I think Retro is dumb.

"55Buick, Oversteer Scientist" (55Buick) 01/14/2014 at 23:42 • Filed to: Retro

4

33

I'm going to start this article with a question. What makes the styling of a 1959 Cadillac stand out so much? Is it the enormous fins? The yacht like proportions? The ridiculously over the top use of chrome? Or is it something else entirely?

I think what makes it stand out so much is that it perfectly represents the era that it was produced in. In the 50's, people were into space age stuff, hence the giant "stabilizing" fins and "afterburner" tail lights. I don't think that the fins in particular made it great (although they sure are iconic) but it's what the fins represented. The forward looking, happy era that people recall when they see those fins is why they love it.

This brings me to the subject of "retro" styling. I see retro as a car company trying to capitalize on the happy emotion that people feel (conscious or unconscious) when they see a car from a particular era. For example, Chevy hopes that since the '69 Camaro is such a classic, they just have to modernize it to make another classic. I don't think that works. People love the '69 Camaro because it is so representative of its time. Today's world is very different than 1969, and the same influences from 1969 don't necessarily make sense today.

That's not to say that looking back is a bad thing. If Ford looks back at the Mustang and says, "hey, we made a youthful, powerful, stylish coupe and it sold well!" then good for them. If they look back and say, "we made a coupe with 3 taillight bars, grille lights, and window louvers, and it sold great!" then I think they're missing the point. It becomes retro. The Mustang was great because it made sense for 1964 1/2.

The point of all my rambling is to say that copying the past doesn't make another classic. Designing the best car you can, reflective of the time it's designed in, makes a future classic.

Does this make sense, or am I a raving lunatic? Let me know!

HammerheadFistpunch > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/14/2014 at 23:43

0

you think retro is dumb because it IS dumb. its a reverse mortgage on cool.

1. a retro design has no future

2. a retro design cheapens the past.

Big Bubba Ray > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/14/2014 at 23:50

0

U wut.

TheD0k_2many toys 2little time > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/14/2014 at 23:51

2

Im almost the opposite. I would much rather have older cars and their designs rather than the new ones. I see all these concept cars posted and i think to myself how ugly they are IMO.

Don't get me wrong there are some good looking "modern" cars but i would take something retro or classic any day.

Also im only 20 so not some old guy rambling here. I do feel hate for kids skateboarding down the street and people on my lawn.

Ian Duer (320b) > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/14/2014 at 23:55

1

I actually think the 2015 Mustang design is retro, at least in my eyes. It reminds me of the fox-body in that shares design elements with current Fords. I remember years ago, before I really cared about cars, when a friend picked up a fox-body and I thought to myself " that is a Mustang. I thought Mustangs were cool. That looks like a regular car." I wonder if people will look at the '15-whenever style a decade later and think the same.

Weirdly enough I like the fox-body because nostalgia. In that vein I like the rather plain looks of the '15 stang, it tweaks the nostalgia, in a less obvious way.

472CID > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/14/2014 at 23:56

1

Meh, in the future we'll look back at the "retro phase" like any other styling era. Right up there with 50s tail fins, 60s Coke bottle, 70s landau, 80s Commodore64, and 90s melted plastic aesthetic.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/14/2014 at 23:59

0

What if being all nostalgic about the past is a natural response to the relatively shitty economic times we're in in they same way fins were a response to the space age? I mean, the 80s/90s are kinda strong for some reason right now too. Why does Porsche get a free pass on barely ever changing?

I_AmDeath > Ian Duer (320b) 01/15/2014 at 00:04

1

It has a bit of every mustang in my opinion. It just doesn't look good to me sadly.

6shelBfan6 > TheD0k_2many toys 2little time 01/15/2014 at 00:05

1

Mid-twenties guy here and I agree on all fronts. If they got the design right in the first place... don't fix it if it ain't broke.

Ian Duer (320b) > I_AmDeath 01/15/2014 at 00:06

1

Ha. Never said it looked good. Just said it reminded me of the misdirected styling of the fox. I like ugly cars though. A resto-modded Gremlin would make my day.

I_AmDeath > Ian Duer (320b) 01/15/2014 at 00:07

1

Its not ugly enough for that though.

Korea Miéville > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/15/2014 at 00:08

0

Personally, I ask only that a car design be interesting and not generic and unmemorable. Retro works for me because it hearkens back to an age of more distinctive designs while incorporating the benefits of modern technology. I actually think of these designs as futuristic in a way — many of my favorite SF films and books posit a future in which ultra high tech is melded with a 20th century aesthetic. (And of course Steampunk.) Anyway, there's so much boring out there that I celebrate anything that stands out, even if it's not to my own taste.

I_AmDeath > Ian Duer (320b) 01/15/2014 at 00:10

1

I mean as far as that goes you need an Aztek or a PT cruiser.

Ian Duer (320b) > I_AmDeath 01/15/2014 at 00:10

0

The passage of time is a cruel mistress. I'm just calling it now that the next gen stang is the future fox-body in the eyes of future teenagers. I could be wrong.

55Buick, Oversteer Scientist > 472CID 01/15/2014 at 00:11

0

I don't doubt that it will die out and become "just another phase." You're totally right about that. I just don't think it will be remembered quite as fondly as other eras.

55Buick, Oversteer Scientist > HammerheadFistpunch 01/15/2014 at 00:13

0

Exactly! It has no future because it's stuck in the past.

55Buick, Oversteer Scientist > The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 01/15/2014 at 00:17

0

It could be. They make cars that remind you of better times so you want to buy it, I guess. I feel like it takes advantage of cool in favor of profits, which is the part I don't like.

M54B30 > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/15/2014 at 00:19

2

Retro is very hard to evolve and makes a revolutionary styling change very difficult. It's easy to go to retro (think the swap from the 04 Mustang to the 05) but it's hard to go back. Since retro is hard to evolve, a disproportionate number of retro cars fade away. The Beetle was restyled well, but the PT Cruiser floundered. The Mustang held out, while the Challenger is in year, what, 7, with no refresh? The new Camaro always looked childish to me so I cannot wait for that to be restyled, whereas the Mini Cooper has grown and aged well enough.

But I think it's hard to argue that the retro definitively killed any cars. The PT cruiser died off - because of the retro or because the base models were terrible? The SSR (and Prowler) didn't work because the design was polarizing or because they were overpriced/underperforming?

It's hard to bring a "retro 60s" design forward. What do you do - do a "retro 80s" for the next generation with square headlights and door stickers? Or do just say screw it and go back to futuristic (like the 2015 Mustang to an extent).

55Buick, Oversteer Scientist > Korea Miéville 01/15/2014 at 00:19

0

True, I would prefer to drive/see a camaro over a Camry any day. But if companies are going to create all new vehicles, I think the design should reflect that. But you're right, cool over bland any day.

Ian Duer (320b) > I_AmDeath 01/15/2014 at 00:19

0

The Aztek was trying to be futuristic, and it was in the sense that it probably paved the way for things like the PT and HHR... Both of which were intentionally retro. Ironic.

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/15/2014 at 00:19

0

Beat's taking advantage of bland and crossing their fingers...

55Buick, Oversteer Scientist > M54B30 01/15/2014 at 00:21

0

Exactly! If you "revolutionize" a retro design, it isn't retro anymore. If companies never went down that road, they'd never have to figure out how to get back out.

twinturbobmw > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/15/2014 at 00:22

0

I think cars should reflect when they're made. For instance, now we should be getting cars like the Huracan or CLS. Something sleek and simple or something aggressive. If you look at other modern things like furniture or houses, they include one of these features. These retro looks manufacturers are coming out with don't reflect the times. I'm not saying they're ugly (ok, the Camaro is pretty bad IMO, but anyways) it's just that there are better looking cars. I do like small retro details if you can do it right like the new Charger's taillights or the Mustang and Camaro having retro style font for the gauges. I think with everyone preferring the modern look, it's time to he rid of the retro car styling, or just reserve them for cars only bought by someone who can appreciate the reference to the older models. Keep cool retro touches, just no more than that.

JGrabowMSt > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/15/2014 at 00:25

1

You know what, I think that "retro" isn't really correct in all of these cases.

In the case of cars like the Fiat 500, and the Challenger, it does apply. Looking at the Camaro, and the Mustang, it doesn't. Why? The Camaro and Mustang never stopped really.

The Camaro and Mustang both became bloated cars in the 90s. All the Gas-X or Beano in the world couldn't fix that. They went from having lines and edges to all curves. It wasn't kind to them. Now they finally have the new chiseled bodies they've been needing, but the cars are just a little too bulky still. They need to thin down a tiny bit. I think that the cars (while I'm not a huge mustang fan) look good for the most part, and have finally gotten to where they should have been. Blame all the safety regulations that require airbags for that asshole driver three cars up, that's why cars have gotten so fat.

But don't go after the retro styling. The Camaro in particular isn't a good example of it anyway. The Mustang, yes, lots of old styling elements have stayed. What happened with the Fox body...was that even supposed to happen? It shares so few styling elements with any other era, but can't be confused for anything else on the road. But the Challenger and the Fiat 500, they couldn't come back any other way. They're getting the modern aggressive look, but they aren't being desecrated. You want desecration on these names? Look at the Dart. A muscle car came back as a neutered four banger. Is there going to be a Dart Swinger again? Hell no. If I saw a Swinger badge on the ass of a new Dart, sign me up for jail time, because I'm going apeshit on that. That's just shitting on the name.

I don't think retro cheapens the past or really hurts those cars any. If anything, it makes the real deal more desirable. These cars are becoming newly collectible because they're signaling a style change that's able to bridge the generations. Older guys who drove or raced Challengers back in their 20's can get a new one, and enjoy them just like they enjoyed the older ones. As a bonus, guys in their 20's now can live that same thing, and get the same enjoyment. Now those two generations have something in common, that they can love. Sure things are changing, and if you look at the cars in the movie In Time, I'd love to see those be a reality in 30-40 years for me. American cars aren't just trying to be retro, they're giving that older generation a new way to relive those memories, especially for the people that can't afford to go out and restore an original, or buy one that's been well kept. It's not the same thing, but it's not trying to be. The Challenger wasn't really a car without the Hemi, and it was the perfect platform to bring that new Hemi back in.

I think the SL600 is a future classic. It's a piece of engineering that is completely expansive from front to back. It has very unique styling to it that sets it apart. Just because GM or Chrysler or Ford didn't reinvent the cars doesn't mean they didn't do a good job. The company as a whole will only seek profit. The car people behind it are looking for ways to make the cars popular to sell, but also desirable.

If the new Challenger hadn't come out, but then the Challenger name was put on the Dart, then what?

lucky's pepper > Ian Duer (320b) 01/15/2014 at 00:43

0

Seriously, how does this...

Remind you of this:

I wish Ford had copied the Fox, especially the coupe. Small, lightweight, boxy. Though I could do without a retro interior consisting of shabbily screwed together hard plastic.

55Buick, Oversteer Scientist > JGrabowMSt 01/15/2014 at 00:44

0

I really like this. It gave me a whole new perspective on retro. I suppose the challenger and camaro are just making up for the time lost in the Malaise Era. Maybe it's not as bad as I thought.... And you're correct about the dart. I think it's a great car, but maybe doesn't quite check all the boxes of what a dart is supposed to be.

Just to clarify: you're saying that when fiat brought back the 500, it was like that because that's just what it represents, and what the 500 always was? That makes a lot of sense.

I_AmDeath > Ian Duer (320b) 01/15/2014 at 00:45

0

Hey! I'm 17 and have a strange love for the fox body... Its my second favorite generation after the current one. (I know I know why isn't my first the older ones? )

lucky's pepper > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/15/2014 at 00:57

2

This is dumb?! The whole "in the eye of the beholder" thing, because to me this is spectacular.

Milky > JGrabowMSt 01/15/2014 at 01:02

0

I actually tried reading all this but had to stop when I got here "You want desecration on these names? Look at the Dart. A muscle car came back as a neutered four banger. "

Lolwut? Not every Dart came with a 426 hemi and I'd go a step further to say wait for the SRT model before comparing old vs new.

King Ginger, not writing for Business Insider > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/15/2014 at 01:59

0

Psshh, to each their own. I'll be over here wheelin' broads if you need me.

Axial > JGrabowMSt 01/15/2014 at 02:40

0

Wait, the Challenger brought back the Hemi? No it didn't. The 2003 Dodge Ram 1500 did that. That's why we got one.

Otherwise, great post.

JawKnee > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/15/2014 at 07:21

1

I love retro and it sells!! Of course this is coming from a 30 year old HHR owner with white walls& moon disks sitting next to a 66 Chevelle so.....

JGrabowMSt > 55Buick, Oversteer Scientist 01/15/2014 at 09:12

0

I think that the 500 represents the original as closely as it can. The same can be said about the Mini (we have 2 at my house). The originals were micro compared to the new ones, but they are unmistakeable. It isnt about cloning them, because people will put them together at shows, and theyre fun. Younger owners will hopefully have a similar experience in a new one as previous generations have in the original. I think a bright yellow Fiat 500 is "powered by sunshine" as descibed by petrolicious...regardless of a new or old one.

Everything is in a name, and no, the Dart wasnt all HEMI, and the new Challenger has a v6, but Im more open to that than the new Dart. It just shares the basic elements of a car with the original (hood, doors, wheels, etc) and none of the boxy front end, lights, etc.

I love the new Magnum, but I think it was unique enough to hold the name. The original wasnt a wagon at all, and the LX platform seems mostly to follow the chargers styling. The hood isnt even super long. Does that make the dart and magnum bad? No. The magnum proved it could fill those shoes, and the dart is selling pretty well, so it very well may be able to...

Ian Duer (320b) > lucky's pepper 01/16/2014 at 08:21

0

Both look very similar to other fords of their era... I felt the sn95 till present tried to stand out rather than blend in