Some Bits From Down Under on RWD Holden and Chevy

[hyperv6]

Here is a interesting story on the RWD down under and their take on the new Holden and Chevy. Also included is the future speculation on the future for Holden and GM.

Note too the talk of the D2XX platform that will replace the Delta II and Theta.

There are a few things on the new SS and the Falcon.

http://www.motoring.com.au/news/large-passenger/commodore-v-falcon-the-final-chapter-34294

Note too the ad for the Colorado 7 opn the right side. After really looking at it I am not a fan. Looks like a Nissan. This is one that may have to grow on me with time if it ever comes here.

Edited January 5, 2013 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

Hmmm, shouldn't this be in the Holden forum?

[Carguy]

I still wish GM would do a new series of platforms that could be both RWD or FWD! With the front axel line positioned ahead of the engine with that engine-trans positioned like in a RWD car. That way the power could be sent to what ever end per brand or model across the GM empire demands! Why spend all the extra money to develope different platforms for FWD and RWD models when a flexable component set to build both off of would be better? With Chevrolet and Buick the standard models could be FWD with the high performance models offered in RWD form within the same model's on the same flexable platform! With Cadillac RWD and AWD could be offered the same way across the lineup! With two flexable new platforms one to cover the sub-compact and compact models and another larger one to cover mid-sized and full-sized ones for Coupes,sedans and crossovers ect! Just think what could be done with a new and fresh platform series like this!!

[hyperv6]

Hmmm, shouldn't this be in the Holden forum?

Hmmm as it is Holden and Chevy are nearly one. Besides there is enough SS info here and more people will see it.

Edited January 5, 2013 by hyperv6

[hyperv6]

I still wish GM would do a new series of platforms that could be both RWD or FWD! With the front axel line positioned ahead of the engine with that engine-trans positioned like in a RWD car. That way the power could be sent to what ever end per brand or model across the GM empire demands! Why spend all the extra money to develope different platforms for FWD and RWD models when a flexable component set to build both off of would be better? With Chevrolet and Buick the standard models could be FWD with the high performance models offered in RWD form within the same model's on the same flexable platform! With Cadillac RWD and AWD could be offered the same way across the lineup! With two flexable new platforms one to cover the sub-compact and compact models and another larger one to cover mid-sized and full-sized ones for Coupes,sedans and crossovers ect! Just think what could be done with a new and fresh platform series like this!!

I am sure GM has already looked at this ten times from Sunday and have found they are better off with RWD and its own FWD platforms. If there were no down side they would have done wide spread by now,

I figure weight and cost would be issues involved.

[Carguy]

I still wish GM would do a new series of platforms that could be both RWD or FWD! With the front axel line positioned ahead of the engine with that engine-trans positioned like in a RWD car. That way the power could be sent to what ever end per brand or model across the GM empire demands! Why spend all the extra money to develope different platforms for FWD and RWD models when a flexable component set to build both off of would be better? With Chevrolet and Buick the standard models could be FWD with the high performance models offered in RWD form within the same model's on the same flexable platform! With Cadillac RWD and AWD could be offered the same way across the lineup! With two flexable new platforms one to cover the sub-compact and compact models and another larger one to cover mid-sized and full-sized ones for Coupes,sedans and crossovers ect! Just think what could be done with a new and fresh platform series like this!!

I am sure GM has already looked at this ten times from Sunday and have found they are better off with RWD and its own FWD platforms. If there were no down side they would have done wide spread by now,

I figure weight and cost would be issues involved.

They did build a platform somewhat like this in the late 1960's through the mid eighties but it was more complex then it needed to be! With the new stronger yet lighter high strength steel and other modern tech with a foundation like Alpha they could easly move the front axel line forward with a new front clip forward of the firewall and begin the idea from there! How could it cost less to develop two unique platforms for FWD and RWD when one would do the job? That does NOT add up!

[hyperv6]

If you look at the work they put into the Alpha to cut weight and to make it better you can see the compromise to make it FWD would result in less of a car. Nearly anytime you make something to universal the end product suffers in more than one way.

I think GM is doing it right with the right platform for the right job. The needs for RWD and FWD are much great. Think of it like the Amphicar. Sure it is a boat and a car but it is a half ass boat and a half ass car. The same thing applies here and the market it too compeititve not to make the platform the best it could be. When others are making the best platform for a specific line anything less will never measure up.

Besides I am sure GM and most other makes have looked at this as on paper it is a great idea but in reality it just is difficult to do properly.