The Chevy HHR thread got me thinking.
I guess retro styling is all the rage in the American automotive industry, now. It seems like everyone is getting in on it. First, there was the PT Cruiser, a throwback to some vague '50s aesthetic, or perhaps it was the Prowler which started us down this path. Then came the new "classic" cars, like the new Thunderbird, the SSR, the HHR, the Bronco concept, the Camaro concept, the Cobra concept, and the 2005 Mustang, all styled after counterparts or inspired by sensibilities from bygone decades.
The tributes aren't always that obvious, either: The new 300 pays homage to Chrysler's late-50s letter cars (in name, in grille, and under the hood), and while the Pontiac GTO doesn't share the styling of the old goat, it does bear its name, just like the upcoming Dodge Charger.
But to tell you the truth, I hate a lot of these retro cars. They don't fit in. Their styling is, in most cases, hamfisted and over-the-top. I often feel like new cars named and styled after dead legends dilute the old bloodline. Of course, there are exceptions. The Ford GT is every bit as wicked as the old GT40, in performance and in looks. I don't mind the subtle styling cues on the front of the 300 (they're subtle, and the car is hot), and I can mostly excuse the GTO badge on the Australian Holden Monaro (it's fast).
I also can't be bothered by the retro concepts: They've been making those for years, and if re-imagined and re-invented styling belongs anywhere, it's in a concept.
But then things get hairy. The new Mustang is overstyled, but it's growing on me. The new Thunderbird is plain ugly. Most offensive to me is the Chevrolet SSR, an example of truly abominable styling mated to a misappropriated "halo car" image (with abysmal performance as an adulterous interloper). It's like a Prowler with closed wheels and a truck bed.
It's not that I enjoy badmouthing these cars. I actually feel kind of guilty, what with the soulful eyes of the Thunderbird staring back at me from Ford's website. The retro cars are certainly different, even if uniqueness is, by definition, beyond their grasp. It's just that I don't quite understand the sudden need to fall back on old aesthetics and conventions to define the American automobile. I can't feel that any of these cars are innovative, or imaginitive, because they're just interpretations of lines drawn fifty years ago. Maybe I'm afraid that our roads are going to one day become a mismatched melange of weird cars. Maybe I'm afraid that the word "creativity" no longer applies to auto design, and that everyone is running out of ideas.
Or maybe I just hate the SSR.
Yeah, that might be it.
I guess retro styling is all the rage in the American automotive industry, now. It seems like everyone is getting in on it. First, there was the PT Cruiser, a throwback to some vague '50s aesthetic, or perhaps it was the Prowler which started us down this path. Then came the new "classic" cars, like the new Thunderbird, the SSR, the HHR, the Bronco concept, the Camaro concept, the Cobra concept, and the 2005 Mustang, all styled after counterparts or inspired by sensibilities from bygone decades.
The tributes aren't always that obvious, either: The new 300 pays homage to Chrysler's late-50s letter cars (in name, in grille, and under the hood), and while the Pontiac GTO doesn't share the styling of the old goat, it does bear its name, just like the upcoming Dodge Charger.
But to tell you the truth, I hate a lot of these retro cars. They don't fit in. Their styling is, in most cases, hamfisted and over-the-top. I often feel like new cars named and styled after dead legends dilute the old bloodline. Of course, there are exceptions. The Ford GT is every bit as wicked as the old GT40, in performance and in looks. I don't mind the subtle styling cues on the front of the 300 (they're subtle, and the car is hot), and I can mostly excuse the GTO badge on the Australian Holden Monaro (it's fast).
I also can't be bothered by the retro concepts: They've been making those for years, and if re-imagined and re-invented styling belongs anywhere, it's in a concept.
But then things get hairy. The new Mustang is overstyled, but it's growing on me. The new Thunderbird is plain ugly. Most offensive to me is the Chevrolet SSR, an example of truly abominable styling mated to a misappropriated "halo car" image (with abysmal performance as an adulterous interloper). It's like a Prowler with closed wheels and a truck bed.
It's not that I enjoy badmouthing these cars. I actually feel kind of guilty, what with the soulful eyes of the Thunderbird staring back at me from Ford's website. The retro cars are certainly different, even if uniqueness is, by definition, beyond their grasp. It's just that I don't quite understand the sudden need to fall back on old aesthetics and conventions to define the American automobile. I can't feel that any of these cars are innovative, or imaginitive, because they're just interpretations of lines drawn fifty years ago. Maybe I'm afraid that our roads are going to one day become a mismatched melange of weird cars. Maybe I'm afraid that the word "creativity" no longer applies to auto design, and that everyone is running out of ideas.
Or maybe I just hate the SSR.
Yeah, that might be it.
Facebook
Twitter