(first posted 8/10/2015) Every so often, a manufacturer gets it into their head that what the market really wants, nay, needs is a convertible pickup truck. And every so often the market proves them wrong. The Chevy SSR is an interesting example because, as a good friend of mine once described it, it failed as a pickup, it failed as a convertible and was pretty terrible all-around.
It shouldn’t surprise me that the SSR started out in life as a concept car. The 2000 SSR concept did what every good concept should, get the press community excited and the people on the floors drooling so you can bring more of them to your stand and notice how good your products are. A small pickup (very loosely) inspired on the amazing “Advanced Design” pickups of yore and that’s powered by a big thumpin’ V8? Not only that, but it’s a convertible, and unlike that other attempt at making a pickup truck convertible, this one would have a hardtop so the idea actually, you know, worked. And work it did, receiving praise from journalists and fans alike. To the point where General Motors decided that it should be put on production as soon as possible.
I have many questions regarding this decision but one of them stands out the most: How in all that’s good and holy did GM actually greenlight the SSR? This is the same GM that had been focus-grouping and second-guessing itself to irrelevance for more than a decade now. To go ahead and produce such a bold vehicle seems unthinkable. I’m guessing Rick Wagoner really, really must’ve loved that idea. For whatever reason, the SSR proceeded through the development process until finally, in 2003, the SSR was released to…nothing.
The people behind the SSR must’ve dropped a brick when the sales figures started rolling in. They had done it, they’d done exactly the same vehicle they had done in the concept, sure, the headlights were a bit bigger and some of the detailing was different but it was the same car. Why weren’t all those people that clamored for it buying it?! “We did everything you asked!!”
Indeed you did, GM. Unfortunately, the SSR worked as a concept, the same place where 46” rims and interiors from the world of Tron exist. When you actually bring it to the world of student loans and Fox News it loses much of its shine. When people are actually forced to put their money where their mouths are they won’t just want the looks, they’ll want practicality, reliability, a sense that they got what they paid for. Buying a car is subjective yes, but people still want to have some meat in their plate of sauce. And on that regard it failed.
Let’s start at the beginning when it comes to a pickup truck, practicality. Now it doesn’t make much sense to brand something as a pickup if you can’t pick up things with it. The SSR was bestowed with a 4.05’ bed, an amount that pickup experts refer to as “not enough”, not that it mattered, the hard tonneau cover made sure that your limiting factor was volume and not weight. You got 23.7 cubic feet, or about the same as you get in a current Kia Soul.
As for the convertible bit, there’s no hiding from the fact that it doesn’t matter how cool you thing look in an SSR, you’re still driving a pickup truck. A very useless pickup truck yes but a pickup truck nonetheless. And in any case, if you were in the market for a convertible the SSR was not very high on your list. The interior didn’t do it any favors either. Cheap GM plastic syndrome was still going strong no matter how much they wanted to hide it with aluminum bits and a retro-tuner style steering wheel. Engine-wise you had the 5.3-liter V8 used in the Chevrolet Trailblazer and many of its badge-engineered brothers mated to the ‘ol faithful 4L60-E. A six-speed manual was also available for those that wanted to row their own.
No good deed goes unpunished, they say. GM only managed to move 9648 Chevrolet SSR’s on the best year of sales (2004) and even though the plant making the SSR was closed in 2006 there was so many unsold SSR’s gathering dust on dealer lots that they sold some more in 2007 (244) and 2008 (13). The public that had hailed it to production had spoken, and if they wanted a small GM pickup truck, they would buy a Colorado or a Canyon.
And traditionally this would be the point where I’d drive a(nother) stake through old GM’s heart, claiming it was hubris and nonsense and that they were idiots for building it. Unfortunately, I’m afraid this time the blame wasn’t on them, but on everyone that got far too excited about the 2000 SSR concept. GM may have committed many faults, but this one resides mostly on us.
I wanted to like the SSR, but found it awkward looking and the name meaningless.
The last picture however, looks very good. You can’t tell it’s a truck. It might have done a lot better configured as a four or five passenger car.
A four or five passenger car, you say? Well, GM’s engineers have the answer for you: The Chevrolet HHR!
Meant to say 4 or 5 passenger convertible car. The HHR was far too much a PT Cruiser reboot to be interesting to me
The HHR for all intent was meant to be the 2nd gen PT. The California Cruiser concept previewed a few of the HHR’s lines. Also, Bryan Nesbitt had moved over to GM by then and he was behind the HHR also
I seem to recall an a pretty hot looking Chevy concept coup in that same time period ( 2001-2003 ? ) that had this same look.
I remeber it because I saw the coupe at an auto show and was dumbstruck a few years later when it came out as a truck.
Chevy should have offered a cheaper and lighter version of the SSR with an open bed and a fixed roof.
Interesting idea and probably would have sold more than the loaded SSR, but the idea reminds me of the GM Cyclone. It didn’t sell very well despite being in a more practical package and being a more dedicated performance vehicle. I think that a 2-3 seat pickup is just not the right package for a performance car that is intended to sell in decent numbers.
Yup, the retro stuff that sold well were inexpensive cars that younger people could afford, or older people could justify as a third car — Beetle, PT Cruiser, Mustang. The expensive cars (SSR, Thunderbird) were flops. The SSR might have worked if they forgot the convertible nonsense, and kept it as close to the S-10 as possible.
“Let’s start at the beginning when it comes to a pickup truck, practicality.”
I don’t think that was the point of the SSR. Just one look tells you it’s not meant to be practical. That’s like saying the Viper is losing sales because it’s a bad Commuter car.
This just another car that “enthusiasts” wanted. Unfortunately the “enthusiasts” all turned out to be High School Juniors with no money.
> That’s like saying the Viper is losing sales because it’s a bad Commuter car.
I know someone that sold theirs for pretty much that reason, but they’re probably in the minority.
I know someone who goes about their daily business in a Viper, it may be better than expected as a commuter car.
Which reminds me of Bill Cosby’s routine: “I need a car that will do 200 MPH to get to work… I just kiss my wife and bppppppt! I’m at work!”
” That’s like saying the Viper is losing sales because it’s a bad Commuter car.
I know someone that sold theirs for pretty much that reason, but they’re probably in the minority.”
Obviously not one of the many who commute daily via the ” Palmdale 500 ” ! .
I scored a _killer_ deal on an old Mercedes Diesel I still own because of this ~ yes it’s a slow car but having only 1/2 throttle because of broken throttle linkage made it worthless for the high speed mountain shortcut =8-) .
30 + MPG’s with the AC on ‘ refrigerate ‘ is a good trade off for only 80 + MPH top speed , I’m not always in a hurry .
This truck was a bust from day one ~ I’m a total Chevrolet Fan Boi and general GM apologist but any damn fool should have known it’d never sell well and here I live in car crazy Southern California…
I always thought the Dodge Dakota Roadster pickup was nice and shoulda bought the one owner clean one for $3K when that stupid kid couldn’t afford the gas not upkeep any more at five years old .
Oops .
-Nate
Speaking as a High School Junior during the time the SSR was in production, I was not enthusiastic about the SSR, nor were any of my peers particularly smitten with it. Kinda reeked of midlife crisis mobile along with the Retro Thunderbirds.
Maybe it failed because it was beyond ugly??
It must have been interesting being in the upper echelons of Detroit in 2000. Dodge had had a convertible Dakota a few years earlier, so why couldn’t Chevy have a convertible “truck”? And over at Ford, the folks at Lincoln decided a pickup truck with the carrying capacity of a mid-sized sedan was another niche that was begging to be filled.
You do have to wonder why GM spent the bucks to bring this “trucklet” to market, but couldn’t do a decent S-10/Sonoma replacement. Or why they produced the SSR yet pulled the plug on the Camaro.
The SSR is more a sort of GM Prowler than a Dakota convertible.
I agree. While Gerardo was referring to the Dakota Sport convertible pickup truck, I definitely see the SSR as a Prowler competitor. In its favor, it did have a V8, available stick shift (though not for the first couple years), and a large “trunk” so you didn’t need to buy a matching trailer to tow behind if you took it travelling.
Chrysler did try to address the shortcomings of the Prowler with a concept car functionally almost identical to the SSR. In 1999 they showed a concept called the Howler, which was a modified Prowler with a V8, removable hardtop, and a longer squared-off back end offering much more storage space. This was a year before the Chevy SSR concept was first shown.
If nothing else, the Dakota convertible and Lincoln Blackwood had the virtue of being dirt cheap to develop, one being a third-party conversion given the factory’s blessing as an official model and the other just being an F150 with a bunch of soft trim. Only the SSR among the three, only GM, came up with something unique enough to garner its’ own tooling and compliance costs.
My neighbor has a 2004 model. Bright red. I like it and wish I had the room in the budget to buy one as a fun car.
The whole problem with vehicles like this, is that the ones who drool over them don’t buy them. So guess what? You have a market flooded with sedans or trucks that all look remarkably similar.
We pretty much get what we deserve, don’t we?
GM was blindsided by Chrysler and the runaway success of the PT Cruiser. The Chevrolet SSR didn’t come to market so much as a convertible pickup truck as a rather rushed (“this is what we’ve got”) entry into the “American Retro” market, in which buyers ultimately decreed the PT Cruiser as the only real winner by a large margin. It was the “concept” that people bought…in droves.
I think the PT Cruiser got a foothold with its retro styling, but towards the middle to end of its run it stuck around and sold on the strength of being a station wagon value proposition.
Even early on, I think a big part of the PT Cruiser’s success was that it was a pretty practical family wagon even with the retro styling. It looked interesting, it was affordably priced, and it was as practical or more so than some much blander-looking contemporaries.
Exactly. It was a usefully-sized five door hatch that just happened to have retro styling. And the retro didn’t impinge on practicality, except maybe underhood packaging – I haven’t worked on one, so I don’t know. The styling lent itself to all the hot rod tricks like big wheels, flame paint etc. – I was going to say without looking silly, but the aftermarket catered for those who wanted to be tasteless too. Absolute home run.
GM probably didn’t want to be accused of copying Chrysler by putting the SSR styling cues on a midsized hatch; besides, they were pinched from an old pickup anyway. They could have used another, more practical body style – a retro convertible with this styling would have been cool. Or a coupe. Holden did this one, shown to public acclaim, but it stayed a concept car.
Were people actually “clamoring” for it that much, though? I ask that as a legitimate question, as I wasn’t paying enough attention at the time. Moreover, how do manufacturers even measure and gauge public opinion of concept vehicles in the first place? Just go by what the car writers say in magazine editorials? Or do they actually survey the public at car shows and such?
Personally I would have liked it if they made something more along the lines of the Bel Air concept… a simple old fashioned convertible with clean, retro styling. They probably wouldn’t have sold many either – because Real People in the Real World don’t actually pay $40k for compromised, retro concept toys, as the SSR and Thunderbird proved – but it would have been a nice looking production car with some additional tweaks.
I liked the idea of the Bel Air, but the styling was bland. it also looked truck-like to my eyes, especially in the front. (It actually was built on a Chevy Colorado chassis and drivetrain, which was probably a limiting factor.) If it was trying to look retro, the biggest retro cue was the 1957 Chevy inspired dashboard.
If they made the Bel Air, it could be the only body on frame coupe designed in the 21st century. It shares the frame with SSR.
Same here. The Bel Air was a nice concept, but the truck frame showed its roots in a general “chunkiness” about it. The styling would have worked better with about 6″ in height removed from the body sides. Still a little bland but that would have been better at least.
GM seemingly had a mandate during this period that they must put a concept car in production and whichever turntable it’s displayed on has the most foot traffic wins. I was 12 years old at the 2000 Chicago auto show, yet the SSR concept being there completely escapes my memory
Keep in mind that trucks were super hot in the 90s and SUVs started to take off. If this had come out in 1995 I think it would have been a hit. It seems the truck market lost its novelty by 2003.
A fixed roof and a useable bed, (a pick up HHR if you will..) may have worked. As far as styling goes, It’s too “melted” to remind me of the “Advanced Line”, Again the HHR pulled that off better,although “Heritage High Roof” is one of the weirdest names ever bestowed on an American vehicle.
My problem was that it was based on the Trailblazer architecture and weighed 4800 lbs. Still, I wouldn’t kick one out of my driveway. Someone in town drives one of these everyday.
It was a nice concept but it really was not practical sales wise due to its high costs. Had GM dropped the price down or offered a much cheaper fixed roof version, it might have sold more. Perhaps selling a fixed hardtop version for cheaper and calling it El Camino might have made it sell more. Despite what Detroit focus groups say, I still think there is a market for a small cheap coupe utility here in the USA.
Take the HHR, it looked retro and sold well for GM. I would love a HHR in Teal
Hmm yes, the perfect trophy car car to park in the McMansion garage, and later tune in to American Chopper with your trophy wife. Ahh the aughts….
Yes, I may be reminded of someone I know who owned a SSR when they were new lol
I really wanted to like these. I like the pictures better than seeing one “in the flesh.” the fenders just seem so over-sized and cartoonish when I am standing next to one.
I had read somewhere that the engineering of the retractable hardtop ate up a fearful amount of money – seems to me they should have gone with a removable hardtop and called it a day…just make sure it would fit in the bed when removed.
Still like to have me an HHR.
I’m guilty of being one who drooled all over the concept and never bought one. I went with my brother when he bought his truck, more or less as a gawker since I couldn’t believe that he was going to spend $50k on a TRUCK. He was buying a fully loaded 4 door HD that proved to be very nice, but still my mind was reeling trying to grasp the concept of a Chevy ANYTHING that expensive outside of a Corvette.
While wandering the showroom, I stumbled upon the SSR and was dumbfounded that it was also in the $50k range. It was unique, but seemed SO cheaply made for 50 large. In my mind it was half of a PT cruiser at twice the price, but it did have a V-8, just could not get past the price, especially compared to the behemoth 4WD DeVille-like truck my brother was getting for the same money or the Hummer H2 I was considering (also tremendously cheaply made for the price- Body by Tonka, interior by Fisher-Price). I think others felt that the price was too high for more of a novelty than a functional convertible/ truck and did not qualify for the business tax incentives that was fueling the sale of the comparably priced larger trucks/ SUVs at the time.
I think you’re on to something, Hummers were the “it” car by then and they had a tax write off to go with it.
You have to wonder how much the gimmicky folding hardtop added to the price of the SSR and if sales would have been substantially better with a much cheaper, fixed-roof version.
It wasn’t really comparible to the PT Cruiser. The PT was based on a front wheel drive platform that was inexpensive to buy. The old people loved it not for its styling, but for its ease of entry. It got decent mileage, was easy to park, and was inexpensive. The SSR was expensive to buy which cut out a lot of people and it had a smaller bed than the short lived Dodge Rampage (front wheel drive truck based on the Dodge Omni Charger) If they had priced it as a stylish version of the little Chevy S-10 pick up or even just dropped the S-10 and used the SSR styling, I think that it would have sold better. They could have offered a variety of engines from the base 4 banger to a V8.
Yep, the PT was basically a family-size five door hatchback that just happened to have late thirties styling cues that didn’t impinge on its practicality. Those styling cues made it a standout, and the practical body style ensured sales. Worldwide sales, as it turned out; a mate had one with big wheels and flames. His mid-life-crisis ‘hot rod’.
I see the SSR as being more akin to the Prowler, with rear drive and a V8 to back up the looks, but compromised by the heavy truck platform. And basically not a volume seller even if it was perfectly built. Need a more practical body style for that, something people actually need. Building it on the S-10 chassis like you say would have been brilliant; are they strong enough for a V8?
I like the look of these
At least I like the look of them when I use my thumb to cover the upper rear of the vehicle and I imagine a nice rounded late 1930’s sedan body back there. Oh wait, I have to imagine that those door handles aren’t there either..
That would have been kind of cool and useful. Not sure if it would have sold any better..
That gold colored 1st gen Astro in the 3rd pic looks nice, can’t see the rockers though.
A couple old guys drive SSRs regularly where i live, one is yellow and one is purple and naturally both are automatics.
The SSR is yet another silly, useless “halo car” from GM that at the time squandered precious money which could have been far better spent on developing world class Cavalier and Malibu replacements. I’ll never warm to this thing even though I was probably in their target demographic for this vehicle.
Not to mention a 4th gen Camaro/Firebird replacement which wasn’t viable due to “low sales”.
I remember at the time that they pitched this as the Camaro replacement. What were they thinking?
It would be really waste of money to develop a refined Cavalier, at least to most people living in mid-west. When operation cost of Cavalier and Impala doesn’t have significant difference, most people would buy Impala anyway, and they don’t get damaged that much when bumped into snowbank. If someone insists buying a Cavalier sized car, GM would borrow something from Opel. But if they complain the price, here comes the Cavalier.
It’s a modern day “Business Coupe” with a convertible top and a huge trunk lid! 🙂
The SSR is one of those things that makes ‘sense’ when viewed through the prism of GM’s distorted business model of the time.
They had the Reatta Craft Centre sitting with space (plus the UAW workers assigned to it) so that money was being spent regardless.
They couldn’t market a Camaro or Firebird due to their CAW contract obligations relating to the closure of St Terese, so there was a hole in their performance line-up that needed something to fill it.
Plus they were making serious money off of most of their LS engine option packages, so why not try another?
The end result was more or less pointless but a big portion of the $$$ was going to end up spent regardless (Which makes it a completely different kettle of fish from the Prowler because Chrysler never had the resources or money to waste like GM).
they must have been brain dead at GM during the Retro craze…hello, what is your most iconic car? What was a boxy two door sedan that featured large bumpers at either end? what was just about the same length as your Colorado donor platform? the 55 Belair two door post, that’s what. that would have worked perfectly.
Matt ;
Their most iconic _truck_ was and remains the ’47 ~ ‘55.1 Advanced Design that this terrible thing most resembles , it’s -not- supposed to be a car .
In any case , I think the ’57 Bel Air is more popular than the ’55’s were .
Not to me but i was there then and now , have always been stymied by the popularity of the 57’s over the 55’s .
-Nate
I liked 57 Chevs as a teen, all my dad had to say about them was I wish you kids had been around with money when we had them in the showroom the sat there and didnt move.
Likewise. The ’55 Chevy way outsold the ’57 (hell, ’57 was the first year in decades that Ford outsold Chevy – yes, I know the arguments – but even dad realized he’d been outsold in Johnstown), and I do not get why the ’57 is so iconic. I guess bad taste is timeless.
I go hot and cold with the 57s, I prefer the 55 on any given day but now and then I see a nice 57 and I’ll totally get the cult appeal it garnered. It exemplifies the era without being totally inundated in it (as the same year Fords and forward look Chryslers were), and there was actually quite a lot of restraint in it’s design given some of the fin car tack ons of the era(Studebaker). 55s are more timeless though, but timeless and dull are separated by a very fine line.
Matt Said ” timeless and dull are separated by a very fine line.”
BINGO .
For me , the 100 % balanced looks of the ’55 Chevys make them the best of the Tri- 5’s , always for me but not back in the day , that’s for sure .
Will , a High School buddy of mine had a whole string of v8 ’57 Chevy Coupes , his uncle ran a junkyard , Will was a dufus and a drunk so he wrecked them every month or so…..
Me , I’d rock a ’55 Hard Top Two Door any time .
-Nate
SOme of the same criticisms can be applied to the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky which also came straight from a concept, and were thus flawed due to lack of real world adaptation. In their defense, these cars came to life at Peak Miata when there was an obvious market for small 2 seat roadsters, but their late arrival, flawed execution, and GM’s bankruptcy put paid to a promising car.
The Solstice/Sky analogy is appropriate. Where the SSR would surely have done better if it had a fixed roof and deleted the hard tonneau cover, making it much more the truck it purported to be, so, too, the Solstice/Sky had a huge issue with how the top was operated. I think it was Lutz who insisted that it have the flying buttress top with the inset rear window but, in doing so, meant you actually had to stop and get out of the car to raise/lower the top. Then there was the whole thing about sitting deep down as in a hole with high window sills. The Miata, OTOH, had the classic sports car seating position of high up with normal height window sills.
I like the idea of this, and cars/trucks like it. The execution was so-so though. Its one thing to have something that turns heads and looks cool. But it has to serve SOME purpose beyond simply looking pretty and it cant be priced to the point that its just an expensive toy for people with stupid cash laying around. There was some concept art floating around somewhere that essentially took the basic bodystyle and shape of the HHR wagon and panel truck but using the SSR/Trailblazer’s chassis and running gear. Now THAT would’ve given a practical, useful vehicle that looked awesome as well as providing good fodder for hot rodding as well. Theres no reason that the T.B and the Colorado couldn’t have simply used this basic style but with those truck’s traditional features such as separate, regular sized cab/bed available 4wd or in the case of the T.B. a full SUV body. That’s where the PT Cruiser shined. It had a snazzy bodystyle yet it was very useful and practical. In GT form, the PT was also a damn good performance car.
And yet….. conceptually it is similar to the late, lamented cars from Nissan’s Pike Factory – the Pao, the S-cargo, the Figaro and others. Somehow Nissan managed to produce them in the ’90s, in small numbers admittedly, and they became a sort of mini-halo for the brand. Certainly more classic than the cars they were based on.
I’ll leave it for you guys to figure out where GM went wrong here.
” I’ll leave it for you guys to figure out where GM went wrong here.”
Pete (and others needing to learn this) , repeat after me : GM MAKES NO MISTAKES ! the Customer was wrong ! .
=8-)
Not that I’m an old fan boi or anything .
-Nate
It all those “we only buy used, but will rant long and loud what the automakers should build” types on the Internet who make all the mistakes.
I remember seeing the Buick Blackhawks around the same time. It was never meant for production but man was it beautiful. I wish they had built that.
Let’s be honest, this is from the era where GM couldn’t do anything right. They brought out the SSR, and you can read the above reactions. If they hadn’t brought it out, and put the money elsewhere, we’d have gleefully pilloried them for having no imagination and dedicated to turning out rental cars. No matter what they did, they were GM, so the decision was wrong, wrong, wrong. And the enthusiasts showed their credentials by hammering them at ever chance.
Shooting fish in a barrel, in other words.
Killer on the SSR was it was too expensive. I remember taking my S-10 in for state inspection at the local dealer and while I was waiting I walked into the showroom to look around. The dealer had an SSR and a Corvette parked next to each other with virtually identical price tags. Welcome to what killed the SSR – putting out that kind of money, which one are you going to buy?
It’s not an either/or proposition, and that was the problem. Many, many commenters have pointed out that practical but interesting sells; GM was doing one or the other but not both.
Syke hit upon the crux of the issue with GM, and that’s how poorly they price their vehicles. Even when GM produces what would otherwise be a decent car, they end up setting the price so high that no one buys it. And the affordable cars have historically been far and away the worst in class, year after year. It’s like GM just can’t help themselves from looking for the schlubs who will fall for their marketing and cough up the big-bucks, every time a brand-new vehicle is released. That mercenary attitude goes a long way to explaining the constant barrage of vitriol spewed at GM on web forums (like this one).
A good example would be the PT Cruiser. The real key to that vehicle’s runaway success was simply that the masses could afford it; if it had been a GM product, they’d have tacked another $5k onto the MSRP. It’s likely the reason the HHR sold okay. Because of the Cruiser’s low price point, GM had no choice but to price the HHR accordingly.
Didn`t GM learn anything from the Plymouth Prowler? Guess not.
Whenever I see this thing (can’t call it a car, can’t call it a truck), I am reminded of how Bob Lutz completely lost the plot later on in his career. The SSR reeks of his hubris and corporate “justification” in the name of driving “showroom interest.” Imagine if these funds had been used to make the regular Chevrolets better and more competitive instead…
The Trailblazer platform was too large to pull off what the original concept promised. Why it wasn’t built on Colorado platform is a mystery. The convertible feature would have been fine if they hadn’t made it a retractable hardtop but just regular folding canvas top, one that stacked so that everyone could see one driving “an old-fashioned” roadster pickup. And, if they had simply styled a coupe deck rather than a useless pickup box, it might have been popular as expected.
It might not have been as easy to stuff a V8 into the engine bay of a Colorado chassis as it was with the Trailblazer, and a V8 was an absolute necessity (even a truck V8).
Likewise, I would imagine that the failure of the cloth-top Dakota Sport was the reason they went with a folding hardtop. Still, in hindsight, surely GM could have come up with something a lot cheaper than the folding hardtop. Something along the lines of a cloth-top convertible like the Dakota Sport, yet with the option of replacing it with a removable hardtop, a la Thunderbird.
The pickup bed wasn’t necessarily a bad idea, either. It’s just that the permanent, hard tonneau cover wasn’t that great.
IOW, if the SSR had come in a much cheaper, base version with a soft-top and open pickup bed, with options to upgrade to a hard top and tonneau cover, it probably would have worked out a whole lot better.
I always thought lukewarm retro cars like the PT Cruiser, HRR, SSR and Prowler were thought up to grab sales from baby boomers close to retirement with nostalgia and money to spare but not the dedication to buy an old car. “It looks like a car from my childhood but it’s reliable and has A/C!”
This was too much. The entire Retro thing from this era was never serious. Thunderbirds, Beetles, HHR, PT Cruiser and – this. The Jimmy Buffet fan club had spoken and we got ourselves a bunch of Margaritaville vehicles.
Here’s how I view them. It is my opinion. I know this.
The PT Cruiser was silly, but at least it was an inexpensive indulgence. It was a cheap fun car that was more than a nostalgic ride. It was almost an honest car in that it was little more than a nice Neon wagon.
The New Beetle was legitimate. No one has any right to deny VW its own heritage and while it was a big puffy Beetle, it was what Aunt Bea would have wanted if she needed an adorable set of wheels.
My 84 year old mom loved the Thunderbird. After decades of sporty cars, she loved the Retro-bird. Under it all, it was a Lincoln LS coupe, styled for her age group.
The Prowler was an expensive and outrageous retro-car that few could justify in their driveway. It was mightily slick looking but nothing looks cheaper in the end that a mass produced custom car. Under it all, was just a nice quick coupe and didn’t deliver on its looks at all.
Then the HHR showed up and there you have it – a copy of a PT Cruiser. Shark jumped. We’ve reached a point where fake has outdone itself. However, it was also a nice fun inexpensive ride, even though it was interesting for only about ten minutes.
Someone forgot to tell GM that the Retro-look was over, because the SSR showed up. It looked like something a customizer would have done for a guy with a strict budget. It wasn’t practical like the HHR. It was at least four years too late for the Margaritaville parade.
Worst of all however, was the greed. Like trailer park renters and Beany Babies, Thunderbirds, Prowlers and SSR buyers were looking at these cars like they were worthy investments. So sad. When I see these vehicles, I see them like I do those poor old seniors with the Buick Reatta or Cadillac Allante, frustrated over paying ten grand more for a vehicle that never became a real collectable with real value. Today, when we see one of these vehicles, it often comes with a guy who thinks you are the one who will finally make his dream come true by paying what he always imagined these vehicles to be worth. It sucks to crush a retiree’s dreams like that.
I saw an SSR on a used car lot, just the other day. It has sat there for months. Age has not been kind to it. It was garaged until the house was sold and the auction was held. Now it sits with its mismatched panel gaps and its flaking plastic interior. Sad.
You didn’t mention the Mustang, Camaro, Charger, and Challenger.
I’m with you – I couldn’t wait for the retro thing to end. I was sad when the newest Mustang redesign wasn’t more like the original renderings which took it farther away from the retro theme.
Reading all the comments from 6 years ago, they all seem to ring true still today. GM made mistakes, but then, so did all the other companies, just in different ways.
This SSR never filled any of the niches it was meant to fill, and failed overall. But some of the issue is that the intended buyers – who likely were sitting in focus groups determining if this or other vehicles would see production – very likely said this was exactly what they wanted. And then, when presented with it, said no with their wallets.
We see it all the time. Cars made for a youthful, carefree market end up being driven by elderly folks, while those carefree youths drive the trade-ins from those elderly drivers. The Kia Soul, with the HamStars, obviously was to appeal to the youths, but who drives them? And so it was with the Pontiac Vibe, the Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice, and others. GM doesn’t sell well to kids on the coasts, and never will. But that’s okay, if they don’t waste time and money chasing a market that does not want to buy their product. It really seems that the smartest thing GM or any other OEM could do with product like this is to make it available by special order only. Just build if people pony up a deposit, like Tesla did. Get real world interest gauged before committing to production, or just don’t make stuff that only appeals to a small, small fringe. It might kill a lot of models, but then, it could save the OEM millions that could be spent elsewhere on better product that sells.
Hey man, don’t be dissing the Hamsters…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg-aMDXzu8c
Still the best car commercial of all time. IMO.
😉
I drove an SSR top up at a GM event. It rattled and shuddered quite a bit, and I believe the interior was all black, which I hate, and which is stupid for a convertible.
Some concepts are irrelevant from the start, this is a prime example. Every man-child in our area that just had to have one as quickly as he could when they appeared, dumped the thing within a year of purchase. Of course, in true man-child manner, claimed to have sold it for a ‘big profit’. Evidently, the new wore off this toy quicker than most…
My thought today when looking at the lead picture is the exact same thought I had when I first saw this thing. It was who the hell puts the bumper through the headlights? I never could get past that so I never looked at anything beyond that then or now.
Didn’t like ’em then.
Don’t like ’em now.
Won’t like ’em in the future.
The end.