fools

GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles


Published April 10, 2007


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."

The RWD cars, you see, would be larger and heavier than front-wheel-drive cars or are high-performance models.

So it comes down to the matter of fuel economy. Or as Lutz says: "We don't know how to get 30 percent better mileage from" RWD cars.

That 30 percent bogey arises from a proposal by the Bush administration to raise corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards by 4 percent a year so cars would have to average 34 m.p.g. by 2017, up from 27.5 m.p.g. today. On top of that, the Supreme Court ruled last week that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide expelled by cars, a gas that contributes to global warming. The EPA doesn't do so now.

"We'll decide on our rear-drive cars when the government decides on CO(-2) levels and CAFE regulations," Lutz said, adding that limiting CO(-2) would increase mileage, too.

"Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of burning gas and directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned. If we legislate CO(-2) from cars, why not legislate we take one less breath per minute since humans release capricious amounts of CO(-2) each time they exhale?" offered a testy Lutz.

Lutz also points out that higher mileage will come at a price, with the proposal to raise CAFE certain to increase costs by as much as $5,000, which will be added to a car's sticker, an amount most consumers won't be willing to pay. There are no hard numbers for how much CAFE compliance adds to the sticker now.

"Rather than buy new, people would hang onto their old cars. We could eat the $5,000, but that would put us out of business."

Besides, those who see cars as more than just an appliance are eager for the new RWD offerings.

Among other cars affected are a high-performance midsize Pontiac, a replacement for the full-size Buick Lucerne sedan, a compact smaller than the current CTS at Cadillac and possible 300-horsepower versions of the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky roadsters.

"This is very disappointing," noted Erich Merkle, director of forecasting for IRN Inc., in Grand Rapids, Mich. Most of the cars coming are necessary to GM's turnaround as showroom magnets.

"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."

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.

 

That kinda sucks...

Though honestly, GM could do itself a favor by selling fewer gas guzzling SUVs which would bring its CAFE numbers up a fair amount. Their current engine line-up for their cars is not bad on gas, if not quite up to the competition yet.

 

Why do they have to be heavier or high performance models for that matter? Not every RWD car needs 300+ HP.

 

JUST when we thought GM was going in the right direction. Why not just bring over some RWD cars to compete in the $30k+ market?

 

Hmmm, interesting...

 

They do when family FWD sedans are approaching that power

 

this is bullshit

 

Could this be the beginning of the end for the horsepower wars???

 

Yay, here come the 80's again.

 

im predicting there will be ALOT more cobalts SS on the road by 2008

 

So does this CAFE standard not apply to imports... I mean seriously, there's no way Benz is any where near 27 mpg right now considering the most fuel efficient car in its line the C230 only get 19 mpg city and 25 highway....

Wait wait... the SLK280 roadster gets City 20 mpg and 27 highway and well all know there are millions of those rolling around to compensate for every E class getting 18 mpg.

 

I highly doubt it, but we'll see a HUGE rise in DoD motors

 

Maybe I'm in the minority but I want a light, smallish, RWD sedan with decent power. Decent meaning 240-275. The last thing I want is a RWD boat in the mould of a Charger or 300. The G8 looks promising but still kinda big by the looks of it. I don't understand why RWD has to equal big and heavy?

So basically I'd like a RWD TSX with some power Or an affordable 3 series, G35 or IS.

 

ALL cars are getting big and heavy IMO these days, hell an RSX isn't light.

 

I'm with Dom on his last comment, anyway check out these CAFE fines by the import luxury brands... holy shit is all I have to say...

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE...D-SUMMARY.html

 

I know, it needs to stop. It's ridiculous how much of tanks we drive around these days. I would love cars to go back to the size they were in the 80s.

 

I know, I know.

 

Its all those dam airbags

 

damn... wtf is bush up to now... At first it was GM, now just as GM is starting to turn things around a build cars enthusiasts would even be interested in, this new legislation screws things up...

 

now question about the increase...

is this current 27.5 mpg value based on the average of all their "cars" not trucks and SUV's in their lineup or is it an average that each car must beat individually?

If it is an average of all of their car's can't they just create a couple econo-box models to help pull the average down? A couple more Aveo type cars...

 

Cars and Trucks are have different ratings. The problem for GM is they have the econoboxes coming but they are considered import fleet b/c they will be less than 75% assembled in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...e_Fuel_Economy

 

oh my god! who in the hell is in charge over there? this is outrageous...

 

so no G8?

 

I wasn't aware that powering rear wheels instead of fwd could somehow ruin the mileage. Does that have any merit?

 

There goes hope for another incarnation of a GTO

 

Increased drivetrain losses, such as from the driveshaft's rotational inertia (assuming an FR layout).

 

But that's a load of BS. IS250 - 24/32. 328i - 21/30. (Figures from fueleconomy.gov, using 2007 automatic models.) Just because your engineering sucks doesn't mean it's impossible to build a mass-market luxo-boat that's passably fuel-efficient.

 

Trucks and SUVs are GM's bread and butter.

 

GM is trying to use this kind of statement to persuade the consumers to talk to their congressmen. It's not going to work anymore. If GM had produced more fuel efficient sedans, hybrids, they will have no problem offering RWD performance vehicles.

In general, this is what corporate America does: feed people into obese lazy creatures, and have them drive huge trucks and SUVs. On the flip side of the coin, the consumers themselves are to blame. They can make a choice, but a lot of them just make the lazy choice. And this is not just happening in America - other places where economy is doing well too.

The statistics on CAFE fines show you that companies like BMW and Porsche would rather use their profit to pay more fines than working to increase fuel efficiency. Profit is the goal of the business, but I will applaud Honda and Toyota for taking more social responsibility, regardless of whether it's mainly backed by their business decisions.

 

True, but it is also looking like it may be their downfall if the legislation continues in the direction it is going.

 

Those are small displacement, small platform models. That's not what GM has just dumped hundreds of millions into producing with its new Zeta mid/full size platform. GM has been banking on this platform to bring excitement back into American lineups and some political bullshit could put an end to that. Quite frankly if I was Lutz I would be pissed too.

 

The legislation is going to continue in it's current direction. And it should. There's no good reason why it shouldn't.

GM is totally passing the buck here. They are blaming their inept ability to produce and market a fuel efficient, consumer-attractive, reasonably priced car on the government. It's bullshit.

 

So you think that mandating that our cars become more fuel efficient and produce less emissions is bullshit? I'm no tree-hugger but I fail to see why anyone would be against reducing dependency on oil and reducing pollution.

 

GM went after alternate fuels instead of hybrids. Remember the EV1. Take a look at the number of alternate fuel trucks in the GM lineup. http://www.e85fuel.com/information/general_motors.php

Have you seen the nickel plant that produces the battery for the Prius?

 

Read my above post. GM produces more alternate vehicles than any other manufacturer. Honda and Toyota are simply delaying the inevitable with hybrids.

Yes I think it's important that GM continue its efforts in producing more environmentally friendly vehicles, but at the same time it needs to stay alive long enough to actually produce them. The zeta platform could have given them more profitability to spend more money producing more E85 vehicles which I would take over a hybrid any day. Fact is E85 available isn't spreading fast enough. There are still only ~2500 in the nation. So don't hate on GM because they chose a different route than the hybrid route.

 

This has been much discussion about E85, so maybe we don't need to go down this road too much again. But, the point is, whatever one uses to propel the vehicles, you have to look at the whole process of making that fuel, and evaluate the environmental impact of making and using that fuel. If you keep producing huge vehicles that suck up a lot of fuel, and if the mechanism of propelling the vehicle is not that energy efficient, the law of physics dictate that you will continue to use a lot of energy, and generate a lot of waste and greenhouse gas.

 

That's fair, but as you alluded to earlier the American public is demanding these 1970's inspired boats to fit our elephant sized population. On top of that, they want them fast, quiet and comfortable. As far as I'm concerned there is only 1 car on the market that MIGHT be capable of doing that, the GS450h which has a price tag well above the means of most GM buyers. Furthermore when driven the way most people will probably drive it, I HIGHLY doubt they will obtain the 25/28 mpg figures the car is capable of. Carrying on that's still not even close to 34mpg that Bush is proposing.

So as mentioned earlier in the thread, our cars need to go on a diet just as badly as most Americans.

 

they are so full of shit. they just want to pressure the gov't to push back its policy.


they just have to tune the LS7 better and they will easily get that mileage.

 

But with all the safety features that are required and all the structural requirements and all the other features that people are demanding its not that easy. Same with this mileage issue that is in debate. Many think its as easy as just doing it but its not. GM makes some of the best mileage V6s and V8s out there (hell my neighbor at my cottage routinely gets over 30mpg from his C6 on the hwy)

 

you just made my case with the C6.


if they had it higher compression and higer fuel pressure and better tuning it can be done.....

but o no we dont want to invest more money in R&D!