GoAuto hears from GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz himself that the Camaro and G8 will be the last US market GM products based on Holden’s RWD Zeta platform. “The strategy we had a few years ago of basically deriving a whole sweeping global portfolio off the Australian Zeta architecture … frankly, we have had to abandon that dream,” said Lutz. “This is because, whether you are in the United States or in China, fuel economy mandates are getting more and more severe, and we just could not base our strategy on doing relatively large and relatively heavy rear-wheel-drive cars. I suspect the same thing is going to start to bite the traditional rear-wheel drive producers.” Not that they’re ditching the platform entirely. “It is our intent to continue the Australian rear-wheel-drive cars; we will continue building them and doing a next generation and so forth and so on,” says Mr Maximum. “And, to be honest, they continue to be my favourite cars. I think they are absolutely wonderful – but the regulatory environment is such that it would be imprudent to base a whole global platform strategy on them … much to my personal chagrin, by the way.” And what of the rumored Alpha compact RWD platform?
“What many of us would like to do (one day) is to do an all-new global rear-wheel drive architecture that would be considerably smaller, lighter and be capable of taking four-cylinder powertrains,” says Lutz. “That, I think, could be globally shared. It’s not even in the plan at this point; it’s just what we tell ourselves in that there is going to have to be a next-generation Camaro, and there is going to have to be a next-generation Cadillac sedan, and so there is going to have to be a smaller and a way more efficient rear-wheel-drive architecture. But at this point it is just a gleam in our eye.”
Depending on how long they DO make the soon to be Camaro on this soon to be gone platform, it could make this car very rare and valuable.
Too bad I owe twice what my car is worth or I might just take a change on one. Whenever they finally come out.
What exactly would the weight differential be between an fwd car and a rwd, holding everything else equal? The weight of the driveshaft? I don’t understand why it makes so much difference.
For small car, like the odious Smart car, does rear engine rwd offer any advantages over front engined fwd? Inquiring minds want to know.
Classic GM mismanagement. Say hi to Kappa for me when you get to platform heaven, Zeta.
What exactly is GM’s problem with not being able to come up with a true portfolio of vehicles for different people?? It’s either all fwd or all rwd, all big or all small, all crossovers or all SUVs…
This fallacy that RWD, V8 cars get bad gas mileage really pisses me off. It is a blatant lie.
The Panthers from Ford have ZERO problem getting 30 MPG on the highway. Ford can’t even get their brand new 4000+ pound vehicles to get that kind of mileage with V6s.
Look at the Lincoln Taurus. It has a V6, and FWD…but can only muster a pitiful 19MPG combined. That is the same as a V8, full frame, RWD Town Car (a real Lincoln).
“GM never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
And the quick-pic change was lame. The ‘come hither’ girl fit the story a lot better than Joe the Rapper.
NickR:
The two lightest cars for sale in the US, and the most fuel efficient non-hybrid car for sale in the US are RWD. The Elise and Smart. But the key is that they also have the engine in the back with a transaxle.
The Miata and RX-8 manage to be very light despite having driveshafts, and the additional chassis rigidity required for front engine / RWD.
Even GM makes a very light front engine, RWD car called the Corvette.
There is a very small difference between the fuel economy that a well optimized front engine FWD car and a very well optimized front engine RWD car can get. It’s a penalty that people are willing to pay in terms of gas tax, but it is one way that CAFE perverts things vs. a fuel tax or gas guzzler tax.
GM could make the Zeta platform more viable right now just by sticking the 2 liter I4 turbo ecotec in it. 260 HP / 260 FT-LBS used to be considered pretty good.
It’s the ’80s all over again. Somehow I doubt there is going to be an SUV craze in 2020 to save them again.
Although I love the thought of a G8/Camaro/big engined, rear-tire-burning car, the reality is that it’s all about horsepower-to-weight.
OK, we need smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Fine. Give me something on the order of the old Datsun 510s – two or four door, light, nimble. Make it rear-wheel drive and give it a choice of a small gasoline engine, an efficient diesel, and a turbocharged powerplant + tuned suspension for the enthusiasts.
The gearheads get their performance, and John Q. Public gets reliable, efficient transportation.
Why can’t this happen? Why is this so hard?
It’s not the position of the drive wheels – front or rear. It’s weight. It’s just basic physical science – more weight requires more energy to move. Yes, some of the gadgets, fuel injection, turbo, gears in the tranny, aerodynamics can have some effect on the mileage. But all other things being equal, lighter equals better mileage.
A RWD car needs additional structure (weight) in the back to properly support the axle, differential and forces – The FWD just has a “trailer” back there – all the work in concentrated in the front. To restate, RWD requires structure at the front and back of the car where a FWD only needs major structure in the front. Yes, this can affect handling but a properly engineered FWD will handle fine for 99.99% of the users.
This is just another case in which GM has no idea. Bar the US, all over the world any engine between 100hp and 200hp is considered high output. 100hp, or slightly higher for small cars (think US subcompact) and 200hp or slightly less for big cars (in US think compact). That’s the reality of the world. And within this reality FWD is what’s what. Little undesteer and much better inside roominess options. RWD is for developed markets. Unforunately for GM and others, the high per car based profits of a RWD cars are not the future.
The future is much like the American past, ever cheaper but ever better goods due to higher production numbers (think Robber Barons era).
Hey! So sorry the rest of the world is so behind. But, the signs are showing there’s a lot of money to be made down here!
I think the CAFE regulations, while certainly one aspect, isn’t the only one.
I just don’t think the domestics have the money to keep working on RWD and FWD platforms.
If GM or Ford had kept working on their RWD platforms instead of killing them/starving them, the development costs today wouldn’t have been so insurmountable.
Next, watch for RWD to slowly go extinct in Australia, too.
Man, this grates. Toyota isn’t going to be building an affordable RWD car anytime soon, so the domestics were the last best hope. Two and a half years ago I commented on here that “hope springs eternal” about a RWD coming from (what looked like the best bet at the time) GM. So much for that.
This fallacy that RWD, V8 cars get bad gas mileage really pisses me off. It is a blatant lie.
No, it isn’t. With a rear-drive car you lose interior space to the driveline, transmission and/or longitudinal engine. You also have to deal with the extra mass and friction of the driveshaft and rear axle and the extra cost of the rear suspension.
You can build a front-drive car with the same passenger space, performance and fuel economy as a rear-drive car for less money. The car will be physically smaller, weigh less, and have higher fuel economy.
Let’s try a few modern platform examples (ie, not dinosaurs like the Panther and W-Body): compare a Civic and 3-Series. The Honda is about the same size, but for the same power output weighs less, holds more, is faster and costs less. You can do the same exercise with the G8 V6 and Malibu, the Camry and Lexus GS, or the Mercedes B200 and C230.
Front-engine/rear-drive has dynamic advantages for the enthusiast and trucker, and serious packaging and efficiency problems for the average buyer.
The Panthers from Ford have ZERO problem getting 30 MPG on the highway. Ford can’t even get their brand new 4000+ pound vehicles to get that kind of mileage with V6s.
The Panthers are not a valid comparison:
* One, they’re dinosaurs that don’t come close to meeting modern standards for space, ride comfort and handling. Oh sure, you can tweak the suspension to fix the handling, but you end up with something that rides like a cop car, which people do not want.
* Two, the 4.6L eight is an utter dog next to the any of the modern (Toyota 3.5, Ford 3.7, GM 3.6, Honda 3.5, Nissan 3.5/3.7) sixes, let alone GM’s LS V8s. Fuel economy target are easy to meet when the engine is so grossly underpowered.
* Three, no one buys them except fleets for good reason. Panther fans need to understand that the things that matter to them are either irrelevant or outright negatives to most buyers.
There is a reason why Ford sells them to fleets only: normal people do not buy them. When they were being sold retail (how long ago?), they were not selling well. Now? No chance.
NickR, FWD cars can be made somewhat lighter than rear wheel drive cars. But it isn’t necessarily so, in the real world.
Same as the old saw that “frame+body construction vehicles are always heavier than unitbody construction vehicles”. Not so. Check the specs of a 1960’s Studebaker Lark vs. a unitbody Rambler and the Stude (on a frame) is lighter!
Look at the weight of the first Detroit brand unitbody car, the 1958 Lincoln, Continental and Thunderbird, and you’ll see massively heavy vehicles weighing more than the body-on-frame Imperial or DeSoto competition.
If you want to see an absolute masterpiece of rear wheel drive technology done in the same era, you have to look at the Peugeot 404 introduced in 1960.
Unit body, 2200 pounds, room for six (people were literally thinner then, however), rear wheel drive, decent performance from a Hemi head 1.6 litre 4 banger. The car was a good 20 years ahead of Detroit in having McPherson struts, rack & pinion steering, disc brakes, and the drivetrain was “bulletproof” enough so see it in production in African and South American countries into the late 1970’s. The torque-tube drive helped. Imagine a solid rear axle attached to a tube going towards the engine in which the driveshaft rests, all nice and snug away from the elements; then imagine an enclosed, lubricated, single, massive constant velocity joint behind the transmission allowing for suspension travel, and coil springs, anti-roll bar and Panhard rod on the rear axle, helping to locate it. The ride was pillow-like, in the best French tradition, and the handling was more than acceptably good.
In the final analysis, this Peugeot (and later 504 and 505 cars) were so phenomenally strong they could stand the non-roads of 3rd world countries overloaded 300% all the while, and would run under such conditions for 100,000’s of thousands of miles when Detroit was building
-Falcons (with grenading inline sixes which wouldn’t last 40,000 miles)
-Corvairs (which would destroy lives in a hearbeat)
then later
-Pintos (ka-boom when hit from behind)
-Vegas (ka-boom from grenading engines)
Wonder if GM and Ford drew straws to see which would market the people-killer and which would market the explosive motor, in 1959 and 1970?
Some of the advantages of front wheel drive are evaporated by the need for crush zones in modern cars, which means there has to be sheetmetal out away from the body compartment (holding the people) anyway.
I love my front wheel drive cars, but rear wheel drive is not the anacronism that people might think it is.
I liked the other picture better…
:(
There is a very small difference between the fuel economy that a well optimized front engine FWD car and a very well optimized front engine RWD car can get
The optimizations you have to make to get the mass down are just not worth it in a commodity vehicle. Anyone can build a decent front drive car with a twist-beam axle out back that rides well and gets good mileage.
Rear drive is harder. There is a reason why the 1- or 3-Series are on one hand so much more cramped and yet so much more expensive than the Golf or Jetta or Civic. Your examples either don’t have to deal with rear-seat and cargo at all (Miata, Corvette) or require serious compromises in space and price (RX-8) versus their front-drive counterparts.
You’re right about rear-engine/rear-drive. This is what the Smart does, and it does make rear-drive a viable option in terms of fuel economy. R/R requires compromise, too: the handling is spooky for the untrained, cargo space is seriously compromised, and the platform doesn’t scale up to larger vehicles well.
Front drive, sucky as it is, works for 90% of the cars on the road. Enthusiasts should stop lamenting this and shut up, or vote with their dollars. Since the sales of the G8 or RX-8 aren’t exactly setting the world on fire, I’d say the manufacturers are making the smart decision.
I think this is a really bad idea. By sticking to a strictly FWD mainstream formula GM is guaranteeing a face-off with the japanese and german competition in all of their major product lines. Sure, they can fix any quality or performance deficits relative to these guys (may be doing so already, we’ll see), but even then public perception will lag for years. I think they need to re-invigorate appeal for their brands by offering a product that isn’t exactly the same as everyone else’s. Get us interested and intrigued, and sooner than later all our other preconceptions become flexible. Frankly their current rwd car offerings are either too big, too expensive or too perfomance oriented (image wise) to appeal to a wide audience.
Chrysler demonstrated exactly what happens when you introduce an affordable rwd platform to the american market, people buy it. Their product has many, many faults (far more than GM would allow IMO), and yet they got everyone’s attention in a big way and moved a lot of steel. A lot of my antipathy towards that company is a result of the total lack of follow-up (different rwd platforms) to that success.
Most of all, I’d like to point out that millions of Americans want rwd and know how to use it, the truck market dosen’t lie. GM…STOP MAKING ALL YOUR RWD CARS NICHE MODELS!!!
menno,
Those are good examples, but they just don’t translate today. Every modern rear-driver—every single one—is heavier and more costly than it’s front-drive equivalent.
If there was a magic bullet someone would have found it. Even Mercedes and BMW, with years of rear-drive engineering experience, have essentially admitted that front-drive makes sense in the mass-market.
“This fallacy that RWD, V8 cars get bad gas mileage really pisses me off. It is a blatant lie.”
It isn’t a fallacy. RWD involves higher inertial and frictional losses in the drive train than FWD does. Ditto for cylinder count. More cylinders means more friction, more rotational mass and more thermodynamic losses. You can’t beat physics.
By the way, interestingly enough, before GM morphed all divisions into a collective borg, Buick engineers knew that torque tube drive was what worked best for them, their objectives and the wants and desires of their buying public.
Buick also came up with a few other engineering marvels, such as finned alloy drum (steel liner) brakes in 1958, which were damn near as good as modern disc brakes (unless they got completely under water and saturated, of course), an aluminum block V8 engine for the 1961-1963 Buick Special and Skylark (good enough to still be used up through the early 1990’s in Range Rovers – Rover bought the design from Buick in 1965), actually reliable and smooth automatic transmissions (though inefficient) when the rest of Detroit was building junk (Chrysler’s Torqueflight introduced 1956 being the exception).
Perhaps a modern Buick Roadmaster with rear wheel drive, torque tube drive, finned aluminum rear drums and front discs, long wheelbase for good ride and large interior, alloy V6 (which Buick also made famous) and Buick style, would work for them to resurrect them Lazarus style. Build it as a dual mode hybrid. Oh yes, and make the actual torque tube out of magnesium or some other lightweight, super strong material to reduce unsprung weight.
Don’t forget a short wheelbase turbocharged coupe version, the GNX, as well as a limited production long wheelbase coupe, the Riviera.
Psarjinian has a good point – but I’m not talking mass market cars here.
Buick would be the American iteration of BMW and Mercedes (as they are to the German peoples). Somewhat larger, luxurious, somewhat sporty if wanted, grand touring vehicles for long distances, comfort and some exclusivity.
I think this is a really bad idea. By sticking to a strictly FWD mainstream formula GM is guaranteeing a face-off with the japanese and german competition in all of their major product lines.
Hyundai did that. Hyundai is not a joke anymore (while GM still is). Hyundai is who Toyota sees when it looks over it’s shoulder.
The problem is not the drive wheels.
Chrysler demonstrated exactly what happens when you introduce an affordable rwd platform to the american market, people buy it.
People bought the LX cars because they were dramatically stylish, not because of which wheels spun. They aren’t buying them anymore because they’re stale; if rear-drive were the draw you say it is, they’d still be selling.
I’d bet that if the 300 was a front-driver, it’d have sold maybe a few hundred fewer units to a few enthusiasts. Heck, it might have sold more in snowbelt regions, and might be selling better now because the weight and cost would be down and the fuel economy up.
Could it be that GM is just flopping around in the dark, unable to make an intelligent decision?
Nah.
The closest FWD / RWD comparison that currently exists on the market is probably a loaded Honda Civic Si sedan vs. a BMW 328i:
Honda Civic Si sedan:
$22,105
197 HP
139 FT/LBS Torque
6-speed Manual
21 / 29 MPG
177.3 in. Length
106.30 in. Wheelbase
2954 LBS
BMW 328i sedan:
$33,600
230 HP
200 FT/LBS Torque
6-speed Manual
18 / 28 MPG
178.20 in. Length
108.70 in. Wheelbase
3362 LBS
The BMW weighs about 400 pounds more, but its mileage is almost as good, and it has significantly more power and torque. It would be very interesting to see the numbers with a high-reving inline-4 in the BMW. I know this configuration is available in other countries, but I am too lazy to look up the specs and do the conversions.
The biggest penalty that comes from the BMW’s RWD is the price, but the BMW does have an inline-6 instead of an inline-4, and is built in Germany, not Indiana.
Civic vs. 328i vs. IS250:
http://autos.msn.com/research/compare/exterior.aspx?c=0&n=3&i=0&ph1=t0&ph2=t0&tb=0&dt=0&v=t108612&v=t108794&v=t108666
Sucks to be GM’s Oshawa Assembly.
The truck plant was essentially living on borrowed time, and this announcement means the car plant will be around as long as the Impala is, which isn’t long now that the Lacrosse has moved to the Epsilon.
I remember when Oshawa’s workers were crowing about winning the Camaro. Most everyone who exercised forethought knew that the Camaro was, at best, a bone tossed and not any guarantee of viability. When GM cancelled Zeta the first time, we knew it was over; this just confirms it. Had Oshawa been granted a Delta or Epsilon assembly, they’d still be around. They weren’t; they got a token to keep them quiet.
If I worked there, I would be looking for employment elsewhere **right now**.
The closest FWD / RWD comparison that currently exists on the market is probably a loaded Honda Civic Si sedan vs. a BMW 328i:
The 328i? Really?
Ok, now, let’s be a little fair and compare a BMW of similar power: the 323i. It still costs a lot more than the Civic Si, and the rear seat and trunk are still much smaller. It comes with fewer features, too. Sad.
The IS250 has a rear seat so small as to be useless and again, costs a hell of a lot more than the Civic Si or Acura CSX.
Why does Bob Lutz always sound like the crotchedly old grandfather who is punishing his grandkids for something?
“I’m sorry. We were going to continue with your RWD platform if you had only eaten your vegetables at dinner.”
Pathetic.
psarhjinian:
I can’t keep track of the strange cars you Canadians get.
It looks like the Si and 323i are even closer in weight and fuel economy. And the 323i still has an inline-6 instead of inline-4 (a 2.5 liter I-6 since BMW has given up on its car names indicating anything, although it does have fuel injection so at least the “i” is still correct).
Honda Civic Si sedan vs. BMW 323i sedan:
http://en.research.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/autos/compare/default.aspx?year=&make=BMW&model=3+Series&ts=245^^6009202009,24^^74257912009,&pos=0&pg=CompareExterior
The trunk space and transmission hump issues are negligible (5th passengers are rare). The fuel economy differences between similar FWD and RWD cars are also negligible.
The only real cost that someone pays when getting a RWD car instead of a similar FWD car is the cost of the car, and given the amount of cars that BMW sells (despite asshat dealers and mediocre quality) there are a lot of people that think that cost is worth it. Yes, some (many) people also buy BMWs just for the brand. But remember, it isn’t BMW that made RWD cool, but RWD that made BMW cool.
One of the reasons that Toyota is looking over its shoulder at Hyundai is probably that Hyundai just started making a very good RWD car.
psharjinian: Two, the 4.6L eight is an utter dog next to the any of the modern (Toyota 3.5, Ford 3.7, GM 3.6, Honda 3.5, Nissan 3.5/3.7) sixes, let alone GM’s LS V8s. Fuel economy target are easy to meet when the engine is so grossly underpowered.
Fuel economy and power are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And please note that while this particular Ford V-8 is, as you said, out of date, it’s also very reliable and able to take a heap of abuse.
psharjinian: People bought the LX cars because they were dramatically stylish, not because of which wheels spun.
Part of the reason for the dramatic style, however, was the proportions allowed by their rear-wheel-drive layout.
To get the maximum space advantage allowed by a transversely mounted engine and front-wheel-drive layout, a car must be designed with different proportions.
Not saying whether one is “better” than the other, just that they are different, and the style of the Chryslers – let’s face it, their major selling point – stemmed in part from their rear-wheel-drive layout.
psharjinian: Even Mercedes and BMW, with years of rear-drive engineering experience, have essentially admitted that front-drive makes sense in the mass-market.
There is still room for a rear-wheel-drive vehicle at the top of the range, even for a mass-market marque.
Leave the Cobalt and Malibu/LaCrosse as front wheel drive, but bring out a Zeta-based Caprice/Bel Air and LeSabre/Invicta to sit at the top of the passenger car lineup.
The Zeta platform is a good one. The problem is that, GM being GM, it refused to make a commitment to the platform by selling it through its strongest division, and then marketing it effectively. The Pontiac G8 should have been a Chevrolet (Caprice? Impala? Bel Air?) and built here, and perhaps with an upscale version for Buick (Invicta? Roadmaster? Electra?).
psharjinian: They aren’t buying them anymore because they’re stale; if rear-drive were the draw you say it is, they’d still be selling.
I think that proves that buyers of rear-wheel-drive cars expect the vehicles to be updated on a regular, 4-5 year cycle, just as buyers of front-wheel-drive vehicles do.
menno: Same as the old saw that “frame+body construction vehicles are always heavier than unitbody construction vehicles”. Not so. Check the specs of a 1960’s Studebaker Lark vs. a unitbody Rambler and the Stude (on a frame) is lighter!
Studebakers after 1952 were notorious for their flimsy bodies and frames. The frame on the 1953 models was so flimsy that it flexed when the V-8 was mounted on it, meaning that the front sheetmetal clip for the Starliner and Starlight coupes couldn’t be made to fit the main body!
And they rusted out FASTER than most unit-body vehicles.
If you are talking about the “standard” Ramblers (not the American), please note that those were at least a size larger than the Lark.
menno: Look at the weight of the first Detroit brand unitbody car, the 1958 Lincoln, Continental and Thunderbird, and you’ll see massively heavy vehicles weighing more than the body-on-frame Imperial or DeSoto competition.
The post-1956 Mopars weren’t exactly noted for their structural integrity or longevity. Those first unit-bodied Thunderbirds were built like tanks. The glovebox door alone in those cars weighed five pounds! If anything, Ford OVERBUILT those cars.
Also, the Buick aluminum block V-8 was troublesome. Rover could get away with using it because the engine’s faults weren’t quite as noticeable in a British vehicle. And Detroit’s automatics in the early 1950s were hardly junk. They may have had some problems, but this was to be expected for new technology.
psarhjinian
I definitely see your point about the general public’s (misplaced) perception that fwd is safer, but I still don’t think a fwd LX program would have sold as well as the rwd did. The LX cars received a level of buzz that even the car-ignorant picked up on, it simply beat the piss out of price competitive sedans in comparisons, despite it’s many failings.
I really don’t think that the driven wheels affected this cars end size or (significantly at least) its fuel efficiency. They aimed at rwd truck owners, giving a Ram sized front dash and huge back seat to us fat americans, that was the driving motivation behind the mass. That powertrain was also designed specifically to appeal to American truck buyers, they don’t put a 5.7 liter into anything and expect great mpg, regardless of drivetrain (although it does actually get mid-20’s on highway, I’ve seen it). Besides, they coulnd’t have offered such a desirably huge engine in a fwd car, not without being spanked in every handling comparison and killing customers at least. As to the loss of back-seat space…yes they lose some customers there, but many in the target audience are driving trucks with miniscule back seats or none at all, and very few people need three adults in the back of a car.
I’m not going to stick up for their choices on size in general though, like I said before, if they’d given us a mid to small sized sedan with a nice, effecient engine as a follow up I’d still buy one now (even with the shit interior), and I bet they’d be eating a nice peice of someone’s fwd lunch.
This would be A FOOLISH MISTAKE.
Ford used torque tube drive line in the model t 1906? and stuck with it thru 1948 . I have never been able to see the advantage.
Unfortunately, this is a really good decision by GM.
Because there is zero market demand for these vehicles. G8s are piling up in dealer lots. The Camaro will essentially be DOA. The late GTO? Nuff said.
GM must stop listening to internet partisans who do not buy GM RWDs anyway. Sad to say, their Aussie RWDs are market flops, and GM must make decisions to stay solvent.
The Vic gets decent gas mileage because its gearing is in the right place for the type of market it is in- highway cruiser, not sexy go-car, Marauder notwithstanding. Cruise at high speed on I90 in Montana and see the RPMs hover at only 2k.
ronin
right…but neither the G8, the CTS or the Camaro is anything more than a niche model. The G8 could have been something mainstreamish but Pontiac sells them as a GTO successor, which makes a huge difference in how they get shopped. If they used the chassis for a mid sized chevy then we’d have a fair shake. But…like I pointed out above, the LX cars succeeded, and their styling is very polarizing, their interiors suck and their low end engines are a bad joke.
99% of the people who buy new cars could care less which set of wheels is driven. RWD may be beloved by gearheads and speed freaks (which is why the hardcore sports cars will always be RWD) but that is a tiny niche market.
Expending vast resources for niche-market “halo” vehicles is not a smart strategy for a company that is trying to come back from near-death. They need to make mass-market cars that are appealing and affordable, not halo vehicles that critics will adore and buyers will ignore.
One of the reasons that Toyota is looking over its shoulder at Hyundai is probably that Hyundai just started making a very good RWD car.
The Genesis is not making Toyota sweat. At most, that car will steal a few Avalon sales. It’s the Elantra (versus the Corolla) and Sonata (Camry) that will have the likes of Fujio Cho shotgunning Maalox in a few years.
Cadillac can be rear-drive. Saab could probably be rear-drive, if GM was even remotely serious about making them into a BMW competitor. Chevy needs competitive cars that people will buy, and as evidenced by the decent sales of the Malibu (or Camry, Accord and such) and the non-sales of the G8, 300 and Charger, the road to success is not one suited to throttle oversteer.
How come Hyundai can build a relatively efficient RWD car, and GM can’t? Not to mention BMW and Mercedes.
I don’t thing its CAFE. I think it’s cost, but it’s easier to blame CAFE.
psarhjinian
I actually kind of agree with you on this “the road to success is not one suited to throttle oversteer”, but the point I was trying to make is that we’re not looking at their fwd cars seriously. Chrysler succeeded in turning heads (without making a loss in the process) with an affordable rwd sedan. But I agree that without a good sebring it was a pointless excercise in their price range.
And I’d disagree on the genesis, people start comparing them to ES’s and Toyota will get hurt every time. It’s down to Hyundai’s marketing if they can put that comparison in front of us (and not the bmw, infinite etc…, even if it wins those). The fact that Toyota has nothing to slap them down with besides fwd could really work against them .
John Horner :
January 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“This fallacy that RWD, V8 cars get bad gas mileage really pisses me off. It is a blatant lie.”
It isn’t a fallacy. RWD involves higher inertial and frictional losses in the drive train than FWD does. Ditto for cylinder count. More cylinders means more friction, more rotational mass and more thermodynamic losses. You can’t beat physics.
Very true, but more so back in the 80’s. What about cars that have >250hp. They’ll have to have AWD to be driveable, then your argument is not valid. When you factor in tighter manufacturing tolerances, lighter materials, etc. of today and I’ll bet the frictional losses in a BMW is not much more than in a similar FWD sedan. I’m sure it’ll be more, but not as high a spread as would be between a ’79 Nova and an ’80 Citation.
Same physics can also be applied to driving dynamics…and for anyone who even remotely enjoys driving, that weighs much more heavily in RWD’s favor!
Not saying RWD should replave FWD in mass-market cars, but for GM to abandon it almost completely is a very short-sighted decision, and a big, big mistake.
There is a reason why Ford sells them to fleets only: normal people do not buy them. When they were being sold retail (how long ago?), they were not selling well. Now? No chance.
That does NOT metter.
The fact is, Ford builds a full frame, V8, RWD sedan that will get 30MPG on the highway all day long…and their “new”, V6, FWD appliances will not…witness the Flex and Lincoln Taurus.
My point is, even with all of the mis-management of the Panther from FMC, they are STILL able to get 30 on the highway. So, logic would dictate, that a smaller, lighter more efficient FWD appliance would be able to at the MINIMUM, match those numbers, and they simply do not.
And have you seen the numbers between the 2010 Taurus and the 2009? Rear seat legroom is DOWN by 3.1 inches and the trunk is smaller. And there is stiull a tunnel running the length of the car…
Not saying RWD should replave FWD in mass-market cars, but for GM to abandon it almost completely is a very short-sighted decision, and a big, big mistake.
I don’t think they’re going to abandon in completely. Rear-drive makes sense when you need that extra bit of refinement (ie, Cadillac and Saab) and that extra bit of refinement is not needed in a new Impala, which was where Zeta was going. With the G8 dead, no rear-drive Buick in sight and the Camaro looking more and more like a “bad hangover” project each day, the option to amortize Zeta’s costs isn’t there.
They money that could go into a Zeta for the masses would be better spent on a DTS that isn’t a joke, or an Epsilon-based Impala that’s better than the Avalon.
As Chrysler’s LX is evidence of, an expensive platform that nobody wants to buy is not a viable option. I don’t think GM, or anyone, could build a rear drive commodity car that would sell for a profit. This is a smart move, if disappointing for those expecting a miracle.
psarhjinian
ummmm….lots of people bought that LX (despite it’s many flaws and polarizing looks) and last I heard Chrysler made money on the car. Granted, they didn’t have chassis development costs from scratch. Panther platform definitely sold in bulk to the public, when it was a current car. Both fail now b/c of lack of investment in product (that LX refresh was comical), not rwd. Also, the only good engine in the LX is the Hemi, which clearly wasn’t enough during the fuel price spike, and that’s got nothing to do with driven wheels.
Let’s not forget cars like the Miata, which sell for under 25k new, remain profitable and have nowhere near the component sharing potential of a mass market car sedan.
FWD cars are a bitch to work on. The disposable Bic Lighter of automotive design.
The 30MPG argument for the panthers is flawed. Sure it’s possible to get that number, but you are comparing what you can get with the panthers, and the official numbers for the new FWD cars. According to FuelEconomy.COM, an ’08 Grand Marquis gets 15 City, 23 Highway, and the ’08 Taurus gets 18 City and 28 Highway. If you drive the Taurus the same way you drove a panther to get 30mpg, you would get higher numbers than the 30mpg with the panther.
That being said, giving up on RWD completely is a mistake. The higher end, big power cars should be RWD. Big engined FWD cars just don’t work well in the world of driving dynamics.
Good comparisons for FWD vs RWD fuel economy are the Lexus IS350 (RWD, EPA 18 City, 25 Highway) and the ES350 (FWD, EPA 19 City, 27 Highway), both have the same engine, and weigh about 3500lbs. The IS has higher compression and a bit more power though.
Now the 3.6L V6 Malibu, and 3.6L V6 G8 are very close, both have EPA 17 City, and the G8 only looses by 1 mph on the highway with 25 (compared to the Malibu’s 26). It is strange that the G8 even weighs over 200lbs more.
Ultimately, RWD can be made to work, if it is what is needed for that particular car. GM will still need to have RWD Cadillacs, and it is a big mistake to not share these platforms throughout GM. (At least Chevy since GM shouldn’t have any more brands than that.)
So CTS (Sigma II) RWD is dead as well?
psarhjinian
You can build a front-drive car with the same passenger space, performance and fuel economy as a rear-drive car for less money. The car will be physically smaller, weigh less, and have higher fuel economy.
Let’s try a few modern platform examples (ie, not dinosaurs like the Panther and W-Body): compare a Civic and 3-Series. The Honda is about the same size, but for the same power output weighs less, holds more, is faster and costs less. You can do the same exercise with the G8 V6 and Malibu, the Camry and Lexus GS, or the Mercedes B200 and C230.
…
Those are good examples, but they just don’t translate today. Every modern rear-driver—every single one—is heavier and more costly than it’s front-drive equivalent.
If there was a magic bullet someone would have found it. Even Mercedes and BMW, with years of rear-drive engineering experience, have essentially admitted that front-drive makes sense in the mass-market.
C’mon, man, do your research. A comparison of the Camry, 528i, IS 350, and Malibu shows that the rear-drivers are within 22-44 pounds of the Camry, and weigh less than a Malibu equipped with a V6. When it comes to economy, the Camry V6 gets 19/28, the 528 gets 18/28, the IS 350 gets 18/25, and the Malibu V6 gets 17/26. The price difference between the platforms might have something to do with the engineering cost for rear-drive vehicles, but in this case I think it’s more to do with a difference between the mainstream and luxury markets, and the fact that the BMW is built in Europe and the Lexus in Japan.
You can build a front-drive car with the same passenger space, performance and fuel economy as a rear-drive car for less money. The car will be physically smaller, weigh less, and have higher fuel economy.
…
Cadillac can be rear-drive. Saab could probably be rear-drive, if GM was even remotely serious about making them into a BMW competitor.
If Saab could build a car with “same passenger space, performance and fuel economy as a rear-drive car for less money” [emphasis mine], then why would they bother going against the entire tradition of their brand by shifting to rear-drive to compete with BMW? That’s just sloppy logic.
The Panthers are not a valid comparison:
* One, they’re dinosaurs that don’t come close to meeting modern standards for space, ride comfort and handling. Oh sure, you can tweak the suspension to fix the handling, but you end up with something that rides like a cop car, which people do not want.
* Two, the 4.6L eight is an utter dog next to the any of the modern (Toyota 3.5, Ford 3.7, GM 3.6, Honda 3.5, Nissan 3.5/3.7) sixes, let alone GM’s LS V8s. Fuel economy target are easy to meet when the engine is so grossly underpowered.
* Three, no one buys them except fleets for good reason. Panther fans need to understand that the things that matter to them are either irrelevant or outright negatives to most buyers.
There is a reason why Ford sells them to fleets only: normal people do not buy them. When they were being sold retail (how long ago?), they were not selling well. Now? No chance.
I don’t see why the Panthers aren’t a valid comparison. The fleet argument you make in particular is ridiculous, because fleet buyers are generally more concerned with fuel economy and durability than buyers in the general market. But in this discussion, the qualities which make the Panther a great vehicle platform, despite the whims of new car buyers, are entirely relevant. If fleets didn’t think the Panthers were up to snuff, they could always switch to American-built Camrys or Impalas.
If the 4.6L V8 was “grossly underpowered” as you say, most law enforcement agencies wouldn’t buy Crown Vics for Interceptor duty. Cop cars are significantly burdened with heavy duty aftermarket components in a way that the average Camry is not. If the 4.6L V8 wasn’t up to the task of hauling around the extra weight and generating the required electricity to power the vehicle’s systems, you would have seen a bunch of cop cars with much larger powerplants.
“It is strange that the G8 even weighs over 200lbs more.”
G8 has a taller final drive ratio than Malibu.
Panther discussion: I used to own a Marquis, while I COULD get 30 MPG under the right circumstances, I never could sustain that for an entire tank. Once on a long trip I tried to keep the mileage up and I averaged 26 MPG. Not bad for a car rated 23mpg highway, but short of a 30 MPG claim. In my day to day driving, 15 city/23 hwy sounds about right.
“If the 4.6L V8 was “grossly underpowered” as you say, most law enforcement agencies wouldn’t buy Crown Vics for Interceptor duty.”
I know a cop that went from the Caprice 350 to a Crown Vic. He complained loudly about the lack of power after the move. Grossly underpowered, however, is an exaggeration. They have adequate power, but can do better compared to some of the good V6 powerplants today.
that’s ok guy’s. Holden and Opel will still be profitable as they concentrate on their area’s of expertise. Opel with the small to mid size 4’s fwd and holden with large rwd 6’s and 8’s and possibly 4’s and diesel’s. Meanwhile GM looks ahead to long years of profitability with the Chevy Volt, a real world car?
Great move in announcing the cancellation of the Camaro platform before the car is even produced. That would be like Oldsmobile trying to market the Aurora a few years after the announcing the demise of the division. How do you market a car on a future orphaned platform. Now the Camaro has to be released with the stigma on being based on a platform with a limited future.
RWD, in the hands of a capable driver, has two advantages over other drive formats: You can steer the car from both ends ( enthusiasts, applaud!! ), and going up a steep hill (especially if pulling a trailer) helps rather than hurts traction.
If GM or a domestic cannot find a big enough niche for more RWD, there will be foreign car makers (and of course the current GM models) supplying RWD’s for enthusiasts to enjoy.
C’mon, man, do your research. A comparison of the Camry, 528i, IS 350, and Malibu shows that the rear-drivers are within 22-44 pounds of the Camry,
Each one of those cars is tiny inside. The IS350, in particular, has less useful space than a Yaris; the 528 is more cramped than a Corolla. That both cars are near the Camry in mass and footprint, but nowhere near it in useful space, proves my point.
I don’t see why the Panthers aren’t a valid comparison. The fleet argument you make in particular is ridiculous, because fleet buyers are generally more concerned with fuel economy and durability than buyers in the general market.
Fleet buyers are interested in TCO, only part of which is fuel economy raw durability, and they can achieve low TCO by leveraging the low parts cost and crude mechanicals of the Panther on a large scale. For individual owners, that isn’t an option, and the trade-offs (ride, handling, cramped, uncomfortable seating) aren’t worth it.
The Panther’s durability does not mean squat unless you’re hopping curbs and performing PIT manuevers. For a normal vehicle, driven by a normal people in a normal way, the Panther cars are no more reliable, or lower cost, than a Camry.
If the 4.6L V8 was “grossly underpowered” as you say, most law enforcement agencies wouldn’t buy Crown Vics for Interceptor duty.
Life is not Mad Max: The Road Warrior.
Interceptors are not counting on doing flat-out, high-speed pursuits. Their job is to corral and contain at the upper limits of normal speeds. Few drivers have the skill to pull off 140km/h sustained on a public road whilst being chased. A skilled driver in a reasonably capable car (eg, a Camry SE) will leave an Interceptor in the dust, but that’s a moot point given that spike chains, helicopters and blockades await.
For a normal vehicle, driven by a normal people in a normal way, the Panther cars are no more reliable, or lower cost, than a Camry.
I think that’s, at best, an educated guess. You do know how much Toyota parts cost, right?
Each one of those cars is tiny inside. The IS350, in particular, has less useful space than a Yaris; the 528 is more cramped than a Corolla. That both cars are near the Camry in mass and footprint, but nowhere near it in useful space, proves my point.
Really? The 528 beats the Camry in front head room, rear head room, and rear shoulder room. Additionally, it has a mere .2″ less than the Camry in front leg room, and just 2 fewer inches in rear leg room. Moreover, the BMW is three inches longer, an inch wider, has greater drivetrain weight due to the RWD layout, and still manages to fall within 22 pounds of the Camry’s curb weight. Yeah, the Lexus might fall a bit short in comparative size, but the 528 has a similar footprint to the relative porker Camry, and thus is actually the better packaged car. I don’t see how that proves any point you’re trying to make.
Fleet buyers are interested in TCO, only part of which is fuel economy raw durability, and they can achieve low TCO by leveraging the low parts cost and crude mechanicals of the Panther on a large scale. For individual owners, that isn’t an option, and the trade-offs (ride, handling, cramped, uncomfortable seating) aren’t worth it.
So, let me get this straight. Your argument is that the Panther is a crude platform, powered by a crude, weak engine. You dismiss the fact that the vehicle, despite it’s acknowledged limitations, gets pretty decent mileage because the design is aging. Your argument amounts to nothing more than a circumstantial ad hominem based on the age of the Panther design, which you claim disregards the actual fuel economy the vehicle achieves. No matter if the vehicle is agricultural or not, that’s a logical fallacy, my friend.
The Panther’s durability does not mean squat unless you’re hopping curbs and performing PIT manuevers. For a normal vehicle, driven by a normal people in a normal way, the Panther cars are no more reliable, or lower cost, than a Camry.
Disagree. A durable vehicle doesn’t stop being durable just because it’s not pushed to the limit. Driving doesn’t happen in a vacuum. A vehicle designed for heavy-duty use is still less likely to be damaged in everyday use when encountering real world conditions such as pitted Rust Belt roads and highways, most any road in LA, when operated by a typical teenager, etc.
Interceptors are not counting on doing flat-out, high-speed pursuits. Their job is to corral and contain at the upper limits of normal speeds. Few drivers have the skill to pull off 140km/h sustained on a public road whilst being chased. A skilled driver in a reasonably capable car (eg, a Camry SE) will leave an Interceptor in the dust, but that’s a moot point given that spike chains, helicopters and blockades await.
Most cars don’t carry over a half a ton of lightbars, push bars, radios, and assorted emergency gear, either. I’m not sure you have a realistic idea of the demands placed on law enforcement vehicles. Interceptor package Crown Vics spend the majority of their time driving at same speeds as everyday motorists, except the drivetrain has to be able to haul well over 2.5 tons worth of car, equipment, and occupants. As equipped in the Interceptor, the 4.6L V8 makes about 300 lb-ft of torque, which ensures the ability to accelerate adequately under heavy load. Pursuit cars, despite the name, aren’t race horses, nor do they need to be. There’s an old saying: You can outrun a Mopar, but you can’t outrun a Motorola. Engineering cop cars for top speed sprints would be a waste of effort. Instead, they’re designed to be Clydesdales, putting that power to use where it’s needed most – hauling a mobile office filled with gear and a couple of hefty dudes in the front seat. It might not be a drag racing powerplant, but don’t sell it short. It does a pretty tough job pretty well.
Not to throw fuel into the cop car fire, but you do have FWD police cars like the Chevy Impala. Thing is, most departments would never dream of putting them solely on pursuit duty (highway chases). Instead, they’re just patrol & response units that probably don’t get pulverized as much as they would. I don’t think CV joints on FWD cars would hold up to the rigors of curb-hopping.
As for the comparisons of the Civic vs. the IS and the 323i/330i, they really don’t hold up as you are comparing cars that span two to three different price and market spectrums. The average Bimmer customer doesn’t care whether this 323i has the same interior area as some Civic — he’s thinking more or less about badge prestige.
I was going to say GM is cursing itself with torque steer, but when CAFE gets done neutering the automobile industry most vehicles will be too underpowered to produce any.
I think the lack of sales on the G8 have more to do with GM’s reluctance to sell the car because they (last I heard) lose money on each one and because the dealers are awful.
On the highway the efficiency losses of a RWD vehicle are not even noticable. Aerodynamics and gearing are a much larger concern at highway speeds and even around town the losses are pretty minor. BMW has rwd down to an art and their cars make it obvious that efficiency isn’t the issue.
The Corvette, 4th gen f-body and the modern G8 also stand out as getting suprisingly good fuel economy. A lot of this may have to do with the LS engine being a fairly simple OHV V8 with a single cam and 2 valves per cylinder compared to the 24 valves and 4 cams of a modern V6.
Manufacturing costs are the big reason why most manufactures went with FWD cars, they are much easier to build. It has little to do with interior space or fuel efficiency. Hell, throughout the 70’s and early 80’s most Toyotas and Nissans (including the Corolla) were RWD. The Corolla went FWD about the same time Chrysler started building K-Cars and GM unleashed it’s fwd X and J body cars. They did it to get costs down, no one buying the cars particularily cared other then the car got cheaper.
The space needed for the components in a low power RWD economy car is pretty minor, compared to the bulky chunks of metal needed in a V8 sports car cranking out over 300 ft-lbs at 2000 rpm. Most people don’t care about the tunnel either, whoever got that middle back seat wasn’t the person that bought the car so they could damn well deal with it (or they would get something real to cry about).
I see more BMW 318’s and 323’s here in Vancouver then I see Toyota Camry’s. Someone is buying the damn things, they just aren’t interested in the Pontiac but that isnt the RWD platforms fault.