So Sammy B, what about that bad word: RETRO!

[Bret]

So Sammy,

What is your take on manufactures that take from the past without really brining back an old discontinued model (ALA Challenger) or revamping a current model (ALA Mustang) to look like a re-done version from the past?

Example: While it heralds styling cues from the past the PT Cruiser isn’t really a resurrected model. Likewise the new Chevy’s HHR & SSR have styling that is reminiscent of old vehicles but not really anything that ever existed.

While I would consider these retro-tech – or a new spin on an old idea that works knowing it would bring in the nostalgic buyer.

Heck even the Miata when it first came out had a lot of folks saying it was an old idea revisited so some might call it “retro” in it’s own way but nobody touched that word when it first hit the showrooms. However I clearly remember a lot of folks saying how it took the classic British sports car and re-invented it.

Cheers,
Bret

 

[sammyb]

Seeing that I just got back from driving my Miata... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I don't mind "retro" in concept or in practice. Here are my feelings about specific cars:

1) Miata -- there's actually very little that is truly "retro" about a Miata, except that in 1989, there were no two-seat roadsters on the market. To me, Miata is the very best of what retro means: a concept that has been forgotten, but there's proof the market still exists. The Miata never sought to steal looks from any one car. It was function over form, and the form happened to be very similar to the Elan and MGB, which were two of the most popular two-seat roadster examples of function over form. To me, the Miata is just one of the best cars ever -- and I was reminded of that as I held a throttle-modulated four-wheel drift onto the freeway onramp at 20MPH with my five-year-old daughter riding shotgun -- neither of us ever thinking for a moment that the car was not perfectly in control.

2)PT Cruiser: I liked the PT in concept, but not in execution, which means, it hit what retro form over function can be, but I didn't happen to like the final product. It is a nice looking car, and it is selling fairly well. It didn't seek to outright copy any one single car, just a whole group of cars that were once popular.

My main gripes with the PT Cruiser: a)It's too small. Had they made the car Explorer/Cherokee sized, they would have sold 200,000 per year. As they were/are, the PT is too small and underpowered for most people. b) It's a piece of junk in terms of build quality. I drove a couple of them before they hit the market, and I found them to be cheaply made, unresponsive to drive, and generally slow and sloppy.

Comfortably positioned, you couldn't fit a 10 year old behind me in a PT Cruiser.

3) Mini and New Beetle -- These are both nice modern interpretations of previous designs. They are no more "retro" than a C6 is retro to a C5 Corvette...In both cases, they bridge the short gap between the previous versions (remember, only about two years went between the old Mini and New Mini, and three years between Mexico-made old Beetle and New Beetle.)

Now here's the issue I have with both the Mini and VW -- neither are truly sustainable. The Beetle fell out of favor years ago in America simply because it was too small for modern families on modern highways against modern iron. The same is true with the New Beetle -- and the Mini. While the Mini is somewhat of a sports car (we'll call it a sporty car,) it lacks broad enough appeal to exist as its own brand, sold out if its own dealership. The only way Mini can survive in the US is to be sold in BMW dealerships, rather than try to maintain costly seperate Mini dealerships.

My gripe with the HHR is that it simply copies the PT Cruiser, and that the Challenger and Camaro are simply catch-up moves to the Mustang and GT.

I suppose I'm not truly against retro in any way shape or form. I'm against reproductions. I've always said I'd rather have a real piece of junk than a nice fake. The Challenger is simply like a Cobra replica with a modern OHC Ford plant -- looks the part, but really isn't. If I want a car that looks exactly like an original -- I want it to drive like an original!

But it's more than that. My bottom line retro gripe is that the car companies are going retro for the sake of retro -- because others are doing it, rather than doing it because it's an important business decision. Retro is sexy, but it doesn't pay the bills. Building forward-thinking sedans and minivans pay the bills.

The question is: when everyone who remembers and identifies with the '70 Challenger, '68 Mustang, '69 Camaro etc... have decided whether a modern version fits their life, and then that subset buys a car -- what other Fords, Chryslers and GMs will the 99% of the car buying public consider?

None of the current retro cars truly expand the market for two-door coupes like the Miata did for two-seat roadsters, or the '65 Mustang did for small sporty cars.

That's the challenge on which domestic (and foreign) marketers, engineers and brass should be focused!!!

 

[Bret]

My thought is that it all comes down to numbers & image.

There is a company that touts the slogan “Zoom, Zoom” in its advertising, proudly claiming that “all” their products have the “Heart of a Sports Car”. Now there are few who wouldn’t be able recognize or differentiate that little sports car by name.

But while most of the car buying public might be able to recognize the little Zoom Zoom Roaster on site, sadly I doubt that most would be able to tell one manufacture’s other products (minivans, SUVs & sedans) from the others without looking at the emblem and/or name on the hood.

So I guess I view most of the sporty, specialty limited/low run models as corporate image vehicles meant to draw the car buying public into the fold.

A good example of what I am talking about are some of the Chevy commercials where they have a car carrying tractor trailer with examples of most of their products. But had the commercial been based on units sold – the truck would have had nothing but their SUVs, Trucks & Minivans. No Corvettes, no SSRs and probably no normal passenger cars of any size.

While I might agree that perhaps too much effort is given to specialty low production vehicle development and little resources focused on (dare I say) vehicles for the common buyer that needs a daily driver or something to haul the kids around. But call’em what you will – but there will always be a need for “gimmick” vehicles to act as marque flagship vehicles to draw in customers.

 

[sammyb]

Bret, you're absolutely right, and we're in total agreement.

Image cars are very important AND at some point, image vehicles cease to have recognizable image. Miata is certainly that way. With 160,000 units on the road, and another 150,000 or so projected for this year, the Mustang is headed that way...as is the WRX.

And I guess that's my point. If you're going to do a halo vehicle, you can go retro, because you don't have to bank on long-term sales. The Ford GT is actually a perfect success story. I'd still rather have the original, but all GTs made sold, and they are instant collectors vehicles -- wonderful image building.

Soon, the Mustang, Challenger and Camaro will be four or five year old cars that no longer really strike at people's hearts, because they are actually thirty-plus year old designs.

The Big Three need to have high volume cars, and right now almost none of their products are selling without deep discounts. Corvette is selling well, as usual, as is Viper...but they always will. Mustang, like usual, is selling well because the enthusiast models (GT) are being rationed to keep a line forming...but you'll notice that V6 models (even convertibles) are already stacking up on dealer lots. I've seen the same V6 models on lots for over two months. (Obviously not a statistically valid survey, but just a data point.)

From a pure marketing standpoint, there needs to be more brand image for the halo concept to work, and it can't all be "all our cars were popular in 1970."

I suppose Cadillac has finally learned to emulate BMW with the CTS (3-series,) STS (5) and DTS (7) and the V-series (M) as its halo. I think a true super-exotic or high-end GT (ala a Mercedes/McLaren SLR) would work in Caddy. In Ford, Chevy, Pontiac, Chrysler...and even most of the Japanese cars, there's simply not enough cohesive brand identity to benefit from halo cars. Infinity is building this identity, as is Lexus. Toyota has it on "quality," but that isn't right for a halo -- although maybe their halo is the Prius right now.

You're right, Mazda isn't really great, but they do actually have the Miata (MX-5,) RX8 and Mazda 3. I do happen to find their cars to be cheap, overpriced and uncomfortable, though. I love my Miata, but I paid $1200 for it. At $25,000 it's a rip-off! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Branding is a very, very, very tough thing to do, especially when you have executives who freak-out and want to copy a competitor everytime they get a little press. I worked in this environment for years, and found that most companies simply don't have the discipline (and understanding) to create strong, cohesive and valuable brand identities and products which really work to make each other stronger.

I think the most best done automotive branding and product line management in the industry right now is BMW. I've never met anyone who wasn't familiar with the 3,5,7,Z,M concept and everyone seems to identify them as leaders (usually benchmarks) in each of the segments.

 

[Nunyas]

I'll pitch in my 2 coppers on this... I'm too young to have been able to really appreciate any of these original retro cars in their original form when new (did that make sense?). I mean, I was born in '72, so I couldn't have possibly been able to drive a 67 anything off the show room floor. I appreciate these cars being revived in retro form. I have a tendency to blur car makes by their chassis. For example, Camaro/Firebird it's just a GM F-body to me. Naturally, owners of either would more than likely jump down my throat for blurring it like that, but the fact is once you get past the sheet metal there's not a whole lot of substance distinguishing the cars. But the Camero and Firebird were image cars for both marques.

One of the things that's interesting (to me anyways) is with the ever increasing gas prices, full-size SUV sales is on the decline. Full size SUVs has been Ford and GM's meat and potatoes for a large number of years. I have a few friends and relatives that have SUVs and their not too happy forking out $60 - $80 to fill the tank in their thirsty SUVs 2 to 3 times a week. I have to agree that they need to focus more on their meat-n-potatoes market, but they've dug themselves into a fairly hefty rut with their dependancy on SUV sales. I've read that GM has "revamped" their full-sized SUVs for the new year, and are saying they will make 20MPH in mixed driving, but I don't think that's enough to swing the sales of these vehicles back up to where they would like it to be.

Chrysler on the other hand, probably has a better jump over the other two. They jumped on the "sporty" compact market with the Neon several years before GM and Ford had an answer. The only SUVs Chrysler sells in any volume are the Durango and the Grand Cherokee (and to a smaller extent the Liberty), but both of those vehicles aren't really "full-size". Chrysler had it's problems back in the late 70's and 80's. Their modern car styling is much more palatible than they were in the early 80s, but that's just my opinion. I'd wager that we're not hearing about problems at Chrysler like we are at Ford and GM, because Chrysler does not have the same dependancy on SUV sales. Full size SUV sales have been on the decline ever since last Spring/Summer. Despite some of Chrysler's lack luster "retro" designed cars they're still better equipped to meet the demands of a slowly shifting meat-n-potatoes market.

SUVs became the soccer mom's vehicle of choice over the mini-van long ago. Personally, I see the station wagon making a major come back in a few more years... there's already more *new* station wagons on the road than there were over the past 20 years... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[sammyb]

Rob,
You're right -- Chrysler is much better positioned than Ford or GM. Mostly this is because they never gave-up on the minivan market. Chrysler sold over 543,000 (yup, over a half-million) minivans worldwide in 2005!!! They also sold as many 300s as Ford did Mustangs (165K.)

And here's the more important thing: domestic automakers have known for 30 years that an oil spike can reduce sales of large vehicles. While Toyota was investing in hybrid technology, Ford and GM were laughing all the way to the bank selling large SUVs --- or so they thought. They got caught with their pants down, yet they knew the day would come, so it is criminal that they had nothing in the pipeline.

I also agree that the number of station wagons on the road will continue to increase. The Audi, BMW, Subaru, Mercedes and Mazda wagons are proving that wagons are just as cool (if not cooler) than SUVs. Heck, SUVs were just wagons with large ground clearance.

And I would also like to quickly hit a point that you made, Rob...You mentioned that the F-bodies were "image cars." In actuality, they were never really seen as image cars, rather "affordable transportation." And that's where there really is a disconnect between the original and the retro. Originally the cars were made for young adults -- which is who bought coupes. The cars were cheap, and could be equipped for more sport or luxury. The death of the sports coupe ocurred because they got very expensive, and the Camaro, Firebird, RX7, 300Z all LACKED the image that people wanted.

THe new cars are going to be expensive ($30K) and target baby boomers. There simply isn't a huge market for that.

Where there is a huge market -- sporty coupes for young adults. We just don't call them Camaros anymore -- we call 'em Civics!

See what taking eyes off the ball cost GM and Ford? Or shall I say: building cars for themselves, not the market as it evolves.

 

[MGA Steve]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite some of Chrysler's lack luster "retro" designed cars they're still better equipped to meet the demands of a slowly shifting meat-n-potatoes market.

[/ QUOTE ]It is interesting that in all of the very interesting discussions we have had on this thread, the Challenger thread, and the Camaro thread about "retro" concepts, there has not been one mention of the Chrysler Crossfire. To me it's just a "Chryslerized" version of a M-B SLR. Why has it not been considered a halo car instead of the Hemi 300 or Challenger? Has anyone on the forum driven one? Are they selling? And to whom? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[DrEntropy]

I've no "empirical data"... Sammy will likely have that... but (and this is just MY take), the NAME is "off-putting" from more than one definition. I have a better time accepting something like "FairLady" than I do "CrossFire" for a car. I do see a few of them "out-and-about" inevitably driven by what I must categorise as "boomers".

I'll be available for whipping after 5 PM, for those who'd take exception.

FWIW.

 

[Nunyas]

Not sure about the Crossfire. I've seen a few on the road here and there. Even seen a convertible version. The first one I saw I believe the fellow, prolly in his mid-late 40s, claimed the car was around $40K. It is kind of retroish in a way, but it's one of those cars that people either love or hate... I have friends on both sides of the fence and none teetering.

 

[DrEntropy]

One in traffic here yesterday. Yellow convertible. Driver was blonde, fiftyish, top down, *windows UP* (ACK!), obligatory cell phone crammed in her ear... seemd a "Look at ME!" kinda scenario. And here I thought the coupe was butt-ugly. sheesh.

Just plain surreal, IMO.

 

[tony barnhill]

Crossfire is nice - & a much less expensive way to own a Mercedes than buying a Mercedes!

 

[Steve]

[ QUOTE ]
One in traffic here yesterday. Yellow convertible. Driver was blonde, fiftyish, top down, *windows UP* (ACK!), obligatory cell phone crammed in her ear... seemd a "Look at ME!" kinda scenario. And here I thought the coupe was butt-ugly. sheesh.

Just plain surreal, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have ten bucks that says she was a real estate agent!

 

[DrEntropy]

Hmmm...arguable point, sir. Assuming one would WANT to own a new Benz... I've considered replacing th' tri-point on Diesela with a Chrysler star off'n an old K-car... heh.

And a "BolderTint" across th' windshield (in reverse): "DODGE THIS!!!"

 

[sammyb]

14,665 Crossfires sold in 2005 -- down about 300 from 2004.
Overall, the sales have been very disappointing to Chrysler.

The Crossfire is actually a case for how retro can be done hand-in-hand with modern. Styling-wise, it has been almost universally praised.

So why such a flop?

1)Size: A Crossfire has less interior room (especially head room) than a Miata. It is extremely cramped, and therefore only comfortable for people under 5'10".

2)Power: It's tough to sell a sports GT with a six cylinder engine, (Unless you're name is BMW or Porsche.) American car buyers want a V8.

3)Handling: Soft springs with typical Chrysler non-communicative steering and brakes. Enthusiasts simply didn't find it fun.

4)Price: Crossfires were competing in the BMW 3-series/Z4 range with the Infinity M and other more fun and better recognized cars.

My personal feeling is that they simply missed the boat: sports car lack of practicality without the sports car benefits. It is a GT car without GT capabilities.

Had they made the car larger and offered a V8, the car would have sold 50,000+ per year.

 

[Nunyas]

ah... but they have the SRT6 version of it now. That's recieved some pretty good reviews, but I'm not sure what the price penalty is for getting the SRT6 version. Maybe they're hoping the SRT6 will help pick the sales up a bit?

 

[R6MGS]

[ QUOTE ]
Where there is a huge market -- sporty coupes for young adults. We just don't call them Camaros anymore -- we call 'em Civics!


[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/iagree.gif
When production ended on F-bodies in 2002 a fully loaded Camaro was selling around the $40,000 mark(CDN)!!!Yesterday I saw a 2002 Trans Am(the special yellow and black one) on the Canadian Autotrader priced a $50,000!!! Personally I think you'd be out of your mind to spend 40+K on an F-body originally designed as an economical fun car.....I remember paying around 15K for my Camaro back in 84 and even that was expensive in it's day.

 

[sammyb]

[ QUOTE ]
ah... but they have the SRT6 version of it now. That's recieved some pretty good reviews, but I'm not sure what the price penalty is for getting the SRT6 version. Maybe they're hoping the SRT6 will help pick the sales up a bit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, SRT6 was released last year, and they have sold pretty poorly. There has been one sitting at the local dealership here for months.

Again, the SRT's problem is that it is still a cramped car with an automatic transmission. It can do 0-60mph in 5.2 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.5, which is impressive, but it's not enough to overcome the deficiencies in handling, braking and comfort. Plus - it's dang near $48K fully loaded, which puts it at the same price range as a better performing, more comfortable Corvette.

 

[Nunyas]

OUCH.... i didn't know the sticker was that high on the SRT... I'd have to agree... I'd rather by a 'Vette or Elise for that price

 

[DrEntropy]

Rob, repeat after me: "Elise."

...Elise... Elise.

 

[sammyb]

[ QUOTE ]
Rob, repeat after me: "Elise."

...Elise... Elise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on if you want a primary driver or a third car. Elise is great, but even auto journalists who drove TR3s and Healeys in their youths have said they can't imagine anyone trying to drive an Elise daily.