Dual-mode muscle car? GM may develop hybrid Camaro
Buried at the end of an article from The Car Connection that discusses the future of General Motors' rear-wheel-drive expansion (or lack thereof) was an interesting canard. In an effort to lower the General's CAFE rating, GM has supposedly assembled a team to outfit the new Camaro with the automaker's dual-mode hybrid drivetrain. The rational behind outfitting a Camaro with a hybrid system might be sound from a fuel-economy standpoint, but offering a fuel-sipping pony car seems like the antithesis of what a muscle-bound coupe is all about.
The article goes on to say that our new CAFE standards have all but killed GM's planned RWD cars, and because the platform underpinning the Camaro was supposed to be utilized on these other vehicles, its costs can't be kept in check. That's likely going to cause the V8 Camaro's sticker to be higher than anticipated -- possibly encroaching on Corvette territory.
Both the Camaro and the Pontiac G8 will live on, but everything else is likely off the table. Rear-wheel-drive Chevys and Buicks are dead in the water, but Cadillac will soldier on with a RWD vehicle to compete in the ultra-luxury segment.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Avinash machado 7:37AM (2/04/2008)
Thanks Al Gore.
Reply
rschaefer 7:48AM (2/04/2008)
I call shenannigans!
why would the camaro have to be a v8? Sure, offer a V8 with the CAFE fine attached to it, but offer something else, too. GM actually has a long and respected history of developing incredibly powerful and fun to drive turbo charged hot-rods. There's the Grand National, the anniversary Trans Am, and the Syclone/Typhoon. Instead of curling up into the fetal position and declaring defeat, why don't the engineers acutally earn the money they get paid and engineer a solution!
Reply
Drewboy 7:46AM (2/04/2008)
I don't think this has anything to do with Al Gore, and more to do with gas prices. Personally, I would miss the sound of the V-8 engine, but you have to admit, the 3.6L Direct Injection V-6 with VVT would pair very nicely with electric boost. It'd be the best of both worlds.
Reply
skinniekinnie 7:51AM (2/04/2008)
GM really just needs to be more agressive about there choices of engines and drivetrains for these vehicles
Reply
Shipey 8:03AM (2/04/2008)
Can someone explain why RWD = poor mileage? I'm just not following this. The drivetrain friction and slight weight penalty is enough to cancel the whole program??? Doesnt seem right.
Reply
Seoultrain 11:30AM (2/04/2008)
Seems like businessmen using shoddy engineering as an excuse to cut costs. just dumb.
dan 12:56PM (2/04/2008)
The RWD mileage difference isn't huge. 10 or 15%.
But the 35 mpg requirement is so far away from the cars Americans want to buy that they can't leave anything at all on the table.
Balancing one 22mpg RWD Impala requires selling two 50 mpg sardine cans that nobody wants - so they'll have to have a $5000 subsidy on the hood of both of them to sell at all.
Balancing a 25mpg FWD Impala only requires selling 1.5 crapboxes.
kc 8:11AM (2/04/2008)
rationale?
Reply
Koko 8:09AM (2/04/2008)
Shipey...I agree with you...why does CAFE kill RWD drives cars? I'm loss to figure out why?
Reply
cowboy bob 8:13AM (2/04/2008)
There is a larger loss of energy thru a rear wheel drive/front engine setup that might be first suspected. There is more componetry, loss thru distance of drivetrain, and weight to be considered. It does all add up. I don't like FWD. I would prefer the rear wheel, rear engine layout better. This would, I believe, be even more effective than FWD. The problems of control apparent/made up with the old Corvair and VW Beatle seem not to be a factor for Porshe do they? Performance, control, and economy can be achieved on a rwd/rear engine drivetrain. Where are you Detroit???
Reply
Tyo 8:14AM (2/04/2008)
Excellent point about GM's Turbocharging Past. Although not as impressive they turbocharged a V8 in the Trans Am in 1980 also.
2.8 and 3.6l Turbo DOHC VVT V6's would keep gm competitive.
GM's ability to Turbocharge is already in practice today at Saab. Check out the current line of Turbo 4's and 6's. nothing to sneeze at, smooth, economical, powerful.
Reply
FSM 8:16AM (2/04/2008)
Blaming Al Gore for this is like blaming Albert Einstein for the Cold War, silly and ignorant.
Reply
psarhjinian 8:17AM (2/04/2008)
@shipey:
Friction and mass in the driveline. There's more loss in RWD (and AWD) than FWD.
Packaging: You need a physically larger car to offer the same amount of usable space in a RWD car. FWD is more space-efficient (see: Honda Fit vs. BMW 1-Series hatchback)
Reply
FSM 8:17AM (2/04/2008)
Why isn't the reply function working on these forums?
Reply
Rocketboy 10:28AM (2/04/2008)
Click on the timestamp, and you can still reply. It's a widespread issue with all of the Blogsmith blogs...
Dave 8:22AM (2/04/2008)
How bout an AWD Camaro with great acceleration - put an E-Flex electric motor in both the rear and the front.
Reply
Mr. Oak 10:59AM (2/04/2008)
You won't live long enough.
Pat 8:25AM (2/04/2008)
This is the kind of thinking that got GM in hot water the first time and that is responsible for highlights such as the Chevy Citation and Olds Achieva ...
C'mon General, do like your competitors and be creative and daring. You've already lost the #1 spot ...
What are you waiting for, for Hyundai to cram you down to 3rd place.
Reply
Mr. Oak 11:01AM (2/04/2008)
This comment was really directed @ Pat: You won't live long enough.
jeff 8:36AM (2/04/2008)
I think GM should start offering more diesel options and drop that E85 crap. Just think what how that would help their CAFE ratings.
Reply