Hmmm... I hate car styling. I hate all of it.
That said, I'll take any car design that is
functional,
cohesive and
interesting, be it retro or not... and to be interesting, a car design should have some point of conflict or distress.
I dislike the 5-series, the 7-series and the 1-series... they hardly ever achieve cohesion, except from certain angles. What they do have is conflict. Raw edges and unsettling lines. Some people like that (and in fact, a lot of people buy it), but it's a design theme that definitely won't age well.
The Z4 achieves cohesion, although it may be oddly styled, the design is both coherent and communicative, and can keep your eyes occupied for minutes on end. The disruptive lines come together in a logical manner, and the turn signal acts as a focus for the car's design language. A truly nice new design, that, although many people still hate it (because it's a Bangle), should age well.
I'll single out Audi as another car designer I both love and hate. Love the body, hate the gaping maw. This push for brand identity ruins some of the most beautiful body work on the market today. Case in point: the Shooting Brake Concept... smooth, functional... typically German minimalist and modern... beautiful, and then... the grille. Ugh. The grille is not a functional necessity, merely identity for identity's sake. Not every Audi needs a "new" Audi grille. At least Chevy's signature grille is re-worked to fit each car, not the other way around.
But basing your design entirely on corporate snouts, like Audi, Chevy, Dodge and BMW do, is a hit or miss thing... if you like the snout, fine, if not... you're stuck with it, and there's no room to move forward.
Others have functionality and interest, but don't achieve line cohesion. Most new Hondas are like this. The layouts are logical, functional and simple, without slavishly pandering to automotive fashion, but they lack any sort of cohesion (except for the Fit). The new Civic and the City, which presaged the Civic's style, lack classical proportioning.
That's my beef with newer car designs.
Make a statement and stick to it. The cars look like pastiched toys with lots of styling of grilles and lights, but with no thought as to the integration of these parts into the car.
On that note... I love the Gallardo. Minimalist supercar, nothing unnecessary. Cohesive and interesting design. Razor edge styling that fits the car like a glove, and matches the car well. It's a sign of what Audi can do when they're not burdened by the need to slap corporate identities onto their cars.
_____
As for retro, it's only good if it actually adds something to the original. If it doesn't say anything new at all about the original, it shouldn't be done.
The Miura and Challenger concepts are two "retro" cars I
do have a beef with. They may look beautiful, but they don't forge an identity for themselves and say absolutely nothing new. They're not
functional designs... not living, breathing, cars... merely facsimilies of the originals.
The Ford GT
could have been slavishly
retro, but except for the odd doors (which it shares with the original), it is not. It's one of those rare "retro" cars that manages to capture the spirit of the original without being an exact copy (though, paradoxically, it's hard to tell them apart at first glance). If you had to build a mid-engined Ford GT from scratch
today, it might look something like this.
That's how retro should be. Get in touch with the
personality of the original, and draw on a clean sheet of paper.
The Mini is like this, too. It manages to scream Mini without having ridiculous metal seams on the outside or ten inch wheels. As is the Camaro... it manages to capture the feel of the original without being an exact copy of any previous Camaro. Identity without a fax machine. 👍
______
I'd pick either retro or new, as long as it's beautiful.
And i like the look of some of these new cars like Peugeot 407.
