Some people in the vette crowd with plenty of money might take both I'spose. But for folks who're not into trucks, the SSR has even less appeal than a real truck. At least a plain old truck has some serious utility. If I wanted a tow vehicle for my car, I'd buy a regular truck. GM seriously overestimated the number of niche buyers out there when they did the SSR. Maybe the concepts were better (I never really paid much attention - it's not car after all) or maybe it was the final execution that got out of hand and resulted in such a dull looking and poorly performing vehicle.

 

Every time GM tries something new, the charge about $10,000 too much for it. A $30,000 SSR with an LS1 would have sold great. A $40k+ SSR with 290hp is going to sell absolutely nothing, and 390hp is a bit better but still too expensive.

It seems like you can't get a good product at a good price at GM. It's a case of pick one...do you want to pay a whole lot of money, or do you want a good product? Call me an idealist, but I think they can give me both. Until they do I'll keep shopping with the companies that CAN provide me both.

This kind of attitude is WHY GM is stuck with mediocrity. They don't want to offer the best product at the best price, and then it's a victim attitude like "Customers just can't be pleased!" when the product doesn't offer a good enough package to attract people.

The Solstice, if it comes out as promised, will do well. If it comes out with boat handling, or a severe horsepower deficit, or priced at $28k, then it won't. It's not really rocket science. A high 100's-low 200's hp Solstice, around $20k with solid Miata-competitor handling. It's a hit. Miss on any of those bases, and it will miss it's market.

The SSR? All of the bad things about a Corvette with none of the good. Like the Corvette, but wish it was heavier and had less HP? Get the SSR!

 

Charges too much? That may be the case because of the nature of this particular vehicle (limited functionality). But show me another vehicle on the market that is anywhere close to the level of uniqueness that the SSR has and sells for 30 grand. Recall that the similarly not-fast (at least at first) and far less useful Plymouth Prowler sold for similar base prices, but that was several years ago (it would be more expensive in today's dollars). The SSR was never meant to be a vehicle for the masses.

 

Prowler also didn't have the HP or utility of the LS2 SSR

 

Hate to say it, but I'd buy a Prowler before an SSR. I thought the Prowler looked kinda cool.

 

As far as the too expensive thing goes that is absolutely right and the reason is perceived value. A hot rod roadster on a truck chassis with that level of power at that price point is not going to garner any attention in this day and age. When everbody saw the SSR many were enthused over the looks...then they saw the price and all that enthusiasm went out of the window.

I also don't think you can compare the 04 SSR to the Prowler as the Prowler was coming from a company that had little to nothing for a long time that was even remotely good looking or exciting at the time. It was also not in the same kind of market place of today where you have cars and trucks coming out left and right with absolutely stupid levels of power at much lower price points.

GM isn't undeserving of their criticism they have been getting. They have the capability to do it right and everybody can painfully see by DCx's example what people DO want. GM just hasn't awoken to realize this yet.
Give a car good power,good looks, and at a reasonable price level and people will buy it. Maybe it is time for them to do some more wide ranging focus groups asking people roughly what they would pay for a car and price it at that point. Instead of what they seem like they do i.e. release a hot concept figure out what people would pay for it and then tack on another 5-6k.

 

I don't agree with one thing said in that article. He says that GM showed it to the public, and then rushed it out. I think it's the opposite. They showed it to the auto show crowd, and then took ages to bring it along. By then, it was boring old news to alot of people. And on top of that, it was too expensive, underpowered, etc.

 

As can be witnessed by 301-day supply

 

I am less optimistic about Solstice now. If Cobalt SS is priced around 22 - 23K, I don't see Solstice being lower than that. Even for comparable price, I am wondering how much sense to get Cobalt SS if you can have this sexy sleek cool Solstice. One more reason why I think it will be priced 25K +

 

As can be witnessed by the planned production of, what, 5 to 10k vehicles?

But you are right, it turned out to be for even less of the "masses" than GM had hoped.

 

I don't entirely agree, and I don't believe history does, either, on his assessment about the Fiero. It was not a perfect car by any means, but I think the fact that most insurance agencies were charging Corvette insurance rates for a car with Chevette levels of performance killed Fiero more than anything else. They sold 100,000 in 1984 and 90,000 in 1985 then people began to realize how outrageous the things were to insure Toyota launched the MR2 which had superior performance and quality in a similar package and things went downhill from there. But I think his implication that the Fiero was a failure from the get-go like the SSR has been is incorrect. I can't even count how many people I knew in high school who wanted a Fiero until finding out that insurance on one was like 150 bucks a month for a teenager - on an 85 horsepower car! And every article I can remember from every car magazine at the time was "insurance rates killed this car" Insurance companies didn't care if it was 2M4 or a Fiero GT (or my favorite, the 88 Fiero Formula) the Fiero was a "sports car" from the get go to them even though it didn't even come close to qualifying as one until that final 88 model.

 

I STRONGLY dissagree with the author's apparent belief that GM "rushed" the truck out and that was a mistake. IMHO the only mistake GM made with the SSR is they didn't take a real gamble & use the design as the basis for a redesigned S10-Colorado instead of a limited edition, low volume, too heavy, "special" vehicle.

The small truck market has been shrinking somewhat, and GM (unlike Ford & their Ranger) is actually spending money to keep their's competitive. I believe buyers of small trucks tend to be younger, and therefore less conservative than traditional full size truck buyers. I don't think the SSR itself should have been the replacement, but the design & sheetmetal would most definately made have made a splash. Then, Chevy could have created a limited edition of that with a folding roof.

There's no doubt the SSR has "PRESENCE", and it is most certainly cool. But all the other "cool" vehicles that turn heads (PT Cruiser, Beetle, BMW's Mini) all are either extremely practical, a very low (but not bargain basement) price. But if I had a budget of $40,000 for a new car purchase, I hate to say it because GM took a pretty big & uncharacteristic move to get this rig, but the SSR isn't even on my radar screen, let alone in the top 10.

 

Actually, your suggestion isn't as "far out" as some would believe. What you're talking about isn't all that different from the retro Dodge M80 concept that almost made it to production.

1. Ford is pretty much the last holdout. Nissan, Toyota, Dodge and GM have now pretty much renewed their small trucks.

2. The new wave of compact/midsized trucks are even more conservative than the newest full-sized trucks. Compare a new Frontier to a Titan, or a new Dakota to a Ram, and I think you'll see that radical styling isn't a feature in this class.

3. All of the new competion outguns Chevy's Colorado/Canyon in horsepower department. I don't think that the little truck needed SSR styling, I think it needed option V8 power.

 

That's a pretty good idea.

 

Actually, you are wrong. Colorado/Canyon offers two engines:

I4 175 HP, I5 220 HP.

You have a Nissan, right? Look at Frontier. It has I4 that producing tire-shredding 143 HP and V6 with earth shattering 180 HP. A far cry from GM's offerings.

Toyota Tacoma also offers two choices. It has I4 with 167 HP. Again, short of Canyon/Colorado. However, it does shine with its V6, which makes 245 HP.

Dakota has moved up in size, I don't consider it to be in the same league anymore. It actually weighs 1000 lbs more than Canyon/Colorado, or Frontier, or Tacoma in comparable configurations. Still, they offer V6 as the BASE motor making 210 HP, and V8 with 230/260 HP. The 1000 lbs of extra weight Dakota packs means that it will need that V8.

So does ALL competition beat GM in Horespower? Hardly. GM's 4-cylinder beats every other 4-cylinder offered in trucks, and its I5 is able to beat MOST other V6s offered by competition.