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.
 
#75 ·
That's somewhat what I'm thinking after hearing this. GM has told it's engineers to take the basic Alpha platform as a starting point, and make a simpler/cheaper version of it.

Hopefully if this is the case, they'll make the new platform just as flexible and expandable to eventually be the basis of a new sedan as well.
 
#69 ·
Why not a little RWD Buick sedan?
 
#70 ·
I would prefer a replacement for the Caprice sized car if I had a choice of ONE RWD CHASSIS as I believe that small cars are not harmed as much by FWD VS a LARGE car and the sounds of things is the COMMIE is dead after 16 leaving the/ SS / Cop car program / Buick park avenue out to dry not to mention killing my dream car the UTE


my thinking for the ALPHA lite if the chassis is configured for the 2.0T 300 BHP MAX [b/] NO V6 - V8 and uses LOTS of cruse/sonic parts IE interior / IP etc and looses a lot of Aluminium and goal of 50/50 balance over 0-60 times
I could see the torana / code but NOT a CADDY and 50/50 CADDY as I assume the cheapness will show + a CADDY CITY COUPE would IMHO be better as acut down ELR and not a MINI ATS
 
#82 ·
I don't believeprofitabilty will be reached by adding more 2 door cars in the market. They would be better served by a turbo 4 all wheel drive and rear wheel drive 4 door sleek coupe.

There are many young people who for some reason want 4 door cars for friends ... I don't agree but it seems that's what they really want at the low end of the market.

Give them a really sexy four door coupe and not a 2 door.
 
#86 · (Edited)
So I was thinking.....

What off the shelf GM components sets can be utilized to create a really cheap, small RWD car?

What we're talking about here is a car the size of the Sonic. So, lets start with Gamma. Some work would have to be done to orientate the engine/trans longitudinally. Use an inexpensive front Macpherson strut suspension from Gamma or Delta with revised geometry to address our new changes. In the rear, graft the rear IRS/diff subframe from the AWD Opel Insignia. Maybe upgrade it's rear differential with the beefier one from the AWD Lambdas. Give it a standard 1.6T and Aisin 6 speed manual. Add ATS brakes, and re-use the HVAC, interior, etc., from the Sonic.

$19,500 out the door.

And somewhere on the options list, I'd make room for a 1.6-2.0L turbo diesel.
 
#105 ·
I wouldn't go so far as to say the C130R "caught fire"; it really hasn't generated much buzz in the media, probably not even a quarter of the attention the Camaro concept got. If this gets built it will be 1) to help CAFE, and 2) cover a sliver of the market that wants a RWD coupe but are turned off by the Camaro/pony car stigma.
 
#110 ·
You can't really compare it to the buzz that the return of an established icon like the Camaro created. That would be comparing apples to oranges. But....every single magazine that would cover these sorts of things has written a story about making this concept a reality. A FB fan page has been created for it with contributions from both Clay Dean and the Code's designer. And GM keeps bringing different versions of it to shows. There certainly is a buzz around it.

But the question is and always has been, is there a valid business case for it?
 
#107 ·
IMO Chevy needs an affordable, small RWD/AWD sedan.

There's a Millennial market that's untapped. The market that wants an Infiniti G, but can't afford it yet.

It won't step on the toes of the ATS because the ATS has better technology.

It should be the car that Pontiac was supposed to have (this is NOT a "bring back Pontiac" statement. I'm saying you can have a sport sedan under the Chevy umbrella).
 
#109 ·
eAssist is about an $800 option.. make one with a bit larger motor and put it on the rear wheels of any FWD GM vehicle (obviously needs IRS to fit the drive shafts).. since eAssist displaces an alternator and starter this AWD variant would have to add those at extra cost plus the two driveshafts.. so perhaps $2000 cost. Recharge would be by regen and forced regen, no generator needed. No need for a RWD or AWD chassis.

You end up with a lot more torque, profitable AWD for the yuppies and hybrid efficiency. Like with eAssist you can afford to put a real tall 6th gear on the transmission for excellent hwy fuel economy.
 
#111 ·
If GM could produce the RWD Code for the cost of a Gamma or Delta, (Sonic/Cruze), this thing would probably be a done deal.

So, how do you take cost out of Alpha? Reduce content. Cheapen the interior. Replace the front double pivot strut suspension with a simple strut suspension. Replace the sophisticated multilink IRS with a simpler suspension. Do ALL of that and you've maybe taken $1000 in cost out of the platform. Probably still not cheap enough.
 
#114 ·
If GM could produce the RWD Code for the cost of a Gamma or Delta, (Sonic/Cruze), this thing would probably be a done deal.
So, how do you take cost out of Alpha? Reduce content. Cheapen the interior. Replace the front double pivot strut suspension with a simple strut suspension. Replace the sophisticated multilink IRS with a simpler suspension. Do ALL of that and you've maybe taken $1000 in cost out of the platform. Probably still not cheap enough.
Remember Bob Lutz's statement "COST OBJECTIVE." They know what they want to sell a vehicle for, and if the cost of it can be brought in line with the cost objective for it, then they will build it. If the cost objective cannot be reached, we'll hear that it costs too much for the market.
This cost objective is development costs, materials, labor, engineering, assembly costs/robots needed, and all the other factors, to come up with a final figure, and then factor in the RETURN ON INVESTMENT. GM knows these figures, we don't, so that is frequently why GM doesn't do what we want them to do or wish they would do. Cost Objective/Return On Investment governs nearly everything they do.
 
#113 · (Edited)
Any move now with a low priced compact RWD for Chevrolet or even Buick will surely undermine the ATS.
It reduces the exclusivity of the ATS to that of a trim option, something GM clearly won't do.

I think people are reading way too much into doorstop comments like these, instead of dismissing
eager fans, Reuss and co say "We're thinking about it.." so that there's no negative shut down...
 
#116 ·
Platform sharing is going to happen in the Global auto business. The days of exclusive platforms is all but done, save the Corvette. Now, I think GM is sharing the Alpha the correct way. Starts out as a premium platform and is shared down to the other brands after.
Instead of saying "ugh, that Cadillac is using a Chevy platform" it is the positive of Chevy getting to use the Cadillac platform. Changes the perception.
 
#117 · (Edited)
To counter the Focus ST and Subaru WRX, they could always make it into a hatchback. Why not? Then consumers will have a choice of FWD, AWD and RWD. Or, at least a sedan-like hatchback so people can put snowboards or whatever in the back.

I'm pretty sure if he said they wouldn't use Alpha, then it makes sense to me if Subaru/Toyota/Scion can't keep their BRZ etc. in stock.
 
#124 · (Edited)
"Devil's Advocate" time:

IF the 130 had been initially shown as a FWD derivative, and the 140 had been a RWD concept, which DESIGN would have prevailed?

In other words, is the great scramble for the 130 because of its design, or its architecture?

Personally, in the current Market with readily available resources used to attain a $20K-ish selling price, I think the 140 wins on looks...AND architecture... AT THIS PRICE POINT.

What say you?
 
#126 ·
I would be asking to put the Code body on the RWD chassis. I will admit that I am biased to the code being RWD and would not have had as much of a desire to get one if it was FWD. I liked the Cobalts and kicked around the idea of getting an SS but I don't want FWD. Ditto for the last Gen Monte Carlo as well.
 
#127 · (Edited)
As for a log rear axle, even Mustang is purported to be moving to IRS, next-Gen. Building a "modern Monza", to me, is a step backwards. Mustang's trackmanship vis-a-vis rear axles is limited to a GT500 (3850 lb/662 hp) vs. ZL1 (4120 lb/580 hp) where the deciding factor (at some tracks) is power-to-weight (and cojones!), NOT suspension capabilities. 1LE vs. BOSS and SS vs. GT is generally in favor of the Camaros, even though they "suffer" from excess weight compared to the Stangs.

The cojones required are a direct result of a much less-refined suspension...and IRS and MRC are the mitigating reasons. Another example of "price point engineering"...
 
#128 ·
IRS vs SRA both have their advantages and disadvantages. The cost and weight savings by going with the SRA wouldn't outweigh the stigma of having the antiquated SRA…at least from a perception point by auto “journalists” and review bloggers.
 
#129 ·
Keep in mind that there is a lot of options between a cheap live rear and a multi-link IRS. For example, a Chapman Strut IRS is essentially a rear-drive version of a MacPherson strut front suspension. It's light and relatively simple (read: cheaper). No, it does not isolate all forces as well as a multi-link, meaning there are ride and performance trade-offs. But, it can be better than a live axle and cheaper than a multi-link -- sounds just right for what we're discussing.
 
#131 ·
Just take the entire front suspension and structure from a suitably sized GM FWD car that is made in large numbers. Graft it on the back of the Alpha platform. Just delete the ability to turn; or not - if you want to incorporate RWD steer... There is your cheapest answer.



;)
 
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