Koma

iTrader: (3)

The new Impala (I guess it's now pronounced im-PAL-uh)
Malibu
Cobalt
Revised Monte Carlo

They all have the same boring front fascia and headlights.

I mean I know alot of companies are doing the family resemblance thing but... Chevy's is boring and it makes all the cars from head on look the same.
L-Finesse works, this... doesn't.

mmarshall

Chevrolet products, with a couple of exceptions like the Corvette and the now-defunct Camaro, have never really sold on their looks. Their cars sell primarily to those who want a low price, relatively simple design, cheap parts for repair and service, an immensely wide dealership network, are willing to put up with second-rate workmanship and fit-and-finish, and are fiercely loyal to Detroit and to Chevrolet in particular. The rear-drive Caprice was popular with senior citizens, police, and taxi companies until GM in 1995-96 foolishly converted the Arlington, TX plant ( which also built the Buick Roadmaster and Cadillac Fleetwood ) to truck/SUV production.
The Monte Carlo is popular down south and with the NASCAR / Winston / Nextel Cup crowd in spite of the fact that it bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to the cars actually running the track.

Again with an exception or two, look at what has happened whan Chevrolet DID did produce vehicles that were NOT cheap and DID have unusual styling.....the SSR is a perfect example. Like the Plymouth Prowler, they sold to a few people with money but in general the sales went nowhere. The Camaro, another car with unusual styling, while a cult car, especially the SS, to a small but fiercely loyal group, sold less and less each year until GM was forced to drop both it and the Firebird due to lack of demand. Had it stayed on the market, today's 2005-2006 Mustang, another good-looking but cheaply-built car, would have absolutely destroyed it in sales.

Now.....Chevy may have something with the new HHR. I know your thread, Koma, specifically mentioned Chevy cars vs. Chevy trucks, but the HHR is essentially a compact-car Cobalt with a retro-1949 Suburban-influenced SUV-looking body. Unlike the ill-fated SSR, which was an EXPENSIVE converted Trailblazer frame with a gas-guzzing V8, this vehicle is not only far more useful and versatile as a daily driver but also far more economical to both buy and operate...and probably to insure. It has many of the same attributes as the Chrysler PT Cruiser, and appears to be selling in the same large numbers. ( GM boss Bob Lutz won't admit it, but the PT Cruiser is obviously its closest competitior ).

I myself did a thread on the HHR a little while ago and will re-post it if you are interested:

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...=HHR+Chevrolet

Koma

iTrader: (3)

GM is doing some awful things with this once minivan that I don't know the chassis code for but essentially are the same car rebadged in multiple GM brands.
Buick Terraza
Chevrolet Uplander
Pontiac Montana
Saturn Relay

Honestly looks awful and any potential buyers are going to be confused. Why would you reproduce a model in 4 different names. It's just taking sales from yourself.

mmarshall

Worse yet......the Saturn Relay doesn't even have plastic body panels in the Saturn tradition. Saturn is getting away from its unique roots and is just becoming another cheap GM division to compete with Chevrolet....none of its products will have the plastic bodies anymore after a couple more years.

jet864

When Saturn was first released, didn't some GM big-wig say something to the extent of "Saturn will never platform share. We will remain independent with our own dealerships, cars, yada yada yada."? I wonder when Saturn's will start beign sold next to Tahoes?

James

Coffey454

Yeah they all look awful - my personal unfavorite is the GXP Pontiyuck Grand Prix. Wow - Just awful!!

I agree, the HHR should be a hit. I was initially very turned off because it is such an obvious rip off of the PT (hmm, could it be a coincidence that Nesbitt was on both design teams??) but now having seen a few on the road, this is actually the most intelligent vehicle GM has ham-fisted out of one of it's plants in a long time....

The Saturn outlookhowever is actually brighter than it seems. It does currently have several "questionable" vehicles, and yes they are ditching the plastic panels... but that is a good thing. Does anyone enjoy the 7.0mm panel gaps on Saturns?? GM's plan for Saturn is to reinvent it as a world car brand - semi upscale,and actually the new Saturn concepts look pretty good! To me the Solstice is OK, I hate the dorky Pontiac nose on it, but it's sister car the Saturn Sky will be very nice indeed.

mmarshall

Now that's a good one.......Pontiyuk. Haven't heard that term before.

Those wide gaps on Saturn plastic body panels are not there just because of sloppy assembly. They are there for a purpose....and are set by Saturn engineers. Plastic expands and contracts in the heat and cold more than metal does. If you built a plastic-body Saturn to the same gap tolerances as a typical sheet-metal body vehicle, the panels would expand so much in the sun on a hot summer day that you literally could not open or shut the doors, hood, or trunk.

And....obviously.....the primer and paint has to expand and contract along with the plastic panels at the same rate, otherwise the paint would crack and peel off, so Saturn uses a special water-borne paint on the plastic panels that is somewhat different from the paint on the metal ones....the hood, roof, and trunk.

Coffey454

Yep, that is right, I recognise the reason for the gaps, but shouldn't that have been a primary reason not to use plastic? All O***s have methods of keeping panel gaps at a reasonable level (around 4.0mm is typical) and I wasn't implying that it was due to build quality, I was using the 7.0 gap as a reason not to use plastic at all. Any weight savings are generally negated by the added structure behind these panels, the paint does not hold up well over time, and the styling is more limited to ensure decent panel fit. Plastic bodied cars, at least at the technology level that GM is using now are not good enough.