I guess the next logical question would be *why* convertible sales fell so much in the 60's. According to the journal Convertible, convertibles made up 6.7% of domestic auto sales in 1963 (and that was *before* the popular convertible Mustang came out), but convertible sales fell to only 1% by 1970.

While I don't think Nader spent much time addressing convertibles in particular, I wouldn't be surprised if his consumer-safety awareness activism (or fearmongering, depending on what you think of him) didn't steer a lot of people away from convertibles out of safety concerns (valid or not).

Pricing might have had something to do with it as well. I don't know when automakers started charging a premium for convertible versions of their cars, but I know that for some of the 60's Corvettes, the base price of the convertible version was actually *lower* than the coupe. (I guess it was because the increased weight and chassis flex were seen as drawbacks on a car that was designed and marketed on the basis of performance.)

For whatever reason, I'm glad convertibles have made a comeback. My wife and I both have convertible MINIs, and I can't see being without one now.

 

He didn't stop them by himself, but he most certaintly assisted in the death of sales !!!

 

Production Figures to 2007:-

The VW Beetle sold 1 Million between 1998-2007 worldwide (500,000 of them were sold in the USA).

The MINI sold 1 Million between 2001-2007 worldwide.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AaP2mX...eature=related

 

Just saw a new Challenger yesterday at the car wash. SRT8, orange color, they did a nice job retroing that car, very cool 500 hp dosen't hurt either. $50k though, wonder if it will appreciate or deppreciate?

One thing about the Mini in my area is, it's still unique, people still ask "what kind of car is that?"

 

I am not a Dodge fan at all, but even I have to agree that Chrysler did an excellent job at designing this car.

 

Oh no, me too, not a Dodge fan at all But dang that thing looked sooooo cool

 

To me, retro is a state of mind thing. The opinions expressed below are just that - my opinions.

The Mustang is not retro. It is a car that has been in continuous production since 1964 1/2. It has moved away, and back towards its roots over the years, and is closer now than it perhaps ever was to the 60s versions.

Was the 2001 - 2004 or so Impala retro? Or was it one round tailight on each side short of that (Impala signature design cue through the 1960s, and about half the 70s were three tailight pod/lens things on each side)? Were Impalas not distinctive enough in general to inspire a retro model? Were there too many different-bodied Impalas over the years to make such a determination?

What if there was a car that remained true to its original styling for that many years without major deviation? Would that be retro? Or would be have another name for it?

The new Challenger is retro. Why? Because it is a name, and a physical model that has been brought back from the dead after a long absence. It did not go through a continuous evolution to get to where it is today. To me, this is a key difference between it and the Mustang, re retroness.

The Thunderbird is retro because current model is so different from its predecessor that there's no other way to describe it. It wasn't an evolutionary step.

The PT Cruiser? Aside from my personal feelings on this car, it is retro because it wasn't an evolutionary development of any other model in the line, and is styled to, at best, resemble something from an earlier bygone era.

The New Beetle. This is a tough call. It is styled to remind one of the original, but that's about it. The underpinnings are completely different. But it is meant to remind one of a car that has absent from the U.S. for many years. So that puts it on the side of retro, but not by much.

The Miata and Z3, et al. Not retro at all. They are just modern versions of the classic 2-seat convertible sports cars of yore. Now, if someone were to come out with a small 2-seat convertible with running boards and bug-eye headlights, for example, then I would say it would be retro, based as it would be on the MG-T series.

So what about our MINIs? I would have to say yes and no. A cop out? Not really. The car, and/or name, has been in almost continuous production since 1959. That makes it not retro. But the ownership of the name changed hands. A new company, from a different company, no less, took over the name, redesigned it to bring it up to 21st C standards, and marketed it, but kept it close to its original roots and ideas, keeping its mystique very much intact. Except for the change of ownership, this puts the MINI, according to the criteria I have used above for other cars, as not retro.

As always, comments welcome.

 

I have to agree with that last part. As a prior owner of a classic mini, I have always thought of the new model being an updated version of the original. 2000 out with the old, and 2001 in with the new. I like using this as an example to all those silly scion owners out there that constantly tell me their cars are better than mine. "And how long has your car brand been around? 50 years for me ***** ****** !!!" Heritage baby, heritage !!!

 

Yeah, I saw my first one about 2 months ago here in Germany of all places. Of course it was on an Americam military installation. Still cool as heck.

 

In my home votes are split down the middle...

 

I don't have that problem, but its difficult to imagine being deluded enough to think a Scion is better than a MINI. Which models are they comparing? On what criteria?

 

Usually the XA owners. I've had a few Yaris owners talk smack before too. i always get the impression because they have wheels and an exhaust, that's why they think their car can compare. Usually though, it's "Wow, I paid so much less for my car and they do the same thing?" the first thing I point out, because it's my favorite is "okay, let's pop the hoods. Oh wait, you have to search for a prop rod to hold it up." That's always the first thing I point out, and it usually gets them thinking.