LeftLane News: Cadillac DT7 Flagship Sedan To Be Based On FWD Platform.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

You think if the Camry were switched to RWD but kept the same look, sales would suddenly tank?

Depends on how the media 'spins' the switch...

(Gotta add my :twocents:)

Edited March 3, 2009 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Drew Dowdell]

They would spin it thusly:

"This new RWD system by Toyota brings an even higher level of sophistication, comfort, and reliability to the already top of it's class Camry. It's a shame GM is so far behind the curve switching it's platforms to RWD."

[Oracle of Delphi]

They would spin it thusly:

"This new RWD system by Toyota brings an even higher level of sophistication, comfort, and reliability to the already top of it's class Camry. It's a shame GM is so far behind the curve switching it's platforms to RWD."

You are so right ...

[Intrepidation]

Just to revive this argument, I made it through our ice storm and all the snow we had in a RWD boat without sliding off the road to my ultimate demise. In a newer car with ABS, TC, ESP, blah blah blah, you wouldn't be able to tell which wheels were moving the car. Hell, on the ice, the LeSabre felt more stable than the Prius, probably due to the Buick weighing twice as much and having fat rubber all the way around. Basically, I agree with the premise that anyone north of the Mason-Dixon who refuses to buy a car solely because its RWD is a pussy.

[balthazar]

Upon reflection, I come to realize my initial impression of "snow tires" is the heavy, blocky, knobby, truckish tires RWD cars used in the '70s/'80s, yes; occasionally studded. Picture a -say- a Crown Vic with these on all 4 corners :

In the 14 years I drove my RWD F-150, I never put snow tires on it of any sort: I don't even own a set. I've been thru snow above the rockers in it without getting stuck.

More recently however, a 'snow tire' seldoms appears to be such, to the degree the aforementioned ones always clearly were; they're much more akin to street tires at a side glance. Here's one, for example:

I suspect, as is usually the case, marketing has poked it's nose into the snow tire world, too... and tho there very well may be a detectible difference in their traction performance vs an OEM street tire, the 2nd tire pictured above still pales in traction to the 1st. Call the 1st one a 'real snow tire', if you like.

Truthfully, I don't begrudge anyone who feels more confident in using modern 'snow tires', even 4 of them. Just wanted to clarify what I was picturing...

[§carlet §wordfish]

Yay for 1990's Lincoln technology.

Yay for 1950's Citroen technology.

I honestly don't care which wheels drive my luxury car, as long as it's good looking and luxurious. If it's got vertical taillights and a great looking, comfortable interior, it's Cadillac enough for me. Don't give a damn what the rest of the market values it as.

Edited March 3, 2009 by §carlet §wordfish

[Drew Dowdell]

My assessment is this. My driveway drops 12 feet in 48 feet. In the CTS, if I didn't have snow tires on and we had even just a 1/2 an inch, I couldn't get up the driveway. With the Dunlop WinterSports, it was no trouble.

[Paolino]

They would spin it thusly:

"This new RWD system by Toyota brings an even higher level of sophistication, comfort, and reliability to the already top of it's class Camry. It's a shame GM is so far behind the curve switching it's platforms to RWD."

Don't forget, they'd have to incorporate the phrase "first ever" somewhere in there.

[smk4565]

At the rate they are going, the CTS will be the "last ever" rear drive Cadillac. That is sad.

[ShadowDog]

Some simple points to consider:

- It's likely that most all season tires are not brand new to have the majority of their traction ability for winter. In my experience, half-used all season tires really sucked in winter. Keep in mind, we have winter conditions that mean you may not even see pavement for a couple of weeks between snowfalls. Around here, east of the Okanagan in B.C. and west of Calgary, all-season tires on loose or compact snow, slush, or ice is, well, taking a very unneccesary risk. The west coast was hammered with snow this year, and those with all-season tires did the grand majority of the suffering.

- According to Transports Québec: In Québec, Canada, information collected in 2005 shows that 38% of the accidents that occur during the winter involve at least one vehicle that is equipped with all-season tires. These vehicles are strongly overrepresented in these accidents (a.k.a. they played a key roll in these accidents during harsh conditions), as it is estimated that 90% of passenger vehicles already have winter tires. In addition, the proportion of the occurrence of loss of control is even higher when the vehicles involved are equipped with all-season tires. This is why, as of September 17, 2008 Quebec mandated winter tread tires be installed between December 15 to March 15 for taxis and passenger vehicles that are registered in Québec, as well as passenger vehicles that are rented in Québec.

Does AWD make a great difference for a car? Sure does. It may not be completely necessary; however, there sure are a lot of Subarus at the ski hills around here. Beyond this, a RWD tractor for snow removal absolutely sucks without the front wheels engaged. Even worse, without chains on the front, you can't steer... literally can't.

To me, the make-or-break for most people shouldn't have to be the drive wheels. When you consider the majority of the city-bound sedans, how many drivers wring-out their cars to even know how to understand what the drive wheels are doing?

Edited March 3, 2009 by ShadowDog

[MyerShift]

Not the right way to go at all.

Shame GM. You will never be taken seriously without a proper and right premium line.

[Cory Wolfe]

On the RWD in snow argument. Of the vehicles I've driven in the winter, I prefered the RWD Cutlass's dynamics over the other FWD vehicle's.

[ocnblu]

Because you have the added benefit of being able to steer with the throttle. Adding throttle to a FWD car in turns only makes it push toward the curb faster.

[FloydHendershot]

Because you have the added benefit of being able to steer with the throttle. Adding throttle to a FWD car in turns only makes it push toward the curb faster.

I'd rather see the rear wheels doing the driving but can see pluses for either configuration.

Possibly the worst pit of your stomach feeling in a Front Wheel Drive car is feeling the back end come around, in any weather but when you really aren't ready for it, like having the floor drop.

Edited March 3, 2009 by FloydHendershot

[ShadowDog]

Because you have the added benefit of being able to steer with the throttle. Adding throttle to a FWD car in turns only makes it push toward the curb faster.

Sadly, I'm not convinced there is more than a marginal percentage of RWD owners whom could even understand the concept of this, much less execute it in real world driving.

[Blake Noble]

Tip: for even better winter traction and overall control, add a manual transmission to your rear-wheel drive car.

I wonder how many Americans have just laid a Babe Ruth in their BVDs at the thought of driving a rear-wheel drive car with a stick in the snow? What a bunch of butt-pillagers.

[Intrepidation]

Well with an automatic you don't have to keep pressure on the clutch in 1st gear. This can get annoying ebcause you want to only apply a little bit of power to keep teh wheels from slipping. Also, and this may be just me, it's a pain in the ass when wearing boots.

[Blake Noble]

Well with an automatic you don't have to keep pressure on the clutch in 1st gear. This can get annoying ebcause you want to only apply a little bit of power to keep teh wheels from slipping. Also, and this may be just me, it's a pain in the ass when wearing boots.

I don't find working the clutch annoying, I find it arousing.

[Intrepidation]

I find that slightly disturbing.

[regfootball]

It's not penis waving, it's having a brain and some common sense.

no its about WHAT PEOPLE ARE SPENDING THEIR MONEY ON IN THE SHOWROOMS

a- what do we want to sell

b- WHAT PEOPLE WILL BUY

c- is the customer wrong (i.e. whould we tell the customer its about brains and common sense?)

d- NO YOU MAKE WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY SO YOU CAN KEEP SELLING PRODUCT

by your reasoning, niether BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Infiniti, Cadillac, would have added AWD to their sedan lines, nor would chrysler have hedged their bets on the LX cars by offering AWD as well.

[regfootball]

Exactly (although snow tires on the back is all you need), 4 is nice though.

steering and stopping is as important as gription on the drive wheels and like any body selling snow tires will tell you.....you must have them on all four corners. you actually screw it up more by only putting snow tires on the back.

[Intrepidation]

No, that's not my reasoning. Of course it's good to offer RWD for the tools who think that they'll DIE if they get behind the wheel of a RWD car and a flake of snow lands on the grass 3 miles away.

However the TRUTH is that RWD is more than capable in the snow.

[regfootball]

I live in a snowy place, although mostly it is just 1-2 inches, only a few times a year do we get 4+ inches. But I still see a lot of Mustangs, Corvettes, Ford Panther platform cars, the old CTS, 7-series, Lexus LS, and Mercedes without 4Matic. People that care about driving dynamics will buy RWD, they won't get scared away.

last thursday here in snow central, waiting to pick up my kid from school in heavy snow. two cars in five minutes got stuck in the school driveway ON FLAT ROADS and needed to be pushed by humans to get going again. One was a rear drive Lincoln LS, and the other was a BMW 3 series. I was LMAO. Everyone else in their FWD or AWD was spinning and having a rough go, but it was not only ludicrous as hell to see those helpless rwd people begging for help to move their cars, it was also another sad reminder why generally, the other 99 percent of people who don't frequent car sites and brag about driving uphill in a snowstorm both ways on the way to school when they were young, prefer to spend real money on something besides rwd only in challenging climates for all season cars.

[regfootball]

No, that's not my reasoning. Of course it's good to offer RWD for the tools who think that they'll DIE if they get behind the wheel of a RWD car and a flake of snow lands on the grass 3 miles away.

However the TRUTH is that RWD is more than capable in the snow.

but not as capable as fwd or awd.

or as convenient. or as hassle free.

[Intrepidation]

Odds are good they weren't equipped with snow tires. How much snow did you get? Define "heavy snow"

[regfootball]

fun watching the news about the teeny snow dropping in atlanta or wherever the other day.......boo hoo, talk about people making it look easy to drive in snow, the video had a tow truck pulling a mustang out of the ditch because it wiped out. that rwd driver was soooooo skilled.........

[Intrepidation]

Still haven't answered how much snow you got while picking your kid up.

[regfootball]

Odds are good they weren't equipped with snow tires. How much snow did you get? Define "heavy snow"

why would they want the hassle of buying snow tires and wheels and doing the changeover every year and spending the money and time to do that?

I've done that with my thunderbird. its a pain doing that each fall and spring and then having to find room in your garage to store it. if you have the money and time and space its great, but even then you might as well get AWD and snow tires then, its an even much better solution.

not sure what the actual amount was. we had some nice warm rain in the morning and fresh wet snow to glaze over it. it was likely 8-12 inches of fresh snow, with some of the parts of the roads and parking lots had well over a foot once it got pushed around a bit. allthough the asshole on the city plow left about two feet at the end of my driveway.

in other words, nothing that would faze an SUV or crossover, which is why they became so popular in the first place.

Edited March 4, 2009 by regfootball

[Intrepidation]

Oh wow, such a hassle. If you get all season tires it'll do just fine. The cars you mentioned are cars that come equipped with performance rubber. No $h! they're going to suck in snow. Put that kind of rubber on anything and it will suck in the snow.

Facts are facts: RWD does as good or better in the snow. Sheeple are dumb and lack common sense, which is why you'll find plenty of FWD cars in a ditch.

We drove the RWD Mercury 200 miles in a 24" (or so) snow storm in December. Highways were completely covered in snow. No problem. You can ignore the facts if you want, you tend to have a habit of doing so, but you don't need AWD or FWD to get around in the snow.

And for fun:

I drive the GM up and down that during snow storms to put it in the driveway. No problem.

[pow]

As an alternative to AWD, how about a factory snow tire service? You get your snow combo stored at the dealer, and when it's wintertime, you get 'em swapped.

[Intrepidation]

It's not like snow tires are insanely expensive compared to the cost of buying a new car anyway.

I'd love to see how my friend's FWD Acura TL would do in the snow with the performance tires it comes with...but see he's smart and puts snow tires on in the winter.

[regfootball]

(me standing and applauding your winter droving prowess).....sarcasm

listen, i've driven in whiteout freaking blizzards on flat barren ND interstates in nut chilling and dangerous cold and blizzards on closed roads in my RWD buicks and chevys many times. you know what, it don't mean squat as far as the car buying public.

you still ignore what the buyer wants when they are in the showroom.

you are still sitting there saying 'this is what the buy should be happy with' instead of 'we will sell them what they want to buy'

Edited March 4, 2009 by regfootball

[pow]

Anyway, about the "DT7", there are already so many players in a shrinking market, it doesn't make sense to invest so much R&D into a vehicle that only a few can afford.

The Escalade costs almost as much as the 7-series or S-class; make the interior nicer, make it hybrid only, and it could be Cadillac's interpretation of a range topper.

[regfootball]

It's not like snow tires are insanely expensive compared to the cost of buying a new car anyway.

you just pieced together any amount of money you could for the down payment on the car. the tax alone was probably 1500. you signed up to pay for the thing for 5 or 6 years.

you honestly think someone is going to embrace 5-800 bucks for 4 snow tires and wheels (or blow money each fall and spring to swap tires on the original rims, which by the way is really stupid).

[Intrepidation]

AWD is fine as an option, and yes most people are f@#king stupid and think that FWD or AWD is needed to get around in the snow. All I'm saying is 1.) That's not true. 2.) All it takes is common sense 3.) Give them the damn option of AWD, but FWD doesn't need to be substituted for RWD architectures.

[regfootball]

It's not like snow tires are insanely expensive compared to the cost of buying a new car anyway.

I'd love to see how my friend's FWD Acura TL would do in the snow with the performance tires it comes with...but see he's smart and puts snow tires on in the winter.

he has to because his performance tires are summer tires only. are they all season tires? again, we prove the reason why all season tires are so popular. YOU DONT HAVE TO FUTZ WITH CHANGING THEM. i like the summer only / winter only idea, but the other 99 percent don't want to deal with it. my guess is he had no clue his performance tires were crap in winter. or he didnt care and then found them one day to be really slippery.

[Intrepidation]

Anyway, I don't ven know how we got to the argument, but since I don't care enough to reread 5 pages...so I'm done with it.

The bottom line at the end of the day is that no Cadillac, especially not the flagship, should be FWD.

[regfootball]

AWD is fine as an option, and yes most people are f@#king stupid and think that FWD or AWD is needed to get around in the snow. All I'm saying is 1.) That's not true. 2.) All it takes is common sense 3.) Give them the damn option of AWD, but FWD doesn't need to be substituted for RWD architectures.

its does when you are a manufacturer if most of the sales volume is 2 wheel drive only, and you need to sell that vehicle in many states consistently.

i am not disputing that a top lvel caddy should be rwd. I am saying that GM is probably so strapped with development cash, that they have to put all their eggs in one platform basket. The bigger sin to me, is why not spend a little and market some AWD zetas or more AWD sigmas? then EVERYONE CAN BE HAPPY.

[Intrepidation]

he has to because his performance tires are summer tires only. are they all season tires? again, we prove the reason why all season tires are so popular. YOU DONT HAVE TO FUTZ WITH CHANGING THEM. i like the summer only / winter only idea, but the other 99 percent don't want to deal with it. my guess is he had no clue his performance tires were crap in winter. or he didnt care and then found them one day to be really slippery.

My friend? Obviously he had a clue if he bought the winter tires when he bought the car. Don't mask assumptions about someone you don't know. You know what they say about assuming.

Again, all season tires work fine in the snow, no matter what wheels putting the power down.

No more of this arguing though...back on the actual topic.

[cire]

I seriously think this is more about platform consolidation than anything else. GM is in dire financial straits and it may appear to them that it is more economical to base their products on the fewest number of platforms as possible. Since the FWD platforms are necessary for volume, my guess is that they will survive while the RWD platforms will be discontinued or (in Alpha's case) cancelled. I think it will primarily be reduced down to Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Theta, and Lambda in the future. If the Corvette survives, then they will need to continue the Y-body. If they continue to produce trucks and SUVs with any kind of useful utility, then they will need a sturdy platform for these products also. Everything else will probably end up on some version of the 5 primary platforms. It's sad and unfortunate (because I would prefer to see the DT7 and the next gen Escalade based on Zeta or an extended version of Sigma instead), but I think it is the reality.

That being said, I don't know why GM doesn't base the DT7 on Lambda instead of Epsilon. The Lambda platform is large enough to support a proper flagship sedan for Cadillac, although it would be more of an A8 competitor than a 7-Series or S-Class competitor. That way, both of the brand's future flagship vehicles (DT7 and next gen Escalade) would be based on the same platform (which I guess would be more economical?). That would leave room to move the next CTS (or CT5?) to LWB Epsilon II and base the compact size AT3(?) on SWB Epsilon II. I certainly wouldn't base any Cadillac sedan on Gamma II or Delta II, no matter how improved those platforms may be.

Edited March 4, 2009 by cire

[regfootball]

Anyway, I don't ven know how we got to the argument, but since I don't care enough to reread 5 pages...so I'm done with it.

The bottom line at the end of the day is that no Cadillac, especially not the flagship, should be FWD.

well, GM is forced to do a lot of silly things these days now that they are the governments beeoch.

and its not just one ralph nader on their ass this time. it's like a hundred thousand of them.

Edited March 4, 2009 by regfootball

[regfootball]

I seriously think this is more about platform consolidation than anything else. GM is in dire financial straits and it may appear to them that it is more economical to base their products on the fewest number of platforms as possible. Since the FWD platforms are necessary for volume, my guess is that they will survive while the RWD platforms will be discontinued or (in Alpha's case) cancelled. I think it will primarily be reduced down to Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Theta, and Lambda in the future. If the Corvette survives, then they will need to continue the Y-body. If they continue to produce trucks and SUVs with any kind of useful utility, then they will need a sturdy platform for these products also. Everything else will probably end up on some version of the 5 primary platforms. It's sad and unfortunate (because I would prefer to see the DT7 and the next gen Escalade based on Zeta or an extended version of Sigma instead), but I think it is the reality.

That being said, I don't know why GM doesn't base the DT7 on Lambda instead of Epsilon. The Lambda platform is large enough to support a proper flagship sedan for Cadillac, although it would be more of an A8 competitor than a 7-Series or S-Class competitor. That way, both of the brand's future flagship vehicles (DT7 and next gen Escalade) would be based on the same platform (which I guess would be more economical?). That would leave room to move the next CTS (or CT5?) to LWB Epsilon II and base the compact size AT3(?) on SWB Epsilon II. I certainly wouldn't base any Cadillac sedan on Gamma II or Delta II, no matter how improved those platforms may be.

[Intrepidation]

well, GM is forced to do a lot of silly things these days now that they are the governments beeoch.

They were doing "silly" things before th government stepped in.

[Intrepidation]

I seriously think this is more about platform consolidation than anything else. GM is in dire financial straits and it may appear to them that it is more economical to base their products on the fewest number of platforms as possible. Since the FWD platforms are necessary for volume, my guess is that they will survive while the RWD platforms will be discontinued or (in Alpha's case) cancelled. I think it will primarily be reduced down to Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Theta, and Lambda in the future. If the Corvette survives, then they will need to continue the Y-body. If they continue to produce trucks and SUVs with any kind of useful utility, then they will need a sturdy platform for these products also. Everything else will probably end up on some version of the 5 primary platforms. It's sad and unfortunate (because I would prefer to see the DT7 and the next gen Escalade based on Zeta or an extended version of Sigma instead), but I think it is the reality.

That being said, I don't know why GM doesn't base the DT7 on Lambda instead of Epsilon. The Lambda platform is large enough to support a proper flagship sedan for Cadillac, although it would be more of an A8 competitor than a 7-Series or S-Class competitor. That way, both of the brand's future flagship vehicles (DT7 and next gen Escalade) would be based on the same platform (which I guess would be more economical?). That would leave room to move the next CTS (or CT5?) to LWB Epsilon II and base the compact size AT3(?) on SWB Epsilon II. I certainly wouldn't base any Cadillac sedan on Gamma II or Delta II, no matter how improved those platforms may be.

Problem with your assessment is that development for Zeta had already been completed. They wouldn't be starting from the ground up. However, the twits inside GM hate Holden because they make cars that don't suck, so they killed off Zeta.

[cletus8269]

Yay for 1950's Citroen technology.

and 55 packard tech too

as for fwd/rwd snow traction. my grandparents made routine trips to spruce pines, boone, little switzerland, and blowing rock in the snow in one of these

all the while passing 4wd trucks in the ditch going up the mountain.

truth is the awd/fwd/rwd arguement is the same as coke or pepsi

but

a flagship car should be performance oriented as well as luxo. fwd just wont cut that. its got to be rwd.

Edited March 4, 2009 by cletus8269

[Intrepidation]

a flagship car should be performance oriented as well as luxo. fwd just wont cut that. its got to be rwd.

That's a great way to put it.

[regfootball]

the only thing i can think of why zeta is being ditched.....weight vs comparable fwd future GM platforms with them being so scared of future cafe. every 100 pounds of vehicle weight would matter. my question is, why not just find a way to make zeta cars lighter? stop using the cheap steel. for one.

that and GMNA being provincial and territorial about it not being developed a lot here.

Edited March 4, 2009 by regfootball

[Satty]

you just pieced together any amount of money you could for the down payment on the car. the tax alone was probably 1500. you signed up to pay for the thing for 5 or 6 years.

you honestly think someone is going to embrace 5-800 bucks for 4 snow tires and wheels (or blow money each fall and spring to swap tires on the original rims, which by the way is really stupid).

And you've just hit the nail on whats wrong with the car buying public. Scraping together a few hundred bucks for a down payment, then never-ending monster payments, thats a recipe for disaster.

[cletus8269]

And you've just hit the nail on whats wrong with the car buying public. Scraping together a few hundred bucks for a down payment, then never-ending monster payments, thats a recipe for disaster.

and the saddest thing is, its encouraged. its even being encouraged now in the middle of the financial meltdown. with hyundai's little 1 yr cant make the payments give it back deal.

my dad told me when i was looking to buy a car, your spending limit is easy to see. all you have to do is get a car that cost less than what you make a year. you make 40K stick it in the 30Ks but it would be best to get something right in the middle that way you have some buffer.