Originally Posted by FaastLegacy
You're ignoring the question here though. Besides (subjective) looks, why would you purchase an SSR over 'vette? That's my point and that's likely why this car was the failure that it was. It didn't do anything better than the 'vette, cost just as much and had a modicum of the performance.
What about not wanting the stiff ride, the low driving postion, smaller storage space(sure the bed was useless, but could still carry more luggage than the vert vette), unique car...Sure those are all old-man features, but who buys vettes these days anyway?
To be clear, I'd prefer a vette too. In fact, there aren't too many cars north of 50,000 that I'd take a vette over anyway. I'm just saying that the SSR had more to offer than it gets credit for. As long as it's performance based, you're right. Once you go to different expected experiences, they each fill different needs for the person on the weekend cruise up the coast.
I'm not really ignoring the question. I just think that price, initial failings and no marketing behind corrections, and disgustingly poor option and feature content choices are why it failed.
, and I still think it's beautiful.