Chevrolet's Code 130R packs big muscle into a small package: Comments

[ocnblu]

Do you think it would get wacked off?

[FAPTurbo]

It's like an eighties Malibu coupe came to the future and brought all the boring along with it. Chevrolet can do way better, and it can start by using the tastier Tru140S for the design philosophy.

[ocnblu]

Fals140S is way too trendy in design and it has bizarre proportions. It's Japanese and Chevrolet is American.

[BigPontiac]

GM video shows a Chevelle as some of the 'heritage inspiration"...

[Robert Hall]

The 130R seems awfully tall and narrow, with a lot of ground clearance..may be the big wheels that emphasize that.. 140 = Eclipse + ELR + Chevy cues..

[balthazar]

This is a "correct" COUPE roofline. For reference, look at countless photos of 1930s and '40s coupes. You will see a relatively short (lengthwise), high, and CLOSE COUPLED greenhouse as the defining feature. It is a designer's definition of "coupe" played perfectly, imo.

It's a.... 2-dr sedan, just like the other references (1-series, etc).

The '30s & '40s 'coupes', as 5-windows, were by definition 2-dr sedans, it was the 3-window models that were 'close-coupled'.

Corvette is a coupe by definition.

[Blake Noble]

You know, it's almost tragic.

For quite some time now, people around here have been demanding that GM build a car like this. Some thread about rear-wheel drive (or, in the past, Pontiac) comes up and someone always chimes in about GM building a car like this. So what happens when GM finally shows interest in the idea and builds a concept car based around it that is mostly production friendly? People can't stop bitching about certain elements of the design, ignoring the fact that GM is stepping up and saying they possibly may bring the demanded hardware to market.

The water to wine function isn't dispensing merlot, guys.

Alpha has near, if not perfect, weight distribution and a low curb weight, which would help make for great driving dynamics. The 1.4L turbo with eAssist is capable of making this little car very fuel efficient as well. This car can certainly succeed at doing what the BMW 1-Series horribly fails to do: be a BMW 2002 for the 21st century (read: cheap, fun, low-frills, practical, and cool).

Sure, like I said there are small details with the styling I would change, but I think it's fine as a whole. GM was designing this car to be as functional as possible so I understand why the decklid cut lines and roofline are the way they are (move either of those two around and you kill rear seat headroom and the trunk opening space). Plus, it's a concept and if it were to be produced a lot small details could be changed before production to improve the design somewhat, especially since GM is welcoming public opinion on this concept car. If this could come to market below the price of a base Camaro, I'd snap it up in a hearbeat.

From what I gather, response to both concepts has been just about equally divided. There are guys who deride the 140S and guys who deride the 130R. Then again, each car was built to appeal to the two extreme bookends of the small performance coupe market. If GM is serious about both concepts essentially being out there to probe intrest in what GM should bring to market to sell to these buyers rather than a tired, bland Cruze coupe then it's going to be very, very interesting to see what all of their research brings. Both cars were built with possible production in mind for a purpose.

Edited January 11, 2012 by black-knight

[Justin Bimmer]

Agree yellow jacket. The future is so bright, I gotta wear shades!

[ocnblu]

Thanks, balthy. I was referencing the 5-window cars, which are still relatively short-roofed with upright overtones. My point with the 2 concepts is this: we have a choice between timelessness and trendiness. Which style is the more permanent between the two?

When I was moaning about a Cruze coupe months ago, I qualified myself by saying I did not want a Cruze coupe that was some bizarre, trendy supernova, ready to burn out quickly. I asked for something normal. The Code130R is normal while being fresh and distinctive and strong, a more lasting style. The Tru140S to me is effeminate and compromised by its style, where the Code130R requires less effort to live with on a daily basis.

[hyperv6]

Some see Mitsu in the 140 I see a little Lambo or even itallia with a back seat

I just think if they used a roof line closer to this on the 130 and give the C pillar a 69 Chevelle shape it would send a better design messsage. 1968-72 were the most popular Chevelles and they were not upright coupes without any flow to the roof line.

The bottom line is coupes can be made useful and still good looking. We have many examples over the years. Even today the 80's Monte Carlo fastback is much more in demand over the flat rear window one. God knows it was not for the performance.

Even if they added a rear window to the 130 and bent it like a 77 Impala Coupe it would help.

But to have a coupe just to have a coupe is a waste of time. The Aztek was a very useful product but the styling killed it. You get the useful part and styling right to where it appeals to all and you will not be able to build enough of them.

All many of us are saying is GM can do better on the 130. Imagine a Monte Carlo that had the flow and grace of a Bently GT. I am not saying make a copy but give it the feel and flow of a car like this vs a out of proportion Prelude.

Coupes also can afford to be a little impractical, People generally buy coupe for styling first. If they want practical today they buy sedans and CUV's.

Edited January 11, 2012 by hyperv6

[vonVeezelsnider]

Fals140S is way too trendy in design and it has bizarre proportions. It's Japanese and Chevrolet is American.

Production 140:

Edited January 11, 2012 by vonVeezelsnider

[Blake Noble]

Some see Mitsu in the 140 I see a little Lambo or even itallia with a back seat.

I'm not saying the 140S is a terrible looking car, what I'm saying is that it's a case of "been there, done that." It brings nothing new -- styling and hardware-wise -- to the table in the current market. It's derivitive and, quite frankly, its not a Chevrolet.

Am I saying it shouldn't be built, though? No, it piggybacks off of the Cruze and the ELR in theory so it would be relatively cheap to build. As much as I don't like it, it does appeal to a certain buyer -- buyers of Civics, Eclipses, and other cars of that ilk.

I just think if they used a roof line closer to this on the 130 and give the C pillar a 69 Chevelle shape it would send a better design messsage. 1968-72 were the most popular Chevelles and they were not upright coupes without any flow to the roof line.

Given the general dimesions of the 130R, such a design change would be disasterous unless you wanted to turn it into a hatchback.

Let the record also show that the roofline of the '68 - '69 and '70 - '72 Chevelles were quite upright. GM designers at the time were very good at hiding it, though.

GM designers masked it on the '68 - '69 Chevelles by having the rear quarter glass kick up dramatically on the bottom.

The '70 - '72 Chevelles illustrate just how much more upright the roofline is versus the '68 - '69 models after the rear quarter glass was changed to be less dramatic. However, the change to the rear quarter glass changed the width of the c-pillar slightly to make the rear slope of the backglass look more extreme than what it actually was.

Those particular Chevelles were not fastbacks. The closest GM came to building an A-Body fastback was probably the Olds Cutlass Holiday coupes and, even still, that wasn't a true fastback coupe.

Here's a profile shot of the Code 130R. Not quite as upright like in the GM press shots, huh? Also notice how the back glass wraps around slightly, which tends to hide how its sloped.

The bottom line is coupes can be made useful and still good looking. We have many examples over the years. Even today the 80's Monte Carlo fastback is much more in demand over the flat rear window one. God knows it was not for the performance.

You're grasping at staws here. The Aerocoupe (which, technically, is not a fastback) is in a higher demand versus the regular '80s MC/SS because it was built in low production numbers and was one of the last cars built for the sole purpose to be homologated for use in NASCAR, not because it offers any greater styling advatage over the regular car. In fact, that huge rear window killed the functionality of the MC/SS's otherwise very large trunk.

Even if they added a rear window to the 130 and bent it like a 77 Impala Coupe it would help.

Again, not unless you wanted to turn it into a fourth-generation Camaro-style hatchback.

Edited January 11, 2012 by black-knight

[SAmadei]

I just think if they used a roof line closer to this on the 130 and give the C pillar a 69 Chevelle shape it would send a better design messsage. 1968-72 were the most popular Chevelles and they were not upright coupes without any flow to the roof line.

I agree with what you are saying here. After letting the 130R chew on my brain a bit more, I think I see what really doesn't work for me... the straight line from hood to window sills to trunk lid. No way can GM call this a Chevelle. No Chevelle ever was so straight. The early (and iconic) Novas were straighter in this area (little to no Coke bottle shape and barely a small kick up under the rear side windows), and are closer in position, size-wise to this design. Nova is a better name... using Chevelle on this would cause as much, or more, controversy as reviving the GTO name did.

For the record, I love the Bentley coupe... and I feel its as close to a modern day '68-'72 muscle car (not Pony car) as we will see. A Chevelle design should be in this vein.

Why ya'll hatin on the upright rear glass? Everyone has a fastback these days... a freaking Camry has a long sloping rear window.

I'm not hating on the upright rear glass... but quite frankly, its not that upright. Without a level, I'm guesstimating its at 50~55 degrees, whereas everything else is 20-35 degrees today, it seems. Get the angle up past 65 degrees and we are talking upright.

I love fastbacks, but a true fastback needs a BACK... i.e., a trunk bigger than five inches.

A few other comments...

I like that someone nailed the Neon coupe appearance. The coupe, when it came out, was one of the first times a coupe design was more clumsy than the sedan... which is what this design telling.

Comparing this roofline to the 1 series... even though I hate the 1 series, it has a better roofline.

Comparisons of the 140 to the Eclipse are not valid... the basics of the Eclipse looked good... but Mitsu really dropped the ball on the front and rear ends in production. This design has stronger language front and back and much sharper rear quarter treatment, though the white treatment is hiding it in most photos.

[Blake Noble]

But to have a coupe just to have a coupe is a waste of time.

How so? Since automakers have introduced more coupe options to their portfolios, sales have risen accordingly.

There are plenty of people, such as myself, that really do not see the point of owning a sedan. I don't have kids, I don't know tons of people that I would want to shuttle around, and I don't pack around a lot of stuff. If I want outright utility, I'll buy a Jeep. However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want a coupe that can be accomodating for back seat passengers should I need to have them tag along with me or luggage when I need to travel.

That limits me to a handful of cars, some of which are unaffordable.

The Aztek was a very useful product but the styling killed it. You get the useful part and styling right to where it appeals to all and you will not be able to build enough of them.

And the Tru140S is more appealing how? It certainly does not appeal to me and I'm within the demographic GM is targeting with that car.

All many of us are saying is GM can do better on the 130.

Better? I don't see much room for improvement.

The specifications are just about ideal and I still don't see why there are people who are so hung up on the styling. Sure, like I said, it could use a small tweak or two, but I still think it's great as is. (Perhaps the backlash stems from the fact that we haven't seen many new cars that are unappologetically and undilutely American in flavor for quite some time now?) Besides, someone would be best advised to not judge this car's appearance based on GM's terrible photography (after all, we all know GM's photographers could somehow make a nice, nude photoshoot of Jessica Alba look like a nude photoshoot of Newt Gingrich in a pig pen.)

Let's also not forget that it wasn't too long ago GM didn't see the merit in even entertaining the thought of building a car like the 130R.

Imagine a Monte Carlo that had the flow and grace of a Bently GT. I am not saying make a copy but give it the feel and flow of a car like this vs a out of proportion Prelude.

That formula would work ... on a larger car. You apply a design like that to a car with the 130R's dimesions and it would be a brand new disaster -- a long and narrow wienermobile. I think some folks are forgetting that this isn't a midsized coupe.

Coupes also can afford to be a little impractical, People generally buy coupe for styling first. If they want practical today they buy sedans and CUV's.

Not nessicarily. See the first part of this post.

Thanks in part to the Challenger's upright roofline, it can seat four people comfortably and pack a ton of stuff in the trunk. For example, I recently fit one of these in the trunk without having to fold down the backseat:

Let's see that fit into the mailslot trunk opening on a MC/SS Aerocoupe.

Edited January 11, 2012 by black-knight

[Blake Noble]

Oh, and something I forgot earlier regarding Chevelle rooflines:

It isn't the '68 - '69 or '70 - '72 model, but it is a Chevelle, none the less, and the roofline is very, very upright.

[Robert Hall]

It isn't the '68 - '69 or '70 - '72 model, but it is a Chevelle, none the less, and the roofline is very, very upright.

And the '78-81s had a similar upright roofline as well...

[Turbojett]

Why ya'll hatin on the upright rear glass? Everyone has a fastback these days... a freaking Camry has a long sloping rear window.

Because it just doesn't work. It looks like they tried to do a Chevelle or Monte Carlo and ran out of room. It's very cobbled together, like the designer got tired of erasing and starting over and just said "F** it, I'll go with this." (I mean, I've felt like that before sometimes, but really?)

I like the rest of it--namely the side sculpting, but that rear roofline and window shape has got to go. It screams 1990's-vintage Dodge Neon, with perhaps a little bit of Mercury Cougar (same era) thrown in there as well.

I much prefer the cues of the 140S. It looks a lot cleaner. not to mention from some angles, it looks midengined (!) The cues work a lot better in conjunction, the design is a lot more cohesive, not to mention original. I'd say throw those lines on the 130R's chassis, but then you'd lose the faux-midengined proportions (It'd still look damn good though).

I have to admit though, it would be exciting to have a Chevy to cross-shop against the BRZ/FRZ twins. But they're going to have to do MUCH better than that.

[Robert Hall]

I'm not sure if '70s Chevelle or Monte Carlo styling cues translate well to a Vega-sized car...the 130 looks very tall and narrow...kind of 1-series proportions w/ a Neon-ish c-pillar. I can see the 140 being built as a Chevy coupe and a Cadillac ELR w/ a lot of parts in common...

[Turbojett]

Here's a profile shot of the Code 130R. Not quite as upright like in the GM press shots, huh? Also notice how the back glass wraps around slightly, which tends to hide how its sloped.

I still think it looks far too upright and abrupt. And the rear rooflines on the Chevelles you posted, while I grant you are still not true fastbacks, are still a hell of a lot faster.

not to mention there's quite a bit of wide-angle distortion in that shot as well, which still makes it look more upright.

[hyperv6]

Some see Mitsu in the 140 I see a little Lambo or even itallia with a back seat.

I'm not saying the 140S is a terrible looking car, what I'm saying is that it's a case of "been there, done that." It brings nothing new -- styling and hardware-wise -- to the table in the current market. It's derivitive and, quite frankly, its not a Chevrolet.

Am I saying it shouldn't be built, though? No, it piggybacks off of the Cruze and the ELR in theory so it would be relatively cheap to build. As much as I don't like it, it does appeal to a certain buyer -- buyers of Civics, Eclipses, and other cars of that ilk.

I just think if they used a roof line closer to this on the 130 and give the C pillar a 69 Chevelle shape it would send a better design messsage. 1968-72 were the most popular Chevelles and they were not upright coupes without any flow to the roof line.

Given the general dimesions of the 130R, such a design change would be disasterous unless you wanted to turn it into a hatchback.

Let the record also show that the roofline of the '68 - '69 and '70 - '72 Chevelles were quite upright. GM designers at the time were very good at hiding it, though.

GM designers masked it on the '68 - '69 Chevelles by having the rear quarter glass kick up dramatically on the bottom.

The '70 - '72 Chevelles illustrate just how much more upright the roofline is versus the '68 - '69 models after the rear quarter glass was changed to be less dramatic. However, the change to the rear quarter glass changed the width of the c-pillar slightly to make the rear slope of the backglass look more extreme than what it actually was.

Those particular Chevelles were not fastbacks. The closest GM came to building an A-Body fastback was probably the Olds Cutlass Holiday coupes and, even still, that wasn't a true fastback coupe.

Here's a profile shot of the Code 130R. Not quite as upright like in the GM press shots, huh? Also notice how the back glass wraps around slightly, which tends to hide how its sloped.

The bottom line is coupes can be made useful and still good looking. We have many examples over the years. Even today the 80's Monte Carlo fastback is much more in demand over the flat rear window one. God knows it was not for the performance.

You're grasping at staws here. The Aerocoupe (which, technically, is not a fastback) is in a higher demand versus the regular '80s MC/SS because it was built in low production numbers and was one of the last cars built for the sole purpose to be homologated for use in NASCAR, not because it offers any greater styling advatage over the regular car. In fact, that huge rear window killed the functionality of the MC/SS's otherwise very large trunk.

Even if they added a rear window to the 130 and bent it like a 77 Impala Coupe it would help.

Again, not unless you wanted to turn it into a fourth-generation Camaro-style hatchback.

But Sorry I struck a nerve here. You have taken a lot of my post way out of context.

Here it is clean and simple You like the 130 and I don't.

Why don't I like it? Is it the upright rear window? Not really. What I hate is the car has no flow or proportion to it or flow. The nose and tail really don't fit the styling. It is like the front, roof and rear were done by 3 different people.

My point is not to just make a coupe just to say you have a coupe is based on accepting this car. I feel GM should do a coupe but I am not willing to settle just for this car.

It cost no more to style the Bently GT than it would to create a outstanding design here. GM has some of the best designers in the world and this car is not near what they can or should do.

If you tired to pass this off as a Chevelle or Camaro Ford would love you.

Now with that said this is only my opinion and that is all it is. You can disagree with it but remember there is no right or wrong here for either of us it is just an opininon. I am good with your opinion even if I don't agree with it. I can deal with please try to do the same. I am not the only one here that thinks GM could do this car so much better.

FYI the new Accord Coupe concept has a major fast back and is not a Hatch even in a similar shape and size. The greenhouse on that car is very nice but the rest of it is pretty plain accept the rear.

The roof would be fine on a larger car but not on this car.

As for the chevelles 68-72. Back in the day they were called fastbacks. How do I know I lived through that time and my dad had every year of them I even owned a 68 SS myself. It was not an maxed out fast back but it was still termed a fastback roof line.

[hyperv6]

Why ya'll hatin on the upright rear glass? Everyone has a fastback these days... a freaking Camry has a long sloping rear window.

Because it just doesn't work. It looks like they tried to do a Chevelle or Monte Carlo and ran out of room. It's very cobbled together, like the designer got tired of erasing and starting over and just said "F** it, I'll go with this." (I mean, I've felt like that before sometimes, but really?)

This is how I pretty much feel. It is not the upright window so much it is the fact it looks like they ran out of room. The parts of this car are fine it is the sum of them all together on a car this size that is what is not working.

When you see a well styled car you kind of feel it inside. This one just left me cold and almost wishing GM had not shown it in this state. Like I said I hope it is just a car they threw a lot of ideas on to see what people like and disliked. This way they can go back and use what works and what didn't.

The B pillar is all wrong styling wise and ergo wise. That tells me this has low production value at least this way.

[Robert Hall]

I may be wrong and this is off-topic, but I think the '68-72 Chevelle 2drs had the same rear window and c-pillar slope..it was only the quarter window shape that differed as far as the greenhouse. The '70-72 C-pillar and quarter window look a lot like the Skylark/GS of the same years..

As far as the 130 goes, I'd like to see it in person.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[hyperv6]

I may be wrong and this is off-topic, but I think the '68-72 Chevelle 2drs had the same rear window and c-pillar slope..it was only the quarter window shape that differed as far as the greenhouse. The '70-72 C-pillar and quarter window look a lot like the Skylark/GS of the same years..

As far as the 130 goes, I'd like to see it in person.

Yes the the quarter window shape was all the pretty much changed and the quarter profile was pretty much the same. The above photo bares this out above. While the quarter panels had the same profile but they did make some changes to them. They did have some change to the shape on the side in the fender well and side body line. Also the light caps were replaced with metal in the rear for 70-72.

[ocnblu]

LOVE the 130, want to see it on the lots, would love to own one. The comparison to the '64-'65 Chevelle is marvelous... as soon as Samadei mentioned what he mentioned, I immediately thought of the shoebox Chevelles... which were styled, I understand, to hark back to the '55 Chevrolet. The 130 has that. It's a modern-day shoebox! And what more could a Chevy man ask for, that is the very essence of classic Chevrolet coupe style.

[NOS2006]

Damn it do I need Photoshop back. Where can I download free?! lol

[Camino LS6]

Yes, this car is a fine candidate for some serious photo-chopping.

[Camino LS6]

As the days pass, I like this car a bit more each time I look at it. But, it still needs some work (as stated earlier the "flow" of the design is a bit choppy). I still hate the nose too - but it wouldn't take all that much to set it right.

This car's best design feature is the side-sculpting: it's flat-out perfect!

I am sooo sick of slab-sided styling.

The rear shaping on that Bentley could be nice here - but there are other ways to make that stubby tail work better with the roofline too.

[§carlet §wordfish]

I'm chopping it a bit right now.

[Robert Hall]

Maybe lowering it would help the looks..a sporty coupe doesn't need 9 inches of ground clearance...another 2-3 inches of window depth would help w/ the thick sidedness (a problem so many cars have today)..

Edited January 12, 2012 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Camino LS6]

Maybe lowering it would help the looks..a sporty coupe doesn't need 9 inches of ground clearance...another 2-3 inches of window depth would help w/ the thick sidedness (a problem so many cars have today)..

Agreed.

That high beltline thing makes everything look fat.

[§carlet §wordfish]

Remember this thing, Camino? The bits you said you liked from that, I think I see in this.

[Camino LS6]

Remember this thing, Camino? The bits you said you liked from that, I think I see in this.

Yes, good call.

This one is slightly easier to explain, as far as what I see in it goes though.

[§carlet §wordfish]

[Blake Noble]

I don't mean to honk my own horn, but there are certain elements of the 130R that reminds me of this old thing I sketched back in high school:

[Camino LS6]

Your sketch shows a better integration of the B pillar and the quarter.

It isn't so much the upright look of that area on the 130 that's throws the eye, but the integration.

[Blake Noble]

I am starting to wonder what a more '70 - '72 Chevelle inspired roofline and daylight opening (similar to what I sketched) would look like on the 130R. However, the big question is how would someone go about doing that without making the rear decklid look absolutely tiny? I suppose Swordfish's chop over in the other thread is a good starting point.

Studying the design a little more, I see what has everyone upset about the DLO. The reverse rake on the b-pillar is the one of the very first things you draw your eyes to, making it one of the main reasons why people think the entire design seems out of whack.

If there's one thing I wish I did differently when I sketched that design I posted earlier, it would be to make the entire glasshouse more in proportion to the rest of the car. I was trying hard to emulate the techniques of better known designers and I failed badly at it.

The front fascia I sketched does show how easily it would be to fix the one on the 130R: add some length and a touch more height to the headlamps and take some height out of the grille.

Edited January 13, 2012 by black-knight

[ocnblu]

My mind is unchanged amidst the bluster contained in this thread. My fervent hope is Chevrolet will give us a RWD coupe smaller than Camaro with Ecotec NA and Turbo power. If ecoweenies must be appeased with eAssist, please make such a system a choice, not mandatory. And style it for Americans, not Japanese folks.

[Turbojett]

Your sketch shows a better integration of the B pillar and the quarter.

It isn't so much the upright look of that area on the 130 that's throws the eye, but the integration.

YES

[hyperv6]

I have looked at more 3/4 shots of the 130 and the nose is more curved than it shows in many other photo's. That is a good thing.

The rear I still am not too excited yet. I am not hating the roof line but the the rear looks much too short for a the green house. I think if they put a longer rear on this car It would improve the area where the roof, trunk and quarter panel meet. This is what made the Chevelles work is they gave the rear window room to flow into the trunk and down to the rear. As it is the 130 has too short of a trunk and a cut off rear and it looks like they ran out of money and time to finish it.

I would reshape the quarter window. It look a little large for the cars size. It would be nice to shrink the quarter window and then wrap the rear window ala 1977 Imapala coupe.

I look forward to seeing this car in person before I make my final call.

[ocnblu]

I would travel to Philadelphia to see the 130 in a heartbeat. I wonder how I can find out if it's gonna be there.

[ocnblu]

Here are three images of what I was referring to. These are referred to as coupes in the description, not 2-door sedans. The maroon one is a Business coupe, the red one and the period illustration are referred to as 4-passenger coupes. This is why I love it, it pulls pure elements from different eras and puts them together in a brave new way, to make a thoroughly modern, true coupe.

[hyperv6]

Here are three images of what I was referring to. These are referred to as coupes in the description, not 2-door sedans. The maroon one is a Business coupe, the red one and the period illustration are referred to as 4-passenger coupes. This is why I love it, it pulls pure elements from different eras and puts them together in a brave new way, to make a thoroughly modern, true coupe.

I understand your thinking here but it is a stretch.

Having been involved with lot of older 30's and 40's Chevy Ford Coupes I just don't get this vibe. These cars had larger tails and larger trunks than the 130.

Now if they had taken a HHR and choped it down to a 2 door with a large rear trunk I could see it.

I see a lot more 1985 Grand Am Coupe or BMW 1 series in the 130 than I do any romantic image of a vintage business coupe. But that is just me.

I still think they were fishing on this car to see what we like or dislike. It is not a car I would think Wellborn would let out into production as is. I may be wrong but will just have to wait and see. It was just nice to have two coupes as a suprise at the show. I do expect elements of this car to show up in new products. The fender bulges the nose and the tail each have elements that could show up easily in a Camaro or larger second coupe.

Edited January 15, 2012 by hyperv6

[Robert Hall]

Interesting...the leaning b-pillar and quarter window shape on the 130 is reminiscent of that on the old business coupes, though I doubt if any resemblance was intentional.

[BigPontiac]

GM video shows a Chevelle as some of the 'heritage inspiration"...

The video also shows the rendering of an interior for the 130R as well.

[hyperv6]

I think what would convert me to a fan would be to add a little more C pillar and cut the quarter window down in length.

I think a 70 Chevelle C pillar sweep would look great on this car. The back light vould remain where it is. It may hurt visiability some but that did not stop the CTSV coupe from holding back on styling.

The Chevy grill since the redo on the Malbu really has the 1970 feel to it from Chevy. Too bad they can recreate a modern take 70 1/2 split bumper RS option like nose. It would be fun to give the customer the choice of nose they want on the car again.

[Blake Noble]

Something that just crossed my mind: the Code 130R also reminds me of a '70s Holden Monaro.

I know Holden styling from that era closely mimicked American GM styling, but even still. It's a curious observation.

Edited January 16, 2012 by black-knight

[hyperv6]

Something that just crossed my mind: the Code 130R also reminds me of a '70s Holden Monaro.

I know Holden styling from that era closely mimicked American GM styling, but even still. It's a curious observation.

It does look like this. I wonder where the 130 was styled or where the designer was from?

With Chevy and Holden becoming more and more like one I wonder if this had any influance.

Edited January 16, 2012 by hyperv6

[ocnblu]

That's a sweet little Monaro, sort of a Pontiac and Chevrolet mix. I love the Code 130R, have I mentioned that yet?

[67impss]

Damn it do I need Photoshop back. Where can I download free?! lol

NOS have you ever used GIMP on a Linux machine? I like PCLinuxOS version and GIMP is very free last I read it came in a distent 2nd to PS.

http://www.pclinuxos.com/

[67impss]

I'm still (wanting)seeing the Nomad of 04 in this design though it dosen't translate well in coupe form also it looks rushed unlike the 140 which looks like where they want to go I think that they want the 130 to fail and was designed that way on purpose If made as previewed I'd still look hard at it being a Chevy and with the Turbo driveline though I'd want more ie 2.0l turbo @300hp/300lbs