I doubt this because (a) low volume cars rarely make money, (b)the roof, and (c) all the issues they had with stamping.

 

I love the SSR, if i had the money id buy one right now...

 

I give GM credit for having the set to actually bring this car to production using existing pieces so if it flopped then it wouldn't be a total disaster. On the otherhand I think they should have had used the bigger engine from that start and maybe another version (panel truck). I also don't think they tried to market it as much as they should have.

 

Failure from the get go.

 

But it was based on the ext frame, which made money and I think started around $25K, and the SSR started at like $45K. Are you telling me that it cost $20K to design the hardtop, interior, exterior, and different stamping processes?

 

You're right, there was most likely some room there for a profit, BUT you' re still ignoring the number one factor. THE SSR DIDN'T SELL. No one makes anything with an unsold car.

There are still MANY unsold 04 and 05 SSRs. For the dealers to get rid of the SSRs they have, I am betting they are going to do some heavy ($10,000 +) rebates.

 

I remember seeing somewhere that 80% of the part numbers were new. The interior had a lot of different parts also. One other thing that would have killed profits is the fact it was made on its own assembly line.

I think the biggest mistake was that it was priced way too close to the Corvette which is in the same showroom. For $45K, which would you buy a SSR or C5/C6? To buy an SSR you had to want it so much that it defied logic.

 

It was a big failure. If they had used the money they wasted on that thing to just get the Camaro to market 1 year sooner they would have made far more money and gotten far more recognition.

 

As much as I didn't like the thing, I wouldn't say it was a complete failure. It got some people talking about Chevy, at least for alittle, and it seems to me that many of older guys appreciated them.

 

I'd say success, but probally not because of the reasons you'd think.

First being that it cost an ungodly amount of cash for a terrible amount of time to launch a successful advertizing campaign, the development of the SSR and placing it in Chevy showrooms and in advertizements (especially those 1st "American Revolution" commercials showing an SSR doing a highspeed handbrake turn before backing onto a moving car carrier ) was not only great advertizing itself, but probally was a hell of alot cheaper than dumping money to a Madison Avenue marketing firm.

Second, the SSR gave the GM Craft Center people something to do after the Eldorado was killed off. Instead of laying them off, and paying them (mostly) their full salary, they made something of value. Sure, now they are closing the plant anyway, but odds are that through attrition and reassignments, it's probally going to cost GM less. Also, GM is going to eventually sell off all the SSRs they made.... even if it takes a year or more.

Finally, it gave GM some really good experience. They took a concept, and took on the challenge of figuring out how to build it. This no doubt opened up some new ways of thinking, alot of innovation, and gave the guys who have spent years making safe designed, uninspired vehicles, a chance to tackle a real challenge for a change. It also gave GM a chance to see if bringing back a body-on-frame car was possible.

As far as sales, SSR wasn't too hot, and can easily be considered a failure.

However, as far as enthusiasm (SSR buyers are probally the most rabid fans of their vehicle of any other in the US!), experience within GM, and keeping people employed making something GM can sell, it did far more than we realize.

 

Huge failure. The wrong vehicle at the wrong time.

 

I think before you kneejerk into a "huge failure" reaction you have to ask yourself "how much cash did SSR really drain from GM?" Can we be sure the SSR diverted a significant amount of cash away from a future product like Camaro? Expensive to build or not, at those volume numbers, I'm not convinced it did.

 

Total failure. It created a ton of negative press when it did not sell.

 

Absolute failure for the following reasons:

1. Just like a lot of people have said, it was priced way too much above what the target market would spend on it.
2. No ***** when 1st introduced. This thing was a heavy pig and had no grunt.
3. It took so long to get from auto show concept to production model, it had already become boring long before it hit the show room. I hope Camaro doesn't share this fate.

 

OK....so let me get this straight......

We listened to the public at large.........when they said "build it!"........

.......and we kept workers working........and we kept suppliers working........and we made money on it......and SSR owners are more 'rabid' (as one person mentioned in this thread) than even Corvette and Camaro owners...............

.........and it was a failure.

oooooooooooooooookay.

Never sold in great numbers.....wasn't supposed to.....wasn't supposed to compete with Corvette and our customer surveys prove that it didn't.......and it wasn't supposed to be a brand that stays on the market for 20 years..............

Guy's right.......the SSR stopped traffic. Shame on us!

My point in all of this: just because you may not like a particular car/truck/market segment (i.e....those who hate SUVS...) does not mean that an auto manufacturer should leave or ignore those markets...esp. a full line manufacturer.

(signed-- the cantankerous old codger from Grosse Pointe)