Getting Resurrections and Generations Done Right

[JohnBM01]

Build a car. It becomes a classic. Go in new directions with the car's legacy. Then sometime in the future, hark back to glory days. You take a look at the trendy and fun Mini Cooper of today. I think it was a successful rebirth of the cute, little, and mean Mini Cooper. But many people here in America seen some bad calls. For example, the Mercury Cougar of then compared to the Coog (as us University of Houston faithfuls would call them) of 1998, the GTO of the muscle car days compared to now, even the Celica GT-Four of the early-mid 1990s compared to now. If you are a car company and you're trying to either give your car new life or try some new styling, how do you get it right?

You all know how much I thought the new Cavalier had ass-a-licious looks? I remember the Cavalier of the late 1990s. It was a fun little car. Like a baby Camaro, only with front-drive. When the latest Cavalier came in the wake of Chevy's "American Revolution," a fun car was slaughtered and left for dead. There's probably a tombstone with an open coffin for the Corvette C6 if GM doesn't reconsider its styling for the Corvette. An example of a GOOD generation change is the latest Dodge Ram. The last Ram was good-looking and mean. This new Ram is a beast, but in a good way. I love the Ram pickup. It's about the only American truck I see myself in. That and maybe the SS-R. The GTO deal is a crime spree to others, but if you ask me, at least it looks better than most of the crap GM is putting out nowadays. So how do you get resurrections and generation changes done right?

As hints, think about the ressurection of the Ford GT, and the design changes for the Subaru Impreza/WRX from their previous models.

 

[1X83Z]

I don't know how it's done right but I do know that you can only have a "corporate style" for one generation before you need a new "corporate style" - people need to realise that about BMW...

 

[MazKid]

But many people here in America seen some bad calls. For example, the Mercury Cougar of then compared to the Coog (as us University of Houston faithfuls would call them) of 1998, the GTO of the muscle car days compared to now, even the Celica GT-Four of the early-mid 1990s compared to now. If you are a car company and you're trying to either give your car new life or try some new styling, how do you get it right?

Well, you see the newer Cougar was actually a 3rd generation Probe/MX-6. It's beyond me why Ford/Mazda didn't continue the Probe/MX-6, but for whatever reason Ford handed it to Mercury. And it did turn out bad. But remember, in '92 before the newer mustang came out, Ford almost made what became the 2nd gen Probe into the Mustang. That would have been a disaster for them.
The GTO, if GM made the GTO as it were in the muscle car days, we'd end up with a pretty heavy poor mpg car. That's not how the US market wants a car. So GM decided to just import the Holden, slap some Pontiac styling and badges on it, and call it a day.
There's currently no Celica GT-Four. Only the GT and GT-S. That's not a bad continuation, it's just that they cut out the higher performance models.
How do you get it right? Take surveys from current gen owners, older gen owners, enthusiasts, and just random people to see what they want.

You all know how much I thought the new Cavalier had ass-a-licious looks? I remember the Cavalier of the late 1990s. It was a fun little car. Like a baby Camaro, only with front-drive. When the latest Cavalier came in the wake of Chevy's "American Revolution," a fun car was slaughtered and left for dead. There's probably a tombstone with an open coffin for the Corvette C6 if GM doesn't reconsider its styling for the Corvette. An example of a GOOD generation change is the latest Dodge Ram. The last Ram was good-looking and mean. This new Ram is a beast, but in a good way. I love the Ram pickup. It's about the only American truck I see myself in. That and maybe the SS-R. The GTO deal is a crime spree to others, but if you ask me, at least it looks better than most of the crap GM is putting out nowadays.

I must have been dead back then, but the Cavalier was never anything to lust after. Its mediocre reliability and odd styling could only make it one thing: A cheap piece of crap for people who have a small budget and no car knowlege. It's the way of saying "I just bought a new car!" while paying the price of a good used car.
Chevy's American Revolution is just a fancy name of saying "Our cars aren't selling so we have to do drastic changes within the company".
I would agree that the GTO is probably the best car GM has in the US.

 

[1X83Z]

I would agree that the GTO is probably the best car GM has in the US.

I agreed with all of it up to right here. In my opinion, the Chevrolet Malibu V6, Pontiac Grand Prix GTP, Chevrolet Aveo LS 5-door, Chevrolet Corvette, Chevrolet Trailblazer (standard-length), Chevrolet Suburban LS 2500, Chevrolet Trailblazer LT EXT V8, GMC Envoy XL SLT V8, Buick Rainier V8, Cadillac Escalade AWD, GMC Yukon XL Denali, and Chevrolet Malibu LT Maxx, as well as - of course - car of the year, the Saturn Vue V6 are all better than the GTO. 👍

 

[McLaren'sAngel]

Hiya!

I dont really got alot to say in this thread, but to say something about when John was referring to Chevy's "American revolution." I just dont really see much of something BIG to call it "Revolution" with Chevy's recent and near future cars such as the Corvette C6. This can also apply to alot of cars too or maybe all of them. I dont like how if they change the look of the car, they dont really improve the engine performance. From what I researched, the C6 is suppose to have 400 HP right? I dont look at that as much of a "Revolution". Changed look but still the same performance. Just changing the look so the customers wont get bored of the same Corvette look and want to buy the new ones. Its a good idea indeed to change the look of a car to attract customers to buy it, but I still look at the C6 and C5 having the same or VERY close performance. I could be wrong by the way about the C6 horsepower, could be messed up also about Z06. Sorry if I dont know much about the future vettes right now.

 

[JohnBM01]

Personally, I normally like to think that a car getting a change in looks and maybe even in performance, it has to be an evolution of its past car. And to me, as much as people dislike multiple Skylines and Lancers (I'm not implying that I like multiple versions of one car. But if you want to revive this GT4 discussion, reply to my "50 Variations of the Same Car! When is...Too Many?" topic), the Skyline has been around for 30+ years if I'm not mistaken. I remember the R30 Skyline Silouhette Formula, based on an 80s Skyline. Haven't seen an R31 (if there was a such thing), but I surely seen the R32 like in Initial D with that "Night Kids" person, the R33 from GT1, and as mentioned in McLaren's signature, the R34. So every time, the Skyline had to evolve in more ways than just looks. And God bless Nissan, the car lasted pretty long, and it's still a favorite among Japanese and tuner car fans alike. The Lancer been around pretty long as well. Each time, the car actually looked more aggressive in the past, but its looks have softened, but rally performance got better each time. The latest is in the Evo VIII.

So, do you all think the 350Z was a successful resurrection of the 240Z, one of my favorite Japanese cars?

 

[ShobThaBob]

I would hardly call the 350z a resurrection of the 240z, just a conintued, evolved 240z. Same with the new mustang - despite how much it LOOKS like an older one, I dont see it as a resurrection, just a continuation, evolution of the current. And btw, the skyline is still being made

 

[240Z]

I agree. The 350Z is much more of an evolution, even though it was interrupted by that whole, bloated "ZX" thing.