2000 W-Body Cars Meant To Be Rear-Drive?

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Was The 2000 W-Body Monte Carlo And Impala Meant To Be Rear-Drive?

Browsing around on the net, I found a page that posted the specifications of 1998's Chevrolet Intimidator concept car, which would eventually become the production Monte Carlo in 2000, some two years later.

I scanned over the drivetrain specs, expecting to see it listing the concept as a "front-engine, front-drive" car. Instead I found the following:

Yes, that's right. The concept that previewed the sixth-generation MC was rear-drive. And something else tells me that feature was meant to be carried over into production. Also, I'd like for you to take note of the powertrain on this:

And -- I find this very interesting -- we see that it had the same 3800 V6 and four-speed automatic that the production Monte had.

Now, I could just be looking into this way too deep. But when I read that, it reminded me of something else I read here, when a member suspected the 2000 Chevy Impala was designed to accept either a rear-drive or front-drive configuration. Something tells me that GM has been wanting to keep the rear-drive religion alive for a long time now...hell, when I posted about the 1995 XP2000 concept and found out it was originally intended to be a rear-drive Regal and platformmate to the Cadillac Catera that was obvious.

Guess we can make our hatred for the Beancounters grow a little stronger now.

(On a side note, the '98 Monte Carlo concept reminds me of a Chevelle somehow. And I finally get the design of the headlamps: they're meant to resemble rounded-off bowties.)

Specification credits: conceptcarz.com and Chevrolet.

Edited July 20, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[NOS2006]

They were shooting really high with the power, weren't they? Some 6 years later and they still don't have a V6 that potent...

[Cory Wolfe]

Old news... and it was just a concept.

[Newbiewar]

GM's been promising RWD for a long time...

and from what i hear, 25 RWD's were produced so that GM would not be concidered a liar...

[ShadowDog]

Jon Moss made a concept Monte Carlo before this was even thought of, and it had RWD. This doesn't mean much, since the LQ1 3.4 DOHC (rumored to have had 275 hp) that the 3.8 Series II replaced was originally tested and intended for a Camaro mule in the late-80's...and it was a FWD car.

Edited July 20, 2006 by ShadowDog

[NOS2006]

Jon Moss made a concept Monte Carlo before this was even thought of, and it had RWD.  This doesn't mean much, since the LQ1 3.4 DOHC (rumored to have had 275 hp) that the 3.8 Series II replaced was originally tested and intended for a Camaro mule in the late-80's...and it was a FWD car.

169223[/snapback]

However, the Camaro got a $h!ty 3.4L V6 until 1997 (or was it '98?).

[Casket Demon]

I'm pretty sure that MC concept is FWD, I remember reading about it in MT (Motor Trend) when it first began to make it rounds and recall being highly dissapointed that it was FWD, but then again even if it was RWD the car looks awful and RWD and an 8 wouldn't save it IMO....

[Northstar]

I doubt the W's were ever meant to be RWD. GM lost a rediculous amount of money on the W's when they were introduced (talking billions here - three million per day at one point) so I think that's why they've been around so long.

[ehaase]

There were no plans for the W body to be RWD in 2000. I remember when rumors started surfacing around 1995 about the revival of the Impala. There were rumors about it having a 4.3L or 4.8L V8, but it was always going to be FWD.

[Bimmer325]

The W-bodies are a cancer on GM.

Not a single class-leading model rides on this platform, and if my rental Grand Prix was any indication, they're at the bottom of the pack performance-wise. At this point, there's no disguising the fact that this platform is way past it's prime.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

The W-bodies are a cancer on GM. 

Not a single class-leading model rides on this platform, and if my rental Grand Prix was any indication, they're at the bottom of the pack performance-wise.  At this point, there's no disguising the fact that this platform is way past it's prime.

169310[/snapback]

I want to argue that the W-Body isn't as bad as you make it out to be, but I just can't. That project was pretty damn stillborn at first and it wasn't until the mid-nineties it started to really get rolling. It's an antiquated platform that's pretty much past firmented and starting to rot.

However, our '04 Impala handles great. So, yes, there is a bright spot when it comes to at least one of the W-Body cars. But, overall, they are disappointing.

There were no plans for the W body to be RWD in 2000. I remember when rumors started surfacing around 1995 about the revival of the Impala. There were rumors about it having a 4.3L or 4.8L V8, but it was always going to be FWD.

I doubt the W's were ever meant to be RWD.

I should, perhaps, clairify the blurb that marks this article. I wasn't trying to imply that GM was going to convert the W-Body to rear-drive for the Impala and Monte, I was trying to say that GM was going to develop a new, rear-drive platform for both cars.

My theory is this, GM intended for the W-Body to go the way of the dodo in 2000 and shed themselves of what was, at the time (and still is), a mistake well over a decade old by replacing it with a rear-drive platform -- lets call it "R-Body" for hell's sake. But, when it came time to crunch the numbers, putting the car on the R-Body was going to be too expensive so they decided to just stick with the W-Body instead.

Lots of loopholes with that idea (not to mention it may be poorly worded and confusing) but it makes sense to me.

Edited July 21, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[Sixty8panther]

Yes I knew the Monte Carlo concept was RWD... a few of the

magazines gave us false hope because of that. It's not the

Buick 231 that I have a problem with as much as the FWD

that ended up showing up in the production version.

[ShadowDog]

However, the Camaro got a $h!ty 3.4L V6 until 1997 (or was it '98?).

169227[/snapback]

Was it not the Series II 3.8 Litre V6 that was always used?

At any rate, the concept engine that made its way into the first generation W-Bodies was the 3.4L DOHC - basically, the variant of the Quad-4 with two extra cyliders. It was tested in a FWD Camaro as speculated to being the program drivetrain the whole time. Thought existed that the odd-body Camaro was used just as a tactical diversion to offer a collective sigh of relief when the engine and 4T60 tranny were actually intended for the W-Body all along.

...but this is GM we're talking about, so they probably meant to have a FWD Camaro with this V6 as its top engine, only to scrap the whole idea and shoe-horn the huge beast into the engine bay of the W-Body.

[CSpec]

Well.. the G6 concept was RWD too (based on Sigma and the Corvette). Doesn't mean Epsilon was ever meant to be RWD.

[knightfan26917]

GM's been promising RWD for a long time...

All too long.

The concept, from what I understand anyway, IS RWD. Likewise, the 1994 concept that became the 1995 version was AWD, from what I remember. That, obviously, didn't happen either for the production version.

Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker

MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/

What's it like to buy your favorite car brand new? Wish I knew...

"You've made a fool of everyone" ... Jet ... 'Look What You've Done'

[ehaase]

Was it not the Series II 3.8 Litre V6 that was always used?

At any rate, the concept engine that made its way into the first generation W-Bodies was the 3.4L DOHC - basically, the variant of the Quad-4 with two extra cyliders. 

169372[/snapback]

The Camaro used various versions of the 60 degree V6 until the late 1990's, when the 3800 replaced it.

The 3.4L DOHC was based upon the OHV 60 degree V6, not the Quad 4.

Also, GM has only been talking about RWD for the non-luxury brands for the last 3 or 4 years. There were no plans for any new RWD Chevrolets or Pontiacs until the Zeta/Sigma-lite speculation started up around 2001 or 2002. On the other hand, my recollection is that Ford's DEW98 platform was supposed to not only be used for the Jaguar S-type and Lincoln LS, but was also going to replace the Panthers until the program was scaled back.

[Sixty8panther]

Well.. the G6 concept was RWD too (based on Sigma and the Corvette). Doesn't mean Epsilon was ever meant to be RWD.

169379[/snapback]

No of course not... that would only make too much sense.

You know how GM hates logic. Tease us AGAIN with RWD

& then produce a FWD car while lauging like an evil nerd.

[zhawk]

THe Camaro and Firebord used the 3.4L V6 until 1996. The 3.8L V6 was offered as an option starting in mid year 1995 (model year) and became the base engine starting in 1996.

By the time this concept (the Intimidator Concept) was shown, most if not all, of the support for the F-bodies had been pulled. Senior management at the time, was ready to kill of these cars and it was only through hard work and a lot of convincing that the Camaro and Firebird were able to get any updates at all and keep going until 2002.

The 80's had a lot of strange concept cars, including a Corvette with 2 V6 engines, on in back and one in front. Much of the leadership of the time was convinced that the V8 was dead and would never return.

Edited July 21, 2006 by zhawk

[Sixty8panther]

The 80's had a lot of strange concept cars, including a Corvette with 2 V6 engines, on in back and one in front. Much of the leadership of the time was convinced that the V8 was dead and would never return.

169448[/snapback]

Sound familiar? *cogh-COUGH evok CoUGh!*

[capriceman]

the 3.8 was offerend in 96 if not 95 since when my brother bought his 95 Camaro he had both options. But got a 3.4L

The 3.4 really isnt that bad in the Camaro. it pushes 201 on the dyno when it was a month old.

[Sixty8panther]

True... I'd take a mid-90s F-body with a 3.4 over any Ford 3.8 powered

Mustang from the same era. God those things sucked... I've driven a

bunch and they're such girly cars through &bthrough.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

You know, when I checked the air filter in our Impala, I noticed there's a large gap of space in the engine bay. Our Imp is a 3400-powered model, and I'd say there's at least five, six, maybe even seven inches in there. Wonder why? The 3800 can't be that much bigger...can it?

[76ChevyTrucker]

Where the 3.4L engine looses is the height, meanwhile the 3.8 is a little bit longer package.