Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CanadianBacon94

Chevrolet SSR

Recommended Posts

Who here likes it? who doesn't?

what was the best part about it? what would you have changed?

General Opinions on the thing.

I for one like the styling, the idea of the thing, but they failed in the execution, Basing it on the trailblazer(not that they had much an alternative) and releasing it underpowered in its first year with the auto only combination didn't help

The later years LS2 with the 6sp manual was really cool, but they are still stratospherically expensive even today.Chevrolet-SSR.jpge

Edited by CanadianBacon94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one considered buying one and i do have some wheel time in the LS2 version.

Here are a few things that would have helped this vehicle. Now keep in mind this is from a point of view of someone that liked this vehicle.

#1 The price was too high.

#2 the Ergonomics were poor. Not many fatal ones just many small ones. Thinks like to adjust the seat you had to open the door etc.

#3 The Trailblazer chassis was not very solid in this vehicle. I even autocrossed one and it bounded and wiggled much. A lot of this had to do with the top being able to be retracted and it lost a lot fo rigidity.

For th most part I think GM if they had made this thing more a real truck vs high priced show vehicle may have done better. Leave the roof solid would have made it more solid and cheaper.

I would keep the styling but I would have taken the time to make the interior more user friendly. Leave the bed to the point it could be used as a real truck with options like carpet and a cover.

I know this was a desperate attempt at a vehicle that was like a car that could be classes as a trucl post Camaro. This is what hurt it. It was not enough car to make people happy no enough truck to be what it could have been.

Imagine if they had made the Colorado look like this at near the same price. Forgo the complicated expensive roof and offer it with the 4.3 and V8.

The HHR proved this type of retro styling worked when applied to an affordiable vehicle. Now when I considered buying one it was around $20,000 used with nearly no miles on it I did consider it but not at the original price when it was new.

Hind sight is always 100% and Luzt came in with only the ability to do a Hail Mary at the time. With so little money and time to fix GM he did what he could have. To me the SSR is nice but fell short due to the conditions at GM like many other cars of the time did. If done today I would expect a lot of things would be done differently now and the results would have been even better.

The bottom line was this vehicle was more style than anything. The handling was not great due to the chassis and it was not a great car nor truck. I think if GM had made it more of one or the other it would have been much better off. Finally that much at the time for a small truck you really could not use was not good. The Lincoln Blackwood suffered the same fate.

Would I still like to have one today. Yes but the truth is most in the car market did not see this vehicle the same way I did as they want a little less show and more usable in a vehicle.

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fixed roof would have solved most of the SSR's issues.

Prototypes were built, and should have been produced.

It also should have been offered with the manual from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BIG, BIG fan I am of the SSR. Love seeing them at car shows and always have to check them out. Look at the used ones all of the time, but the high selling prices will keep me away (not that I can afford a 3rd vehicle "toy" purchase anyway). Loved the concept and the following production models and if finances allowed, would have one parked in my garage right now.

Saw this logo on a teardrop trailer at the AACA Fall Eastern Meet last weekend:

IMG_5267.jpg

The bright red SSR tow rig that pulled it was gorgeous (two old men were packing it up so I couldn't get a good shot of the SSR or the trailer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen one up close, but i used to think they looked like a Pt cruiser truck. I used tsee the PT cruiser as a bloated N.Beetle based on a neon so that put me off. If only they made the HHR a suv version of this and replaced the Trailblazer :

I'm sure that would have gone over well :duck:

I wonder how it would have work on the ute platform

07VESV6Ute_13_05_wide8.jpg

ssr2.jpg

Not sure ifThe vert would have work with the Zeta, i figure it was fine with a BOF platform though since the structure is in the floor.

Edited by CanadianBacon94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen one up close, but i used to think they looked like a Pt cruiser truck. I used tsee the PT cruiser as a bloated N.Beetle based on a neon so that put me off. If only they made the HHR a suv version of this and replaced the Trailblazer :

I'm sure that would have gone over well :duck:

I wonder how it would have work on the ute platform

07VESV6Ute_13_05_wide8.jpg

ssr2.jpg

Not sure ifThe vert would have work with the Zeta, i figure it was fine with a BOF platform though since the structure is in the floor.

That green is freakin ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fixed roof would have solved most of the SSR's issues.

Prototypes were built, and should have been produced.

It also should have been offered with the manual from the start.

A fixed roof would have really helped in the flex in the chassis and a lot of the cost.

The one issue with this vehicle that my HHR SS has is the shape of the nose makes it a target for every stone and rock. you not only get chips on the front but also on the sides too. Also the rear fender gets blasted buy the front tires and the paint will show wear in time. But that is the price of show car styling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SSR was introduced as a 2003 model and they should have included the LS1 and 6 spd manual from the very beginning. That would have helped to fill some of the void left after the Camaro/Firebird platform was cancelled. But that then begs the questions; was this to be a muslce car, a retro truck, a bit of both? Did GM have an aversion to putting the LS1 motor in a truck platform? Clearly they had no problem with making the Trailblazer SS using the same LS2 motor in the last two years of the SSR. I love the SSR, but it unfortunately suffered the same fate as the GTO. They both were great ideas and finished strong. But their introduction was not fully thought through and their pricing was just too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rock one. I see it as more of a cruiser than anything, and for that purpose some flex and lack of power aren't an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not always a case of not thought through. Often there are reasons they skip things or do not use them right away, I know the GTO driveline was not ready or available the first year not for any Holden car. GM often has a new car and then the engine the second year or the engine and the new platform a year or two later. It may just be due to cost at the time they had a great lack of. .

The first problem was this was a Retro truck and not a sports car or coupe. The one I auto crosses show why it was neither. I would susprct the manual may have not been included for several reasons but one would have been because of the tire shake. If you got the rear tires shaking it would have shook this thing to death as it had little stiffness. It was nearly as bad as the first Mustang Fox body Converible conversion. With the light rear and large tires the shake would have been bad unless they would have added a damper system like my ZQ8 Sonoma.

All this vehicle was to do is attract people to GM. Lutz came to GM with great needs and no money to fix them. The did a comendable job here making something slick like this out of really nothing but it was really not a Camaro replacment nor was it a muscle car or sports car. . It got GM press and I am sure at the asking price it made GM and the dealers some money so for the most part it did what it needed at a time GM had little to be proud of. It for the most was a GM Prowler. .

While it may not have been as dramatic they may have been just as well off bringing in the Ute from down under. It may have not sold in great numbers but it would have been cheaper and eaisier to do. It would have been a much better car too just lacking the special styling.

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not always a case of not thought through. Often there are reasons they skip things or do not use them right away, I know the GTO driveline was not ready or available the first year not for any Holden car. GM often has a new car and then the engine the second year or the engine and the new platform a year or two later. It may just be due to cost at the time they had a great lack of. .

The first problem was this was a Retro truck and not a sports car or coupe. The one I auto crosses show why it was neither. I would susprct the manual may have not been included for several reasons but one would have been because of the tire shake. If you got the rear tires shaking it would have shook this thing to death as it had little stiffness. It was nearly as bad as the first Mustang Fox body Converible conversion. With the light rear and large tires the shake would have been bad unless they would have added a damper system like my ZQ8 Sonoma.

All this vehicle was to do is attract people to GM. Lutz came to GM with great needs and no money to fix them. The did a comendable job here making something slick like this out of really nothing but it was really not a Camaro replacment nor was it a muscle car or sports car. . It got GM press and I am sure at the asking price it made GM and the dealers some money so for the most part it did what it needed at a time GM had little to be proud of. It for the most was a GM Prowler. .

While it may not have been as dramatic they may have been just as well off bringing in the Ute from down under. It may have not sold in great numbers but it would have been cheaper and eaisier to do. It would have been a much better car too just lacking the special styling.

I like your thinking and have to agree with what you say here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji 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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 257 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...