Good thing GM never built this....

northcreek

Original poster
Member
Jan 15, 2012
3,310
WNY
 

TollKeeper

Supporting Donor
Member
Dec 3, 2011
8,047
Brighton, CO
I guess I just dont get it.. But I think its hideous. It would have been nice to see the 3.5 turbo make it into the market, the tuners would have appreciated these -I- series engines a lot more. But the lines just dont work, and its completely missing the side scallops and 2 tone paint. That was like the Bel-Aire signature I thought. Its one of the reasons I didnt like the C6 and C7 Corvette. Without the pop-up headlights, it just wasnt a Corvette to me. Then the C8 came along, and blew me away, but now we are off-topic.

And to me, the biggest problem is that it looks like a 2005 Mercury Montego without a roof.
 

northcreek

Original poster
Member
Jan 15, 2012
3,310
WNY
Had they dropped an LS in there, I could live with rest, the interior was a nice re-do with subtle hints of the 55's inst. panel but, yeah the rest falls short.
 

Blckshdw

Moderator
Nov 20, 2011
10,665
Tampa Bay Area, FL
And Chevy Cobalt headlights....
 
  • Like
Reactions: gmcman

northcreek

Original poster
Member
Jan 15, 2012
3,310
WNY
reminds me of the 2002-2005 Ford Thunderbird.
lol ...That's the first thing that came to my mind, and just like the Thunderbird, "close but, no cigar".
 

littleblazer

Member
Jul 6, 2014
9,265
need. Only good thing about the T-bird was it was a heck of a lot better than the prior one. Dad had a 95 40th that I was quoted as being the reason he had to sell his only new car he ever bought... oof.
 

Mooseman

Moderator
Dec 4, 2011
25,262
Ottawa, ON
A car version of the SSR to me. Kinda cool they used the Atlas inline 5.

Now if we wanna talk about cars they should have made or brought over here, one is the Holden Ute that they could have marketed as a Chevy El Camino. Not the most practical vehicle but would have been a whole lot better than the SSR and HHR. Only thing that would have been prohibitive about it would have been the price due to transport and duties from Oz, same as thr Caprice and SS.

Holden-Ute_0.png
 

TollKeeper

Supporting Donor
Member
Dec 3, 2011
8,047
Brighton, CO
A car version of the SSR to me. Kinda cool they used the Atlas inline 5.

Now if we wanna talk about cars they should have made or brought over here, one is the Holden Ute that they could have marketed as a Chevy El Camino. Not the most practical vehicle but would have been a whole lot better than the SSR and HHR. Only thing that would have been prohibitive about it would have been the price due to transport and duties from Oz, same as thr Caprice and SS.

Holden-Ute_0.png
You can get those here.... I know because I have been looking!

 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt

Reprise

Lifetime VIP Donor
Supporting Donor
Member
Jul 22, 2015
2,724
In response to the post title... "no, No, and NO" :nono:

I like the idea of the Atlas I5 (and I'm guessing that's what spurred the interest of the OP; no problem there.) But the styling... it's so bad, it hurts my eyes to look at it.

First off... the only design elements they noticeably captured from the Bel Air are:
Column Mount shifter (meh, but, ok)
The cluster & twin dash pods (which look out of place, with the rest of the controls, esp. the center stack)
The horn bar in the steering wheel (which gets its own separate mention for its being out of place, here; way too moderistic, and the buttons / labels are garish)
The front bench seat (60-40 split, upholstery is a bit reminiscent)
The big-ass transmission hump (likely exaggerated, vs. what was required)
The 'accordion' style wiper arms (my name; not sure what they're called); these can be seen from the shot from above / behind the front seats
Since I don't see a fuel filler door on either rear quarter, I'll guess that they incorporated the same hidden version in the D/S tail light (since it's not mentioned in the article). What makes that even worse is that there's no hint of a fin.
The side mirrors (and, here, safety / functionality was sacrificed for design; too small)
The quarter vent windows (which stop short of the top of the windshield.)

Now let's turn our gaze to the styling, which looks like it was done by the usual GM committee...

Front lip - from a same-era Malibu. Not even a hint of a badge where the old 'jet-style' hood ornament was on the original. Fail.
Front fenders - I can't recall whether the 'shark gills' were part of the original (they remind me of 1st-gen F-body, TBH). And I'm too lazy to go look it up right now, so...

Windshield / cowl area: The shape, trim, and quarter vent suggest the Saturn / Pontiac roadster twins. We're not shown the roofline, so assuming that it's a softtop convertible, that would also attach to the windshield like the Saturn / Pontiac did (which was probably one of the worst design elements of those two cars). If you look from the rear quarter toward the front (3/4 view), you catch the curvature of the windshield, which is a nod to the original. But that's the only angle you notice it from -- so you notice the windshield cue, from the *back* of the car. SMFH, there.

The original did not have a retracting cover for the top, a la similar era Ford full-size verts, nor did it have a 'parade boot', that I recall. Another cue, missed. This looks similar to the Cadillac Allante of the era.

Body sides / character line -- I do not see one element here, reminiscent of the original. In fact, it's the *opposite* - the original had a line that flared upward to become the finned tail; this main line on this one, curves downward. There's a secondary line after the rear of the door that reminds me (again) of 1st-gen F-body. Actually, as I look at it more closely, I do see the reminder of the original. But my 1st and 2nd impression is of a 67-69 Camaro convertible. When I have to look that hard to see the element... that's a fail.

The flared wheel housings didn't exist on the original, either. They do fit the 18" wheels fairly well, in that you don't see the GM-tradition 4"-6" space between top of tire & top of wheel opening. So I'll give them one point there... LOL.

Tail / deck: Reminiscent of Caddy (Allante, again?). The tails are *very* vaguely reminiscent of the originals, but those were radiused on both the inside / outside edges. Here, they're cut off flush with the deck lid. Since this is one of the easiest areas to pull a design cue from... fail, again.

Finally, the rear suspension is a Hotchkiss setup. Yes, that was on the original. BUT - you can't *see* it, and the ride comfort is ass, compared to a coil setup. Other than the full-size pickups, what GM vehicle in this timeframe (late 90's / early '00s) used leaf springs?

In closing... I'm glad they never built this car, at least the way it looks here.
 

Reprise

Lifetime VIP Donor
Supporting Donor
Member
Jul 22, 2015
2,724
Apparently my sarcasm in the title was lost in cyberspace....
title edit...

My negative response wasn't meant toward you. And you're right - I didn't detect the sarcasm. Still a bit difficult, for me, but you noted it, so I now know that was your intent. Sorry I missed it.

That being said... it truly is a g*dawful looking car, especially considering its supposed inspiration.
 

Mooseman

Moderator
Dec 4, 2011
25,262
Ottawa, ON
There was sarcasm in your title? Well then..

title edit...

DONE! :biggrin:

You can get those here.... I know because I have been looking!


Sure, if you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffet! That can't be cheap.
 

northcreek

Original poster
Member
Jan 15, 2012
3,310
WNY
That being said... it truly is a g*dawful looking car, especially considering its supposed inspiration.
And 5 cylinders is just wrong!...especially when you are trying to make a tribute to the 55 BelAir whose claim to fame was the first year V8...:confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: christo829

Matt

Member
Dec 2, 2011
4,019
There was sarcasm in your title? Well then..



DONE! :biggrin:



Sure, if you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffet! That can't be cheap.

They're actually not too bad. Imported and converted for $45K and up. They just sold a wagon for $55K and I would have been all over it.
 

Forum Statistics

Threads
23,273
Posts
637,498
Members
18,472
Latest member
MissCrutcher

Members Online