GM Inside News Forum banner

Code 130 RS = 2.0 turbo.

22K views 100 replies 57 participants last post by  99SonomaSLS 
#1 · (Edited)
So the question came up as to what the "RS" signified on the Code 130 RS at the LA show. "RS " signifies a 270 HP, 2.0L turbo. The business case for the Code appears to be moving along with significant internal support. Also, this car is being considered as a "very different" type of car from the next Camaro.


That's all for now.....
 
#37 · (Edited)
I just really can't see the business case for the 130r with the next-gen Camaro coming. Only a few narrow requirements would have to be met (and kept) for both cars to exist.

1. The 130r will be kept as a 4 cylinder car only.
2. Price point kept 3-4k below a base Camaro.
3. Camaro would have to move somewhat upscale (in content and size) to differentiate the two cars further apart.
4. The 130r would have to be sold worldwide in markets where the Camaro hasn't been traditionally offered to compete with cars like the Genesis Coupe and Scion/Subaru FR-S/BRZ.
 
#38 ·
I just really can't see the business case for the 130r with the next-gen Camaro coming. Only a few narrow requirements would have to be met (and kept) for both cars to exist.

1. The 130r will be kept as a 4 cylinder car only.
2. Price point kept 3-4k below a base Camaro.
3. Camaro would have to move somewhat upscale (in content and size) to differentiate the two cars further apart.
4. The 130r would have to be sold worldwide in markets where the Camaro hasn't been traditionally offered.
The other business cases are AWD option and sedan option.

I want 4 doors and AWD and not have to take out a second mortgage (ATS) to get one.
 
#40 ·
Regarding the Solstice, I always thought it was odd that Pontiac had that name and Chevy had the Equinox. These names, with their relationship as astronomical events, should be under the same division. Just sayin'...
 
#48 ·
Right now if I was a Cadillac ATS owner I'd feel really slighted. The 2.0T is going to be used in this Code 130 AND the Camaro?

GM is going to have a hard time explaining to Cadillac owners and potential buyers why the same engine in their $40,000 luxury performance sedan is in a $25,000 Chevy.
 
#55 ·
GM is going to have a hard time explaining to Cadillac owners and potential buyers why the same engine in their $40,000 luxury performance sedan is in a $25,000 Chevy.
That same dusty nugget used to be applied to platforms as well. The reality is that manufacturers simply can't afford to develop powerplants for individual brands. Build the best engine in its class and differentiate with power, tuning and value adds.

Take the time, money and resources wasted on a 130R and make Chevy as viable mainstream brand again instead of the Fleet Queen brand it is.
Somehow I doubt that the resources dedicated to developing the 130 & 140 have proven to be the slightest distraction. It's a convenient shell game to point fingers in other directions each time there's a shortfall.

If anything, these concepts will help gauge consumer interest and transition technologies between the brands. This isn't just an experiment, it's the segment that all manufacturers will soon covet: cars have to get smaller.
 
#61 ·
I think Chevy is already in the process of fixing the Malibu.

GM is a large enough corporation ("too big to fail") that they can develop more than one vehicle at a time.

And an investment in a vehicle for future "fanboys" is just as viable as one for a current, more mature fanbase. They have to think about the future, especially as a mainstream, entry-level brand, where many high school and college graduates will go to look for their first new cars.

They can make the Malibu greater than the Camry, but how will they pull in new buyers?
 
#50 ·
I think the 2.0T was what the 130 needed the whole time. If this car is supposed to be aimed towards the younger generation, then a more powerful 4-cylinder is perfect. Still will get good gas mileage but, it will have power that will actually make younger people want to buy it. No young person is going to want a "sporty styled" 2 door with an 1.4 economy engine. Either go all in, or don't go at all.
 
#57 ·
Turbocharged engines typically have a torque plateau instead of a peak, in other words they are generally flat. For mainstream turbocharged cars they tend to tune them for low to mid range punch which drops off at higher rpms. The LTG 2.0L turbo produces 260ft-lbs of torque from 1,700-5,500rpms, I would call that flat.
 
#72 ·
I'm just not sold on a car this big with a 2.0t. The car is bigger then the Sol and I wonder what it would weight? Could it come in lighter and at a decent price point? I would think this thing would need to top out in the really low 30's to be able to compete against the Camaro in the same dealership.
 
#73 ·
Please, please, please don't give this car a heritage name. It is crucial to the car's success not to do so. The market this is going after is too young to remember the chevelle or nomad. Heck, they are too young to remember the chevette (thankfully). These buyers' parents and grandparents bought cars with those names, so that's the last thing they'd consider buying. GM needs to show they are looking only to the future with this car!
 
#76 · (Edited)
As far as Alpha +, word of that came out after initial proposals for the Camaro had started. As far as I know, right now, it is just for the CTS. Frankly, I'm not even sure if we should refer to it as anything different than just Alpha, since its just a slightly stretched version of the ATS.

I mean, no one is referring to the Code 130 as Alpha (-).
 
#78 ·
Is it possible that the 130 could eventually become the 4 door version of alpha for Chevy since some are saying it's larger in person than it appears in pictures?

I always thought it was 1 series sized.

Possibly the replacement for the "SS" and we don't even know it?

An actual working man's sport sedan from GM?
 
#79 ·
The 130r is 173.1" long, so, yes, it's 1-series sized. As much as the idea of a 130R/RS sedan seems to appeal to the enthusiast set here, I can't really see GM going in that direction. How in the heck would they market a RWD sedan that would be a bit smaller than a Cruze (181") or even the same size as a Cruze?

Can anyone cite a current example of a manufacturer simultaneously marketing comparably-sized RWD & FWD sedans under the same brand? It'd be analogous to BMW introducing a FWD sedan with similar dimensions to the 3-series, and selling it alongside the 3-series. It just wouldn't happen. Note I'm talking about the same "brand" (i.e., make), so examples of various MINIs being comparable in size to the 1-series, or the ATS being comparable in size to the Cruze or the Lexus IS being comparable to the Corolla, etc, are inapplicable.

Chevy could do a 130R coupe or hatch or wagon, but a sedan? I don't think so.
 
#82 ·
Ultimately though, a 130R sedan would have to be priced right on top of similarly-sized Chevrolet sedans to make any sense. The Lexus ES/GS are separated by price, as are the Tahoe/Traverse. To an extent there was separation between Chevy/Pontiac FWD coupes and the F-bodies (Probe is as close as Ford got to a coupe comparably-sized to Mustang, since it almost was a Mustang) in price and size. 130R would probably come in right around a high-end Cruze, low-end Malibu, which is OK if it's a unique bodystyle but questionable as a sedan. Any higher a price and they're getting close to the Cadillac ATS, not to mention the rumored Alpha Buick.

A sedan would be neat but I don't see it happening for Chevrolet, unless maybe it were a highly-styled 4-door coupe - but that's not exactly the 130R concept. A hatch of some sort would work, even a 2-door wagon/hatch. I'd pass on calling it Nomad (it would invite too much comparison to the past Nomad, despite the Nomad concept a few years ago). Rear half-doors like the ION Quad Coupe/RX-8 have been mentioned, that would be cool.

Count me in the group that doesn't love the 130R design. I wouldn't object if the car were for sale (provided everything else was up to spec) but until then, I'm not crazy over it. That said, I'd really like to see a sub-Camaro Alpha Chevrolet. Done right, it could be a great car sold globally against sub/compact sporty 2-doors. Not just the BRZ/FR-S but even models like the VW Scirocco. It could/should serve as something of an entry-level halo car for Chevrolet, like Hyundai has positioned the Veloster. I would just wonder then if GM would be OK then with it relatively close in price and size to the Astra GTC...
 
#83 ·
I agree with this mostly but I don't think Chevy is where it belongs. I think it would need to have a "small" premium on it and could be crowded out with Camaro and Cruze in the same showroom. I honestly think a Buick would make more sense anyway. Buick needs to be between Chevy and Caddy. I think with an entry lux setup they could do a RWD small alpha and sell it. I would expect it to replace Regal and could be the "GNX" as well.
 
#87 ·
We'll see exactly what if anything Buick gets from Alpha. For years, remember Alpha's gestation was a looooong one, it had always been rumored that if anything, Buick would get a Riviera type coupe/convertible. Apparently the discussion has gone in a different direction now with Buick.

I've come to the belief that with the Code and perhaps Buick, GM is looking for enough Alpha products to justify a second assembly plant, LGR being taken up with ATS, CTS and Camaro production.
 
#94 ·
Well 130 ci = 2.1 litres so take that as you will.

Ideally if this car gets built it should offer 3 increments of power:
2.5 = 200 hp
2.0T= 300 hp
3.6T= 400 hp

The problem is that I really don't see this as a good Chevy fit...if the Camaro is around, unless the car starts below 20k, and tops out around 30s
 
#98 ·
I don’t think the Code would ever see the V6.

I would expect to see:
1.8 or 1.4T = <200 hp
2.5 = >200 hp
2.0T = 300 hp


They do race the Cruze.

Successfully!
Yes and the Cobalt SS was a very competent car. I’m not disputing the fact the Cruze with 2.0T would be a great car, it is not the point of the C130R. GM was surprised (go figure) at how popular a small, RWD coupe would be. They expected the TRU 140S to be the more popular of the two. That was not the case. GM can and should do a Cruze with 2.0T, it just doesn’t fit the role of what many people are looking for, small, affordable RWD. 
 
#101 ·
i saw the code 130r at the ny auto show last year. it looked awesome!

and i agree if gm made a cruze with a lnf the same as the cobalt ss id buy it!

i currently have a cobalt thats supercharged. my buddy has the turbo. and a cruze with lnf engine in it would be awesome! with simple bolt ons and a tune those lnf's open right up
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top