Why the Chevrolet SS Will be the hit of NAIAS
12-27-2002, 06:27 AM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New England
Posts: 3,749
no no its not chevelle or any of that it ...
The Chevy Chevette..
hey its retro name and has "vette" in it..what more can you ask for..
j/k...but seriously..I think maybee..is it something that GM might be working on for the next GTO platform that will more than likely be built here? to acomidate ALL the NEW RWD performance cars including a 2008 GTO replacement? just wondering..
and what if the SS has 4 doors maybee with suicide doors..the new Honda Element has them...they will be back in style.with that trendy SUV.though that thing looks like a rolling milk bottle....lol..
but seriouslt ANYthing with a V8 is RWD and has some awsome performance would be great!...
like I said 4 doors..who cares...anyone see what the FWD crowd Grand Prix crew are doing??? Imagine the next RWD GP as this..hmm kinda makes you think
The Chevy Chevette..
hey its retro name and has "vette" in it..what more can you ask for..
j/k...but seriously..I think maybee..is it something that GM might be working on for the next GTO platform that will more than likely be built here? to acomidate ALL the NEW RWD performance cars including a 2008 GTO replacement? just wondering..
and what if the SS has 4 doors maybee with suicide doors..the new Honda Element has them...they will be back in style.with that trendy SUV.though that thing looks like a rolling milk bottle....lol..
but seriouslt ANYthing with a V8 is RWD and has some awsome performance would be great!...
like I said 4 doors..who cares...anyone see what the FWD crowd Grand Prix crew are doing??? Imagine the next RWD GP as this..hmm kinda makes you think
12-27-2002, 07:07 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
The G6 is the next Grand Am actually, and based on the Epsilon platform. The SS concept is much bigger and more a styling exercise than an indication the next Camaro will be 4 doors. part of me thinks the extra doors were added to throw people off. I know a certian person was VERY excited over this concept. Also incase you didn't notice the 6 Liter engine IS the 4gen small block LS1 replacement
12-27-2002, 01:14 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 538
Guy's I am really really starting think that the SS is going to be the next gen Camaro, Can you imagine that at NAIAS the car having 2 doors
Why make a 4 doors and be 2+2
Front is the same LS1 and 70s Camaro
And the back looks like a 70 Camaro
2+2
RWD V8
It's looks loke a Camaro
This really can be!!
Why make a 4 doors and be 2+2
Front is the same LS1 and 70s Camaro
And the back looks like a 70 Camaro
2+2
RWD V8
It's looks loke a Camaro
This really can be!!
12-27-2002, 02:42 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While from the back half it could be a Camaro, the nose says distinctly 70-73 Chevelle... right down to the cross-bar across the grill.
I just hope they make a 2-door.
I just hope they make a 2-door.
12-27-2002, 02:55 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Originally posted by jg95z28
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While from the back half it could be a Camaro, the nose says distinctly 70-73 Chevelle... right down to the cross-bar across the grill.
I just hope they make a 2-door.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While from the back half it could be a Camaro, the nose says distinctly 70-73 Chevelle... right down to the cross-bar across the grill.
I just hope they make a 2-door.
But, I've got to squint really hard to see anything other than, SSR meets RX8 in the nose.
12-27-2002, 05:14 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hebron, KY
Posts: 1,724
Maybe this helps the argument that this portrays a Camaro. I like the headlights and think it's clear what they are hinting at. As noted, I highly doubt the actual car would appear as a 4-door.
Chevy SS --> Camaro
Ok, even added the rear shot as a 2-door. Surprised no one else hadn't already done this. Resulting car looks pretty nice to me.
Chevy SS --> Camaro
Ok, even added the rear shot as a 2-door. Surprised no one else hadn't already done this. Resulting car looks pretty nice to me.
Last edited by jrp4uc; 12-27-2002 at 06:02 PM.
12-27-2002, 09:08 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Placentia, CA, USA
Posts: 64
On a concept car, the choice to do a 2-door or a 4-door is what frames the whole idea. Doing a 4-door sends the message that this will be a high-volume car which will satisfy utility requirements as well as performance requirements. There is no hidden agenda to change it to a 2-door because that defeats the purpose of a 4-door concept.
On the outside chance a 2-door could work on the same architecture, GM would make a point to float that information at the official reveal.
My money rides on a 4-door because GM needs big volume out of a car like this if it gets made. If they use a new architecture, they'll be aiming for over 200,000 units across multiple divisions. In the era of SUVs, trucks and minivans, a new Camaro couldn't support a quarter of that volume on a good year.
On the outside chance a 2-door could work on the same architecture, GM would make a point to float that information at the official reveal.
My money rides on a 4-door because GM needs big volume out of a car like this if it gets made. If they use a new architecture, they'll be aiming for over 200,000 units across multiple divisions. In the era of SUVs, trucks and minivans, a new Camaro couldn't support a quarter of that volume on a good year.
12-27-2002, 10:00 PM
#39
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Weare, NH
Posts: 240
[i]
My money rides on a 4-door because GM needs big volume out of a car like this if it gets made. If they use a new architecture, they'll be aiming for over 200,000 units across multiple divisions. In the era of SUVs, trucks and minivans, a new Camaro couldn't support a quarter of that volume on a good year. [/B]
My money rides on a 4-door because GM needs big volume out of a car like this if it gets made. If they use a new architecture, they'll be aiming for over 200,000 units across multiple divisions. In the era of SUVs, trucks and minivans, a new Camaro couldn't support a quarter of that volume on a good year. [/B]
12-28-2002, 08:04 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hebron, KY
Posts: 1,724
Originally posted by Johnny Hunkins
On a concept car, the choice to do a 2-door or a 4-door is what frames the whole idea. Doing a 4-door sends the message that this will be a high-volume car which will satisfy utility requirements as well as performance requirements. There is no hidden agenda to change it to a 2-door because that defeats the purpose of a 4-door concept.
On a concept car, the choice to do a 2-door or a 4-door is what frames the whole idea. Doing a 4-door sends the message that this will be a high-volume car which will satisfy utility requirements as well as performance requirements. There is no hidden agenda to change it to a 2-door because that defeats the purpose of a 4-door concept.
Case in point: the Solstice 2-seat roadster concept has set the tone for design direction for future Pontiacs (just as '99 Evoq did for Cadillac), regardless of whether it was to be put into production itself (which it apparently is).
I wouldn't think it'd be out of the realm of possibility to apply this "look" to a suitable coupe platform, assuming a Camaro return is on the agenda at all.
12-28-2002, 11:50 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Just a thought. Merv mentioned that Camaro design had a huge influence in the SS concept. Assuming Camaro will in fact return (most likely) is this the begining of brand design comming to Chevrolet? Camaro design influence spread among Chevrolet's entire line up the way XLR's design will soon be seen on all Cadillacs, though CTS came 1st (SS first, then Camaro)?
Not reaching, just throwing out a thought.
Not reaching, just throwing out a thought.
Last edited by guionM; 12-28-2002 at 11:52 AM.
12-28-2002, 02:14 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Placentia, CA, USA
Posts: 64
After more consideration, I don't think GM will be able to use Sigma for a high-volume platform. If they make the kind of compromises needed to lower its cost, it would not really be Sigma any more. Instead, I would bet on a version of Holden's next RWD platform. It would likely share development costs and hardware with Holden and be far more affordable than Sigma. Also, the timing of a shared Holden variant is a much better fit than re-engineering (i.e. dumbing down) a Sigma.
If the next F-body is built on Sigma, it's not going to be the affordable piece we've grown to expect from an F-body or even a B-body.
My thoughts on the SS as a styling exercise: If GM feels like they've got the kind of time that allows them to screw around with smarmy feel-good "exercises," they don't have a grip on market realities--which is why I doubt SS is an exercise. Lutz doesn't come from a market research regime, but a go-out-and-build-it-on-a-gut-feeling regime. They've got maybe 2 and a half years to bring a legitimate RWD sedan to showrooms. After that, the pooch is screwed, and we all know why.
If the next F-body is built on Sigma, it's not going to be the affordable piece we've grown to expect from an F-body or even a B-body.
My thoughts on the SS as a styling exercise: If GM feels like they've got the kind of time that allows them to screw around with smarmy feel-good "exercises," they don't have a grip on market realities--which is why I doubt SS is an exercise. Lutz doesn't come from a market research regime, but a go-out-and-build-it-on-a-gut-feeling regime. They've got maybe 2 and a half years to bring a legitimate RWD sedan to showrooms. After that, the pooch is screwed, and we all know why.
12-28-2002, 03:25 PM
#43
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Weare, NH
Posts: 240
Originally posted by Johnny Hunkins
After more consideration, I don't think GM will be able to use Sigma for a high-volume platform. If they make the kind of compromises needed to lower its cost, it would not really be Sigma any more. Instead, I would bet on a version of Holden's next RWD platform. It would likely share development costs and hardware with Holden and be far more affordable than Sigma. Also, the timing of a shared Holden variant is a much better fit than re-engineering (i.e. dumbing down) a Sigma.
After more consideration, I don't think GM will be able to use Sigma for a high-volume platform. If they make the kind of compromises needed to lower its cost, it would not really be Sigma any more. Instead, I would bet on a version of Holden's next RWD platform. It would likely share development costs and hardware with Holden and be far more affordable than Sigma. Also, the timing of a shared Holden variant is a much better fit than re-engineering (i.e. dumbing down) a Sigma.
1. The sigma architecture is already planned for high volume. It’s made to be expandable in both length and width without compromising strength.
2. The next gen Holdens are going to be based on Sigma.
3. Who said Camaro HAS to be a high volume car? The 4th gen car, even in its low volumes was profitable from MY 99 and on. The main "problem" was that 4th gen was designed, built, and had the support around it that a high volume car would need. Therefore, more unneeded expense when sales dropped. If a car is designed as "low" volume from the start, then it can still be profitable AND low cost.
Using the CTS as a base, and only giving change to styling and interior, a next gen Camaro could come in at around 35k for a fully loaded SS model. We know the V8 can fit. The Chassis is already done. That’s less expense.
And, yes, I have reason to say this.
12-28-2002, 03:59 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Placentia, CA, USA
Posts: 64
1. The Lansing Grand River plant (Sigma) can build out over 300,000 cars IF a second and third shift is added. In any event, all shifts would be building the same cars and trucks: CTS, SRX and the upcoming STS replacement. That is the official plan.
2. Incorrect, according to sources at GM.
3. I can't really see GM putting in the effort you're suggesting and making Camaro (or add name of your choice) low volume. Taking a CTS and completely changing the exterior and interior styling while retaining a complex and expensive powertrain does not qualify as affordable--affordable as in priced like a Mustang GT.
2. Incorrect, according to sources at GM.
3. I can't really see GM putting in the effort you're suggesting and making Camaro (or add name of your choice) low volume. Taking a CTS and completely changing the exterior and interior styling while retaining a complex and expensive powertrain does not qualify as affordable--affordable as in priced like a Mustang GT.
12-28-2002, 04:48 PM
#45
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Weare, NH
Posts: 240
Originally posted by Johnny Hunkins
1. The Lansing Grand River plant (Sigma) can build out over 300,000 cars IF a second and third shift is added. In any event, all shifts would be building the same cars and trucks: CTS, SRX and the upcoming STS replacement. That is the official plan.
2. Incorrect, according to sources at GM.
3. I can't really see GM putting in the effort you're suggesting and making Camaro (or add name of your choice) low volume. Taking a CTS and completely changing the exterior and interior styling while retaining a complex and expensive powertrain does not qualify as affordable--affordable as in priced like a Mustang GT.
1. The Lansing Grand River plant (Sigma) can build out over 300,000 cars IF a second and third shift is added. In any event, all shifts would be building the same cars and trucks: CTS, SRX and the upcoming STS replacement. That is the official plan.
2. Incorrect, according to sources at GM.
3. I can't really see GM putting in the effort you're suggesting and making Camaro (or add name of your choice) low volume. Taking a CTS and completely changing the exterior and interior styling while retaining a complex and expensive powertrain does not qualify as affordable--affordable as in priced like a Mustang GT.
2. GM is moving towards only having about 3-4 major platforms (Sigma, Delta, Epsilion, Corvette) for cars. I'll check back to you on this one..
3. Effort? What effort? Compared to building a totally new car (as was basically done for the 4th gen), they would get to share a ton of parts that have already been done. (Think less expense)