Hobbyist Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
841 Posts
What I found interesting in this car is the engine-a 5 cyclinder!

I've got the bigger MotorMax 1/18 versions and they have an appearance that harkens back to the tri-five styling of sorts. Even though I am a huge fan of the tri-fives, this concept car doesn't create the excitement that those three models do. However, it would be nice if GM would make this car just for the hell of it and the modifiers could possibly bring out some better appearances to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,308 Posts
They will never be able to capture the essence of the tri-fives because the mindset of the entire nation in the '50s was one of bold excess and exaggeration. The aircraft or spacecraft-inspired designs like fins, headlight brows, bullet-style bumper accents, FINS, etc. The designers of this concept don't seem know anything about what inspired the design of the Bel Airs of the past. I'm glad it never saw the light of day. How embarrassing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,126 Posts
They will never be able to capture the essence of the tri-fives because the mindset of the entire nation in the '50s was one of bold excess and exaggeration. The aircraft or spacecraft-inspired designs like fins, headlight brows, bullet-style bumper accents, FINS, etc. The designers of this concept don't seem know anything about what inspired the design of the Bel Airs of the past. I'm glad it never saw the light of day. How embarrassing.
I agree with you. This car really isn't that attractive, and certainly not worthy of being called a Bel Air.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,681 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
They will never be able to capture the essence of the tri-fives because the mindset of the entire nation in the '50s was one of bold excess and exaggeration. The aircraft or spacecraft-inspired designs like fins, headlight brows, bullet-style bumper accents, FINS, etc. The designers of this concept don't seem know anything about what inspired the design of the Bel Airs of the past. I'm glad it never saw the light of day. How embarrassing.
I agree with you. This car really isn't that attractive, and certainly not worthy of being called a Bel Air.
I don't disagree one bit. The Great GM Plan 2000 fell on its corporate face. Having worked with GM products for over 25 years I have seen the GM management with their heads so far up their good intentions that they wouldn't know a good concept from vanilla ice cream. The great GM designers/engineers, Carl Renner, Harley Earl and Zora Arkus-Duntov must have turned over in their graves several times! The question that I asked, I asked with sarcasm as this car could never compare to the wonderful tri-fives, as Car Crazy pointed out, or their predecessors, the '53 and '54 Bel Airs, or even the less ornate Bel Airs through the '60s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,712 Posts
Not much style to it if you ask me. GO RETRO and slap six tail lights on the back. GO retro and actually use some styling cues from more popular years of the Bel Aire.

I would not buy this car whether it be a toy or a real car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
841 Posts
Not much style to it if you ask me. GO RETRO and slap six tail lights on the back. GO retro and actually use some styling cues from more popular years of the Bel Aire.

I would not buy this car whether it be a toy or a real car.

For me it is a constant reminder of how "low" GM has sunk in the way of design and innovation! Seems to me it was a quick and hasty response to the retro Thunderbird which itself was a lark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,681 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
You guys really know your stuff... I think that casting kinda resembles the new style T-Birds !!!
At least the 11th generation T-Birds have some heritage cues to them: the nose, scoop, side vents, tail lights and hardtop portholes were reminiscent of the first generation T-Bird styling. T-Birds from 1967 through 1997 were T-Birds in name only and had become Ford sedans/coupes while the Mustang filled the sports car niche that the T-bird had abandoned. You might guess that I like Bel Airs and this 2002 "concept" is a Bel Air in name only and IMHO is an insult to the marque with absolutely no heritage cues!

-John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,681 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Not much style to it if you ask me. GO RETRO and slap six tail lights on the back. GO retro and actually use some styling cues from more popular years of the Bel Aire.

I would not buy this car whether it be a toy or a real car.
At three-for-a-buck the diecast was worth every cent as a reminder in my collection of Chevy's true Bel Airs! I agree that GM needed to revisit its heritage and at the very least echo the grille and taillights of its early Bel Airs. When Chevy re-introduced the Impala nameplate for 2000 it used some subtle styling cues from its retro Impalas and look at how successful the new Impalas have been. It's no wonder that GM is in it's present sorry state...

-John
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top