the “Forward Look” of the late 1950s, with Virgil Exner’s long graceful lines and prodigious tail fins, instead of cursing it with depressing low-drag blandness, they might not be begging for a government bailout today.
- The 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air is an American icon. It may be the single most recognizable American car ever produced. Why isn't there a 2009 Bel Air in Chevy showrooms, with 1957 styling cues and the new Malibu's suspension and drive train? GM is foolish not to be doing something like that.
The New Beetles came from Flickr user Steve Brandon. Flickr user 89AKurt took the shot of the Mini Cooper against a dramatic sky. The restored 1936 Graham-Page Cavalier comes from Restomod Plus, which did the restoration. Flickr user Perry Gerenday shot the very artistic portrait of the red PT Cruiser. The '57 Chevy photo above comes from the invaluable John's Old Car and Truck Pictures collection. I'm to blame for the rest of the photos.
--Cookie the Dog's Owner
Dan Patterson on November 24, 2008 at 10:58 AM
The retro look does have a strong current of selfishness about it; form following function within the context of the times' technology is transparent about its goals. The re-dressing of an older form in a newer time just seems dishonest.
But do not confuse my comment with a pass on modern style and styling miscues. Those hiccups are many, and the forms of the past often surpass those of the present.
Dan
That Car Guy on November 24, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Somebody said that if you keep any of your clothes long enough, they will come back in style some day. Except for leisure suits, I hope that happens. The same can be said about cars... most any 15-year-old car in decent shape today is on a "We Tote The Note" used car lot. But if the same car makes it to 25 years, it's either a classic or antique in most states.
So if a car design still works after 25 years (Or more), safety and reliability components are improved, and there's an audience waiting, why not build it? The Big Three need anything they can get for a success... and imitation can be the highest form of flattery sometimes. If the current Mustang isn't a success, what is?
Anthony Cagle on November 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I'm not sure where to come down on this. As they say, you can't dip your foot in the same river twice, so the discussion comes down to more or less one of degree, not kind. Mustangs, for instance, have nearly always incorporated some design elements into the body shape that cue off of the original (3-element tail lights come to mind). So in that respect, unless a major manufacturer starts remaking the dumb things from the original design, it seems to me kind of a silly argument whether such-and-such a model is too much like the original or not; if it sells well and makes money for the company then it's a success.
Once you get past the market success measure it becomes a matter of personal preference, though it certainly makes for an interesting discussion of personality traits. Not really of those who buy certain types of cars, but of those who bitch about the supposed personality traits of those who purchase the "wrong" cars.
Rob the SVX guy on November 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Again, for the record, I am not an idiot. I never suggested that the Challenger should have FWD or a 4 banger. A 300hp boosted 4 banger with RWD? I don't see what'd be so bad about it. A boosted v6 with upwards of 300hp and AWD? Nissan seems to think it's a good idea, but what do they know, they only beat Porsche on their home track.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on November 24, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Rob, I don't think there's anything *wrong* with boosted 4- or 6-cylinder engines. In the specific context of the Challenger, they're aiming for a "musclecar" feel, and "musclecar" means V-8. A 4-cylinder Challenger would probably be a sweet ride, but it might be far enough outside of the expectation set for a "musclecar" that it won't sell in sufficient numbers to justify the development costs. It's not a bad idea, it just *may* be one that won't work out economically.
Now, on the other hand, a boosted 4-cylinder "Forward Look" hardtop with nice big tail fins--sign me up!
John Bono on November 24, 2008 at 01:56 PM
Yes, there is a big difference between v6 and v8, even when they have similar horsepower. Case in point, I drive my mom's '00 Taurus
(200hp, 3300 lb curb weight), and my own Crown Vic(210hp, 3800 lb curb weight), and I vastly prefer driving the latter. The low end grunt of the Crown Vic off the line more than makes up for the 500 lb difference in curb weight between the two cars. Putting a 4 or 6 in a muscle car, and it won't be a muscle car. It'll be another high-revving buzzy import.
And as a cautionary tale of ignoring retro styling, ponder Pontiac's revival of the GTO. Except for the exhaust note, it looked just like another Nissonditsobushiotaru buzzmobile, and not the torquemonster v8 pavement eater it really was, and people who like muscle cars stayed away, because it didn't look like one.
Anthony Cagle on November 24, 2008 at 02:09 PM
John Bono: And as a cautionary tale of ignoring retro styling, ponder Pontiac's revival of the GTO. Except for the exhaust note, it looked just like another Nissonditsobushiotaru buzzmobile, and not the torquemonster v8 pavement eater it really was, and people who like muscle cars stayed away, because it didn't look like one.
That and the Thunderbird make perfect bookend points to the problems of going retro in either form or function: either can fail when not properly executed.
Bill T. on November 24, 2008 at 02:53 PM
I like the style/appearance of the Challenger. I bought a brand new one back in Jan of '70. It was a Deputy coupe (the back windows didn't go down), with a three speed manual, and it was $2,495.00 out the door. As I recall, the two options were the 225 cu. in. slant six and the radio. The sale price also included dealer applied rustproofing, which, in the end, was not the best deal. It was one nice little car, which I drove for several years. It was extremely easy to maintain with regular oil changes and points, plugs and condenser when necessary. The mileage was regular at around 20 MPG. When the body began to show rust, I called Chrysler headquarters to see if I could buy a new Dodge Mirada or Chrysler Cordoba body to put my engine in. I told them that I would buy the body with no warranty and the PR value would be very good for them (an older, reliable slant six in a nice, new body, but they turned me down). Sometime after that I sold it.
Jim Bob on November 24, 2008 at 03:18 PM
For me, it depends on the car. The Challenger and Mustang are good copies because they keep the original look and theme of the cars they seek to emulate. I personally think the Challenger is the best looking new car on sale today. Most new cars have a computer generated quality to them. They are very good at being practical, but not very nice to look at. These cars evoke dreams in a way no beige Camry ever could. They are not appliances, but rather statements. There is nothing wrong with an appliance. I drive a 306,000 mile 1998 Nissan Frontier that I bought new and it is a great vehicle in terms of practicality. It's reliable and does it's job well. It just isn't exciting. A V8 musclecar is exciting. There is a sense of occasion to driving one. The sound, the look, the feeling of acceleration. It all plays into the appeal of owning one. This is why the new GTO did not succeed and the Mustang does. It was styled without heart, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Shawn on November 24, 2008 at 06:11 PM
Mochi Mochi wrote "Regarding the Mustang, the drivers I see are all 20-somethings"
Really? That's certainly not the case here. The current Mustang has quite an elderly following in my area, and I was discussing with a friend over the weekend how they have completely alienated the high school/college audience with the current model. When I was in high school in the mid-90's a Fox-body 5.0 Mustang was THE car to own. I just don't see or hear of today's kids having any of the same kind of passion for the new Mustang. The solution we agreed upon: bring back the Mustang SVO. A high-revving, nervous 4 cyl. turbo Mustang could be just what it takes to get the younger generation back into these cars. Insurance rates and parental dissent be damned!
As far as the 2004-06 GTO goes, I'm glad it failed in a way. I think in a couple years they will be a tremendous used car bargain. My friend that owns one has taken me on some thrilling drives in it. I appreciate its lack of balls-out styling and consider it a great sleeper.
Rob the SVX guy on November 24, 2008 at 06:33 PM
Cookie, I vehemently disagree. A musclecar does not HAVE to have a V8. In my eyes, a musclecar has to have a LOT of power in a fairly light package... it has to be somewhat unbalanced. The Dodge SRT4 was a fantastic version of a modern musclecar, and it kicked most import ass all the way back to Japan. In my eyes, if detroit had 300hp boosted 4 cylinders available in 1970, they would have made musclecars with them. If detroit had reliable AWD systems available in 1970, they would have used them. To call musclecars ONLY RWD/V8/poor handling cars is pretty limiting, in my opinion, because detroit would have embraced ANY technology that allowed them to go even faster, back in the 1970s. Anyone who says otherwise is just discoloring a past that isn't real: Detroits musclecar creators were gearheads, and they loved going fast. It didn't matter how they did it, it just needed to look aggressive and go like stink. This is why I wish the challenger would have been a twin turbo V6 with AWD. Plus it might go even faster, while getting better MPG, unlike the current one which emulates the performance and fuel mileage of the original, which is pathetic.
Rob the SVX guy on November 24, 2008 at 06:35 PM
Also, I'd like to point out that today's V6s, with direct injection, variable valve timing, fuel injection, and head technology, they can EASILY make more power than detroit did in the 1970s with a v8. This is progress. To embrace the V8 and RWD only is like wearing blinders and ignoring what everyone else is doing. This is why the big three are in the predicament they're in today.
Jim Bob on November 25, 2008 at 03:11 AM
A Musclecar most certainly does need a V8 and rear wheel drive to fit the definition. Otherwise, it is (generically) a performance car, but not a Musclecar. The SRT 4 is a fun car, but it fits more into the tuner community than the musclecar community. Technically, a Musclecar is a mid size sedan with a performance V8 engine and RWD. A Corvette is not a Musclecar (it's a sports car), and if I have to be absolutely correct, neither is a Mustang-it's a pony car.
The only accepted exception to the v8 rule is the Buick Grand National, which did have a turbo V6 but in a chassis that usually had a V8 in performance versions ( GM G Body).
Cookie the Dog's Owner on November 25, 2008 at 03:48 AM
Rob, I don't disagree with you in the abstract. I'm just not as certain as you that the marketplace will see a car with a 6-cylinder engine--even the meanest, baddest, most fire-breathing 6-cylinder ever to stride asphalt--as a "musclecar." Obviously, someone at Chrysler decided not to push the envelope on that point with the Challenger.
V8Dan on November 25, 2008 at 05:29 AM
Thank goodness the Porsche 911 has never strayed too far from it's design path to face retro-criticisism ;)
The Original Ian on November 25, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Shawn: "When I was in high school in the mid-90's a Fox-body 5.0 Mustang was THE car to own."
That's sort of an interesting point, given that the Foxes look the least like Mustangs of any Mustang, I think. For the most part, though, I see a pretty good mix of age groups driving the new Mustang. As someone in his mid-20s, I can honestly say I like the S-197, and I don't feel particularly alienated by it, although I'm not really part of the "high-school/college audience."
"The solution we agreed upon: bring back the Mustang SVO."
Like you said, though, the 5.0 was the car to have. The SVO really didn't sell that well, and I don't think the situation for the Mustang is all that different now. People who buy higher-end Mustangs want a V8. I think the SVO is really cool, and I know it has something of a following, but I don't think it has much mainstream appeal.
Jim Bob: "This is why the new GTO did not succeed and the Mustang does. It was styled without heart, and that makes all the difference in the world."
I have to assume "styled without heart" means "styled without borrowing enough cues from classic GTOs." Personally, I think the first generation GTOs are really unattractive, but I think I'm in the minority there. The new GTO wasn't really styled as a GTO at all, though. It's a Holden Monaro with a new grille. I don't think it's the design that's the problem -- I think it's an attractive car -- but the fact that they slapped a GTO badge on it. I think in this case trying to cash in on the GTO name was ultimately a bad decision; it just didn't work with a car that, except for the grille and badges, looked exactly like a Holden, and not a whole lot like a classic GTO.
Anthony Cagle on November 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I was going to agree on the recent GTO business (a future Lust of mine, if it's not already in progress), that you have to have enough styling cues to make people look at it and really think about the original, as well as good performance. But then I thought about the new Charger. My impression is that it's sold pretty well, but I haven't actually seen anything on whether it's either selling well or making money. That seems to go against the grain; a retro nameplate that looks nothing like the original.
Jim Bob on November 25, 2008 at 12:03 PM
My point with the new GTO is that it looked bland. It was hard to tell if you were looking at a Grand Prix ,a GTO, or some other GM fleet car special. It wasn't aggressive looking at all. If you are going to make a performance car with the name GTO, it should look the part, not get lost in traffic. The lines were too rounded to look aggressive.
Mochi Mochi on November 25, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Shawn : re 20somethings... i live in Los Angeles so things are a little different. if you are a codger you are driving an original mustang that's been restored. if you've really got cash you're driving a shelby (mustang or cobra). if you're a 20something you've got a new mustang that's been lowered and slammed. and if you're a white guy with gold chains, perfect hair, and a muscle shirt, you're driving some high end lexus/infinity-aerodynamic-barO'soap-pimpmobile with a sound system rated in as many horsepower as your engine. i believe these cars occasionally immolate when a stray cigarette touches off all that cologne. didn't the Kyoto agreement put limits on how much eau de'toilet could be released into the atmosphere.
a while back i pulled up next to a guy driving what appeared to be an original cobra. another car pulled up and asked about the cobra. the driver announced that it had come with the cheap price tag of $650,000. not only can i not fathom the concept of owning a car that cost that much. i wouldn't be announcing this to the world at large, or even be letting it out to roam the streets of LA. but it happens all the time.
Rob the SVX Guy on November 28, 2008 at 09:11 AM
BMW is getting what I'm saying:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/27/bmw-switching-to-turbocharged-m-cars/
They're going to smaller engines with boost.... same to more power, but lighter weight and better MPG.
RacerS3 on December 01, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Regarding the GTO styling. I never understood why people where so disappointed with the GTO styling. It was obvious it was not a newly styled car for the American market. It was not a new car at all when it debuted in the U.S. in 2004. It was an almost ten-year-old car that had been on the market in Australia, called the Holden Manaro. It had typical mid 90’s sedan/coupe styling because that’s when it was styled, and it never bothered me because I knew what this car was right from the start. It was clear it was a stop gap/band-aid car to fill the gap between the Camaro/Firebird demise in 2002 to the introduction of the new rear drive platform that eventually came to market in 2008 as the G8. I thought it was totally clear that’s what GM’s intention was from the start. I am sure I still have some of the articles from magazines that actually test drove the car in its right hand drive Holden Manaro form, talking about how G.M. was going to be re-badge the car in left hand drive form as a Pontiac in the U.S.
Why was anyone surprised the by the old styling?
Who actually thought it was a new car?
Did anyone really expect that G.M. was going to restyle the whole car for a maybe, four year run?
The real problem is G.M., and the rest of the big three, should have been building rear drive cars like the 2004-2006 GTO for the U.S. market in the 90’s with a standard V6 and 5speed manual with a optional automatic trans, and with V8’s and 6speeds optional in performance trim. They could have easily got high 20’s to low 30’s MPG in coupe, sedan and station wagon form.
G.M. and Ford had no excuse to not build cars like that, since their Australian subsidiaries had been doing it the whole time. Instead they concentrated all their efforts on behemoth SUV’s, because of high profit margins, and then churned out sub-standard front drive platforms. But now they are paying the price.
RacerS3 on December 02, 2008 at 01:11 PM
To: Rob the the SVX Guy
First I would like to say I think to many people get hung up on the term “Muscle Car”. It is a term that most people relate with 60’s-70’s era V8 american cars, and that’s how the term has been traditionaly used, which is to bad. If two car’s run sub 5sec. 0-60 times or low 13’s in the quarter mile, why would the one with the n/a V8 be called a “muscle car” and the one with the turbocharged 4 or 6 cyl. not? That never made sense to me.
But to the point of your comment:
“BMW is getting what I'm saying:” “They're going to smaller engines with boost.... same to more power, but lighter weight and better MPG.”
Then you gave a link to an artical to back up what you were saying. The problem is the article didn’t really back up your thinking.
It is true BMW is changing to a direct injection twin turbo 3.0L I6, instead of the normaly aspirated 4.0L V8. But it is not true that it makes the “same to more power” that you claimed. The D.I. twin turbo 3.0L I6 makes 300hp with the potential to make more and the n/a 4.0L V8 makes 420hp. It is also not true that the twin turbo 3.0L I6 engine weighs less. In fact in a link to the article that you provided it shows it actually weighs 33lbs more. Also the article mentions nothing about “better MPG” being the reason for the change. Besides any fuel mileage improvement would come only from its smaller displacement and direct injection, not from turbo charging.
The article does mention though that one of BMWs main reasons for making the change was the “soaring manufacturing costs of the specialty-built V8 and V10 engines” in the M series cars. Which I am sure, from a corporate stand point is the biggest reason to make the change. Because I am sure the price on the window sticker is not going to get any cheaper.
RacerS3 on December 02, 2008 at 01:12 PM
I think some people misunderstand turbo charging. Turbo charging an engine does not make it get better gas mileage. It boosts horsepower only. It does this by forcing air into the cylinders there by artificialy adding displacement. If you add more air to the cylinder you also need to add more fuel or you will have a lean burn condition. More fuel means worse gas mileage. Proving once again that there is no free lunch when it comes to making more horsepower.
I have nothing against small turbo charged engines. In fact I like them. They have there pluses and minuses just like other power plants. It really depends on the application you have as to which engine is better suited than another. Small displacement turbos are not a one size fits all answer to automobiles.
Richard Fagin on December 04, 2008 at 12:54 PM
"Sure, it's probably fun to drive, but my point is this: the original 1970 Challenger achieved about the same MPG and the same performance, so in forty years of automotive progress, Chrysler has achieved nothing. Sure, it might be safer, but it's heavier, sucks just as much gas, and goes just about as fast."
Well, no that's not entirely correct. There is no comparison at all between the 1970 version and the 2008 in handling, ride quality, braking, reliability, maintenance requirements, functional air conditioning, and the fact that you can idle in rush hour traffic in Houston in the summer without overheating. Our overloaded 2007 Explorer will run rings around a 1970 Challenger on the skid pad.
Look, I love old cars as much as the next guy, but when you take the wife's 64 1/2 Stang around the neighborhood at the posted speed limit and wonder (I mean you really do) whether it's going to actually go around the next corner, you quickly realize it's an antique. The '70 Challenger is no different, although it's probably faster than the old Stang at the strip.
Crazy Uncle Mark on December 04, 2008 at 01:05 PM
On the subject of GTO styling: this is another reason why the US GM group should go out of business.
Yes, the GTO was based on the Austrailian Holden Monaro/Commodore, which they still make down there, BTW. The problem is they feel they needed to "Style" it to an American market and threw out it's native styling and made it look like a bloody Grand Prix/Aero/Turdmobile.
Had they just switched from Right Hand Steer to Left Steer they may have been able to sell more. Just check out the pictures at Holden if you don't believe me.
http://www.hsv.com.au/index.asp
Another pet peeve is both Ford & GM could bring over (or build them here) the UTE vehicles from AU & NZ and they'd sell a ton of them. but that would make sense and I think we know there is precious little of that in Detroit.
Thanks for the great Blog, and keep up the good work!