OT with no brands left to destroy GM decides to scuttle itself

[Rob Hall]

Actually I find them both bland, generic, woeful and nondescript. You kind of beat me to it, but I was going to say, that GM is currently in a phase of 'don't know where I'm going' like it was in the early to mid sixties. If I'm right, we can hope for truly stunning GM cars in about 5 years hence.

IMO, GM has a few truly stunning cars now...the CTS coupe and Camaro come to mind. But they also have a lot bland FWD appliances to pay the bills...

[Hypermung]

Now, let me chow you a generic, ugly car with not an ounce of style ... a box on wheels... .........

... I'd rather drive this generic,ugly car than that red piece of garbage shown above....WHAT WERE THEY THINKING...... REALLY.......... I think the designers must have forgotten to take their meds that week. I mean the rear of the roof-line is totally wrong looking, & the front end looks like it was salvaged from a BAD 80's 'Custom' shop.

[Mark]

GM probably stuck the "Chevelle" emblems on a concept car to keep their claim to the name for licensing purposes. Like those "Jeep Willys" concepts that appear every few years. That name hasn't appeared on a vehicle in the US since the Sixties. Chrysler/Fiat will never use it on a production vehicle again, but they do want to hang onto the licensing...

[CadillacPat]

Actually I find them both bland, generic, woeful and nondescript. You kind of beat me to it, but I was going to say, that GM is currently in a phase of 'don't know where I'm going' like it was in the early to mid sixties. If I'm right, we can hope for truly stunning GM cars in about 5 years hence.

As a teenager in HighSchool in those glorious "Early to mid Sixties" my American classmates and I were right smack n the middle of the most amazing era of Automobilia this planet will ever see.

Huge comfortable cars built for long nights at the Drive-In or long hauls across country driven by monster 8 cylinders that sucked in everything but the Ozone Layer, all for 15 cents to 20 cents a gallon, 103 Octane White Gas.

Beginning in the early 50's and going strong through 1970 even the simplest of body designs had class, style and pizazz.

Every car uniquely different from the next we weren't crammed into today's renamed sub compacts like the socalled "New" Mustangs, Cudas or Camaros.

Our cars were unencumbered with an extra $20,000 or $25,000 of unnecessary built in cost, forcefully regulated by the Govt. and lobbied for by the Manufacturers..

Even the largest 427's or 454's had room under the hood to work on it and without the need for a degree from MIT or Computer devices.

When you turned a corner people new instantly what you were driving, either by seeing the car or hearing the engine.

Two cars meeting each other on a two lane road could distinguish exact body styles from a half mile away, day or night, just by the positions of the headlights and blinkers.

Even after the stark reality of the Oil Embargo the most beautiful styling of all time was traded in for what, giant boxes called SUV's that get less mileage per gallon than those glorious Kings Of The Road, GTO's, SS Chevelles, SS Camaros, Boss Mustangs, HemiCudas, and RoadRunners.

I'll much prefer lots of large glass windows instead of a GPS,

A quick responsive engine in a full size car as opposed to 12 airbags,

15 inch rims and high profile tires over goofy little rubber band setups on ridiculous 22 inch garbage can lids,

Real dash layouts instead of the modular ######

Steering wheel horns with the WaWa bar

Face it there will never be stunning cars coming out of GM for less than $100,000.

Stunning Autos could be built for $30,000 but todays regulations would never permit it.

And, why would GM want to give us cars we would love, that everyone can afford, when they can stick us with off the shelf cheap designs that they can make a huge profit from.

I drive an '83 Datsun ZX Coupe,

Why?

Because it's sleek, stylish and surprisingly roomy. And, because there is notihing in the USA today that compares to it.

There's a car you don't see on the road much anymore.

CadilacPat

[bbowser]

I'm afraid the days of stylish personal transportation are numbered, if not already gone. Driving down the road these days you can't tell what they are unless you see a badge on the nose. Jellybean-shaped transport pods that you need a 2nd mortgage to purchase. This'll put a stake in the Chevelle nameplate for sure.

[sak]

I know your all going to hate me but I kinda like it.

Manly because its not a extreme undo able thing like most concepts, there's no big scoops, or wings, or ground effects

If you angle the back of the roof a bit, like a 45 degree angle, getting rid of the rounded back it would look fine in my eyes

I got your back brah !!! I like it too. Very clean. Resemblence to the camaro but less busy. True hardtop design. I would like to see more pictures but a google search gave me no photos of this car. As for naming it a chevelle? Whatever. What difference does it make. The chevelle badge is most likely only to draw people in. And even it that is the name, why must it have to look and sound like a chevelle? The days of V8 powered passenger cars are numbered, although it might not seem like it now. Even the V6 will soon be phased out. But that aside, in a few years I will be in the market for a new car, and this might be an interesting alternative to a civic or corolla.

[Junkman]

As a teenager in HighSchool in those glorious "Early to mid Sixties" my American classmates and I were right smack n the middle of the most amazing era of Automobilia this planet will ever see.

Huge comfortable cars built for long nights at the Drive-In or long hauls across country driven by monster 8 cylinders that sucked in everything but the Ozone Layer, all for 15 cents to 20 cents a gallon, 103 Octane White Gas.

Beginning in the early 50's and going strong through 1970 even the simplest of body designs had class, style and pizazz.

Every car uniquely different from the next we weren't crammed into today's renamed sub compacts like the socalled "New" Mustangs, Cudas or Camaros.

Our cars were unencumbered with an extra $20,000 or $25,000 of unnecessary built in cost, forcefully regulated by the Govt. and lobbied for by the Manufacturers..

Even the largest 427's or 454's had room under the hood to work on it and without the need for a degree from MIT or Computer devices.

When you turned a corner people new instantly what you were driving, either by seeing the car or hearing the engine.

Two cars meeting each other on a two lane road could distinguish exact body styles from a half mile away, day or night, just by the positions of the headlights and blinkers.

Even after the stark reality of the Oil Embargo the most beautiful styling of all time was traded in for what, giant boxes called SUV's that get less mileage per gallon than those glorious Kings Of The Road, GTO's, SS Chevelles, SS Camaros, Boss Mustangs, HemiCudas, and RoadRunners.

I'll much prefer lots of large glass windows instead of a GPS,

A quick responsive engine in a full size car as opposed to 12 airbags,

15 inch rims and high profile tires over goofy little rubber band setups on ridiculous 22 inch garbage can lids,

Real dash layouts instead of the modular ######

Steering wheel horns with the WaWa bar

Face it there will never be stunning cars coming out of GM for less than $100,000.

Stunning Autos could be built for $30,000 but todays regulations would never permit it.

And, why would GM want to give us cars we would love, that everyone can afford, when they can stick us with off the shelf cheap designs that they can make a huge profit from.

I drive an '83 Datsun ZX Coupe,

Why?

Because it's sleek, stylish and surprisingly roomy. And, because there is notihing in the USA today that compares to it.

There's a car you don't see on the road much anymore.

CadilacPat

I won't argue for a second that the early to mid sixties cars were possibly the best highway cruisers ever built (OK, let's make this the late sixties since they had power disc brakes).

I just said that I find them lacking a clear direction in the styling department, like they didn't really know what to do after fins. Starting around '65 GM got it pretty much under control again, first with the Pontiacs. I repeat, this is my opinion. Also my opinion is, that they seem to be in a similar dilemma today, like they don't know what they should come up with after the jellybeans we have grown tired of. And I expect highly paid professionals in a creative environment to come up with something new, not harking back down history lane with this pseudo cool retro nonsense which I just find despicably unimaginative and soulless.

Example: We have Generation 1, 2, 3, and 4 Camaros. Each had fresh styling yet again. Then they brought out a Generation 5, which is harking back to Generation 1, instead of having fresh styling. There are worse examples, much, much worse. You don't have to look further than the Rover 75 and the Jaguar S-Type. One literalIy killed its maker, the other one almost did, if it wasn't for good old Henry's money, simply because people preferred to put their money where they got fresh produce for it, in particular BMW, the undisputed market leader in this segment in the UK. I plead guilty having owned one of each, simply because used car prices dropped faster, than a fat man from the roof of an office block. Technically both were darn good cars if one was able to look past the ridiculous Miss Marple styling.

We are now in the second decade of a new millenium and I haven't seen a thing I haven't seen already in the last one. Not to be taken literally, but what I am trying to express is that I miss a clear definition of the past and so far also this decade, which each and every preceding one had. If any, the last one will probably go down in history as the one that was festooned with retro styled kitsch. I can only hope this is going to change somewhen in this one. It's probably my upbringing showing through, my mother was a fashion designer (What? Christmas? Again? We had Christmas last year, we need something new...).

I really do like your choice of transportation. Mine is now a 1975 Rover P6 V8 and no, I'm not going to elaborate on the wisdom to select a twin carb V8 for a daily driver, when fuel is around 7.50 Dollars a gallon. Maybe I should be sensible and buy a quarter century old turbo car from a defunct Swedish manufacturer instead?

Edited January 7, 2012 by Junkman

[Joe Handley]

Did Stevie Wonder have anything to do with the design of this car ???

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder" Huh!

[jbwelda]

i like it and would like it much more if it had a 300+ HP V6, got 45 mpg and weighed 2500 lbs. then put "Chevette" on the tail because thats all you would be seeing!

[Elliot949]

This looks as crappy as the new Camaro...