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

[Camino LS6]

Suffice it to say that only three small cars have risen to the level of "do want" in my mind in the last decade or so.

This hypothetical shooting brake, the Buick Avant concept, and the Solstice coupe.

That's the sort of design required to interest me in small cars.

[dwightlooi]

I too find the 130R an unimpressive design. It is not really ugly, but it's also completely unremarkable. The rakish TRU140S is much better looking and more importantly a more striking visual statement.

The problem of course is that the TRU140S is front drive. But if they intend to tackle this with a new platform, it won't be too difficult to stuff the engine in the back between the seats and the rear axle turning it into an MR design with an engine under the rear glass. They should also stop trying to make a sports car a green car or an economy car. Buyers looking for such vehicles are not Prius buyers, Fit buyers or Cruze buyers. They want a fast, nimble, exotic they can afford. MPG numbers don't hurt but they are not a top priority. Forget the 1.4T, just stuff the 270hp 2.0T (LTG) in there and call it a day. For an entry model, just stuff the 2.5 NA in there. The transmission choices can be a auto rev match 6M and a 6A, both with an electronically controlled locking differential. In anycase, the 2.5 is not going to post significantly worse MPG numbers than the 1.4T anyway.

Edited January 22, 2013 by dwightlooi

[Camino LS6]

I certainly agree with you on the powertrain question, Dwight.

We part company on the design front. I agree with a description of the 140 I read a few days ago. The writer described it as "an atomic doorstop".

I really dislike it, FWD , mid-engine, or RWD - it would still be a doorstop.

[dwightlooi]

LOL... I like wedges. I like the Civic's wedge shape too, just not the extremely noisy NVH

[hyperv6]

I fully expect a 2.0 Tubo as an option here and a 1.6T as the most common engine.

As an owner of a mid engine car the last thing they need to do is put the engine in the back as while it may sell good for a year or two once the market is filled the car will be gone in less than 5 years. 2 seat cars are a limited market and low priced mid engine cars are even more limited. In a slow ecomony sports car and low priced sports cars are some of the first things discretionary spending effects.

This needs to be a fun car, sporty car and a car that has a wide appeal to the younger lower income buyers.

As for styling I would love them to do a Buick Avant like car as a Chevy with some added C7 styling bits. Keep it a 4 seater and have a usable trunck.

[Camino LS6]

LOL... I like wedges. I like the Civic's wedge shape too, just not the extremely noisy NVH

To each his own.

I look at cars like the 140 and think kit car.

[Delta Force79]

I look at the 140 and see next gen Eclipse...the 140 is not exciting or remotely appealing. It looks like any number of blobs from any number of manufacturers in recent years. But the biggest comparison I see from at least a profile shot is Mitsubishi Eclipse.

I'll take the 130 and it's Vega-Nova-Chevelle feel anyday over an Eclipse.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Delta Force79

[G. David Felt]

I have taken a I could care less since I will never fit in the car at all as it will be too small for giants like me, but for everyone else in the 5'8" tall group or shorter, I hope GM does this right to really give the market a nice pocket rocket.

[dwightlooi]

I fully expect a 2.0 Tubo as an option here and a 1.6T as the most common engine.

As an owner of a mid engine car the last thing they need to do is put the engine in the back as while it may sell good for a year or two once the market is filled the car will be gone in less than 5 years. 2 seat cars are a limited market and low priced mid engine cars are even more limited. In a slow ecomony sports car and low priced sports cars are some of the first things discretionary spending effects.

This needs to be a fun car, sporty car and a car that has a wide appeal to the younger lower income buyers.

As for styling I would love them to do a Buick Avant like car as a Chevy with some added C7 styling bits. Keep it a 4 seater and have a usable trunck.

I actually don't expect the 1.6T to be the base engine. The reason is simple. The base engine has to be cheaper than the premium engine. A 1.6T is not any cheaper than the 2.0T -- it's the same complexity and same approximate cost equation. Both engines have DI, VVT phasers, a turbocharger, an intercooler and all the associate plumbing. If you are going to pay for that, you are better off making the 2.0T standard and making this a 1 engine product (which may not be a bad idea given the limited volume this type of cars generate.

If you think that the 1.6T is going to be more economical because it's lower displacement, that usually hasn't panned out in most of the cars we have seen lately. If you compare the MPG ratings of the 2.5 Malibu and the 2.0T Malibu for instance, there is absolutely no difference in either the Highway or the City numbers despite a 20% displacement difference. If you compare the 1.4T Cruze to its 1.8 liter and 2.0 liter competitors (like the Civic or the Focus) you'll also notice that it's mileage numbers are not any better. In fact, it is frequently slightly worse. The problem with achieving the same approximate power output using a turbocharged engine of lower displacement is that while they have slightly lower pumping (aspirational) losses, they have approximately the same frictional losses and reduced efficiency from the reduced compression ratio. The best efficiency seems to be achieved when the engine combines the high compression with minimal boost -- BMW's 300hp 3.0 liter I6s for instance. For a 1.6L such a formula will generate a mere 160hp and a level of efficiency no better than a 2.0 160hp NA engine but with better low end torque. If you are gunning for 200hp from a 1.6L, you lose efficiency due to the necessary compression loss and will likely end up with fuel economy numbers similar to a 200hp 2.5 liter four anyway. For either case, the more economic solution is to simply use a 2.0 or 2.5 NA.

There are many things that increase fuel efficiency -- Atkinson cam grinds, going to SOHC, going to 2-valves/cylinder, using roller followers, increasing compression (DI enables that), going to few cylinders. Going to a lower displacement by itself is one of the least effective remedies.

[Camino LS6]

I've found that to be true of large displacement V8s as well.

In trucks over the years I've noticed that quite often a big block will get about the same MPG as a smallblock in the same truck.

350 = 454

6.0 = 8.1

And so on.

[dwightlooi]

Actually, one commonly missed point about displacement is that even when it comes to pumping losses, lower displacement doesn't equal lower aspiration.

The Cruze's 1.4T engine turns over at ~2500 rpm @ 65 mph. A 2.0 liter engine turning over at 1740 rpm will displace the same about of air per minute assuming the same throttle induced vacuum levels. Sure, most 2.0 liters will not run that low at 65 mph (probably more like 2100~2200 rpm) but most also have higher compression than the 1.4T's 9.5:1 and consequently have better thermal efficiency (especially if DI was adopted). In the end, the EPA test cycles gave the Focus 2.0 a 27/38 MPG (6-spd Auto) whereas a Cruze 1.4T (6A) gets 26/38 MPG. So much for a 30% reduction in displacement and all the costs associated with the turbo and IC subsystem (which is more than direct injectors on the Ford engine).

[G. David Felt]

I agree with the whole displacement thing. My big blocks are just as efficient as my small blocks and yet they move ass very well for a suburban.

[hyperv6]

Again there is more to this story than just MPG. The 1.6 will get as good and maybe a little better MPG but it will have more lower end torque and a flatter torque cruve than the 2.5. This is why we will see more an more of this engine in many of GM's cars.

The simple truth is the 1.6 T will have a much better feel and will not have to be reved hard to get to the sweet spot where it will trans late in to a feel of power for the owner.

Also note that the lower flatter torque curve helps move the cars mass up to speed faster for more off trottle time. While this may not sound like much it in a DI engine it shuts down the fuel and increases the savings. In my 2.0 when we bumped it up to 315 FT LBS it incresed my MPG by 1-2 MPG even driving it like I stole it. This is what was told to me and confirmed to me by a GM driveline engineer Bill Duncan. I think he has a little more clue than anyone here on the topic.

As for the V8. Under the right conditions they can get good MPG but often they also can get much worse if you are driving them in less than ideal conditions. While my 2.0 can drop in MPG if driven hard I never drop below 23 MPG even in stop light to stop light driving in very cold temps. In the warm it will increase 1-2 more MPG with no hypermileing.

I understand they have improved the V8 with lots of tricks and some versions in the right vehicles can do ok. But out 2009 5.3 is far from a 30 MPG vehicle. In fact it would be nice to see 20 MPG more often.

The physics of engine size is still in play as if all the v8 engines and larger V6 engines got that great of MPG we would have a new Impala and Malibu with these engines. They are not sticking the 2.5 in the Impala because they want too.

It is time to grasp reality that engine will continue to get smaller and they will resort to more turbos to help extract more torque with some power from less and less displacment. I hate to say it but we will see even wider use of the 3 cyinder too.

There are a lot of variables to this but the simple fact is engines will continue to get smaller and smaller while the V8 will remain but in more and more of just a supporting role.

My 2.0 has as much or more power than most of the V8 engines I have owned and has MPG that none of my V8 engines could ever touch and I have owned a lot of V8's. It is not an endorsement for the small engines as I like the V8 too but just the reality of it.

I am sure if I dug around enough I could find a good V8 example of MPG too but it is not as wide spread on all models as some make it out to be.

[Camino LS6]

OK, I'm really becoming fixated on that 130 "Nomad".

I know it's just vaporware, but I think I should have one!

Me, getting excited over a small car, so very rare!

[hyperv6]

OK, I'm really becoming fixated on that 130 "Nomad".

I know it's just vaporware, but I think I should have one!

Me, getting excited over a small car, so very rare!

A small car with out a V8 too.

Have you got the flu?

[Camino LS6]

No flu.

It's RWD, a two-door, has an interesting bodystyle, likely a manual trans, and the utility of a decent-sized cargo area.

As long as the power to weight ratio is good, I'm in.

Would I rather a V8?

Of course, but the rest is right in line with what I want.

I'll never buy a new sedan, nor anything FWD, so this is about as good as it gets in this lousy automotive environment.

[hyperv6]

I just would hope they could capture the fun to drive my SS has with this car. If they could tune it to handle and ride like my F5 suspension it would be great. I looked at the numbers on the Toyota and they are nothing special. Even with FWD my SS will top nearly all their numbers and I am hauling 3200 pounds. If GM could tune this car to the degree like they have many of their recent tunes it would make for a very fun to drive car.

GM has finally woke up and learned stiff springs and big bars are not always the answer. My SS will take on any back road stupied fast and still remain easy to control. I learned a long time ago a well tuned car will be easy to drive fast. Untill spent a lot of time in a 911 I never understood how much harder I worked to go fast in Trans Am's and the like unless the road was smooth. Note I am not a 911 fan but I have a lot of seat time and know it is easy to drive fast and appreciate how it taught me how bad some of the cars I was used to were.

[Camino LS6]

I always found a 911 to be a bit of a disconcerting drive.

Yes, it handles - but it feels like it doesn't.

At any rate, I'd expect a first class job of tuning on any 130 -derived production car. Otherwise, what's the use in producing a small RWD product in the first place?

[hyperv6]

What I noticed with the 911 is it made fast feel slow. This is what I find in the SS where I will be going along and all of a sudden I see how fast I am going and will be shocked at how far over what I thought.

The 911 was the same way as it made 100 MPH feel like 50 MPH. It has quirks as any car does but I found it did a good job on poor road conditions. Anyone can make a car handle well on a black lake it is the real world back roads that make the cream rise.

[Camino LS6]

I didn't care for the feeling that the front tires had divorced the pavement when I drove a 911.

As soon as you put the power to the car, the steering feels insanely light.

It has grip, but doesn't feel like it.

Very odd sensation.

Not like any other car.

[hyperv6]

I didn't care for the feeling that the front tires had divorced the pavement when I drove a 911.

As soon as you put the power to the car, the steering feels insanely light.

It has grip, but doesn't feel like it.

Very odd sensation.

Not like any other car.

Tadge in the story on the C7 said this feel is because of the lack of weight in the nose and is an advantage for the 911 for feel. He said it is something that is difficult to apply to the Vette with the engine in the nose. He know Porsche much better than any of us growing up in a Porsche family. He father owned many while he was growing up and he knows them inside and out. I feel this background will give the C7 an advantage in targeting the 911 as the leader of the team understands them.

I am not a 911 fan and it took a while but I get why many like the car. I still like the Vette better but the Porsche has some really valid points and puts them into play well. Their tuning is where they have always had an advantage. Now that we have better electronics and better partsa and materials to work with the gap is closed down. I really thing for once the C7 has a chance to take a advantage in most reviews. I think many will view this car like the ATS as a equal with better areas than the long time leader. Once price is factored it is no contest then.

Edited January 25, 2013 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

It's the weight transfer, not the weight itself. If you drive a 911 sedately, you'll never notice.

But put your foot in it, and it becomes a different car.

[Blake Noble]

Hmmm ...

Edited January 25, 2013 by black-knight

[G. David Felt]

Hmmm ...

ChevyCode130Rconcept.jpg

chevydriftbluerear.jpg

Me Still Likey these cars even though Shrek cannot fit in them!

[Camino LS6]

They just have to do this...

[hyperv6]

BK, The way the roof is on the blue car is more to my liking. It has a liltte better effect on the car and fits the profile of the car a little better. It is still upright but the quarter window, quarter post and roof length all have a lot better flow to it vs the show car.

See it would take so little to fix what I hate on this car. I am fair and no where near as hateful to it as you like to make it. All I said is GM could do better and someone has in the blue car.

The only real negitive with this style will be the fact the trunk will be useless for anything square. It would be like my Malibu where you have a large trunk but nothing will fit in the trunk opening if it is very tall. Not a big deal to me but something the media will hit on in review. Even my GTP has similar issues but not as bad as the Bu. I spend a lot of time unboxing items if I happen to be out in that car and buy something on a impulse.

[Camino LS6]

The shooting brake would fix that.

[balthazar]

As soon as you put the power to the car, the steering feels insanely light.

Poor weight distribution only made worse with the weight transfer of acceleration, no?

[Blake Noble]

BK, The way the roof is on the blue car is more to my liking. It has a liltte better effect on the car and fits the profile of the car a little better. It is still upright but the quarter window, quarter post and roof length all have a lot better flow to it vs the show car.

See it would take so little to fix what I hate on this car. I am fair and no where near as hateful to it as you like to make it. All I said is GM could do better and someone has in the blue car.

The only real negitive with this style will be the fact the trunk will be useless for anything square. It would be like my Malibu where you have a large trunk but nothing will fit in the trunk opening if it is very tall. Not a big deal to me but something the media will hit on in review. Even my GTP has similar issues but not as bad as the Bu. I spend a lot of time unboxing items if I happen to be out in that car and buy something on a impulse.

The roofline wasn't just altered on the blue car; the windshield has additional rake and front quarter panels and hood were also subtly enlongated for truer "long hood, short deck" proportions. Like I said earlier, straighter lines, like those exhibited in the sketches that were initially proposed for the Code 130R, are more befitting of the original design and roofline than the subtly curved lines that can be seen in the finished product. What is exhibited in the design of the blue car are more traditionally complimenting elements.

That doesn't mean that I think it's a bad looking car mind you, but I do think it's because of the way those flowing lines work in conjuction with the more upright roofline that makes the actual concept car jarring for some people to digest. While they may not compliment one another, they aren't in total dischord. It's definitely different.

Whatever the case, I do have a peculiar feeling something about the glasshouse may change if this car enters production. If it changes that dramatically, it's hard to say. I will admit that the original b-pillar design does appear that it may cause backseat ingress/egress issues because of the way it is slanted forward. While this car is geared toward enthusiasts and buyers in my age group that may want to buy a cheap and interesting car, it was also designed with practicality in mind. A reasonably liveable and accessable backseat is part of the picture here.

I also thought of you when I decided to post it.

As for the red liftback-style car, I find that the front fascia in particular is pretty interesting. It has some issues, but it is a good working example of how the front fascia could be adjusted to reflect the new Chevrolet family look. There was also a sketch posted back on page two that shows that this car wasn't necessarily designed to wear the 2008 Malibu-style dual port grille.

Edited January 26, 2013 by black-knight

[ocnblu]

Blue car takes away sweet Shoebox heritage. Me no like.

[hyperv6]

BK with what ever you did on the blue it made the cars design work as one. The parts add up to a complete car working as one in stlying.

The Red car looks like someone just photo shop'd my 08 Malibu C pillar on. I like the shape but not on this car.

As for the red nose it still looks like the old face of GM with Ford headlamps.

On the Blue car I would rework the lower black rear into more things in common with the C7. It already is similar but I would move it more to what they have now. Same on the Tail Lamps I would rework them more to the new C7. But that is just me but what you have is not bad..

Like I said get the greenhouse to work with the rest of the car and you will have something. I think the old Fox body Mustang is a good example where many bought the hatch because it just looked better. Most coupes were only sold as police fleets and drag racers because it was lighter and stronger. Americans are not hatch people but in the Mustang for years they bought them by the 10s of thousands just because of the styling. Now that is not to say I want to see a hatch but only a more flowing greenhouse.

Just to note I was never a fan of the Bel Air show car either so my feelings on boxes are nothing new. I even bought my HHR SS because of how it drove and what it could haul not so much because of how it looked. But being a wagon and anti mini van I could live with it.

I saw the Subaru yesterday and the original show car would be in major trouble competing for the same buyers in this segment. Now the blue car you have I feel would be a very good move to compete.

As for the red car could you do more of a Chevy SS nose or Even Impala like grill? I think that is more of what would could see.

Edited January 26, 2013 by hyperv6

[ocnblu]

The LX 5.0 is my favorite Fox Mustang.

[Camino LS6]

As soon as you put the power to the car, the steering feels insanely light.

Poor weight distribution only made worse with the weight transfer of acceleration, no?

Yes, but that doesn't tell the whole story. The car still handles, it just feels wrong. And the way the rear sinks fangs into the pavement is stunning,

The 911 is just a strange ride... but it works.

[Camino LS6]

The LX 5.0 is my favorite Fox Mustang.

There were tons of them around here back then, and it seemed like most of them were dark green.

Those LX notchbacks were easily the best-looking Fox-body Mustangs.

The GTs were clown cars.

[Camino LS6]

Back on the 130.

The blue chop works, but isn't as distinctive.

It does make a stronger nod to the Novas of yore though.

It works, but I'd still choose the Nomad version in a heartbeat.

[Camino LS6]

Ocn is certainly right about one thing: The 130 is all Chevy, loud and proud.

And that's a very good thing.

[hyperv6]

Ocn is certainly right about one thing: The 130 is all Chevy, loud and proud.

And that's a very good thing.

Speaking of loud and proud. Even someone as challanged as David Lee Roth has learned that he can no longer wear bottomless spandex at the risk of coming off as a cliche'. There are the right reasons to stand out and there are the wrong reasons to stand out. I think you will find those that this car the majority would be targeted at would reject it as they did the Sion, Cube and Element. All targeted at youth and all missed the mark and were saved by Seniors. Sorry in the younger segment the more sporty wins out over boxy.

Say what you like about the 911 but it's record even with what flaws it may have speaks for itself on the road and track. They must have gotten somthing right.

As for the Mustang hatch sales numbers also speak voulmes on what styling was better accepted by the public. The LX was loved for the stiffer platform and lighter weight by racers and they really did not car about the look so much. They are still big customers of ours and I hear it from them first hand. Yes there are a few who like the upright look but but they are in the minority.

Edited January 26, 2013 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

You can't possibly be comparing the 130 to the Cube and Element - they had Aztek disease.

The styling cues the 130 uses are timeless, not simply exercises in shock value.

And don't get me wrong on the 911, once I got over the shock of how it feels to drive I was ok with it.

The point is that it is very different from anything else.

[ocnblu]

That's rear-engine handling for ya. Corvair FTW!

[Camino LS6]

On the Fox Mustang, you sure couldn't have proved that point around here. The notchback numbers were easily equal to the hatch.

And if they weren't nationally, so what?

An LX 5.0 was a very nice package compared to the tacky GT.

Either way choice is a good thing, Ford lost nothing by offering both.

That's rear-engine handling for ya. Corvair FTW!

I've never driven a Corvair, but I imagine the sensations would be similar.

Maybe that's what scared Nader so badly.

[hyperv6]

You can't possibly be comparing the 130 to the Cube and Element - they had Aztek disease.

The styling cues the 130 uses are timeless, not simply exercises in shock value.

And don't get me wrong on the 911, once I got over the shock of how it feels to drive I was ok with it.

The point is that it is very different from anything else.

Show me a squared off car that was so popular with todays youth? The mini is the only box on wheels that I can think of that apeals to the youth segment. Most are putting up posters of the GTr.

The Chevy II is not timeless the 66/67 Nova did a little better when they gave it some sweep to the roof. The Ferrari 250 Lusso is one of the most timeless stylings of the last 50 years. It has style grace and flow. Elements of this car could apply yet today and prove to be very popular just because it looks good. The greenhouse on this car would look in place be very popular on many modern cars today.

How many years did the Asians make odd and out of mainstream designs and finally woke up and learned to offer better styling. They still slip up but they learned being too different does not work long term.

I feel the 130 would age as fast as many of the boxes from the 80's. Lets face it hard square lined cars do not age well at all.

Ok lets put it this way. The 65 Corvair coupe green house vs the sedan greenhouse. what one has much more appeal? What one has more style and grace?

I know the sedan had it's limits but one has flow and one does not. one is more form vs function. In a coupe you have already given up function so form becomes very important. Coupes in general are sold on styling vs ease of use. Even the small Saturn door did not make much difference.

[Camino LS6]

Umm, I don't find the 130 to be "squared-off" in the least.

You just have a bug in your bonnet about the upright greenhouse.

I actually like both that style and the blue chop - That one element isn't what makes this so very Chevy in my eyes.

Like the Vega and Nova before it, the 130 has an overall look that screams Chevy.

It's honest, not a pretender.

The side sculpting is outstanding, even premium in appearance, yet very Chevrolet.

The tail lights are signature elements.

The headlights have that predator look that gives the car a quiet menace - instead of the aimless bling so common today.

The proportions are all in balance with no odd overhangs or strange proximities between panels and glass.

And the stance is agile and aggressive

All of that combines into an instantly recognizable identity as a Chevy product.

The design is strong..

Edited January 26, 2013 by Camino LS6

[Camino LS6]

Let me put it this way: The first time I saw a picture of a Holden, I knew it was GM. I also knew that it was something I'd never seen before. Though every detail was different, the whole design told me that it was the General's own without any nameplates.

The 130 does that for Chevy.

[hyperv6]

While I have made it clear there are only parts of the car I dislike styling is subjective and there is no right or wrong here.

I just hate seeing GM rehash the same things over and over from the past. I can remember in the 60's as a little kid I could not wait each year to see the new cars as they would change everything but the bow tie on the Chevys and nearly everything else. Even the carry over cars were changed enough you could tell what year it was.

While I like the past and reto to a point it has become a crutch for the lack of design or lack of trust in your styling staff.

Making a new great looking design is not easy but if no risk are taken then all you have left are rehashes of the past. I never saw Harley Earl or Bill Mitchell spend a lot of time using bits and parts of their old designs when making a show car or new major product. They did borrow some from some of the great designs of the past and few were GM in cases like the 69 GP and Duesenberg.

Would we have ever had a 63 Riv, 68 Eldo, 69 Camaro, 55 Chevy, 63 Vette etc if all we did is cribb from the past? Failure to create full new designs is a failure to move a company ahead. Retro is ok for some things but when you have a clean sheet of paper you need to create and move the model forward.

If the Chevy II and the Vega were world acclaimed styling projects I would say it may be ok to try some moder form of them on a car. As it is neither were bad looking cars but they were far from world class styling.

I really do not see any Chevy II or nova here. I see more Vega and I would hate to see the media to take this idea and run with it on a new car that deserves to be itself and own.

[Camino LS6]

The design isn't retro.

It just has a strong Chevy identity.

[hyperv6]

The design isn't retro.

It just has a strong Chevy identity.

Not according to some here I keep hearing old cars related to this design. Chevy identity is derived from styling of past cars. Some call it heritage some call it retro highlights etc.

You love the greenhouse on the show car and I like the blue drawing better but we both agree on the shooting brake, It is what it is.

Edited January 27, 2013 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

Not in the design, in the concept.

This car's place in the scheme of things reflects those cars of the past (and bests them).

But it doesn't look like them.

Brand echoes and cues do not make a design retro.

And, as I said before, I like both coupe designs as well as the shooting brake.

[Blake Noble]

BK with what ever you did on the blue it made the cars design work as one. The parts add up to a complete car working as one in stlying.

The Red car looks like someone just photo shop'd my 08 Malibu C pillar on. I like the shape but not on this car.

As for the red nose it still looks like the old face of GM with Ford headlamps.

On the Blue car I would rework the lower black rear into more things in common with the C7. It already is similar but I would move it more to what they have now. Same on the Tail Lamps I would rework them more to the new C7. But that is just me but what you have is not bad..

Like I said get the greenhouse to work with the rest of the car and you will have something. I think the old Fox body Mustang is a good example where many bought the hatch because it just looked better. Most coupes were only sold as police fleets and drag racers because it was lighter and stronger. Americans are not hatch people but in the Mustang for years they bought them by the 10s of thousands just because of the styling. Now that is not to say I want to see a hatch but only a more flowing greenhouse.

Just to note I was never a fan of the Bel Air show car either so my feelings on boxes are nothing new. I even bought my HHR SS because of how it drove and what it could haul not so much because of how it looked. But being a wagon and anti mini van I could live with it.

I saw the Subaru yesterday and the original show car would be in major trouble competing for the same buyers in this segment. Now the blue car you have I feel would be a very good move to compete.

As for the red car could you do more of a Chevy SS nose or Even Impala like grill? I think that is more of what would could see.

Well, unfortunately, I didn't make those two 'shops. Those are just some interesting anomalies I ran into while snooping around on Google.

I may break out the pencils and some paper however, to illustrate how I think the production version could turn out, if I can find the time.

I will add that Camino is certainly right in the fact that this car isn't retro, especially not in the vein of the current Challenger or New Beetle. There wasn't one particular Chevrolet in the past that looked like the Code 130R; it's just that the side sculpting is influenced by the '70 through '72 Chevelle.

Think of it this way — if you manage to dive deep into the world of good ol' rock-n-roll, you'll hear plenty of bands that might remind you of an older band. I don't know if anyone around here has ever listened to the band Sleep and the album "Sleep's Holy Mountain" but there are quite a few moments on that record that wouldn't sound out of place on a Black Sabbath record, like "Paranoid" or "Volume 4". Does that mean that Sleep was trying to be a new Sabbath or, if you will, some sort of retro rock band? Not at all. It's reasonable to assume that Black Sabbath probably had a mentionable influence on at least one member of the band and those moments were just a result of that because, overall, Sleep didn't really sound like any of their far more popular and mainstream peers that were coming out of Seattle around the time they were making albums and, again overall, they didn't sound like any other band from the past. They were still completely unique.

The Black Crowes album "Shake Your Money Maker" is another good example of what I'm talking about. Some of the guitar work on that record would make Jimmy Page feel proud and, again, it wasn't that anyone in that band was trying to rip-off old Zeppelin riffs (which were, in turn, directly influenced by old Robert Johnson licks). It was just an influence and the result that influence had on the band's sound.

It's sort of the same here. Yes, the influence is there and it's obvious when you let it settle in after a while. But, overall the car is still unique, espeically in relation to its peers. It isn't like anything from the past or the present. It's hertiage-inspired but decidedly anti-retro.

Show me a squared off car that was so popular with todays youth? The mini is the only box on wheels that I can think of that apeals to the youth segment. Most are putting up posters of the GTr.

Well, if you're talking about buyers my age (the Code 130R's target), I think these few cars have made some in-roads and they're far more "creased" than "curvaceous":

Honestly, and quite factually, the Code 130R isn't that much more boxy than this:

Edited January 27, 2013 by black-knight

[hyperv6]

Sorry I don;t agree and will not agree.

Styling s subjective and I just am not not in love with this one as it is.

Edited January 27, 2013 by hyperv6

[ocnblu]

hyper give it up big man you are clearly wrong-o about the Code 130RS it is a fabulous distillation of so many widely-loved earlier Chevy cars yet it has its own flava. all the cool kids love it, of which i am one and i am always right. right?