Not all of it. They can make them drop down lower, but that will have one drawback. More front overhang wich can be a pain when parking. For US cars no such regulation. Make different front bumpers for US cars like they used to do for US bumpers in Europe.
Yeah but............that's only the rear view, which was never the problem........let's wait til we see the front end.......did they lose the "angry catfish"?
This was probably discussed a long time ago, but I've always liked this interpretation of the 250 GTO. One of the big problem I can see with trying to do this is everything is so much bigger today. Compare tires sizes for example. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Yes the scale of the cars is bigger today which does not seem to translate very well. The first GTO was mostly an excuse to find a use for outdated left over 250 GT parts...
I do not see the 250 GTO as a way to use outdated 250 GT parts. In 1962 the 250 SWB was still very competitive. There was still a fear that the E-type would have superior aerodynamics. The motor was certainly superior, especially with the TR 6 carb spec. The chassis was quite capable, and probably as important, quite well developed. Although it might be a nice idea in retrospect to have gone mid-engine in 62 that wasn't going to happen, nor was there anyone as a GT that would have forced that thought. The 250 GTO was a SWB with incremental developments (dry sump, revised rear suspension, 5-speed) and a body to minimize the cross section but also deal with mitigation of lift.
John, A thought was crossing my feeble mind today. What was it like inside GM Design when you were out done in design by Ford and Chrysler? GM had a long history of being the leader and took this as a badge of honor. CMJ told me once with great pride how "in the old days" GM did not look around at the others as they knew where they were going and the others were just copying what they did. With the exception of the 1957 forward look Chryslers. The Taurus moved Ford Design in front of GM. All the bar of soap comments and all sure seemed to be a bunch of deflection that, like in 1957, they got beat. When Chrysler got hotter than hot with their cars under Tom Gale, that had to be a further twisting of the knife. Were the Design leaders talking in anguish about this or in denial as they fought their daily political battles?
Great question. Those were difficult times at GM Design. For the most part your last statement pretty well summed up the ‘80’s and ‘90’s at Design. Most of Senior management was in denial regarding what Ford was doing with the aero/Tarus. With Chrysler in the ‘90’s there was a sense of envy towards Chrysler in that they seemed to put design at the forefront. At GM the engineers pretty much ruled the outcomes on a day to day basis. We were in awe of all the great show cars Gail was able to achieve, while we couldn’t seem to find our own a$$es with our own hands. The corporation didn’t value the importance of design like it had during the Earl/Mitchell eras. And it showed in our portfolio. That was one of the positive things B. Lutz brought to the party: The importance of design. At Ford & Chrysler, design was part of the corporate strategy. GM lost that in the ‘80’s. That’s what resulted in the lookalike car syndrome. Too many chefs in the kitchen. But there was never a dull moment, that’s for sure. We were never bored.
There must have been multiple issues that grew out of this changing of industry leadership. I remember clearly how GM was the pinnacle of desire for the graduating design students; an organization that valued design and rewarded the talented. I expect that as things shifted GM has to sell students to take their offer. It had to be disheartening for the board designers as they had to be followers of whatever the "powerful" directed them to do. Eventually designers resign themselves to the political reality they are working in or they find a way out. Must have made it easy for many to go to other the other companies, especially the So Cal studios everyone was setting up. Many just switch between the Detroit companies?
Useful observations with the passage of time but and there is always a 'but' ... According to Giotto Bizzarrini it was Enzo who told him " we have a warehouse full of 250 GT spare parts, an ageing model more and more difficult to sell. We can't afford to lose all those parts, invent something to use them. You have 30 days or you're fired." The project became the 250 GTO. The car originated from this threat by Enzo Ferrari as per the chief engineer. Image Unavailable, Please Login
nice. Maybe the age of terrible auto design is coming to an end. between this, benz new design language and that commuter Honda, things are looking up.
Okay, I’m not giving up that easily. I suspect one of the hardest things to do is update an icon. Imagine painting the Mona Lisa with a punk haircut and tattoos. You probably will not make anyone happy. But I think this guy did a great job. You know what it is, but it’s not a replica. BTW, I might be able to fit in the updated car. I once had a chance to sit in a GTO, but once I opened the door I realize there was no way a 6’2” fat guy was gonna make it. Same thing will a 250 SWB. Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app
I remember my Dad, had Chevrolet, Pontiac and Buick... then he saw the '57 Dodge. It was all over. Friend's father had a '58 Chrysler 300... what a car.
Exner clearly beat the rest of Detroit with the Forward Look cars. The story is that Chuck Jordan during a lunch time left the GM offices to find a spot at Chrysler's location where he saw the first '57 prototypes/pre-production (not sure exactly on which version). He hightailed it back to GM to get other designers to return to see them. Even Mr. Earl realized he had been decidedly outdone. GM for 57 was too late but they junked up the 58s with troweled on chrome to hide the fact that they could change tooling enough. This also put the 59s in development on a new path while Mr. Earl was on a European trip. This timing also coincided with the impending retirement of Mr. Earl and the take over of his chosen successor, Bill Mitchell. The reports by others over the years, and the direct comments by Jordan to me, show that GM was caught flat footed and one could even extend it to being embarrassed.
Chevy was funny... they 'threw' some fins on the '56 to make the '57. The '58 had been scheduled to be the '59... panic. Finally the 'batwing' '59 was different (you could lean on one of the wings and the trunk would pop open).
My dad has a '59, never had that happen. In fact, I could probably stand on one of the wings with no ill effect. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Interestingly enough, GM Design is still a goal for many students. It's never lost it's luster to educate and train new designers. Believe it or not we never had the turnover you suggest even during the dark days. Sure some transplanted to the West coast, but not that many jumped to FoMoCo or Chrysler. GM Design was and still is considered to be one of the best places to work and practice one's craft.
thanks. i was going to post this, but could not find pics this good. fisker also has patented a 500 mile battery design for it. i will reserve judgement on the propulsion system until we actually see it. and altho i like this new design, i still think Fisker peaked with the Karma. but i am biased
Totally agree on the bad design coming from the Alfa and Maserati. The Alfa sedan is too plumpy looking and Maserati SUV is approaching Lexus territory. Not good. -F
