Jerry Flint from the Car Connection takes on retro in his most recent column and why it has failed for most automakers… with a few notable exceptions of course. Here’s an excerpt:
Retro as a design theme has failed. There are two success stories, but four failures. Take a look:
Ford’s Thunderbird, clearly a failure.
Volkswagen’s New Beetle, sinking every year.
Chevrolet’s SSR, never reached sales targets.
Chrysler’s PT Cruiser, not really a failure but far from the success it should be.
On the success side, we have the MINI. Of course, that Mustang is running strong, although it is new so we don’t know how long she will prance. And there’s a new one, the Chevy HHR, which looks like it might have arrived late to the party.
…Let’s consider the MINI, a success with volume still growing – but it is small volume, at 18,000 in five months, probably 40,000 for the year.
What makes it a success? First, the numbers. They may be small in the U.S. but it’s 150,000-plus worldwide, so the plant in Britain runs full time. They expanded the line with the S version and then the convertible and we know a wagon is in the works. Sales goals are modest and the dealer group is good.
You can read more below:
[ Detroit, Retro has Failed You ] The Car Connection
MF Analysis: Let me say that I firmly believe that the current MINI is not retro in the late 90’s sense of the word. To me it’s a design that is totally relevant today as an interpretation of the original, much like the current Porsche 911. In fact this is what BMW, Frank Stephenson and Chris Bangle had hoped to achieve with the current car. Something that would look like it’s evolved over the course of 40 years rather than a retro-mobile that is created for nostalgia and instant sales. But more importantly (and this is where the MINI is really set apart from the new Beetle) it was engineered with few dynamic compromises for a $17,000 car. It handled better than all but a few cars on the road and was available with options normally associated with cars costing at least twice as much.
<p>I agree with most of the article, although I wouldn’t say the PT Cruiser has been a disappointment. It has sold quite well over the years, not just here but in Europe as well. I think the Mustang will continue to do well, just as it has for the last 40 years. But I don’t think that is entirely due to it’s retro theme, although it helps considerably.</p>
<p>It’s all about what you get for your money. You can’t ride on retro alone. The MINI and the new mustang have great bang for the buck, retro design aside.</p>
<p>The PT was the first of the retros and it made a lot of hype. But I remember the first time I saw one, then looked inside, and was completely disappointed.</p>
<p>I still think the new T-bird is a great design, but it’s only marketed to people who are way too old to define any trend. No manual trans, not enough power, too expensive.</p>
<p>SSR also great design, but completly useless in function considering it’s supposed to be a pickup, very expensive, and again underpowered.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t call the beetle a failure, they have sold tons of them and you still see them everywhere.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I wouldn’t call the beetle a failure, they have sold tons of them and you still see them everywhere.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes however that’s really only in the US. In other markets they’re quite rare.</p>
<p>Most of the cars that failed, seems to me, because of cost and or lack of production.</p>
<p>I don’t feel that the PT was a failure either as I see them everywhere and when I got to Europe it seems they are a big hit.</p>
<p>The Beetle seems to have had a lot of quality issues as does most of the VW line. Not sure why they are having slower sales but all things pass. It might have helped sales had Disney stared the new Beetle as Herbie in the latest Love Bug movie, as bad as it was.</p>
<p>I agree, Gabe! </p>
<p>MINI has adopted a design-focus that goes to the core of their authentic identity as a company. That is so much of what makes them a great brand and makes the MINI such a successful car. Chevy and Chrysler have tried to tack-on design and style into their cars and it lacks that authentic quality because asside from aesthetic sales appeal, design isn’t a priority (with rare exception). MINI meanwhile offers a car designed with a very specific purpose in mind. Form follows function. The rebirth of the MINI (unlike the rebirth of the Beetle) saw the filling of a neglected niche: an economical, high-performing car that oozed fun around every tightly-hugged turn. </p>
<p>The “retro” movement has indeed failed in that people have seen through most of its pretense and also because so many of Detroit’s executions of it have been low quality – exacerbating the pretentious nature of “retro” as a pointless, stylistic add-on. </p>
<p>I will admit, however, that the new Ford Mustang has captured something and I believe it will succeed where the Thunderbird failed. I think Ford has returned in a way to what the Mustang was originally intended to be – much like the MINI (and rest assured that is a loose tie I make there). The Thunderbird was destined to failure not because of stylistic choices but because nobody needed or wanted a big 2-door car that had a big, beefy V8, but still didn’t really stand out in any aspect of performance. The price tag didn’t help either. But the Mustang, I believe, will continue to be a popular seller (for those silly enough to buy Fords in the first place) because the Mustang as a muscle and pony car fills that need and has now been refreshed. </p>
<p>As for the MINI, it’s authentic and functional design will carry it for years to come. The driving experience alone would sell the car, but the cool, stylistic groove of the car makes it a great little package.</p>
<p>I agree with Gabe that the MINI is not really retro. I predict that the Mustang will fail in the next year or so of production. It does have too much of a retro look and not enough modern elements.
And this is where Detroit fails always … big on nostalgia, with not enough innovation.</p>
<p>When I first saw and then drove the new Mini I knew I wanted one. This wasn’t because it was retro. It was because it handled so well, looked distinctive, was the right size car for what I wanted and wasn’t going to cost me an arm and leg to get. I bought a MC in May 2002. Liked that one so much we bought a 2005 MCS. The legacy to the old Mini’s is fun to read about but not the reason I like these cars.</p>
<p>MF is dead on. It’s not retro, it’s an evolution. This is something I think BMW should consider in light of their current design direction.</p>
<p>Also, It always makes me laugh when people don’t break out fleet sales in sales figures. I wonder how many of those 53,851 PT Cruiser sales were to rental car companies.</p>
<p>And for the record, I owned a 2001 New Beetle 1.8T and it was solid. Not an issue in 2 years of ownership. Sold it because it had the road manners of a Lincoln Town Car without spacious cabin.</p>
<p>Gabe: Great site. I’ve been lurking for a while.</p>
<p>Since I own both a MINI (2004 S) and a New Beetle (2003 GLX), I’m apparently someone that the retro style appeals to. I’m also intrigued by the new Mustangs as well…</p>
<p>According to the author, MINI is on track to sell 40,000 units in this, its 4th model year. Using his math, the Beetle would be on track to sell 30,000 units in this, its 8th model year. Personally, I don’t get how that’s a failure. </p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind about the author: he says VW should have built an SAV on the Golf platform rather than the New Beetle. Don’t we already have too many of those type vehicles?</p>
<p>The MINI and Beetle are more alike than most MINI owners would care to admit. Each one has strengths and weaknesses compared to the other. I’ve read lots of complaints about VW’s reliability (and MINI’s as well), but I’ve not experienced the issues with either car (or the ’00 Jetta VR6 I owned prior to the MINI).</p>
<p>In my apparently retro-minded opinion:
Thunderbird – too expensive for me to consider
PT Cruiser – too poorly built
SSR – pointless
Mustang – with the dealer markups, too expensive</p>
<p>I agree with Gabe in that the new MINI is an evolution of the original. I think this goes for the New Beetle as well. Both original cars were being produced up until the introduction of the redesign (VW continued making OG Beetles in Mexico), so you can’t call the styling “Retro.”</p>
<p>The others mentioned are definitely retro, as the previous generation of the T-Bird and Mustang looked completely different. The SSR and PT are “retro-inspired”.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s quite fair to throw the Beetle on that list. Though not a fan, I recall the first few years of waiting lists for the redesign. It was also introduced in 1998, some years before the MINI redesign. Perhaps we should wait a few years then have this discussion?</p>
<p>I agree whole heartedly the the Mini is not retro, but retro inspired. It’s more a ‘go’ than ‘show’ car in my mind and experience!</p>
<p>I read somewhere the SSR was only built as eye candy for the showroom. I think GM is building these at a loss and at small volumes. I wish I remembered the source for my rambling.</p>
<p>-Erik
’05 MCS</p>
<p>does anyone else feel like this guy’s full of crap? Why on earth should I consider the new mustang to be forward? It pulls directly from 73. And the 300? What the heck? That’s as much forward as is the PT Cruiser. </p>
<p>And yeah. The MINI, discusssed so “briefly”, is very badly researched. It makes me wonder where he get’s all the 4×4 sunset beach superconvertible versions of each model from. Expensive ventures to please like three carbuyers. He claims they’d have saved these models… well, maybe… but let’s not make any minor changes, like MINI has, to rejuvenate the car every year.</p>
<p>Aurel / July 06, 2005 11:49 AM / Permalink
I predict that the Mustang will fail in the next year or so of production. It does have too much of a retro look and not enough modern elements. And this is where Detroit fails always … big on nostalgia, with not enough innovation.
Wrong!
The Mustang is coming out with variants as we speak. Also Ford has invested in a healthy race package so that more than weekend racers can afford to run with the big boys and Win!
Therfore I would count the Mustang out just yet.
Have you seen a 2005 Camero??</p>
<p>Yeah I would agree that the Mustang will continue to do well. It’s low-tech, it’s big, it’s a brute, and it’s perfect for the market in the US.</p>
<p>American retro fails for the same reason most American autos fail: they take a great design concept, water it down, and then cheapen it until it lacks any desirability. The PT Cruiser is cheap inside. The Viper and the Corvette (OK, not retro…) are always blasted for their cheap interiors. When I saw the new Mustang concept at the LA Auto Show a few years ago I swore it would be the first American car I bought in 20 years. I liked it that much. But then, as always, the production car ended up much blander and quite cheap-looking. Needless to say, I bought a MINI instead.</p>
<p>MINI got it right by not cutting corners and pricing accordingly. It’s a premium-priced car and people gobble them up. I’m always willing to pay more for quality. Many others are too.</p>
<p>Hey Ford, build a car that looks and feels just like the concept Mustang I drooled over at the auto show, tack on $5k to the price to pay for the high quality bits, and I’ll jump on one.</p>
<p>P.S. For those who never got a good look at the Mustang concept:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dieselstation.com/archive/MustangGT-Concept/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.dieselstation.com/archive/MustangGT-Concept/</a></p>
<p>THAT’S the Mustang I would have bought. Even with a premium price tag. Note to Bill Ford: call me! :)</p>
<p>Arg. This kind of article really annoys me…!
The apparent success or implied failure of all of these vehicles has nothing to do with ‘retro’! </p>
<p>First, I have a 2002 Thunderbird, and it is not a “failure” to me at all. I dig it. It’s a compfortable cruiser, very low, and great looking in all 3 top configurations (hardtop, soft-top or open) Mine is Jet Black with a white hardtop. The V8 growl makes it a great counterpoint to my high-strung but dearly-loved MCS. The 2 seat T-bird was from the beginning meant to be a limited production vehicle, a very special car, and if it suffers any weaknesses they would be:
1)Ford’s marketing dept who have been freakishly silent about this car.. (it never showed up in ads)
and 2)A $40k 2-seat cruiser has an inherently limited audience, and much of that audience wants sports car handling, which the T-bird does not offer. It drives like a Lincoln, which is what it is underneath. Had Ford had the sense to do an SVT-style stick-shift performance version I doubt this article would have even been written. </p>
<p>My point is that the perceived success or popularity wane of these vehicles has nothing to do with “retro”, it has to do with marketing, performance, and value -which incidentally MINI has done an extraordinary job in all three-</p>
<p>…these qualities clearly transcend styling cues since people gobble up such cars as Camrys, which were obviously designed using an ugly stick.</p>
<p>When these “retro” designs come out as models within big auto companies, I think there is a certain amount of baggage brought by the company itself. There are a number of people who would never buy a Ford or Chrysler anything. Whereas MINI is just MINI. I think it was a wise decision to downplay the BMW connection and let MINI stand as an entity on it’s own – not as a BMW MINI.</p>
<p>HERE! HERE! on the Mustang prototype.</p>
<p>What the heck happened to that design. That glob of a car they call the Mustang is just that a GLOB!</p>
<p>what makes the mini any less “retro” than any of the other cars mentioned here? how are the other cars any less of a “moern interpretation” of an earlier design? seems to me, each car takes the dominant (or sometimes sublte) design language of it’s predecessor and reinterprates that with today’s technology and manufacturing processes. </p>
<p>the mini was created using “past” techniques; it was had shaped from clay, rather than modeled with software. in this sense, i’d venture say that the mini is perhaps the MOST “retro” of the bunch. (Etymology: French rétro, short for rétrospectif retrospective: relating to, reviving, or being the styles and especially the fashions of the past : fashionably nostalgic or old-fashioned).</p>
<p>sorry for the typos!</p>
<p>Also, I agree with ChrisW about the Mustang Concept… it was much edgier than the production version. I was disappointed when I saw the first spy shots…</p>
<p>i iterate that the MINI’s “retro”ness is a markedly American perception. That the car is introduced here after a 30+ year absence causes a far greater nostalgia than it does in England, where it is mearly the updated model that pisses owners of the previous models off.</p>
<p>No matter how the car was made safer to export, it would stand out as retro in America. To many in the UK, it would be an abomination.</p>
<p>I agree the success of the car had little to do with it’s retro-ness. But I maintain that it is the perceptibly British influence of the car and it’s marketing that won many customers. That it was distinctive and foreign in appearance and behavior was as much a draw as the perception of its visual heritage.</p>
<p>The beetle really isn’t a remake, it is a whole new car altogether. RWD}FWD, Rear engine}Front engine, econonomical}not so priced, I think that the reason that it does so well in the states is because all those 60’s hippies are trying to relive thier youth. Sorry if someone else mentioned all this, I’m pressed for time today, and I usually read a thread before posting.</p>
<p>I owned a 2003 T-Bird. It was beautiful but a piece of crap! $40K too! I dumped it after only 10,000 miles due to many problem and lame performance. I also owned a 2001 PTC with a 5-speed. I loved it and drove it as a second car for 75,000 miles. No problems and a great value for the $.</p>
<p>When I first saw the Mini I fell in love with it because of the unique styling. I never heard of one before and was surprised to hear of it’s petigree.</p>
<p>My other car is a BMW Z-4 3.0 and I’d dump it in a second but I’ll never give up my MCS(unless it’s an 2007 upgrade).</p>
<p>I owned a 2003 T-Bird. It was beautiful but a piece of crap! $40K too! I dumped it after only 10,000 miles due to many problem and lame performance. I also owned a 2001 PTC with a 5-speed. I loved it and drove it as a second car for 75,000 miles. No problems and a great value for the $.</p>
<p>When I first saw the Mini I fell in love with it because of the unique styling. I never heard of one before and was surprised to hear of it’s petigree.</p>
<p>My other car is a BMW Z-4 3.0 and I’d dump it in a second but I’ll never give up my MCS(unless it’s an 2007 upgrade).</p>
<p>I have to agree with last comment made by o(=^=)o Capn…apart from Germany, USA, and third world countries the VW Beetle was owned by “alternative” type people and us guys who repaired cars tried to avoid them like the plague. Slow revving boxer engine, 6 volt battery and electrics, no handling, billy-basic instrumentation – a real poor “peoples” car, like students and surfies with no money…
Yes it did sell around 25 million? world wide but to who?
Whereas, Mini, the runner-up car of the Century, second to the Model T Ford, became an icon and won many rally and racing events. Total production of nearly 5 million was limited to the fact that it didn’t sell in big numbers in USA or other non-British commonwealth countries. Owned by all class of peoples.
BMW tried to avoid comparison with old Mini but have now succumbed to associating old Mini with new MINI – pedigree, experience, and nostalgia still helps sell cars.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The T-bird is a beautiful car, and it’s a shame that it didn’t do better. You have to blame the car company for not defining its market well enough.</p></li>
<li><p>The New Beetle is not a retro car. It pretty much scoffs at the original Beetlte design, being bloated, puffy, and overpriced. Volkswagen’s name has become a mockery of itself. This is not to say that I hate the New Beetle…it has its charms, but it was designed too much for the moment and is now flash-frozen in the mid-90s.</p></li>
<li><p>The SSR was a limited-appeal vehicle to begin with. I’m not sure what Chevy’s target numbers were, but it is a niche vehicle.</p></li>
<li><p>The PT Cruiser has done far better than I would have expected. It is a cheap, tacky attempt to emulate the American stylings of 1950s automobiles. See the Thunderbird for “retro-inspired” done right.</p></li>
<li><p>The MINI..I agree with everything Gabe said, though I would say that it out-retros any other retro-inspired model to date, while in no way looking dated. It is an instant classic, and that is why I am disappointed at the 2007 changes.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>But what about the Jaguar S-type series? I’d certainly say that is a sucessful retro-inspired model. Also, th e Mercedes SLK roadsters definitely have hints of the famous 300SL gull wing model, especially the front grill.</p>
<p>So, I’d say it definitely comes down to design and execution, and not concept, which has limited the success of retro-inspired automobiles. And as we know, the American manufacturers still have lots of trouble on the design and execution front.</p>
<p>I will take one of those “retro” Ford GT’s please. I wonder what the numbers on those have been….</p>
<p>Yeah, I must admit that I too, an ardent Ford-hater, have lusted after the Ford GT. That’s as retro as it goes – almost carbon copy. I don’t know enough about them that I’d be able to tell one from the other at first glance if were they parked side by side. I saw one of the original ones on the freeway one time when I was a kid and I’ll never forget that. I also remember seeing a Mini Cooper for the first time as a kid – that has stuck with me too.</p>
<p>The MINI really is a retro design, even by my standards, as it was a conscious attempt to invoke the original, almost a half-century old in conception. Like all of the aspects with the original Mini, it has worn well enough to become iconic, especially in the rest of the world – remember, it’s beem almost 40 years since they stopped bringing ’em over here. BMW was clever enough to make a car that would be acceptably modern, and still retain the Mini feel, while busting into a new market, the USA, with phenominal success. The rise of larger lighting clusters, curved fenders, round eyes, these are all retro elements, used to varying affect. </p>
<p>As for the T-Bird, they wasted a lotta goodwill by making an ill-handling lump – if it’d been only slightly better powered and actually had any road manners, they’d still be making it. I like the look, just not what’s underneath.</p>
<p>The New Beetle is a funny once, which should be a cautionary tale for MINI – don’t make one model, drop-top extra or not, because you risk saturation. I’m still waiting for a New Beetle Karmann Ghia. ;)</p>
<p>The PT never did anything for me, as it always looked like a scrunched up delivery truck from Toontown. I’ve heard it’s popular in Europe, but they are using it as a people mover-van, (its intended function judging by interior design,) not a fashion statement. And no matter what you add to it, or how fast you can make it go in a straight line, ya can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. </p>
<p>The SSR? Oh, gimme a break – as useful as teats on a boar – which, come to think about it, it kinda resembles that androgynous combination. Blecchh. I’m sure the HP gang will hop it up and make noise, but underneath, it’s just a gigolo. With hair pomade. And a man-purse.</p>
<p>The MINI, of course was designed to be a complete car, specifically with the phenominal handling characteristics of the Mini that came B4. Frank and Co. “resurrected” the brand here in the States, one helluva job IMHO, albeit without Igor and the Strickfadden’s crackling electrical devices. </p>
<pre><code> BCNU,
Rob in Dago
</code></pre>
<p>retro 2002 ?</p>
<p>the main reason new Beetle sales have waned in recent years is likely due to the fact that it has remained unchanged since it hit the shores in 1998. That is a 7 year old car without major changes. </p>
<p>WE’RE BORED OF IT!</p>
<p>Hey Volkswagen, you gotta turn your models around a bit faster. The reason we didn’t get another new Beetle (my wife’s was a ’99), was that last summer, while car shopping, the Beetles had not evolved at all; she wanted something that felt “new”, not “same”…</p>
<p>They finally are changing the new Beetle, but the changes are quite hard to notice, unless you really look. <a href="http://www.vwvortex.com/gallery/gallery2.php?mode=album&album=/Volkswagen/New%20Beetle/2006%20Facelift" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.vwvortex.com/gallery/gallery2.php?mode=album&album=/Volkswagen/New%20Beetle/2006%20Facelift</a></p>
<p>Retro styling will attract attention with a certain consumer group. But, as is always the case, high quality, functional purpose, great performance and high value will make the vehicle a success.</p>
<p>The new MINI suffered in initial quality but these startup problems were quickly, resolutely and professionally handled. The new MINI also stays on the engineering and technological forefront to keep it fresh and to keep its edge in competition.</p>
<p>There are a couple of points not mentioned here that are relevant.</p>
<p>The “percieved” failures of these cars is based on their place in history. Both the Beetle and T-Bird were for different reasons regarded American car successes. </p>
<p>In the case of the Beetle, the incredibly large volumes (over 1 million units annually globally from 68-73) of Beetles previously sold makes current sub 150K global number seem awfully small and feel like a failure.</p>
<p>People don’t remember the 55-57 T-Bird, which the current retro version immitated, was a horrible failure too. The later 4 seat T-birds had much larger commercial success and sold in huge multiples of the original 2-seat version original positioned against the Corvette. It wasn’t until decades later that the appeal of the 55-57 T-birds increased and they became sought after by collectors and car afficionados.</p>
<p>It never suprised me that the T-Bird failed, the Beetle wasn’t a suprise either. The fact that the original Beetle was affordable, easy to work on, very fun to drive, and economical (remember the time period) were reasons for it’s success. Almost all the reasons for the original Beetle’s success weren’t true with the retro replacement. It was not cheap, not particulary economical, not horribly fun to drive, definitely not easy to work on…you get the point.</p>
<p>Retro styling can be good and should not be avoided like the plague by designers, but the performance or functionality of the car must match the good will of it’s styling. </p>
<p>The new MINI has the closest thing to the feel of the old Mini that any of us will ever get in a new car. It is also one of the first small hatchbacks sold in the US that people buy because they want to, not because they have to. The MINI also has some modern touches that could not be seen as retro. </p>
<p>The PT Cruiser deserves credit for taking a boring segment (small station wagon/MPV) and making it somewhat cool. How many more Neon MPV’s would have sold, compared to the PT Cruiser? </p>
<p>The Thunderbird filled a very small niche. It was good for what it was designed to do, but not much more. If performance is a priority, like it is for most 2 seater customers, the T-Bird is not at the top of the list. The orignal Thunderbird was fast for it’s time, unlike the new one.</p>
<p>The Beetle just needs more frequent updates. It may have looked like a modern Beetle, but it had nothing in common mechanically with the old one. When it came out, it was not exactly cheap either. </p>
<p>The Mustang will do well, because there was no pause in it’s heritage. It will sell to people who never left the brand, it will bring people back who had one in their teenage years and even attract some new customers. It mechanically matches the heritage it’s design conveys. It is easy to tinker with. It has a strong selection of aftermarket goodies and Ford is already coming up with new models for it. </p>
<p>The SSR makes me scratch my head and wonder. I know a guy who has one and he loves it. He is rich, only buys American cars and is not too picky about performance numbers. He just enjoys taking it to the cruise in with his 1964 Corvette. If I were in charge at Chevrolet, I would have made a 2 door wagon version of it, like the old Chevy Nomad. That would have sold a lot more, than the current model.</p>
<p>One other thing car makers have to understand is the performance bar has been raised since the heyday of these cars they choose to replicate. Just because people like the 1950’s styling of a car, it does not mean they want 1950’s performance.</p>
<p>I’d love to see a retro Corvette done right with side scuptures.</p>
<p>I agree with the disagreement to the New Beetle being a “failure,” and that its falling sales are due to stagnation (and the poor reliability record can’t help either). The car certainly drove traffic to VW dealerships when it came out, and VW had some great years. Of course then they had to go and ruin it all by thinking they were a luxury car company who could sell high-dollar vehicles with funny names (Phaeton, Touareg?), and then continued the slaughter by transforming the Jetta from a young hipster cult car into an adult-priced small luxury sedan that looks like a Corolla (I’ve yet to see a new one on the road, and there are lots of Jettas where I live). VW has truly lost its way, and that makes me sad.</p>
<p>They should have decontented the Touareg (and given it a decent name) and made it an XTerra/Jeep competitor. I bet it would have sold like gangbusters.</p>
<p>Hey VW, how about putting out that Beetle Dune concept? Or the Roadster? AUDI IS YOUR LUXURY LINE! As Napoleon Dynamite would say: “Idiots!”</p>
<p>did someone say 2005 camaro?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.carphotoalbums.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=2071" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.carphotoalbums.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=2071</a></p>
<p>Yikes, now that’s just hideous! My last and only American car was a ’77 Camaro (hey, I was 16 and naive). And at the rate things are going, it will probably be my last. Thank you Ford for not building the Mustang I so desperately wanted to buy.</p>
<p>Have I got the right website? I just wondered because there seem to be quite a lot of VW Beetle owners making comments on MINI.
What is this telling you?
And of course we have to thank the British for the resurrection of VW from ashes after the WW2 – a British Army officer got the factory back up and running and commissioned some as fleet vehicles.
There are some ex-war vets who will never buy German or Japanese cars.</p>
<p>I agree with Gabe that the Mini is an evolution of the old Mini. I think that the new Ford Mustang has captured something and as the owner of a fully restored 66 Mustang GT, I can tell you when one of the new Mustangs is a 1/4 mile back, I cannot tell it from the old Mustangs. I do agree the concept car was a neat piece. The new Mustangs will sell and are selling like crazy. I think the main reason is the original style/look. The original Mustangs are being restored like crazy, take a look at all the retro suppliers out there, dozens of them, why, because a lot of boomers and younger guys are restoring them.</p>
<p>BTW, I do have a ’05 S, that Ican’t wait to drive every day!!</p>
<p>’66 Mustang GT? ..drool..</p>
<p>The worst piece of advice my father ever gave me: “No, don’t buy that Mustang, it will be a money pit.” It was a ’66 white fastback with a red interior, in very good shape, for $3000 (about 15 years ago). I’ll always regret not buying that car.</p>
<p>There are so many retrostyled cars coming to the market I can’t believe that industry perceive the style as a loss. A lot of manufacturers are looking to the past to inform their current designs with teh tradition and stability that only nostalgia can see in the past.</p>
<p>One thing to add – </p>
<p>the VW Beetle (the new one) has far more in common with the original Mini than with the original Beetle. Front wheel drive, transverse mounted water cooled engine – thank you Alec Issigonis</p>