Your definitions are all F-ed up. A "carbon copy" would be an exact duplicate. Neither the Camaro, the Challenger or 25+ years of BMWs are that and you know it, so drop the tag; it doesn't apply here. (It does to the rear-engined Beetle, tho.)All 3 examples bear overwhelmingly strong design heritage to much earlier versions of the same nameplates. So what- who cares? If the design is asthetically appealing, where's the downside? The alternative is change for change's sake- how's that work toward elevating good design? That's right; it doesn't.
Alright... on a scale of simularity, 10 being a carbon copy, 5 meaning perfect evolution, and 1 bearing no resemblance what-so-ever. The Challenger with the original would be a 9.5. The Camaro concept with the 1st gen Camaro would be 7. Those BMWs... a 6. Somthing like the 2nd gen to 3rd gen Camaro or C3 to C4 Corvette would be aroung a perfect 5. Still, evolution is a seperate thing from retro. Evolution is where the design evolves with each new generation while Retro is going back to modernize a certain design. That's why I say the Challenger is a carbon copy. While it may not be an actual carbon copy... there wasn't any modernization of the design. It looks as if the design was completely untouched, but lifted onto a modern chassis, some adjustments were made to fit that chassis, and it was given modern componants. With the Camaro, however, the design is completely modern, yet it is completely retro. And yes, you can tell the difference... unless you're blind.Does that clear up things a bit instead of continued bickering?