Blake Noble

It's possible, but also unlikely. A simple Charger coupe probably wouldn't fare well against the Camaro and Mustang. The real uphill battle the Challenger faces, sadly, is the same battle the PT Cruiser had to fight and ultimately lost: how do you keep the design fresh and familiar? Hopefully ChryCo will look to cars like the Porsche 911, VW Beetle, and the Ford Mustang for the answer. I certainly think there's a way the Challenger can evolve from its current design language (the cancelled second-generation Challenger from the late '70s is something of a partial indicator). I agree. With the exception of keeping the Town and Country around versus the Caravan, Fiat seems really trying to make Chrysler into the best entry level luxury brand money can buy. One way of accomplishing that is letting Chrysler build larger cars. Who knows? With the Charger moving down slightly in size, that also opens up the possibilty of the next 200 being rear-wheel drive.

Happy birthday. I was going to buy you a gift, but I don't think skin lampshades are entriely legal ...

I am starting to wonder what a more '70 - '72 Chevelle inspired roofline and daylight opening (similar to what I sketched) would look like on the 130R. However, the big question is how would someone go about doing that without making the rear decklid look absolutely tiny? I suppose Swordfish's chop over in the other thread is a good starting point. Studying the design a little more, I see what has everyone upset about the DLO. The reverse rake on the b-pillar is the one of the very first things you draw your eyes to, making it one of the main reasons why people think the entire design seems out of whack. If there's one thing I wish I did differently when I sketched that design I posted earlier, it would be to make the entire glasshouse more in proportion to the rest of the car. I was trying hard to emulate the techniques of better known designers and I failed badly at it. The front fascia I sketched does show how easily it would be to fix the one on the 130R: add some length and a touch more height to the headlamps and take some height out of the grille.

That's a good question. While I'm betting on the 300 being Chrysler's sole big sedan, I also wouldn't be suprised if Dodge gets something above the Charger in size. Those are certainly two goals for the next-generation LX cars: weight reduction and a greater degree of size flexability. I personally hope Dodge builds another Challenger after the current model. While the current car doesn't sell quite as good as the Mustang or Camaro, it's still been a money maker for Dodge (the program costs were low) and a great image car for the brand. I personally know mine attracts just as much attention and turns as many heads as any fifth-generation Camaro out there and makes the Mustang seem long forgotten. With the Viper distancing itself from Dodge to become a halo car for the entire company instead of just one brand, there is certainly plenty of room for a performance coupe at Dodge (hence the reason why I think it will be branded SRT; to keep a spot open for the Challenger). I think that's what Fiat wants to do in North America.

Here's the thinking behind this from what I've heard. Please note that I'm just posting it here as is (I personally haven't done a whole lot of fact checking). The Avenger is supposedly very close to the new Dart in overall interior space (one of the Avenger's major shortcomings is that its a mid-sized sedan based around a compact car platform) and very close to the Charger in overall girth (read: it's fat). The Charger, in its next generation, will be smaller than the current car and the next 300. With the Charger stepping down a tiny notch closer to the current Avenger and the new Dart offering just as much interior space, the Avenger is effectively being squeezed out of the lineup.

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

Oh, and something I forgot earlier regarding Chevelle rooflines: It isn't the '68 - '69 or '70 - '72 model, but it is a Chevelle, none the less, and the roofline is very, very upright.

How so? Since automakers have introduced more coupe options to their portfolios, sales have risen accordingly. There are plenty of people, such as myself, that really do not see the point of owning a sedan. I don't have kids, I don't know tons of people that I would want to shuttle around, and I don't pack around a lot of stuff. If I want outright utility, I'll buy a Jeep. However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want a coupe that can be accomodating for back seat passengers should I need to have them tag along with me or luggage when I need to travel. That limits me to a handful of cars, some of which are unaffordable. And the Tru140S is more appealing how? It certainly does not appeal to me and I'm within the demographic GM is targeting with that car. Better? I don't see much room for improvement. The specifications are just about ideal and I still don't see why there are people who are so hung up on the styling. Sure, like I said, it could use a small tweak or two, but I still think it's great as is. (Perhaps the backlash stems from the fact that we haven't seen many new cars that are unappologetically and undilutely American in flavor for quite some time now?) Besides, someone would be best advised to not judge this car's appearance based on GM's terrible photography (after all, we all know GM's photographers could somehow make a nice, nude photoshoot of Jessica Alba look like a nude photoshoot of Newt Gingrich in a pig pen.) Let's also not forget that it wasn't too long ago GM didn't see the merit in even entertaining the thought of building a car like the 130R. That formula would work ... on a larger car. You apply a design like that to a car with the 130R's dimesions and it would be a brand new disaster -- a long and narrow wienermobile. I think some folks are forgetting that this isn't a midsized coupe. Not nessicarily. See the first part of this post. Thanks in part to the Challenger's upright roofline, it can seat four people comfortably and pack a ton of stuff in the trunk. For example, I recently fit one of these in the trunk without having to fold down the backseat: Let's see that fit into the mailslot trunk opening on a MC/SS Aerocoupe.

I'm not saying the 140S is a terrible looking car, what I'm saying is that it's a case of "been there, done that." It brings nothing new -- styling and hardware-wise -- to the table in the current market. It's derivitive and, quite frankly, its not a Chevrolet. Am I saying it shouldn't be built, though? No, it piggybacks off of the Cruze and the ELR in theory so it would be relatively cheap to build. As much as I don't like it, it does appeal to a certain buyer -- buyers of Civics, Eclipses, and other cars of that ilk. Given the general dimesions of the 130R, such a design change would be disasterous unless you wanted to turn it into a hatchback. Let the record also show that the roofline of the '68 - '69 and '70 - '72 Chevelles were quite upright. GM designers at the time were very good at hiding it, though. GM designers masked it on the '68 - '69 Chevelles by having the rear quarter glass kick up dramatically on the bottom. The '70 - '72 Chevelles illustrate just how much more upright the roofline is versus the '68 - '69 models after the rear quarter glass was changed to be less dramatic. However, the change to the rear quarter glass changed the width of the c-pillar slightly to make the rear slope of the backglass look more extreme than what it actually was. Those particular Chevelles were not fastbacks. The closest GM came to building an A-Body fastback was probably the Olds Cutlass Holiday coupes and, even still, that wasn't a true fastback coupe. Here's a profile shot of the Code 130R. Not quite as upright like in the GM press shots, huh? Also notice how the back glass wraps around slightly, which tends to hide how its sloped. You're grasping at staws here. The Aerocoupe (which, technically, is not a fastback) is in a higher demand versus the regular '80s MC/SS because it was built in low production numbers and was one of the last cars built for the sole purpose to be homologated for use in NASCAR, not because it offers any greater styling advatage over the regular car. In fact, that huge rear window killed the functionality of the MC/SS's otherwise very large trunk. Again, not unless you wanted to turn it into a fourth-generation Camaro-style hatchback.

You know, it's almost tragic. For quite some time now, people around here have been demanding that GM build a car like this. Some thread about rear-wheel drive (or, in the past, Pontiac) comes up and someone always chimes in about GM building a car like this. So what happens when GM finally shows interest in the idea and builds a concept car based around it that is mostly production friendly? People can't stop bitching about certain elements of the design, ignoring the fact that GM is stepping up and saying they possibly may bring the demanded hardware to market. The water to wine function isn't dispensing merlot, guys. Alpha has near, if not perfect, weight distribution and a low curb weight, which would help make for great driving dynamics. The 1.4L turbo with eAssist is capable of making this little car very fuel efficient as well. This car can certainly succeed at doing what the BMW 1-Series horribly fails to do: be a BMW 2002 for the 21st century (read: cheap, fun, low-frills, practical, and cool). Sure, like I said there are small details with the styling I would change, but I think it's fine as a whole. GM was designing this car to be as functional as possible so I understand why the decklid cut lines and roofline are the way they are (move either of those two around and you kill rear seat headroom and the trunk opening space). Plus, it's a concept and if it were to be produced a lot small details could be changed before production to improve the design somewhat, especially since GM is welcoming public opinion on this concept car. If this could come to market below the price of a base Camaro, I'd snap it up in a hearbeat. From what I gather, response to both concepts has been just about equally divided. There are guys who deride the 140S and guys who deride the 130R. Then again, each car was built to appeal to the two extreme bookends of the small performance coupe market. If GM is serious about both concepts essentially being out there to probe intrest in what GM should bring to market to sell to these buyers rather than a tired, bland Cruze coupe then it's going to be very, very interesting to see what all of their research brings. Both cars were built with possible production in mind for a purpose.

I think the front of the MKZ looks great. Its when you get to its bustled back the whole design starts to fall apart. I don't see this being nearly as detailed as the concept. Sure, the styling will be different from the Ford Fusion, but once again I think once this hits production and becomes watered down it will be a case of "same old, same old." I don't know if I should laugh or be appalled, given the sloppiness of build ocn pointed out.

That's actually close to one of the small tweaks I had in mind -- hiding the b-pillar behind the glass, similar to the Dodge Challenger. It really cleans up the daylight opening. Other changes I would make would be slightly larger headlamps and certain elements of the front fascia massaged and rearranged. The rear end and side scuplting are perfect as is. I also don't mind the c-pillar. Perhaps that's because I'm quite used to a very upright roofline.

How on earth do you see the Monza Towne Car in this? The 130R's b-pillar has a dramatic forward slant to it and isn't upright like the Towne Coupe's. The only way the windsheilds are the same is in the fact that they're pieces of glass installed on the car to keep bugs out of the driver's teeth. I also fail to see the Nomad concept (I'm assuming you mean the Kappa version) anywhere in this design, ditto the second-generation Monte Carlo (the 130R's back glass certainly isn't creased in the center like the baroque Monte's; where are you seeing that?). The Camaro influence is there in the taillights to a degree, but then again that's understandable. The Cruze, Volt, Spark, and Sonic are the only four Chevrolet cars that are devoid of having their own spin on the Camaro's taillights (and even then the Volt is debatable to a degree). Don't get me wrong, there are a few small details I would probably change, but all in all I'm not seeing what has people so up in arms about the styling of this car. As a whole, it's great and is unappologetically a Chevy. I also don't understand how people are seeing design elements in this car that aren't really there.

The level of design influence the '70 through '72 Chevelle had on the 130R is similar to how the '69 Camaro influenced the current fifth-generation Camaro -- it's retro without being a feckless rip-off of the original car, genuine and modern. The Chevelle was certainly larger than the 130. I don't think GM designers were too hung up on that, though. And while I see your point about the Nova, I think the ignorant lore assoicated with that particular name has almost barred it from ever returning. That would be a real dream come true, but I think we'll have to keep our fingers crossed for just the coupe first. I hate to bring up the Arrowhead card, but if Pontiac were still around, well ... we both know how this would be playing out instead. There's no need to divulge any further.

I spent some of the day today with a 2007 model (4WD Sport, CVT2, Steel Blue Metallic) and $10 bucks was enough to put almost a half tank of 87 octane in it. The mileage was very impressive for an SUV of its capabilities and class, possibly exceeding the EPA scores. The CVT is very suprising, although it made the little guy sound a bit like a snowmobile (which, oddly enough, began to grow on me after a while).

It might could happen. The Code 130R should preview the F6 Camaro in: Its platform (that's a given). Its general dimensions (leaving room for an inch or two here and there). The drivetrain layout, save for the four-cylinder engine. You can probably bet money that eAssist will be optional somehow on the Alpha Camaro. The Code 130R possibly differs from the F6 in the fact it was designed to be fuel efficient first and foremorst while still being fun to drive. The Code 130R, from what I understand, was primarily designed to use four-cylinder engines without any consideration for six or eight-cylinder engines. The F6 Camaro will allow room for all three, with emphasis still on a V6 and V8. A small, fuel efficient coupe with practical headroom and leg room for four adults that shares a majority of its parts and engineering with the next Camaro can make sense. The Camaro becomes cheaper to build due to it sharing so much content with the Code 130 and the ATS, and the Code 130R's fuel efficiency can only boost CAFE scores, even at a low volume. Sure, a four-banger Camaro might sell, but this little coupe could sell even better because of one simple reason: it isn't a Camaro. I'm saying there's a 40/60 chance on this playing out. GM designed the Code 130R (and the Tru 140S) to potentially carry on into production for a very good reason.

I'm not a big fan of the Tru 140S, honestly. It reminds me of this: The Tru is less dowdy and pudgy, I'll give it that. I can see how it fits into the big picture, though. Like Olds said, it can share some of its unique hard points with the ELR, making it that much cheaper to build. It also eliminates the need for a Cruze coupe while, at the same time, sharing a good portion of its parts with it. Two birds, one stone.

Seriously? Please don't tell me I'm the only one here who sees the very clear influence in the side sculpting. (Also, rumor has it GM was considering using the Chevelle name for the Code 130R. In spirit of the idea behind this and the Tru, however, GM wanted the names of both concepts to be chosen by the target audience, hence the uninspiring monikers. Chicane would have been the name attached to the Tru 140S, from what I hear.)

"I don't know where I'm running now, I'm just running on, Running on (running on empty), Running on (running blind), Running on (running into the sun) But I'm running behind" Today was a huge setback. I can sign up for classes, but where my application was accepted at the last minute thanks to all of the back and forth from the last two months, a professor can (more than likely) kick me out of his class for missing the first day (which was today), although there was absolutely no way I could have attended without my tuition paid and my books on hand. I could've bought a Jeep Patriot tonight and slashed my car payment way down, but negotiations broke down when I demanded that the cost of new brakes and rotors be subtracted at least from the price of the deal, especially when I discovered that it was in two prior accidents. Who knows? Maybe it was for the best this didn't work out. Well, I guess that's the rest of the story for now. This thread, like myself, is running on empty. It's better to let it just putter on out.

Let the record show that I absolutely love this car.

If you're a fan of rear-wheel drive GM muscle, then this year's Detroit Auto Show should give you a decent reason to rejoyce. Photos of the new Chevrolet Code 130R concept have recently begun to hit the internet and, so far, the small, rear-drive Chevy coupe is shaping up to be an interesting proposition. The Code 130R is one of two new Chevrolet concept vehicles GM is rolling out for Detroit. With its blistered fenders and square-shouldered roofline, the styling can definitely evoke strong images of the classic 1970 through 1972 Chevelle muscle cars. However, unlike the classic Chevelle, GM says the Code 130R could be capable of up to 40 mpg if it were to go into production thanks in part to its 1.4L turbocharged four-cylinder engine augmented by eAssist technology and linked up to a six-speed manual transmission. The Code 130R is also signficantly smaller as well -- photos suggest that this would be somewhere close to the current BMW 1-Series in size. Depsite its small stature, the Code 130R still has room for four people. GM also says that if the Code 130R were to go into production it would carry a price tag somewhere in the ballpark of $25,000. If so, the Subaru BRZ and Scion FR-S may have something to worry about. Now, about that name ... Click over to page two to read the press release and view the gallery here. Here's a Concept: Chevrolet Puts Next-Gen Buyers in Charge Two concept coupes designed to inspire ideas and create discussion DETROIT – Chevrolet today introduced two concept coupes at the 2012 North American International Auto Show aimed at inspiring next-generation buyers to take the wheel and suggest ideas for a car they can co-create. "Chevrolet has always stood for making the aspirational attainable for all generations" said General Motors North America President Mark Reuss. "These two concepts interpret that vision for a new generation. We're seeking out our newest customers' opinions, listening to their advice, and engaging them in new ways." According to U.S. Census data, there are 80 million American consumers approaching 30. They represent 40 percent of today's potential car-buying public and a combined $1 trillion in purchasing power. Over the past year, Chevrolet has conversed with young consumers across the United States. Based on their feedback, the Chevrolet concepts explore the styling and functionality this group of new buyers says they are looking for in a car. Code 130R, the first Chevrolet concept, is a four-seat coupe with a simple upright profile. Painted in an all-new red metallic paint with matte anodized gold wheels, Code 130R features heritage performance-inspired styling and rear-wheel drive. With an aggressive front fascia, Chevrolet fender flares, straight body side and Chevy crossflag emblem, Code 130R makes a link to Chevrolet's performance heritage. Code 130R's designers conceived the turbocharged engine to be tuned to work in tandem with eAssist technology. By shutting off the engine at stops, recapturing braking energy, and smoothing torque during acceleration, this concept takes automotive electrification to the next level and balances turbocharged performance with fuel economy. Tru 140S, the second Chevrolet concept is a front-wheel-drive, "affordable exotic" four-seat sporty coupe. The three-door hatchback was designed to be an attractive-yet-affordable sports car. Shown in an all-new matte white with Chevy performance chrome wheels featuring crossflag emblems, Tru 140S is designed to look confident, exotic, expensive and fast. Tru 140S is based off the same platform as the Chevrolet Cruze and the groundbreaking Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle with extended range. Tru 140S designers want to demonstrate technologies typically found in more expensive cars, including direct injection and a starter-based stop-start technology, balancing internal combustion and electrification to deliver high value and improved fuel economy. The concepts share attributes younger buyers say they value: Sedan-sized functionality in performance coupe form that seats four passengers Interior connectivity and convenience featuring innovative storage, WiFi, smart phone integration with Chevrolet MyLink and heads-up display 40 MPG with a 1.4L Turbo Ecotec engine with approximately 150 horsepower Possible production price range in the low $20,000s "Young customers tell us they want functionality with coupe-like aesthetics. Both the Code and Tru body styles resonated with this audience," said Frank Saucedo, director of the GM North America Advanced Design studio in Los Angeles where the two concepts were developed. Inside the concepts, connectivity and personalization enable the individualization that the generation says is essential. "This buyer prizes connectivity. Allowing them to stay connected by integrating their personal devices through MyLink and WiFi enabling the vehicle to be their own docking station," said Saucedo. "The interiors currently exist in 2D only. This allows us the flexibility to continue the discussion and encourage more dialogue as we continue to develop these concepts." From Detroit, the pair of Chevrolet concepts will travel to major auto shows, key lifestyle events, one-on-one experiences and other venues such as college campuses. Chevrolet also will engage customers using the social media tools that young consumers use to talk with one another. "For the car company that can successfully engage this generation, there is a tremendous opportunity," said John McFarland, senior manager for Chevrolet Global Marketing, who heads youth research for the brand. "At Chevrolet, we want to build authentic and meaningful relationships with these customers on their terms. We want to hear what they have to say, engage them in our design process, and give them what they want – not what we think they want." * * * Founded in 1911 in Detroit, Chevrolet is now one of the world's largest car brands, doing business in more than 140 countries and selling more than 4 million cars and trucks a year. Chevrolet provides customers with fuel-efficient vehicles that feature spirited performance, expressive design, and high quality. More information on Chevrolet models can be found at www.chevrolet.com. CHEVROLET CODE 130R CONCEPT COUPE SPECIFICATIONS Overview Model: Chevrolet Code 130R Concept Coupe Body style / driveline: four-passenger coupe, rear-wheel drive EPA vehicle class: compact car Engine 1.4L Ecotec turbocharged DOHC I-4 w/ eAssist Displacement (cu. in. / cc): 83 / 1364 Bore and stroke (in. / mm): 2.85 x 3.25 / 72.5 x 82.6 Block material: cast iron Cylinder head material: cast aluminum Valvetrain: overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, continuously variable valve timing Ignition system: individual coil on plug Fuel delivery: sequential multi-port fuel injectors with electronic throttle control Compression ratio: 9.5:1 Horsepower (hp / kW): 150 / 110 Torque (lb.-ft. / Nm): 148 / 200 Recommended fuel: regular unleaded Max engine speed (rpm): 6500 Emissions controls: close-coupled and underfloor catalytic converters; Quick-Sync 58x ignition system; returnless fuel rail; fast light-off O2 sensor Estimated fuel economy (hwy): 40 Transmissions 6-speed automatic 6-speed manual Wheels/Tires Wheels: 20-inch matte gold Tires: P245/40R20 Dimensions Exterior Wheelbase (in / mm): 109.3 / 2775 Overall length (in / mm): 173.1 / 4396 Overall width (in / mm): 71.5 / 1816 Overall height (in / mm): 54.7 / 1390 Track (in / mm): front: 60.4 / 1535 rear: 61.8 / 1569 Interior Seating capacity (front / rear): 2 / 2 Headroom (in / mm): front: 30.7 / 780 rear: 33.1 / 841 Note: Information shown is current at time of publication. View full article