Were Would They Start? GM Says It Wants To Build A FR-S Killer

"A really nice, light, rear-drive car that's inexpensive -- we know that rings a bell," the GM North America president told Automotive News last week. "That'd be a huge win for us if we had that."

It's not on the drawing board now, Reuss says. But GM tipped its hand to the idea at the 2012 Detroit auto show, where it showed a rwd Chevy concept coupe, dubbed Code 130R.

"Really strong" feedback on the concept from young people reinforced Reuss' desire to add something fun at the low end of Chevy's lineup. At the time, GM executives envisioned pricing the 130R in the low- to mid-$20,000s.

vdiv - 5/6/2013 1:53:24 PM

0 Boost

To laugh or to cry, that is the question.

GM couldn't make much of the Sky/Solstice as a light, fun, reliable, and affordable car, why do they think they can make, sell, and sustain one now?

All they will do is use the Korean (Daewoo) made Spark, add RWD, and if we are lucky, throw some advertisement dollars at it.

Speaking of Korean I am more interested if Hyundai/Kia would bite and come up with an affordable, light RWD coupe. The Genesis Coupe GTR is not too shabby as a start.

MorePower - 5/6/2013 11:28:04 PM

+1 Boost

GM didn't make much of the Sky/Solstice because they:

- poorly marketed the car
- Slapped a Saturn & Pontiac badge on it
- Waited too long to get the hardtop to market
- were more concerned with getting consumers buying $$$ profit SUVs

91z4me - 5/8/2013 12:52:07 AM

+1 Boost

Sky and Solstice were marketing pieces and a way to keep a factory open for a little while. They were NEVER intended to be volume or profit leaders.

They also allowed Bob Lutz to see just where the bottle necks were in GM's design and approval process (something that came in handy when the 5th gen Camaro was rammed through the same process).

Call them figure pieces but don't call them failures, they did their job.

vdiv - 5/8/2013 4:02:19 PM

+1 Boost

I do consider them as failures because GM had a chance to make something with them and they blew it. Ok, maybe their timing was a bit of a bad luck, but for GM to chuck their "young" brands Pontiac and Saturn and keep Buick and GMC made no sense to me.

So Bob Lutz identified the bottlenecks at GM and pushed for a change. Wrote a good book about it too. Did the change occur? GM is back to its old tricks like nothing ever happened. There is no way they will make a GT-86 beater for the simple reason that they do not even understand the GT-86.

MorePower - 5/6/2013 11:36:55 PM

+1 Boost

GM has never really been in the "BRZ/FRS market before, unless you consider the Fiero. The Cobalt SS does not count! Both Ford and Chrysler enjoyed success.

For GM to succeed, they need to first start by doing the obvious:

- Great looking, muscular shape that is trimmed in size
- RWD
- Light, tuned and balanced chassis not salvaged from a sedan parts bin
- Tuned suspension
- Great shifter
- Great steering feedback

Then GM must go further:

- More power
- Better reliability
- Better interior
- Cheaper price
- Better brakes

91z4me - 5/8/2013 12:50:16 AM

+1 Boost

GM owned this segment decades ago with the Monza and Vega & their associated variants. Both were very good handling machines for their time, small light weight, and both competed quite well on racing circuits.

Before them you had the Novas and Chevy II.

This isn't new territory for the company, just the company in the time that you have lived.

als723 - 5/7/2013 12:59:23 PM

+1 Boost

They've made attempts before with the Cobalt SS and such products, but I have yet to see GM build anything with any actual pedigree or dynamics. Their cars are starting to look better but I don't feel like they're well put together. Considering the production costs aren't as high as the Japanese, they should be building more sound cars for the money. If their cars were half as good as their trucks, then the imports would be in some serious trouble.