http://blogs.motortrend.com/chevy-130r-vs-140s-one-of-these-cars-is-a-no-brainer-20701.html
So Chevy wants the people to decide: Which of its 2012 Detroit auto show concepts — Code 130R or Tru 140S — should be turned into a production model? Dumb question, really, because only one of these Chevys is a no-brainer. And that’s the 130R.
Why? Because Honda could build the 140S. So could Ford and Mazda and Peugeot and Nissan and Chrysler and Volkswagen and Renault. In fact, any automaker with a C-segment front drive platform in its product portfolio — and that’s just about all of them — could swiftly develop a swoopy two-door like the 140S. But there aren’t very many who could build an affordable sporty rear-drive coupe like the 130R. They simply don’t have the hardware.
Subaru and Toyota have the new BRZ/FT-86 twins, and Hyundai has the Genesis Coupe. But that’s about it. The 130R could therefore make a big splash in a small gene pool, while the 140S could easily be lost in a swarm of similar cab-forward front-drive coupes. More importantly, 130R represents an opportunity for Chevy to connect with a demographic that hasn’t seen it as being cool, interesting, or relevant for… oh… 40 years or so – young enthusiast drivers.
The 130R is a 21st century Nissan 200SX, Datsun P510, BMW 2002ti. It’s an icon waiting to happen.
Though coy on the detail, GM insiders admit the 130R is designed to roll on the new Alpha rear drive architecture that underpins Cadillac’s 3-series fighter, the ATS. The 109.3in wheelbase is identical with that of the ATS; another giveaway is the inboard placement of the 130R’s dual pipes, which exactly mimics that of the ATS. The lightweight Alpha hardware includes MacPharson struts up front, a five link rear axle, and ZF electric power steering.
Proposed engine for the car is a 150hp, direct injection version of GM’s 1.4-liter turbo four, driving through either a GM six-speed automatic, or the new Tremec six-speed manual developed for the ATS. That powertrain would allow the 130R to achieve two things: 1) get up to 40 mpg on the highway; and 2) sell for a base price in the low $20,000 range.
Should the 130R make production, though, Chevy could also offer a premium performance version fitted with the new 270 hp 2.0-liter turbo four that’s just debuted in the new ATS. The engine basically bolts right in, and the both transmissions — plus the rear axle and the Brembo brakes from the FE3-spec ATS — are rated to handle the extra grunt. Logic suggests a super-130R could be pitched as a high-performance alternative to a V-6 Camaro, with a base price in the $25,000 to $28,000 range.
Designed by Brit Joe Baker in GM’s Advanced Studio in North Hollywood, the 130R — like the 140S, which was also design by a Brit, Nicholas David — is the product of a unique program set up to find out what younger buyers wanted from a Chevy. The designers surveyed students at Pepperdine University and UCLA, and at several high schools on LA’s west side, and listened to what they had to say about the cars they wanted to drive before they even drew a single line. “They knew Chevy was trucks,” says Frank Saucedo, director of GM Advanced Design of the 14 to 20 year olds they GM design teams talked to. “They were surprised to learn that Corvette was also a Chevy.” Among the key takeouts: They wanted a four-seater. “They’re very connected through social media,” says Saucedo, “and when they travel, they like to travel with their friends.”
This innovative approach to vehicle design is one reason why neither of the two concepts had an interior. Four interiors have been developed, and Saucedo’s team plans to take each of them back to the LA student groups for them to review and choose. “It’s like we’re crowd-sourcing the interiors,” Saucedo says.
Meanwhile, early clinics of the 130R and 140S, whose edgy design cues will influence the next-gen Cruze, one GM insider revealed, have highlighted a crucial difference between the two. People in their mid-30s and older prefer the swoopy front-drive 140S, while those under 35 prefer the distinctive rear-drive 130R. Just one more reason why choosing not to build it would be one of the dumbest decisions GM could make this decade.
So Chevy wants the people to decide: Which of its 2012 Detroit auto show concepts — Code 130R or Tru 140S — should be turned into a production model? Dumb question, really, because only one of these Chevys is a no-brainer. And that’s the 130R.
Why? Because Honda could build the 140S. So could Ford and Mazda and Peugeot and Nissan and Chrysler and Volkswagen and Renault. In fact, any automaker with a C-segment front drive platform in its product portfolio — and that’s just about all of them — could swiftly develop a swoopy two-door like the 140S. But there aren’t very many who could build an affordable sporty rear-drive coupe like the 130R. They simply don’t have the hardware.
Subaru and Toyota have the new BRZ/FT-86 twins, and Hyundai has the Genesis Coupe. But that’s about it. The 130R could therefore make a big splash in a small gene pool, while the 140S could easily be lost in a swarm of similar cab-forward front-drive coupes. More importantly, 130R represents an opportunity for Chevy to connect with a demographic that hasn’t seen it as being cool, interesting, or relevant for… oh… 40 years or so – young enthusiast drivers.
The 130R is a 21st century Nissan 200SX, Datsun P510, BMW 2002ti. It’s an icon waiting to happen.
Though coy on the detail, GM insiders admit the 130R is designed to roll on the new Alpha rear drive architecture that underpins Cadillac’s 3-series fighter, the ATS. The 109.3in wheelbase is identical with that of the ATS; another giveaway is the inboard placement of the 130R’s dual pipes, which exactly mimics that of the ATS. The lightweight Alpha hardware includes MacPharson struts up front, a five link rear axle, and ZF electric power steering.
Proposed engine for the car is a 150hp, direct injection version of GM’s 1.4-liter turbo four, driving through either a GM six-speed automatic, or the new Tremec six-speed manual developed for the ATS. That powertrain would allow the 130R to achieve two things: 1) get up to 40 mpg on the highway; and 2) sell for a base price in the low $20,000 range.
Should the 130R make production, though, Chevy could also offer a premium performance version fitted with the new 270 hp 2.0-liter turbo four that’s just debuted in the new ATS. The engine basically bolts right in, and the both transmissions — plus the rear axle and the Brembo brakes from the FE3-spec ATS — are rated to handle the extra grunt. Logic suggests a super-130R could be pitched as a high-performance alternative to a V-6 Camaro, with a base price in the $25,000 to $28,000 range.
Designed by Brit Joe Baker in GM’s Advanced Studio in North Hollywood, the 130R — like the 140S, which was also design by a Brit, Nicholas David — is the product of a unique program set up to find out what younger buyers wanted from a Chevy. The designers surveyed students at Pepperdine University and UCLA, and at several high schools on LA’s west side, and listened to what they had to say about the cars they wanted to drive before they even drew a single line. “They knew Chevy was trucks,” says Frank Saucedo, director of GM Advanced Design of the 14 to 20 year olds they GM design teams talked to. “They were surprised to learn that Corvette was also a Chevy.” Among the key takeouts: They wanted a four-seater. “They’re very connected through social media,” says Saucedo, “and when they travel, they like to travel with their friends.”
This innovative approach to vehicle design is one reason why neither of the two concepts had an interior. Four interiors have been developed, and Saucedo’s team plans to take each of them back to the LA student groups for them to review and choose. “It’s like we’re crowd-sourcing the interiors,” Saucedo says.
Meanwhile, early clinics of the 130R and 140S, whose edgy design cues will influence the next-gen Cruze, one GM insider revealed, have highlighted a crucial difference between the two. People in their mid-30s and older prefer the swoopy front-drive 140S, while those under 35 prefer the distinctive rear-drive 130R. Just one more reason why choosing not to build it would be one of the dumbest decisions GM could make this decade.
