Chevrolet SSR gets (earlier) appointment with destiny
Apparently, the market for retro-minded, $40,000, 400-horsepower flip-top pickups (that can't haul diddly) isn't as robust as we originally thought. The deeply irrational, yet oddly compelling Chevrolet SSR has a date with the Great Crusher In The Sky... and that date is March 17. Or so.
[Source: The Associated Press via Car & Driver]
When General Motors announced back in November that it would shutter the Lansing Craft Centre in Michigan, it expected to keep pushing SSRs out the front door until sometime this summer-- but the model's demand has fallen off the (already very low) table, hastening the plant's closure.
Michigan's capitol city has had a tough go of the auto industry the past few years, losing Oldsmobile's headquarters when GM deep-sixed the brand, and now it faces the closure of a facility once heralded as the cradle of the company's niche-market production future.
On the bright side, at least the 2006-issue SSR had the foresight to dress up in a black tie for its own funeral. See you at Barrett-Jackson in 2036, boys.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ophrey 8:12AM (1/18/2006)
Im so glad this junker is going the way of the dodo. It really was and is a pile.
What we have to do now is get rid of the Pontiac Aztec, The whole Buick line, the Saturn line, and most of the other redundant bland cookie cutter type cars in the generals lineup.
Reply
Tim 8:38AM (1/18/2006)
My Mom always told me to say nothing if I didn't have anything nice to say. My comments regarding the SSR follow: "Nothing"
P.S. Really like that Concept Camaro!!!!!!!!! Beautiful! Restoration of 1969 SS at:
http://members.aol.com/Tim026300/1969CamaroSS/1969CamaroSS.htm
Reply
Steve C. 8:43AM (1/18/2006)
It was mildly interesting as a "styling exercise", but to waste that much engineering production time and effort on a car that had so few potential customers is (hopefully) the last time GM will take that "road less travelled."
Reply
Lithous 8:58AM (1/18/2006)
Ophrey, you are so numb you can't learn anymore. Not only did Saturn have gains because of the 2006 VUE makeover but the Aura and Sky are nice vehicles coming out. Saturn sold more than Scion. But Scion sales are up. So are Saturn sales. Saturn's sales are only going to go up. Or are you, as an import fanboy, afraid of Saturn's potential since they are using many Opel based designs/input?
Don't forget to think global, getting rid of Buick would be STUPID since it is the best selling brand in the (now) SECOND largest auto market. Of course you were just thinking U.S.A. when you said that because you are in your own little small world. From your statement, the only thing that truly makes sense as you said it (without any qualifiers) is the BLANTANT obvious one about ditching the Aztek. What a visionary!
Reply
Source1 9:12AM (1/18/2006)
Consider for a moment how many wacky retro or niche models GM and Ford have developed that has been a sales failures and how much money was lost in just the last few years A few examples: SSR, Thunderbird.
Now consider how many wacky retro or niche or segment models Toyota has developed that were here but now gone. Name changes do not count such as the 'Echo' being replace by the 'Yaris'.
I can't think of one that was a flop. The MR2 might qualify but I doubt it was a flop or they lost any money on it.
And we wonder why GM and Ford are losing billions and Toyota is making billions?
Imagine Toyota bringing out the New Previa or the New Cressida.
To keep trying to find a sales success by constantly going back to that 'retro drawer' just fails more than it works. Someone just isn't getting it in those upper offices there and its all starting to smell of desperation.
Reply
John 9:32AM (1/18/2006)
For some reason, a lot of women like looks of the SSR (that is, it is a convertible and unique). I haven't heard one guy say "yeah, that car looks badass." I think the SSR would have been more successful if Chevy had just shrunk the thing; made it more pragmatic for driving; put a cheaper motor in it; and just sold it at a reasonable price (starting MSRP of $40K isn't reasonable unless you're selling Corvettes to middle aged men that have money). Imagine the SSR keeping its looks but based off some FWD platform and selling for $23K.
Unfortunately, for the most part, most women don't want the technical aspects of the SSR... they don't want a LS2 V8; they don't want a 6-speed manual; they don't want 19s up front and 20s in the back - and they don't want RWD. If guys weren't turned off by the wacky apperance and bubbly look of the SSR itself, they'd appreciate all those technical things (that is, if they didn't want to just get a Corvette).
So in the end you have a car that neither men nor women want. What a shame.
Reply
Car-la 9:57AM (1/18/2006)
I think the SSR would have been successful, if GM had made it a proper vehicle. I never drove it myself, but judging from the reviews, it's body was as stiff as a banana. After all, it was not the hot rod it was supposed to be in the first place. That's why it failed.
Regarding the comparison of niche models made by the Japanese and American brands, what sticks out is that the Japanese try to make practical cars. That's why their cars sell. If, like Chevy with the SSR, you build a car that is totally useless, and sells on emotion only, you have to make it desirable. The SSR never was that.
Reply
ron 9:59AM (1/18/2006)
The metropolitan area I live in has a population of more than 1 million. To-date, the only SSRs I've seen are 1 on the local Hummer dealer's used car lot, 1 at a local back covered in that bank's advertising, and the yellow spinning around on the GM TV commecial.
Reply
Dave 10:15AM (1/18/2006)
Retro seems to be working at the ends of the scale: cheap and practical (PT, Mini, HHR), or massively expensive and impractical (GT40). In between, it doesn't seem to work (SSR, T-Bird).
It is funny to see cars that spent more time as concepts than as production models. I think GM and Ford bragged about the SSR and T-Bird for three years on the auto show circuits, and the cars didn't last two years on the market.
Just imagine if the R&D money that went into the SSR went into making a top notch compact or sub-compact.
Reply
bill rushing 10:16AM (1/18/2006)
hey chevy ssr way too big better think about cars that young peps want to drive hip cars they can afford look at toy and honda they get you into driveing their name around then soon you buy new big ones from them
Reply
mr 10:24AM (1/18/2006)
The car's problem was that the base price was excessive by about $15k.
The 2006 based just under $40k. The 2005 was over $43k for the 1SA (stripper) with no options.
Reply
frac 10:33AM (1/18/2006)
To steal a phrase from a car magazine I learned early on (probably describing another GM product) the SSR is
"The answer to a question no one asked." While I am a gm guy from my early days in my '65 Malibu SS convertible, and '67 RS 327 Camaro (column shift!) I have been stunned by the lack of compelling products from the General in recent years, usually showing up 2-10 years after another manufacturer made hay with the segment (think HHR and the PT Cruiser, Solstice and the Miata) Too often, those first to market products wring all the blood from the small stone, and GM shows up late to the party when the guests have all left for a better soiree. GM has squandered decades of good will, loyalty and market dominance with this delayed market reaction.
Reply
ragnar 10:37AM (1/18/2006)
That car design really exemplifies the problem with the current American "retro" design trend. I mean, what on earth is that? A farm machine / VW Beetle / convertible?
Reply
George Ssrowner 10:48AM (1/18/2006)
All you people that have unqualified comments and Too Much time on your hands opinions about the SSR, probably just can't afford to spend that kind of money on a toy. The car is COOL AS HELL, Every place it goes, Every Type of Person that sees it LOVES IT. Try to build a custom car that is that good for twice that money. You Can't!!!!
Reply
jack 11:12AM (1/18/2006)
The SS-R was a good idea,but it should have been on a larger platform as a body option for the 1500 series pick-up,either 2,4 or all wheel drive,convertable or hardtop.this way it would have been more usable rather than a novelty. As for the HH-R,the styling went back alittle too far,take like a 57 nomad styling put it on that frame it will sell,much better lines.GM should watch the Barrett Jackson auction and see what is selling for big dollars and copy thoes lines,making it affordable for the average buyer.
Reply
jack 11:13AM (1/18/2006)
The SS-R was a good idea,but it should have been on a larger platform as a body option for the 1500 series pick-up,either 2,4 or all wheel drive,convertable or hardtop.this way it would have been more usable rather than a novelty. As for the HH-R,the styling went back alittle too far,take like a 57 nomad styling put it on that frame it will sell,much better lines.GM should watch the Barrett Jackson auction and see what is selling for big dollars and copy thoes lines,making it affordable for the average buyer.
Reply
John 11:23AM (1/18/2006)
To #12 ... I'm sure Chevy/GM is standing around wondering why those people who do have enough money (and presumably, less time on their hands), aren't buying their awesome truck. Maybe it's because most who can afford the SSR find that there are much better "toys" out there.
GM sold about 9,000 SSRs in 2005; but a key factor was evaluating the number of cars and trucks that were sold as a result of customers entering the showroom to see the shiny SSR that was on display. I belive a significant chunk of Avalanche owners cite interest in the SSR to be a key driver to their subsequent truck purchase. In the end, I don't see the cost of the SSR offseting the boost in sales that it generated.
GM now has a whole bunch of SSRs sitting in their inventory, and there aren't many people left who are interested in the goofy $50K toy. If you commissioned a custom car, it would be unique to you. A SSR from Chevy is far from unique. The SSR is rather effective as a marketing tool. However, as a vehicle, the SSR falls way short as an example of successful business operations.
Reply
starlightmica 11:48AM (1/18/2006)
Shouldn't there now be a verb for hyping an overpriced vehicle that turns out to sell poorly? Some suggestions:
SSR'ed
T-birdy
Blackwoodie
Z8tedit
Reply
rj fabrizi 11:58AM (1/18/2006)
couldn't agree more another poor choice by the general to mgf
Reply
Justin 1:12PM (1/18/2006)
More like:
SSR
Aztec
GTO
Oldsmobile
8-6-4
"You pay what we pay"
GMT900
Reply