-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-

2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here

2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here

2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options

Chevy SSR

jmsintxjmsintx Member Posts: 41
edited March 2014 in Chevrolet
At MSRP of about 39K, and I'm sure a very large markup until supply reaches demand. Check out the latest Car and Driver.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    check out http://www.gm-trucks.com


    there is a nice article with tech spec and pics

  • Options
    ricschricsch Member Posts: 540
    I'd go for a C5 'Vette, better bang for the buck!!
  • Options
    jim4444jim4444 Member Posts: 124
    Is Chevy crazy? Almost $40,000 for this truck? It's unique but I can find better ways to spend that kind of money.
  • Options
    catamcatam Member Posts: 331
    Maybe, maybe not. This is a low volume vehicle aimed at a niche market. I agree I can find tons of things I would spend that kind of money on first. However, this truck is not aimed at me. Its aimed at people who have significant disposable income, who like to drive and want a unique vehicle. There are tons of Vettes out there, and they don't draw even my attention much anymore, but I am sure I'll be taking a closer look for a while every time a see an SSR.
  • Options
    txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    Local Dealer had a "Market Adjustment" adder of $32k on a Prowler when the 2001's first came out. But an out-of-town Dealer had them for sticker price. But then maybe they didn't have any "in stock".
  • Options
    jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    I totally agree with all 6 posts in this forum. You can all put the $38-40K to better use (buy a 'Vette or Camaro SS). I was just at the local Chevy dealer to get an oil AND tranny fluid change at 48K miles. (Don't believe that 100K mile crap; get the tranny fluid changed at 50K, or sooner; you won't be sorry.) Anyway, the service technician AND service advisor said they would NOT buy an SSR until all the anticipated bugs have been ironed out. Yes it'll be unique, and very fast, but who knows how safe and how reliable? A sales manager told me Chevy won't even be taking orders until well into September, and that each dealership (in NE Illinois) will be getting only 1 or 2 vehicles, if they're lucky.
  • Options
    lockcityssrlockcityssr Member Posts: 21
    I've already been to my Chevy dealer and signed on the dotted line for one in the Buffalo area. I have talked to a couple of GM guys, as I work for a major parts supplier, and they figure these will have to sell at or very close to sticker. It's for the same reasons stated above, @ $38K if they jack the price up people will opt for a Vette or M BMW. As far as first year model runs goes, GM has had pretty good luck and don't forget the motor/tranny/frame/torsen rearend, etc are proven off the shelf items so that's a non-issue to a Chevy guy like me. Also since the projected number to be built is around 20,000 a year, I'm sure dealers will have alot more than just "1 or 2 per dealer", especially the larger ones that sell alot of Vettes.
  • Options
    obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    knocking 6.0?
  • Options
    ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    the SSR is gonna have the 5.3
  • Options
    obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    too underpowered in stock flavor.....
  • Options
    lockcityssrlockcityssr Member Posts: 21
    What do you want, a dragster? Not only is that very respectable power, the motor and tranny are highly tunable for those who need more. If you read about ALL the goodies that Chevy will be putting on the SSR, the price will compare pretty good to other vehicles with the equivalent power and option level. Anybody that really knows and follows the car biz, can point out problem cars from EVERY manufacturer on the planet, no one has produced the "perfect" car yet!
  • Options
    eric2001eric2001 Member Posts: 482
    The SSR will have the motor in an aluminum block version, with no hp disclosure. I would safely assume it will be in excess of the 285 rating of the pickup version, with more aggressive cams/injection/timing.

    Anyone see anything official yet?
    -Eric
  • Options
    lockcityssrlockcityssr Member Posts: 21
    All I've seen in print or on the web, is the 285HP number which came with the disclaimer that was not offical or final from Chevy. Chevy only recently announced that they would go with the aluminum block version so it's probably going to be a while before any production HP rating is released. But it sure would be nice if they tuned it for more right at factory, then I won't be so temped to do myself since these motors and the 4L60E tranny are easily modified.

    For anyone who hasn't seen it, there is a very informative web site, ssrrs.com. They seem to update current info very quickly.
  • Options
    ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    yep i read that eric. They arent going to release HP numbers for awhile. I did hear itll be over 285 and possibly 300-325
  • Options
    mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    it's the SSR or SS....but some guys I know who work for a place that does GM specialty vehicles say it will have 20" wheels and the 8.1....AWD maybe too?....we talk about so much crap.....I can't keep it all straight...

    - Tim
  • Options
    obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    but the 5.3? I wouldn't spend the kind of money they will be asking for a 5.3. Now a supercharged 8.1....that will kick a lighnings butt all over town. I would question the 4L60E and would it be able to handle the HP and torque.
  • Options
    ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    THE SSR el camino looking car/truck is going to have a new style 5.3 in it. At first it was rumored 6 liter but in last months truck trend it states 5.3
  • Options
    lockcityssrlockcityssr Member Posts: 21
    This tranny has been behind the 6.0 in Vettes and Camaros for years now and has a very good reputation for hanging together with the 300 to 325 HP that motor will make. The 20" rears and 19" front wheels, from the concept, are indeed going to be on the SSR. I read they will be excluive to the SSR and made by Speedline.
  • Options
    txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    one of the Trucks that Jon Moss's GM "Skunkworks" built. I had looked at 3 or 4 on I believe pickuptruck.com, but can't find them now." I have a picture of one of them (Coolside) on my desktop but don't rmemeber what it has in it. It's a Black Sportside with Blue/Blue/Red Flames. They did a 6.0, and 8.1, and others.
  • Options
    mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    he had mentioned 345HP......so that would be the stock 8.1 no?

    They do the Zz1 Tahoes, Burbs, Extreme pickups and blazers.....etc....along with tons of specialty cars......502 Impala SS was cool too.

    The truck I am talking about is a pick up...not an el-camino...

    - Tim

    I think I know John!!!
  • Options
    txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    www.pickuptruck.com/html/stories/gmtoys/toys1.html. There's 4 of them.
  • Options
    catamcatam Member Posts: 331
    Yes it has butt kicking torque and HP, but the added weight from the big block would likely negate any actual perfomance improvement in real driving. Not to mention the lower redline.
    An aluminum 5.3L tuned like a Vette would likely yield around 325HP. Makes a lot more sense to me in a performance truck to loose the 500lbs. to only sacrifice 20HP.
    Also why don't they offer it with the 6spd manual from the Vette, this is supposed to be a performance "driver's" truck after all.
  • Options
    jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    Sounds like the dealer I talked to was full of it, since you say you were able to order one now.
    I wonder if the same retractable roof will be offered with other GM vehicles. I like sunroofs, but a retractable roof would be even nicer. Didn't Ford make a car with a retractable roof back in the late '50s or early '60s? I think I remember seeing a Fairlane that had one.
  • Options
    lockcityssrlockcityssr Member Posts: 21
    You are correct about the Ford, it had a very cool retractable hardtop but I don't know the years it was offered. GM has an outside firm making the roof so who knows if they'll repeat it on another car.
    I just happened to be talking about the SSR with a friend of mine at work last night and his neighbor also has one on order from a different dealer that I'm using. If the dealer you went to doesn't want your business, just go to another one...it's not like Chevy dealers are rare! Even at the volume they are predicting to produce they'll be all sold by time they hit the dealers.
    It will be interesting to see how the pricing holds up, I know won't be paying a premium on top of the estimated $38K. I'm on my second BMW Z3 so I know exactly how much performance car you can get for that kind of scratch if the General wants to get greedy!
  • Options
    txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    BTW....I had quite a discussion with the Wife of the local Ford Dealer about "Hardtop Convertibles". Which of course were cars with a hard top and no post when the windows were down (like a convertible). They really weren't convertibles but that is what they were called. Anyway she insisted that the "Retractible" was the only Hardtop Convertible.
  • Options
    obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    My favorite part....

    "The engine features new quiet-profile pistons to ensure that the pistons track straight in their bores, minimizing clearances as the pistons rock under gas pressure.
    The pistons are polymer-coated to reduce cold scuffing and engine noise. Polymer-coated pistons, long a mainstay in luxury car engines, enable tighter bore clearances, provide enduring wear surfaces between pistons and cylinder walls, and further reduce piston motion."

    Perhaps the answer lies here.
  • Options
    ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    yea that seemed funny to me

    so when you gonna sign up over the obyone?
  • Options
    rezo00rezo00 Member Posts: 103
    why didnt they just call it an EL CAMINO...it was ugly then and its ugly now.
  • Options
    ricschricsch Member Posts: 540
    You state that GM will have the "bugs" worked out of the SSR in it's first prduction year-good one. Hope yours is bug free!
  • Options
    mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    I verified with my buddy.....his company built all 4 of those trucks....and the Red one will be the production SS...

    - Tim
  • Options
    lockcityssrlockcityssr Member Posts: 21
    No doubt any first year vehicle can have some problems. Since Dec. of '93 I have purchased nothing but first year cars(5 of them) so I know all about the pitfalls, but as they say "no guts, no glory". They range from 2 Chevy's, 2 BMW's , and a Toyota. Knock on wood, none of them had any big problems and very,very few minor ones so I'm not concerned.
  • Options
    txyank1txyank1 Member Posts: 1,010
    it said Nov. '02 it comes out as an '03. Has the 5.3 all aluminum but didn't mention hp. DID say price is around $37k!!
  • Options
    SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    Due out this winter, the SSR has been added to our "Future Vehicles" section:


    http://www.edmunds.com/future/2003/chevrolet/ssr/2drregularcab2wdsb/preview.html

  • Options
    cowboyjohn1cowboyjohn1 Member Posts: 125
    I believe they called them the "Retractable Hardtops." The big thing then was to have a "hardtop", so therefore they were known a retractable hardtops. They didn't have them in 1957 or I would have bought one - instead I bought a 1957 Chev Bel Aire hardtop with the powerpak. Later I wanted a fuel injected Corvette, but couldn't come up with the extra $700. Probably a good thing as the guy who bought it killed himself in it. Also I do not believe Ford had the retractable hardtop in 1958. The only one that I definitely remember was the 1959. In those years I followed cars a lot - but time may have dulled my memory a bit.
    cowboyjohn
  • Options
    minikinminikin Member Posts: 389
    You got it pretty much right. As I recall, retractable hardtop was for 3 years; '57-59, but I think it might have started later in the '57 model year when they came out. If you could afford a new car in '57 you're obviously older than me; or your dad was a member of the country club I was caddying at.
    -- Don
  • Options
    jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    Stopped by my local Chevy store. Apparently the currently proposed $40K sticker price is not sitting very well with some buyers. The dealer said Chevy may have to consider lowering the price if orders don't pick up soon. The Ford "Lightning" is its biggest competition. Collectors are also having second thoughts about ordering it.
  • Options
    obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    if it came with a $40k tag AND supercharged 6.0. I can't believe GM stepped down from the original 6.0 to the 5.3....and no S/C offered on either.
  • Options
    jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    Pardon my ignorance, but which Chevy (or GM) vehicle comes with a S/C 6.0 engine? The Buick Regal GS, Pontiac GTP, and soon to be Impala SS come with the venerable S/C 3800 Series II (L-67) motor. But I can't find anything about a S/C 6.0 liter. Do you know how much horsepower and torque such a beast produces?
  • Options
    obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    Please note my post.....if it came with a $40k tag AND supercharged 6.0 keyword being if.

    It appears with the exception of the vette, GM has chosen not to compete in the performance arena with the Lightning, the S/C Harley Davidson edition, and the new Dodge Ram SRT-V10. Course these trucks are not built for everyone, then again, neither is the SSR. The original design of the SSR had the 6.0 only to be downsized to the 5.3. Bean counters at work?

    Impala SS with a s/c 3.8? Seems GM is content to denigrate a once performance associated name. Guess the same thing that Chrysler did with the 300M. Sure hope they do kill the Camaro and not install a s/c 3.8 in there as well.
  • Options
    corsicachevycorsicachevy Member Posts: 316
    Has anyone noticed how much this pig weighs? Good Lord - 4500lbs and only 285hp. Chevrolet really blew it.
  • Options
    ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    "Chevrolet really blew it. "

    They blew it? Have you driven one? NO BECAUSE ITS NOT EVEN OUT YET!!! So how can you say chevy blew it?
  • Options
    corsicachevycorsicachevy Member Posts: 316
    Well, ryan, I can tell that GM blew it by looking at a few pictures and some stats. Keep in mind that I was expecting this car/truck to compete (somewhat) with the Lightning. In its original form, the SSR would have been quite a performer with zero-to-sixty times slightly below 6.0 seconds and the quarter at slightly over 100mph. Not bad. The production versions won't even come close to that.

    Where did all of this weight come from? It was supposed to weigh something like 3800lbs - is Gilbert Brown hiding in the trunk? All that extra weight won't help the vehicle's handling, either. And, who's idea was it to square-off the rear wheel flairs?

    I like the idea - no other company has anything like it. Even the Lightning is in a different class. I'm just a little disappointed in the execution.
  • Options
    cowboyjohn1cowboyjohn1 Member Posts: 125
    Yep, I am probably older than you. Nope, no one helped me in the financing of my 1954 Chev red and white hardtop in 1955, my new 1956 Chev.red and white BelAir hardtop with powerpak, my new 1957 Chev. yellow and black hardtop with powerpak, nor my first 3 Model As which cost $40, $50, and $100. First one bought in 1947. Cattle prices were better then.
    cowboyjohn
  • Options
    jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    Why are you so critical with GM's choices of engines for their new cars. Buick Regal GS and Pontiac GTP owners really like the S/C 3800 (240 HP) over the normally aspirated one (200 HP). Please read their posts in their respective forums. The only drawback is they're FWD and harder to control than a RWD vehicle.

    Yes, the '94-'96 Impala SS had the LT-1 engine that made 260 ponies, but it was big and heavy. Its 0-60 time was even slower than the Regal and GTP (7.1 versus 6.5 seconds). And yes, the same Impala could produce some pretty good burnouts, and it was also great looking (especially the black ones). But the '04 Impala SS is supposed to get a minor facelift and a "tweaked" version of the S/C 3800 that will make ~250-260 ponies.

    So when you say things like "Seems GM is content to denigrate a once performance associated name", you're only insulting people who own a Regal GS or Pontiac GTP. Unless you didn't mean it that way.
  • Options
    obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    I had leased a 97.5 Regal GS. It was the first year of the SC motor. If you're familiar with GM, you probably know about their 1st year models. While it wasn't plagued with major problems, I did have to adjust some of the trim and molding with a 2x4 and a rubber mallet from time to time along with rattles in the dash that the service department said was the loose change in my ashtray. Course if you own one, you're probably already aware of this.


    Impala burnouts?


    http://home.rochester.rr.com/raisse/images/DCP_1449_WEB.jpg


    Remember this Buick?


    http://www.americanmusclecars.co.uk/html/buick.html


    Or this one? This is a SC 3.8. Ever tried comparing it to the one offered today?


    http://www.buickpower.com/gnx.htm


    My point is simply this...with the SSR, GM elected not to install the 6.0 but rather the 5.3. I would have hoped that they opted for the 8.1 which would truely distinguish the SSR. Same with the Siverado SS. Can't understand what the're trying to accomplish with it especially with Dodge rolling out with their new SRT-10.


    This also goes for the SC 3.8. Manufacturers like Nissan has naturally aspirated engines putting out 260HP, same goes for Honda and with less cubic inches to boot. All this while GM is content to place the same SC 3.8 in a Buick or a Pontiac with dubious build quality and expect people to buy them. Would you spend $40K on a Park Avenue with the SC 3.8? BTW, I own two GM products, a Denali and a Silverado. With the offerings from the other manufacturers, I seriously doubt that my next vehicle which I will be acquiring in February 2003 will be a GM.


    If people are satisfied with what they buy, that's all that really matters. What I think of their choice is not relevant. My only question would be....if they had really made an informed decision?

  • Options
    jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    Thanks for the clarifications.


    (1) I've seen some video of SS burnouts (forgot the website). The car was indeed powerful. However, I've also seen some Regal GS burnouts (looks hilarious to see the front wheels smoking).


    (2) Yes, I've seen a few Buick Gran Sports in my long days on this planet (I'm 58). They were a great looking and performing car. I own a '98 Regal GS and found out the GSCA has a branch for newer GS owners. Check out their site:


    http://www.buickgsca.com


    (3) I've also seen quite a few Grand Nationals on the street, and one GNX at a car show. I talked with a kid who brought his GN in for a tire rotation. We had a long discussion while we were waiting. Said he had a new intercooler installed. He said the car was the ultimate sleeper, and turned a few heads (chick mobile).


    Good luck to you in February, 2003 when you plan on purchasing a new vehicle. I was wondering though, if you don't like GM cars or trucks, why do you bother to post messages in a Chevy forum?

  • Options
    obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    I was wondering though, if you don't like GM cars or trucks, why do you bother to post messages in a Chevy forum?


    During the gas crunch in the early 70's, I dumped my gas hog V8 390 Ford Galaxie and bought a gas miser import. Since then I've mostly bought Japanese imports until '93 when I leased a Lincoln Mark VIII. I found that I had missed the big car ride and the V8 HP and torque. So again in '95 I leased another Mark VIII. I was quickly reminded of American build quality as the car spent 2 of 24 months of its lease in the shop. So I nixed Ford and Lincoln on my next go around and ended up with a 97.5 Regal GS. Similarly I was reminded of the build quality so in 2000 I said I would get an older designed GM product which was the '00 Denali seeing what the newly designed Yukon caused many of its owners.


    The Denali has performed much to my expectations except for three recalls related to the OnStar system. Ironic that something that is supposed to provide added protection actually cause me to get stalled as it inadvertantly under certain conditions, kills the battery. My '00 Silverado based on the new design had qualified for buyback under the lemon law. However, since most of the problems were repaired, I decided to keep the vehilce with a 6/100 Major Guard bumper to bumper $0 deductible warranty free courtesy of GM.


    One of the reasons that I post in the Chevy/GMC topics is to aid other owners who are experiencing what I had already gone through with either their dealers stonewalling them or the tons of problems with their trucks that have TSB's associated but still encounter dealer's service departments denial.


    My only point as I had stated above is GM's obvious opinion of the American buying public. Those that continue to acquire GM products though quality, performance, and perceived value is somewhat questionable. I'm finding it particularly difficult to purchase another GM product base on my last three vehicle experiences.


    BTW, you never did answer my question regarding purchasing a front wheel drive, SC 3.8, $40k Park Avenue. My thinking is that for $40k one should get a little more value, maybe something like this....with RWD, 340Hp V8.


    http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/infiniti/m45/index.html

    Back to the topic...why do you suppose that GM selected the 5.3 to install in the SSR? Other than costing less and requiring the 4L-60E vs. the 4L-80E which that in itself saves a ton of money, would there be any other reason? Do you think that GM will lower their introductory price because of this?

  • Options
    ryanbabryanbab Member Posts: 7,240
    could it be because of the CAFE rules???
  • Options
    jpstaxjpstax Member Posts: 250
    Thanks again for answering my question. I do appreciate any feedback concerning cars that I currently own, or plan to purchase in the near future. To answer your question: NO, I would not buy a Park Avenue. It's way too big for my likes (and wife's). And as you imply in your Infiniti link, you can buy a better car for about the same money, and also get more "bang for the buck". Besides, I don't like being called a geezer, and the PA is definitely a "geezermobile". That's why I bought my '98 Regal GS. BTW, did you check out the GSCA link?
This discussion has been closed.