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.




. member 1244or55
.http://www22.ocn.ne.jp/~cavalier

Unfortunately yes. Lutz said things will slow down thanks to Bush's new CAFE standards. As of now GM turned down the V16 for sure and the V12 is going to be following the same suite too.
From of the looks of it FWD will continue to go on, especially on Pontiac's lineup, unless the new CAFE standard does go through. By the way expect higher price for cars in order to pay for the technology to get better mileage. Because using better aerodynamics, CVT, electric power steering, exotic material for lower weight, etc will not cut it for the new CAFE standards.

My theory is the same with Lutz, higher CAFE standards will not do anything on less dependency on foreign oil, we should use Ethanol as the technology is there and in use. Also we would get it from our own country by our own US farmers.

We will have to see how this new CAFE standard will be voted.






>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

What will happen to the Corvette? That's all I care about...

^Probably nothing.
You have to remember that CAFE is Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Meaning an average as whole. So in order to maintain or get a high average, you'll have to put more fuel efficient cars in your lineup.
Here the issue is GM wants to put more performance to their cars meaning RWD and V8s and CAFE standards will be so high that in order to reach the new average, most of your cars in the lineup will be no bigger than a current Malibu and run only on 4cyl.
So the Corvette is safe but GM may need to bring more fuel efficient cars to offset any more hi-performance cars that they spew out.

In Bush's state of the union address Bush called for a 33% increase in fuel economy, boosting corporate average fuel economy to 34mpg for light vehicles by 2017. That is an annual increase of 4% every year... . Hard to do when you have performance RWD cars in your future portfolio.
Current CAFE standards for cars is 27.5 MPG, the 2007 light-truck standards is 22.5mpg. Overall, they require fuel economy improvements of about 10% for light trucks to an average of 24mpgs in 2011.
The goal of all of this is to reduce consumption by 8.5 billion by 2017. Like I said this may be a mistake



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

that is also the reason the corvette is its own name , its just sold from chevy

when are the dam polititions gonna learn and lay off the cars , and go after the other polluting business , they are the main causes right now

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:^Probably nothing.
You have to remember that CAFE is Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Meaning an average as whole. So in order to maintain or get a high average, you'll have to put more fuel efficient cars in your lineup.
Here the issue is GM wants to put more performance to their cars meaning RWD and V8s and CAFE standards will be so high that in order to reach the new average, most of your cars in the lineup will be no bigger than a current Malibu and run only on 4cyl.
So the Corvette is safe but GM may need to bring more fuel efficient cars to offset any more hi-performance cars that they spew out.

In Bush's state of the union address Bush called for a 33% increase in fuel economy, boosting corporate average fuel economy to 34mpg for light vehicles by 2017. That is an annual increase of 4% every year... . Hard to do when you have performance RWD cars in your future portfolio.
Current CAFE standards for cars is 27.5 MPG, the 2007 light-truck standards is 22.5mpg. Overall, they require fuel economy improvements of about 10% for light trucks to an average of 24mpgs in 2011.
The goal of all of this is to reduce consumption by 8.5 billion by 2017. Like I said this may be a mistake

Being a college student, I hardly read papers and the news is just a channel on my TV. I know, sounds horrible. I have more important things to worry about than the CAFE, hell, I would have thought someone meant the place we eat at if they came up to me saying something like that.

Good news on the Vette.

[quote=97trd(???™)]that is also the reason the corvette is its own name , its just sold from chevy

when are the dam polititions gonna learn and lay off the cars , and go after the other polluting business , they are the main causes right now

BINGO!

Who is responsible for the Bullsh1t?!

... Jesus Christ.

Jesus: I didn't do sh1t, assh0le.

Satan?

Satan: Fu<k off.

Allah?

Allah: Yeah ... it was all me. My bad.

How to raise fuel economy? Uhhhh... how about making smaller engines with a turbo? A 1.0 L3 with a Turbo can easily pull 150hp and it'll propel a Cobalt sized car down the road doing 35mpg at least.

I don't see what's so hard about this. Smaller engines with less power = more fuel economy. Add a turbo or supercharger to increase power slightly and balance off that loss and retain most of the fuel economy. It's not brain surgery.

sounds like FORD tried to fix it for GM , but some idiot at ford didnt want to die either , LOL

It is not that easy as you think. You have to put into account emissions, future crash standards, contents in a car, product competitiveness, etc.
If you are GM moving from your corporate fleet of cars avg 27mpg--->34mpg is not easy nor a cheap task, especially when your most fuel efficient car is only making 27/37 on the old EPA standards with a manual. What do you do with rest of your cars? Overhaul completely? GM is not in the position to be overhauling 99% of their cars, there is just not enough capital at GM.
If this was Honda, this would not be a issue, they can afford to bring a fuel hog to road, just because they have so many fuel efficient to begin with. But that was just an example to put it into perspective.




>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:It is not that easy as you think. You have to put into account emissions, future crash standards, contents in a car, product competitiveness, etc.
If you are GM moving from your corporate fleet of cars avg 27mpg--->34mpg is not easy nor a cheap task, especially when your most fuel efficient car is only making 27/37 on the old EPA standards with a manual. What do you do with rest of your cars? Overhaul completely? GM is not in the position to be overhauling 99% of their cars, there is just not enough capital at GM.
If this was Honda, this would not be a issue, they can afford to bring a fuel hog to road, just because they have so many fuel efficient to begin with. But that was just an example to put it into perspective.

Bingo.

Its not just matter of throwing Y engine into X car.

This is going to require a complete overhaul by GM from engine to vehicle design and will affect everything from how/where they build vehicles their marketing campaigns.

If this goes through this is bad, very bad.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:It is not that easy as you think. You have to put into account emissions, future crash standards, contents in a car, product competitiveness, etc.
If you are GM moving from your corporate fleet of cars avg 27mpg--->34mpg is not easy nor a cheap task, especially when your most fuel efficient car is only making 27/37 on the old EPA standards with a manual. What do you do with rest of your cars? Overhaul completely? GM is not in the position to be overhauling 99% of their cars, there is just not enough capital at GM.
If this was Honda, this would not be a issue, they can afford to bring a fuel hog to road, just because they have so many fuel efficient to begin with. But that was just an example to put it into perspective.

ok well what about all of GM's european cars? are they not getting better mileage? shouldnt they try to implement some of that stuff here then? or am i completely off-base

[quote=97trd(???™)]that is also the reason the corvette is its own name , its just sold from chevy

when are the dam polititions gonna learn and lay off the cars , and go after the other polluting business , they are the main causes right now[/quote]

Because lobbying big polluting business pay their salaries

This sux. I was really looking forward to the upcoming cars in the GM line up.

PSN ID: Phatchance249

actually, now that i think of it, Ford might be in a better position for this CAFE thing than GM is since the only cars they produce now with a V8 is the mustang and the towncar.

themarin8r wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:It is not that easy as you think. You have to put into account emissions, future crash standards, contents in a car, product competitiveness, etc.
If you are GM moving from your corporate fleet of cars avg 27mpg--->34mpg is not easy nor a cheap task, especially when your most fuel efficient car is only making 27/37 on the old EPA standards with a manual. What do you do with rest of your cars? Overhaul completely? GM is not in the position to be overhauling 99% of their cars, there is just not enough capital at GM.
If this was Honda, this would not be a issue, they can afford to bring a fuel hog to road, just because they have so many fuel efficient to begin with. But that was just an example to put it into perspective.

ok well what about all of GM's european cars? are they not getting better mileage? shouldnt they try to implement some of that stuff here then? or am i completely off-base

Nope, you're not and it would be a start but the problem is GM of Europe's more efficient engines are diesels and they don't meet current national emissions nor the even more stringent emissions in California, Maine, etc. and forget about the new national emissions of 2008 too. In order to make those diesel efficient and meet new emissions, they would have to start with a new clean sheet design, again it will cost GM a lot.
By implementing this new CAFE standard, either GM will have to come out with a full fledged revolutionary engineering (almost NASA like) that may set them back greatly in terms of spending in order to come out with performance/fuel efficient vehicles or cut down on the new performance engines/products and focus on new 4cyls and hybrids.

Whatever the case, Bush put a huge boulder on GM's back and could kill any chance of improving GM with interesting fun products, in which Lutz was basing on.
My point of view is this: history is repeating itself and I mean the 70's-early 80's history.



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


My point of view is this: history is repeating itself and I mean the 70's-early 80's history.

exactly what i was thinking when i read this and i had to ask you .


. member 1244or55
.http://www22.ocn.ne.jp/~cavalier

Hello GM, 6 speed autos?



05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.767@109.93

Knoxfire wrote:How to raise fuel economy? Uhhhh... how about making smaller engines with a turbo? A 1.0 L3 with a Turbo can easily pull 150hp and it'll propel a Cobalt sized car down the road doing 35mpg at least.

I don't see what's so hard about this. Smaller engines with less power = more fuel economy. Add a turbo or supercharger to increase power slightly and balance off that loss and retain most of the fuel economy. It's not brain surgery.

Yeah but i think you'd be off-setting the savings in having to shell out extra $$$ for premium fuel.



"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net

Did this CAFE thing go through yet? I mean, he is out of office next year. Things in the gov't can take awhile to get passed and what not. If it isn't passed yet, any chance it won't be passed by the time he is out? Sorry, I'm new to this whole thing.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:It is not that easy as you think. You have to put into account emissions, future crash standards, contents in a car, product competitiveness, etc.
If you are GM moving from your corporate fleet of cars avg 27mpg--->34mpg is not easy nor a cheap task, especially when your most fuel efficient car is only making 27/37 on the old EPA standards with a manual. What do you do with rest of your cars? Overhaul completely? GM is not in the position to be overhauling 99% of their cars, there is just not enough capital at GM.
If this was Honda, this would not be a issue, they can afford to bring a fuel hog to road, just because they have so many fuel efficient to begin with. But that was just an example to put it into perspective.

I think GM needs an super fuel efficient and cheap car. Something ugly, cheap to produce, that has absolutely NO frills at all and costs like 9000$ while going 40mpg and only making about 45hp. Something so lame and cheap that people would buy it as a second car or commuter car or first car. That way it'd offset the fleet fuel economy and allow for a lot more fun cars at the other end of the spectrum. Sure they'd take a loss on every cheap car, but who cares? They'll pass CAFE standards with flying colors and still be able to offer 9mpg big block GTOs.

GM used to pull stuff like this all the time. Where'd the skunkworks go to?

It's sad that no one seems to realize that CAFE standards are directly affected by the more and more strict Crash and Emision regulations. European cars in the 1960's like the Renault Dauphine used to be able to get more MPG than a Honda Fit today. Something isn't right.

Sooner or later the government is going to have to relax Diesel emission standards. It's the only way the car makers are going to be able to juggle all the balls that the government is throwing at them. If most SUVs, Trucks and small cars were diesels we wouldn't have any trouble at all satisfying CAFE regulations. Hell, it's not like modern diesels have anything in common with the old oil burners.

id be all over a astra with a 130-140hp diesel , that got 30-50mpg

Im sorry but I dont feel sorry for GM or any other automaker. Its about time the government is taking some action against the careless automakers. The writing has been on the wall for years that gas guzzling cars will not be able to be mass produced or sell in high volumes, ppl simply cant afford it anymore. Sure your always going to have the ppl that want a rear drive v8 and can afford to have one, but thats a very small portion of the cars that are sold. The automakers could have avoided this on thier own, instead they are insisting on more and more horsepower and bigger and bigger engines for years now. This is just like 40 years ago all over again. Government stepped in, horsepower dropped, cars became lighter and more efficient, and some companies went under because they couldnt cut it.

Something has to give and since the automakers wont do it on thier own they have to be forced to. As far as raising fuel economy 30% its really not that hard, gm has alot of cars that are very poor sellers and are also very poor on fuel economy and should have been dropped YEARS ago. Build better, lighter cars, thats what all the imports have been doing for years, the American ones were just too stubborn or stupid to pick up on it. Im inclined to think its alot of both. As Ive stated in other posts its not going to hurt GM as much as it will Ford and Chyrsler. Chyrsler is going to be done unless someone else with half a brain buys them I dont see them lasting another 10 years.



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85

Government should stay out of business. Period.



05 M6 YJ GTO 1 of 447 12.767@109.93

i agree with you to a point
it will probably hurt Ford LESS because they have less bigger motors in their cars (like i posted before, only the mustang and towncar have V8's)
Chrysler, on the other hand, will be hurt more because they rely on the hemi for a bunch of vehicles
If GM, Ford, and Chrysler start thinking more like their European divisions and work with smaller displacement motors and turbos, then they can get enough power with less displacement, and better MPG.
I mean Ford can look no further than Mazda and find a motor to model after in the 2.3l turbo thats in the Mazdaspeed 6 and 3. They took a little off the power for the 3 and it increased MPG by 3 with the technologies it has on it
263hp/280 ftlbs with 20city/28hwy
thats pretty good right there
If GM had still owned a part of Subaru they could have easily worked something out there
but they can still look at Saab's 2.0t whose gas mileage is pretty darn good and puts out 200+ hp and torque