<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog - Comments for GM&#039;s FWD vs. RWD poll: and the winner is...</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/24/gms-fwd-vs-rwd-poll-and-the-winner-is/</link>
<description>Autoblog Comments for GM&#039;s FWD vs. RWD poll: and the winner is...</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on GM&#039;s FWD vs. RWD poll: and the winner is...]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/24/gms-fwd-vs-rwd-poll-and-the-winner-is/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/24/gms-fwd-vs-rwd-poll-and-the-winner-is/</guid><description><![CDATA[What GM needs is a small to medium displacement (2.0L-2.5L) turbocharged AWD (true AWD) platform to compete against Subaru, Mitsubishi, and Dodge (SRT4).  There is a huge performance market that GM is missing out completely.  Plus, getting into Rally, would add much needed credibility to GM's performance line and image (nobody cares about the Chevy Cobalt).]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[SubaruWRC]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 24th 2006 12:37PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on GM&#039;s FWD vs. RWD poll: and the winner is...]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/24/gms-fwd-vs-rwd-poll-and-the-winner-is/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/24/gms-fwd-vs-rwd-poll-and-the-winner-is/</guid><description><![CDATA[If only this would happen in the next 2-3 years. I personally maintain that the "real" reason Americans went to trucks in such a big way in the '80s and '90s was becuase automakers deserted RWD for FWD econoboxes, midsize and, eventually, luxury cars. And the development -- and success -- of plusher, more "sophisticated" trucks, minitrucks and SUVs was a stopgap that kept those buyers in the fold. <br>If GM could build a latter-day 2002/1600 sedan with two or four-door options (and an "active lifestyle vehicle/station wagon), they'd clean up.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[jrhmobile]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 24th 2006 8:05PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on GM&#039;s FWD vs. RWD poll: and the winner is...]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/24/gms-fwd-vs-rwd-poll-and-the-winner-is/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/24/gms-fwd-vs-rwd-poll-and-the-winner-is/</guid><description><![CDATA[I drive a Caddy CTS, and it's not a small car. It seats 5 as easily as the Chrysler 300. The Lincoln LS is even bigger. GM doesn't have to think small. They need to keep expanding the horizon until a big part of their lineup, even the bread and butter sedans are RWD!]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[garrett Levy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 25th 2006 3:15PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on GM&#039;s FWD vs. RWD poll: and the winner is...]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/24/gms-fwd-vs-rwd-poll-and-the-winner-is/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/24/gms-fwd-vs-rwd-poll-and-the-winner-is/</guid><description><![CDATA[No bad )]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Cut]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jul 4th 2006 7:00PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>