Retro was supposed to be the wave of the future!
Back in the 1990s or so, it seems every car company came out with a "retro" designed car, and today, most are viewed as expensive failures in the marketplace or are reviled by car enthusiasts. Why is this and why was "retro" a bad idea?
The first problem was that car companies took advice from car enthusiasts, not car customers. They would put together retro-themed "dream cars" for the car shows that travel nationwide to attract customers. Car nuts would salivate at some "retro" styled car and say, "If you built THAT, I would buy it! Who wants a boring SUV or pickup truck or sedan when you can have a funky clone of a '49 Studebaker?"
So the car companies built them and no one came. Turns out, people are conformists and they want boring sedans, SUVs, and boxy pickup trucks that look like their neighbor's boring car. The "retro" cars made too much of a statement for the average buyer, and most were not very practical. Worse yet, many were just retro-styled bodies on more plebeian underpinnings.
The other big problem with "retro" is this: How do you update the styling on a retro car? Do you go ahead a decade, or tweak it around the edges? Or do you just give up? Most car makers chose the latter route.
The following are a number of "retro" designs that had mixed reactions in the marketplace. Few remained in production for more than one product cycle. Some were only in production for a scant few years.
One of, if not the first of the new retro cars was the "new Beetle" which debuted in 1997. The New Beetle illustrates almost all of the problems with retro. The concept car was built on the smaller "Polo" platform and would have be more true to the original Beetle of yore. But to meet US safety standards, it was upgraded to a Jetta platform, making the New Beetle look ungainly and huge. But even with this size increase, the interior room and trunk space suffered from the retro styling. While the trunk of a Jetta can hold several large suitcases, the tapered trunk of the new Beetle (which had the engine in the front, not back as in the original) had little room.
The look was a bit disarming as well, as the roofline was almost a perfect circle segment (advertised as an "arch") unlike the original that had a more flattened look. This, along with the fisheye headlights, gave it an almost clown-car appearance
The car was also tagged as being "too feminine" and the percentage of sales tended to trend that way as well. It was not a car that most men felt comfortable driving. The fact they released a "Malibu Barbie" edition didn't help in that regard. It stayed in production for over a decade, and sold over a million copies worldwide over that time. On the other hand, VW sells nearly ten times that many cars in a single year, so the New Beetle was never a major player in their portfolio.
The New Beetle is unique in this list in that it was one of the few "retro" cars to survive to a second generation. The next generation (just "Beetle" this time) or A5, had a lower roofline and a more menacing, masculine look. While it stayed in production nearly a decade, sales were never that great as even that of the New Beetle and eventually VW had to pull the plug. As with its predecessor, it just never took off, as people would gravitate to a roomier and cheaper Jetta model instead.
People just got tired of retro, I think.
On the heels of the New Beetle, the PT Cruiser came out in 2001 and for a while, it seemed they were everywhere. But in reality, they sold about as well as the New Beetle (~1M copies) and after a decade, the retro craze had died off and the replacement, the ill-fated and oddly proportioned Dodge Caliber, was unloved by everyone.
Unlike many other "retro" cars, the PT cruiser was somewhat more practical than the car it was based on. Unlike the Dodge Neon sedan (its predecessor) the PT Cruiser was a fairly roomy 5-door wagon that qualified as a "light truck" to gin up Chrysler's EPA CAFE numbers for their truck line. Don't get me started on that. If you want to blame America's infatuation with huge, jacked-up trucks, take a look at the EPA regs, which all but mandated that American car companies build such monstrosities. Like I said, don't get me started.
There was a bit of a cult following for the PT Cruiser - for a while. We would see them in South Florida all customized with woody trim kits and whatnot. But they were a cheap economy car underneath it all, and eventually that showed through. You rarely see one on the road these days.
We rented a convertible version once. It was nice, but when you slammed the doors, it sounded like a garbage can lid.
Again, the problem with "retro" is where do you take the styling from here? Maybe that is the reason the car stayed in production for ten long years, in a business where product cycles can be as short as three.
But like the New Beetle, the PT Cruiser was at least affordable and sold in some solid numbers, unlike our next candidate....
Once again, car show lust causes car companies to do things they later regret. The Prowler started as a concept car in an era where young dot-com millionaires were having custom "rods" built for them by California custom houses - usually based on a '32 Ford coupe, but of course, with a modern chassis, drivetrain, and fiberglass body. If custom-made "deuce" coupes or "hi-boys" could be built for millionaires - why not mass produce them for the rest of us?
And so the Plymouth Prowler was born. Problem was, to mass-produce it, they had to use existing hardware, and they chose to use the V-6 from their LH sedans, rather than a fire-breathing V-8 that such a hot rod would normally command. So right off the bat, the folks at the auto show who promised to buy one, said, "Nah! Not doing that! Not for a V-6!"
As a practical car, it was a cramped 2-seater with a tiny trunk. They even made a Prowler tow-behind trailer that was shaped like the trunk of the Prowler, so you could have... two trunks. Sort of a tacit admission there was no usable space in the car.
Such cars are fun for cruising the miracle mile, but not practical as daily drivers. Moreover, you showed up with one at a car show, you would be asked to leave. Car shows are all about creations that people make with their own hands. A Plymouth Prowler owner's only contribution to his vehicle is the signature he put on the loan documents. It was never a "real" hot rod, so it was unwelcome at the hot rod club.
In terms of appearance, it is one of those love-it-or-loath-it kind of things and illustrates how hard it is to adapt "retro" styling to modern safety standards. One of the most prominent features is the "mustache" front bumpers which detract from the overall lines of the car - and make the motorcycle-fendered front wheels almost unnoticeable!
It was only made for five years and fewer than 12,000 were made. Yet it still is not seen as collectible - just yet. Likely, Chrysler lost money on every one made
Of course, today, more than a decade after production ended, it might finally be welcome at the cars 'n coffee meet.
The Viper bears brief mention in that it was modeled after the Shelby AC Cobra (the AC Ace based model, not the Mustang one) and thus qualifies as "retro." Even the name is a nod to Carroll Shelby (Viper/Cobra) who long ago followed Lee Iaoccoa from Ford to Chrysler.
The original model had canvas and isinglass side curtains, just like a primitive post-war British roadster. No frills, no fancy stuff - just a huge V-10 engine. Of course, over time, it would acquire such niceties as roll-up windows and a convertible top that wouldn't blow off (not kidding!) and even a hard top and air conditioning (the horror!) in a second generation model.
The Viper was less a "retro" car than a "halo" car for the brand. Halo cars are designed not to make money, but to create brand identity and drive showroom traffic. While Chrysler kept making the car - even after flirting with bankruptcy (again), eventually they discontinued it. The cost of making the car no doubt exceeded the income from selling it (even at astronomical prices).
And as a practical daily driver.... forgetaboutit! It was never meant to be that.
But the Viper bears mention because arguably its "retro" styling is what killed it off. While GM has been able to morph its Corvette into something entirely new (after languishing with the "mako shark" body style for nearly three decades), the Viper couldn't really move in a different direction without abandoning its Cobra roots. Retro becomes a trap, for designers!
If you think the Chevrolet HHR looks a lot like the PT Cruiser, you shouldn't be surprised - they were designed by the same guy, and served the same purpose. Using the same underpinnings as the Chevy Cobalt, it was cheap to make but a lot roomier. And qualifying as a light truck, it helped prop up GM's EPA CAFE ratings for its truck line.
It sold only half as well as the PT Cruiser, but then again, for only about seven years. GM got in late to the retro game and by the early 2010's, retro was fading fast.
The only other interesting thing about this PT Cruiser clone is that they made a panel van version, with a turbocharged engine and a five-speed manual. Put a bed in the back, some shag carpeting, and a porthole window, and it's like 1976 all over again! But the panel van never sold well, and they pulled the plug on that as well.
One of the oddest versions of the "retro" look was the Chevrolet SSR. It was a hot rod.... pickup truck. With a convertible top. With a convertible hardtop. And a Corvette engine. Again, a show car encourages sales people to built it and other than a few baby boomers, there weren't a lot of takers.
It was expensive, sure, but it was also a two-seater with what was effectively a huge trunk. It wasn't a pickup truck in the real sense, nor a roadster. And like other roadsters (as we shall see below) it also fell victim to the rise - and fall - of the roadster craze of the 1990's-2000's. We all grew up and wanted a back seat and a trunk and A/C that worked. GM at least delivered on the last two, with this car.
But the SSR was never that popular, with only 24,000 being sold over a scant two model years. At one point, GM had nearly a year's supply in inventory! Talk about not reading the room! But once again, car enthusiasts say, "build it!" and when GM did, said, "Nah! Not doin' that!"
Perhaps another problem is at play here - the "jelly bean" look of the 1990's tended to make these "retro" cars - whether the VW New Beetle, the PT Cruiser, or the HHR and SSR - look weird.
Which brings us to....
What went wrong with the new T-Bird? For starters, Ford forgot that it lost money on every one of the original two-seat T-Birds they sold. The very first Thunderbirds had the exhaust go through the bumpers (which rusted, of course) and the spare tire was in the trunk, leaving room for... your wallet. They tried to fix this in later cars, introducing the iconic Continental kit and making the car a little longer. But it wasn't enough.
They dumped it for the four-seat, big trunk "square bird" and sales soared. It seemed that people wanted a sports car, but one that would seat four and carry their luggage as well. What they wanted was a sporty-looking luxury car, not an actual roadster or sports car (which of course, the original T-bird never was, but then again, the original Corvette wasn't, either!).
So Ford decides to jump on the "retro" bandwagon, but instead of doing a remake of their popular "square birds" chooses the original roadster instead. Again, roadsters were a popular staple in the 1990s and 2000's - I had one myself (the 1999 M Roadster). But the fad faded as people realized what harsh and uncomfortable cars they really were. We all got older, like I said.
Four years and 70,000 cars later, Ford pulls the plug, once again losing money on every car sold. What went wrong? Well, instead of cheaply making a T-Bird roadster from Mustang parts, they went with more esoteric Jaguar pieces. A Mustang-based car would be easier to hop up. As it was, the retro T-Bird was too retro - it was a boulevard cruiser like its namesake, and not a sports car.
It was also odd looking. Like the other "retro" cars above, the headlights had a fish-eye look to them, and the taillight treatment was more 1990's "aero" look than 1950's "retro" look. One company even sold an upgrade kit to put the hooded eyebrows over the headlights and restore the dagmar bullets to the front bumpers - and make the taillights look like rocket exhausts as was de rigeur for 50's Fords.
But to no avail. The car just didn't sell, for one reason or another. Maybe the fact the market was flooded with retro cars was part of the problem. Maybe because most were impractical cars for most people. Maybe people don't want to stand out from the crowd as much as marketers think they so. See how many beige and silver Camry's Toyota sells! Perfect car to rob a bank with.
One thing is clear: I don't think retro is making a comeback very soon. Even if people wanted to buy clones of, say, 1960's muscle cars or 1970's pimp barges, the car makers are so burned by their previous experiences that they would take a pass on diving into the retro pool again.
Like I said, the problem for retro is where do you go with it? You either have to keep living in the past, or move on. And since aerodynamics are so important in car design today, you can't be too authentically retro anymore anyway. And as the designs above illustrate, when you blend aerodynamics with the archaic designs of the past, the result is often rather... unsettling.
In a way, these designs look like someone prompted an AI to make modern versions of older cars. Oh, wait, someone already did that.....
