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"You're wrapping modern internals around an outdated design language, which can be amusing, but it isn't really good design.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
RacerS3 on December 05, 2008 at 07:03 AM
To Crazy Uncle Mark:
Just wanted to let you know, that the pictures that are on the web site you provided are of the “New” Holden, which is also the “New” Pontiac G8. The 04-06 GTO was based on the “Old” Holden Platform. If you can find pictures of the old Holden you will see the 04-06 GTO came to the U.S. market virtually unchanged. The GTO looked outdated because the Holden it was based off of was outdated.
The good news is if you like the way the new Holden looks from the pictures on that web site. You can go to your Pontiac dealer and get a car based on that very same platform that looks very similar. It’s called the G8 GT and it can be had with a 360hp V8 and 6 speed automatic, and if G.M. survives, the G8 is supposed to be available with a 400+hp V8 and 6 speed manual in GXP trim next year.
D-Man on December 12, 2008 at 06:52 PM
I do not understand the complaints about the retro styling and the V-8. If you want a V-6 turbo-charged tin can, then do not buy a Challenger or Mustang or Camaro. They are "muscle cars" which by definition must be American, powered by a V-8 or greater, and be rear-wheel drive. They are also not meant to be small like a Honda Civic or 350Z. A muscle car must sound like a muscle car in that it has the rumble of 8 or more cylinders. You simply can not get that out of a 4 or 6 cylinder no matter how you slice and dice it.
And about the Mustang being an old man's car, I am 25 and drive an 06 GT coup in triple black and love it to death. I can get 27mph highway and 21 mph average. It actually handles quite well. It rides like a sports car due partly to the live rear axle, but if I wanted luxury, I would have save up for a Cadillac or BMW. In the end, you can not compare any imports to American muscle. They are two totally different ball games. It would be quite difficult to turn any gear-head on to an import version of a Mustang just as it would be difficult to turn any tuner on to an American compact. That is starting to change but still the case. I like high-powered four-bangers to, but is just not true to the school that is American muscle just as a V-8 is not meant to go in a Honda tuner car.
D-Man on December 12, 2008 at 07:40 PM
Retro styling may be cheating in a sense, but you must give the auto companies a break for they have not tried to make cars stylish since the 1970s. Do you remember the 1980s? Everything had become a little box. By the 1990s, they had evolved into bloated ovals with no real lines, curves or definition. Anyone remember the 1994 - 1996 Mustang? Like other cars of the time, particularly American cars, they were bland and had no character. They looked like something a kid drew up. Most like curves and definition, not straight lines and ovals. Like before, designs gradually improved from there and went leaps and bounds when they started going retro around 2000. The Thunderbird was one of the first , but was a bad idea from the start. It had gone from being a reasonably priced coupe of many variations to an over-priced, under-performing sports car. In doing so it alienated its target market like the Mustang did in the mid 1970s and 1986 with the SVO turbo. These retro/modern muscle cars are trying to avoid that by staying true to their market and not trying to attract the tuners as they are two very different breads.
Now back to styling: Like anything else, the retro/modern thing will come and go like everything else does. Before now, when was the last time cars were pretty look at and exciting at the same time? Most would agree that it was the early 1970s. By taking cues from old designs, car designers in the US are relearning the once lost art of aesthetic appeal. It may encourage designers to think outside the box more than they had the three previous decades. For instance, look at the 2010 Mustang which has somewhat of a VW appearance from the rear and less of a muscle car look. To conclude, I see this retro phase as a new foundation for long awaited and much needed renewal of the creativity in automotive design.
Rob the SVX Guy on January 05, 2009 at 08:03 PM
Wow, I missed the response. RacerS3, yes, I do understand turbocharging. What you fail to understand is that if you drive conservatively, and avoid the boost, it achieves the same MPG as a normally aspirated engine. Hence, a boosted 4 cylinder that can make 300hp, can also achieve relatively frugal mileage if you stay in the lower RPM range. When the boost is on and you are actually making 300hp, it will receive mileage close to any other engine making 300hp. HP is a direct result of the amount of oxygen and fuel burned, nothing more, nothing less. What makes turbocharging so attractive is that you can have your cake and eat it too; drive like a banshee (and pay for it at the pump), or cruise at 55mph, while sipping fuel. They're great.
- Rob
RacerS3 on February 20, 2009 at 08:25 AM
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your response. It’s always great to hear from a fellow car guy. Sorry it took me so long to respond.
Well… Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like we are in agreement here buddy. That is to say we both agree that a car with a turbo charged engine gets worse gas mileage than its non-turbo charged equivalent, and it sounds like we also agree that it takes a certain amount of energy, (i.e. Fuel/Air) to make a certain amount of horsepower, no matter what the engine configuration is.
And you are right that if you drive a vehicle more conservatively, that you will get better gas mileage. In fact, that little trick works on all vehicles, not just turbo-charged ones, isn’t that Awesome!
Now then, On Dec. 2nd I wrote two posts. In the first post I commented on a topic that was specific to a comment you made and information you provided about BMW, and was addressed specifically to you. The second post, which your comment seems to be directed at, was just a general comment not directed at you personally, but to anyone willing to listen. I get the feeling that you think I am being negative or critical towards small displacement turbo engines and the people who like them, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. I may not be as enthusiastic as you are about them, but like I said in my second post:
“I have nothing against small turbo charged engines. In fact I like them. They have their pluses and minuses just like other power plants.”
What I was trying to point out is, that as great as small turbo engines are, they are not suited for some applications. For example, not many people want a Luxury/Sport Touring Sedan with a small high winding turbo engine. That is why most Luxury/Sport Touring Sedan’s from BMW, Mercedes, Cadillac, Lexus, Audi, Volkswagen and even the new Hyundai Genesis have smooth V8’s and 6’s with plenty of torque.
By the way here are some quick numbers for you:
2009 Nissan 370Z: V6–3.7L 332hp MPG:18city/26hwy
price: $30,625-$36,000 Base Qtr.13.3@105.7
2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo GSR: turbo i4-2.0L 295hp MPG:19city/24hwy
price: $32,000-$38,000 Qtr. 14.0@96.9
2008 Subaru Impreza WRX STI: turbo f4 - 2.5L 305hp MPG:17city/23hwy
price: $35,640-$41,000 Qtr.13.5@100.6
2008 Hyundai Genesis Sedan: V8-4.6L 375hp MPG:17city/25hwy
price:$38,000-$41,000 Qtr. 14.0@103.7
2008 Chevrolet Corvette: V8–6.2L 436hp MPG:16city/26hwy
price: $45,000-$60,000 Qtr. 12.5@115
2009 Dodge Challenger R/T: V8-5.7L 375hp MPG:16city/25Hwy
price:$29,900-$39,000 Qtr.13.6@104.9
From looking at these numbers I am not seeing that any particular engine configuration has a clear advantage over any other engine in any category. So once again, as we agreed, it takes a certain amount of energy to make a certain amount of horsepower. I personally would have no problem owning, driving, and having fun in any one of these fine vehicles. But if you prefer a turbo 4cyl, Great! But I would not let my preference cloud the reality that is shown by the numbers.
smitty on March 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM
I agree with the comments about the new Beetle and new Mini that they are overweight, overly complex, and appeal mostly to white collar professionals and their wives, people who have never had a speck of grease under their nails and can in no way be considered "car guys" except by themselves.
But the styling exercise that really bothered me was the new/old "hot rod" by Chrysler, named the Prowler. Since it was designed and developed by automotive engineers with a budget in the millions, it was undoubtedly a smoother working and all-around more finished piece than most real amateur hot-rodders could ever create. But it never belonged with real hot rods. The Prowler was a toy for accountants and dentists and Microsoft millionaires who imagined themselves to be car guys on the basis of reading Car & Driver and having built plastic models as kids, who keep a spotless set of wrenches from Sharper Image in a full grain leather attache case, and who have Jiffy Lube change their oil. These people are the American version of the old class of English sports car owner who donned open-back driving gloves for a 40kph trip to the grocers, who styled himself a "gentleman mechanic" if he could change out his own sparking plugs and rotate the tyres, but who had a real mechanic to do everything else. I don't care to see this class of person buy a factory-made "hot rod" or replicar, and show up at the local car shows and cruises thinking we blue-collar louts with dirty fingernails should welcome him as a fellow car-guy.