Bummer for GM RWD...Chicago Tribune article

[clill]

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.

[Steve68]

Let's hear it for our GOV! where's are flag waving smilie???

[c.schulz]

Originally Posted by Steve68

Let's hear it for our GOV! where's are flag waving smilie???

Ill second that the jackass'


Chris

[LateNight72]

Well, It looks like our government is doing a fine damn job of killing GM..

[hectore3]

They are going to have to trade away displacement and power for fuel economy. Maybe a 4.0 liter LSx style engine. For an "SS" power statement go with a 335i BMW style small turbo. Problem solved

[XcYZ]

CAFE. Thank you Congress. What would we do without you.

[ironworks]

We just got a 4.4 liter engine from a caddy that puts out like 450 hp from a little north star. I wonder what kinda mileage it gets.

Rodger

[ProTouring442]

Originally Posted by hectore3

They are going to have to trade away displacement and power for fuel economy. Maybe a 4.0 liter LSx style engine. For an "SS" power statement go with a 335i BMW style small turbo. Problem solved

The problem, here is cost, plus the fact that only a handful would be built. GM and Ford both need a way to build a high mileage vehicle.

I didn't know about the distinction between the domestic and import fleet. If all imported vehicles are "imports," I now see why the GTO and G* are built in Australia. GM's import fleet has room for highperformance, lower mileage vehicles.

I also wonder how Toyota manages this. How many high fuel mileage vehicles do they build in the US? They build their trucks here, I think, and I know they don't get very good mileage. I wonder if all import cars are called imports, even if they are built here?

Anyway, looks like our government is at it again. Don't they realize that high CAFE standards are what lead to the SUV craze?

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

[trapin]

We'll just have to adapt. I don't like it that it hurts RWD development, but if it's going to hurt the company then forget it. We'll just have to go back to the drawing board. We'll figure out a way.

[61Bubbletop]

Lutz is exactly right, and the reason is that the Supreme court, in all of thier supposed "wisdom" ruled last week to allow the EPA to control the emissions of CO2 instead of the DOT, and have now labeled it as a pollutant, which had never been done before...The 4% mileage increase per year for 10 years is ridiculous...we have loads of technology now, as Lutz says, with Cam Phazers, SIDI etc etc...and meeting those requirements is not possible...not for us, and not for Toyota or any manufacturer..not without adding a TON of money in cost, or making the car lighter which usually means less safe and I still don't know how you could meet it. We have BAS hybrids and 2 Mode hybrids coming soon, but I don't believe even those will help us meet that target...

I truly believe that, CARB and the EPA want everyone driving around in a Smart car\Death Trap...Hell, ALL the automotive manufacturers are involved in litigation with, I believe, 8 states who want to adopt California emission and FE standards...which are supposed to be set by the Federal Gov...not individual states.

The powers that be are clueless, and the "Global Warming" witchhunt is reaching new levels of stupidity.