GM Inside News Forum banner

Cadillac/Buick/Pontiac May Share Sigma

8.4K views 75 replies 46 participants last post by  germeezy1  
#1 ·
Source: Automotive News
-------------------------------------------------------------
By Rick Kranz
Automotive News / April 04, 2005 / By Rick Kranz

The Sigma architecture is used for the Cadillac STS, CTS and SRX.

General Motors may derive rear-drive Buicks and Pontiacs from an exclusive Cadillac vehicle architecture. But don't expect any Chevrolets based on Cadillac underpinnings.

A less costly version of Cadillac's Sigma vehicle architecture is a candidate for several rwd cars now that GM has killed plans for its rwd Zeta architecture in North America.

"A natural place to land would be Sigma," Jim Taylor, Cadillac general marketing manager, said last month at the New York auto show.

Taylor said another option is re-engineering Holden's VT architecture, which is the basis for the Holden Monaro and Commodore and Pontiac GTO.

GM's financial difficulties were blamed for the Zeta decision announced last month. The architecture was being developed for a variety of rwd Buick, Pontiac and Chevrolet cars that would begin to debut in 2007. All-wheel-drive versions also were planned.

The GM product plan would have emulated the Chrysler group's strategy by replacing its front-drive, mid-sized high-volume car lineup of rwd models.

"I don't think I would conclude that plans for rear-wheel vehicles at GM are cancelled forever," GM Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said last month at the New York auto show. "I see it more as a delay. We will study other ways to get at rear-wheel-drive passenger cars."

Taylor said some rwd cars originally based on the Zeta architecture remain in the product plan.

He said a possible architecture for some of these models is a less costly version of the Sigma vehicle architecture, referred to internally as "Sigma-lite."

The Sigma architecture is used exclusively for the rwd Cadillac CTS, STS and SRX.

Before taking his current position at Cadillac in August 2004, Taylor was vehicle line executive for Sigma. The first Cadillac to use the architecture was the 2003 CTS.

When the Sigma architecture was being developed, Taylor said his team investigated whether it was possible to use cheaper components to create vehicles for brands below Cadillac.

"It was a quick study on the component side to see whether we could create Sigma-lite, and it was feasible to do," he said.

GM later decided to do a range of rwd cars for Chevrolet, Buick and Pontiac. But the Sigma-lite architecture proved too expensive for models that might be priced below $25,000.

The automaker decided to develop the less costly Zeta architecture, which could be used on a global basis and applied everywhere from Chevrolet to Cadillac. But on March 21, Lutz announced that GM had canceled plans for using Zeta in North America.

According to supplier sources, Zeta was going to be used for the next-generation Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo; Pontiac Grand Prix and GTO; and two Buick models - a coupe or convertible based on the Velite concept and a sedan. The Chevrolet Camaro name also was going to be resurrected for a four-passenger coupe.

Zeta was one of two vehicle architectures under consideration for an ultraluxury sedan planned by Cadillac that is expected to debut at the end of the decade.
 
#3 ·
Make a coupe version of the Sigma and stick a turbocharged 2.8 V6 in it... and call it Buick Grand National! :drive:
 
#6 ·
I suppose if we cannot get Zeta...

Incidentally, the same Automotive News edition announced that the next-generation SRX due for 2008 was being delayed, too. Not cool. As progressive as the A&S design theme is, it still will become dated if the vehicles carrying the theme are neglected for too long.
 
#7 ·
powervette said:
platform called "exclusive" won't be so exclusive if that happens.
Who cares? Cadilla is not in the precarious position they were three years ago where sharing a platform might have damaged them. Now there won't be any issue. Infiniti, Acura, Lexus and Audi share chassis with their lower brands, so Cadillac would not be the only one.
Tho only question I have is why GM didn't do this in the first place. Why did they waste so much time and money on making a cheap alternative to sigma when sigma could have been the cheap alternative to sigma?
 
#8 ·
If they can share the Northstar with Pontiac and Buick, I see no reason that they should not share Sigma with the lux sedans in those brands. No reason to saddle Pontiac and Buick with outdated G and W bodies forever.
 
#9 ·
gmsickofan said:
If they can share the Northstar with Pontiac and Buick, I see no reason that they should not share Sigma with the lux sedans in those brands. No reason to saddle Pontiac and Buick with outdated G and W bodies forever.
didn't the old riviera and park ave shared the platforms with the eldorado respectively deville?
 
#11 · (Edited)
I dont' understand all of this; I really don't. Don't me wrong, having a Sigma-Lite platorm to spawn all kinds of RWD cars for Pontiac and Buick sounds great, but how did they come to this decision in light of cancelling Zeta? Aren't they just wasting money and taking more time to get new products to market?

Let's look at what we know: The article says that when GM was originally developing Sigma, they deemed that Sigma was far too expensive to use for Chevy/Pontiac/Buick b/c of the 25K threshold -- make sense. So they decided to go with a cheaper version based on the new Zeta platform for worldwide use. Zeta is basically done -- the platform is already developed -- now it's all about creating specific products off the platform for each division. Then two weeks ago GM cancels Zeta products for North America at the last second but will continue to use it for Europe, Australia, Asia, etc.

Okay then, NOW there is a hint that they'll use a cheaper version dubbed Sigma-Lite (does this remind anyone of Sigma-Mass from awhile back?) which will be more expensive anyway compared to Zeta since they have already said that Chevy will be out of the product picture -- not even taking into consideration the idea that there will be smaller margins on these cars since they will start with a more expensive platform. What sense dose this make? You're going to abandon a completely engineered, cheaper architecture to use among more brands and create better economies of scale -- and abandon products that were already in the development phase for each brand -- for a more expensive platfrom from which you will have to start all over again on product develpment? Not to mention that someone has to re-engineer and "dumb-down" Sigma for these cheaper products -- which will undoubtly cost money -- and then develop all new proudcts off of them, when the Zeta products were alredy partially through development anyway? WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!!! Not even considering the fact that you now are pushing pack vehicle launch dates by years!

The only thing I can see making sense from this is if this had to do with Manufacturing...GM didn't want to shell out cash for a new plant or go through the logistics of setting up parts/distribution with suppliers for a new platform. Perhaps GM though that since Sigma is already developed and the suppliers are already lined up -- So maybe the idea is to expand the Lansing Grand Rapids plant where Sigma now exists to accomodate this? But does it makes more sense to go this route -- and lose all that time and money?

Any thoughts? I am wrong?
 
#12 ·
nadepalma said:
I dont' understand all of this; I really don't. Don't me wrong, having a Sigma-Lite platorm to spawn all kinds of RWD cars for Pontiac and Buick sounds great, but how did they come to this decision in light of cancelling Zeta? Aren't they just wasting money and taking more time to get new products to market?

Let's look at what we know: The article says that when GM was originally developing Sigma, they deemed that Sigma was far too expensive to use for Chevy/Pontiac/Buick b/c of the 25K threshold -- make sense. So they decided to go with a cheaper version based on the new Zeta platform for worldwide use. Zeta is basically done -- the platform is already developed -- now it's all about creating specific products off the platform for each division. Then two weeks ago GM cancels Zeta products for North America at the last second but will continue to use it for Europe, Australia, Asia, etc.

Okay then, NOW there is a hint that they'll use a cheaper version dubbed Sigma-Lite (does this remind anyone of Sigma-Mass from awhile back?) which will be more expensive anyway compared to Zeta since they have already said that Chevy will be out of the product picture -- not even taking into consideration the idea that there will be smaller margins on these cars since they will start with a more expensive platform. What sense dose this make? You're going to abandon a completely engineered, cheaper architecture to use among more brands and create better economies of scale -- and abandon products that were already in the development phase for each brand -- for a more expensive platfrom from which you will have to start all over again on product develpment? Not to mention that someone has to re-engineer and "dumb-down" Sigma for these cheaper products -- which will undoubtly cost money -- and then develop all new proudcts off of them, when the Zeta products were alredy partially through development anyway? WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!!! Not even considering the fact that you now are pushing pack vehicle launch dates by years!

The only thing I can see making sense from this is if this had to do with Manufacturing...GM didn't want to shell out cash for a new plant or go through the logistics of setting up parts/distribution with suppliers for a new platform. Perhaps GM though that since Sigma is already developed and the suppliers are already lined up -- So maybe the idea is to expand the Lansing Grand Rapids plant where Sigma now exists to accomodate this? But does it makes more sense to go this route -- and lose all that time and money?

Any thoughts? I am wrong?
I'm in full agreement.
 
#13 · (Edited)
Okay so let me get this straight. Chevy can give Cadillac the C6 platform for the XLR before the C6 even launches and Chevy can also give the Z06's LS6 V8 to Caddy for the CTS-V, but Caddy can't cough up Zeta for Chevy!? Mustang continues to sell faster than for can manufacture them with dealer mark ups. Camaro is needed.

Edit: I meant Sigma not Zeta :doh:
 
#16 ·
Holden has a 3.8 Liter HF V-6 so lets stick a turbo on that and really bring back the GN!
 
#18 ·
johnd89 said:
didn't the old riviera and park ave shared the platforms with the eldorado respectively deville?
The Riviera, Toronado, and Eldorado shared the E-body platform (two generations of it) from 1979 through the early 1990s. The Deville moved from the C-body platform to the Seville's K-body version of the E-body platform in the early 1990s. The Toro and Riv were replaced by the G-body Aurora and Riviera in 1995. The Park Avenue moved from the C-body platform to the G-body in 1997, and the Deville moved from E/K to G around the same time.
 
#22 ·
The GM product plan would have emulated the Chrysler group's strategy by replacing its front-drive, mid-sized high-volume car lineup of rwd models.

"I don't think I would conclude that plans for rear-wheel vehicles at GM are cancelled forever," GM Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said last month at the New York auto show. "I see it more as a delay. We will study other ways to get at rear-wheel-drive passenger cars."
Translation: "We're set to follow in someone else's footsteps instead of leading again, and we've decided to do it in our usual way: far behind the curve with mediocre parts bin products."

Zeta was one of two vehicle architectures under consideration for an ultraluxury sedan planned by Cadillac that is expected to debut at the end of the decade.
So let me get this straight: An 'Ultraluxury' Cadillac was to be on the same platform as the Camaro? I wonder if it would have had a hump in the floorpan. :lmao:
 
#23 ·
nikivee
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickhunter1max
WHY DOES PONTIAC get a RWD they don't SELL you suck GM die already




who told you they dont' sell? Did you in fact look up actual sales figures or just jump on the 'since there is no Camaro I hate the GTO band wagon?"


Chevy has always out sold Pontiac THATS A FACT look it up actual sales figures. Chevy pride has been cut down time and time again to save pontiac its time to slay your own brother to save your family lol dam thats cold
 
#24 ·
I thought Zeta was suppsoed to be the lower cost Sigma? This could make sense i guess tho, tey can save money on stuff like the suspension and they have extra capacity at the sigma plant, which may be why they canceled a NA Zeta palnt, they probably couldnt get high enough volume in terms of specific product to make money off their diff plants.

Also, i think ALL RWD sedans have a hump in the floor pan, there has to be a drive shaft to get power to the rear wheels.
 
#25 ·
vdoh182 said:
Also, i think ALL RWD sedans have a hump in the floor pan, there has to be a drive shaft to get power to the rear wheels.
Not that, look in any 1975-2002 Camaro or Firebird's passenger side floorpan just in front of the passenger seat. There is a hump that intrudes into the footwell; underneath this is were the catalytic converter is because apparently the exhaust routing on these cars was an afterthought.
 
#26 ·
Hudson said:
The Riviera, Toronado, and Eldorado shared the E-body platform (two generations of it) from 1979 through the early 1990s. The Deville moved from the C-body platform to the Seville's K-body version of the E-body platform in the early 1990s. The Toro and Riv were replaced by the G-body Aurora and Riviera in 1995. The Park Avenue moved from the C-body platform to the G-body in 1997, and the Deville moved from E/K to G around the same time.
only the '00 deville and '97+ park ave shared the same G platform? the '98 deville wasn't G?
thx!