AutoWeek reviews the 2014 Chevy SS

[kevm14]

I hope you see that the styling flourishes on the 94-96 SS were pretty conservative.

What's also interesting is some of the more tepid responses to the car back in 94. Much like 60s muscle cars, its memory is far stronger than its initial welcome. Though that's not a back handed compliment. I think it took a bit before people were like "you know what, this car is awesome." Reminds me of the new SS reception. The new SS is true to its heritage, for better or for worse.

[kevm14]

Ah, perception really is everything:

Styling wise the 2013 VF SS-V Redline and the Chev SS are identical aside from the Holden badges and some colour options.

The styling in VF was made US centric, which seems to have been a mistake by GMH, as its not been a hit apparently with US or Australian buyers.

Doens't help in the US market that the Malibu was based on an early VF Commodore concept styling exercise and got into production before the VF. When people see the Chev SS they think it looks like a Malibu, when in truth the story is really the other way around.

[Bob]

My initial reaction upon seeing an SS for the first time (frontal view) is that it looked like a Malibu. I think the SS will be popular in the used market among enthusiasts, but GM will have a tough time selling them in the mid-$40k range when new. If it was $35k, I think it would sell very well.

[kevm14]

Asking for an MSRP of $35k is basically telling GM "you shouldn't have bothered." There has to be a business case. That said, with discounts, I'm sure you could get one for $40k. Maybe even less. It's not like you'll be paying MSRP. At least I don't think so.

[bill25]

I am not saying that the SS isn't worth 45K. I am saying most people can't afford it. Most people can't afford a 38K Camaro either. That was not the case in the 80's and 90's for the Caprice and Camaro. These weren't luxury cars for the elite. I know that cars have more "stuff" and maybe are worth 30% more because there is 30% more, but I still can't buy it. My salary hasn't gone up 30% since equal salaries of the early 90's and I would say I have more expenses than households in the early 90s. We are talking 90 to 94 for the prices discussed. That was basically before everyone needed a computer, internet, cell phone,, etc. all things that are practically mandatory expenses if you want to live in the world today. So, to recap, things are more expensive, there are more expenses, and cars are 30% more. If this were 2 months ago I could say that gas is 3 times what it was in 94, today they are at least double still.

I am not complaining (well kind of.) But the fact that there are so many other costs of living besides cars now, there is less money to either save for a car, or for a car payment. Between my internet and cell bill you are looking at 200 bucks per month that isn't going towards a car. Plus $200 went a lot farther in 1990.

Maybe that is why these aren't selling.

[Bob]

Asking for an MSRP of $35k is basically telling GM "you shouldn't have bothered." There has to be a business case. That said, with discounts, I'm sure you could get one for $40k. Maybe even less. It's not like you'll be paying MSRP. At least I don't think so.

I have seen some aggressive discounts from GM lately. They are offering 20% of MSRP on some less desirable models.

[kevm14]

Johann de Nysschen is trying to hold prices on at least Cadillac. He came from Audi and he is tasked with not just jump starting Cadillac but raising the brand image. If you watch the Autoline video I posted in another thread, the consensus is you may need 2 or 3 generations of very good product before the reputation follows. You could argue the latest ATS and CTS are the first. Or you could argue the last CTS was the first.