Sly Stamps and the Family Stone

Oh God make it stop....
do we need a retro version of every performance car from the past?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/...nger/index.html

Are the sales justifying this trend? I THINK NOT

Slamnasty

I understand the frustration with the "retro" idea as the basis of new cars, however a lot of today's cars aren't as overly imaginitive as you might think.

Plus, the 1930s-early 70s was when America made its most beautiful cars. Almost everything from 75-99 was utterly uninspired visually. It only seems logical that they would pull from their heritage.

I would say bringing back old platform concepts is a bad idea, but not old styling cues. There were styling missteps decades ago - Mercury's electric roll-down rear window with the almost-vertical rear glass is one example - but there were far more good-looking cars back then.

I'm OK with companies brining back old nameplates on newer, more advanced cars. The new Challenger is supposed to be pretty darn heavy though, close to two tons, which is bad, and even worse considering the also-heavy Mustang is 3-500lbs lighter.

Marco

Does this mean there will be a NEW Dukes of Hazzard TV show/movie with 02 painted on it???

Saki GT

That car is hot, period. I think it makes the Charger and 300C look like dog food in fact!

GM must really feel left out now since it is still sitting on the idea of a new Camaro.

Saint_Spinner

I agree...I'm usually opposed to "retro design"...but I'll admit it...I like that challenger. Make mine black please.

Ravenwerk

I don't have issues with the retro look. Aside from some of DaimlerChrysler's designs there seems to be an incredible lack of imagination where finalized exteriors are concerned IMO. At least this way there's more interesting cars out there to check out.

Liebernoodle

I didn't click on the link, but let me guess... 300 frame with a hemi engine. just a guess!

cdelena

I also think it sucks that Detroit is spending so much money rehashing the past.

I had a sixties Mustang which was fine but am not interested in the style today. A friend had a seventies Challenger which was cool back then, but I sure am not interested in one great big reproduction.

IMO Detroit really needs fresh talent to turn out some good modern designs in order to survive. My money will probably be spent elsewhere.

gomarlins3

Personally, I like this car and you win the vote for the longest screen name in history on this site.

565565

I'm not a fan of retro.

And just looking at the thing, what possessed us Americans to build cars that looked like that, even back in the 1960s/70s? I'm not saying that because it's ugly, that's just an opinion.

It's just the shape of the thing makes no logical sense. I mean, it's got a hugely long square hood, and a hugely long square rear, while a tiny cabin is set in the middle. It works for sports cars, but weren't these muscle cars based off sensible coupes? . And it doesn't take a genius to realize that something that is flat and square is probably not very aerodynamic and most likely hinders performance. It's not like fluid dynamics is some new thing either. Ancient Indians who carved canoes from logs had a better concept of fluid dynamics than whoever designed those muscle cars.

I perfer cars where form follows function. That car is an example where style has beaten function into complete and utter submission.