I know this thing has been a concept for a while now, but while heading to work I actually saw one for the first time on the road... I didn't realize they were actually selling the things already. What do you guys think of 'em? I do like that more and more car companies are trying to look back at the design of cars back from the 40's and 50's, extending fenders out a bit more, making them lower and longer, and dropping a few retro traits in cars. Most of these have been high up models... everyone's favorite PT Cruiser of course was one of the first, but then came the new Ford Thunderbird, The Plymouth Prowler, Chysler Crossfire, the new Bug even... and now the SSR which kinda looks like some goldchainer's, GoodGuys winning ********. What do you guys think about these guys? A good idea? Or a good idea going in the wrong direction? I kinda dig the SSR, and for a new car, I do like that New Crossfire...
I saw a red one a few months ago, looked kinda cool. Of course it wouldnt be practical for North Dakotans that are hauling stuff and need a REAL pickup. The interior was nice though................Briggs
I think it is pretty cool. It has a 327, and looks like a smoothed and chopped 1950 chevy truck, just modernized. I do agree that it looks like the kind of vehicle that Coddington would build, but I give Chevy and the other two real car companies (Ford and Dodge) credit for building vehicles that do not fit the cookie cutter mold.
In my opinion, U.S. auto manufacturers have been out of touch with design elements since the 1935, 1936, and 1940 Ford, but what do I know. Oh yeah, and the 1941 Buick Sedannette.
Saw one on the road this morning, for the first time... didnt even know they were selling them. Kinda un-decided. Looks like an instant gold-chainer, with easy financing. Really havent liked any of the other retro cars... well, maybe the VW a little... but that's just cause i saw the concept car like 8 years ago, and fell in love with the model standing next to it. Glad the manufacturers are trying to do something different, though... new cars have been getting more and more cookie-cutter-ish...
this year they only produced and sold a certain number. it wasnt a lot. but 2004 i hear its supposed to go into full production.
i got to crawl around one because my cousins have an enormous sued car lot that also sells new cars, alot of times before the factory dealerships because they have all kinds of connections, and have had connections since they drag raced. it has alot of good design points. i think it looks alot better with the top up too. the thing i HATE though, is that it has fake dual exhaust and is about as quiet as my grandparents 92 roadmaster. single exhaust (it splits back again and exits as 2 pipes) on something like that that is as expensive as that?
Beats the hell out of just one more utility box or melted gummy bear on wheels but why the almost Corvette pricetag on a ****in' minitruck? Ah, I know why, so they can reap the other car sales off the people who come in to just look at it and then stop making it in a few seasons "because it just didn't sell in the numbers we expected, we decided it's not what people want after all" Bull ****, it's just priced out of the market of the people who might want it!
yea my dad has one of those turds right now he works for gm so he got one of the prototypes. its junk way to much wind noise for a brand new car and it has no power i was not at all happy with driving it. it is modeled after a 54 chevy i belive. but all they used from the truck was the five grill bars, i wouldnt pay 45g for it thats just my 2cents
I think its the next PT Cruiser. I'm not sure what to think about it... It kinda looks like a S=10 with one of those body kits. Oh well. I dont think I would buy any brand new FORD/CHEV/CHRY right now anyways. They're all disposable cars. Now a twin turbo audi might get my attention...
I seriously think GM should consentrate on coming up with some good, fast and welldesigned sedans, and look forward rather than dreaming back to when they ruled. They are lagging waaay behind these days. Same goes for Ford.
I'd love to see Ford do something like a re-creation/tribute to the early F-100. Disregard the silly hole in the hood and imagine this beauty with drivetrain and underpinnings of the Lightning . . .
yeah Chryslers design dept. is AWESOME.... -they can go from computer rendering to production with the push of a ****on... I wish that they would hike up the quality. Its one thing to design a car that looks beautiful... its another to build it to last. They want you to sell it and buy a new one every two years. I agree sailor they need to focus on the now and start building cars that rule.
Whatever happened to the Ford 49? That was a good looking car that I would have liked to have seen in production. http://www.supercars.net/cars/2002@$Ford@$49%20Convertible%20Conceptg.html The car looked alot better in the black hardtop version that was in Rod&Custom though.
True... I remember reading about the 49. I hope they do make that guy... I have to admit, I really like it. I'd place a bit more tasteful chrome on it in different places... and get rid of the dubs.
Tuck, Chrysler can go from design concept sketch to ***embled production vehicle because they do things....ummm...odd. (For lack of a better word!) They design and engineer their vehicles with the aid of computers, and skimp on 'trivial' stuff like extended durability testing, extreme weather conditions evaluations, and other things that Ford and GM spend lots of time and money on. Knowing people that worked for Chrysler confirms this...they were floored upon seeing things like ch***is dynos, wind tunnels and around-the-clock durability drives at Ford! Chrysler's theory is to build it quick and let the consumer find the problems while they rush the NEXT design into production. It's how they got where they are today. Once upon a time, Chrysler was a contender, and built some dynamite cars and trucks...but these days they're an also-ran, filling the void left by the later years of AMC as "the OTHER domestic car maker". As for the SSR, I like it in some ways...and could see buying one if it were priced in the S-10/Ranger cl*** where it belongs. GM seeks to market it as an upscale Yuppie 'truck' for nostalgia-crazed types who seek the momentary novelty of driving something that LOOKS retro. Such strategy is doomed to failure almost every time! Only a small percentage of REAL car buyers even WANT a retro-styled vehicle. Ford is about to learn this again with the ugly new Mustang coming in 2005 that seeks to imitate it's 60s grandfathers. The Mustang was a success the FIRST time around because it was NEW and FRESH...not because it looked like a forty year old car! As the Mustang evolved, it changed in the interest of FORWARD progress...even if not all of it's phases were well received by enthusiasts. For better or worse, it always moved towards the FUTURE rather than trying to pretend it was out of the past! Take the new T-bird...the handfull of people who actually WANTED to own the thing and could afford to do so bought them and left Ford wondering why it didn't become the huge hit they had hoped for. It's a car with a very small target consumer base, made smaller yet by it's fat price tag. The PT Loser was an accident in every sense of the word, but Chrysler at least had the smarts to realize that it could cash in on bored consumers with it. Originally designed to be produced as a low cost economy vehicle for OVERSEAS markets, it became a surprise hit here when mindless Yuppies saw it and exclaimed "Oh, how CUTE...it looks like an old fashioned car!", and they lined up in droves to buy them. Since it was designed to be produced as a cost-effective transportation vehicle, Chrysler could afford to make changes to get them up to domestic crash and emissions standards and still get them to showrooms in a reasonable amount of time. The Yuppies went wild for their Instant Nostalgia mini-vans, and other automakers mis-read their enthusiasm as a signal to give the retro-styling ploy a try. The PT Cruiser was a Happy Accident that benefited from proper timing and the ability to ready them for sale quickly...something Chrysler DOES do well (even if quality often suffers for it). If you DO have to stoop to using nostalgic styling to sell otherwise boring new vehicles...then at least make the things cost-effective enough so that you can price them to MOVE...and to CONTINUE moving once their novelty wears off. Cars of the past always used strides towards the FUTURE to sell them...futuristic new lines and technical innovations brought customers into the showrooms...there was no need to build cars that resembled covered wagons or horses to attract automotive buyers back then!! The auto industry was always fueled by ADVANCING styles and technology....back when that EXCITED people!!! The fins of the 50s weren't part of some goofball nostalgic trip to lure in people who dreamed of their fisherman ancestors...they were a styling cue borrowed from the jet and space age! Stuff that generated bold NEW ideas on the sketchpads of the leading design teams!!! I suppose that new cars have become so dull and lifeless lately that marketing types are fresh out of ideas to help sell them! The tripple-****-ugly angular lines of ****py cars like the Pontiac Aztec couldn't excite anyone with halfway close to 20/20 vision...so now the thought of the day is to try selling the PAST to the automotive consumers of the PRESENT and FUTURE! If that isn't the automakers admitting that they've run their course and exhausted their creativity...I don't know what it IS!!! I, for one, will always love the old cars, as I'm sure everyone HERE does. But, truthfully...I wouldn't mind seeing the automakers muster up the courage and bravado to push the envelope once again and make history HAPPEN, rather than retreating into their shells and relying on retro-styling to help sell their snoozers! I wanna see the new Mustang hit a Grand Slam with fresh NEW lines and aggressive raw performance...if I wanted a 65 Mustang, I could easily buy one for what the 2005 model will cost!! I think it's sad that domestic automakers have begun to throw in the towel and shy away from taking chances and knocking down barricades! To see them limping around hoping to score a hit with pathetic attempts to peddle the past is heartbreaking and embarrasing! To really throw some stink on the topic...the only automaker I see taking chances, pushing forward and shaking things up a little is NISSAN! Their aggressive new models don't look like boxy old Datsuns...they look...well, like NEW and different cutting edge cars and trucks! Sure, some of their looks are striking and will not appeal to everyone...but it shows the gutsy swagger I miss seeing in domestic designs! Good on them, I hope they do well with their current and forthcoming model launches! At least us HAMBers can appreciate our old iron and we know how to build them and keep them running. We don't need Detroit trying to sell us stuff that LOOKS like old cars, because we're already THERE! If nothing else, maybe these retro-styled larks will keep posers and fair-weathered auto buffs away from the older tin so there will be more for US to play with! (Always try to look for the silver lining!!) Anyhow, that's my penny and a half!
Sailor, I agree completely, I've always been a Chevy guy, until a year ago when I bought a Ford, now, with an open mind, I'm noticing that GM is just a bunch of hacks. They have the worst ads, they have the least exciting cars, and they are years behind everyone else. "I like baseball, apple pies, hot dogs and Chevrolet?" If you are going to try to play up a "good ole days" theme, how about, "See the USA in your ChevroLET..." When they first started talking about this truck, it was about 8 years ago, or something, trying to ride on the coat tails of the Pt Snoozer, but with more of an upscale and performance target. They havnen't had an original idea since the C5 in 1997. And they have the balls to call their new 4 door "sport truck" the "SS." With all the creature comforts it has and it's slow 1/4 mile times, it is a disgrace to the badge. They should have made something that could compete with the Lightning and saved some kind of Luxury Sport badge for the "SS" POS.
i read an interview with some important designer guy with volkswagen or chrysler (memory's not too hot today!) who said one of the major problems with "retro-styling" was trying to update the car after its three or four year run... i mean, do you make it MORE retro? or do you advance the styling three or four years from the year the original was based on... which means if your car is based around a late thirties, early forties shape, you have to stop making it because the war starts! i don't think that car will be around in five years.
I kinda like the SSR idea, but it's a damn shame that they think this is a replacement for the camaro/firebird. I've noticed the big 3 will have a really cool futuristic concept sketch of a new car, uglify the design so it doesn't 'scare' buyers, then over the course of 10 years gradually add all the neat features, & finally produce the cool car from the original sketch ... only now it's a 10 year old idea & it looks dated. I think new cars used to be cool & anticipated because they were retooled more often. Will they retool every couple years like the old days? I doubt it ... too costly. WWS
My engineer buddy and I were just talking about this subject yesterday, how Japan and Germany aren't allowed to have an army, so they focus all of their top engineers on Automotive interests, and it could be argued they are kicking everyone's *** in styling and performance. Now, here in the U.S., with our role as the super power, all of our engineers are in the Defense field, so our Automotive designs, for the most part, suffer. Not that I think we should cut defense, I'd gladly have it this way, because I don't ever plan on buying a new plastic econobox anyway.
Oh and the other thing that really gets my goat with GM. They are "introducing" a Monte Carlo SS and an Impala SS this year with the Supercharged 3800 V6. Like it is some kind of new engine. It is the SAME thing they made 15 years ago, with almost the same output. At least beef it up. 240 HP out of a Supercharged 3.8 V6 is not impressive in the least, when you think about the **** getting 280 out of a 2 liter inline 4, and 300 out of a 2.5 liter boxer 4.
I have always been a loyal Chevy guy- but I think they are falling down as of late and I do not have as much faith in their engineering or little desire to see their new stylings either.In their and others defense- I think they should do a retro styling of one of their cl*** acts -but it shouldn't be a 99 percent new looking morphidite with ONE PERCENT-"authenticity" applied to it on the way out the door like a cheap *** emblem or sticker!SORRY but that the way I see it..........
i see them EVERY DAY. they are built at the plant right next door to the plant i work at in Lansing (Michigan). last week there were about 70 or 80 of them in the lot waiting to be loaded on trucks. everyday i see a few loaded on the trucks along with the Cadillacs that are built across town and the Malibus, Aleros and Grand Ams we build. i also see a couple of the "big wigs" leavin work in there company car SSRs as i'm coming into work. they even brought one into our plant for us to look at one day. i think they are great for a new car but the price just pisses me off. they have indeed priced it right out of the range of the people who would enjoy it most. had they been closer to 30K like they should have been, i may have ordered one myself but at $45,000 i'll let the millionaires like my in-laws next door neighbor buy them and i'll settle for goin for a ride around the block in it. if i could afford a $50,000 TOY i'd buy a new Vette but i honestly belive i'll get more enjoyment out of my model A when it's done than i would in some "rich boy, mid life crisis, cookie cutter car"(tm) anyday!
I loved a lot of what was shown at last years Detroit motor show. Especially the Cadillac Sixteen and the Chevy SS. And if they (GM) can sell the GTO again, why not the El Camino (Holden SS Ute or HSV)? Oh, and Tuck, don't bother with the Audi ***i. It's been voted the worst car in Europe several times. It's rubbish.
I like some of the things that the big three are coming out with, but ford and crysler show less inhibition in letting something fly off the drawing board. GM needs to fire everyone above middle management, and let the designers put some cars on the street that aren't watered down with ******** bureacracy. Anyone at GM who has any level of responsibility is afraid to make a decision, so they keep p***ing things(designs) around the top until their so mutated and bland, that the average blind person would puke if they could see what was in the showrooms. Hope I didn't offend any executives...
How about Pontiacs GTO which is due to be sold here, I believe, next year, inported from OZ (Australia) with a 350 mounted correctly and driving the correct set of wheels. I hope they bring in more models such as thier version of the El Camino. They may not be Vintage styled but at least they are RWD with a hole bunch of POWER.
The Jalopy Journal
