Repair-It

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-eWzZuXUQg

I was actually happy to see this as I knew he would go through it and point out all the interesting stuff.

These are kind of cool. I forgot they put the LS2 in at the end. The seats actually look really nice. The power hard top is also pretty fancy.

That rear wheel is not lined up in the wheel well at all from that view. These were so stupid looking. This is like someone looked at a Silverado and said, this would look better if it looked more like a VW Beetle and Ford retro Thunderbird at the same time. They were wrong.

Good news is these should resale for about $3 (dollars, not thousand dollars) and would be a respectable power plant for a 1985 Monte Carlo SS.

This is a perfect example that shows people (the majority of people) care about what their vehicle looks like. If this looked like an El Camino, or even a regular truck with a sport/racing package, this would have done much better, and might even still be around fighting the Raptor.

bill25 wrote:Good news is these should resale for about $3 (dollars, not thousand dollars) and would be a respectable power plant for a 1985 Monte Carlo SS.

It sounds like you didn't watch the whole video. I agree the styling seems to be polarizing. But some people DO like it as evidenced by the high resale. Also, he makes a very good point at the end (which we established you did not watch): it is always commendable when someone builds something that doesn't look like everything else.

Not because it's earth-shatteringly awesome, but because it's cool, weird, interesting, unique. It may not be a great pickup, or a great sports car, but if you're sick of all cars looking the same, with the same equipment and the same styling in the same colors, well, the SSR is the antidote.

I would have to agree with that conclusion. What he says, I'd argue, is objectively true, whether you like the styling or not (I am sorry you were not consulted when they approved the design). The early to mid 2000s was not a great time for a lot of vehicle design. So I kind of don't understand criticizing them for trying this, especially because (UNLIKE the 1.3 second and 7 mph slower Thunderbird, or Prowler which performs on par with my Caprice) you could get a real V8, especially in the later years (LS2) and even a manual trans. THAT separates this for sure. The retractable hard top is also legitimately cool (and a premium feature). It is more complicated but I think much cooler than a rag top convertible. That makes this a significant cut above the other retro vehicles that were in the market around this time.

These were actually on the GMT360 (368) platform, which is the Trailblazer, not Silverado. Kind of disappointed that Doug didn't figure that out in his research.

It is styled after this generation of truck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Advance_Design

I got it now. Retro-inspired styling is only good if it looks like a late 60s Camaro in some way, or a late 60s muscle car. It cannot look like anything else. There's that (lack of) variety thing again....

Sometimes I feel like we are arguing about artwork. It just seems so pointless. Your comments have the same value as turning to someone else in a museum and saying "everyone knows Picasos are ugly and stupid and he should have never painted anything and people who own them should feel bad for having done so." Are they going to listen intently or walk away?

I'm not saying you are not allowed to have an opinion. But you don't need to express what is a 100% subjective opinion with such disdain. What you are doing is trying to shut down the conversation by screaming "it is ugly - there is nothing it can do or anything more you can say that makes this worth owning.". Is that really how you want to come across?

it is always commendable when someone builds something that doesn't look like everything else.

I disagree. If a company has invested in a team to develop a vehicle that is a complete sales failure, that is not really commendable. It is commendable to try something different, yes, but at the end of the day, I don't think going retro when it was popular is "different". Yes they made a better car than other companies that tried to do retro, but going retro was not unique at the time.

There are different time periods of "retro". Clearly sales wise they picked the wrong one based on sales and popularity. ie. not just my opinion that it was ugly, many people shared that sentiment. All I was pointing out was that style matters, that is why this failed even though mechanically it was good. I was trying to prove a point about styling, not just writing it off as ugly myself, but showing that styling matters and that is why others wrote it off and made this a sales failure.

I'm not saying you are not allowed to have an opinion. But you don't need to express what is a 100% subjective opinion with such disdain. What you are doing is trying to shut down the conversation by screaming "it is ugly - there is nothing it can do or anything more you can say that makes this worth owning.". Is that really how you want to come across?

This is basically just ridiculous. When I see this car, that is the first thing that comes to mind. I am sorry that offends you.

(I am sorry you were not consulted when they approved the design).

GM is too...
I didn't realize you were on the design team to take such offense.

For those who remember the SSR hey-let’s-go-retro-everybody’s-doing-it concept (2000 Detroit auto show), it was impressive to see how little the SSR changed on its way from show floor to showroom in 2002. But there were problems: a retractable hardtop that let in wind and road noise, a less-than-favorable weight-to-power ratio, and too much body shake served up by the modified GMT 360 sport/utility platform–not good traits for a product GM calls its Corvette truck.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrole ... rolet-ssr/

Chevy had missed the boat in the same way Chrysler had with its 1997 Plymouth Prowler, a flashy hot rod that was hampered by a wimpy V-6. The SSR also brought to mind Ford's weak and jiggly retro Thunderbird that went on sale in 2001. In fact, the looks and the attitude were only skin-deep. To qualify as cool and desirable, these car toys need to not only look fast but also be fast, or at least quick. The Prowler fizzled out two years ago, and the Thunderbird is destined for the same fate. Things haven't looked much rosier for the SSR since it went on sale in 2003.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/ch ... -road-test

So like I said, retro wasn't new or unique for the time. The original was a dog with 300HP from caranddriver and this says the hardtop wasn't great either. Sounds like they fixed a lot but too little to late, and unfortunately they never fixed the styling...

That rear wheel is not lined up in the wheel well at all from that view. These were so stupid looking. This is like someone looked at a Silverado and said, this would look better if it looked more like a VW Beetle and Ford retro Thunderbird at the same time.

I also mentioned specific reasons for not liking it besides just saying it was ugly. I don't want a car or truck that looks like a cross between a retro VW bug and a retro Thunderbird.

I don't disagree it failed in the marketplace given that sales were below expectations. That is enough to call it a sales failure. However, in terms of absolute purchases, these sold around 2.5x as many as the CTS-V1, and both were offered for 4 model years. The even more surprising thing? Comparing as tested prices, it was only $2k cheaper than a CTS-V. So 2.5x the sales of the CTS-V, a car that WAS well received.

A lot of what Doug talked about was his opinion of the SSR today. In that regard, it actually does not matter what kind of market reception it got at the time. In fact, lots of cars have different market receptions as new vs used, especially 5, 10, 15 or more years after the fact. That is why I continue to be frustrated that you seem to lump cars into a bucket of how they were received when brand new, and what they cost brand new. For the purposes of potentially buying one used (90% of the point of Doug's reviews, as he is affiliated with Auto Trader), none of that is important. Look at Corvettes and V-series Cadillacs, compared to Camaros. Things that started cheaper are often poorer values than things that started high and depreciated. We can talk about how the SSR was received in the market when it was released, but I can't believe that would have any bearing on your opinion of it as a used car in 2017.

Now in the case of the SSR, it actually has some resale so obviously taken out of the retro flood at the time, people think much more highly of it, which is what Doug was trying to get across over the duration of his review. It turns out it is kind of an interesting vehicle.

I didn't realize you were on the design team to take such offense.

I am merely offended that you continue trying to convey your opinion of aesthetic characteristics as cold, hard facts that cannot be disputed. I'm just tired of debating it - I mean what the hell am I supposed to say in response? I guess nothing.

Quantitative characteristics, on the other hand, are facts that can be measured, compared and contrasted with some precision.

Things that started cheaper are often poorer values than things that started high and depreciated. We can talk about how the SSR was received in the market when it was released, but I can't believe that would have any bearing on your opinion of it as a used car in 2017.

I don't disagree. The problem is I thought we were talking in terms of if we would consider buying it based on the review. I would not because I can't get past the looks, which is very much my opinion of the car used in 2017. So you wanted more than just aesthetics, so I found the original reviews saying it was a dog when released and really didn't get acceptable until they stiffened the frame and swapped the 5.3 for the 6.0.

I am merely offended that you continue trying to convey your opinion of aesthetic characteristics as cold, hard facts that cannot be disputed. I'm just tired of debating it

I am not sure why you would get offended. If I think something is ugly, to the point where it is making me not want to own it/drive it, that is really it - for me. I don't get why you care. I would never own one of these specifically because of how it looks. When we are talking about used cars and their desirability, I would think that comes into play. I am in no way trying to tell you to agree. It is a difference of opinion.

In my opinion, people's perspective of what a car looks like matters a lot in resale value. So does rarity to a point. So why wouldn't aesthetics be discussed. It is ok to talk about things that are opinion/can't be backed up with fact or numbers. That is how a lot of things are priced.

I also agree that it is insane that these sold better and have better resale than the CTS-V. That defies all logic.

bill25 wrote:I don't get why you care. I would never own one of these specifically because of how it looks. When we are talking about used cars and their desirability, I would think that comes into play. I am in no way trying to tell you to agree. It is a difference of opinion.

As I said before you are entitled to your opinion. However, this is how I perceive the conversation, and many other similar conversations that we've had about cars I like but you find "ugly" (which seem to be a lot of cars):
Me/Doug: It is refreshing to see something that doesn't look like everything else.
You: Doesn't matter, it's ugly.
Me/Doug: The seats look really comfortable and surprisingly supportive.
You: Doesn't matter, it's ugly.
Me/Doug: That retractable hard top is cool because you can have an enclosed hard roof or no roof at all with the push of a button.
You: Doesn't matter, it's ugly.
Me/Doug: This is the closest thing GM has built to the El Camino since the mid 80s.
You: Doesn't matter, it's ugly.
Me/Doug: Pretty good factory exhaust note.
You: Doesn't matter, it's ugly.
Me/Doug: Wow they put the LS2 and T56 in this for the last 2 years. That's pretty cool.
You: Doesn't matter, it's ugly.

You don't see why that would be a little grating? It's like first grade debate skills.

You also tend to overuse the terms "ugly" and "hideous" to the point where I question it - it's like a bi-polar approach - everything's either "awesome" or "hideous" with you. It just seems so extreme.