Autoblog

Did you not read that the Impala is still posting STRONG sales? I too would have liked to see the RWD Impala. You can thank CAFE to that end.

↓↑report

@Mr. Oak

This is a silly excuse from GM. For a car that averages 20 mpg (a full size sedan, like Impala), the loss caused by the RWD drivetrain compared to FWD drivetrain is less than 1 mpg.

↓↑report

Dondonel,

Now, this isn't directly comparable, but the EPA rating is 15/24 for the G8 and 19/27 for the Impala. Between the three hundred pound weight difference, the notably thirsty 3.6L six in the G8 versus the fuel-sipping 3.9L in the Impala and the higher driveline losses inherent to RWD, it could be more dramatic in reality.

↓↑report

Fuel sipping 3.9L?

Ehhhhhh.

↓↑report

Ok, ok, _relatively_ fuel sipping. I eat my words

↓↑report

@ psarhjinian

Those numbers are not directly comparable, the engine is not the same, not even the HP ratings are similar.

This one is a much better comparison: Aura and G8 share the same V6 engine, but one is FWD, the other RWD. This is how they compare, according to EPA:

Saturn Aura 3.6 V6: 17/26mpg

Pontiac G8 3.6 V6: 17/25mpg

and the reason for the difference is the gearbox: G8 V6 has a 5 speed gearbox, whereas Aura V6 has a 6 speed. There is no significant difference for the consumer, in terms of fuel consumption, between FWD and RWD.

↓↑report

The Pontiac G8 V6 is slow.
The Aura 3.6 is not.

↓↑report

If there's anything that defines the American sedan, it's overhang.

↓↑report

Two reasons:
* A front engine/rear-drive car has to be bigger in order to contain the same interior space as a front-driver. Bigger = heavier = worse fuel economy.
* A front-engine/rear-drive powertrain has higher losses than a front-driver (friction, mass).

What's reallyy true, though, is that GM cannot make a rear-drive car that gets good mileage, performs well, has enough interior space _and_ (this is important) is cheap enough to build that they can expect decent margins.

There are rear-drivers that get CAFE-level mileage: cars like the BMW 318d. They're small, comparatively slow and very cramped inside by American standards. They also cost a lot more than GM's volume buyers would be willing to pay for a car of that size. Try to imagine a Pontiac G8 (a four thousand pound car) with a tiny little sub-2.0L turbodiesel. It'd manage 0-60 in over ten seconds, cost the same or more than the V6 gas version and would still be smaller in interior volume than the Impala or Camry.

That's the problem that CAFE poses for big rear-drivers.

Personally, I think Americans need to accept that cars are going to get slower over the next few years. That realization is going to be hard for marketing departments that have been selling bigger = better for years, and trying to sell lowered expectation is not going to be easy--especially for manufacturers who have been playing the size & power card (GM, Nissan, Chrysler) for the better part of a decade. And marketing has a huge say in how a company is run, much bigger than most people believe.

Hyundai, Ford, Mazda, Toyota and Honda have this much easier: they've been selling on value, economy and reliability for years, and decontenting the powertrain won't be as difficult for them to push.

↓↑report

@psarhjinian

The RWD drivetrain is only slightly less efficient than the FWD one. Let's take for instance two very similar cars, one FWD, the other RWD:

Audi A4 3.2l V6 Multitronic FWD, 255 HP, 18/27 mpg

BMW 328i 3.0l I6 Steptronic RWD, 230 HP, 18/28 mpg

It is hard to find a perfect comparison, but this one is good enough. True, the Audi engine is a bit more powerful, but it also uses a more economical (and sedate) CVT gearbox. Despite that they have different drivetrain configurations (FWD, RWD), the two cars get the same fuel consumption.

↓↑report

Rear wheel drive requires a long, heavy, friction adding driveshaft.

The difference isn't great, maybe 10%, but when the urban hippies are demanding a clowncar fleet average while your paying customers want real cars, you can't leave anything - not 2mpg for RWD, not 0.2mpg for high drag side mirrors you can see out of, not anything - on the table.

↓↑report

that plan makes so much sense.

Chevy - FF Normal/Mainstream
Buick - FF Premium
Pontiac - FR Cheap Sporty
Caddy - FR Premium Sporty
Saturn - Faux Euro styling (mix of FF/FR)
Saab - Faux Euro Premium

IE: Pontiac and Caddy (and maybe some Saturns) should be the sole owners of the Kappa, Zeta and Sigma platforms.

This makes it easy to figure out which brand to go to get the kind of car you want.

GM loves milking a platform all over the place, tho, so, *shrug* I do like the simplification of the platforms that they seem to be planning, though. It's a start of sorts.

↓↑report

That's because GM is trying to give the brand some distinction and relevance. RWD is their answer to make that happen. Thanks to CAFE, RWD isn't going to work with every brand, so GM has to use it where it makes sense. It works with Pontiac being that GM is positioning the brand for performance.. Chevy, not so much.

"Look, it's simple: just leave the decontented Sigma/Zeta to Pontiac. Chevy gets to be front-drive mainstream; Pontiac the low-price sports option. Please, GM, if you want to be financially viable, this stupid intracompany cannibalization has to stop." - psarhjinian

That pretty much says it all right there. I'm not exactly happy about it, but I agree with psarhjinian. This is what's best for each brand given their target markets.

↓↑report