GM Inside News Forum banner

Is GM developing a new RWD architecture smaller and cheaper than Alpha?

43K views 231 replies 60 participants last post by  jossch 
#1 · (Edited)
During an interview, Mark Reuss was asked about the Code 130R and it's suitability for a Holden Torana by the Australian media.

http://www.carsales.com.au/news/sma...-and-holden-considering-toyota-86-rival-34538

He had this quote: “We would do something with the knowledge of Alpha and the background, but we wouldn’t take Alpha and try and shrink it.”

Indicating that a smaller, cheaper RWD architecture would be developed for such a car. This also ties in to NSAP's report last month that Buick was holding off any decison on RWD until a decision on the Code was made by Chevy.

Up until now, everyone at GM I have spoken to about the Code 130R have indicated that IF approved, it would ride on Alpha. Of course, everyone also acknowledged that this car can't be sold for $20K as promised, if it's on Alpha.

This is BIG NEWS guys. I've got my feelers out for any info.
 
#2 ·
Very interesting........

Kappa re born.

Opel could have something from this too.

A small Chevy, A small Buick convertible......
 
#3 ·
It would have to be quite a bit cheaper and higher volume than Kapppa. Kappa was an essentially 7/8th scale Y-car designed for very low volume. And it lost money.
 
#4 ·
He had this quote: “We would do something with the knowledge of Alpha and the background, but we wouldn’t take Alpha and try and shrink it.”

How much smaller can you get? It's already a compact. Maybe they are thinking in terms of taking Alpha and making it cheaper with more iron parts and less of the lightweight stuff?
 
#7 ·
So, let me get this straight... GM will not spring for variants of the successful Cruze in the United States. Nor will they bring versions of vehicles built on existing platforms such as the Trax (Gamma), Cascada (Delta), Astra GTC (Delta), Orlando (Delta), etc., to the U.S. market... But they will develop another RWD platform to build lower cost vehicles (meaning lower revenue generated, and more than likely lower profit margins) which would have limited scope in the market by comparison... Yeah, that makes sense...

As a driver, I'd love to see more RWD architecture in the lineup. But from a financial perspective and knowing their recent history, I find it hard to believe this would get the "green light."
 
#16 ·
...while traditionally RWD BMW and Mercedes-Benz add more FWD models below their compacts and other smaller companies have to co-develop small RWD sports cars (Alfa and Mazda co-developing next MX-5). GM cracking the Code (pun not intended...initially) on a 3rd or 4th RWD platform that can be low-cost and global?

Alpha is probably too big when all is said and done to underpin a true 86/BRZ competitor, but I don't see it, yet...
 
#8 ·
Alpha, remember, was originally designed to be a 4 cylinder only RWD architecture, namely for Pontiac. That is before Cadillac got involved.
 
#14 ·
I feel like this is all smoke and mirrors. Scion/Subaru comes up with a car that is a surprise hit and maybe in some ways what the Kappa cars weren't or could have been, and now GM wants back in on this segment and wants to say "me too". I think it's a waste of energy to even consider the Code. Just use the next Camaro as an outlet to compete with the Scion/Subaru twins. The Camaro needs to shrink and lose weight. I wish the next one would be more like the size ofthe first gen. Don't tell me a 3000-3100 pound Alpha Camaro is not possible.
 
#18 · (Edited)
I would love to see a low cost mid size RWD platform to replace the Commodore in 2017. I should be due for a new one by then :-D

P.S. Forget the BRZ competitor. It's too small!
:p:
P.P.S. nice chop MonaroSS. Disappointed you didn't sneaky swap it to RHD
 
#20 ·
Kappa was a dead end. It was expensive, low volume and couldn't be stretched beyond a two seater. The Nomad concept, had to give up it's gas tank in order to get that tiny rear seat back there.
 
#24 ·
Interesting. I'm imagining the business case is tough, though. In many ways, this is what Kappa was supposed to be. When it was launched, the two things GM boasted about were the fact that Kappa could be profitable at low volumes, even with lots of variants. That and that the platform was flexible enough to support a variety of vehicles (remember the Nomad?). It seems neither was true, if subsequent rumors are to be believed.

The only way I can think of to make a cheap, small RWD vehicle is if it share shares significant substructures and parts with a small volume FWD car. In this and age, that's not impossible, but it's still tough. But, even sharing the cowl/dash area can be significant as it includes the HVAC, elements of the infotainment system, etc. So, I guess the question would be could GM dip into the Cruze/Sonic parts bin, add a few new elements, and create a light, lively RWD car?
 
#25 ·
The only way I can think of to make a cheap, small RWD vehicle is if it share shares significant substructures and parts with a small volume FWD car. In this and age, that's not impossible, but it's still tough. But, even sharing the cowl/dash area can be significant as it includes the HVAC, elements of the infotainment system, etc. So, I guess the question would be could GM dip into the Cruze/Sonic parts bin, add a few new elements, and create a light, lively RWD car?

That's exactly what I was thinking. Repurpose some FWD components.

The big killer for Kappa was it's absolute lack of flexibility. Had Kappa been flexible enough to package a second row of seats, we'd already be talking about Kappa III.
 
#26 ·
I don't see it happening solely on GM's shoulders. They might do a JV with someone, but I don't see how it would make sense financially for a few limited vehicles that would be slotted under Alpha.

It's hard to imagine GM developing an even smaller, lighter, and cheaper RWD platform. The sales expectations would need to be there and the Code alone isn't worth it unless it was sold under Buick, Holden, and Opel. Even then, that's debatable. GM would need to have plans for more than just a sports coupe. Maybe a small sporty urban CUV, but that would overlap with so many other small CUVs that GM has that it wouldn’t make sense either.

It just seems like a lot of work and money for a small return. I don’t see it happening.
 
#27 ·
I see what you are saying and you have a point. But it just wouldn't be a Code. It would be a Code, (or whatever name) a Torana, and a buncha Buicks and Opels.
 
#28 ·
This is what I put in the other tread about the article. The way I take it/ see it is as a version of Alpha, not an entirely new platform.

Start with Alpha, replace many of the trick, expensive bits (magnesium motor mounts…that kind of stuff) and replace them with less expensive components. This will add some mass to the car.

The C130R would not need to inherently stand up to the torque and HP of the LT1 which Alpha is already capable of doing. Some chassis costs and mass reduction could be gained there (maybe losing the mass gained by using less of the trick, expensive, lightweight parts I first mentioned. ATS also uses thicker glass to help with road noise, this Chevy could get away with standard glass to help reduce mass. A basic cloth interior and Chevy dash would save some weight over what the ATS uses. Reduce the amount of sound deadening material. Again, this is a small, entry level, sub-Camaro coupe.

If you read Bob Lutz book, there was talk in there about using platforms for regular and premium brands and engineering different suspension systems for the platforms. The gist was to have the different systems use the same mounting points, thus helping to reduce costs. Good example of this is the XTS on Epsilon II. XTS uses Magnetic Ride Control suspension, LaCrosse and Impala use different systems.

Some of these cost and weight saving idea could and should be used on the 6th Gen Camaro.

Maybe they could call it Alpha lite?
 
#66 ·
If you read Bob Lutz book, there was talk in there about using platforms for regular and premium brands and engineering different suspension systems for the platforms. The gist was to have the different systems use the same mounting points, thus helping to reduce costs. Good example of this is the XTS on Epsilon II. XTS uses Magnetic Ride Control suspension, LaCrosse and Impala use different systems.
MRC suspension isn't mechanically any different other than the dampers have the MRC fluid and coils in them. The suspension is the same. This is no different than the old W bodies having different spring rates and dampers.
 
#32 ·
Just a thought - perhaps too deep for most here...

If you design a great suspension at all four corners, why do you need to design different platforms? Think about this - cars differ in width and length and wheelbase and overhangs. Aside from building dinosaur SUV's and pickups, why are there any SUBSTANTIAL differences in suspensions? All cars need to ride well and handle well and changes can be handled in bushings and shocks and springs.

Where is the need for different platforms?

Think outside of the box and you'll see the solution is utterly simple and would eliminate ever having different platforms ever again.
 
#48 ·
I LOVE these quotes in the article.

Mr Reuss described the SS as an experiment to see whether mainstream rear-drive models would work for Chevrolet in the USA, after years of reliance on large front-drive cars such as the Impala.

“We haven’t done this in a long time,” he said. “We are going to experiment with SS and see what happens.”

If the SS does strike a chord and establishes itself, that could well play a role in guaranteeing the VF Commodore, which goes on sale here in May, continues to be built as an export model beyond its Australian lifecycle
I had theorized this a long time ago, that the SS was going to be a marketing test. And if it's a success, it would mean a great RWD future at GM.
 
#51 ·
GM has decades-long experience with rwd and current experience with small, medium and large versions as well. There is no reason to go back to Chevette, a car that appears to have been outdated when it was introduced.
Take the light-weight metal out of alpha and substitute high-strength steel, delete some of the equipment, and you will have a cheaper, yet still light weight, vehicle platform.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top