Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would love to see this one become Ford's 2014 Tbird.
But like was mentioned above, it would be terribly bloated and heavy to meet modern emissions and safety standards. You probably wouldn't like it.
That company you mention in Las Vegas? The cars they make might be mostly "new" but I bet they have their original VIN numbers and as such are governed by the safety standards from the year they were originally built.
The PT Cruiser was designed along this way of thinking. Now, they just look funny, even to those who didn't think so when they were introduced.
There is a big difference between shoes and cars. Shoes wear out before their fashion does, so you can pop for a pair of $50 shoes and just stop wearing them after the passing fashion mania fades. But a $20K car is something you're going to be stuck with for a while.
There isn't enough of a market share of buyers who want a car that looks "different". Most people want one that is in the fashion mainstream. so when the style fades, your old car won't be a conspicuous joke. Most people are not interested in living out their senior years being remembered by their neighbors as the guy who bought an Edsel.
If GM thought re-making the Chevelle SS was a money-maker they would. It is that simple.
I'm sure they can make the sheet metal easily and cheaply. But since cars of that era were body-on-frame instead of today's unibody, a new Chevelle would have to have a new rear wheel drive chassis with the old classic bodywork. Sure Chevy has the Camaro for a base. But do you want a remake of the original or an inspiriation?
I think it would cost GM many many millions $$ to remake the Chevelle. It needs crash testing, government certification of all kinds, and if they sell 5,000 @ $40,000 that only generates perhaps only $150M of revenue to GM.
I was under the impression, the "retro" cars from the big 3 were supposed to be the old school cars all over again...but with updates...?
That's just what they are.
I had Mustangs in the sixties, eighties, nineties and now 2012.
They are faster, handle better, stop better, get better fuel mileage and have smaller engines that pollute less than they did back in the day.
And of course kit-cars, like the Cobra, but these are all custom and not really supported/released by the manufacturers for all the reasons already stated.
That's just what they are.
I had Mustangs in the sixties, eighties, nineties and now 2012.
They are faster, handle better, stop better, get better fuel mileage and have smaller engines that pollute less than they did back in the day.
Only thing is the newer ones don't have the crisp lines of the old we came to love so dearly. But I guess that's part of keeping them in compliance with todays standards so I understand.
It would be awesome IMO if they could build an actual replica 1968 Mustang body, but have it incorporated with todays crash standards and such.
And of course kit-cars, like the Cobra, but these are all custom and not really supported/released by the manufacturers for all the reasons already stated.
Based on what I've seen on their TV show I wouldn't let WCC change my oil.
I agree that remaking the classics wouldn't be cost effective enough to warrant doing so. The current retro styles are as close as any major manufacturer is going to get.
That is a good question. I feel the same way about motorcycles. I wish H-D would bring back the Shovelhead, get me a sweet FLH! Must have something to do with the emissions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.