Open Letter to GM: Don't Stop the Zeta Program

[YSSMAN]

An Open Letter to General Motors: Don't Stop the Zeta Program

To whom it may concern:

I am writing this letter in a time in which I not only have begun to doubt some of the leadership at General Motors, but generally stand in disbelief that something as minor as the possibility of change disallows an entire company from effectively entering, transforming, and dominating a market once again. How exactly can the company by which has been the creator of some of the greatest cars on the planet (The Corvette, the Epsilon cars, the Sigma cars, etc) run scared from the Government? Are your resources that low, or that mis-managed that you simply cannot make fine-tuned adjustments to your current product lines?

I am of course talking about the recent news that the Zeta "global rear-wheel-drive" architecture has been placed on an effective "hold" until regulations and technology meet up to match proposed CAFE standards. Quite frankly, I'm very disappointed that it has come to this, as I (among many) truly believed that this Zeta program was to be the saving grace for GM and its subsidiaries. To see GM running away with its tail between its legs just doesn't seem right, especially when you guys have been known to give the proverbial "finger" to the rest of the world when it comes to new cars and new ideas.

So why, must I ask, is it so difficult to meet these new standards? Are there not options all ready available with existing technology by which these cars can meet the fuel-efficiency standards? Granted of course, I wouldn't expect the high-output V8 models to do so, but can we not expect the "basic" V6 models to do so? I have to leave it up to the engineers at GM to get things right, but can they not see past their own hands when it comes to the future? Simply put, if BMW and Mercedes, by which nearly every-single one of their products is rear-wheel-drive can match these standards, why can't the world's largest automaker? I have more faith in you than most people, and I know that men such as Bob Lutz and presumably Rick Wagoner want these cars on the road, but lets be serious, it isn't going to be that hard.

So what do I suggest? First things first, I'd say "suck it up." The world isn't fair, but you may as well make money while you can and adjust later. Quite frankly, it would appear that Chrysler and Ford are doing the same, given their transition from the LX to the LY body in the near-future, and as with Ford, the creation of an updated rear-wheel-drive chassis based on the Mustang for 2010. If they can do it, there isn't any reason why GM cannot, particularly when you've got the engineering genius that is Holden, Cadillac, and the boys at Opel on your side. They are the flagship companies at GM, and there isn't any reason why you cannot utilize the tools you have to develop a way in which you can surpass these possible CAFE standards.

Recently a few friends of mine, including myself, decided that we needed to attempt to come up with a different way to align the products in question. Overall, we had attempted to utilize current GM parts to create what can only be described as hypothetical Zetas, and this is what we have come up with:

- Solution to the V8 problem: As most of the fans of the Zeta chassis know, the most-important products to come from that lineage will be the V8-powered line. As American as apple pie, the mid-size rear-wheel-drive sedan is the cornerstone to American automotive history, and indeed the key to the future of the American automobile. That being said, I can understand that the V8 program is presumably the toughest by which to meet these CAFE standards, but you do have to ask, why? Are there not smaller-displacement V8s made available by other GM subsidiaries by which would be able to give acceptable performance? Can we not adapt the current 5.3L Vortec V8 found in the Chevrolet Tahoe and Silverado, complete with E85 capacity and cylinder-deactivation to meet these standards? I would presume largely that matching that V8 with the 6L80E automatic would largely fix many of the fuel-mileage concerns, particularly with a good balance of short gearing and a tall axle ratio, similar to results produced by many Mercedes and BMW automobiles. Quite frankly, a similar solution could also be applied to the higher-performance models as well, given the adaptability of the L76 V8 already to be found in the Commodore/G8, and presumably the LS2 as well, given the relationship between the two models of the LS-series engine.

- Solution to the V6 problem: With the given history of GM, and the long-standing dominance of not only the V8 market, but quite frankly being a dominant force in the V6 market, I can't help but wonder why exactly there are any problems with this whatsoever. With such a wide-range of V6 options made available around the world, and the general know-how when it comes to building them "the right way," there isn't any reason why this should be a problem. First and foremost, are there solutions already on the table? To that I say yes, as the LY7 is already an amazingly adaptable V6 powerplant, and when connected to the right transmission (again, the 6L80E) should be able to produce numbers in excess of the current or proposed CAFE standards. Beyond that, what future is in store for the direct-injection V6 to be had in the CTS? Can that not be applied to the Zeta chassis as well? Can your cylinder-deactivation be placed upon the LY7 as well? Or why not go the 'cheap' route and play-around with the current "high value" V6 line? We've already heard plenty about the 3.9L V6 making its way into the Zeta-based Camaro, so why can't that be used in other models? I would be in assumption that again, an E85-equipped 3.9L with cylinder deactivation (already available in the Impala LTZ) and the proper transmission (6L80E) would be more than enough to meet CAFE standards with proper tuning. What about the Aussie Alloytech lineup? Can we not adapt their 2.8L V6 (as previously seen in the CTS) to the Commodore as well? What about the Atlas I6 from the GMT360 chassis? What it comes down to is that there are solutions out there, and you've got to use them.

- Question of diesel power: What has gotten me most excited about GM in recent months has been their interest in diesel power beyond that of current trains of thought at other American and Japanese automakers. With a full onslaught of diesel-powered Zetas on the market, I don't see any reason why standards could not be met. I recall an interview not too long ago in which the head of Holden was quite interested in diesel power for the Commodore, and he indeed cited that the company was looking into producing a diesel-powered Commodore in the near-future? What then is preventing GM North America from doing the same in cars like the G8, or even the presumed Zeta-based Impala? Can we not use your long-rumored 4.8L diesel V8 with 360 BHP to power these cars with fuel economy reportedly in the high 30 to low 40 MPG area? What about the new 2.9L diesel V6 that will be in the new CTS? Will that not have enough grunt to move the Zeta at a respectable rate? What it comes down to again is the use of the correct engine technology with the correct transmission, and I see no reason why GM cannot master this art with these cars.

- Question of going below six-cylinders: Is it possible? Why can't it be done? My friends and I asked this question numerous times. Given GM's history of sticking four-cylinder engines presumably in places where they didn't belong, why not attempt it one more time, but instead, get it right? As it currently stands, I am in a camp by which many would believe that GM has the right technology when it comes to I4 and I5 engines to produce a winning combination to get things right in the Zeta cars. So, why not consider a Zeta powered by the current 2.4L LE5 I4? Can 170 BHP not be considered enough horsepower to move one of these cars effectively? Competitors over at Chrysler seem to have been able to do so with their 2.7L V6 in the LX models, granted of course it makes a few more horsepower these days, but can the current problem be solved in this way? What about the 2.0L direct-injection engine found in the Solstice GXP and Saturn Sky Red Line? Can 260 BHP be considered to be enough to propel the car? Could the boost be turned down to produce "only" 200 BHP, thereby to maximize fuel economy? What about the current lineup of I5 engines found in the GMT355 trucks? Can the L5R be adapted for use in the Zeta as well? With the correct transmission, once again I find myself screaming that there is a solution, you just have to be ready to make the decision.

So to conclude this letter, I just have to ask, why? Why can't the world's largest, and arguably best automaker not solve this issue? Thousands and thousands of people have been eagerly awaiting the debut of this chassis, these models, for years on-end. To leave these people effectively "out-to-dry" is not only a shame, but it is a good way by which to lose business. And in the current state of affairs, that is not a bright idea. So please consider my words, do what is best, and attempt to get these cars on the road. Nobody wants to see these cars fail, and nobody wants to go on with "just" the G8 and the Camaro. We want an Impala. We want a GTO. We want a Riviera. We want a XLS. The Zeta chassis carries the future of GM with it, and letting it go simply does not bode well with the money invested, and the opinions of the public as well.

---

I've had this letter on my hard drive, as well as my personal website for about a week, and I just had to get it out somewhere. I know that Bob Lutz (among others) frequents the forums, and I certainly hope that at some point he (or others) could read the letter and take the words into consideration. We've got too much invested in the Zeta chassis to just stop it altogether, as at least where I'm standing, I'd say they are among the most important new products any American automaker could have at the current time.

[Diesel/_]

Your wish has been granted
(http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/03/l...rns-less-gas/).