By on May 6, 2013

Chevrolet Code103R. Photo courtesy Automotive News.

Almost exactly one month after TTAC first broached news of a possible compact rear-drive Chevrolet, TTAC commenter and GM North America vice-president Mark Reuss is still dropping hints about such a product.

Speaking to Automotive News on the prospect of a possible competitor to the Scion FR-S

“A really nice, light, rear-drive car that’s inexpensive — we know that rings a bell, that’d be a huge win for us if we had that.”

While reaction to the Code 130R was reportedly strong, Reuss said that the Code’s styling would not be put into production. Apparently, the Alpha platform would not be used either, echoing earlier comments by Reuss. That would necessitate another compact, rear-drive platform like GM’s former Kappa architecture, and of course, further variants to help make that venture profitable. Bring it on, GM.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

60 Comments on “Mark Reuss Keeps Pushing For Rear-Drive Small Chevy...”


  • avatar
    Speed3

    As much as I hate to say it, I think the money would be better invested in the next-gen Malibu/Regal/LaCrosse/etc.

    • 0 avatar
      thegamper

      It sounds great, I hope they do it. I would agree though that it sounds like a low volume endeavor even if it was spread across several models and might not be a great use of resources.

  • avatar
    Secret Hi5

    “TTAC commenter and GM North America vice-president Mark Reuss”

    Hahaha, nice dig.

  • avatar
    juicy sushi

    It makes probably poor sense economically, but some small RWD coupe competition for the Toyobaru would be terrific. Especially if it could spawn a race series that pitted them head to head in a mildly modified state. It could be like touring car racing with RWD and nice looking cars. Which would be an entertainment win-win.

  • avatar
    Kevin

    Because the last few times they’ve tried to make small, roadster like sports cars, it’s worked out so well. The Solstice and Sky just flew off the lots.

    In all seriousness, I think Speed 3 is right- they need to focus on their moneymaker cars before they start producing low-volume niche vehicles.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    That greenhouse was stolen from the first-gen Neon! Chrysler should sue. Not sure where the rest of the design comes from…

    If they build it and if it has a manual and if it is diesel and comes in a small wagon, they’ll have exactly ONE buyer! Not me…

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Is Chevy still annoyed that they never got their own Kappa with a small-block V8?

    C’mon, guys, get over it already.

  • avatar
    hawox

    i want my opel kadett back!!
    it was fantastic fun even with a pathetic engine. it would be such a better car for young boy than one of the modern “trendy” small car that under the skinn are all toyota corolla’s copies.

    but i know that in the real world a compact rwd for those marketing guys would be a 30k $ with back seats good only for a very small teddy bear.

  • avatar
    AMC_CJ

    Would be cool to see a new generation Corvair. Doesn’t have to be rear engined, but RWD, with a coupe, sedan, convertible, and maybe even a wagon variant.

    Does it make any business sense? Probably not.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    I notice Reuss didn’t include “profitable” in his list of adjectives for this car. I suppose Alpha isn’t an inexpensive platform, while Kappa is old and Zeta is heavy. If it’s going to be RWD, I imagine they’ll have to use ONE of these platforms; it would be madness to create a new one for such a niche model.

    Also, when they say “inexpensive”, I hope they mean “FR-S/BRZ” territory. Remember when the new 350Z was supposed to be cheaper than the gilded barge it replaced? With an ATS coupe and a Verano convertible in the likely works, it will have to undercut both…not an easy feat for an all-new RWD car, unless GM intends to lose money on every one.

  • avatar
    mcs

    Rather than a Chevy, it might make more sense as a Buick with styling from that concept that was shown in China. Sort of a new Reatta – or Riviera.

  • avatar
    ttacgreg

    Other than for enthusiastic hoonery, is there any other point to be made in favor of RWD?

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Even tire wear, more predictable handling, ease of service. Generally speaking of course.

    • 0 avatar
      jco

      it *will* guarantee that Internet commenters will be continuously talking about a Chevrolet product for months/years, which might also be a possible benefit. and then they’ll find reasons to complain about it when it finally comes out.

    • 0 avatar
      NMGOM

      ttacgreg….

      Since this is an enthusiast’s website, I can only surmise that your question is meant in jest, right?

      If not, the only two advantages remaining for FWD are:
      1) It’s cheaper now to manufacture, so, for the same vehicle class, the sales price should be lower;
      2) It offers somewhat better “packaging” of space within a car, by lumping all the heavy hardware in front.

      RWD has advantages in:
      1) Shorter Braking distances;
      2) Better Weight Balance;
      3) Lower Tire wear;
      4) Superior High-Speed Stability;
      5) Ease and lower cost of Repair;
      6) Greater resistance to damage (for hitting curb, for example);
      7) Faster Handling (Slalom);
      8) Tighter Road Holding (Skidpad);
      9) Faster Acceleration (momentum transfer to the driven wheels);
      10) Quieter vehicle interior, all else equal.

      A partial comparison was done by Popular Mechanics, shown here:
      http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/reviews/comparisons/1266931-2

      A YouTube comparison by Vickie Butler-Henderson is shown here:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdiF-BxPSH0

      So, “hooning” has little to do with it; real driving does. I am surprised this issue even came up.

      ———————-

      • 0 avatar
        Summicron

        “Since this is an enthusiast’s website…”

        There are many things about cars besides aggressive driving that can generate enthusiasm. But there are NO websites that service anyone of this persuasion besides a few that focus on feminine fashion in the car world.

        Even CR pays annoying obeisance to the adolescent male fixation upon “spirited driving”. So in this dearth I, and maybe a few others like me, come to TTAC for the peripheral goodies about the auto industry that are impervious to jizz stains. That there are any such feature articles here is largely thanks to Schmitt and Schreiber.

        And where I live RWDs are put away for the winter so they’re just fair weather toys. One concession: a RWD pickup properly loaded and carefully driven can deal with a northern winter.

        • 0 avatar
          NMGOM

          Summicron….

          Sporty and joyful driving is not necessarily “aggressive”. You may have misunderstood me. And for me, there is virtually no joy in driving a FWD vehicle of any sort.

          I don’t know where you live to experience winter, but in Minnesota, there are plenty of RWD vehicles. And if you look carefully, you’ll discover that the first types to slide off roads and highways are small FWD econoboxes, usually accompanied by drivers stand outside scratching their head to trying to figure out what happened. I can explain more of the “why” if you are interested.

          ————-

        • 0 avatar
          burgersandbeer

          Agreed that people can be enthusiastic about cars and trucks for different reasons. A few examples outside the scope of “sporty” driving that is so often the focus:

          - Off road vehicles. I don’t think there is any explanation needed here.
          - Work trucks. Not fun in the sense of sporty driving, but the versatility is cool. I prefer to see trucks dirty and dented. Expensive and clean trucks make me sad.
          - Prius. Don’t laugh. It was designed for great gas mileage and low running costs, and it does that job well while still functioning as a family vehicle. Sporty was not part of the job description, so it shouldn’t be held against it.

          My preference at the moment is pretty much aligned with the driving traditional associated with automotive enthusiasm, but I appreciate machines designed for a specific purpose that are good at their jobs.

          I have to disagree strongly on the thoughts on RWD in the winter though. A RWD truck is about the worst thing possible. Without weight in the bed a light dusting makes them dangerous. If you think weight makes them passable winter vehicles, then you must agree that snow tires make any RWD car usable in snow. Try them sometime. They really do work.

          • 0 avatar
            nrd515

            I’ve had 5 RWD (part time 4WD) trucks over the years, and honestly, without any real extra weight in the back, I did fine. No wrecks, never got stuck, though I did have to go into 4WD ( rarely used it on anything that ever had it) a couple of times to get out right away. I drive my present Challenger R/T every day, and haven’t had any problems at all.

          • 0 avatar
            NMGOM

            nrd515…..

            I agree. I have had three pick-up trucks since 1974. (Yeah, they usually last a long time!) So, here is an anecdote.

            None of them had 4WD (all were RWD only); and none even had an LSD. But all of them had manual transmissions. All I did was put a small amount of weight in the back (couple hundred pounds) which, with the cap, gave me close to a 50/50 weight distribution. And, I did use good winter tires, of course.

            I used to live in two different areas of upstate NY (both snow-belt cities), and, with the trucks’ high ground-clearance, have NEVER gotten stuck in any situation. You had to use proper judgement and discretion, of course. I mean, we’re talking wet snow and ice in amounts you wouldn’t believe! But the trucks were virtually like tanks, especially with the heavy differential oil I was using.

            One thing I noticed on high-ways at speed: when conditions got slippery, each of the trucks would always “let me know” what was happening down below by getting a bit “squirrely”, and I would have enough fore-warning to slow down. That was a virtue for safety.

            I already mentioned above, that in my commutes, it was almost invariably the small FWD cars that were in the ditch, with their owners wondering what happened. Reason? The FWD systems mask road conditions: you can’t tell as sensitively what is going on. The 2nd group of vehicles that became unintentional off-road explorers were big SUV’s, whose owners no doubt thought their vehicles were immortal, and were driving in a metastable state WAY beyond the friction limit.

            So, RWD pick-up trucks for heavy Winter? You bet, and I’d swear by them if used intelligently, and with some knowledge about how to drive.

            ——————-

      • 0 avatar
        burgersandbeer

        @NMGOM – I prefer RWD as well, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate and break down your list of advantages.

        1) Shorter braking distances – Only all other things being equal, which they never are. Too many variables impact braking distance to consider this an advantage for a RWD platform.
        2) Better weight distribution – Agreed here. It’s one of the big reasons I prefer it. Makes a difference in how a car feels to drive, even in commuting.
        3) Lower tire wear – Same as #1, too many factors to say this has anything to do with RWD. Like suspension design. I’m sure the Z4 you have as an avatar chews rear tires at an alarming rate.
        4) Superior high speed stability – I’m going to defer to Jack’s older article on the advantages of FWD. He argued the exact opposite here. Something about inertial stability.
        5) Ease and lower cost of repair – Only helps DIYers.
        6) Resistance to damage – Maybe true. I don’t know – I try not to run over curbs.
        7) Faster handling – Too many other variables. You think a Crown Vic is going to beat a Focus ST through a slalom?
        8) Tighter road holding – See 7.
        9) Faster acceleration – Sure, the weight shifts to the drive wheels when you floor it. Once again though, too many other variables. Besides, this may be an advantage over FWD most of the time, but AWD is going to be even faster out of the blocks. Given that, maybe best not mention it.
        10)Quieter interior – All else is never equal.

        • 0 avatar
          NMGOM

          Hi burgersandbeer….

          In technical comparisons, one has to control other variables and hold some things constant, or else we can’t talk about much of anything except everyone’s anecdotal experiences. Right?

          In the big picture of things (the large-scale statistics), everything I said is exactly true; but on an individual car basis, you are certainly right: in any given circumstance, other things in other areas may compensate for FWD deficiencies. And yes, we do live in a multi-variate universe where, unlike our old friend F=ma, we know that multiple causes can create (or influence) the same effect.

          It’s just that so many folks who drive FWD cars are not aware of the compensatory “causes” they may have to harness to provide better stopping distances (for example) in an emergency situation. That gift “comes along” automatically in a RWD car, all else constant (there I go again…)

          ——————-

          • 0 avatar
            niky

            I’d contest your list. The Motor Trend article has too many uncontrolled variables. Tire type and size, car size and class, brake sizes, engine size, etcetera… And if Vicki’s video is what I think it is, there’s no way you can compare a front-drive Alfa to an RX8. That’s just not fair. If it were a comparison of an RX8 and a Mazda6, that would be more fair.

            As for the list:

            1) Shorter Braking distances; – depends on weight balance. Obviously not true for a rear-driver with 55% of its weight over the front axle. In fact, the best braking will be if the engine is all the way behind the rear axle, which is rare, unless your sample includes only Porsches. Well, it should. Give a car enough brakes and grip and it doesn’t matter what its weight balance is. A Focus RS, for example, matches the Porsche 911 from 100-0 at around 34.8 meters.

            2) Better Weight Balance; – depends on the layout. Ever driven an unladen pick-up?

            3) Lower Tire wear; – False. Better distribution of tire wear, yes.

            4) Superior High-Speed Stability; – False.

            5) Ease and lower cost of Repair; – Depends. Are we comparing live axle to independent drive axles? I’d argue a FWD vehicle with a front live axle would be just as easy or difficult to maintain as a RWD with a rear live axle.

            6) Greater resistance to damage (for hitting curb, for example); – So, getting hit with a PIT doesn’t count? Heck, front-drivers are good for long, drawn-out car chases, because you can’t break a drive-axle with a rear-end PIT.

            7) Faster Handling (Slalom); – So many depends here that it’s meaningless. In my experience, I’ve slalomed many FWD vehicles that are faster through the cones than comparable RWD vehicles. Quite often, specific suspension tuning has more effect on slalom speed than drivetrain layout. That’s if we’re considering steady-speed slaloms.

            8) Tighter Road Holding (Skidpad); – Given, all else being equal. Simply because a rear-driver will “push” into a turn instead of out of it.

            9) Faster Acceleration (momentum transfer to the driven wheels); – Given, but for initial acceleration only.

            10) Quieter vehicle interior, all else equal. – Citation needed. Having sat above many a noisy driveshaft, I’d disagree. FWD packaging puts you further from all mechanical action than RWD packaging. Unless the vehicle is RR.

          • 0 avatar
            NMGOM

            niky, niky, …what are we going to do with you? (^_^)…

            Did you even look at the links I referenced?
            a) There was no article from Motor Trend, — anywhere.
            b) The comparison I referenced came from Popular Mechanics.
            c) Vickie’s video used an AWD Audi A4 Quattro, — there was no RX8 even mentioned. The RWD example was a BMW 3-series, and the FWD example was the Alpha 156.

            So, it really isn’t worth my time refuting your comments below. As I said to “burgersandbeer”, my generalizations are true exactly as stated with ALL ELSE CONSTANT, but individual vehicles can be equipped to bias those generalizations one way or another, — slightly.

            Since the above references were apparently not used, you may wish to consult some other views on the matter, here:
            1) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100519153104AAu3pS4
            2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_layout
            3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZTTn2gq67I
            4) http://blog.motorists.org/pros-cons-rear-wheel-drive-front-wheel-drive-or-all-wheel-drive/

            ——————–

          • 0 avatar
            niky

            Still, not apples to apples at all. Between an Alfa, an Audi and a BMW, there are a lot of design factors and considerations aside from drivetrain that determine the driving dynamics of each platform, despite all three cars being roughly in the same market segment.

            As for the PopMech article, my mistake, but I read it through, and they didn’t control for any variables at all, which strikes me as uncannily sloppy.

            Yahoo Answers? You’re seriously using Yahoo Answers?

            If all else were equal… meaning the engine is in the exact same place and both cars have the same suspension layout, wheelbase and tires, many of the “disadvantages” disappear, except for the “push” on the skidpad and tire wear distribution.

            I’ve done more braking than most… at last count, I have performed a few hundred instrumented braking tests on over two hundred vehicles, and on a street car with enough braking capacity to lock its tires, there is no advantage in straight-line braking for a rear-wheel drive car. Engine braking doesn’t count. (Yes, we’ve tested this. And yes, it doesn’t.)Thanks to the onset of EBD, most road cars can now juggle braking force and traction sufficiently to negate any issues with braking arising from weight distribution.

            And again… high-speed stability? Says who? It strikes me that any off-road excursion on a slippery highway is down to the specific vehicle/driver/setup in question rather than the drivetrain. There are some awfully nasty front drivers out there, but that is purely down to (Toyota’s) lack of rear anti-sway bars and lousy rear torsion beam suspension settings.

          • 0 avatar
            NMGOM

            niky….

            Please see my interlinear comments interspersed with yours in quotes below:

            “Still, not apples to apples at all. Between an Alfa, an Audi and a BMW, there are a lot of design factors and considerations aside from drivetrain that determine the driving dynamics of each platform, despite all three cars being roughly in the same market segment. As for the PopMech article, my mistake, but I read it through, and they didn’t control for any variables at all, which strikes me as uncannily sloppy…….If all else were equal… meaning the engine is in the exact same place and both cars have the same suspension layout, wheelbase and tires, many of the “disadvantages” disappear, except for the “push” on the skidpad and tire wear distribution.”
            NM: Yup. You’re right. This level of testing perfection is a problem for almost all car magazines/organizations. I once submitted a proposal to a prominent car magazine for a testing method and regimen that would solve this issue once and for all (with ALL EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES CONSTANT), — and got ignored.

            “Yahoo Answers? You’re seriously using Yahoo Answers?”
            NM: Yup, as I also am taking the Wikipedia article, the motorists blog, and the BMW video seriously, which you failed to mention. Did you look at them?

            “….. there is no advantage in straight-line braking for a rear-wheel drive car.”
            NM: Then your methods were faulty, because this conclusion would defy simply physics, all else equal. A modern, well balanced RWD car can easily out-brake any FWD car (all else equal), as Road&Track’s Test data clearly have shown over many years. Check their website and click on “Data Panels”, if still available.

            “Engine braking doesn’t count.”
            NM: I always do trail braking, and yes, engine braking counts, and it’s something FWD cars can’t do safely: they destabilize their rear ends if they try, because there’s nothing back there. Those rear wheels essentially serve to prevent the gas tank from dragging on the ground…. (^_^)…

            “And again… high-speed stability? Says who?”
            NM: BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Ferrari, Koenigsegg, Pagani, McLaren, Aston Martin, Corvette, SSC (Tuatara), and Hennessy (Venom). In other words, anybody who knows anything about genuinely high-speeds done safely. I am not even including AWD cars with a severe rear torque-bias like Lamborghini and Bugatti. Go ahead a try taking your Toyota Camry on the Autobahn and get hit by a side wind while you’re going at 100 mph, and see what happens! (Actually, please don’t..)

            ———————–

          • 0 avatar
            niky

            BMW is a biased source. Since they’re trying to justify their use of rear-wheel drive as a brand differentiator. Something which doesn’t matter, seeing as how many of BMW’s bread-and-butter models now have the same nannying understeer that everything else on the road has nowadays.

            FWD at 100 mph? Been there. Done that. 140 mph? Been there, done that, in FWD, RWD and AWD. Engine braking? Been there, done that (again, note the fact that I have done hundreds of instrumented braking tests). I don’t know why everyone assumes that a front wheel drive car has NO weight over the rear tires. Because that’s simply not true. No truer than the idea that an FR car has NO weight over the rear tires. Trail-braking also destabilizes the rear end in a rear-wheel drive car (you mentioned it, not me), and aggressive engine braking in a rear wheel drive vehicle can cause loss of traction at the rear end, inducing oversteer. When you engine-brake aggressively enough to break traction in a FWD, you get the opposite. This is not to say a FWD cannot get squirrely under braking, but it’s not much worse or no worse than a comparable front-engined rear-wheel drive vehicle. In fact, the only vehicles that have tried to kill us on track during the past four years of braking tests have been rear-wheel drive. And the one that almost succeeded wasn’t a pick-up.

            As for braking distances, what brakes shorter than a 911? If a Ford Focus RS matches it in braking, what does that mean? Braking nowadays depends more on outright grip than anything else. As I’ve said, EBD allows all cars to maximize brake use and grip under braking, and there’s little advantage to having rear-wheel drive per se in braking, in my experience.

            Wikipedia is not a great source, but I have little beef with most of the things mentioned there, since the advantages and disadvantages mentioned carry the proper caveats.

            Most high-end manufacturers go for rear-wheel drive for reasons of durability, off-the-line traction and, most importantly, customer perception. Lotus found, to their chagrin, that buyers of exclusive sports cars don’t want front-wheel drive.

            It is perfectly possible to build a front-wheel drive vehicle with no disadvantage but off-the-line traction and power understeer versus something like a 911, and capable of hitting 200 mph. But such a car would not be practical. The engine will sit behind the front axle, longitudinally, with the differential mounted straight on the transmission. There will be just as little passenger and cargo space as in a rear-drive GT. If people were to put up with such layout compromises, they’d rather buy the rear-wheel drive vehicle, which will still get off the line faster.

            It’s also possible to build a rear-wheel drive vehicle with the same legroom, cargo space and packaging efficiency as a front-driver. It’s just that most people would rather not be driving a rear-engined family car which needs specially-sized rear tires and stability control to keep steady in the wet.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “5) Ease and lower cost of repair – Only helps DIYers.”

          Disagree. What takes a DIYer longer to do will take a skilled mechanical proportionately longer to do as well. This means when it comes tome to foot a repair bill, even the average driver will pay for more of the mechanic’s time to work on a vehicle that is more difficult to service.

          There are definitely some complex RWD vehicles out there, a 7 series won’t cost less to service than a Corolla because it is RWD, so we’re speaking in generalities.

  • avatar
    Lightspeed

    This coould be so easy. Modify the Cruz platform, use the Cobalt SS turbo engine, call it Chevy Monza, style it like a baby Camaro, price it under the FR-S.

  • avatar
    Reino

    They should definitely bring back the Kappa platform. The Solstice and Sky were popular cars but were doomed by the death of their brands, not by their own sales. If they’re resurrected, not only will GM have a competitor, but it will put the “smaller-engine Corvette” nonsense to rest, once and for all.

    Oh…and Porsche should bring back the 944 :)

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      The Kappa twins died because they couldn’t be used as a real car. One can take even a first gen Miata to the grocery store and not have to get silly when loading your groceries. The trunk on the sky/solstice with the gas tank in the missle meant you would have to eat light and take said groceries out of the bag to fit them…maybe. As such they could only be sold as a toy car. People who want a toy GM buy a Vette which ironically, accomidates more than an envelope in the trunk.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        So true, there is a different between small trunk and no trunk – and the Kappa twins had NO trunk. Plus they used the transmission from a truck which is not what people want in their light, toss-able sporty car. Now imagine a Mini Cooper but RWD… THAT would sell like hotcakes.

        If I could make a suggestion (that will be ignored) there should be two models: a convertible and a hatchback coupe. If they give this thing a tiny trunk (again) it will be a huge mistake. I can understand having “slightly” limited trunk space in a convertible, so offering a hatchback version solves that problem. Go old school and give the hatch a targa top! Make it light and a 4 cylinder turbo should motivated it very well and get great mileage. Bonus points if they offer an “SS” version with a V6 and carbon fiber targa. Even more radical suggestion: mid engine!

  • avatar
    Russycle

    I can see it maybe as a halo car, but I don’t see Chevy selling a ton of these. So they better make sure the cars their customers will actually drive home *cough*Malibu!* are up to snuff

  • avatar

    Mr Reuss has his heart in the right place. he bought the old Durant factory is Flint, He did the Letters of Intent, and he has impressed this skeptic as one with a true love for GM’s people. that said, he is three shakes from a smoothie. if only he would fix the darn marketing. given that he would rank up there with old APS Jr.

  • avatar
    smartascii

    Hey, look! Somebody made the 1-series even uglier! Who knew THAT was possible?!

  • avatar
    gessvt

    …or just reintroduce the Solstice coupe as a Chevrolet. This can’t be that outlandish of an idea if someone at GM approved the Chevrolet SS…

  • avatar
    NewLookFan

    It’s always said there isn’t enough of a market for a COMPACT truck, but they think there’s a market for something like this. We know how well the GTO and G8 sold yet GM thinks the SS is viable. And the Solstice and Sky sold like hotcakes, so this car is a no-brainer. What’s next, a new SSR?

    Here’s a novel idea, how about coming to market offering a truly class leading, incredibly reliable mass market SEDAN? Otherwise it’s just more niche market window dressing. A poseur. It’s looking more and more like the old GM.

  • avatar
    TW4

    It should be called the Chevy Indie. It should be a modern interpretation of a Lancia Fulvia HF, Alfa Romeo GT 1600, Datsun 510, or BMW 2002ti. The styling should reflect classic lines, but retro-styling is not necessary per se. The car should also have manually-engaged 4wd to suppress costs and maintain the fun small car vibe. The vehicle should be sold exclusively in coupe form to avoid cannibalizing other GM appliances.

    All manufacturers need a funky, fun, small car to lure jaded consumers away from their boring appliances and stuffy luxury trims. I’ve handed Reuss the road map to success. He’s all out of excuses now :)

  • avatar
    Onus

    Make it a sedan, 4 doors and all, and I’ll get one.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      They already do – Cadillac ATS. Anything smaller would be completely useless, so why bother with back doors?

      I really don’t see how they could do this right for less than $30K.

  • avatar
    corntrollio

    They’d have to use a revised Kappa right? It doesn’t make sense to use Alpha for this — that should be premium cars only.

    Using Kappa would also save on engineering work, but they’d still need to spread the costs to other vehicles. Does that mean a Buick or Caddy spawned on the same platform? I don’t think a smaller-than-ATS Caddy would work, but maybe a smaller Buick for China?

  • avatar
    Athos Nobile

    When the local press saw that thing, they starting salivating about a modern Torana. But then, they’re still asking Ford about the XR8 replacement…

    Go Reuss!

    Share the volume with the Aussies (which can make this thing happen on the cheap) and do it.

    I think he’s hinting at some less expensive Alpha derivative.

  • avatar
    johnny ringo

    A new small rear drive Chevy—Ooh, it must be the new Chevy Vega! I can hardly wait.

  • avatar
    Junebug

    Bingo! The Vega, bring it back and do a Chip Foose on it, new motor, trans, cool wheels and killer interior!

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    We’ve already seen this movie. GM’s rear-wheel-drive Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky sports cars beat the Toyobaru to market by several years. They didn’t measure-up: poor driving dynamics, unacceptable fit and finish and substandard reliability.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    Makes perfect sense for Chevy to offer a small RWD sports coupe. The Vette is their halo sports car, Camaro the pony car. This could be their entry level sports car the same way the Vega should have been.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India