Chazman

GM RWD on hold?!

201 posts in this topic

http://www.automochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=738

General Motors has put a hold on future rear-wheel-drive vehicles.

"We've pushed the pause button. It's no longer full speed ahead," Vice Chairman Bob Lutz revealed in an interview.

Two of the most important RWD cars in the works are the Chevy Camaro sports coupe due back late in 2008 and the full-size, RWD replacement for the Chevy Impala sedan for 2009. Both are expected to be huge sellers and contribute major profits to a GM till burdened with IOUs the last few years.

"It's too late to stop Camaro, but anything after that is questionable or on the bubble," said Lutz, noting that also means Camaro derivatives -- along with a big Impala sedan, "if we call it Impala."

Edited by Chazman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a war inside of GM about these cars now and if they are even viable with the Global Warming and Fuel Efficiency propaganda going on. This is all very interesting, to say the least. :smilewide:

Edited by Pontiac Custom-S
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Mr. Bush really is serious about changing fuel economy regulations. That makes the small concepts they introduced much more of a priority than big V8 cars.

Wouldn't a turbo or twin turbo 2.8 V6 make a nice engine for the RWD cars, though? Performance wouldn't be at "V8 enthusiast" levels, but it might help bring the larger cars to market while meeting fuel efficiency levels, no?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although a RWD Impala would have been nice (not a huge seller, IMO), they had better get working on the next generation Impala. We don't want this Impala around for 6 years with no changes! And, yeah, I agree: even if 100k Camaros are sold, that won't make the plant profitable. Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they wanted to, it would be easy enough to just bring over the statesman in addition to the G8. That way they could plug the RWD need to say they have it, it just seems to me they are questioning spending so much development money for new cars when the aussie cars could simply be rebadged, if they are being skittish about the net effect of the ecoweenies and blaming climate cycles on cars warming the earth.

but to me, this again exposes greater management weakness. they seem to want to throw their whole corporate direction on one narrowly focused platform approach, and clearly it hasn't worked.

'let's go all fwd'....then the 300 hit and gm was f-ed.

now Gm says 'all RWD' and they worry about getting f-ed again.

well guys, how about this........

THINKING GLOBAL PLATFORMS

1 micro/subcompact FWD platform

1 compact platform

1 or 2 true midsized-large FWD/AWD platforms

1 upper mid sized to large RWD/AWD platform

lambda

and then pickups/full sized vans and suv's for the north american market.

enthusiasts might want a smaller RWD/AWD platform as well.

these architectures could cover over 90% of GM's vehicle offerings GLOBALLY.

then, on top of this, modular 4 cylinder, v6, and v8 engines. how bout some 4 and 6 cyl diesels too.

damn, that doesn't sound too hard? if you continuously devote the resources globally to cover all these possible bases, than you're not f@#kED when one style of platform gets fashionable or heavy use due to fuel economy etc.

this is all about management not planning ahead and understanding the need to develop all of these platforms continually and evolve them over time and not neglecting anything.

DAMN. i am speechless at this news actually. they still have no clue over there.

or as one poster said, it is merely posturing.

In any case, GM needs to figure out how to do business on the fly. They need to learn how to function so that decisions they make aren't so live or die and so that decisions made one day can be reversed or that decisions don't need to be nmade 4 years in advance of showroom day. hows about 1 year, concept to market. If the platform is always there, its a whole lot easier to do.

Again, Americans, tripping over their own two feet, not having a clue about how to evolve and stay ahead of the game.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they wanted to, it would be easy enough to just bring over the statesman in addition to the G8. That way they could plug the RWD need to say they have it, it just seems to me they are questioning spending so much development money for new cars when the aussie cars could simply be rebadged, if they are being skittish about the net effect of the ecoweenies and blaming climate cycles on cars warming the earth.

Holden can't produce enough of them there to meet our demand. You do realize Holden has just one assembly plant, which needs to produce, cars for it's home market (all the Zeta variants), plus cars for Asia, Mid East, South Africa, and now the G8 for North America. Not to mention the new Ute that is coming.

Holden just can't do it.

Edited by Pontiac Custom-S
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a war inside of GM about these cars now and if they are even viable with the Global Warming and Fuel Efficiency propaganda going on. This is all very interesting, to say the least. :smilewide:

so how is a 3800 pound rear drive v6 G8 that much more of a gas hog than a 3750 pound front drive v6 grand prix?

]"What the public buys makes CAFE work, not what the industry builds," Merkle added. "To improve mileage you change demand, not supply, by raising gas prices through taxes. But no politician is going to do that so they throw the responsibility on the back of the industry."[/b]

Lutz also objects to the talk that carmakers can easily raise mileage with a very low investment.

"Academics assure us that for $200 we can get 30 percent better mileage. If anyone can figure out how to do that for $200 -- or even for $1,000 -- I want them in my office today. Show me how to do it and we'll adopt it," he said. "If I could increase mileage by 30 percent for $200, why wouldn't I? What's my motivation not to when a gas-electric hybrid gets 27 percent better mileage and I hope someday to get the cost down to $9,000?"

Others insist that carmakers simply have to sell more small cars, such as the trio of 1-liter concepts that promise 40 m.p.g.-plus that GM unveiled at the New York Auto Show.

"Small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here, and you can't build small cars here at a profit," Lutz said, explaining that foreign-made cars would count toward the automaker's import fleet, and its domestic fleet is where GM needs help.

note all the multiple underlying issues here.

people wanted to steer demand through the supply chain and not by consumer choice. usually this is hard headed ecoweenies or liberals behind this.

politicians not willing to take the risk of doing the proper thing (raising gas tax) and instead choosing to make the manufacturers look bad.

'academics' and 'experts' saying mpg boosts are easy but offering no solutions or evidence on how to do it. no one offering incentives to say, make carbon fiber or aluminum or electric wheelmotors economically viable for the carmakers for the common good of us all.

no insight on how to sell all those small cars that get 40mpg when clearly no one in this country wants small cars because of no space and deadly crash results.

and the whole can't build small cars profitably here thing means if they legislate the supply chain to make all small cars and we can't make them here it simply means driving the US auto industry out of business. Unless politicans and the public are willing to step up to the plate and support the US not toyota etc. the toyota bangers cannot have it both ways. People would have to stop buying toyotas and clearly they won't do that either. If we need to build small cars here we need to fix all of our trade issues with unfair japan and other 3rd worlders.

Let GM's imported Daewoos count towards their cafe credits then.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so how is a 3800 pound rear drive v6 G8 that much more of a gas hog than a 3750 pound front drive v6 grand prix?

Hey reg, you're asking the wrong guy here buddy. I'm the guy that just bought a 5.3 liter V8 and I don't make US Federal policy. Well not until y'all elect me as the President! :smilewide:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, what's the point? As somebody already said, RWD or FWD doesn't make difference in fuel consumption. So this means GM is abandoning the full-size car segment, be it RWD or FWD?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey reg, you're asking the wrong guy here buddy. I'm the guy that just bought a 5.3 liter V8 and I don't make US Federal policy. Well not until y'all elect me as the President! :smilewide:

oh, it wasn't directed at you, my question was more for the masses, RWD alone of the same size car vs. front drive does not solely account for 30% difference in fuel economy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, what's the point? As somebody already said, RWD or FWD doesn't make difference in fuel consumption. So this means GM is abandoning the full-size car segment, be it RWD or FWD?

Yeah, and who knows what kind of loopholes the regulations will have. What kind of consideration will be given to hybrid models, flex fuel models, diesel models, etc. etc. It would be highly disappointing to learn that GM wasn't already putting some serious emphasis on fuel efficiency with these models. The legislation should leave some question marks in terms of math, but shouldn't be that big of a surprise that it would nix the whole deal.

To me, this is GM's way of keeping interest and suspense around the program. People wondered if GM had tipped their hand too early or if the products would get stale by the time they arrived...well, this is how they'll keep them fresh.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the enviro-freaks could get off our f@#king backs and let us drive what we want.

I agree. I thought developing active fuel management engines was a step in the right direction towards gasoline conservation, but I guess Bob Lutz doesn't think that way anymore. If he thinks creating more fuel efficient (and very slow) V6 engines is the answer, he's sadly mistaken.

Edited by jpstax
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so does this mean that the upcoming G8 is on hold too? And certainly the new CTS (and STS for that matter) aren't being cancelled either, does it? If so, that would be the kiss of death for Cadillac.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL... And all this time I thought it would be an EPIC battle where team Toyota & Co. would triumph over Detroit and subsequently kill our automotive industry.

Never did I imagine the yuppie bastards that drive and hump Toyotas would ACTUALLY put Detroit out of business instead.

Who needs enemies when we have a media, consumers and officials like this.

P.S. And just to clarify, I'm all about better efficiency and saving the environment. But we need to make POSITIVE decisions focused around technology and innovation. Not NEGATIVE decisions that regress our freedom of choice and freedom of commerce. (Which is exactly what a higher gas tax would do---in addition to crashing our PETROLEUM BASED economy)

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the simple issue is fuel economy, and in the midst of engineering development, they realized they weren't hitting high enough goals on that extent. All the better, even if it does delay a great stretch of cars, because one key factor with any new vehicle IS fuel economy, and having the most stunning and wonderful to drive vehicle that guzzles gas is not a good idea.

So, hopefully with the delay, they'll be able to resort some things and ideas, and get a better handle on meeting some really respectable fuel economy stats.

We'll see. But in the meantime, at least the Camaro and G8 skipped out under the door early, and will just have to be dealt with in this regard as time goes on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I can always buy a Hyundai Genesis when it comes out if I want a $30,000 rear drive V8 sedan. :AH-HA_wink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the simple issue is fuel economy, and in the midst of engineering development, they realized they weren't hitting high enough goals on that extent. All the better, even if it does delay a great stretch of cars, because one key factor with any new vehicle IS fuel economy, and having the most stunning and wonderful to drive vehicle that guzzles gas is not a good idea.

So, hopefully with the delay, they'll be able to resort some things and ideas, and get a better handle on meeting some really respectable fuel economy stats.

We'll see. But in the meantime, at least the Camaro and G8 skipped out under the door early, and will just have to be dealt with in this regard as time goes on.

Okay, so the G8 is definitely safe?

I"m only concerned because I think it would be absolutely pathetic if Hyundai offers a car I want, and Pontiac or Chevy doesn't.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll see. But in the meantime, at least the Camaro and G8 skipped out under the door early, and will just have to be dealt with in this regard as time goes on.

I'd also put the LaCrosse Super, and its 5.3 V8 with active fuel management, in that same category. As for the Super Lucerne, who knows?

Edited by jpstax
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to consistently get 28-30 mpg on the highway with old 1998 Camaro Z28 (4 spd auto). I don't understand why they couldn't get that with the new Zeta cars? I do think my city mileage was pretty bad though, maybe in the high teens?? I don't remember.

Seriously though, this won't effect the new CTS, will it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this one...

Almost all of the proposed derivatives of Zeta will have 6 cylinder counterparts...GM wants this to be a global platform, so diesels and 4 cylinder variants must be part of the development process...

Why does an anticipated EPA rule have anything to do with having a World Class platform available to the various divisions. While I can understand that launching a line-up of V8 only monsters would be daunting with gas at $3.50/gal., isn't the meat of this lineup 6 cylinders? (Volume Impy and Camaro will be 6's.)

If the Corvette can get 28 MPG with a 400HP V8, can't these other vehicles do that well or better, given that they will have 6 speeds and, possibly, DI?

If someone can explain the correlation, I'm all ears. Otherwise, my suspicion is that the development dollars have slowed given the anticipated dip in GMT900 sales because of gas prices and the looming incentive war with Ford, Dodge and Toyota in pickups. I find blaming these anticipated EPA regs suspicious.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Loading...