IMO this distinction between retro versus heritage seems to be a bit of newspeak particular to this board. The New Beetle and the 05 Mustang were both called retro by the press, and not in the negative fashion you describe.

 

Well, that makes one of us.
Considering that Ferrari and AM's are some of the most desired cars by the average human with a pulse, Id say that going after that style of Euro GT style would be a heck of a good idea.


There is a difference between heritage and retro. I dont think that the Beetle or the Mini are "retro", because there really wasnt a long linage of evolution, both cars carried the same look for many years till they were brought back from the grave. The idea of the cars is retro, but the design is just as "heritage" as the C6 and 911. All carry about teh same shape with no major radical changes, unlike the Camaro which has evolved into 4 totaly different cars each generation, none looking like the one prior.
No way could you mistake a 69 for a 72, no way could you mix up a 77 for an 85, and no way could you think that the 98 looks like a 92.
I think that THIS design process should have continued.
The Mustang took a "retro" cue, because NO Mustang looked like that since the 60's. From the wide grill and slanted back headlights, to the interior, its all a retro throwback.
C6 as well as the 911 are evolutions of a design. Outside of the big change from 62 to 63, there has been a constant evolutionary change with the Corvette.
Camaro took the retro route, not the "heritage" design. I have ZERO problem with what they made, I LOVE THE CAR!! I cant wait to have one of my own, most of you know how I feel, but I make no mistake in calling this design a hertiage or evolutionary. Yes, it starts the design theme over again.
If the 6th gen goes to a more modern style car, the 5th gen will look more like a novelty to get people to buy Chevy again, kind of like the Tbird was, an image car to draw attention. An SSR Version 2.0 if you will, something that attracts attention with throwback styling.
Now if Camaro came out, taking design cues from current GT cars, infused with Corvette, sprinkle with modern design hints, Im sure that GM could have produced just as stunning of a car if it went to a whole new direction. I would like to see drawings of non-retro designs, if and when Scott produces a book, if they do in fact exist, and Im sure that at least SOMEONE inside there took that approach at designing the car.

 

I think you missed his point... by a mile.

The term "retro" suggests the design harkens back to an earlier age. Meaning that if you could go back in time and present this car then, it would fit in with the other cars of the era. The term "heritage" means that it takes certain aspects and traits from earlier designs of the same vehicle or similar vehicles and uses them as focus points while still presenting a modern interpretation of sum of the parts. The Camaro concept uses "heritage" styling. The Dodge Challenger uses "retro" styling.

Guy was merely presenting the difference between the two and not presenting a negative connotation of either. However, in the long run "heritage styling" will outlast "retro styling" as it is in fact more "timeless".

 

No, I understood his point just fine. I just find it to be a fairly silly definition game. Retro is and will be the commonly used term, and I don't see why people need to be prickly about it.

If it is timeless, its because its a great design, not because of what fuzzy adjective was used.

 

I think our definitions of "heritage" styling my be different. I consider the C6 Corvette to be "heritage" styled.

 

I'd agree, but my point is that debating what's "heritage" or "retro" is kinda silly.

I also can think of some really great "timeless" designs that are neither -- like the Olds Aurora (which still looks like the car of the future 10 years later).

 

Agreed.

 

well, would you use the same label, "retro", for the new Challenger and the new Camaro... clearly they are two very different approaches to designing a car.. the Challenger looks like a cleaned up 70 Challenger, it would fit right in, in the 70s.. the Camaro looks futuristic, yet still has features from the 1st gen...

they are very different approaches, styling wise.. and i don't think they both could be described by the same label..

 

True, but then we need new 'levels' of retro.

Full Blown Retro - Challenger
Retro Inspired - Camaro

The Camaro is FAR more 'futuristic' than it is retro to me, and most people that I know. There are some cues, but it's not something that looks like it came out of the 60's.

IMO, 'retro' means it looks like it stepped out of a time machine (with only slight changes) from the past. Something the Camaro does not.

 

Here ya go....Positive things about the 4th gen Camaro:

1. It came with a 6 speed transmission at a time only the Viper and Corvette had one.

2. The LT1 engine was revolutionary. Water pump driven off the driveshaft, Optispark (once they took care of it's sensitivity to water, it worked just fine), reverse flow cooling that enabled the engine to run higher compression.

3. The price was simply a steal for the performance. You also got more for the money.

4. Handling ability was greater than the 3rd gen, although the car rode softer and felt softer in the steering department. Though the 3rd gen felt snappier, the 4th has greater abilities. GM didn't skimp when they replaced the front struts on the 3rd gen with SLAs.

5. The AC and Stereo system in a Camaro will last long after the Mustang's needed repair and replaced.

6. Camaro is illogically light weight (as big as it is, and it weighs only 3500 pounds with a V8! ).

7. Camaro is built like a tank structurally next to a Mustang... or just about any other unibody vehicle.




I don't hate the cars. But it's obvious that GM relied just on the Z28's performance to sell the cars. All but 2 of the things mentioned above relate to just the Z28 Camaro. It doesn't seem GM spent more than a few seconds developing the rest of the car, and therefore a compelling case for someone to buy a V6 Camaro. As a result, it's only the "engine-in-a-box" and "performance at all costs" people who are (4th gen) Camaro's diehard supporters.

There's areas of execution of the 4th gen Camaro that was ill thought out.

The windshield was an ill-concieved last minute addition. Making the car physically bigger than the 4th gen was amazingly shortsighted. The power window motor was crap that shouldn't have even left the shop that developed it. I still think the fuel guage accuracy was calibrated by Goofy & Daffy while recovering from doing Hennessy shots all night with Britney Spears' posse.

Again, there were area that the execution of the 4th gen was very well thought out. It's just that GM's mentality of "designing things to break" and skimping on some of the basics while not even putting any effort towards the others is maddening.

Sure, the interior plastics of 90s era Mustangs is dirt cheap. Sure, Ford still hadn't found out how to make an AC system last more than 5 years. Sure, though Ford stereos arguably sound much better than similar GM systems, there's good reason why you hardly ever see the original one in cars over 6-7 years old. But everything else in the car tends to work the life of the car, which is impressive.

Nickel and dime stiff may not be important when developing a 4th gen Camaro, but it when things go wrong at the wrong time when they shouldn't go wrong at all makes all those perhaps important good points go up in smoke. Especially when it happens on newer models where the proble should have been corrected, but wasn't.

 

Yeah.... like he said.

 

wut this man said Y redesign something that we havent even loved, cherished, caressed, or even sat in for that matter. ps please let them change the interior up