Chevy SSR production comes to an end
Last Friday GM’s Craft Centre plant built the 24,150th Chevrolet SSR retro hotrod pickup. The Trailblazer-based SSR had been produced for three years at Craft Centre but never caught on much with consumers due to its lack of practicality for a truck and, at least initially, the lack of available grunt from its standard 5.3L Vortec V8 and four-speed automatic to get the thing going. The latter was remedied when Chevy began offering the $40,000 truck with its 400-hp, 6.0L LS2 V8 and a six-speed manual.
Much of the design and production of the SSR was handled by convertible and engineering specialist ASC and then handed over to GM’s Craft Centre.
RIP SSR
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Bonita 6:14PM (3/21/2006)
That will be 24,150 less recalls down the road. GM should have built these right in the first place.
Great job, Bob. Just another self-inflicted wound.
Reply
DJ 6:23PM (3/21/2006)
And think of the opportunity costs in lost development dollars for a proper RWD platform that could been used for the Camaro, a locally produced GTO and others. Total waste, nothing but a total waste.
Reply
Jason 6:29PM (3/21/2006)
It's a sad day for the several, possibly dozens of fans of this vehicle world-wide.
Reply
rrudorf 6:43PM (3/21/2006)
i wonder how much interest there would have been had this truck been the starting point for the HHR. While I do not care for this vehicle I do give
Chevrolet some credit for coming up with this idea.
Reply
GM Lover 6:54PM (3/21/2006)
Thanks for the comment Bonita...that was really relevant and constructive! What would this site be without all the GM bashers?
Reply
GrowUp 6:56PM (3/21/2006)
It's a perfect example of the public yelling "BUILD IT!" when in concept, then griping, "Why'd they build THAT?!" when it hits production.
Americans can act like schitzos with Alzheimer's sometimes.
Reply
Jason Boston 7:05PM (3/21/2006)
Okay, so there isn't a market for a Supercar engined convertible pickup truck. No one built anything else like this, and, it is still too cool. Great looking, fast as all heck, and a rich boy's toy. Who cares about dependability when you have lots of cash, it never stopped Land Rover, BMW, Jaguar or recent Mercedes owners from driving their fun cars. I'm sorry to see it go, it was so fun to watch it in ads, and the ONE i saw in a valet parking at a posh restaurant, was really beautiful, curves and big grill and awesome wheels. Chevy trucks needed an image boost and they got it. Now the SSR is going to be a collectible like the Holden GTO. Thanks for the post, and thanks Chevy for building fun, powerful cars. The difference between driving the SSR over the Element, Xb, Matrix, or Caliber, the "lifestyl/fun" cars of 2006, is you would dream sweetly about the SSR, while the others are just boxy cliches.
Reply
Sid 7:23PM (3/21/2006)
Agreed with Jason.
Reply
Jabbar 7:32PM (3/21/2006)
the thing is absolutely disgusting. the guy that drives the yellow one by my house frowns when he drives his...i swear he does.
Reply
bob h. 7:43PM (3/21/2006)
great looking, not practical..too expensive
The problem was that most of those that wanted it couldnt afford it..most of them will end up in Flordia/California coast areas..
Just like a sexy looking girl in a skin tight outfit..lots of lookers but few can afford the price and upkeep.
Reply
whofan 7:55PM (3/21/2006)
Take one last good look. The finacial situation GM is in now I think they maybe more conservetive from now on.
The new Camaro needs to be built. GM should embrace its heritage and force good quality at all cost.
GM has been side tracked too many times.
Stick with vintage model names like Impala Belair Camaro and others. A new name for every new model doesn`t cut it. Build all cars to be winners.
Labor cost?? That`s not so easy.
Reply
Bobkal 7:56PM (3/21/2006)
#8 I love you're analogy, I couldn't have summed it up any better myself.
Reply
bud dailey 8:19PM (3/21/2006)
What a piece of crap.Only a retard with a big checkbook would find it cool.
Reply
Mike 8:27PM (3/21/2006)
Thank god. I always thought these were some of the uglier cars to come off the production line in a long time. Its the ugly PT cruisers really ugly cousin.
Reply
small-wee-wee 9:30PM (3/21/2006)
I do not think it was the look so much as the 40k price tag that killed it.
Reply
SSR GO 5:36PM (9/09/2007)
The sticker on my 2005 slingshot yellow one said $49,200. I don't know where they came up with the 40's price. Tax runs them into the 50's.
shiznannigan 10:22PM (3/21/2006)
Man, I don't remember the $35,000, V-6 powered, tiny-trunked Plymouth Prowler getting this cold of a response. Or even the tons-of-fun Thunderbird.
Reply
AR 10:32PM (3/21/2006)
The SSR was a useless exercise by GM to show the world what a "creative" and "exciting" company they are. It's all PR. Much like with the Aztek, GM builds these off-the wall niche vehicles no one really cares for - at the expense of bread and butter cars like the Cavalier. Why did the SSR come out before the new Cobalt? Having a good solid entry-level car is more critical to GM's bottom line than an expensive, limited production toy.
Reply
Eric 10:38PM (3/21/2006)
This truck wasn't made for the cold. I live in Pennsylvania and I know a guy that owns one. He has to put down the windows a bit if rain/snow is predicted, because the motors that pull down the window to clear the frame when you pull the door handle won't work when it's cold.
$45k and the doors don't open?
Ouch.
Reply
Babaganoush 11:17PM (3/21/2006)
HAHA!!! Tons-of-fun Thunderbird. Hilariouse.
Reply