Presto123

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs...f-8760a8e2d18e

Pic of rendering in link.

"Could General Motors build an all-new compact sports car for under $30,000, with a high-output 4-cylinder engine and rear-wheel drive? According to a report in the latest issue of Australia's Wheels Magazine, the answer so far is a secretive "yes."

The rendering is an Aussified version of the Chevrolet Code 130R concept first shown last January at the North American International Auto Show. Wheels is calling it the modern-day Holden Torana, the sporty Australian compact built from 1967 to 1980 that led racing driver Peter Brock to numerous victories in the '70s.

The original Torana was attractive, quick, and affordable -- a winning formula that Hyundai revamped on the 2009 Genesis Coupe and which the 2013 Subaru BRZ and Scion FR-S are now trumping. For younger enthusiasts who aren't dazzled by larger Camaros and Mustangs, those Asian coupes are the only cars that deliver big performance in a tight, budget-friendly package.

While the Wheels report names no direct sources, the magazine quotes Michael Simcoe, GM's chief designer outside North America, as saying a production Torana "makes sense" given the history of Australian muscle cars.

Annalisa Bluhm, a Chevrolet spokeswoman, told Exhaust Notes that while the Code 130R was not yet planned for production, "it would fit pretty perfectly" against the BRZ and FR-S. So far, Bluhm said the concept has been a hit among Millennials -- the under-35 set targeted by the Japanese coupes."

rockville

I hope they make something LIKE it but not that. The boxy sedan/coupe look can work if you square up the lines. That one looks too melted yet not melted enough to be Jag like sleek. Instead it just looks like a compromise design. Still, I like the idea of making the car. However, I wouldn't buy one. Not quite a sports car yet, like the '00 Prelude I loved yet didn't buy, it's not practical enough to be my DD. Make the ugly BMW Mcoupe version and I will love it.

Benn-O

Love the idea of the 130r but, can't get behind the awkward styling and design cues. The fr-s/brz is very sleek and when I buy a car I look at the aesthetics as.well as the performance.

SpudRacer

Yeah, I've been reading about the code 130R. Not overwhelmed by the styling. And the press clippings I read indicated a 1.4L turbo 4 cylinder putting out ~140 HP. Even less exciting. But....they also indicated the possibility of a turbo 2.0L 4 cylinder Ecotec putting out ~270 HP.

Now a small, inexpensive, RWD coupe with 270 HP at a reasonably light weight would interest me a lot more than a bloated Camaro or the underpowered BRZ/FR-S twins at a similar price. And don't fear, if Holden builds the car it will have decent ergonomics and fit-n-finish. Also, I'm sure Chevy will clean up the styling somewhat for mass appeal.

hatrickstu

I actually really like the picture on the cover there. The problem with GM is they will ruin the production version with stupid ideas. Take for instance the horribly placed reverse lights on the Camaro. If they used the LNF or a derivitive a small sub-3000lb car would be EXTREMELY appealling.

aklucsarits

I hope they build it. They should dust off the the excellent GM kappa platform (Solstice/Sky) and 90% of their engineering work is already done for them.

Andrew

rockville

Actually they shouldn't use the Kappa for this type of car. The Kappa follows the Corvette in it's chassis. The structure is good in that it's very stiff for a convertible and has relatively low tooling costs (important when volumes are low). The failing of the Kappa chassis is that it wouldn't efficiently use the structure of a roof or conversely it has redundant structure in the bottom thus extra weight and/or bulk. The Kappa had a compromised fuel tank location. While similar to the Corvette chassis the Kappa had a shorter wheel base and a lower price point. In the Corvette GM chose the expensive option of two fuel takes, one behind each passenger and low in the car. That solution didn't work for the Kappa (no room and no budget) so instead they had the fuel tank placed in basically the same spot as a Miata or S2000, above the drive shaft just behind the seats. Well that might have been OK had the car not used the central backbone chassis like the Corvette. Both cars get a lot of their strength via a large central structure running down the center of the car. That means you can't put a gas tank lower in the car like you can with a Miata or S2000 thus the fuel tank is all but sitting in the trunk. Perhaps not a killer flaw for a sports car but absolutely not going to fly with a coupe.

For this new car to work it can't suffer the flaws of the Kappas. Fortunately I don't think it will. I think GM is developing a new flexible, small RWD platform. That means it needs things like a final drive sized for a small car. The final drive in the Kappa was the same unit as used in the much larger CTS and STS. In upgraded form it was good for 500+ hp. Well the parts used in the S2k and BRZ certainly can't handle that kind of power but they are smaller and lighter so the trade off is a good one. I suspect this new car would be based of the chassis under the new ATS. That seems like a good thing if true.

TheDonEffect

GM can win back some minds with younger buyers outside of their usual demograph with this car, but I fear they may botch it. As mentioned, the styling has to be right, and given GM's current offerings I trust that they will make a decent looking car. Imo, feel is very important but I don't think they should make it the primary focus like the frs or try to beat the frs at its own game, it's a very subjective measure and one they will surely lose, but I doubt they will try anyway but I'm sure they know better than to offer a numb sportscar. Next, keep weight down, but here is where I'm flexible provided they offer it with an lnf derivative, they don't have to focus on making it as light as humanly possible, just keep it reasonably light, like 3000lbs would be fine (likely since the two seat smaller kappa cars weighed in around that much), maybe a tad more. Cars can still be fun around that weight level imo, although lighter would def be better. Keep it affordable, and I'm not just talking about the window sticker, stop putting on 20" rims on every friggin car, higher upfront cost, higher maitenance cost, stop doing that. Hell, make it a 17" if possible. I'm not worried about the drivetrain, but a 6spd trans is practically required at this point, but they have a bunch in the parts bin. Speaking of that parts bin, why not use as much as you reasonably and intelligently can, why redsign a bunch of new stuff only to add more cost? I mean take the FRS, why not just throw on the TC steering wheel, you alredy have it in mass quantities and it's a good wheel, why pay for another one? I say this only to keep costs down in a reasonable way, GM has a huge parts bin, make it work.
Anyway, I'm def interested, let's see if these rumors come into fruition, but imo GM can make it, they have the platform, they have the drivetrin, both imo are solid, why not spruce up the chevy lineup? With the mustang costs constantly creeping up and therefore the camaro going up with it, they need something younger enthusiasts can get excited over that's price reasonably in the 20s.

deepbluejh

They might build one, but I doubt it will have any sort of real impact. American car manufacturers have shown us time and time again they don't really care about small cars, much less small sports cars.

Remember the Cobalt SS? Remember how everyone stopped buying the Civic Si, Golf GTI, and WRX when they started making that? Oh wait, that didn't happen. Do they even make the SS anymore? Is anyone buying it? I may have seen like 4 or 5 of them on the road, ever.

Saki GT

GM built the Sky/Solstice, so it has the wherewithal to do it, but I hope they can execute better than they did on those two cars. Poorly engineered and overweight won't be a winning combination, and Camaro-lite won't win over fans. American car companies have never been good with weight management either.