You know, it worries me that there is not a single picture of the inside of the bed. The closest we get is the side shot where it's apparent that the stock trunklid is still attached to the car, with some kind of hot-tub cover stretched over the lid and what was once the back seat.

This sucks. Private individuals may have Saab collections, but there will likely never be another Saab museum again.

Just kidding.

This makes me nostalgic for the old days at Tiny Tim's on Woodward in Royal Oak. Like almost all the kids there, I started off using a rental slot car, got hooked, saved my money, bought one of my own and spent endless hours working out how to tweak it for extra speed, better grip (and better looks, of course!).

You get what the flashy movie secret agents don't—the point is to blend in, and thus the car you drive should blend in wherever you are. It might be a silver minivan, a beige Camry, a taxicab yellow Crown Vic, a Toyota Hilux or a W123 Benz.

Well, the PR-blather was too annoying to keep reading—stopped part way through the E36.

It would be something along the lines of the Rinspeed eXasis, albeit in black, white, or aluminum with some oleophobic glass thrown in the mix.

Interesting. Unless it's absolutely waterproof, though, I would think that a freezing-rain/snow mix would just freeze the cover to the car. Ever have any problems with that?

Generally, I'd agree with you—especially as I'm not really a fan of the 262. But the 960's inline-6 isn't exactly Volvo's most trouble-free engine. Although not as refined, I'd much rather have a 940 Turbo for the long haul.

I love old Volvos, but the 262C has always been my least favorite.

Uncle Josip approves.

My IT guy drove one of these too, but he was thinking outside of the box and shifted his paradigm right into a dark green one. With the "gold badge" package.

I don't know where you get your info from, so I can't comment on your theory that it's a "mechanical preview" of the next Camaro. That being said, a vehicle's mechanical systems are usually "previewed" via the use of test mules, not concept cars.

"January 12th, 2012 at 12:00 pm (multiply those numbers and you get 86)"

It's because concept cars are supposed to be about "out there" styling or design, pushing the envelope. The 700C pushes the envelope of minivan styling and, love it or hate it, is pretty dramatic looking. It therefore serves its purpose as a concept car, even if a future production version shares little with it.

That'd be one hell of a small Camaro. But even if the car is a "mechanical preview" of anything, there's really no excuse for going so bland with the bodywork. A concept car is a piece of advertising for the brand—it doesn't need to accelerate quickly, handle well, have good ergonomics, meet safety or CAFE…

Spot on. As a concept car, the Code 130R is offensive: it would be a bland production car, but as a concept, it's simply inexcusable and shows a sad lack of imagination. Not that the Tru 140S is any better—copying a Mitsubishi Eclipse doesn't take much imagination either.

Not sure where you're coming from—the Ventura was just Pontiac's version of the Nova, sold in the United States. Also, this was in Michigan, not Nebraska (not that it makes any particular difference).

Bread and circuses for the showgoers.

Well, shit. I was semi-joking when I suggested that Chevy's new concept might be a riff on the Citation notchback ([jalopnik.com]), but in the case of the Code 130R, I guess I was sort of right.