Sad day: ASC files for Chapter 11
Anyone who knows even a little bit (like I do) about American Specialty Cars is usually fascinated. After all, this is the company behind the Buick GNX, but it's also the company behind the Chevy SSR. Unfortunately, the latter vehicle was the one that did ASC in. According to Automotive News, ASC invested $250 million in its operation to produce the SSR truck for General Motors in 2001 along with three other unspecifed vehicles. The three unnamed vehicles were cancelled and, as we all know, the SSR didn't fare so well in the marketplace. Its production was continually decreased and was eventually cancelled early, leaving ASC out in the lurch. Couple that fiasco with Dodge putting the Viper, another car that uses parts from ASC, on hiatus for a year around the same time, and the writing on the wall became clear. All of this led to last Wednesday, when ASC officially filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Detroit.
ASC began looking for a buyer, however, in 2005 when it was just struggling to keep its doors open after closing four plants and reducing its workforce from 1,250 people to just 252. It's found one, fortunately, in Hancock Park Associates, a private equity firm in L.A. Hancock will reportedly take over ASC's sunroof and design businesses, which means that with any luck, this historically significant supplier will still be around in one form or another.
[Source: Automotive News, sub. req'd]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
aSHIRTandTIEguy 3:49PM (5/04/2007)
The SSR needed a different front grill to be more attractive and a different Chevrolet chrome "bar" to cover the front end, and a real rag top and not a folding hard top would of been better. AND maybe not pricing this Chevrolet as expensive as a Porsche would of helped the SSR to survive.
However we should be grateful for this vehicle since GM did produce it, and the Dodge Sidewinder was not. However I don't think we should punish GM since they take chances like the Pontiac Aztek and this...
And from this we should all ask? What the hell was a SSR? A 50,000$ ugly sports car convertible, and incapable pickup truck in one? Solve that problem first then worry about sales!
Reply
Bob 3:55PM (5/04/2007)
As someone that knows a great deal about this vehicles I will give you some reasons why it failed.
1- It is huge. This truck is not small. Trust me. The fenders and the hood and the overall size. its built off the Silverado platform and its very bulky. Its ancestors were much lighter and compact
2- Engine issues. It came out with the 270hp 5.3 first. Then got a 300hp 5.3 the next year. Then got the 400hp 6.0 corvette engine but was detuned by 5 hp as to still keep the Corvette king. HP was 395.
3- The standard transmission was the 6speed. Terrible throws and very hard to shift. no enjoyment Nat all. Very crude. The 4 speed auto was better.
4- The truck side of it was very limited. Payload was put at 800lbs. Towing was maxed at 2000 lbs.
All this made it a an impractical vehicle.
Reply
Chris 4:04PM (5/04/2007)
I've seen like two of those in the street. Kinda cool until that plastic bar hits you in the face. Could they have made it look any cheaper?
Reply
Aprime 4:02PM (5/04/2007)
Trailblazer, not Silverado.
Reply
Aprime 4:03PM (5/04/2007)
GMT 360
Chevrolet TrailBlazer
GMC Envoy
Oldsmobile Bravada
Isuzu Ascender
Buick Rainier
Saab 9-7X
Reply
Aprime 4:04PM (5/04/2007)
SSR was on the 368 variant.
Reply
Bob 4:07PM (5/04/2007)
Sorry meant the Trailblazer. I stand corrected and embarrased.
Reply
Guenther 4:09PM (5/04/2007)
What the SSR could have become was a cool hauler if it were a little panel van instead, like a trailblazer size (based) HHR. Something you can slap a logo on the side of, maybe pull a little enclosed trailer. Something that cost about 24 grand. With an inline 6. That would have been cool. Too bad about ACS.
Reply
Jay 4:16PM (5/04/2007)
I liked the SSR, and just so you know, with the manual hp went back up to 400hp in its final year. It was just waaaay too expensive. You could have a Corvette for for the price of an SSR with options. I think thats what did it in, just imagine if Ford sold a sporting vehicle for around 25k, even if its a great car, it has no chance up against the Mustang. Which is probably why we won't be seeing a european Focus ST here anytime soon.
Reply
The lawer 4:21PM (5/04/2007)
You won't be missed. SSR illustrates what car shouldn't be - so-so mechanically, poor design and astronomical price.
Reply
Rakinyo1 4:30PM (5/04/2007)
Goodie Goodie gumdrops
Reply
Will 4:48PM (5/04/2007)
My boss had the "Final Production Run" version of this truck, (6L, 395HP), and had the slushbox transmission. 4 speed gearbox in a $40,000 vehicle? Also, the component speaker setup (2 pods, 1 per door) was put together backwards, swapped left to right, so the tweeter in each door was covered by the door panel. The factory neglected to install a microswitch in the folding top, (seriously, a wire lead with nothing to plug into), so it was driven off the lot with a "Secure Top" warning in the gauge cluster. I said he was my boss, not smart.
Even worse, a friend has a version with the same engine, and the manual transmission, which was great until I saw how much space the manual took from the passenger side footwell! The floormat tapered at the forward facing end, to about the width of a pack of cigarettes. I urge you not to ride shotgun in one of these!
Reply
Don 5:48PM (5/04/2007)
I'm not sure how ASC thought the SSR was going to be some wild ass success at $42,000 per.
$250 million for that? Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Reply
Don 5:49PM (5/04/2007)
PS--ASC did a solid for their employees...laying them off through sheer stupidity.
Reply
Marty Vance 5:51PM (5/04/2007)
I like the SSR's design, but it was never really clear where it sat in the market.
It tried to be an interim solution while the Camaro was absent, but was too narrow of a niche to accomplish this. High performance, retro styled, droptop truck with a bed converted to a large trunk is a mouthful.
It was too unique. The SSR would have sold much better without the folding hardtop, and it could have been priced closer to $30k rather than $45k. Reduced complexity would have allowed the production volume to possibly triple, with the reduced price allowing supply to keep up with demand. Could have let the aftermarket do the droptop conversion, but no, they had to have everything. GM designed and priced the SSR not to sell.
The SSR debacle is why I don't understand the "me too" styling exercise (PT Cruiser) that is the HHR.
Reply
phewop118 6:20PM (5/04/2007)
I loved the SSR - it had a great engine, great 6speed manual, sleek design (yes, I thought it was beautiful), and well-equipped interior. It also had an absurd price-tag, which doomed it from the beginning. Perhaps ASC doomed it, with its expensive folding hard top and it in turn doomed ASC.
Reply
Zippy Maboonogian 9:41PM (5/04/2007)
ASC thrived under the personality of founder Heinz Prechter clear and simple. He could finagle a deal like few others and brought his deep pockets to the party. When he was gone, the company lost its direction - and- many of the back doors into the Big 3 were closed to the "mere mortals" who still worked at ASC.
Reply
John Metcalf 10:19PM (5/04/2007)
Seems like the most successful "Retro" vehicles are those that cost from $20~30k (Beetle, PT Cruiser, Mini, Mustang.) If you can spend $40~50k on a toy like this (or the Thunderbird), wouldn't you get a real classic rather than be a poser in one of these? Or just buy the Bimmer and be done with it.
Although . . . the Plymouth Prowler seemed to do okay? Was it just a better vehicle?
Reply
Crunkjuice 10:39PM (5/04/2007)
Good bye & good riddance!
One of GM's dumbest decisions ever.
Reply
mr.ed 11:17PM (5/04/2007)
It was a size and half-ton too big, with cheap hardware. Just too strange, like an Aztek. Same management, same stupidity.
Reply