The Chevy had potential, the nose was the problem, that and its a Chevy, we dont need more Chevys

[post="25997"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Nice to know someone agrees.

Maybe as a Buick.

Why would the SSR have a pillar?  It's designed to resemble a regular cab pickup truck.  Like I said... bad example.

[post="26126"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Fact is, though, it is still a pillarless hardtop by definition. I'm sorry you don't like that GM has a solution to Silvester's problem, but they do. It has the raw power, the handling, everything of a classic muscle car. I bet 0-60 times are even similar! Plus...it's a hardtop OR a convertible all in one with no targa to mess with.

The SSR was designed as a niche vehicle, price and bodystyle-wise. What Sixty8 and others are proposing is the return of affordable RWD performance CARS, like 4 and 5 seaters. Your example doesn't fit that description.

How bout this as a RWD Car... Take the colorado platform, build an El Camino body... then put it on the platform and call it an El Camino. :P

Edited October 9, 200519 yr by Teh Ricer Civic!

The SSR was designed as a niche vehicle, price and bodystyle-wise.  What Sixty8 and others are proposing is the return of affordable RWD performance CARS, like 4 and 5 seaters.  Your example doesn't fit that description.

[post="26133"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

so...basically he wants a different kind of niche vehicle. Because a vehicle like that will not appeal to a mainstream audience.

BTW, Fly, I think the 58-60 Lincoln could make for a decent cruiser. Enough weird elements in the body to try different things with, plus big cars are always great for shaggin' chicks.

How bout this as a RWD Car...

Take the colorado platform, build an El Camino body... then put it on the platform and call it an El Camino.

:P

[post="26135"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Only problem is the El Camino was always car based...so why not just take an Impala or Monte and make it a 2-seater with an open bed?

Uh, not really. Half of those classics were high-line Cadillacs, Lincolns, or Chryslers, certainly not your 'basic family cars.'

The 50s and 60s certainly had its share of more basic, less-graceful machines like the Plymouth Plaza, Chevrolet 150 and Del Ray, Ford Custom, Studebaker Scotsman (a real Hyundai of its day), Nashes, and the like.

For the record, Sixty8 posted:
3 Chevrolets
2 Dodges
1 Merc
1 Olds
1 Pontiac
1 DeSoto
1 Buick
1 Lincoln and
2 Cadillacs, (plus the little partial tailfins pic- both Cadillacs).
The only relatively expensive cars are the Caddys and the 1 Lincoln. Chrysler was on Buick's level in the '50s; it was Imperial on Cadillac's level. Still and all- nothing remotely like an Aston Martin or other high buck auto posted there. Toss in the Eldorado Brougham or Mark II and we would actually be in an apples-to-apples comparison with what Croc posted.

Naturally I get his point well. Tho I'm not positive I would be as appreciative of the '40s -'60s as I am if I hadn't been 'beaten down' by the '80s and '90s. '50s and '60s cars are much more individualistic than modern cars are.

Only problem is the El Camino was always car based...so why not just take an Impala or Monte and make it a 2-seater with an open bed?

[post="26138"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

cause its fwd. who really cars if its always been a car based, the old ones were BOF tthe colorado is BOF whats the difference? its not like El Caminos were ever handling machines.... altho... FWD may be better since it would largely eminate fishtailing in poor weather...

lets just put one on the vette platform :)

Edited October 9, 200519 yr by Teh Ricer Civic!

Only problem is the El Camino was always car based...so why not just take an Impala or Monte and make it a 2-seater with an open bed?

[post="26138"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

<shameless plug>

Or they could do this.

</shameless plug>

Let's see... combined sales of the LXs and the Mustang will top 400,000 units. So much for Croc's "niche" claim. More like a canyon.

Edited October 10, 200519 yr by ocnblu

SSR has a retractable hardtop...the Corvette does not.  So what were you saying about technological innovation?  Retractible hardtops are pretty expensive to make...

[post="26120"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Why would a sports car have a retractible hard top? It doesnt fill where the Camaro was at all. Its $20,000 more expensive. The Camaro handled good, it wasnt a cruiser like the SSR. I cant consider anything that weighs 4800lbs a sports car.

Why would a sports car have a retractible hard top?

[post="26169"][/post]

The XLR is sweet but I cannot stand the new SLK, with that huge schnoz.

Since this is my thread... :D

Everybody needs to shut up about modern vs classic design, hardtops of any kind, the SSR... and get back on topic about the wierd Bel Air concept... Now, damnit! Now! :lol: http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

Or not, whatever. :P

IDK... to me, all old cars (50's-60's... "classic," I suppose) look pretty much the same: great, in a flashy, outrageous sort of way, certainly better than the square 70's and 80's. So I certainly can understand the POV that modern cars are too conservative. But remember, those "classics" wouldn't have stood out in its day more than an Accord in 2005.

[post="26158"][/post]

THESE CARS ARE NOT PILLARLESS HARDTOPS!!!!!

You want to jump on me because my suggestion fit the description, but doesn't have a backseat, but then you pull out these "examples" and show them as proof that this is not a niche??? Y'all don't make sense.

Do you want it pillarless or no?

A pillarless design is not practical due to leakage issues for large family sedans. The Mustang has a fixed rear window AND a B pillar. Those LX cars have a B-pillar.

THESE AREN'T EVEN BOF!!

Now make up your minds!


Now, I dare you to convince me that a RWD, BOF, V8, 6-speed pillarless hardtop is NOT a niche model? In fact, prove that it is not a VERY niche model...

I'd love to see you try.

Edited October 10, 200519 yr by Croc

I am sitting here grooving to the new Gorillaz cd, no time to argue.

Zeta won't be BOF, and it prolly won't be missing the B pillar, but I know it will sell like crazy, better than the LX cars, because GM has a better rep for quality than Chrysler. :P

yo wildmanjoe, whats your obsession with BOF? Unibody is might tighter and structurally more rigid. I mean if you want a boat thats cool by me (driving boats are fun) but....

Chalk it up to a traumatic experience helping restore a 1958 Thunderbird. Oh, the cuss words you could have learned trying to line up those subframes. Talk to anyone who has done a frame off on a Uni-body car and they'll give you a fist full of reasons.

[post="26221"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ok so its easier to fix... Now what about when it doesnt need to be fixed?

a waterwheel powered lamp is easier to fix than repairing a damaged electric plant, but which would you rather have?

Didn't piss me off, just annoyed me that I got jumped all over because it's a 2 seater yet fills all the other criteria...yes your examples fulfil...oh...two of the criteria.....it just seemed like a stupid double standard and arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I really think the SSR is more of a sports car than it is a truck...If I were in the market for a truck, I wouldn't consider the SSR, and if I were in the market for a sports car, I would...

[post="26074"][/post]

:lol: x 1,000,000,000

So let me get this straight. BOF design sucks for a luxury car that is designed for comfort and is a poor choice for a durrable car like a cop car, taxi or ruggerd family sedan BUT

....it's okay for a "sports car"?!

Oh my Freeking God I'm laughing so hard I can't even see straight.

AS far as throwing in a Aston Martin, Corvette, Viper & GT40 Balthazar already took care of that discrepancy but just for shit's and giggles here's a few cars for comparison:

Aston Martin:





Corvette:

Dodge:





Ford:

Wow. There was a time when Dodges didn't look like blocky truck-styled piles of shit?

Which era would you rather live in as an Automotive enthusiast?
1955-1960

Ahh yes, the days when cars had drum brakes all around, 0-60 in 12-14 seconds was considered fast, the concept of handling was unknown, and "crash safety" meant if you were lucky, the steering wheel prevented you from flying through the windshield.

Those cars definitely looked cool, but as someone who actually drives them, I'd have to pass on that era.

Edited October 10, 200519 yr by rearden82

Ahh yes, the days when cars had drum brakes all around, 0-60 in 12-14 seconds was considered fast, the concept of handling was unknown, and "crash safety" meant if you were lucky, the steering wheel prevented you from flying through the windshield.

Those cars definitely looked cool, but as someone who actually drives them, I'd have to pass on that era.

[post="26349"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No doubt a classic would be wicked for a second or third car for special occasions and nights out, but I agree - make my daily driver of the past 20 years.

:lol:  x 1,000,000,000

So let me get this straight. BOF design sucks for a luxury car that is designed for comfort and is a poor choice for a durrable car like a cop car, taxi or ruggerd family sedan BUT

....it's okay for a "sports car"?!

Oh my Freeking God I'm laughing so hard I can't even see straight.

[post="26325"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

First of all, that is NOT what my post was about. My post was saying that the SSR is in my mind more of a sports car than a truck.

Yes, 68...I like the SSR. Do you have a problem with that?? Unlike you, I am not some close-minded fool.

You wanna know something? I try to like you...I really do. But your hypocrisy (pointing out and making fun of people's spelling errors when you yourself can barely spell is just ridiculous) and the fact that you argue about things incessantly to such a ridiculous level just make you plain unlikeable.

I guarantee that I'm not the only one who feels this way by a long shot...

I'm gettin into this discussion in the heat of battle and kind late, but on the topic of pillarless I just had to post these...(especially the first one)

The beautiful 850CSI

http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/e31.html

the clk is pillarless as well

Edited October 10, 200519 yr by Nick

Gotta remember, Nick, in the eyes of some of our panel, it don't count if it ain't American.... Add the Mercedes CL to the list as well...

I mentioned the CLK earlier... somewhere. Yes, the 850 is pillarless, but the quarter windows don't retract, do they?

And there goes Croc, down that "personal attack" road. It is one thing to argue over automotive philosophy, but when the attacks get personal, that's when I choose to ignore the attacker. I, for one, come here for the community. A personal attack has no place here, and should not be tolerated.

They do...

A personal attack has no place here, and should not be tolerated.[/b]

Exactly right. Very tiresome. And I guarantee that I'm not the only one who feels this way by a long shot...

Wow, I lovedthe 8er back when they were still in production, but those pics make it look really dated. As for the rest of this thread, be real. The number of people who prefer BOF to uni is so small, no company would make any money selling a BOF car. And yes, there were good looking cars in the 50's and 60's, there are good looking cars today, some peopel are ust so stuck in the past that they cannot see that. I'll take a modern car, riding on a modern platform with modern tires being powered by a modern engine and modern transmission and all the modern accessories. A 6000 pound hunk of steel that gets 9mpg while polluting worse than the factory that builds the Prius and only has an AM/FM radio isn't my bag, especially with that handling.

You wanna know something? I try to like you...I really do. But your hypocrisy (pointing out and making fun of people's spelling errors when you yourself can barely spell is just ridiculous) and the fact that you argue about things incessantly to such a ridiculous level just make you plain unlikeable.

I guarantee that I'm not the only one who feels this way by a long shot...

Yep... I do. Although, I do the same sometimes, but I can't help it that I like to stand up for what I believe is true...

A personal attack has no place here, and should not be tolerated.

Exactly right. Very tiresome. And I guarantee that I'm not the only one who feels this way by a long shot...

Yep... I do. Although, Sixty8 is always asking for it. He really is... Frankly, I think this is needed with him. Sorry Sixty8, but you really are close-minded and it gets annoying...

Anywho... back on topic, but still off topic... :P

I love the 8er. It is my absolute favorite Bimmer of all time. The design is just so perfect. A perfect mix of elegance and sport. I love it, I love it, I love it!!! :wub:

Edited October 10, 200519 yr by blackviper8891

According to Croc's definition here's some more pillarles hardtops:





And just to be fair.... :P

Edited October 10, 200519 yr by Sixty8panther

A "pillarless hardtop" has nothing to do with a "convertable hardtop" or "retractable hardtop". You Croc, should know that if you are going to argue over semantics.

Edited October 10, 200519 yr by Sixty8panther

I thought about that too, but I think the frame around the door glass of those pickups probably would exclude them from the wiki definition. Any piillarless hardtop needs frameless windows. BTW, that base Tundra is NASTY!

For the record, the buying public at large could give two S'es about chassis construction, drive wheels, how much horsepower it makes, and the like. They care about size, looks, image, fuel economy, and creature comforts. A BMW could be a 120-horse carburetted BOF retro-mobile and they'd buy it because the roundel is on the hood, whereas Kia could build a 400-horse GT priced under 30K with the highest quality of any car ever built and a Pininfarina styled body, and people would still pass just because it's a Kia. Really, only nerds like us really care or know the deal. And as long as I ain't involved, I could give two turds who doesn't get along.....

Yeah Croc, thats a pretty specious argument. The SSR is a hard top, and it has no pillars, but it isn't a pillarless hardtop in the true sense. Calling the SSR a hardtop is like calling RuPaul a woman.

Yeah Croc, thats a pretty specious argument.  The SSR is a hard top, and it has no pillars, but it isn't a pillarless hardtop in the true sense.  Calling the SSR a hardtop is like calling RuPaul a woman.

[post="26472"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I almost spit out my Green tea all over the keyboard when I read that. :P

Z28: yes of course the P/Us I posted are not hardtops by any definition but I was trying to make a point about bending the true definitin. And yes the Tundra is nasty and most consumers don't know a BOF from a Unibody or a 4x4 from an AWD but even the most clueless ones love hardtops when they see them at a carshow.

A "pillarless hardtop" has nothing to do with a "convertable hardtop" or "retractable hardtop". You Croc, should know that if you are going to argue over semantics.

[post="26459"][/post]

Well, hardtop convertibles with the roof up look exactly like a hardtop coupe, except for the extra cutlines...



Such a clean looking car... puts the 9-3 Cabrio to shame.

belair is the best inside and out but it would not sell well it is a little plain tho.

How in the world would those be anything other than trucks? Open bed... Only reason I would say the SSR could go either way is because it does not have an open bed, merely a bed-shaped trunk. I think the SSR's mission is far more in sync with that of a sports car than that of a truck.

She-it look at the brawl I missed.

Flybri - Silv also posted a STS, LaCrosse and a few others I didnt like brought into the scenario of the 90's-current. Balthazar qued up well on that one so I dont need to check the grounds for any survivors. Although theres a few Ferra... ah never mind !

For anyone that thinks styling expression of today can compare to the post WWII era through to the square box era 77/78/79 you are narrow minded. You can win the tecnical arguements, or the handling arguements, or the gidget/gadget arguement but as for the styling and expression/character give it up. There is so little going on in sheet metal since 77/78/79 most is not even noteworthy. Handsome ? perhaps! good looking ? perhaps! Sexy ? perhaps! Creative ? not!Origional ? Not ! Artistic ? Not !

Crocs an ass, far harder to like than Sylv but every once in awhile it seems like he might be human, just long enough to drop ones guard :lol: yea yea yea I know Im the biggest ass here but thats a givin, if ya want the address to the Steve edGe haters club PM me. Just let me warn you theres a long list waiting for admittence. Also excellent spelling is a must, so no mistakes on the application palease.

However I could see the SSR as a 2 seat pillorless retractable hardtop but its a friggin truck that you would have to kick yourself in the butt for if you used it like a truck. It was a waste of GM funds. It was another example of Chevy getting a little .... rub.

For all the obvious reasons BOF isnt comming back, its not really necessary, monocoque (sp) is all we need. Well engineered cars would be structurally more sound for rollover and many other impact directions as well. So why waste time, weight and money on a ladder frame when other forms of rigidity are more important ?

An excellent American (history) hardtop would need to be a well designed monocoque anyhow to provide excellent protection. American hartops should have been returned after the learning curve of the 80's but they were not. Perhaps Roger Smith was to busy destroying Flint to make worthwhile decisions.........ah never mind.

Edited October 11, 200519 yr by razoredge

Crocs an ass...but every once in awhile it seems like he might be human, just long enough to drop ones guard  :lol:

[post="26724"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That seems to sum it up quite nicely

Edited October 11, 200519 yr by Croc

Razor, me and you don't always agree but you are NOT the biggest ass on here. You have a clear idea on what it means to be an american and how we're flushing our country down the shitter... you speak your mind, 75% of the time I agree & the rest of the time you're not a total dick about it.

Really... We all know that I am the biggest ass here. :D Anyways, get back on topic, supposed 'adults'. Bel Air... it was a bland and truckish concept. It had a modern, yet retro interior. It had many cool features.. like the flip down or whatever taillight for a gas filler door/thing. It also had a cd player in the middle of the rear seat... Now continue on, 'adults'. :lol: :P

As cool as the gas filler hidden behind the tail light is it's not a feature I'd want or need. Like I said the BOF construction is awsome as is the Atlas-5 (many of you have said it was inpossible to use one in a Car) :rolleyes: The styling needs a shot of Testosterone and needs to be infused wiht some real PIZZAZ and it'd be a great car.

I simply must weigh in on the hardtop issue (I tried to shush myself but I wouldn't listen).

By time-honored definitions (and no; that does not mean wikipedia- the TwiddleDickTionary Site) the SSR --covered bed aside-- is a coupe. It cannot be a hardtop as it only has one side window per side. A hardtop is a variant of a sedan (which means B-pillars). A hardtop has no B-pillar between the side windows. The SSR has no side windowS. It's a truck first & foremost, but 'cabin-wise' it's a coupe, just like the Corvette or Viper.

Note: Wikipedia lists "pillared hardtop" which is a bastardized misnomer.

Note: Wikipedia lists "pillared hardtop" which is a bastardized misnomer.

[post="26773"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Thank You. Kind of like Kosher Bacon or Liquid Ice.