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.
 
#139 ·
From a business case perspective, there are, as far as I can tell, several elements to consider. One is amortizing the significant engineering and development costs of a platform over a larger number of cars. Next is reusing as much as possible existing, already-engineered sub-assemblies. Last is the actual cost of various 'bits' and whether they can be produced with ample profit at the envisioned selling price.

Interestingly, from what I've read, some non-obvious sub-assemblies are very expensive to engineer, particularly anything involving the crash structure/passive safety, HVAC systems and the electrical platform. Basically, if you can reuse a lot of these subsystems, you can amortize a LOT of engineering cost and gain some purchasing scale.

So, that said, if GM is to do a small, light RWD car and base it off an existing platform, I wonder if Alpha-lite may actually be the cheapest method. Imagine existing Alpha, but with a strut front and rear suspension (not as sophisticated, but cheap and light), much cheaper interior bits, and four-cylinder only. If it reused much of the rest of Alpha (including the cowl, basic crash structure, etc) I wonder if it could be cheap and light enough to hit the ~$20,000 price point? Such a car could handle very well and be very quick, but not have the kind of NVH suitable for a Cadillac, for example. But, with Alpha's basic electrical structure, it might be able to support some surprisingly sophisticated infotainment options, which could be good for the audience something like a Code 130 would be aimed at.

Just musing ... I don't actually know anything :)
 
#154 · (Edited)
Well, I was so intrigued with the notion of taking a cheap FWD architecture and re-engineering it to create a cheap RWD architecture, that I decided to ask an expert on it's feasibility. In a nut shell, it is way too expensive. It's actually been considered several times, but in the end, the massive re-engineering tear up just costs too much.

So with that said.......what is Mark Reuss talking about?????
 
#158 · (Edited)
Okay, so here is the scoop on this.....


So what exactly was Reuss talking about? I can tell you. Obviously, anything on Alpha will never sell for $20K. That is , not without GM losing money on it. Apparently, there is a very early study going on within GM to create a small, inexpensive, RWD architecture. Something that could be used on a Code 130R type car or a Holden Torana. This is very early stuff here, and far from being approved.

It seems that the Code concept has created enough buzz to at least get the ball rolling on this. Now, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, because like I said, this very early on. But........it must be far enough along to get Mark Reuss to talk about it to journalists at the NAIAS. :)

We'll see, how this pans out.
 
#160 ·
Okay, so here is the scoop on this.....


So what exactly was Reuss talking about? I'll can now tell you. Obviously, anything on Alpha will never sell for $20K. That is , not without GM losing money on it. Apparently, there is a very early study going on within GM to create a small, inexpensive, RWD architecture. Something that could be used on a Code 130R type car or a Holden Torana. This is very early stuff here, and far from being approved.

It seems that the Code concept has created enough buzz to at least get the ball rolling on this. Now, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, because like I said, this very early on. But........it must be far enough along to get Mark Reuss to talk about it to journalists at the NAIAS. :)

We'll see, how this pans out.
What size are they discussing?
 
#162 ·
Given the significant packing challenges with a small RWD car, I'd make some assumptions. First, this would be primarily a niche, performance car platform. Second, the only way to make this work is to make it flexible enough to offer a lot of different vehicles -- to surf the 'long tail' of demand for small groups of passionate people. Third -- to do all of this, the platform needs to be really simple and cheap. And, it needs to remix and reuse a lot of existing parts.

So, imagine a family of small, fun-to-drive cars from GM, spread out over different divisions. Coupes, sedans, shooting brakes, roadsters -- the whole deal. Think a pretty limited group of shared parts -- drivetrains, suspensions, etc. Sounds like an enthusiasts dream come true! Different variants with common parts will create enough volume to justify an aftermarket, making these hugely personalizable.

If GM has the smarts -- and the guts -- to pull something like this off, I'd be very, very impressed!
 
#165 · (Edited)
I discussed Kappa with Lutz several times, it was too ambitious and used too many expensive components and the hydro-formed parts were very limiting to variations, especially no back seat...

Maybe GM should just ask in on the Fiat-Mazda deal RWD platform... why re-invent the wheel when everyone will be struggling for volume.



;)
 
#172 ·
Detroit is very adept at bending and welding regular steel cost-effectively. That's why trucks/SUVs are so profitable, despite the larger amount of steel. The more exotic, lighter materials are both more expensive to buy and to manipulate and attach. Since they're not as experienced in designing unibodies or other major components with them, engineering the structure takes longer and requires more people.
 
#177 ·
Unibody isn't the issue. There is the engineering overhead associated with developing a new car that is amoritized over the volume of vehicles. If the cost is high and the volume low, that's going to need to be an expensive vehicle. For a $20K low volume car, the overhead needs to be low, meaning re-using some existing engineering knowledge to avoid starting from scratch on major elements, particularly those that require a lot of testing (like crash structures).

The actual parts /components also have to be cheap enough to be profitable on a $20k car. So, think less expensive interior materials,.existing,certified drivetrains, simple suspensions, etc. Light weight will need to be achieved the old-fashioned way, by smaller size and less complexity.

Add that up, and it seems to point to a smaller, simpler off shoot of something like Alpha (unless GM has another suitable platform in the pipeline). Shorter wheelbase, strut front and rear suspension, maybe four-cylinder or less as the top motors, no provision for AWD, etc. But, you'd have a head start on the basic (crash-tested structure) and the cowl, which houses the HVAC and most of the infotainment infrastructure is already engineered. Not sure if you could get it light enough or cheap enough, but starting on a new platform would be even harder. Reusing elements of a volume FWD/AWD platform might also work, but most of the crash elements would essentially be from-scratch, so I'm not sure how practical this approach might be.

Again, I'm not expert..This is just my guess based on years of reading about the development process from various public sources. Love to hear someone more knowledgeable chime in!
 
#178 · (Edited)
#179 ·
#185 ·
I would think they have to modify the floorpan for awd, but it would cost more to change the floorpan from that than to just leaving it as is.
The VE Commodore has a floorpan designed for awd that never was put in production, and it would cost some money to change the design, so the floorpan would likely be unchanged from the ATS awd set-up just because it would cost more to change it. Unless there is some savings to be realized, which I doubt.
 
#183 ·
#184 ·
Interesting. My personal view is that any thoughts of substantially deleting alloys and UHSS for a cheaper architecture are a blind alley. From now on, no one will be adding mass unless they absolutely have to.
 
#186 ·
The Corvette chief engineer said carbon fiber is one third the weight of fiberglass but 5-6 times as expensive.
I have read that aluminum is a third the weight of steel and had a cost around $2 a pound.
The greatest weight saver is omitting a component, so I think there will be a "bare-bones" version that will be lighter weight by having less of something(s).
 
#191 · (Edited)
I'd like to see, in addidition to a 130 sport coupe, a more conventional small RWD Chevy 2 & 4 door SportSedan... priced just above Cruze.




And wouldn't it be nice to see the new injected small block spawn a 2.4, 2.9 and 3.4 range of SBL V4's... (Small Block Lite)




The exhaust could be tuned to sound close to a V8, and then active sound enhancement (like BMW are using) can use the vehicle's sound system timed to the engine speed to make it sound exactly like a V8...




Imagine ^^^ that sound or better coming from a little Monza Coupe like below...





;)
 
#193 ·
And wouldn't it be nice to see the new injected small block spawn a 2.4, 2.9 and 3.4 range of SBL V4's... (Small Block Lite)



;)
I would love to see GM do this. The technology that is in this engine is just awesome. I would bet that a LT1 based V4 would be cheaper/ easier to build than the Ecotec. I'd go crazy to see a V4 version of the supercharged one.
 
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