Jump to content
Blake Noble

NAIAS 2012:Chevrolet's Code 130R packs big muscle into a small package

Recommended Posts

I could see the next Camaro having this platform and wheelbase, but would it be this small (thought I read this concept was about 175 inches long)...that would be quite a downsizing from the current model's reasonable size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see the next Camaro having this platform and wheelbase, but would it be this small (thought I read this concept was about 175 inches long)...that would be quite a downsizing from the current model's reasonable size.

That all depends on Alpha's degree of dimensional flexibility.

That said, the current car is reasonably sized - for a Chevellle that is.

Camaro should shrink a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to Alpha flexibility - Sigma goes away on the next generation of CTS and Cadillac has made it plain that they intend to use the CTS to compete with the E-Class and 5-series head to head on size both internal and external. The next CTS is Alpha. Given the weight reductions GM has shown here and the weight gain BMW has shown on the 5-series, the world could end up turned upside down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOVE LOVE LOVE the 130! This would be a fantastic rebirth of the Nova nameplate (or at least the Nova "idea"), in coupe, sedan and convertible. The true coupe roofline really does it for me.

The 140 reminds me of a last-gen Celica with a Lambo body kit.

Many more people are commenting on the 130 than the 140 over at Autoblog... the 130 has TWICE as many comments... a good indicator to Chevrolet on which car should be built. The 130 has people talking, and hoping anew for an affordable, smaller RWD sporty car from GM.

The 140 is flash-in-the-pan trendy... it wears earmarks of many other small, sporty coupes that have had short shelf lives. Not what GM should be doing. The 130 is something no other manufacturer can do. The 140 smacks of Celica, Eclipse, even last-gen Cougar. It is a shocker that will grow stale quickly, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gallery_51_326_3518.png

1970%20Chevrolet%20Chevelle%20Malibu%20SS-396%20Sport%20Coupe%20-%20rVl.jpg

Seriously? Please don't tell me I'm the only one here who sees the very clear influence in the side sculpting.

(Also, rumor has it GM was considering using the Chevelle name for the Code 130R. In spirit of the idea behind this and the Tru, however, GM wanted the names of both concepts to be chosen by the target audience, hence the uninspiring monikers. Chicane would have been the name attached to the Tru 140S, from what I hear.)

Edited by black-knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Camaro will never use a body like this car.

Seems to me it all depends on when the new Camaro comes as I don't see Chevy offering two coupes on Alpha.

Not that I'd object, mind you.

It might could happen.

The Code 130R should preview the F6 Camaro in:

  • Its platform (that's a given).
  • Its general dimensions (leaving room for an inch or two here and there).
  • The drivetrain layout, save for the four-cylinder engine. You can probably bet money that eAssist will be optional somehow on the Alpha Camaro.

The Code 130R possibly differs from the F6 in the fact it was designed to be fuel efficient first and foremorst while still being fun to drive. The Code 130R, from what I understand, was primarily designed to use four-cylinder engines without any consideration for six or eight-cylinder engines. The F6 Camaro will allow room for all three, with emphasis still on a V6 and V8.

A small, fuel efficient coupe with practical headroom and leg room for four adults that shares a majority of its parts and engineering with the next Camaro can make sense. The Camaro becomes cheaper to build due to it sharing so much content with the Code 130 and the ATS, and the Code 130R's fuel efficiency can only boost CAFE scores, even at a low volume. Sure, a four-banger Camaro might sell, but this little coupe could sell even better because of one simple reason: it isn't a Camaro.

I'm saying there's a 40/60 chance on this playing out. GM designed the Code 130R (and the Tru 140S) to potentially carry on into production for a very good reason.

Edited by black-knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, yeah Jacket. Looking at them both together, I can see what you're talking about. The '72 Heavy Chevy graphics emphasized that sculpting, and the sunken back glass is another item these two share.

To me though, Chevelle was bigger than the Code130R projects. This new concept calls out "Nova" to me in the lineup pecking order. I'd love to see the Code130R spawn a family of fun, small RWD vehicles... coupe of course, but also convertible and sedan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this thing aside from the color of the wheels. The only element of the 140 I like is the rear, but as a overall package I prefer this car. It's retro without being obvious about it. It's unique especially with that upright roof, I'm not a fan of compact cars usually, but this is a sweet coupe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, yeah Jacket. Looking at them both together, I can see what you're talking about. The '72 Heavy Chevy graphics emphasized that sculpting, and the sunken back glass is another item these two share.

The level of design influence the '70 through '72 Chevelle had on the 130R is similar to how the '69 Camaro influenced the current fifth-generation Camaro -- it's retro without being a feckless rip-off of the original car, genuine and modern.

To me though, Chevelle was bigger than the Code130R projects. This new concept calls out "Nova" to me in the lineup pecking order.

The Chevelle was certainly larger than the 130. I don't think GM designers were too hung up on that, though. And while I see your point about the Nova, I think the ignorant lore assoicated with that particular name has almost barred it from ever returning.

I'd love to see the Code130R spawn a family of fun, small RWD vehicles... coupe of course, but also convertible and sedan.

That would be a real dream come true, but I think we'll have to keep our fingers crossed for just the coupe first.

I hate to bring up the Arrowhead card, but if Pontiac were still around, well ... we both know how this would be playing out instead. There's no need to divulge any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gallery_51_326_3518.png

1970%20Chevrolet%20Chevelle%20Malibu%20SS-396%20Sport%20Coupe%20-%20rVl.jpg

Seriously? Please don't tell me I'm the only one here who sees the very clear influence in the side sculpting.

(Also, rumor has it GM was considering using the Chevelle name for the Code 130R. In spirit of the idea behind this and the Tru, however, GM wanted the names of both concepts to be chosen by the target audience, hence the uninspiring monikers. Chicane would have been the name attached to the Tru 140S, from what I hear.)

I see Chevelle bulges on the fenders, Nomad show car from a few years ago in the front fender curve, Monza town car in the winshield and B pillar, 5 Gen Camaro tail and the rear window I see maybe 2nd gen Monte. A lot of good elements that just don't fit together in one small car.

I love all of these older cars but not in one car. There is just no cohesiveness or flow to this model in styling.

The tail would make a great tail for an updated Cruze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Chevelle bulges on the fenders, Nomad show car from a few years ago in the front fender curve, Monza town car in the winshield and B pillar, 5 Gen Camaro tail and the rear window I see maybe 2nd gen Monte. A lot of good elements that just don't fit together in one small car.

How on earth do you see the Monza Towne Car in this?

monza1.jpg

The 130R's b-pillar has a dramatic forward slant to it and isn't upright like the Towne Coupe's. The only way the windsheilds are the same is in the fact that they're pieces of glass installed on the car to keep bugs out of the driver's teeth.

I also fail to see the Nomad concept (I'm assuming you mean the Kappa version) anywhere in this design, ditto the second-generation Monte Carlo (the 130R's back glass certainly isn't creased in the center like the baroque Monte's; where are you seeing that?).

The Camaro influence is there in the taillights to a degree, but then again that's understandable. The Cruze, Volt, Spark, and Sonic are the only four Chevrolet cars that are devoid of having their own spin on the Camaro's taillights (and even then the Volt is debatable to a degree).

I love all of these older cars but not in one car. There is just no cohesiveness or flow to this model in styling.

Don't get me wrong, there are a few small details I would probably change, but all in all I'm not seeing what has people so up in arms about the styling of this car. As a whole, it's great and is unappologetically a Chevy. I also don't understand how people are seeing design elements in this car that aren't really there.

Edited by black-knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both cars would target different markets. Think of these cars as if a female Pontiac married a male Chevrolet. Unfortunately Ms. Pontiac was the last decendent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 130R ... to a point. Definitely a good start, but needs some "fine touches".

Course, I'd like to see this in person before I completely judge it. After all, some cars look better (or worse) in person than in pics/vids.

At least the 130R is RWD, but what to name it? Chevette ... Chevelle ... Monte Carlo ... Malibu?

Cort | 38.m.IL | pigValve + paceMaker + cowValve | 5 MCs + 1 Caprice Classic

CHD.MCs.CC + RoadTrips.hobbies.RadioShows.us66 = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"Let's make sure we don't give up" __ Tim McGraw __ 'Maybe We Should Just Sleep On It'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monza Towne Coupe recall comes in the no-nonsense, upright, true coupe roofline and simple quarter glass. To me, the rising fender line recalls Corvette. The side sculpting is '71-'72 Chevelle. The general, overall demeanor, for me, is a cross between Camaro and '66-'67 Nova.

This is a "correct" COUPE roofline. For reference, look at countless photos of 1930s and '40s coupes. You will see a relatively short (lengthwise), high, and CLOSE COUPLED greenhouse as the defining feature. It is a designer's definition of "coupe" played perfectly, imo.

Love it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The car looks better when it isn't trying to look like an extended cab Miata:

gallery_51_326_3518.png

That's actually close to one of the small tweaks I had in mind -- hiding the b-pillar behind the glass, similar to the Dodge Challenger. It really cleans up the daylight opening.

Other changes I would make would be slightly larger headlamps and certain elements of the front fascia massaged and rearranged.

The rear end and side scuplting are perfect as is. I also don't mind the c-pillar. Perhaps that's because I'm quite used to a very upright roofline.

Edited by black-knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why ya'll hatin on the upright rear glass? Everyone has a fastback these days... a freaking Camry has a long sloping rear window.

In my automotive dream world, all cars are fastbacks. I hate notchbacks in general.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The car looks better when it isn't trying to look like an extended cab Miata:

gallery_51_326_3518.png

That's actually close to one of the small tweaks I had in mind -- hiding the b-pillar behind the glass, similar to the Dodge Challenger. It really cleans up the daylight opening.

Other changes I would make would be slightly larger headlamps and certain elements of the front fascia massaged and rearranged.

The rear end and side scuplting are perfect as is. I also don't mind the c-pillar. Perhaps that's because I'm quite used to a very upright roofline.

I really dislike the cutline that the trunk makes in the rear quarter.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thing...someone on another forum commented that the greenhouse resembles the Neon coupe..hmmm...I see a resemblance in the c-pillar and side window.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thing...someone on another forum commented that the greenhouse resembles the Neon coupe..hmmm...I see a resemblance in the c-pillar and side window.

Wow, yeah, Neon coupes were also strict adherents to the textbook definition of "coupe". Nice reference! And Nick, old boy, where you been at? Yes, the 1-Series is another reference point. Also that Nissan coupe concept from a few years back, when we falsely believed Datsun was bringing back the 240SX in a traditional, upright coupe bodystyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The roof line is not bad in it's self but it is too big for the car. It looks out of proportion to the rest of the car. If they would put this greenhouse on a larger car I think it would look better. To me it makes me think that it looks like they took a greenhouse off of a Camaro size car and planted it on a smaller Cobalt size car.

As the lower car is it would look better with a Convertible top or a GT fast back roof line.

Like I said the parts are not bad but they are just trying too much here. It may be GM is just threw a lot of ideas on one car to see what we think? As it stands I don't see this as any kind of production car. GM can do better than this.

Note this is based just from the photo's I could change my mind in person. Also I am not a fan of the BMW 1 series either. To me it is a little car trying to look big and just does not flow well. It is just not a design that you can feel inside and stirs the soul. Audi has been doing this much better of late accept for the near identical front end on every car.

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I notice in the real photo at the show is the B pillar leaning as it does would be in the way of people getting in and out. It could be a head wacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×