GM and Chevy to address the FRS, GT-86 and BRZ?

[hyperv6]

GM is working to address the new small RWD segment that Toytoa has already taken too.

It is said they are looking to enter this segment and will do so with not a Alpha car but a new platform using what they learned on the Alpha. I see the Camaro now not needing to sell 100,000 units to be more of a lower volume power house at a price and Chevy offering and growing a smaller segment with the Turbo 4, I like this vs forcing the Turbo 4 in the Camaro.

I would forget the R130 styling as it is already dated and not as sporting as the present Toyota offering. I expect they will do a more global styling and may go a little more retro with the Camaro than I was expecting with this two pronged effort.

Ford is doing this with one car with the new Mustang and I feel if GM takes this two car effort it will give them more of an advantage to better taylor the cars. It will let them grow the new segment and retain the older segment with out fear of losing the present fans.

I would not be suprised if this car is already past the idea state and may be up to the buisness case level if they are now talking about it.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/01/reuss-scion-fr-s-subaru-brz-toyota-gt-86-fighter-from-chevrolet-on-the-list/

[Camino LS6]

Interesting.

[ocnblu]

I love the looks and the concept of the Code 130 RS. Shoeboxes rule! Just stick the 2.0t in there with a 6 speed manual and it's READY. Hyper, why would they want to change the styling for production? They've been showing it for over a year now, everyone who matters has gotten used to it. It is what they've come to expect... and it works.

Edited January 18, 2013 by ocnblu

[Camino LS6]

I have to agree, Ocn.

Changing the styling now would be an unnecessary risk.

It works, don't mess with it.

[crunksoulbrotha!!`]

If it aint broke, dont fix it!!!

[Z-06]

Ford is doing this with one car with the new Mustang and I feel if GM takes this two car effort it will give them more of an advantage to better taylor the cars. It will let them grow the new segment and retain the older segment with out fear of losing the present fans.

I would not be suprised if this car is already past the idea state and may be up to the buisness case level if they are now talking about it.

In other thread, in other world, and another lifetime :

The new Camaro will be this car as the Alpha based car will see the Turbo 4, V6 [poss TT] and V8. The Camaro will evolve as the market is changing as we have seen with other makes like the BRZ and where the Mustang already is heading.

The Camaro as it is now will be the last of the large heavy so called pony cars. The ATS performance is only a hint at where the Camaro will start.

I really think we all have seen the last of the R130. While some loved it just as many also hated it. I feel they were testing the waters and it just was not embraced enough to carry it over as the Camaro.

Imagine if they did carry it over like this with a Mustang looking like an Aston or Jag. Not good.

[hyperv6]

I love the looks and the concept of the Code 130 RS. Shoeboxes rule! Just stick the 2.0t in there with a 6 speed manual and it's READY. Hyper, why would they want to change the styling for production? They've been showing it for over a year now, everyone who matters has gotten used to it. It is what they've come to expect... and it works.

First off the nose is out dated already and has to be replaced.

Second the car was not universally embraced. It was a very polarizing design and not one that was going to maximize sales.

No everyone that does matter has not gotten used to it as I would be very interested in this segment and to this point the styling will prevent me from buying. To this day other than the performance I do not understand what people get excited about in the Skyline. To be it looks like a cheap coupe with a good engine.

Do I think they can fix the car for much wider apeal yes. Fix the roof to declid and I may come around but roof looks too large for the car. I never like the Monza town car and this is the same issue and I am not alone by the surveys I have seen.

Now don't think I expect a CTS coupe back but something more in the line with the Camaro balance wise.

[Camino LS6]

The fact that the front looks different is a good thing.

[GMTruckGuy74]

I am a big fan of the Code 130 RS concept car. It has such a non-conforming design... too many jellybean cars already exist in the marketplace. I agree with Camino, the different frontend is a good thing. It's unique enough to establish the car but also relate it to being a "Chevy". Maybe we'll be surprised at one of the remaining "big" auto shows (Chicago or New York)?

[Z-06]

There is one or two surprises from Chevy this year of the thirteen to be released.

[G. David Felt]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="GMTruckGuy74" data-cid="721056" data-time="1358521202">I am a big fan of the Code 130 RS concept car. It has such a non-conforming design... too many jellybean cars already exist in the marketplace. I agree with Camino, the different frontend is a good thing. It's unique enough to establish the car but also relate it to being a "Chevy". Maybe we'll be surprised at one of the remaining "big" auto shows (Chicago or New York)?</blockquote>

<p>+1<br />

Jelly Bean cars are destroying the auto industry with a lemmings approach to having everyone drive and look the same. I want individuality and yes that means it just might be polarizing. The Escalade of 2001 was very polarizing and yet sold a ton of SUV's.

I think this car can be polarizing and still sell a ton due to it being truly different. The Gamer scene loves this car. With 5-6 million consoles sold a year world wide, if they could sell just 5% of that number the car would be a hit. Why has the WRX and Evo sold so well, the gamers. Yet I find the EVO Butt Ugly and the latest version of the WRX/STI to be just blah. Others love them. So I think this little car as is can be a hit selling enough to be very profitable.

[Blake Noble]

GM is working to address the new small RWD segment that Toytoa has already taken too.

It is said they are looking to enter this segment and will do so with not a Alpha car but a new platform using what they learned on the Alpha. I see the Camaro now not needing to sell 100,000 units to be more of a lower volume power house at a price and Chevy offering and growing a smaller segment with the Turbo 4, I like this vs forcing the Turbo 4 in the Camaro.

I would forget the R130 styling as it is already dated and not as sporting as the present Toyota offering. I expect they will do a more global styling and may go a little more retro with the Camaro than I was expecting with this two pronged effort.

Ford is doing this with one car with the new Mustang and I feel if GM takes this two car effort it will give them more of an advantage to better taylor the cars. It will let them grow the new segment and retain the older segment with out fear of losing the present fans.

I would not be suprised if this car is already past the idea state and may be up to the buisness case level if they are now talking about it.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/01/reuss-scion-fr-s-subaru-brz-toyota-gt-86-fighter-from-chevrolet-on-the-list/

I've tried my best to hold my tongue about this, but I can't anymore.

Hyper, would you please just stop with bashing the Code 130R? It's getting old. We get it already, you don't like the car. Or, to be more to the point, you don't like the styling. So what? You aren't in the majority here and, sorry, your opinion on this concept car isn't popular opinion.

The 130R can't be that ugly if it has seriously garnered interest for GM to take it to production and to take it to auto shows beyond the 2012 season. You have a blatant agenda against this car that, from where I'm sitting, you are willing to propagate through false information. This is a little childish.

Also, to address an earlier quote of yours that Z06 posted, the Code 130R was not nor ever intended to be an exercise for a F6 Camaro. The styling was not nor intended to be intended to be used on the F6 Camaro. Why would GM design the F6 Camaro to essentially look like a modern seven-eighths scale 1970 Chevelle? This is yet another reason why your hate march against what is a pretty nice concept car runs off of personal prejudice and pure bunk.

[NOS2006]

Honestly, the FR-S and BRZ are "different" looking cars, if that's the way you want to look at it. They bring unique designs to a market that has nothing but a Miata in it.

That being said, Fiat seems to be moving into this category as well (with the Miata off the same platform, which reminds me of the Toyota/Subaru product). See:

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/18/mazda-and-fiat-finalize-deal-for-alfa-roadster-next-gen-mx-5-mi/

[Delta Force79]

I'm a big fan of the Code 130R and have been since I first saw it. The three box design and retro ( for lack of a better term ) feel to it are what make it stand out. It's a modern Chevelle or Nova. Who in their right mind can complain about a light weight RWD drive coupe in this age of FWD appliances. If the FR-S and BRZ are any indication, not a whole lot...

[Blake Noble]

I'm a big fan of the Code 130R and have been since I first saw it. The three box design and retro ( for lack of a better term ) feel to it are what make it stand out. It's a modern Chevelle or Nova. Who in their right mind can complain about a light weight RWD drive coupe in this age of FWD appliances. If the FR-S and BRZ are any indication, not a whole lot...

Exactly.

I actually hope it comes to market as a reborn Nova, and logically, it makes sense. I just hope the price tag comes in well below $25,000.

Edited January 18, 2013 by black-knight

[hyperv6]

GM is working to address the new small RWD segment that Toytoa has already taken too.

It is said they are looking to enter this segment and will do so with not a Alpha car but a new platform using what they learned on the Alpha. I see the Camaro now not needing to sell 100,000 units to be more of a lower volume power house at a price and Chevy offering and growing a smaller segment with the Turbo 4, I like this vs forcing the Turbo 4 in the Camaro.

I would forget the R130 styling as it is already dated and not as sporting as the present Toyota offering. I expect they will do a more global styling and may go a little more retro with the Camaro than I was expecting with this two pronged effort.

Ford is doing this with one car with the new Mustang and I feel if GM takes this two car effort it will give them more of an advantage to better taylor the cars. It will let them grow the new segment and retain the older segment with out fear of losing the present fans.

I would not be suprised if this car is already past the idea state and may be up to the buisness case level if they are now talking about it.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/01/reuss-scion-fr-s-subaru-brz-toyota-gt-86-fighter-from-chevrolet-on-the-list/

I've tried my best to hold my tongue about this, but I can't anymore.

Hyper, would you please just stop with bashing the Code 130R? It's getting old. We get it already, you don't like the car. Or, to be more to the point, you don't like the styling. So what? You aren't in the majority here and, sorry, your opinion on this concept car isn't popular opinion.

The 130R can't be that ugly if it has seriously garnered interest for GM to take it to production and to take it to auto shows beyond the 2012 season. You have a blatant agenda against this car that, from where I'm sitting, you are willing to propagate through false information. This is a little childish.

Also, to address an earlier quote of yours that Z06 posted, the Code 130R was not nor ever intended to be an exercise for a F6 Camaro. The styling was not nor intended to be intended to be used on the F6 Camaro. Why would GM design the F6 Camaro to essentially look like a modern seven-eighths scale 1970 Chevelle? This is yet another reason why your hate march against what is a pretty nice concept car runs off of personal prejudice and pure bunk.

It it correct for me to ask you to stop praising it? This is a place for Opinions and I have heard yours a number of times just as I have stated mine. I can deal with your opinion you are old enough to do like wise.

First lets also get some fact straight here. I do not really want a Chevelle and I for one am not a real big fan of the retro look as a whole. A little is ok but to me it also turns out to be a crutch for the lack of good original ideas.

I grew up in Chevelles from 67-73 as we had each year and also have owned a few myself. The last thing I want to see is some small creation try to pawn off the Chevelle heritage. I see this as more Grand Am N body vs Chevelle. Nor in any way do I want the 130 to be a Camaro. In fact I had fears this is what they had planned for the C6 at first. I so not even want the Chevelle name used.

Fact 2 the nose wil change just because there is a new face at Chevy and the rest of the line up would be moved to it by the time this car would ever hit the market. The Malibu, Cruze and Nox all will lose the center bar soon. I really have no issue with the nose.

Fact three I am all for the idea of a small RWD coupe and put the 2.0 Turbo in I would be all over it if I could like the styling.

Fact three the only reall issue I have is the lenght of the roof vs the deck lid and the rear window. I was never a big fan of the N body cars of the 80's nor any of the short deck lid or and near vertical rear window of many of the 80's cars. There is just no flow to the styling and to me it looks cheap and unimaginative. Fix that to where it looks like it belongs to the rest of the car and I'm game.

Fact Four you have no clue about my true feelings on this car based on your comments. I have no hidden agendas and if I did why in the hell would have I started this thread? I express what I feel plain and simple and if you agree fine if not fine. I may not agree with you but who am I to tell you to stop praising it? Sorry this is a two way street and if you want to keep praising it you have as much right as I can voice my dislike of parts of it.

Finally I think the concept of the smaller than Alpha RWD would be a great idea as it would remove the burden of the Camaro from having to be the all things for all needs for GM like the Mustang has become for Ford.

Think about this. The Camaro has had to move 100,000 at Oshawa to be profitable and they still have not moved the number of V6 cars they want to move or really need to move going into the future. With the Gen 6 going to the ATS and CTS plant they can remove the number of cars needed and built generally mostly V8 cars at a little higher price and keep the Camaro image in check vs forcing a Turbo 4 under the hood. With this car they can create a new car and class that will take on the Mustang and the Toyota and better address it. Also this car needs to appeal to a global market. Retro is not the way to go Globally unless you are a Mini. Europe has yet to understand the HHR and SSR.

The bottom line is I have litte issue with most of the car but I really think they failed on the rear of the car. I know they can do better as this is the company that just showed us the ELR. The ELR shows a little heritage but has taken a design that is so appealing many forget or wish it was not an electric car. I am not saying to copy the ELR before you take me our of context again but if they can make such an impression with that car they can do much better here.

While I will not call the 130 a failure I will not claim it to be one of their best efforts and I will continue to state so as I am not alone as there are many other on the web that also feel this way from the comments I have read. What ever it ends up like so be it. If I like it I would consider buying it if it has the 2.0 Turbo but if It remains as it is I will continue to look for what I like.

In short I encourage you to continue to offer your opinion as I have a pair and can deal with it. Like wise I will continue to voice my opinuion as that is what forums are for. GM is watching anymore and this is where we need to be heard. Who the hell here has a right to censor anyones opinon? I don'y hold that right and nor do you..... Well maybe Drew LOL!

I may be in the minority here but over all the split is around 50/50 on many forums so I am far from alone in my feelings.

I am good with you so please do not take this the wrong way. Just understand we all have opinions here and sometimes we agree and many times we do not and that is why we are all here.

I'm a big fan of the Code 130R and have been since I first saw it. The three box design and retro ( for lack of a better term ) feel to it are what make it stand out. It's a modern Chevelle or Nova. Who in their right mind can complain about a light weight RWD drive coupe in this age of FWD appliances. If the FR-S and BRZ are any indication, not a whole lot...

Exactly.

I actually hope it comes to market as a reborn Nova, and logically, it makes sense. I just hope the price tag comes in well below $25,000.

By the time this hits market we may be lucky to beat under $30K

[Robert Hall]

I haven't seen the Code 130R in person, but in some pics it looks rather tall and narrow and looks like it sits high. But the basic proportions are great, IMO.

[A Horse With No Name]

As the guy on this forum most likely to actually buy one...I think it looks fantastic!

[Blake Noble]

It it correct for me to ask you to stop praising it? This is a place for Opinions and I have heard yours a number of times just as I have stated mine. I can deal with your opinion you are old enough to do like wise.

That isn't what I'm saying. You are indeed entitled to your opinion and I'm in no way trying to deprive you of it.

I do feel somewhat disconcerted, however, when I read things like this:

I would forget the R130 styling as it is already dated and not as sporting as the present Toyota offering.

What place does a comment like that have in the original post other than to attempt to usurp the enthusiasm that many others on this board, and the internet at large, have for the Code 130R? That statement isn't fact. I can almost assure you of that. That's not to mention that your dislike of the Code 130R concept has been far more vocal than my approval of it. I haven't mentioned it much, if any at all, outside of the threads relating to it dating back to a year ago.

For the record, let me say before I go any further that I do agree that certain small elements of the design could be better integrated, but I'm fine with it overall.

First lets also get some fact straight here. I do not really want a Chevelle and I for one am not a real big fan of the retro look as a whole. A little is ok but to me it also turns out to be a crutch for the lack of good original ideas.

I can agree with you on that and, personally, I'm not expecting the Code 130R to use the Chevelle moniker. There's a good reason why GM didn't apply that name to that concept car when they were rolling it out last year, even though it was on the table from what I understand.

I'll admit that I'm quite guilty of feeling nostalgic for periods of time in which I didn't even exist, so even though I do agree that retro design is an excuse for a lack of revolution, evolution, and progress, I will say that I feel that older designs were much of a much higher quality than what we've generally seen over the last 20 to 30 years. I'll give you an example: when Bill Mitchell sat down with his team of designers to work on the second-generation Camaro and Firebird, he wanted to throw out all of the stops and design a car that would look good well beyond five years after it's debut on the market; he wanted a timeless quality for that car and sweated out every last detail to get it. Sure enough, the F2 cars lasted for over a decade without any radical changes. Most cars today couldn't pull that off. I also feel it's why designers keep going back to pull cues from those cars. They worked back then and, for whatever reason, they work well today.

I grew up in Chevelles from 67-73 as we had each year and also have owned a few myself. The last thing I want to see is some small creation try to pawn off the Chevelle heritage. I see this as more Grand Am N body vs Chevelle. Nor in any way do I want the 130 to be a Camaro. In fact I had fears this is what they had planned for the C6 at first. I so not even want the Chevelle name used.

Like I said, you can rest assured that this probably won't be called a Chevelle, although some of the body sculpting is directly inspired by those 1970 through 1972 model cars.

The N-Body and Chevelle comparison doesn't make sense.

Sure, you may not want the 130R to be the next Camaro. To be fair, I wouldn't either (but not because I think it's a bad car).

The C6? You mean C7? Rest assured, the Corvette team would pull the plug before they scaled down the 'Vette, added two extra seats, and made the only available engine a four-cylinder.

Fact 2 the nose wil change just because there is a new face at Chevy and the rest of the line up would be moved to it by the time this car would ever hit the market. The Malibu, Cruze and Nox all will lose the center bar soon. I really have no issue with the nose.

Sure.

Fact three I am all for the idea of a small RWD coupe and put the 2.0 Turbo in I would be all over it if I could like the styling.

As I've said long ago, I'm just pleased to see that GM has finally loosened it's belt just enough to seriously entertain the thought of a car like the Code 130R, let alone build one.

Fact three the only reall issue I have is the lenght of the roof vs the deck lid and the rear window. I was never a big fan of the N body cars of the 80's nor any of the short deck lid or and near vertical rear window of many of the 80's cars. There is just no flow to the styling and to me it looks cheap and unimaginative. Fix that to where it looks like it belongs to the rest of the car and I'm game.

Wait ... are you comparing the styling of the Code 130R to the Hair-Metal-And-Reagan-era Grand Am? Jesus Christ, dude. The rear window and greenhouse aren't that upright. Do me a favor and tell me what this chart reads.

Fact Four you have no clue about my true feelings on this car based on your comments. I have no hidden agendas and if I did why in the hell would have I started this thread? I express what I feel plain and simple and if you agree fine if not fine. I may not agree with you but who am I to tell you to stop praising it? Sorry this is a two way street and if you want to keep praising it you have as much right as I can voice my dislike of parts of it.

The earlier statement of yours that I quoted via Z-06 seems to show you have some grave misconceptions about this car and, yes, it seems that your disdain for it has grown into some sort of strange and obsessive subconscious hate-and-denial campaign that is propagated through small hiccups in posts and threads that relate to GM building a sub-Camaro performance model. There's a difference between stating your opinion and going around bellowing the same old tired rhetoric. When it gets to that point, someone has to step in and say, "Wait a minute. Can you at least whistle a few notes of this same old tune just a little bit differently?" Why do you think more level-headed individuals disregard the verbal rubbish of newscasters on both Fox News and CNN?

Finally I think the concept of the smaller than Alpha RWD would be a great idea as it would remove the burden of the Camaro from having to be the all things for all needs for GM like the Mustang has become for Ford.

True.

Think about this. The Camaro has had to move 100,000 at Oshawa to be profitable and they still have not moved the number of V6 cars they want to move or really need to move going into the future. With the Gen 6 going to the ATS and CTS plant they can remove the number of cars needed and built generally mostly V8 cars at a little higher price and keep the Camaro image in check vs forcing a Turbo 4 under the hood. With this car they can create a new car and class that will take on the Mustang and the Toyota and better address it. Also this car needs to appeal to a global market. Retro is not the way to go Globally unless you are a Mini. Europe has yet to understand the HHR and SSR.

The Code 130R, or the production version thereof, is not direct competition for next-year's Mustang. You're right in that Ford is trying to cover a huge amount of ground with the upcoming next-generation model, but the Code 130R will only reach out to buyers who would otherwise consider the Scion FR-S/Subaru BRZ and probably the Hyundai Genesis. I suppose lower-level trims of the Mustang would be in that crossfire too, but I see Mustang buyers generally cross shopping the Challenger (also Barracuda) and Camaro as they always have.

Retro is not the way to go globally unless you're Mini, huh? Sit down here for a minute. I think Fiat's on the phone.

The bottom line is I have litte issue with most of the car but I really think they failed on the rear of the car. I know they can do better as this is the company that just showed us the ELR. The ELR shows a little heritage but has taken a design that is so appealing many forget or wish it was not an electric car. I am not saying to copy the ELR before you take me our of context again but if they can make such an impression with that car they can do much better here.

ELR? Heritage? If you see that, sure. I guess.

While I will not call the 130 a failure I will not claim it to be one of their best efforts and I will continue to state so as I am not alone as there are many other on the web that also feel this way from the comments I have read. What ever it ends up like so be it. If I like it I would consider buying it if it has the 2.0 Turbo but if It remains as it is I will continue to look for what I like.

Fair enough, but the positive momentum does outweigh the negative criticisms. If so many people hated it, then it wouldn't have gotten as far along as it has. Sure, it isn't over until it's out on pavement, but if you told me just three years ago GM would have a car like the Code 130R somewhere on the table, I would have a hard time believing it.

In short I encourage you to continue to offer your opinion as I have a pair and can deal with it. Like wise I will continue to voice my opinuion as that is what forums are for. GM is watching anymore and this is where we need to be heard. Who the hell here has a right to censor anyones opinon? I don'y hold that right and nor do you..... Well maybe Drew LOL!

I may be in the minority here but over all the split is around 50/50 on many forums so I am far from alone in my feelings.

I am good with you so please do not take this the wrong way. Just understand we all have opinions here and sometimes we agree and many times we do not and that is why we are all here.

The feeling is reciprocal, but don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to censor your opinion, I'm just saying to be a little more composed and collected about it. Again, there's a reason why they &#036;h&#33;-canned Glenn Beck from television.

By the time this hits market we may be lucky to beat under $30K

If that pans out to be true, then that will be this car's true Achilles' Heel. We'll see in due time.

Edited January 19, 2013 by black-knight

[thedriver]

I agree that the face of the 130R should be changed a little bit. Not because it doesn't work (which it does), but to be brought in line with the rest of the new Chevy faces (Impala, Traverse, et al). Leave the rest of it alone.

[hyperv6]

Telling someone to stop bashing is censorship. Telling anyone to not express their opinion is censorship. Sorry if I'm not on you're band wagon but my opinion is my own and if I do not like the car or something about it I will state so.

The car as it was shown will be changed to a degree and I expect the Toyota sales may have an influence. Also the car as it was was not a production model if I recall it did nto even have a real interior. While we may no know what all will change we all know the nose will change for sure. This was where I am coming from.

Lets clear a few things up. Any reference to the Chevelle is only out there because many others have tossed it around as a comparison. I do not see it in the car.

I point out the N car as it was a small upright squared off car that looked awkward. I do not see a direct N body here but I do see a similar shape and size so please keep this in context. For the most part I dislike the car from the B pillar back. The upright rear window has no relation to the slanted b pillar etc. I know it is difficult to style a car the smaller it gets but GM has done it well with the ELR and the Buick GM Lab Concept that Camaino post from time to time. My point is GM can do better.

The heritage comment of the ELR is in the grill and tail lights even you can see that. It is small and updated but enough to point out the car is a Cadillac. That is all I ment again do not blow this out of context.

The FIat 500 has been falling below expectations. Not my feelings but what has been stated in the press on how Fiat is looking at it. The 500 is a drop in the bucket vs the Mini globally. Fiat is on the phone alright trying to reinvent the 500 with more variations to increase sales.

As for how the 130 got as far as it has. I often wondered about the Aztec the same thing. Either way I went back to other forums and confirmed while there is a good sized group that likes it there are still many that feel as I do. There are few cars out there that everyone loves.

This car would compete with the Mustange unless they change plans. Ford is doing it all with the Mustange and it will be everything from cheap econo 4 cylinder to full blown Shelby based on the comming car. As of now they plan for only one car but that culd change based on sales of the others. If the small RWD comes to GM I suspect we will not see a 4 cylinder Camaro and they will be ok with what V6 sales they already have.

As for price the average price of a car today is over $30K. If this car does not come for a coupe years the average will only increase. But it is way too soon to predict price or even end styling.

Glenn Beck? How in the hell do you go from cars and the 130 to Glenn Beck. I take it you either hate him or feel threatened but leave me out of this issue you have. That is between you and him.

The bottom line is you like the car and I can accept that and have no issue with what ever comment you have on your own personel feelings. It is your opinion and I can deal with it. In turn I am not a fan of parts of this car and will continue to voice what I like or dislike.

There is no need to be defensive as if anyone says anyting negitive we may kill the deal. I could only wish for such influance. LOL!

I have made my point here enought for you to understand and I understand yours. Lets not blow this out of shape here anymore than it has been. You like it and I don't we do not agree and I am ok with that. So sing what ever praise you may have but don't expect others who do not agree to remain silent.

[Camino LS6]

I have to like the 130, it is RWD and doesn't have headlights like a big sloppy mess of bling!

Nice, tidy, little package.

[Blake Noble]

Telling someone to stop bashing is censorship. Telling anyone to not express their opinion is censorship. Sorry if I'm not on you're band wagon but my opinion is my own and if I do not like the car or something about it I will state so.

This isn't censorship. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but it simply isn't.

You can bash away on a subject to your heart's content, but at least try to make an effort to have a few facts ready to corroborate your criticism.

I get it, and I think we all get it; you don't like the Code 130R's styling, and that's fine. I knew it — hell, everyone else knew it — a year ago. But that's a subjective matter and it gets tiring to hear someone campaign the same emotional rhetoric contentiously. Move on. It isn't necessary to remind someone of how you feel at every opportunity that you get. That's the point I'm trying to get across to you here. It's a position without substance.

The car as it was shown will be changed to a degree and I expect the Toyota sales may have an influence. Also the car as it was was not a production model if I recall it did nto even have a real interior. While we may no know what all will change we all know the nose will change for sure. This was where I am coming from.

Sure, I can see where you're coming from here. No, the car wasn't a production model but it was designed to be mostly feasible, at least on paper anyway. That was the idea.

Lets clear a few things up. Any reference to the Chevelle is only out there because many others have tossed it around as a comparison. I do not see it in the car.

I point out the N car as it was a small upright squared off car that looked awkward. I do not see a direct N body here but I do see a similar shape and size so please keep this in context. For the most part I dislike the car from the B pillar back. The upright rear window has no relation to the slanted b pillar etc. I know it is difficult to style a car the smaller it gets but GM has done it well with the ELR and the Buick GM Lab Concept that Camaino post from time to time. My point is GM can do better.

No one is saying the Code 130R is a direct successor to the Chevelle, or even directly comparing it's concept to the Chevelle. The comparison is there because it is a fact that GM designers were looking to popular muscle cars of the late '60s and early '70s for inspiration and wound up using an modern interpretation of the side sculpting that was first seen on the 1970 to 1972 model Chevelles. Do a Google image search or two and compare the profile shots of the two cars yourself. You'd have to be blind not to see the connection. I'm also going to just skip over the whole "N-Body coupe" comparison here since it's exaggeration.

That said, there were other proposals that had certain Nova-esque undertones and were a little more square-jawed than what we wound up with, and that may indicate where this car could be going if it enters production. I will say this, straighter lines are more becoming of the design than subtle curves and it really changes the entire car.

The heritage comment of the ELR is in the grill and tail lights even you can see that. It is small and updated but enough to point out the car is a Cadillac. That is all I ment again do not blow this out of context.

I'm not blowing anything out of context. The ELR is styled like other current Cadillacs.

The FIat 500 has been falling below expectations. Not my feelings but what has been stated in the press on how Fiat is looking at it. The 500 is a drop in the bucket vs the Mini globally. Fiat is on the phone alright trying to reinvent the 500 with more variations to increase sales.

In North America, perhaps at first. Blame an inadequate dealer network for that, not a bad product. But the 500 has been well received. Ask Europe what they think of it.

"More variations to increase sales," huh? I think a British marque owned by a bunch of Germans has done recently this as well. I can't remember their name right now, but it had something to do about being small in size ... Huh.

As for how the 130 got as far as it has. I often wondered about the Aztec the same thing. Either way I went back to other forums and confirmed while there is a good sized group that likes it there are still many that feel as I do. There are few cars out there that everyone loves.

Comparing the 130R to the Aztek? Uh, how about nooo.

Sure, there isn't a car out there that is everything to everyone. If it isn't for you, that's why you don't buy it.

This car would compete with the Mustange unless they change plans. Ford is doing it all with the Mustange and it will be everything from cheap econo 4 cylinder to full blown Shelby based on the comming car. As of now they plan for only one car but that culd change based on sales of the others. If the small RWD comes to GM I suspect we will not see a 4 cylinder Camaro and they will be ok with what V6 sales they already have.

Again, the Code 130R — or whatever they'll wind up calling it — will not be direct competition for the upcoming Mustang if and when it comes to market. Once again, the majority of fair weather pony car buyers will typically cross-shop the next-gen Mustang with the NG Camaro and NG Challenger as usual. The Code 130R may pull away a few of those buyers from a four-cylinder equipped Mustang but, once again, it will compete in a different segment of cars.

As for price the average price of a car today is over $30K. If this car does not come for a coupe years the average will only increase. But it is way too soon to predict price or even end styling.

I don't think it will ring in quite that expensive. The next-generation Camaro probably won't see a dramatic price hike from the current model. This car has to come in below that.

Glenn Beck? How in the hell do you go from cars and the 130 to Glenn Beck. I take it you either hate him or feel threatened but leave me out of this issue you have. That is between you and him.

... that's my only response here. My only response.

MY ONLY RESPONSE.

The bottom line is you like the car and I can accept that and have no issue with what ever comment you have on your own personel feelings. It is your opinion and I can deal with it. In turn I am not a fan of parts of this car and will continue to voice what I like or dislike.

... alright then.

There is no need to be defensive as if anyone says anyting negitive we may kill the deal. I could only wish for such influance. LOL!

... it isn't like there's a direct internet campaign involved with this car. It isn't like that same internet campaign left the Tru 140S in the dust.

I have made my point here enought for you to understand and I understand yours. Lets not blow this out of shape here anymore than it has been. You like it and I don't we do not agree and I am ok with that. So sing what ever praise you may have but don't expect others who do not agree to remain silent.

Okay, sure.

Edited January 20, 2013 by black-knight

[Blake Noble]

Oh, I almost forgot to post something else I found interesting:

[ocnblu]

The Shoebox look clinches it for me. I love it because it has a real decklid. The upright greenhouse is defiant and pugnacious, it is adorable and strong and small and fun and NOT trendy.

[hyperv6]

Oh, I almost forgot to post something else I found interesting:

Wow I much really appear as a threat to you and your love for this car. You act as if I hold sway over GM? Get a life. I stopped reading you post as I think we have made out points well enough. Styling is subjective and there is not right or wrong. You like and that is fine with me and I do not like parts of it so learn to deal with it.

By the way this is nearly a year old you have anything recent?

Have a nice day

Edited January 20, 2013 by hyperv6

[Blake Noble]

Wow I much really appear as a threat to you and your love for this car.

Okay, first thing's first. I never said anywhere in this thread that I "loved" this car. I said that a year ago, yeah. But not anywhere in any context today. The only thing that I have really done here is present you with the facts about this car and apparently you take issue with that. Too bad.

You act as if I hold sway over GM? Get a life.

Oh, goddammit ... just goddammit. I'm not even going to bother.

I stopped reading you post as I think we have made out points well enough. Styling is subjective and there is not right or wrong. You like and that is fine with me and I do not like parts of it so learn to deal with it.

Okay, fine. Not the point I've been trying to make to you, but sure. Okay.

By the way this is nearly a year old you have anything recent?

Heh. Sooner or later, I'll run into something and tuck it away on my external HDD.

Have a nice day

You too.

[hyperv6]

The Shoebox look clinches it for me. I love it because it has a real decklid. The upright greenhouse is defiant and pugnacious, it is adorable and strong and small and fun and NOT trendy.

All for the trunk.

I think one thing that would help it for me is if it had a little more trunk lid length. I have been looking at this from different angles and the roof length ratio to deck lid need work. If they would just add a little more length to the deck lid it would help. I see the same issue on the BMW 1, not that I am a BMW fan.

The worst styling of a small sedan I ever saw was the hatch 318. A buddy had one as a daily drive and we called it the half ass car. This is a good example of why GM should not look at this car ever being a hatch.

One GM car from the past I would love to see a few things from it with a modern take was the 65 Corvair Corsa. The green house on that car was classic and would be good for todays sight lines. It would be difficult to apply to a smaller car like this.

Edited January 20, 2013 by hyperv6

[ocnblu]

Are you trying to push my second-gen Corvair LOVE button? Those are so beautiful.

[hyperv6]

Are you trying to push my second-gen Corvair LOVE button? Those are so beautiful.

I was just a kid but liked the styling on the couple my Dad had. Not so much the first gen though.

I remember crawling up in the rear window and laying in the storage bins while going down the road. Car seats we did not need no stinkin car seats LOL! If I recall the early ones did not even have seat belts. LOL!

I did have to say they did get a great shape out of the 2nd gen. It was just right. Too bad the Pony cars killed it. Everyone like to blame Nadar but the Mustang and Camaro did more to kill the car off than anything. I read several accounts by GM insiders. I think one was by Delorean.

I alwaya wondered what it would have been like if they had done the 2nd gen Corvair with the rear transaxle from Pontiac and the 327 up front. This would have help eliminate the cost of the expensive flat 6 but by then the Nadar PR or I should say BS was too far along.

[Camino LS6]

Been giving this a bit more thought here and there, and I think that the 130 really is analogous to the old Nova. Or, maybe it is more of a distillation of what Nova was, and what Vega tried to be. A neat little package that can provide decent performance and looks at an affordable price, while being economical to run.

The more I look at the car, the more I like both the styling, and the concept behind it.

I think it could be a real winner for Chevy.

[hyperv6]

Camino I think you nailed it. Not the Nova but the Vega. The first Gen Vega embodied much of what this car is to be. RWD, 4 seat, sporty, affordable, good on gas and a 4 cylinder.

GM would never compare the two but it is like the same idea just in a better built car with a much better engine. The Vega idea was great it was just poorly done.

To be honest the Vega even with the rust issues and oil use would still run and start day in and day out. Back in high school everyone had one for a winter beater. We just filled them up with used oil and kept on driving them. Two guys were lucky enough they had two Cosworths. If GM had just put better metal in the car and liners in the cylinders it could have really made a difference.

I was going to post a photo of a notch back but the site will not longer take Imageshack.?

[ocnblu]

[ocnblu]

[ocnblu]

[hyperv6]

Good you got the notchie in red too.

This is where I see this car fitting in. I would see it matching Cobalt in price. Or at least like to see it in this price range. You know that the more performance they add the higher the price will creep. The Cobalt SS was gettng to be around $27k a few years ago.

A panel and 2 door wagon would make for a good HHR replacment option for some. I see many HHR owners not sure where to move next. Most are looking Regal or Nox but not liking it.

[Robert Hall]

Since they haven't done a Cruze coupe, there is definitely an available niche for Chevy there.

[Turbojett]

ocn. please tell me you're not suggesting what i think you're suggesting.

[ocnblu]

Well hyper suggested somebody post a pic of the original Vega notchback, so I went lookin'. Then I got to reading all the bragging in the brochure and I had to post some more of the pages... especially about that horrible engine.

Vega Panel = HHR panel

But the little red notchback, with its upright greenhouse and 4 taillights, kinda proves my point... the Code 130RS is a car only Chevrolet could pull off authentically, because it is so perfectly and completely, a family member. Makes me love it all the more.

Edited January 21, 2013 by ocnblu

[G. David Felt]

This Green baby so reminds me of the orignal Mad Max movie! Me Love you long time!

[Camino LS6]

Hmmm.....

130 Panel

Photoshop, please!

[Camino LS6]

Here is a Hot Rod magazine photoshop of a 130 "Nomad".

I love it!

[Camino LS6]

I have also seen a convertible chop, but it didn't come off quite as well.

[hyperv6]

Here is a Hot Rod magazine photoshop of a 130 "Nomad".

I love it!

Nomad-650x417.jpg

Now I am not a wagon guy but that looks good!

The task for this car is to appeal to the core market of anyone not over 35 years old so much. If you are over 35 you could choose this car but you also have many more options to choose from. Now the 35 and under male and females are who this car needs to target. They have less choices and less sporting options.

For women practical and good looking are the keys as proven with the V6 sales of Mustangs. RWD does not scare them off. The ability to see out and carry 4 people are key.

For the younger males it is styling, affordability, electronics and performance. They want something that has a cool factor to it that will make their friends show great envy. They want a car people will ask them questions at the gas station as they fill up.

Retro has less play on this group as many may not know or care about much of it. But if there are styling keys from the past that could be used because they were good and not just because they are retro then by all means use them but in a modern way.

The small 2 door wagon could compete with the Mini. I am not sure how the panel would do but it would be easy to do in low volume. HHR panel had limited love outside fleet sales. It had a cool factor but many people were not thrilled with being stuck with a 2 seater van. Even the Half panel did worse but was a good idea to try.

A convertible would play well with the female segment if it is afforable. Not sure if that would be easy or cheap here.

These are just some idea's off the top of my head. I really need to sit down and try to put this all into the terms of a twenty something. I deal with a lot of them at work as customers and have many that I work with. I will toss out some things to them and see what they say. GM really needs this under 35 age group and they are the ones who will help secure the future. Guys like me are in house and have been for years and really will not be moving on from the brand. GM really needs to capture this in all their models and brands.

I just where Tadge Juecter said even with the Vette they need to sharpen the appeal to the younger buyers. Not only to consider buying one if they could afford it but to get them to aspire to own one someday. The Vette just has not had the pull with the younger demo as in the past. Many of the things in the new car are there to appeal to these kids. The Ferrari traits, the many functional scoops and high tech toys on the dash are all targeted at them but not to the point it over complicates the car or kills the price till it is way too out of reach compared to other sports cars. Vette sales have been down for 5 years and they aim to increase them with buyers who never would consider the car in the past.

I think GM needs to do the same on this car and drive for the non traditional Chevy buyer. This is one that could steal sales from Ford and I hope Scion, Hyundai and even Toyota. But that may mean they needs to do some things very un GM like in some areas.

If I had to choose a name right now it would be Monza. Not so much because of the past car but it is a name that has not been used for a long time and it is just a good sporting name.

Edited January 21, 2013 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

I don't know about all of that, but this would be a far more useful bodystyle for me than a coupe, convertible, or sedan.

I like the coupe, but I could really use this.

Plus, it looks great.

EDIT: I haul stuff, not people.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Camino LS6

[hyperv6]

Hmmm How about a mini Camaino? Since the Colorado is rather large hwo about we remove the wagon top and make a small light truck.

[ocnblu]

I don't know about all of that, but this would be a far more useful bodystyle for me than a coupe, convertible, or sedan.

I like the coupe, but I could really use this.

Plus, it looks great.

EDIT: I haul stuff, not people.

Dogs are ppl too.

[Camino LS6]

Hmmm How about a mini Camaino? Since the Colorado is rather large hwo about we remove the wagon top and make a small light truck.

Possible.

But the utility would be miniscule. An El Camino version of the SS sedan makes much more sense.

I'd much rather have this as a shooting brake than a mini-mini-pickup.

I don't know about all of that, but this would be a far more useful bodystyle for me than a coupe, convertible, or sedan.

I like the coupe, but I could really use this.

Plus, it looks great.

EDIT: I haul stuff, not people.

Dogs are ppl too.

But they fit nicely in cargo areas.

[hyperv6]

The El Camino on the SS will never happen unless there is a major change in the exchange rate. GM will not bring it here and sell it at a high price and with out a change in the exchange rate it will never come here on the lower side.

Inless they move Holden to a global platform on the Alpha I suspect we will never see it here unless it is built here.

I could see a small hauler. Lets face it little trucks like the original LUV trucks were not heavy haulers but would do what many suburban familys could live with. It might also pay well in OZ. Lets face it even the short bed S 10 trucks were limited if it was a step side even more so.

[Camino LS6]

If the exchange rate is good enough for the SS, it is good enough for the Ute.

And, if the 130 had a bed, it would be microscopic.

Nah, I'll take the shooting brake Nomad instead.