Chevy debuts the Beat, Groove and Trax mini car concepts

[pcsario]

 

NEW YORK – Three Chevrolet minicar global concepts designed to appeal to young car buyers in urban markets prove that art needn't take a back seat just because the canvas is small. Revealed today at the New York Auto Show, the highly creative Chevrolet Beat, Chevrolet Groove and Chevrolet Trax concepts drive the energy, diversity and excitement of urban life into cars that deliver good-looking fun, fuel economy and value.

 

Democracy lovers will even get the chance to pick their favorite by visiting www.vote4chevrolet.com and casting their vote for the Beat, Groove or Trax. The results will help Chevrolet determine U.S. market interest in the minicar segment, and which design/capability package resonates best with potential buyers.

 

All three concepts were designed at GM's Design Studio in Inchon , South Korea . One of GM's 11 Global Design Studios, the designers in the Korean center are experts in small car product development.

 

 

Here's a look at Chevrolet's three minicar concepts:

 

• Chevrolet Beat : Designed to evoke the mood of a speedy micro import tuner, the Beat is a front-wheel-drive, three-door hatchback concept built to be personalized, and powered by a 1.2-liter turbocharged gasoline engine mated to an automatic transmission. It's loaded with technology, including a navigation system and premium stereo.
  

• Chevrolet Groove: A "funkastalgia"-themed vehicle too tough-looking to be "cute," the Groove concept is a retro-inspired vehicle with bodacious fender flares and an upright windshield. It looks much longer than it is, thanks to its short hood and long cabin. The front-drive Groove is powered by a small, efficient 1-liter diesel engine.
  

• Chevrolet Trax: An urban crossover concept that's equally at home on the trails or in traffic, it gets a low-cost all-wheel-drive system and looks the part of a rugged SUV many times its size, thanks to a voluminous one-piece bumper and fender system in the front and back, a rear-mounted spare tire and a roof rack. Trax is powered by a 1-liter gas engine.

Gallery: New York Auto Show: 2007 Chevy Beat Concept

Gallery: New York Auto Show: 2007 Chevy Groove Concept

Gallery: New York Auto Show: 2007 Chevy Trax Concept

[DCK]

Gallery: New York Auto Show: 2007 Chevy Beat Concept

Gallery: New York Auto Show: 2007 Chevy Groove Concept

Gallery: New York Auto Show: 2007 Chevy Trax Concept

Those would be some awesome scion competitiors and give the brand a better image.

[swenson88]

Those would be some awesome scion competitiors and give the brand a better image.

 

I agree. The blue one and green one are pretty attractive for what they are, certainly as "attractive" as the Scion models.

[falconman13]

They look like toys, and I mean that as a compliment. Like one of the little cars you get in a box of Cpt Crunch or something.

At least they arent boring

[suv_guy_19]

Those would be some awesome scion competitiors and give the brand a better image.

 

 

I would say probably the green one will be built.

[NickF1011]

Pretty darn cool, I must say. Sure makes the Aveo look like crapola.

[IMSA-XJR9]

Pretty darn cool, I must say. Sure makes the Aveo look like crapola.

 

Agreed.

[ebritt]

Pretty darn cool, I must say. Sure makes the Aveo look like crapola.

 

Doesent take much to do that.....my dog puked this morning and IT looked better than the Aveo. Maybe Aveo is Korean for "looks worse than dog puke"?

 

Would be interesting to see how much US content would be in these cars....

[suv_guy_19]

Doesent take much to do that.....my dog puked this morning and IT looked better than the Aveo. Maybe Aveo is Korean for "looks worse than dog puke"?

 

Would be interesting to see how much US content would be in these cars....

 

 

you practically stole my post lol...

[Josh Oliver]

Here are videos of all three for those interested.

 

http://www.thegmsource.com/index.php?categ...2_articleid=361

[RichardJensen]

Why are these things carrying the Chevrolet badge?

 

Why aren't they carrying a Saturn badge?

 

Is it because Saturns are upscale import-fighters?

 

These cars are PERFECT for the Saturn that most people KNOW, and which some people love, and they are just a huge headscratcher, IMO, as Chevy vehicles. Chevy is NOT, for most Americans, a company that sells funky urban street mobiles. Saturn isn't either, but given the two divisions, Saturn has a far better line on that kind of business then "Like a Rock" "This is our Country" Chevy.

 

---

 

On a related note, Sweet Petey D's rant this week's about how GM has so many good models, they can't market them all.

 

Makes me think that if GM's new models weren't such HUGE stretches for their respective divisions (Saturn midsize that doesn't have a 4-cylinder option, $40k Saturn CUV, unibody V6 powered FWD GMC), they would be easier to market.

 

Ridiculous. GM will get more success, out of less money, with the Chevy Malibu this fall, than they got with Saturn anything. Why? Because people expect Chevy to sell cars like the Malibu--they just need to be informed that this Malibu is a good car.

 

You dig holes for yourself when you launch products that have no definable connection to the brands they are sold under.

Edited April 4, 2007 by RichardJensen

[DCK]

Why are these things carrying the Chevrolet badge?

 

Why aren't they carrying a Saturn badge?

 

Is it because Saturns are upscale import-fighters?

 

These cars are PERFECT for the Saturn that most people KNOW, and which some people love, and they are just a huge headscratcher, IMO, as Chevy vehicles. Chevy is NOT, for most Americans, a company that sells funky urban street mobiles. Saturn isn't either, but given the two divisions, Saturn has a far better line on that kind of business then "Like a Rock" "This is our Country" Chevy.

 

---

 

On a related note, Sweet Petey D's rant this week's about how GM has so many good models, they can't market them all.

 

Makes me think that if GM's new models weren't such HUGE stretches for their respective divisions (Saturn midsize that doesn't have a 4-cylinder option, $40k Saturn CUV, unibody V6 powered FWD GMC), they would be easier to market.

 

Ridiculous. GM will get more success, out of less money, with the Chevy Malibu this fall, than they got with Saturn anything. Why? Because people expect Chevy to sell cars like the Malibu--they just need to be informed that this Malibu is a good car.

 

You dig holes for yourself when you launch products that have no definable connection to the brands they are sold under.

Well Lutz already stated saturn will get the next generation Corsa...............................by that I mean the one after the one that just launched so in about 5 years. Pretty far away but atleast it is confirmed.

 

 

GM could of played to Saturn's image but they decided that it needed to be transformed into something else, so that is what they did. It will take time for the brands perception to change in the market place.

 

 

When you have a very damaged brand like saturn was you can, like you have suggested with mercury, find out why people who buy from the brand buy from the brand and focus on those needs. Or what Saturn done was to forget about its past and becoe something new.

[NickF1011]

You dig holes for yourself when you launch products that have no definable connection to the brands they are sold under.

 

I don't recall Lincoln being reknowned for their fullsize SUV's prior to the Navigator's launch in the 90's. The result was the spawning of an entirely new vehicle segment and becoming arguably Lincoln's most successful vehicle in the past 30 years.

 

There's nothing wrong with trying to expand brands into areas in which they previously didn't compete, but it needs to be a more calculated risk than some of the decisions GM has been making with its brand management lately.

Edited April 4, 2007 by NickF1011

[DCK]

I don't recall Lincoln being reknowned for their fullsize SUV's prior to the Navigator's launch in the 90's. The result was the spawning of an entirely new vehicle segment and becoming arguably Lincoln's most successful vehicle in the past 30 years.

 

There's nothing wrong with trying to expand brands into areas in which they previously didn't compete, but it needs to be a more calculated risk than some of the decisions GM has been making with its brand management lately.

Well to GM's benefit, before there was way too much overlapping between brands and ultimately what defined those brands didn't exist anymore.

 

I definately understand your point about the calculated risk but that wasn't an option open for GM, They wanted to create a different brand identity for each of their brands and they felt it needed to be done fast. Therefore just taking calculated risks would not result in the outcome of brand identity that they established already with cadillac and now saturn and what is becoming of pontiac and eventually(well atleast hopefully) Buick. Chevy is moving into a true Toyota competitor that actually has correct product to compete in respected segments when a few years ago all chevy car offerings were tweenies and same with pricing.

[RichardJensen]

I don't recall Lincoln being reknowned for their fullsize SUV's prior to the Navigator's launch in the 90's. The result was the spawning of an entirely new vehicle segment and becoming arguably Lincoln's most successful vehicle in the past 30 years.

 

There's nothing wrong with trying to expand brands into areas in which they previously didn't compete, but it needs to be a more calculated risk than some of the decisions GM has been making with its brand management lately.

True--- to a point.

 

Lincoln was known as a purveyor of luxury vehicles. Ergo a luxury SUV was not a huge stretch. People would not be as prepared for a fullsize BOF BMW SUV--a BMW Navigator, if you will, because BMWs need to have an edge.

 

But since Lincoln didn't have that "ultimate driving machine" baggage, they could simply upfit an Expedition in the same way that they had been upfitting Ford cars for decades.

 

Yes, it was a gamble, but not as big a gamble as deciding to change buyer perception of the brand (viz: LS).

 

And that's the point: The Navigator challenged what Lincoln was in terms of product, but it didn't challenge what Lincoln was in terms of perception.

[RichardJensen]

When you have a very damaged brand like saturn was you can, like you have suggested with mercury, find out why people who buy from the brand buy from the brand and focus on those needs. Or what Saturn done was to forget about its past and becoe something new.

Well, let's take this on two levels:

 

Is Saturn a damaged 'brand'?

 

I would argue emphatically not. The Saturn 'brand', I would argue has one of the clearest associations of any GM brand apart from Hummer. Saturns are inexpensive no-hassle somewhat quirky cars.

 

This is not a bad place to be, it's a very good place to be. In other industries where consumer driven marketing has taken root, companies would KILL to have Saturn's crystal clear identity.

 

---

 

What is the problem with Saturn?

 

PRODUCT. Not perception.

 

You can spend a fortune on product and not change perception.

 

You can spend a fortune on product AND perception, and barely change perception (viz: Cadillac).

 

---

 

The problem is that it's altogether too easy for a group of GM executives to 'forget' about Saturn's past. The ease with which Saturn can be 'repositioned' within GM's hierarchy belies the challenges of altering customer perceptions. GM has neither the time, nor IMO, the patience, to see a Saturn rebranding through.

 

As much as it costs to alter public perceptions, as much time as involved, and as little volume as Saturn does, this is not a winning proposition.

[DCK]

Well, let's take this on two levels:

 

Is Saturn a damaged 'brand'?

 

I would argue emphatically not. The Saturn 'brand', I would argue has one of the clearest associations of any GM brand apart from Hummer. Saturns are inexpensive no-hassle somewhat quirky cars.

 

This is not a bad place to be, it's a very good place to be. In other industries where consumer driven marketing has taken root, companies would KILL to have Saturn's crystal clear identity.

 

---

 

What is the problem with Saturn?

 

PRODUCT. Not perception.

 

You can spend a fortune on product and not change perception.

 

You can spend a fortune on product AND perception, and barely change perception (viz: Cadillac).

 

---

 

The problem is that it's altogether too easy for a group of GM executives to 'forget' about Saturn's past. The ease with which Saturn can be 'repositioned' within GM's hierarchy belies the challenges of altering customer perceptions. GM has neither the time, nor IMO, the patience, to see a Saturn rebranding through.

 

As much as it costs to alter public perceptions, as much time as involved, and as little volume as Saturn does, this is not a winning proposition.

I definately see your point, though I disagree with you about Cadillac, I believe their perception has changed and will continue to.

 

You are right in the fact good product wasn't there to go along with Saturn's image and maybe they should of tried that out first, and I am sure if good product was there it would of been a success, as it is with almost any brand not doing well, it usually always is the product. We'll see where GM's descision takes us.

[RichardJensen]

I definately see your point, though I disagree with you about Cadillac, I believe their perception has changed and will continue to.

Cadillac's perception has changed, among certain buyers.

 

However, it has not (per Liz Vanzura's comments in last summer's Ad Age) changed as much as GM had expected. Caddy still had very low consideration rates among the customers they were aiming for (30 somethings new to the luxury market).