Blake Noble

Buying a Chevy truck soon is going to be like buying Budweiser. I can see the dealer training video now. "For a less filling truck that will allow your prospects to finish their meal with a possible mild buzz, recommend the new Silverado Lite for 2014. If your prospects want to wind up in the ER shitfaced as hell and puking up enchiladas, recommend they purchase the Silverado Diesel, also new for 2014."

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. 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:

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.

Hmmm ...

Bad News: She's, like, a dude, man.

There was a very nice GTO down in Nashville with roughly 50k on the clock for $12,995 that would have been absolutely perfect, and I have a weekend off coming up that would've allowed me to make a nice trip to go down there and get, but ... it's gone. Sold. The search goes on. I sort of knew it was coming sooner rather than later back in high school. It was part of the reason why I had such an obsessive drive to buy a late '70s F2 T/A all of these years. I wanted to get my foot through the door and buy one before they started commanding big prices because I knew that finding solid, running and driving T/As for less than $2,000 dollars would be almost impossible in the near future after graduating then, and after that happened it would become that dreaded "mid-life crisis" car. Alas, here we are now. Oh well. Here's to male pattern baldness, erectile dysfunction, 401k's, and black Trans Ams. Buhhhh. How goddamn lame. I really don't want to live past 40 now. Sorry to your thread, black-knight, but I want to ask FOG something based off of his comment above. What are you seeing, if anything, with the '73-'79/'80 and '85-'87 GM fullsize pickups? I know the '67-'72 models are now reaching higher selling/transaction prices, but I'm curious as to your perspective on the "square body" pickups. black-knight, to go back on topic, have you considered a pickup truck? Regular cab, 2WD, V8 (not manual trans though, at least not from GM). You could go all out and make it sporty looking. I know trucks aren't for everyone, but just askin'. I want FOG to answer your question, but I'll throw my two cents into the cup just to keep the question raised in the meantime. Based on what I'm seeing just by browsing the various resources I check, the earlier trucks are starting to see a slight upward tick in prices if they're pretty clean and solid, but the later you go in years, nothing much has really changed. You can still snap up a mid-80s Sierra or Silverado for about $2,000 to $2,500 where I'm at with minimal rust and in decent running order. I think you'll be okay for the next few short years before you start seeing a definite upward swing in prices. Honestly, I've thought about buying a GMT-900 Sierra/Silverado or a used Ram Express (they're actually quite cheap if you run into one with 50k on the odometer) and window shopped quite a few of them. I know the GMT-900 would be reliable as a pair of old boots and the Ram would be excellent on gas (dad's managed to see mid to high 20s out of his on the highway). I'm gun-shy about a full-sized truck, though, because I've never had to really live with one on a daily basis and I've never found myself in a situation where I needed the utility that one would offer versus what a car would offer. I also have slightly mixed feelings about "sport trucks" as well. I really hate guys who buy Silverados and S10s and drop them to have the same ride-height as a passenger car and do really stupid body mods that hinder how they function as a truck. I always wonder why they just didn't buy a car to begin with because what you have at that point is something just ... horrible to live with, basically a physically incompetent two-seater coupe with an enclosed patio out back. I don't mean that to be offensive to anyone on here who likes trucks like that, but it can get to a point where it's just really not for me. I won't put either truck off of the table. A decent Wrangler is also hanging out with the two of them on that list as well, just in case this does become more of a "prowess over performance" sort of question.

You're good, FOG. I appreciate the kind words. I guess what really kills me about the whole process this time around is that, after taking a good long while to reflect on it, I realize that I've had a multitude of opportunities to own what I really want and, stupidly, always backed away. For example, before I bought the Astra, I had the chance to buy a very nice 2004 GTO in Cosmos Purple with just 50,000 odd miles for about the same price. Before I bought the Challenger, I could have had another 2004 GTO in Phantom Black with just 40,000 miles on the odometer and I honestly believe if I bought that car, I wouldn't have had to go down the road I'm on now. I don't know why I backed away from the both of them. Maybe I was worried that I would get stuck with another dog of a used car, which was for naught. I'm driving a dog right now. Or maybe I was worried about paying for the gas. I honestly don't know, I just know that I'm kicking my ass over it. Let's see ... A late model fourth-gen T/A or Formula with under 75,000 miles. Any GTO with under 75,000 miles in any color except Yellow Jacket ( ... huh) or Torrid Red. A G8 with under 75,000 miles and as cheap as possible. I found one with an asking price of $15 grand, so it's possible. I'm less hung up about having the V8 here for some reason. A 2005 to 2009 Mustang GT. Same mileage rules apply. A 2006 to 2010 Charger R/T. Same mileage rules apply. A 2005 to 2008 Magnum R/T. Same mileage rules apply. That's about it really. I know those cars are in budget because I've seen plenty of them come and go with less than 75,000 miles for about $13,000 give or take. Having a manual transmission over an automatic is preferred with the few cars listed above that offer one, and it's the only way I'd buy the Mustang. That's true, but after the last go-round that I detailed in this thread, I think I'm going to quit barking up that tree. The later F2 cars are now much more sought after now than, say, when I was a senior in high school. A decent one is at least going to bring an average of $4,000 bucks in my area and it would require a minimum of another $4,000 dollars to make it decent enough to drive on a daily basis. Realistically, it isn't in the cards any more. Thanks for the nice resource, man. I'll keep it handy and keep my eyes peeled. There's a really awesome 2004 GTO in the southern IL/IN area on there now with a Monaro conversion for $13k, but 113,000 miles kills the deal for me.

I don't think the next-gen 200 will deviate too much from the current Chrysler formula. They'll exchange a few creases for a few more organic lines, and clean some of the small details up a bit. Look at the 200C concept as a starting point and go from there.

I've hit a brick wall and I have to vent about it. There isn't a single low-mileage Trans Am to be had right now and banks stopped loaning money for vehicles that old this month, and my alternative options are also getting hard to come by — not a single reasonable GTO is out there, there isn't a G8 to speak of, and all of the fire-sale Challengers are, in reality, beyond my reach. I can't even find a decent 2005 to 2007 Mustang GT right now. I don't know what I'm going to do. I keep thinking to myself if I missed a car that would be an acceptable option, but I know I haven't. There really isn't anything I can put myself behind the wheel of. Then there's the Astra that, sparing the details, has sped up its process of further degrading through the process of being driven on a daily basis. I do know I'm tired of going through this on a yearly basis. It has to come to an end.

I dunno if my wife would like the idea ...

Forget the camo. Here's what's behind it ... well, sort of. Here's the "enhanced for her pleasure" version. I will say that I personally don't care for the shape of the beltline, but I'm reserving any further opinion for right now. Hooray for leaks, right?

Sweet! I really appreciate it Drew.

testing

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. Oh, goddammit ... just goddammit. I'm not even going to bother. Okay, fine. Not the point I've been trying to make to you, but sure. Okay. Heh. Sooner or later, I'll run into something and tuck it away on my external HDD. You too.

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

Here are a few screenshots. I tried GMTG74's trick for posting images earlier and it works. Here's the typical error message when I try to embed a simple .jpg image in a post: The message when I try to upload .jpg files directly: And what I see when I try to edit my signature:

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. 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. 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. I'm not blowing anything out of context. The ELR is styled like other current Cadillacs. 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. 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. 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. 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. ... that's my only response here. My only response. MY ONLY RESPONSE. ... alright then. ... 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. Okay, sure.

"Cruiser" - Cowboys & Aliens

Is anyone else having issues: Uploading image files? Embedding .jpg images, etc., into posts? Editing their signature? These are a few bugs I've noticed.

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: 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. 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. 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. Sure. 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. 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. 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? True. 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. ELR? Heritage? If you see that, sure. I guess. 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. 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 $h!-canned Glenn Beck from television. If that pans out to be true, then that will be this car's true Achilles' Heel. We'll see in due time.

Yeah, I can pick up a used 2012 200 with a few ticks over 30,000 miles for $12k. There wasn't much "residual value" in the current Sebring/200 to begin with, so no worries there.

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.

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.

I fail to see the relevance in this question, or rather, I fail to see how this question relates or should relate to a modern society. It isn't my place to share with, to be vocal to, or to impose on others who I think they should or should not fall in love with. No one has that right, or even that privilege, and to assume that you do proves your immaturity and ignorance. The best policy is blissful apathy. Again, I fail to see the relevance or the substance behind this question. I don't mean to come across as vitriolic toward your post loki, I'm just sharing my personal view on what I feel should no longer be a social issue in our society, or any other society. Apply this view as you see fit.

The Camaro's gone and I made a tidy $500 dollar profit on it to boot. Now on to bigger and better things.