GM RWD on hold?!

[Chazman]

http://www.automochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=738

General Motors has put a hold on future rear-wheel-drive vehicles.

"We've pushed the pause button. It's no longer full speed ahead," Vice Chairman Bob Lutz revealed in an interview.

Two of the most important RWD cars in the works are the Chevy Camaro sports coupe due back late in 2008 and the full-size, RWD replacement for the Chevy Impala sedan for 2009. Both are expected to be huge sellers and contribute major profits to a GM till burdened with IOUs the last few years.

"It's too late to stop Camaro, but anything after that is questionable or on the bubble," said Lutz, noting that also means Camaro derivatives -- along with a big Impala sedan, "if we call it Impala."

Edited April 10, 2007 by Chazman

[CSpec]

Wow, the rest of that article sounds very, very bleak.

[Dragon]

being discussed here....

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...mp;#entry269812

have a hard time imagining it'll be delayed for long since the Shwa will be converted for the Camaro and it doesn't make sense to have an entire plant for a relatively low volume car.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Dragon

[Camino LS6]

Can we have the election next week and gets this crap over with?

[Oracle of Delphi]

There's a war inside of GM about these cars now and if they are even viable with the Global Warming and Fuel Efficiency propaganda going on. This is all very interesting, to say the least.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Pontiac Custom-S

[ZL-1]

Maybe Mr. Bush really is serious about changing fuel economy regulations. That makes the small concepts they introduced much more of a priority than big V8 cars.

Wouldn't a turbo or twin turbo 2.8 V6 make a nice engine for the RWD cars, though? Performance wouldn't be at "V8 enthusiast" levels, but it might help bring the larger cars to market while meeting fuel efficiency levels, no?

[Camino LS6]

If this comes to pass, all hope is lost.

[CARBIZ]

Although a RWD Impala would have been nice (not a huge seller, IMO), they had better get working on the next generation Impala. We don't want this Impala around for 6 years with no changes! And, yeah, I agree: even if 100k Camaros are sold, that won't make the plant profitable. Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

[regfootball]

if they wanted to, it would be easy enough to just bring over the statesman in addition to the G8. That way they could plug the RWD need to say they have it, it just seems to me they are questioning spending so much development money for new cars when the aussie cars could simply be rebadged, if they are being skittish about the net effect of the ecoweenies and blaming climate cycles on cars warming the earth.

but to me, this again exposes greater management weakness. they seem to want to throw their whole corporate direction on one narrowly focused platform approach, and clearly it hasn't worked.

'let's go all fwd'....then the 300 hit and gm was f-ed.

now Gm says 'all RWD' and they worry about getting f-ed again.

well guys, how about this........

THINKING GLOBAL PLATFORMS

1 micro/subcompact FWD platform

1 compact platform

1 or 2 true midsized-large FWD/AWD platforms

1 upper mid sized to large RWD/AWD platform

lambda

and then pickups/full sized vans and suv's for the north american market.

enthusiasts might want a smaller RWD/AWD platform as well.

these architectures could cover over 90% of GM's vehicle offerings GLOBALLY.

then, on top of this, modular 4 cylinder, v6, and v8 engines. how bout some 4 and 6 cyl diesels too.

damn, that doesn't sound too hard? if you continuously devote the resources globally to cover all these possible bases, than you're not f@#kED when one style of platform gets fashionable or heavy use due to fuel economy etc.

this is all about management not planning ahead and understanding the need to develop all of these platforms continually and evolve them over time and not neglecting anything.

DAMN. i am speechless at this news actually. they still have no clue over there.

or as one poster said, it is merely posturing.

In any case, GM needs to figure out how to do business on the fly. They need to learn how to function so that decisions they make aren't so live or die and so that decisions made one day can be reversed or that decisions don't need to be nmade 4 years in advance of showroom day. hows about 1 year, concept to market. If the platform is always there, its a whole lot easier to do.

Again, Americans, tripping over their own two feet, not having a clue about how to evolve and stay ahead of the game.

Edited April 10, 2007 by regfootball

[Oracle of Delphi]

if they wanted to, it would be easy enough to just bring over the statesman in addition to the G8. That way they could plug the RWD need to say they have it, it just seems to me they are questioning spending so much development money for new cars when the aussie cars could simply be rebadged, if they are being skittish about the net effect of the ecoweenies and blaming climate cycles on cars warming the earth.

Holden can't produce enough of them there to meet our demand. You do realize Holden has just one assembly plant, which needs to produce, cars for it's home market (all the Zeta variants), plus cars for Asia, Mid East, South Africa, and now the G8 for North America. Not to mention the new Ute that is coming.

Holden just can't do it.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Pontiac Custom-S

[regfootball]

There's a war inside of GM about these cars now and if they are even viable with the Global Warming and Fuel Efficiency propaganda going on. This is all very interesting, to say the least.

so how is a 3800 pound rear drive v6 G8 that much more of a gas hog than a 3750 pound front drive v6 grand prix?

]"What the public buys makes CAFE work, not what the industry builds," Merkle added. "To improve mileage you change demand, not supply, by raising gas prices through taxes. But no politician is going to do that so they throw the responsibility on the back of the industry."[/b]

Lutz also objects to the talk that carmakers can easily raise mileage with a very low investment.

"Academics assure us that for $200 we can get 30 percent better mileage. If anyone can figure out how to do that for $200 -- or even for $1,000 -- I want them in my office today. Show me how to do it and we'll adopt it," he said. "If I could increase mileage by 30 percent for $200, why wouldn't I? What's my motivation not to when a gas-electric hybrid gets 27 percent better mileage and I hope someday to get the cost down to $9,000?"

Others insist that carmakers simply have to sell more small cars, such as the trio of 1-liter concepts that promise 40 m.p.g.-plus that GM unveiled at the New York Auto Show.

"Small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here, and you can't build small cars here at a profit," Lutz said, explaining that foreign-made cars would count toward the automaker's import fleet, and its domestic fleet is where GM needs help.

note all the multiple underlying issues here.

people wanted to steer demand through the supply chain and not by consumer choice. usually this is hard headed ecoweenies or liberals behind this.

politicians not willing to take the risk of doing the proper thing (raising gas tax) and instead choosing to make the manufacturers look bad.

'academics' and 'experts' saying mpg boosts are easy but offering no solutions or evidence on how to do it. no one offering incentives to say, make carbon fiber or aluminum or electric wheelmotors economically viable for the carmakers for the common good of us all.

no insight on how to sell all those small cars that get 40mpg when clearly no one in this country wants small cars because of no space and deadly crash results.

and the whole can't build small cars profitably here thing means if they legislate the supply chain to make all small cars and we can't make them here it simply means driving the US auto industry out of business. Unless politicans and the public are willing to step up to the plate and support the US not toyota etc. the toyota bangers cannot have it both ways. People would have to stop buying toyotas and clearly they won't do that either. If we need to build small cars here we need to fix all of our trade issues with unfair japan and other 3rd worlders.

Let GM's imported Daewoos count towards their cafe credits then.

Edited April 10, 2007 by regfootball

[Oracle of Delphi]

so how is a 3800 pound rear drive v6 G8 that much more of a gas hog than a 3750 pound front drive v6 grand prix?

Hey reg, you're asking the wrong guy here buddy. I'm the guy that just bought a 5.3 liter V8 and I don't make US Federal policy. Well not until y'all elect me as the President!

[Supremus]

Really, what's the point? As somebody already said, RWD or FWD doesn't make difference in fuel consumption. So this means GM is abandoning the full-size car segment, be it RWD or FWD?

[regfootball]

Hey reg, you're asking the wrong guy here buddy. I'm the guy that just bought a 5.3 liter V8 and I don't make US Federal policy. Well not until y'all elect me as the President!

oh, it wasn't directed at you, my question was more for the masses, RWD alone of the same size car vs. front drive does not solely account for 30% difference in fuel economy.

[bowtie_dude]

Or the enviro-freaks could get off our f@#king backs and let us drive what we want.

[Windy-57]

Really, what's the point? As somebody already said, RWD or FWD doesn't make difference in fuel consumption. So this means GM is abandoning the full-size car segment, be it RWD or FWD?

Yeah, and who knows what kind of loopholes the regulations will have. What kind of consideration will be given to hybrid models, flex fuel models, diesel models, etc. etc. It would be highly disappointing to learn that GM wasn't already putting some serious emphasis on fuel efficiency with these models. The legislation should leave some question marks in terms of math, but shouldn't be that big of a surprise that it would nix the whole deal.

To me, this is GM's way of keeping interest and suspense around the program. People wondered if GM had tipped their hand too early or if the products would get stale by the time they arrived...well, this is how they'll keep them fresh.

[jpstax]

Or the enviro-freaks could get off our f@#king backs and let us drive what we want.

I agree. I thought developing active fuel management engines was a step in the right direction towards gasoline conservation, but I guess Bob Lutz doesn't think that way anymore. If he thinks creating more fuel efficient (and very slow) V6 engines is the answer, he's sadly mistaken.

Edited April 10, 2007 by jpstax

[gmcbob]

Okay, so does this mean that the upcoming G8 is on hold too? And certainly the new CTS (and STS for that matter) aren't being cancelled either, does it? If so, that would be the kiss of death for Cadillac.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

LOL... And all this time I thought it would be an EPIC battle where team Toyota & Co. would triumph over Detroit and subsequently kill our automotive industry.

Never did I imagine the yuppie bastards that drive and hump Toyotas would ACTUALLY put Detroit out of business instead.

Who needs enemies when we have a media, consumers and officials like this.

P.S. And just to clarify, I'm all about better efficiency and saving the environment. But we need to make POSITIVE decisions focused around technology and innovation. Not NEGATIVE decisions that regress our freedom of choice and freedom of commerce. (Which is exactly what a higher gas tax would do---in addition to crashing our PETROLEUM BASED economy)

Edited April 10, 2007 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[caddycruiser]

Well, the simple issue is fuel economy, and in the midst of engineering development, they realized they weren't hitting high enough goals on that extent. All the better, even if it does delay a great stretch of cars, because one key factor with any new vehicle IS fuel economy, and having the most stunning and wonderful to drive vehicle that guzzles gas is not a good idea.

So, hopefully with the delay, they'll be able to resort some things and ideas, and get a better handle on meeting some really respectable fuel economy stats.

We'll see. But in the meantime, at least the Camaro and G8 skipped out under the door early, and will just have to be dealt with in this regard as time goes on.

[gmcbob]

Well, I guess I can always buy a Hyundai Genesis when it comes out if I want a $30,000 rear drive V8 sedan. :AH-HA_wink:

[gmcbob]

Well, the simple issue is fuel economy, and in the midst of engineering development, they realized they weren't hitting high enough goals on that extent. All the better, even if it does delay a great stretch of cars, because one key factor with any new vehicle IS fuel economy, and having the most stunning and wonderful to drive vehicle that guzzles gas is not a good idea.

So, hopefully with the delay, they'll be able to resort some things and ideas, and get a better handle on meeting some really respectable fuel economy stats.

We'll see. But in the meantime, at least the Camaro and G8 skipped out under the door early, and will just have to be dealt with in this regard as time goes on.

Okay, so the G8 is definitely safe?

I"m only concerned because I think it would be absolutely pathetic if Hyundai offers a car I want, and Pontiac or Chevy doesn't.

[jpstax]

We'll see. But in the meantime, at least the Camaro and G8 skipped out under the door early, and will just have to be dealt with in this regard as time goes on.

I'd also put the LaCrosse Super, and its 5.3 V8 with active fuel management, in that same category. As for the Super Lucerne, who knows?

Edited April 10, 2007 by jpstax

[gmcbob]

I used to consistently get 28-30 mpg on the highway with old 1998 Camaro Z28 (4 spd auto). I don't understand why they couldn't get that with the new Zeta cars? I do think my city mileage was pretty bad though, maybe in the high teens?? I don't remember.

Seriously though, this won't effect the new CTS, will it?

[enzl]

I don't understand this one...

Almost all of the proposed derivatives of Zeta will have 6 cylinder counterparts...GM wants this to be a global platform, so diesels and 4 cylinder variants must be part of the development process...

Why does an anticipated EPA rule have anything to do with having a World Class platform available to the various divisions. While I can understand that launching a line-up of V8 only monsters would be daunting with gas at $3.50/gal., isn't the meat of this lineup 6 cylinders? (Volume Impy and Camaro will be 6's.)

If the Corvette can get 28 MPG with a 400HP V8, can't these other vehicles do that well or better, given that they will have 6 speeds and, possibly, DI?

If someone can explain the correlation, I'm all ears. Otherwise, my suspicion is that the development dollars have slowed given the anticipated dip in GMT900 sales because of gas prices and the looming incentive war with Ford, Dodge and Toyota in pickups. I find blaming these anticipated EPA regs suspicious.

[Camino LS6]

At this point, I really believe that this is all political gamesmanship.

Nothing like Washington to screw-up a good plan.

[The O.C.]

Hey reg, you're asking the wrong guy here buddy. I'm the guy that just bought a 5.3 liter V8 and I don't make US Federal policy. Well not until y'all elect me as the President!

Damn....at least we'd then have an attractive president for once......

:AH-HA_wink:

[Chris_Doane]

For now I would say this is just posturing.

[Northstar]

I'll wait and see what happens with this dumb bill Bush wants before I worry. Things seem to have gotten pushed back slightly but not axed.

[The O.C.]

oh, it wasn't directed at you, my question was more for the masses, RWD alone of the same size car vs. front drive does not solely account for 30% difference in fuel economy.

I agree. With today's technology in powertrains, RWD isn't necessarily any less fuel-efficient than FWD.

I think this is an internal problem at GM.....something they've never been able to overcome before......bean-counters and executives that DON'T KNOW the true automotive market trying to drive GM's future product decisions.

Frankly, I find it absurd that this future product platform is causing ANY sort of "heartburn" inside GM.

[Camino LS6]

I think Lutz has some "issues" with W.

[thegriffon]

or as one poster said, it is merely posturing.

Don't be so sure. These guys have only just been elected, and they're confident of being there for a long time to come, with a president in the near futue who is unlikely to oppose them. Bush may be open to large cars running on ethanol, but his term is nearly up, and the Democrats believe they have carte blanche to do whatever they damn well want, with no chance of a backlash as long as they can blame staying in Iraq in the Republicans. On the plus side they may increase funding to public transport options, but that is unlikely to have much of an impact on the percieved problems of automobile fuel economy and CO2.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

If this has been pushed back slightly, I would honestly only expect a year's worth of delay and not much more. GM is just easing off the throttle to take notice of what politicians in Washington D.C. plan to do concerning government regulations and react to what happens and then adjust the North American rear-drive platforms accordingly. For some reason, I doubt this is the exact same situtation we encountered in the past, although it's eerie of how this reminds me of that. GM has way too much riding on these platforms, not to mention that the W-Body cars are pretty much dead and gone after the '08 model year and GM can't leave the slots that those cars filled wide open and empty. And it wouldn't make much sense to have Oshawa only produce the Camaro and G8 -- it wouldn't return a profit.

I'd say the rear-drive Impala is still coming our way, at least.

Rear-drive is still on for medium-large and large cars at GM, it's just the time frame we now know is questionable at best.

Can we have the election next week and gets this crap over with?

Hey, why not pull a California and recall the president or bump the election date up? God knows it should be done. Things just keep getting worse and worse in Washington, and in America (globally, too?), with Bush at the wheel.

Edited April 10, 2007 by YellowJacket894

[Flybrian]

I like how the leadership on both sides of the aisle aren't concerned with the pollution generated by third-world nations.

I like how some people apparently think an extra mpg or two in a family sedan means something in a country where people buy motorhomes.

I like how cars are a massive environmental problem when we have millions of small 4- and 2-stroke engines powering tractors, lawn mowers, weed eaters, leaf blowers, generators, and the like with minimal smogging equipment on them.

CAFE is a bull$h! ruse and a shellgame. Mandating fuel economy does nothing to reduce overall consumption to a great degree when the average American doesn't alter their driving habits that much. At 10, 20, 30, or 40mpg, you're still wasting gas. Also, guess what? I bet the DOT loves gas guzzlers; they collected more money from gasoline taxes. Think about it - a nation full of economical vehicles driving on mottled, potholed roads. Smart, guys; real smart.

[thegriffon]

Okay, so the G8 is definitely safe?

I"m only concerned because I think it would be absolutely pathetic if Hyundai offers a car I want, and Pontiac or Chevy doesn't.

Hyundai's effectively gets a pass because it's imported, as is the G8, so it's balanced by the Accent. The G8 is balanced by the Aveo, but a NAFTA-built G6, Impala or Lucerne wouldn't get that benefit.

GM is waiting to see which way the wind blows, but it could spell the end of anything larger than a lwb Epsilon (maybe 2.9 m wb for the next gen), except as a low-volume niche product (4000 a month or less for all of GM), with a lot of very expensive technology to aid economy and CO2 emmisions, which could restrict it to Cadillacs, and a very expensive LaCrosse.

[Camino LS6]

I've just about had it with those SOBs in DC. They aren't even creative enough to foist their ill-considered regulations on a new target! The president and Congress are both so full of crap right now that I want them all out! The incompetent executive as well as those slobbering in anticipation of new power.

Disgusting.

[thegriffon]

If this has been pushed back slightly, I would honestly only expect a year's worth of delay and not much more. GM is just easing off the throttle to take notice of what politicians in Washington D.C. plan to do concerning government regulations and react to what happens and then adjust the North American rear-drive platforms accordingly. For some reason, I doubt this is the exact same situtation we encountered in the past, although it's eerie of how this reminds me of that. GM has way too much riding on these platforms, not to mention that the W-Body cars are pretty much dead and gone after the '08 model year and GM can't leave the slots that those cars filled wide open and empty. And it wouldn't make much sense to have Oshawa only produce the Camaro and G8 -- it wouldn't return a profit.

I'd say the rear-drive Impala is still coming our way, at least.

Rear-drive is still on for medium-large and large cars at GM, it's just the time frame we now know is questionable at best.

Hey, why not pull a California and recall the president or bump the election date up? God knows it should be done. Things just keep getting worse and worse in Washington, and in America (globally, too?), with Bush at the wheel.

You think the Democrats won't ask for a bigger increase in fuel economy? They're already saying Bush's proposal doesn't go far enough. Some of them would ban (everyone else's) cars altogether if they thought people would stand for it. Limiting power (and by proxy, size) is something they hope will be accepted. It's just a question of what backing they can get for the limit they want. This isn't like the voluntary limit on advertized hp formerly adhered to by Japanese manufacturers. Sure there's a little posturong, but only to sound out other Democrats to see how far those who are driving this can go. Will there be a 30% increase in CAFE? A 300 hp limit on engine output? 200 hp? GM is unlikely to be the only one taking a step back and waiting. What will happen to the Tundra now if hp is limited, or fuel-economny demands for fullsize trucks are increased. They also have to evalkuate what options consumers will accept and pay for. Will they need to offer a stop-n-go BAS on every model? Will people pay for a 260 hp Turbo 4 instead of a V6? (Experience with Saab says no).

[thegriffon]

I like how the leadership on both sides of the aisle aren't concerned with the pollution generated by third-world nations. …

They are, that's why the US and Australia haven't signed the Kyoto protocol—it exempts growong economies such as India and China (which have booming industries and auto fleets, but relatively lax pollution controls). By comparison even fireplaces in the US have relatively tough emission standards.

[thegriffon]

Well, I guess I can always buy a Hyundai Genesis when it comes out if I want a $30,000 rear drive V8 sedan. :AH-HA_wink:

Ah, it's quite possible that only the V6 Genesis will be much under $30,000, and "much" may only be "hundreds of dollars", not thousands. Hyundai Australia isn't interested because it would cost closer to $US50K there and they can't even shift the Azera.

[Camino LS6]

Grrrr.

These jerks are really getting my Irish up!

[Guest YellowJacket894]

You think the Democrats won't ask for a bigger increase in fuel economy? They're already saying Bush's proposal doesn't go far enough. Some of them would ban (everyone else's) cars altogether if they thought people would stand for it. Limiting power (and by proxy, size) is something they hope will be accepted. It's just a question of what backing they can get for the limit they want. This isn't like the voluntary limit on advertized hp formerly adhered to by Japanese manufacturers. Sure there's a little posturong, but only to sound out other Democrats to see how far those who are driving this can go. Will there be a 30% increase in CAFE? A 300 hp limit on engine output? 200 hp? GM is unlikely to be the only one taking a step back and waiting. What will happen to the Tundra now if hp is limited, or fuel-economny demands for fullsize trucks are increased. They also have to evalkuate what options consumers will accept and pay for. Will they need to offer a stop-n-go BAS on every model? Will people pay for a 260 hp Turbo 4 instead of a V6? (Experience with Saab says no).

The foot the government is putting through the door that they have no knowledge of going through should be stuck up ... you know where. That whole idea sounds just plain horrible.

Sounds like a Lewis Black joke that goes something like: "A republican stands up in Congress and goes 'I have a really bad idea!' and then a democrat stands up says 'And I can make it $h!tier!' "

[bowtie_dude]

I can't honestly see it working, though. This isn't socialist Europe where everyone is a-OK with the government regulating every little aspect of their lives. The backlash of this kind of legislation would be tremendous, I would think.

[Z-06]

How about Chevy Grove, Beat and Trax V-8's?

Make them RWD. Considering how small they are the drive train losses will be negligible and will be still giving about 45 mpg.

A nice 2.0l. 240 hp motor will do wonders. :AH-HA_wink:

[ponchoman49]

so how is a 3800 pound rear drive v6 G8 that much more of a gas hog than a 3750 pound front drive v6 grand prix?

note all the multiple underlying issues here.

people wanted to steer demand through the supply chain and not by consumer choice. usually this is hard headed ecoweenies or liberals behind this.

politicians not willing to take the risk of doing the proper thing (raising gas tax) and instead choosing to make the manufacturers look bad.

'academics' and 'experts' saying mpg boosts are easy but offering no solutions or evidence on how to do it. no one offering incentives to say, make carbon fiber or aluminum or electric wheelmotors economically viable for the carmakers for the common good of us all.

no insight on how to sell all those small cars that get 40mpg when clearly no one in this country wants small cars because of no space and deadly crash results.

and the whole can't build small cars profitably here thing means if they legislate the supply chain to make all small cars and we can't make them here it simply means driving the US auto industry out of business. Unless politicans and the public are willing to step up to the plate and support the US not toyota etc. the toyota bangers cannot have it both ways. People would have to stop buying toyotas and clearly they won't do that either. If we need to build small cars here we need to fix all of our trade issues with unfair japan and other 3rd worlders.

Let GM's imported Daewoos count towards their cafe credits then.

A 2007 Grand Prix 3800 doesn't weight 3750. Typical delivered weight is usually 3450-3500 lbs

The 2008 G8 isn't going to have the 3800 as it's base engine which is rated at 30 highway in several applications

The G8 will have the 3.6 liter Global V6 which in the smaller, lighter Aura with a 6 speed automatic gets only 28 highway

Going by the new mileage ratings I would gestimate the V6 will see 18/26 and the V8 will be 16/23 which to the unknowing average citizen is going to look very poor to say a 4 cylinder Malibu or Camry which won't be much smaller in size to the new rear drive Zetas. With Bush's new mileage standards, these mid to large sized RWD family sedans are going to be a harder sell IMO which is why GM is playing it safe.

[cletus8269]

Odd... my calender says that it is indeed 2007... but yet i have this terrible feeling like it is 1973...

[Ravenfreak13]

Rediculous....I just wanna drive my buick up onto the whitehouse lawn in the middle of the night and wake up the bushes with my big powerful 12 mpg V8!

[Flybrian]

The whole disgusting propogation of this is that the federal government is mandating consumer choice. If I choose to waste on expensive, rare foods or clothing material, its okay, but if I choose to waste money on gasoline, its not. Even if gas peaked $5.00/gal, the larger cars and trucks would simply be un-bought out of the market; no need for legislation. People would simply choose.

[thegriffon]

Yes but then the good senator would have to pay $5 for his gas too.

[Flybrian]

Yes but then the good senator would have to pay $5 for his gas too.

No, they have expense accounts, so we pay for it anyway.

[ellives]

The whole disgusting propogation of this is that the federal government is mandating consumer choice. If I choose to waste on expensive, rare foods or clothing material, its okay, but if I choose to waste money on gasoline, its not. Even if gas peaked $5.00/gal, the larger cars and trucks would simply be un-bought out of the market; no need for legislation. People would simply choose.

Exactly. This is why the whole situation can be managed by controlling the gas tax. If the country legitimately wants to improve fuel economy, just increase the gas tax... not enough to but a crimp in the economy... but just enough to gently nudge people into smaller cars. Those of us who want big engines and high horsepower will have to spend the cash.