The term retro is used to describe almost every new car that come out that has some type of link to a past car, but it seems that what's labeled retro has gotten way out of hand, and bring back old car names is nothing but trouble.

One looks at a PT Cruizer, and it's design is from another era. Fenders, a hint of a running board and the general shape is far removed from anything on the streets today. The new Ford Thunderbird also is a throwback with it's chrome eggcrate grille, it's tapering rear profile, even it's removable hardtop with the round porthole window.

The Beetle is a little more slipery. It recalls the original, yet it's done in a completely modern way. Even though it's been around for 5 years & has become commonplace, it still looks almost futuristic. But the new Mustang is far removed from this group. It has a sharklike front end & a fastback, but what is there on the new Mustang that can honestly be called "retro"?

The side scoops have been on almost every Mustang since the begining. 350Zs have fastbacks. The car has a wide stance. It looks throughly modern. I can't pinpoint a single retro item on the car (save the rear fuel cap) that isn't on something else. Mustang looks sharp, futuristic, & agressive at the same time. But "Retro"??

Calling the new Mustang retro is like calling the F4 Camaro retro because it look like a futuristic version of a '78 Monza Spyder or a '82 Z28.

Is the C5 Retro? Point made.

The other thing I want to hit, is the slippery slope of introducing car names from the past. If a name's been discontinued, maybe it should stay discontinued. Why? There will always be the diehard crowd, who will always have a beef with a new version, no matter how good it is, or what said car's history actually is, or you'll be faced with the other group who rewrites automotive history.

I came to this conclusion, not just by some things said about GTO, but by some really bizzare things comming out in other threads here, that's really baffling.

Chevelle was midsize car. Nothing more (Judging all Chevelles based on the few SS models is like judging all Focuses on the few SVT versions). Someone posted that the SS isn't worthy of the Chevelle name !!
Yea, right.

Another person mentioned bringing back the Nova name...if done correctly!! Someone else some time ago felt Chevy discraced it on a car that Toyota(!) made in the 1980s, as if Nova was some special hallowed car in Chevrolet's history.

It's really amazing how history get's twisted as time goes by.

Some of the older crowd here will remember Novas the way the younger crowd remember's Cavaliers. It was a cheap car bought by students, women, and the basic transportation crowd (my neighbor had one...she worked at my school district...and most every other Nova owner I remember was either female or near poor) Newsflash: Not every single car made prior to 1972 was a muscle car, or even fast! Most all Novas had Inline 6s, or 307 V8s. You'd smoke one in a 2003 Malibu for chrissake!!

Almost all Chevelles made had small V8s that are no faster than a Ford Focus....the base model. The Malibu name was never on any fast midsize Chevrolet. Until the 1994-97 version came out, Impala was a name just above Belair and Biscayne, but below Caprice & Caprice Classic in the fullsize pecking order at Chevy. There within lies the other danger on bringing back names. The car name becomes transformed into something it never was.

The current Impala is basically what Impala always was in Chevrolet, a high value family car. But after the mid-90s, that idea was over. The Impala SS of the 90s so severely broke that mold, that noone remembers how the exact same body was ridiculed for 3 years as bloated, fat..(not phat), and in cop car trim, Shamu.

I suspect the upcomming supercharged Impala SS, though possibly faster than the 90's version, will still be reamed. I wouldn't buy one, but I'll be the 1st to admit, it's a modern version of the traditional Impala SS (though I question the 4 doors......).

Are there cars that shouldn't wear a name, that GM has whored out? Sure there are. Grand Prix is one. Why is a 4 door sedan named after a 2 door personal luxury coupe named after a racetrack? The forementioned Impala SS (SSs shouldn't have 4 doors). Great car, and it's becomming a collector's item, but it did stray from what was the formula for at least 3 decades.

The original Monte Carlo SS at the very least had different look from the rest of the line, even though the engine was basically the same (don't start about the 80s SS being greatly faster than the current version.... it isn't).

Why the twisted view of history? Because the only old cars people took the time to maintain was the muscle versions.

No one is going to lovingly referbish a midline Chevelle or Nova or Impala, even though those cars made the sales of their SS versions look miniscule. Finding a mint '66 Tempest is near impossible. But finding a good performance version of this car, the GTO, is much easier, because people took care of them. Heck, there are some people who don't even know what a Tempest looks like (hint see GTO... some even had GTOs hood scoop ) even though there were once scores of them compared to Goats.

I'm guessing that's why some people feel Chevelle is a performance car name, or Nova is a name that needs to be brought back correctly.

The past is anything you want it to be, because it doesn't exist anymore. Seems in a vaccum you can create any ideal you want, regardless of fact.

And that's why maybe it's a bad idea reaching to the past to name a modern vehicle.... no matter how true to history it is.

 

.....figure out what it is that really sticks in my craw about these debates and I think one part of it is the "hit & miss, stop & start" use of nameplates.......especially the legendary ones.

It really comes off as whoring out names to sell a few cars based on past success........something I sincerely dread about this hiatus we are under with the Camaro. No continuation of heritage....unconnected models with no same direction or purpose....

Much less the important issues like V8, RWD, 2 door sports cars.......

What will be the "target" market for the 5th gen??

Who will it attract?

What will it cost?

Will it be instantly recognizable as a Camaro?

Will GM try to please too many in it's execution?

Will the younger people at GM (i.e. Brian Nesbitt and Franz whatshisname) be so disconnected from it's past that they flat miss the target?

Will GM tell us older Camaro enthusiasts to just get over it?

See why I'm getting loaded for bear here?! I don't trust for one second that if we just sit back it'll all be OK........some car companies could screw up a one car funeral........beat the drum long and loud I say.........

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guionM
[B]









I suspect the upcomming supercharged Impala SS, though possibly faster than the 90's version, will still be reamed. I wouldn't buy one, but I'll be the 1st to admit, it's a modern version of the traditional Impala SS (though I question the 4 doors......).

QUOTE]

It will be reamed...bigtime. The 94-96 Impala SS may have had 4 doors, but at least the V8 drove the preferred wheels, and the car had a body on frame constuction that was very true to the original (even though b.o.f may not be the best build style, it is very durable and tough) The new Wimpala is a great car....with the wrong name.(how would you guys like a fwd Camaro??)

 

Camaro's history is a bit more interesting & performance driven than Impala's is.

Not defending FWD (by no means!), just making a point.

Doug, I think I get you on that start-stop method GM has of bringing car names back. On that I agree 100%

 

Once again though you miss guionM's point. Impala's mission was always family transportation in a large package. The fact that the car was RWD for all those years had NOTHING to do with performance. In fact there WAS no true performance-oriented Impala until 1994!!! Today's Impala does EVERYTHING Impala always has done. Large, comfortable family transportation.

Contrast this with Camaro in that RWD is an essential part of Camaro history, because it's mission was SPORTY driving and PERFORMANCE. Comparing Impala to Camaro just because both had RWD is ludicrous!

 

I'm glad somebody brings this point up. Let's not forget the Impala. Only the Impala SS was ever truly fast, and the last real Impala SS was made in, what, '69? The only revival of the name was on a four-door, where the traditional SS was a coupe. But the real, basic Impala was always a bread and butter, large sedan. The current Impala carries this out quite nicely, and I still think its styling is quite smooth (John Cafaro had his hand in this, no?).

 

On the subject of what is retro and what is not, it is certainly an interesting question. The new Mustang--I see a whole lot of late 60's in it. I guess that isn't a bad thing if you're a big Mustang fan. Look at the front facia. Look at the back of it. The fastback style. I consider the car retro. The interesting thing about Mustang (and maybe why it has always been so popular) is that it never seems to change whole lot, with the exception of the fox body years. It's basic shape and cues are always there. I guess I'd rather have a Camaro that continues to evolve and doesn't go round-and-round styling wise. While I guess people would love different interpretations of a 1st generation Camaro over and over again starting with the 5th Gen, I'm not one of them. There's a difference between a forward-thinking car with some cues that still makes the car a Camaro and just different variations of a 1969 Z28.

I hope some of that makes sense.

 

About the name thing: I read alot of messages where people say they should make a new chevelle/nova/vega etc. Sometimes I think it's time to move on, come up with something new and exciting. Alot of people in the new generations do not feel a connection with the past (ie the muscle cars of the 60's), and want their own generation of legends. I kind of agree with that to some extent. I'd like to see chevy come up with something fresh and new, including the name, that today's youth generation can say was a part of their youth.
I don't know if I'm making much sense here, maybe I'll come up with a better way to explain what I'm trying to say some other time.

 

Well put and said.

I guess people only see and remember what they want to see and remember. Not many really take the time to look at the whole picture.

 

The 1961 Impala SS WAS performance oriented. The SS option in 61 was different than the following years. ALL 1961 Impalas equipped with the Super Sport option had one of three high performance 348 engines, or the the new 409. They all had a four speed manual transmission, heavy duty springs, a factory installed tach, power steering, and power brakes.

 

Oh yeah, RPO Z11 in 1963 was available to the public, and it was the only car Chevrolet ever built specifically for drag racing.

 

But the Camaro has always been about Sporty and affordable performance. It was based on the economical Nova chassis. It was never a true sports car, so RWD wasn't critical. It spent much of its life with less than 200HP. A low cost, FWD, sporty coupe would be true to the original. Hey, don't shoot me - I'm just playing the devils advocate here...but you can spin that argument a lot of ways...

BTW, in regards to retro -

I don't care if its retro or not - Just don't make it BORING. The only bad thing about retro is that it kinda emphasizes the point that the domestic car companies haven't had many great cars in the last 15 years or so.

 

The f-body platform was based on Chevy's big car designs....in fact it was advertised as having that big car ride....or something along those lines. The Nova got the attached sub-frame design as a spin-off of the f-body's use of it.....not the other way around.

The Camaro is / was always an answer to the Mustang...a pony car......affordable and had decent performance....sometimes extreme performance....to the point Chevy advertised it as the closest thing to a Corvette.

And YES, RWD was always critical to the Camaro!!! FWD is for econoboxes.....

 

I agree and disagree with GuionM.

Agree, People have changed the percieved truth about what most of the Cars GM made in the past. The only Car that has ever been a true "Sports Car" has been the Corvette. Even the first Gen Camaros were built off Nova underpinings.(correct me if im wrong)

Disagree, They are GMs Trademarked names and they can use them how they please. If bringing back a old name plated that people "think" means performance and puts it on a performance car helps sell them in good numbers so we can have performance cars. Then do it. All the bickering about the GTO name just brings more awareness and free advertising to the new car. In this case any publicity is good publicty holds true. As I said before, they could call the new GTO the Crocodile Dundee special or The crazy Pigmi Mobile. Its Still A 360- 400 Hp RWD Sporty/Sports Coupe.

 

I would be happy if Chevy introduced a truly sporty FWD small 2 door in the meantime, but still expect to see a Camaro as RWD. There's no reason that Chevrolet should not have a performance car, and they should cash in on the sport compact market with a competent little sportster at some point very soon. They should not be without performance...