GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles

[KILLER74Z28]

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.

----------

Read Jim Mateja on Sunday in Transportation and Tuesday and Thursday in Business. Hear him on WBBM-AM 780 at 6:22 p.m. Wednesdays and 11:22 a.m. Sundays.

jmateja@tribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-bizfront-hed

[Casull]

Suprised this hasn't received more attention yet...

I saw this article earier and was blown away! I thought the Zeta platform and GMs RWD program was a huge step in moving forward for GM.

On the one hand, I am infuriated that Global Warming is what is causing this whole situation when there has yet to be any consensus in the scientific community. It just seems like a total knee-jerk reaction.

On the other hand, I am optimistic because with more stringent regulations come innovation. I know that i for one would have no problem being able to go buy a new car and not have to worry about trying to pick one that gets at least 30 mpg because all of them do.

I think I would be MUCH more upest if this news meant that they were putting a hold on the Camaro project, but it doesn't, so i am ok with it.

[KILLER74Z28]

It’s still a sad day if this legislation passes… Cars were starting to have personality again, not just the same old cookie cutter wedge with wheels…

[SoFlaZ]

:(

[Moosen75]

not cool at all.

[TAG UR IT]

Originally Posted by KILLER74Z28

It’s still a sad day if this legislation passes… Cars were starting to have personality again, not just the same old cookie cutter wedge with wheels…

I feel the exact same way...this actually kinda scares me. It's going to go to Judge Dredd and the only cars will be electric....until an Olds 442 comes out of the garage and blows everyone away.

[KILLER74Z28]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

I feel the exact same way...this actually kinda scares me. It's going to go to Judge Dredd and the only cars will be electric....until an Olds 442 comes out of the garage and blows everyone away.

Cough Cough, Demolition Man…

[Moosen75]

ok the government makes all these bs policies and then dont even give the big three the time of day. they just throw these policies at them and say here meet these or else. well were is the federal money to help fund these new programs that the auto companies have to implement to meet the new standards and pay out of their pockets. instead of throwing all this money towards foreign aide and wars how about we fix the problems here first? hell George W. should just give the whole US auto industry to Toyota if he wants bland foreign cars to be the only thing on US highways.

[Hyperknight]

I'm going to go ahead and assume this is some sort of late April Fools joke.

[TAG UR IT]

Originally Posted by KILLER74Z28

Cough Cough, Demolition Man…

Dat's what I said...Judge Dredd....jeeez....just like my pinchers of pal!
Now, if anyone gets that, I'll be impressed!

And, no. No April fools joke. The big three met w/ George W. and all came to some fasicnating conclusion that they would cut fuel consumption by a percentage...think it was 30%. But, to do that, they really have to find ways. Well, I can see exactly how this is going to create a huge problem and how GM would want to cut rear wheel drive veh's. This does not look good at all. I'm suprised this isn't making CNN.....

[$anani]

im really upset how he said " its too late to cut the camaro off" i didnt like that.

[Casull]

What I don't understand is why they are not focusing their attention and energy to further develop alternative fuels instead of cutting consumption of gasoline.

I mean, why make the auto manufacturers spend all of this money to conform to making gasoline engines more efficient when they are already more efficient than they have ever been, instead of letting them use that money to further develop ethanol or biodiesel programs, or electric cars, or even hydrogen powered cars....

This all seems so rediculous to me.

I have also often wondered.... would it be more beneficial to regulate and force the trucking industry to develop more fuel efficient semi-trucks? Or how about having an aggressive plan that states that by 2017 all semis have to be running on a mixture of 50% biodiesel and 50% conventional diesel. I would have to think that semis are more polluting than 20 cars combined!

[LSxcellent]

Originally Posted by Casull

I mean, why make the auto manufacturers spend all of this money to conform to making gasoline engines more efficient when they are already more efficient than they have ever been, instead of letting them use that money to further develop ethanol or biodiesel programs, or electric cars, or even hydrogen powered cars....

I have also often wondered.... would it be more beneficial to regulate and force the trucking industry to develop more fuel efficient semi-trucks? Or how about having an aggressive plan that states that by 2017 all semis have to be running on a mixture of 50% biodiesel and 50% conventional diesel. I would have to think that semis are more polluting than 20 cars combined!

Just a quick reality check here...

1) The trucking industry probably has the GREATEST focus on fuel economy of any transportation segment because fuel is their major cost driver. If they can get 1% better mileage, it means they can pocket another 1% in profit! If you forced truckers to use B50 they would consume EVEN MORE fuel, and produce EVEN MORE CO2 then they do now, due to the fact that B50 has LESS energy in it. If you REALLY want to improve our emmissions as a country, you have to start using railroads again... they can move WAY more cargo with WAY fewer pollutants.

2) Ethanol cannot be efficiently produced on a large scale, and it generally takes more energy to produce it than what you get from it (using current technology). There isn't enough land to produce enough to offset more than 40% of gasoline usage. It doesn't have the same energy density of gasoline, so you will end up burning MORE, which requires EVEN MORE land.

3) Biodiesel programs - See ethanol comments, all of them apply to biodiesel.

4) Electric cars - where does the electricity come from? Coal fired power plants, that's where. Even lived near one? Would you want to? Me neither. This is only a solution if you run your electric car off of a solar panel array... THEN you have a solution.

5) Hydrogen IS NOT A FORM OF ENERGY! IT IS A FORM OF BATTERY! You CANNOT drill for hydrogen, you cannot harvest it, you have to CREATE it using power. In fact, you need MORE power to create it than you could EVER get from using it! It's a decent form of battery, but again, where does the energy come from???


In the end, Solar Panels, Wind Farms, and Oceanic Hydroelectric Systems are the only systems that can get us away from polution...

~LSx

[LSxcellent]

Oh, and just to be clear, I am ALSO wicked pissed that GM has halted this development. I was really looking forward to a 400hp Impala... it may have been my next family car.

Damn hippies...

~LSx