FenwickHockey65's Great Thread of GM Knowledge

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by rocket403

Dropping RWD was a hug mistake and to go from this 85 88 to this 87 88 is just beyond me.

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

I think Jim & DG could chime in on the reasons. Probably for CAFE I would imagine.

CAFE.

Remember, it wasn’t just GM. The whole INDUSTRY went from RWD to FWD. Europe was already there. They have historically had stricter emissions and fuel economy rules and higher fuel prices than the US, so fuel economy improving technologies tend to happen there first. At the old levels of efficiency, FWD vs RWD on vehicles of similar size and mass was a 1 or 2 mpg improvement. In regulation-land that’s huge, especially when the average fuel economy was significantly under 20 mpg. One mpg improvement on a 20 mpg car is 5%.

Remember the Ford Probe? A little FWD coupe? That was shockingly close to becoming a Mustang replacement. Before you hurt yourself laughing at that, remember the Chevy Beretta? A little FWD coupe? Was almost Camaro replacement. And who could forget the K-Car? All FWD. All reactions to the early CAFE rules.

On a more positive note, those rules drove a lot of invention. The industry learned how to get huge power and decent fuel economy out of relatively small engines because it had to. The industry learned how to make transmissions more efficient while also being capable of handling huge torque loads because it had to.

[rocket403]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

CAFE.

Remember the Ford Probe? A little FWD coupe? That was shockingly close to becoming a Mustang replacement. Before you hurt yourself laughing at that, remember the Chevy Beretta? A little FWD coupe? Was almost Camaro replacement. And who could forget the K-Car? All FWD. All reactions to the early CAFE rules.

On a more positive note, those rules drove a lot of invention.

Being over 50 and a car guy I remember the Beretta and Ford Probe and how it came out in one of the mag's maybe Road and Track in 86-88 on how this was the new Mustang. It was a huge outcry at the time so Ford continued with the Fox body longer than planned, not sure about the Beretta though but working at a GM dealer I had access to all the GM Cars at the time. I drove everything that GM made from 88 to 91 and the only things that I wanted were a ZR1 vette and 350 Iroc.
I did try and get the 89 or 90 Iroc but the price was over 30K Canadian for the Camaro so ended up getting the Mustang.
GM jumped on the FWD bandwagon and drank the cool-aid, they did not need to go to the level that they did, that set the path for GM's downward trend. Olds was number 2 or 3 for GM with over a Million cars and 4 years later it was selling less that Mercury (or close to that) Im more of an Olds person than Chevy so my interest mostly is in Olds Cutlass but Monte and Camaro would be my next interest.
In Canada we have always paid more for fuel than the US so there has been interest in fuel mileage, we are now paying 5 to 6 a US gallon I would think that is what they are paying in Europe, but we still buy a lot of V8 engines.
To fill up my 17 Ram I am paying 175$ right now, I would think that it would cost 65 in the US.

[JerTM]

Originally Posted by rocket403

Being over 50 and a car guy I remember the Beretta and Ford Probe and how it came out in one of the mag's maybe Road and Track in 86-88 on how this was the new Mustang. It was a huge outcry at the time so Ford continued with the Fox body longer than planned, not sure about the Beretta though but working at a GM dealer I had access to all the GM Cars at the time. I drove everything that GM made from 88 to 91 and the only things that I wanted were a ZR1 vette and 350 Iroc.
I did try and get the 89 or 90 Iroc but the price was over 30K Canadian for the Camaro so ended up getting the Mustang.
GM jumped on the FWD bandwagon and drank the cool-aid, they did not need to go to the level that they did, that set the path for GM's downward trend. Olds was number 2 or 3 for GM with over a Million cars and 4 years later it was selling less that Mercury (or close to that) Im more of an Olds person than Chevy so my interest mostly is in Olds Cutlass but Monte and Camaro would be my next interest.
In Canada we have always paid more for fuel than the US so there has been interest in fuel mileage, we are now paying 5 to 6 a US gallon I would think that is what they are paying in Europe, but we still buy a lot of V8 engines.
To fill up my 17 Ram I am paying 175$ right now, I would think that it would cost 65 in the US.

I just put $100 usd in my 17 2500HD Silveradro from empty, still had 6 gallons to go before the pump shut off. I believe it's a 36 gallon tank. I put premium in it at roughly $3.33.

[rocket403]

Originally Posted by JerTM

I just put $100 usd in my 17 2500HD Silveradro from empty, still had 6 gallons to go before the pump shut off. I believe it's a 36 gallon tank. I put premium in it at roughly $3.33.

My tank in my Ram 1500 is 121L or 32 Gallons and run a mid grade fuel 1.36$ or Premium at 1.45$ a liter so looking at 5.2$ or 5.5$ Canadian per US Gallon

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not at all. Chevrolets and Buicks both have leather seats. Buick should have nicer leather, maybe heated and cooled compared to Chevrolet heated OR offer the heated and cool across all vehicles where Chevrolet offers only on higher trim levels. Or maybe offer 12 way power where Chevrolet offers 8 way power. Buick could come with 8 speaker stereo and option to go to 12. Chevrolet could offer 8 speaker stereo with option to go to 10. There’s a lot that can be done with content to manage the price ladder and customer perceived value.

See that example there I see that as handicapping Chevrolet but not being able to offer features.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

CAFE.

Remember, it wasn’t just GM. The whole INDUSTRY went from RWD to FWD. Europe was already there. They have historically had stricter emissions and fuel economy rules and higher fuel prices than the US, so fuel economy improving technologies tend to happen there first. At the old levels of efficiency, FWD vs RWD on vehicles of similar size and mass was a 1 or 2 mpg improvement. In regulation-land that’s huge, especially when the average fuel economy was significantly under 20 mpg. One mpg improvement on a 20 mpg car is 5%.

Remember the Ford Probe? A little FWD coupe? That was shockingly close to becoming a Mustang replacement. Before you hurt yourself laughing at that, remember the Chevy Beretta? A little FWD coupe? Was almost Camaro replacement. And who could forget the K-Car? All FWD. All reactions to the early CAFE rules.

On a more positive note, those rules drove a lot of invention. The industry learned how to get huge power and decent fuel economy out of relatively small engines because it had to. The industry learned how to make transmissions more efficient while also being capable of handling huge torque loads because it had to.

So FWD is more efficient? I guess I would just think RWD would be more efficient because it seems simpler but what do i know lol

[rocket403]

Only Reason that FWD was more efficient was smaller cars and engines then when FWD cars got bigger they had to find ways to keep it efficient, then when the platforms got to big back to RWD lol

[chvyman]

it takes more power to change the direction of rotation in the powertrain. rwd makes a 90 turn at the diff., fwd rotates in the same direction.

[JerTM]

Originally Posted by chvyman

it takes more power to change the direction of rotation in the powertrain. rwd makes a 90 turn at the diff., fwd rotates in the same direction.

Not to mention the extra weight of the rear differential housing, driveline, and components necessary to make it RWD. A lot of weight is lost when the differential is housed inside the transmission.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by rocket403

How did GM think that people would go from a 87 Cutlass to a 89 Cutlass LOL

GM sold somewhere in the number of around 1 million RWD cars in 87 and then moved to FWD and had some hold over RWD Olds and buick's that they still had to clear out in 88. I was working at a dealer at the time the mechanics working on the FWD said it was all designed to get more money out of the consumers, and business was good those cars were coming in for more trans issues, computer, and in the winter better not hit any curbs with your Z24 or the front end would get out of alignment.

My first new car was this 84 Monte SS that I scraped to buy at age 21. I always felt that when GM went FWD in 88 that their cars lost an American identity. With nothing special to differentiate GM's cars, there was no reason not to buy imports that were better.

I personally stayed RWD with Camaro/Firebird/GTO but my family cars changed to Honda

[rocket403]

Originally Posted by hotlap

I personally stayed RWD with Camaro/Firebird/GTO but my family cars changed to Honda

Nice car!
I really like the Monte SS and GN my 80 Olds is my take on those more blacked out GM cars.
I was really a GM guy I would only own GM cars, I would never own a Dodge or a Ford, but when GM cut RWD it left a huge group of GM fans without cars to buy, my family went to Ford then Honda as you stated because GM lost their identity. I went to Mustang as the Camaro was north of 30K for the car I wanted (and the Mustang was faster) now I'm with Dodge as my friend works at the plant in Brampton and he gives me his discounts I saved 20K on my Ram with his employee numbers. I go where the cars are now have no loyalty to any brand and wished GM would make a car like the Monte again V8 RWD. So I'm a little more critical of GM as they have turned their back on the guys that liked the GN,442, 2+2 and Monte and forgot all about the Chevelle and where they came from.

[rocket403]

This is my 80 Cutlass have owned it since 1994 403 2004R 3:73

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by rocket403

This is my 80 Cutlass have owned it since 1994 403 2004R 3:73

Nice car! Both of my brothers are 442 guys (66, 69, 70 W30, 75 w/455) and my sisters first new car was a 87 Cutlass Supreme. I know them well.

I always alternated between Chevy and Pontiac.

[MrChrisLS3]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

CAFE.

Remember, it wasn’t just GM. The whole INDUSTRY went from RWD to FWD. Europe was already there. They have historically had stricter emissions and fuel economy rules and higher fuel prices than the US, so fuel economy improving technologies tend to happen there first. At the old levels of efficiency, FWD vs RWD on vehicles of similar size and mass was a 1 or 2 mpg improvement. In regulation-land that’s huge, especially when the average fuel economy was significantly under 20 mpg. One mpg improvement on a 20 mpg car is 5%.

Remember the Ford Probe? A little FWD coupe? That was shockingly close to becoming a Mustang replacement. Before you hurt yourself laughing at that, remember the Chevy Beretta? A little FWD coupe? Was almost Camaro replacement. And who could forget the K-Car? All FWD. All reactions to the early CAFE rules.

On a more positive note, those rules drove a lot of invention. The industry learned how to get huge power and decent fuel economy out of relatively small engines because it had to. The industry learned how to make transmissions more efficient while also being capable of handling huge torque loads because it had to.

The late 70's and 80's were difficult times for domestic manufacturers. Between the EPA and OPEC, the Big Three had to pretty much revamp their entire philosophy overnight. The trouble was that the Japanese had been making small, "efficient" fwd cars for years, and were better at them.

The Big Three also had a hard time letting go of the idea of big luxurious vehicles. The cars went from powerful engines to weak engines, yet the mass of the cars stayed the same. It wasn't until 1992 when the Corvette finally got back to the 300HP mark.

But taking all that they learned and outcome of that knowledge, just think if back in 1988 you would've told them that in 2018, we would see a Corvette with 755 HP, that you could drive to work everyday with the A/C on and get an "rated" avg of 15mpg (13city/19hwy). They would've called the funny farm boys to bring those jackets that tied the sleeves in the back and take you where reality didn't matter.

[rocket403]

GM did need to make changes in the 80's and make smaller FWD cars with small engines but to just cut all RWD cars down to 3 Camaro/Firebird Vette and Caprice (not looking at Caddy) or Olds Wagon. That was a huge cull that hurt GM, they could have gone about it with a different approach and held a RWD Monte or Cutlass, what they did was loose buyers that went to Ford, Dodge and Japanese.

In 86 Olds sold 1050832 cars and by 92 they had 395974 sales that was a direct result of cutting RWD and models that resonated with its buyers, as well as loosing their identity again that is not offering models that their customers would want to buy.