GM's downward spiral: A timeline

[fp115]

Originally Posted by camaro_freak

RWD also has better weight distribution and performance but that isn't important is it, plus it just looks silly to do burnouts with the rear tires.

Front tires smokin' looks so much better!

Again why is that so important? The majority of people simply want to get from point A to point B. They could care less if their car goes around Nurburing in 5 minutes or 10 minutes. They don't care if their cars can hold a perfect apex. But they will care for a comfortable ride and handling, but nothing to which you mentioned. What you mentioned will appeal to maybe 5% of car buyers, if that.

[Slideways]

Originally Posted by fp115

Again why is that so important? The majority of people simply want to get from point A to point B. They could care less if their car goes around Nurburing in 5 minutes or 10 minutes. They don't care if their cars can hold a perfect apex. But they will care for a comfortable ride and handling, but nothing to which you mentioned. What you mentioned will appeal to maybe 5% of car buyers, if that.

I really don't think that much power is lost through a driveshaft, I just refuse to believe U-joints are that power-hungry. I really want to see two vehicles of identical size, one built with FWD in mind, and the other with RWD in mind to see exactly how much weight and economy suffers.

[fp115]

Originally Posted by Slideways

I really don't think that much power is lost through a driveshaft, I just refuse to believe U-joints are that power-hungry. I really want to see two vehicles of identical size, one built with FWD in mind, and the other with RWD in mind to see exactly how much weight and economy suffers.

In terms of comparing the vehicles, they will be close. Generally the RWD will be around 300-400 lbs more. The power loss isn't huge and would actually be near 1-2 mpg. But if you look at the R&D bill it will be of significant difference between the two.

[camaro_freak]

Originally Posted by Slideways

I really don't think that much power is lost through a driveshaft, I just refuse to believe U-joints are that power-hungry. I really want to see two vehicles of identical size, one built with FWD in mind, and the other with RWD in mind to see exactly how much weight and economy suffers.

I agree. I'd love to see a comparison if it could be done.

[smithrobs]

Originally Posted by fp115

In terms of comparing the vehicles, they will be close. Generally the RWD will be around 300-400 lbs more. The power loss isn't huge and would actually be near 1-2 mpg. But if you look at the R&D bill it will be of significant difference between the two.

I really don't know where you are getting these numbers from.

[ksr]

Originally Posted by BrickTamland

They replaced cars that had been coupes and sedans. Coupes were just far more popular in the years before 1988. GM had other midsize cars; the A-bodies, but they had been around since 1982. They were six years old and were very staid looking vehicles, and were therefore in need of replacement. Well, they weren't replaced; they were supplemented.

Something else important to GM's fall that would not fit on a timeline was their endemic of look-alike cars across the divisions. In the 70s and 80s, Chevrolets, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and Cadillacs grew very similar looking. All the shared model lines looked too much alike.

Actually, when the W bodies came out in '88, GM was given credit for getting away from look-alike styling between divisions. The Buick, Pontiac, and Olds all had distinctive styling. Personally, I liked all three, particularly the Cutlass Supreme.

The predecessors to the W bodies looked almost identical.

[fp115]

Originally Posted by smithrobs

I really don't know where you are getting these numbers from.

There are plenty of examples out there. If you want a very recent one from GM, take the CTS to the Malibu. Sure they are not carbon copies, but it gives you a good example. Its hard to get a good comparison since you are required to change more than just the driveshaft.

[iluvcamaros]

Originally Posted by MCGARRETT

As for the GM-10's, well, one of them is still one of the best selling cars in US, the Impala, and as I can recall that as far back as 1992-1993, the GM-10 platform was the second best selling platform in the US, right after the CK1500/Sierra and ahead of the F-150.
(Yes, I own a 2000 Grand Prix GTP coupe)

I know, the W-body wasn't that bad. The early ones were kinda crappy especially when considering how much time and money GM spent on them. The '97 and up models (also the '95 & up Lumina) were pretty good, they had independent rears and the 3100 had been turned into a decent engine. They just never stood out because the Taurus was always #1, the LH's were better looking, and the Japanese were "just better than anything ever".

[CadiEldo67]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

Countless people that have worked at GM and currently do need to be SLAPPED. FWD is NOT "better" than RWD! No fuel economy gains! 20 years later they still don't get it. So much from learning from your mistakes.

I don't believe that GM's problem has anything to do with FWD vs. RWD, its got everything to do with perception, and providing what the consumer wants. Toyota has both and that is why it does so well in North America.

[Uzzy]

Originally Posted by CadiEldo67

I don't believe that GM's problem has anything to do with FWD vs. RWD, its got everything to do with perception, and providing what the consumer wants. Toyota has both and that is why it does so well in North America.

It has nothing to do with FWD in most segments. GM ushered in FWD and everybody adopted it, aside from the luxury European makes. Luxury cars and performance cars should be RWD, everyhting else is fine in FWD. I prefer RWD too, and I'd also like tp be dirivng either a luxury or performance car, becuase I'm a car enthusiast. The vast majority of consumers are not.

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by fp115

Again why is that so important? The majority of people simply want to get from point A to point B. They could care less if their car goes around Nurburing in 5 minutes or 10 minutes. They don't care if their cars can hold a perfect apex. But they will care for a comfortable ride and handling, but nothing to which you mentioned. What you mentioned will appeal to maybe 5% of car buyers, if that.

FWD is just fine for plain 'ol family transportation but for performance and luxury cars it doesn't cut the mustard. So, to be a full line automaker you need both.

Actually, after scoring a G8 GT test drive everything else around $30K is weak sauce.
Damn, what a fantastic car that is - and now I know why the Aussies haven't fallen for "FWD is better"... they never quit building the good stuff.

[vcs2600]

Originally Posted by BrickTamland

Something else important to GM's fall that would not fit on a timeline was their endemic of look-alike cars across the divisions. In the 70s and 80s, Chevrolets, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and Cadillacs grew very similar looking. All the shared model lines looked too much alike.

This is true. It even applied to models that were on different platforms. For example the Cadillac Eldorado ended up looking very similar to the Pontiac Grand Am and Olds Calias. Whoops. Prior to the W-bodies, GM's 1980s styling was very uninspired and cookie-cutter. "Insert Grille Here"

Also GM was almost monomanical about FWD. Besides killing off the G-Bodies which some of the last "muscle cars", the Camaro/Firebird was very close to being put on a FWD platform. There's nothing wrong with FWD mainstream sedans, but they didn't get the market appeal of these types of cars. If only they had developed a new RWD platform, these models might still be around today.

[johnnyl321]

Actually, after scoring a G8 GT test drive everything else around $30K is weak sauce.
Damn, what a fantastic car that is - and now I know why the Aussies haven't fallen for "FWD is better"... they never quit building the good stuff.[/quote]


If I had my way, I'd have all of the Holden line available here in the USA. When did America become a nation of FWD driving pussies anyway? I understand in the various snow belts and so on, but boy, those Holdens are nice. And that's what the G8 is, a Holden. Check out their website sometime. www.holden.com/au

[nota]

Originally Posted by Slideways

I really don't think that much power is lost through a driveshaft, I just refuse to believe U-joints are that power-hungry. I really want to see two vehicles of identical size, one built with FWD in mind, and the other with RWD in mind to see exactly how much weight and economy suffers.

Excuse my use of your quote for this random posting. But for shared trivia maybe you and others might be interested in this new type of CV joint.

http://cvcoupling.com/

Originally Posted by About the Thompson Coupling page

The Thompson Coupling is the world's first and only Constant Velocity Joint which:

Has all loads carried by roller bearings
Has no sliding or skidding surfaces whatsoever
Can tolerate axial and radial loads without degradation
Has no torque limitation, constructed to any torque level
Does not require special lubrication
Does not require a dust boot
No wearing components except replaceable bearings and trunnions
Is suitable for automotive tail or propeller shaft applications
Is a true Constant Velocity Coupling as distinct from a cv joint
Is less bulky than a double coupling or double Cardan joint.

[CadiEldo67]

[/quote]
If I had my way, I'd have all of the Holden line available here in the USA. When did America become a nation of FWD driving pussies anyway? I understand in the various snow belts and so on, but boy, those Holdens are nice. And that's what the G8 is, a Holden. Check out their website sometime. www.holden.com/au[/quote]

Those Holdens are nice indeed, but I do like to get from Point A to B in the winter time, so FWD or a 4x4 is kind of a necessity in NY. You have to give us credit though, we can drive 55 in blizzards, maybe not the safest, but I don't drive like I've never seen the stuff either, lol.