Poll: Which Do You Like Better – 130R Or 140S?

View Comments

• I think there will be bias because of the color choices at their introduction. The 130R does look like the love child of a BMW 1 series and a pissed off Lightning McQueen. Millenials are the Toy Story generation, so GM is a bit early marketing after Cars already. The 140S might have done better in a lime green or something more obnoxious, guess they couldn't have 3 red cars on the same stage?

  The 140S also seems like it will just become the Cruze coupe, whereas I feel the 130R has more potential than serving as design cues for the next Camaro. I like the photoshop sedan: http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/1422/130rsedan.jpg

  And even the more far fetched Nomad version: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y119/chaseabryant/My%20Designs/ChevyNomadSide.jpg

  The cars don't have interiors yet, and these will be VERY important if they want to sell them to 20 somethings. That doesn't mean having Facebook and twitter integration/connectivity which is the latest buzzword, but having a well designed, intuitive, thoughtful interior with ample screen space, no cheap feeling materials (hard plastic), and room to hold two drinks, phones, iPods, etc. Based on what we've seen so far and the drivetrains my vote is for the 130R. It looks like it has more usable space (assuming the rear seats can fold down to fit a snowboard/surfboard/fill in your oblong gear), better visibility (unlike the Camaro), and the eAssist will help get better city fuel economy which is how most people (and most young people) spend a majority of their time driving. Needs to earn those crossed flags though (yes the fleur de lis is not there but still) with the addition of the 2.0L 270 hp 4 cylinder, but it could even out the chevy lineup nicely - 130R, Camaro, Corvette.

  To everyone who has a favorite - voice your opinion on Facebook, Chevy should be watching and as of right now the 130R (91 likes) is beating the 140S (15 likes) in their respective Chevy make this car! groups. A top gear episode with these would be fun...

• Bean-counter Graw says 140. It looks better, would likely be cheaper to build as all the parts and bits are available, and would likely be more affordable to the average buyer.

  Z28 Graw says 130 because it would be cheaper than the Camaro, has RWD, and the 1.4L T/C isn't anything to thumb his nose at like it was 15 years ago.

  Judge Graw says 140 is better than the 130 because the 130 has a distracting and mishappen greenhouse, although he's too old for the boy-racer good looks of the 140.

  *bangs his gavel*

• Luke!! Why oh why did you post that link to the 2dr wagon chop?! I am in love!! If GM had the nerve to produce such a car I would buy it as soon as it was announced! The sedan looks AWESOME as well. Just imagine if Chevy had the nerve to do a full line up of such a little car. Throw in a simple AWD system for our friends up north and with a dedicated GOOD marketing effort GM Could usurp BMW &Nissan, as the maker of affordable drivers cars! Heck they may even recapture a few lost Pontiac fans!

  One can only dream...

• I second that. Great job on the Photoshopped 130 concepts! (What can you do with the 140? hehe) The mini-wagon has my vote too. Could be some great competition for the 'lil coopers.

• Although I understand why GM & other companies are starting to target "Millenials", (becuase it's one of the fastest-growing segments of the population), and yes, the Cruze, Sonic, Spark and these concepts certainly have their place, what concerns me is that with many Millenials, they haven't had the opportunity to establish credit yet, or are so far in debt with college loans, their credit is already in trouble.

  I have a 22 year old son, by all definitions a Millenial, and he can barely afford an old "beater with a heater". How on earth can Chevy/GM make these vehicles affordable enough for the very people they are building them for and marketing them to???

  Also, a good portion of these youger folks have an "entitlement" or "gimme" mentality-a lot of them want the best of everything but aren't willing to work for it. Chevy needs to step up the game on interiors, smart-phone apps, mobile internet & so on, but somehow they need to make all the technology affordable, yet profitable.

  How can Chevy build these vehicles to sell to youg folks that can not get the financing to buy them? Just wondering....

• Micheal, you bring up an issue I worry about as well. In the past you graduated college or worked a good trade job right outta high school and you could easily afford a new entry level car, or a nice mid level car if u optioned it right. Now? Not really and it's seems to be getting worse.

  But there are those few who see something they want and no matter what the circumstances, do what they have too to get ahead. Hopefully cars like these will also attract those young people as well.

• Definately, I am a so called "Millenial" and while I dont mind that GM and other automakers are making cars that suit my needs but I dont think its a good business model for them. I would consider myself well off but I cant afford a new car right now even with excellant credit, but my credit is so far relatively underdeveloped(I prefer a cash lifestyle) and I probably would not get a loan even if I wanted one. GM and also other manufacturers are misunderstanding the "millenials". For example, many of my friends dont know the diferences between a cruze and corolla, other than the corolla is better because its a toyota, meaning they dont know anything about cars and are strongly influenced by public perception and by what there parents drive. Here in california, where there is a stong anti-domestic presence against the big three, my friends automatically love imports and would never think about buying anything other than a Toyota or other import brand for their first new car. Basically many of them wont even know about the features designed by them by the automakers. And as Michael says, many "millenials", frankly, want all those cool features and the new car but lack the disciple and responsibility required to save up for a car and actually afford it, even if its in the low 20k range. I think GM should rather focus on making youth-oriented cars rather than developing a car based solely on "millenials". On a positive note, many middle aged adults will also be interested in youth-oriented cars simply because they will make them feel younger and they will drive up sales. In short, GM should not depend just on the "millenials" when making a car if they expect to be profitable on it.

  • Well, California has always been a bit "different" when it came to automotive tastes. Over time, this will change -- especially as the "domestics" release their best products ever... which also happen to be better than the "imports" that are so preferred by the Californians.

    Additionally, the term Millenials does, in fact, refer to young people. It's just that it -- right now -- happens to be Millenials who are young. There isn't a universally-agreed upon time frame for the birth of a Millenial, but the term usually includes people born in the late 1980s, early to middle 1990s, or as late as the early 2000s. I think Millenials is simply the "hot" word GM chose to explain these two concepts.

    However, I think it takes a conscious consumer (Millenial or not) to understand a product, especially a product such as cars. Those who won't know it if the features/car was developed for them... fine. But there will be those (like ourselves) who will. And then we'll tell our car-unconscious friends... and so the word will spread far and wide :)

• Does this mean to C7 Will be an old guys I mean baby boomer's car.

• Rear wheel drives rule the road. Front wheel drive is for pussies

  • FWD is also for people looking for an affordable, stable, fuel effecient, roomier vehicles who are not performance minded like us enthusiasts and just need a car to get around, these people also comprise 70% or more of the global population.

    Just because we dont like FWD does not mean we can reject its benefits or importance, or belittle its users.

    • Agree with you about all of those except for the affordable bit. FWD cars are more affordable because, as of late, RWD has been reserved for premium/luxury makes. No reason (financially/economically) that a FWD car has to be less expensive than a RWD car. That "extra" drivetrain length is negligible with economies of scale.

  • RWD rules the road? Not by the numbers.

    Many simply don't care about the drivewheels. A minority of motorists (that would be us) DEMAND all of our cars to be RWD, but if it's not practical or economical, an automaker isn't going make a RWD car for a slim few.

    • And then we have cars like the Toyota GT-86 and Hyundai Genesis Coupe. Neither will sell (GT-86) or sells (Genesis Coupe) in huge quantities... but does a heck of a lot for each brand when it comes to enthusiasts.

      • And there's the rub.

        Do you throw money into engineering a low-volume car that is suppose to be pitched at people who want the fun of RWD but only have money for used cars?

        Or do you say 'Screw it' and make the car on the cheap becasue money is being lost on each unit just for the odd chance that the car might serve as a 'quazi halo car' for the brand that rope people into the old Sloan ladder?

        I mean a production 130 could woo me, but not if it's being built to a price and reminds me of a Cobalt.

        • Grawdaddy, i think you are missing the point entirely Enthusiast do far more to hurt or help a Automakers image than ANY advertising can. there is a whole generation of car lovers curusing the streets right now thinking that the Nissan GTR is the end all be all of cars simpley because an enthusiest created a car game (Grand Turismo) that fellow enthusiest flocked to and displayed the GTR a car not even sold on these shores i might add, in god like favor.

          We would not even have a R35 GTR on these shores if it wasn't for enthusiast, (99.9% of which can't afford a GTR or will the ever have one). But you know why Nissan spent the millions necessary to develop the R35 GTR? because they knew that the marketing benefit that they would reap from the Enthusiast community would do wonders for the Nissan brand as a whole world wide.

          Every sports car, super car, exotic, and to a lesser extent Luxury car ever made owes their existence to interest first shown by Enthusiast.

          GM hasn't had a firm grip on the youth market and more importantly the Enthusiast market since the early 70s. and a major reason for that is the shortsighted quick money policy of ignoring that segment or making half-assed attempts to appease it. (lets go down the list of "sticker job/ appearance enhanced" performance legends GM turned out in the last 30 years...SMH). those cars nearly sealed GM's fate as merely a producer of heartless, sorry excuses for transportation among the general enthusiast minded community.

          A reputation that is so pervasive that GM can barely sell a Corvette that best nearly every car it's compared against in nearly every way, AT NEARLY HALF THE PRICE OF IT's COMPETITORS!!

          Cars that are aimed at the performance and Enthusiast community show a Automakers heart. they show what that company is truly about and what type of passion motivates them to engineer, produce and sell cars in the first place.

          Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari road cars (which Enzo hated by the way) Lamborghini, Porsche, Bugatti, Duesenburg, Lotus, Honda, Chevy, Ford,
          Audi, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Jaguar, Lotus, and many more, owe everything that they stake their reputations on to the endorsement of the Enthusiast community.

          If you build a product aimed at the Enthusiast community and build it like you give a damn, you'd be surprised how far that praise and loyalty will take you, and who will get swept up in it along the way. Don't believe me? Look at BMW.

          When that first 2002 hit these shores, who would have thought that nearly 40 years later the reputation that that car established would lead to a full line of cars AND SUVs (of all things) bought buy a majority of customers who don't know a thing about ultimate driving machines or how to use them.

• Let's not get away from the topic at hand. It's about which one we like and whether or not GM should make these. First, an opinion. If we lived in a "perfect" world, all cars would be rwd. However, companies are more concerned with cost than with what their consumers want. I think the 140s is gorgeous. I also think that the 130r looks like a queer(unusual), poor attempt to clone an rx-8 (which is a disgusting destruction of the beautiful rx-7).
  Too many of you guys are confusing drivetrains and styling. These are two totally different factors. Younger buyers demand style above many other features. The 140s is SO much nicer than the 130r.
  With respect to the rwd vs fwd argument, I agree with the majority. I've only ever owned fwd (except for my 1990 f-150 beater...rip). Rwd cars are either too damn expensive, or have mid-life crisis written all over them. If both cars can be built for $20k-ish, why can't they offer rwd on both models. Stop knocking the 140s for being fwd.
  Finally, yes GM, you need to build these cars. They are very practical. The 140s is beautiful. My only gripe is about the poor choice or limiting rwd to the ugly sister. If GM really wants us to decide for them, have them read the hundreds of blogs demanding that these be built. And that the much sexier 140s be given it's very much deserved rwd drivetrain.