The Deal with all these "Retro" New Vehicles?

[BrianB]

Over the Christmas break I drove a couple of the new Mustangs and the performance over the previous GTs is marked. Not sure about the interiors though, I can't help but be reminded of the Camaro second to last before they ended the run.

My question is: if you look at that pathetic GTO, the Mustang, these Camaro concept cars, the Charger? and God know what else they're expecting us to get all excited about, for the money, why not just reproduce to original specs what everyone wants anyway? And what everyone's paying out the tail for as we speak?

If people are paying $40K for some pristine original, don't you think they'd pay as much for a brand new version with some improvements here and there? But basically the same car?

Me, if I could get a '69 Mach I or a Boss 302 with a few improvements to the major systems and a full warranty I'd go for it. I don't need no airbag, ac or electric mirrors. Why not give the people what they want? Are they trying to run themselves out of business?

 

[XJ Dreamin']

Here's a '69 Charger for sale.

A bit more than a new one, but it's in good condition :laugh3:

 

[ECKSJAY]

Why not give the people what they want? Are they trying to run themselves out of business?

On the contrary, they're trying to stay in business. Your 'I don't need an airbag' statement unfortunately can't come true (on a new vehicle) because there are those folks out there who feel the need to control minute aspects of our lives.

 

[YELLAHEEP]

I hear ya BrianB,

But Ecksjay nailed it - the EPA, NHTSA, DOT and the other Gov't acronyms that control our lives simply would never let that happen.

But before you go all critical on the new gen muscle cars, you really do need to go drive 'em. I own the '04 GTO and I was as critical about them releasing that name on an Aussie built "Cavalier" looking car as any GTO purist..... but I was absolutely sold, hooked, smitten.... after the first drive. Yeah, the styling isn't the most attractive, but once you look at it - or any of the new gen cars, you begin to see past that and enjoy the car for what it is. The best part is that these cars are much safer, capable of higher speeds, and can stop or corner much better than the 60's / 70's era cars.

If you were to look back at the magazine articles about those classics back when they were new, you'll see just as much criticizm about the performance of those cars as you see about style in todays cars. I've read countless classics reviews of the old Mopars that were critical of the brakes, and interior fit or function. My dad's '70 GTX with the 440/6 pack and 4 speed sure gave you a shit-eating-grin when you mashed the go-pedal, but scared the shit right off yer face when trying to stop the darn thing. And the seats were so uncomfortable, and low - I always felt that the top of the steering wheel was right in my line of vision. The only car I recall seeing the majority of positive reviews was on the LS6 Chevelle SS.

Sure the new GTO doesn't have one single retro-bone in it's configuration, but I'll tell ya, you can't beat the Corvette inspired suspension, brakes and drivetrain in a 4 seater car that has interior comfort, fit and finish that mirrors a BMW - that's no joke there. The Mustang does have that "gotta have it" look and the aftermarket has taken off for it - lots of fun to be had with 'em in spite of their plastic interior.

In my opinion, Dodge is very much on the right track of the muscle car compromise with the new Challenger. Short of having true chrome bumpers mounted on brackets, that car pretty much fits the bill. Warranty, safety, horsepower, transmission options, retro styling, true hard top with roll down quarter windows...... just awesome.

You also gotta remember that overall ownership costs for a muscle car is much inflated over the costs incurred in the 60's / 70's. Gas, insurance, parts expenses are a huge part of what's keeping todays manufacturers from producing what you're talking about - and those folks that represent the demographic that can and want to afford what you're talking about simply don't have the numbers to influence the demand on the market to produce these kinds of cars. (In other words, there aren't 250,000 people out there willing to pay $40k for a gas guzzling, two door with high insurance rates.) Even if the GTO had been designed to look more like a newstalgic GTO, I doubt the demand and sales would have even doubled. As it was, Pontiac only intended to produce 16,000 units in '04 and stopped production at just over 15,000 - and it took a year an a half to sell those off. The Mustang is selling in bigger numbers because of the lower price and variety of options - but a stock GT will NEVER out perform a stock GTO and Ford never intended it to.

Basically, a guy's gonna spend $40K to get either a true classic, or a newstalgia car so it's really based on preference.

My .02 and then some........ :laugh3:

 

[Dirk Pitt]

interior comfort, fit and finish that mirrors a BMW - that's no joke there.:

That's because it's not built here.

 

[YELLAHEEP]

That's because it's not built here.

LOL very true! When people ask how I like the GTO, my usual response is "The Aussies got it right."

 

[drifto77]

Here's a '69 Charger for sale.

A bit more than a new one, but it's in good condition :laugh3:

$249,000 !?!?!?!?!
Might be worth it BUT.... if Iam gonna spend that kind of cash...............
I'll go FORD.

 

[IXNAYXJ]

You can't buy a (real) Cobra for a quater million.... A COPO ZL-1 Camaro just sold for $840,000 at the Mecum Auction Fall Premier Sale, October 15th, 2005.

As cool as those old muscle cars are, they handle like drunken shopping carts and take a football field to stop from 60 mph. Were a lot better off with modern cars!

-----Matt-----

 

[XJ Dreamin']

You can't buy a (real) Cobra for a quater million.... A COPO ZL-1 Camaro just sold for $840,000 at the Mecum Auction Fall Premier Sale, October 15th, 2005.

As cool as those old muscle cars are, they handle like drunken shopping carts and take a football field to stop from 60 mph. Were a lot better off with modern cars!

-----Matt-----

All true, but "lot better off" has nothing to do with nostalgia :laugh3: .

Come on guys...the teeth grinding, white knuckle, sphincter puckering ride is part of the experience of the classics. Then there's the whole business of knowing how to start the baitch. If you let a buddy drive your ride you had to brief him on starting procedures for cold start, warm restart, and hot restart. Those things were practically theft proof if you didn't know how to start it. Now days you just jump in and turn the key. Boring!!

 

[BrianB]

Yella: I'm with you, but for example, I have a friend who's about to kick off a project to assemble a 67 Camaro starting with a basic shell with rotted floor panels, basically the roof and quarter panels. Yea, he's owned a few and has the knowledge and skill and desire, but don't forget, he's going to be buying a ton of parts new.

So, I don't buy the idea that the manufacturers can't ramp up a production model 67-68 Camaro without tremendous cost to their supply chain and inventory capabilities. The parts are there and same thing for the Mustang.

If people are willing to resurrect total rust jobs you have to think the market has reached a certain point where people are desperate in their search for these vehicles.

Now, the areas that I would agree need updating are brakes and suspension.

The major manufacturers are hurting because in general there is too little passion surrounding their product. You sound passionate about your new GTO and that's great. I wonder though if they would have put out The Judge had there been more than 15,000 takers?

 

[IXNAYXJ]

So, I don't buy the idea that the manufacturers can't ramp up a production model 67-68 Camaro without tremendous cost to their supply chain and inventory capabilities. The parts are there and same thing for the Mustang.

It's not possible. The manufacturers would have to build an entire new production facility (the current plants are each designed with a specific car in mind). Then they would have to federally certify the cars for crash safety (which, despite lots of metal, they would not pass), install modern seat belts, airbags, 5-mph bumpers, and make the motors emissions compliant.

After doing all of that, you would be left with a cobbled-together Frankenstien pile that would cost a fortune. If you're still dead-set on having a new old car, there are companies that do it: http://www.uniqueperformance.com/Camaro.aspx Both their Camaro and Mustang are built from scratch using new parts. They can coast up to $250,000.

-----Matt-----

 

[YELLAHEEP]

I guess the American public just isn't doing a good job in communicating their "desparation" for new-past-era muscle cars. I've seen countless polls put forth in the auto mags where they show a concept car and solicit replies from the readers on whether or not the public would buy the proposed car. I haven't seen too many where the response was overwhelming enough to sway the auto makers. However, one funny result was the Chevy SS 454 truck. That was actually one of the vehicles GM built from "public demand" and it was a huge flop. Certainly the biggest reason was the EPA choked the hell outta the HP ratings for the big block (what was the RWHP? Like 210?). Or how about the mid-80's Monte Carlo SS's or Olds 442's with the smog controlled 305's? (I mean dadgum, they put the Aero coupe feature and "lightning rod" shifters in 'em to appeal to NASCAR and drag fans) and those cars didn't sell well either - nor did they hold their value.

The "totally new parts" '69 Camaro that's being offered by Year One is certainly an interesting concept and I hear they're close to offering a Mustang as well. The entire car can be built completely new from the ground up and is supposedly composed of OEM standard parts...... but you STILL can't build one for under $30K unless you skimp and use some used drivetrain, then do the assembly, body and paint yourself. Even then I can't imagine it'd be under $20....... and when it's all done, you still have a car that every other guy at the car show has. I'll be watching to see how long they continue to manufacture the "new" Camaros and how many actually get completed.

I'll agree with ya though, for the overall investment into my GTO, I certainly coulda built a '70 Chevelle into an LS6 SS clone - and probably would have except there ain't a bank around that would finance me for such a project.... And therein lies the other aspect surrounding old vs. new.....cash. The guys that have that kind of cash available are the ones buying the classics or restoring them, the ones that don't are happy to rent a new one from the bank. (Hell, if I had the cash, I'd still have financed the GTO and put my cash into the '46 Olds street rod project that's gotten stale alongside my garage......)

Something else to wonder about....... those fellas that are forking out $400K for an unrestored, weathered '71 Hemi Cuda convertible, or $93K for a rotten hulk of a '68 427 Shelby 4 speed - probably make up a fairly powerful lobby against the reproduction of the classics. They stand to lose alot in their investment if 20 thousand repro Cuda's or Shelby's get reproduced, and the American public discovers that the repro's have all the same parts as the original ones...... and can be built/bought for under $30K.... might be a bit far fetched, but.... :dunno:



Great thread!

 

[YELLAHEEP]

There are those that would find this image disturbing, others that would jump for joy........ "new" Shelby's rolling off the assembly line.

 

[IXNAYXJ]

I guess the American public just isn't doing a good job in communicating their "desparation" for new-past-era muscle cars. I've seen countless polls put forth in the auto mags where they show a concept car and solicit replies from the readers on whether or not the public would buy the proposed car. I haven't seen too many where the response was overwhelming enough to sway the auto makers. However, one funny result was the Chevy SS 454 truck. That was actually one of the vehicles GM built from "public demand" and it was a huge flop.

Ironically, the SSR and the GTO ("the blunder from down under") were both produced based off public reaction to concept cars. The SSR concept was shown in 1999, and the GTO was Bob Lutz's way of plugging the leaking dike that is Pontiac. Both have been dissapointing in terms of sales. The Solstice GXP sure looks good, though!

-----Matt-----

 

[BrianB]

This talk of producing anything based on public reaction to concept cars is interesting. What I believe I am seeing is public "action" regarding cars that already exist.

If anyone is going to dump real cash on a rust bucket because it's one of 700 still in existence, or whatever, I think the business case is party made for building a car that is obviously, already in very high demand.

To heck with the EPA. Ford could outsource the project to some fake company HQ in the Virgin Islands, run it out of some plant they are going to close next year. No union contract. Pay off the EPA by promising those guys cars 1-100. When Bush is out of office and the Liberals get around to the scandal the deal will be well in to year three, the market will be flooded and we'll be on to other, more important issues. Another victim-less crime.

 

[IXNAYXJ]

To heck with the EPA. Ford could outsource the project to some fake company HQ in the Virgin Islands, run it out of some plant they are going to close next year. No union contract. Pay off the EPA by promising those guys cars 1-100. When Bush is out of office and the Liberals get around to the scandal the deal will be well in to year three, the market will be flooded and we'll be on to other, more important issues. Another victim-less crime.

That's pretty funny. I highly doubt that Bill Ford would go for it, though! He's greener than Ralph Nader!

-----Matt-----

 

[drifto77]

You can't buy a (real) Cobra for a quater million....

Ya..... your right about the cost for a "REAL" 427 Cobra.
But still........
IF i had that kind of cash .... whats a "few" grand more?

As cool as those old muscle cars are, they handle like drunken shopping carts and take a football field to stop from 60 mph. Were a lot better off with modern cars!

Hope your not including the Cobra with those.
I'll let the numbers speak for themself........

The 427 Cobra
0 – 60 mph times of 3.8 seconds, 0 – 100 mph in 10.6 seconds, and 0 – 100 and back to a dead stop in less than 14 seconds.

Sounds to me like it stops ok.
Guess I just LOVE them Cobra's.
Always has been my #1 "Dream car".
Even though it is just an "OLD" car.

 

[IXNAYXJ]

Hope your not including the Cobra with those.
I'll let the numbers speak for themself........

The 427 Cobra
0 – 60 mph times of 3.8 seconds, 0 – 100 mph in 10.6 seconds, and 0 – 100 and back to a dead stop in less than 14 seconds.

Sounds to me like it stops ok.
Guess I just LOVE them Cobra's.
Always has been my #1 "Dream car".
Even though it is just an "OLD" car.

I was not including the Cobra in the category of "Muscle Car," but rather in the "Sports Car" category. For one thing, the car has British origins...the AC Ace. The 289 V-8 was added with the intentions of road racing, and competing with the likes of Ferrari, Aston Martin, Maserati and others. Interestingly, Carrol Shelby raced for those companies, before a heart condition ended his career.

Anyway, you are indeed correct, and the Shelby Cobra held the record for 0-100-0 for quite some time. Truly a fantastic car, and a sight to behold in person.

-----Matt-----

 

[Darky]

As has been pointed out already, the cost of retooling manufacturing plants to produce cars that, while popular, wouldn't be snatched up like you think they would be...Too many people like their comfy rides and refinement that they have now. Even in a limited production run, it just isn't a feasible course of action. Fortunately for the auto makers, there's been a good number of people who've shown their appreciation for all the newstalgic cars coming out now...

 

[bajacalal]

As has been pointed out already, the cost of retooling manufacturing plants to produce cars that, while popular, wouldn't be snatched up like you think they would be...Too many people like their comfy rides and refinement that they have now. Even in a limited production run, it just isn't a feasible course of action. Fortunately for the auto makers, there's been a good number of people who've shown their appreciation for all the newstalgic cars coming out now...

Exactly, it would require too much investment to make too few cars. GM could do the GTO because its realistically a captive import and based off a car already in production elsewhere so their development costs were minimized.