  Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 968 Registered: 08-2006 |
All the cool new models we've been hearing about recently that GM wants to bring out are likely getting shit canned. Luckily the Camaro is still coming out next year. LUTZ: FUTURE REAR-DRIVE MODELS ON HOLD General Motors Corp. is delaying some of its upcoming rear-wheel-drive vehicles until the future of U.S. fuel economy and emissions standards becomes clearer, Vice Chairman Bob Lutz tells the Chicago Tribune. The new wave of rwd models are mainly large cars and performance- oriented derivatives with relatively low fuel economy. GM had been planning several new rwd vehicles based on its Australian-developed Zeta platform. First up is the new Chevrolet Camaro coupe, which Lutz says is too far along to stop. It’s due to be launched in late 2008. But other models may not be as fortunate. Among them, according to Lutz, are several Cadillacs, the next-generation Chevrolet Impala sedan, a replacement for the fullsize Buick Lucerne sedan, a high-performance midsize Pontiac and possible 300-hp versions of the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky roadsters. Additional body styles for the Camaro also are in jeopardy. Lutz estimates that a White House proposal to raise corporate average fuel economy standards would add $5,000 to the cost of new vehicles. The U.S. Supreme Court also has ruled that the country’s Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, which could result in higher fuel economy standards too. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2545 Registered: 10-2003 |
Why is this stupidity? The rules are about to change. The vehicles they are killing can't be made to meet the new rules. It seems this is very wise planning on GM's part. No point in designing a vehicle you can't legally sell. That would be a huge waste of money for a cash strapped company. These are the kind of decisions they should have been making earlier. If they had made these decisions earlier they wouldn't be in the world of hurt they're in. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1434 Registered: 11-2003 |
This is GM trying to make vehicles that fit peoples taste, which are vehicles that are fuel efficient. Front wheel drive is much more efficient than rear wheel. This is a survival move, GM wants to build on their success they have been having as of late, and having vehicles that meet the possible new fuel standards is just plain a smart move. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 969 Registered: 08-2006 |
Why can't they just bring out the proposed cars, and focus more development on making the power trains more economical? Putting all the development dollars in SUVs and producing bland cars is what got GM in the straits they're in now. Lutz's statements sound like we can expect nothing new from them, just more boring updates to front drive Impalas' and Malibus'. These proposed cars were what people really wanted, and have been leaving the domestics for years to get from Import Mfr's. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 485 Registered: 07-2006 |
I would hope they would limit their new rwd, but not eliminate them completely - i was afraid they would make all the W-body replacements rwd, which i think would be a mistake, completely ignoring people that actually prefer the fuel economy and winter handling of a front-wheel drive vehicle. If Pontiac moves to rwd, that would be fine, since that's supposed to be the 'performance' division, but not Chevy. | ||
Queensfinest Member Username: Queensfinest Post Number: 85 Registered: 08-2006 |
The stupidity here lies in the fact that most of these inefficient vehicles have already been designed and all kinds of resources have been wasted in the process. How much time, money, and effort has been wasted on models that will now probably never be produced? I think maybe you could have called GM "smart" if they would have had the foresight a few years ago to realize that something like this would happen in the near future. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 486 Registered: 07-2006 |
cambrian - have you seen the 08 malibu? FAR better than the current model. nothing wrong with a fwd, it's the styling that hurt them, and styling is hardly limited to rwd alone. as you said, people have been forced to get rwd from imports, so i have no problem with some being developed, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of fwd, which is what they have been moving towards in anything bigger than an epsilon-based car. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11477 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Bullshit. The new vehicles CAN meet the new rules. It's simply that they continue to make SUV's their top priority in regards to research and development. My dad's car is 12 years old and gets 27 mpg highway, while still having 300 hp and being rwd. Had they put a greater effort into their cars instead of their SUV's, this wouldn't have been a problem at all. Now, instead, they feel they need the quick and easy band-aid by tossing rwd out the window, going with lighter/more compact/fwd cars. Sorry, I'm not buying into their argument that fwd is more efficient, not when the facts prove otherwise. My biggest question is, how the hell did vehicles become such pigs? You average mid-sized car 40 years ago weighed in around 3,500 lbs, with full sized yachts coming in around 4,000. Today, your midsized car weighs in around 4,000 lbs, with your SUV's weighing in a good 1,000-1,500 lbs more. Gee, ya think maybe it's time to stop concentrating on the SUV market and perhaps focus more on you more economical/fuel efficient car segment? So with this recent announcement, will they switch all of their SUV's to front wheel drive...since it's obviously soooo much more fuel efficient. | ||
Psip Member Username: Psip Post Number: 1789 Registered: 04-2005 |
Personally I think GM should think about reissuing classic cars, When cherry 57 Belair go for $250,000 at auction, GM should get 125K for a brand new one that meets current regs. or how about a brand new 1953 Corvette? 1959 Caddy? Build a several year supply maybe 10,000. Does anyone know how the T Bird reissue worked out for Ford? I know its a far out idea, just a thought. | ||
Wash_man Member Username: Wash_man Post Number: 410 Registered: 05-2006 |
I'm thinking he was planning on cancelling them any way. Now he can blame the cancellation and the related loss of jobs on the White House. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 970 Registered: 08-2006 |
I thought the latest in Auto Speak was that front wheel drive was obsolete, what with the technological advancements to RWD cars available with traction control. Benz has a diesel engined RWD E body capable of 0 to 60 in the low 6s while delivering 35 MPG. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11478 Registered: 10-2003 |
Tbird was somewhat of a flop, thus it's short production. Ford fumbled that one though. They built a car that appealed to nobody. Don't get me wrong, the styling turned out great! Yet they built a 4,000 lb pig that was underpowered and overpriced. If you are going to build a V8 powered roadster, the thing needs to be quick and nimble. The Tbird was neither. The Solstice and Sky are fine examples of what the Tbird should have tried to be more like. Both sell for about 1/2 the price the tbird did, and even though they are powered by 4 cylinders, outperform the Tbird in their top performance trim. Toss in the Chevy SSR as another failed vehicle from the start. If you wanna make a fun, two seat sports truck, you don't start with a 5,300 platform. The Chevy Syclone was a good example of a fast/fun truck, the SSR was a joke. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2022 Registered: 06-2004 |
quote:Welcome to the wonderful world of Research & Development - this happens in R&D in every industry. quote:Facts don't prove otherwise - all other things being equal fwd will be more efficient. It's inherent in the physics of a forward moving car. The weight gain has to do with safety and EPA requirements, along with customer demands for interior features. | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 824 Registered: 02-2007 |
"Why is this stupidity?" That and the title is HILARIOUS! | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 487 Registered: 07-2006 |
quote: cars 40 years ago didn't have airbags, sensors for everything, nav units, power this that and everything, dual climate controls, ABS, 18 cupholders... the list goes on... honestly, all that stuff together ways far more than the 500 lb difference you mentioned. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 971 Registered: 08-2006 |
Don't forget the sound deadeners and sealers add some tonnage. Those weren't the norm 20 years back. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 527 Registered: 08-2006 |
Sport- If what you say is true, How come a 303hp fwd impala runs identical 1/4 miles times as a 350hp rwd charger ? 14.1 if your wondering | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11479 Registered: 10-2003 |
Impala curb weight: 3,711 lbs 18/27 Charger curb weight: 4,100 lbs 17/25 mpg It takes more power to push a heavier car, thus the lower powered Impala is just as fast as the Charger. It should also be noted that a good chunk of that weight difference is due to Dodge using a cast iron engine block, as opposed to chevy's cast aluminum block. Probably a difference of about 100 lbs right there. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 528 Registered: 08-2006 |
I guess I should have checked weight first! I didn't think those chargers weighed that much! Sorry not a mopar guy. Give me a GSX or GNX any day over a hemi. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 529 Registered: 08-2006 |
Anyways back to topic, this is going to kill any momentum caddy has right now. If you have ever driven a fwd northstar you know what I mean. They have to electro-nanny the hell out of that motor. Without 2 separate trac. controls they would probably spit out half-shafts and transmissions left and right. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11480 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: True. 40 years ago they also didn't have standard aluminum blocks, aluminum cylinder heads, aluminum intakes, aluminum water pumps, aluminum radiators, plastic cooling fans , aluminum rack and pinion steering, aluminum trailing arms, aluminum upper and lower control arms, mini-starters, plastic body panels, and even plastic engine components, as they do today. I installed many of those components on my nearly 40 year old car, and the weight dropped even further, to around 3,250 lbs. With the addition of aluminum heads, my car will likely be under 3,200 lbs, or close to it, even with a roll cage. I now have a full 12 point roll cage installed, complete with side impact x-bars over each door, and will have 5 point harnesses as well, making it safer than any new car built today. If I desired, I could even add all the luxuries that come standard in today's cars, and it would still come in weighing less than the nearly 4,000 lb pigs they build today, with a REAL subframe under it too. How in the world they get cars to weigh as much as they do when they don't even have anything resembling a frame under them is beyond me. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 974 Registered: 08-2006 |
I worked on the development team at Chicago Assembly for the '96 Taurus / Sable. The '96 was a good 500 lbs heavier then the '95. I asked why once and one of the Engineers took me up on a platform for the Bodyside line where operators applied an expandable sealer. There was a 3lb purge bucket to catch nozzle drips. The engineer told me to pick it up. I tried and nearly blew my guts out my ass! I swear the material in the bucket had more mass then concrete. The purpose of these sealers is to minimize JD power complaints related to squeaks, water leaks and air noise. But alas, we now have pleasing, quiet cars that are hogs. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 295 Registered: 11-2006 |
While I strongly disagree with the "rules" and the justification for them, GM is seems to be making decisions based on the right reasons...being successful. This includes making desirable products at competitive prices. The rules have a direct impact on the production costs and an indirect impact on consumer preferences. So....do what is best for a thriving company, these trends will come and go, if some of us don't like the current trends, we just need to wait it out. | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 1226 Registered: 12-2005 |
The two Asian companies that are eating more and more of GM's lunch every year are not basing their sales numbers on RWD high performance cars. What may be happening here is that GM might be thinking they need to get serious about fuel economy and stop trying to recreate some 1968 magic. I love old cars (I have two), muscle cars, performance and sports cars but the race has clearly come down to quality (which to most US buyers=inital fit and finish and long term reliability, no break downs, no quarterly $700 repairs after the warranty expires) and fuel economy. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 159 Registered: 04-2006 |
I don't know what you mean by a "desirable" product, Ccbatson. The one GM division that's been getting positive press for its lineup lately has been Cadillac, which switched almost all its models to rear-drive. How you can call an Impala or a Monte Carlo "desirable" is beyond me. They provide decent A-to-B transportation, but they won't get anyone excited and will draw no one to GM showrooms who wouldn't have been there already. GM as it currently exists is not capable of out-Toyotaing Toyota. They've got to try for niches, because I don't think they'll win over the mainstream in this lifetime with boring, reliable cars at standard prices. And another thing: The domestics have put a great deal of effort over the past few years into convincing your average buyer that rear-drive is the way to go, and now suddenly it's 1980 again and we're supposed to believe that Chevettes and Citations are a suitable replacement for Camaros and Chevelles. (Message edited by BearInABox on April 12, 2007) | ||
Mercman Member Username: Mercman Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2006 |
Bearinabox, I was just about to say what you did...this whole scenario has played out before...automakers freaked out, and produced some real fine works of art in the early 80's. Only difference is that NOW the technology exists; it's the thoughts, mindsets, politics and viewpoints of consumers that need to change. | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1351 Registered: 11-2003 |
This is smart. They should take a step back before they dive in headfirst and find out way later they made a mistake. It will cost money, but not as much as it would should these cars be put on sale. Add to it, that they will sill be making these cars for China, Australia, and some other countries, plus, Holden (GM Australia) has already done most of the engineering and the cars are already on the road in other parts of the world means that they're not throwing all that R&D down the toilet, they're just saying that some of the variants they had wanted to sell in the US are getting a good hard look. You must also remember too that GM likely has the biggest or 2nd biggest issue in regards to CAFE. While I don't know the exact laws or classifications, my understanding is it is corporate fleet and includes all light trucks, minivans, cars, etc. GM trucks and SUVs are immensely popular, and they sell a zillion of them. Because of their popularity, the weighted average is pulled way down and requires a ton of cars to help get back to the required number. GM cars aren't so popular, so they've really gotta make them get good economy so each one on the road pulls up the average as much as possible. Only Ford might be in a worse position, but at least they have decent selling midsizers to offset the trucks. Contrast this to Toyota or Honda, who have cars that are extremely popular and don't sell many trucks. This means the trucks they do sell can be gas hogs, cause they sell enough cars to offset the trucks. So, if Toyota wanted to do RWD and would get the same mileage as GM doing it, they could, because they sell enough Prius and Corollas and Camry's to make up for it. GM probably can't, because they need cars with higher mileage to offset their very popular trucks. Kinda a shame, because when you compare car to car, GM models are actually quite fuel efficient (compare their trucks/SUV's to Ford or Toyota, or the Impala to the Avalon, or the Malibu to the V6 camry, etc). They don't get bad mileage in comparison. But they do get screwed because people buy MILLIONS of the low MPG stuff and not nearly enough Malibus or Impalas to make up for it. CAFE plays right into Toyota and Honda's hands. They already sell a ton of fuel efficient models, and will clearly be the go-to if we need to start driving smaller cars. This allows them the ability to sell their trucks to the few people that still want them. GM simply does not have that luxury, and that is why these RWD cars are a big ? right now. CAFE has been a failure. It has only forced the automakers to make the sacrifices while we (Americans) essentially get to drive as much as we always have, pay for cheap gas, and don't have to sacrifice anything in the name of conservation or emissions. I feel that is bogus. CAFE has improved the fuel economy of cars, but because gas is so cheap and the cars get such good economy, our population base has spread, and we drive further today with more cars on the road than in the 70's. Overall fuel usage has INCREASED because of this. Should we implement some sort of tax incentive, or higher fuel tax (that goes towards maintaining current roads or building great transit), we would likely change our habits significantly. We would live closer to work. We would drive less. We would WANT to buy small, fuel efficient cars (whereas today we still want big cars, we just want automakers to give them better MPG so we can feel less guilty about it). That would really go a long way to stopping fuel consumption, not just making people able to drive more and use the same amount of fuel for the same cost. Its all about the benjamins. Nothing will change on fuel usage in the US until the gov't gets this. Unfortunately nobody will propose we sacrifice, because they don't wanna piss off the people who put them in office. It is always somebody else's problem. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 300 Registered: 11-2006 |
Bearinabox...here are a few noncadillac products....Corvette, Saturn Sky/Solstice, Pickup trucks (TOTY), Acadia/Outlook, Trailblazer SS, and the upcoming Camaro. Jerome81...Amen. | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 940 Registered: 11-2003 |
Bearinabox wrote, "...it's 1980 again and we're supposed to believe that Chevettes and Citations are a suitable replacement for Camaros and Chevelles." Hey, my parents had a 1980 Citation (drove it for 16 years) and it was a hell of a lot more useful to them than a Camaro or Chevelle would have been. The fuel economy was great, the front-wheel drive was great in snow, and the hatchback could store a LOT of stuff. True, the flywheel had issues and the brakes needed too much work. But it was a lot more practical for everyday useful stuff than a Camaro! | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 984 Registered: 08-2006 |
I find it interesting all the people that decreed their support for more V6 Fwd cars on this thread. You listen to the the media, and that's not what people are supposed to want any more. If GM can save thier asses by playing safe, will remain to be seen. Historically turn arounds in the auto industry have been due to some bold new model with avant garde styling and many new technological features, like the '57 Plymouth, 56 Rambler, '75 Pacer, or PT Cruiser. Some times though functional boring vehicles can do it to, like the '81 K car did. | ||
Mikie Member Username: Mikie Post Number: 44 Registered: 06-2006 |
FYI, CAFE does not consider the volume of cars you sell only the average MPG of the entire fleet offered under 8500lb. There's more information and a sample calculation here: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/ rules/cafe/overview.htm | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 780 Registered: 12-2005 |
Groan! More DetroitYES! Stupidity!! Mikie wrote: quote: From the link that Mikie provided: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy... of a manufacturer’s fleet... manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Mikie, what part of "sales weighted average fuel economy" don't you understand? (Message edited by Mikeg on April 14, 2007) | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 987 Registered: 08-2006 |
I don't understand, please enlighten. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 781 Registered: 12-2005 |
Mikie apparently read Jerome81's post (above) where he mentioned that "But they do get screwed because people buy MILLIONS of the low MPG stuff and not nearly enough Malibus or Impalas to make up for it." Mikie then apparently went to the NHTSA "CAFE Overview" web page and somehow concluded that the number of vehicles sold has nothing to do with the CAFE calculation and then comes back here and posts a bogus "FYI". A manufacturer's CAFE number most definitely takes into account both the EPA fuel economy values for each of their models as well as the number of vehicles sold of each model during that model year. The formula used by NHTSA (and shown on their web page) to calculate a manufacturer's CAFE number therefore produces a "sales weighted" CAFE. As a example, if a manufacturer offers only two models and offers them physically unchanged in two consecutive model years, their CAFE would rise if in the second year they sold 1,000 more of the higher MPG model and 1,000 fewer of the lower MPG model. | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 847 Registered: 02-2007 |
'Mikie apparently read Jerome81's post (above) where he mentioned that "But they do get screwed because people buy MILLIONS of the low MPG stuff and not nearly enough Malibus or Impalas to make up for it."' You said that like no one else would read Jerome's post. |
