car&driver has it on the cover this month, said it would be built in 2002 as a 2003 model, same year they kill the camaro. designed for no hauling or pulling, stock 6.0L V8 300hp, 1/4" est 14.5, 0-60 6.0sec, 19in fronts, 20in rears. "base" price 32K

 

Only 300hp? It seems like it'd have to be more than that to get a truck (of any type...unless its an S-10 variant) to run mid-14s.

Also, its rather unimpressive that it takes 6.0L to make 300hp.

------------------
Wes Tarbox
90 LX 5.0 (10.69 @ 134.7)
96 Cobra (12.63 @ 114.5)
97 SHO
99 Lightning (13.20 @ 103.3)
http://members.aol.com/Wa2fsT/index.html

 

I know you guys will kill me, but I want one!
And....my Moby will be coming off lease at just about the right time.
I grew up on Marine Corps bases and usually went to school in "Country" towns and in both areas, '49-'53 Chevy pickups were everywhere. Always loved that look.
Bill

 

Wes, it built on a stretched "blazer" platform.

Bill, the article says, the look is the 53chev.

restored a 52 chev pickup to showroom condition a few years back, it wasn't a street rod, but would surprise a few people when i'd hit the nitrous on that LT-1/turbo 350 combo, with those skinny tires.

 

We just added a set of hand controls to a new 2000 400SS Chevy reg cab truck, black on a 2500 frame and body with 6 lug wheels. I got pictures with a regular camera will develope and post later.

------------------
<*(((><
email: isa4325@flash.net
"1-BAD-TK" Texas Tag,
"Only Little Boys Wear Bow Ties"

 

Evening, Chuck, Wes, Andre:

Got my C&D today and read the article on the SSR. A little bit of rethinking, maybe, as I did not really like the retractable top as presently proposed. On the other hand, production cost realities may result in a rather different solution, like a folding soft top and removable hard top.

As a side note, I absolutely love my Bolt, but three years is a long romance, and I have learned not to fall in love with a particular vehicle. In recent years I have had a V-8 SHO and loved it too, but don't miss it. There is always something new on the horizon. I am now lusting after a Chrysler PT Cruiser, for instance, not for the performance but more for the retro look sort of in the same vein as the SSR. Must be my turning 60 this coming Saturday I guess, but I love those older cars and at the same time, I don't have the time or patience to restore them anymore. Plus, the new ones are so damned convenient. Sort of "fire and forget" vehicles.

As for the SSR, while seemingly underpowered for a 6 litre, I would bet that if I spent the same amount of money on that motor as I have spent on Moby ($2,000 plus)it would motor on pretty good. Or, on the really wild side, I still have my Lightning crate motor!!! AAAAH such blasphemy I can spout saith Cap'n Ahab.

Bill

 

Okay, I bleed Ford blue, so I ain't interested.
But my comment is, is it just me, or does the "R" in the SSR look EXACTLY like a Tyoe R riceburner sticker?

These stickers have been known to add 500 HP and cut 10 seconds off stock 1/4 mile times.

he he he, I couldn't resist that.

Gregg

 

asfdsaf

 

I really like the looks of it and the idea of a retractable top sounds pretty cool too.

As for the engine, that is just the 6.0 from the GM parts bin, and I think there will be a couple of different engines that will find their way into the SSR.

But I must say that the cost is way too much for that truck.

 

All show, no go. Think the L. looks better, but that is entirely subjective. Know the L. outperforms it, and it sure won't tow my boat. Don' want no stinkin' bow ties in my garage.

------------------
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

'92 Civic Si, Centerforce Dualfriction clutch, no front license plate.
'00 SVT Lightning, silver, G-tech Pro, JBA headers (Sal's filter kit on order)

alphadoggy@jetlink.net