Chevrolet News:What is the Future of the Chevrolet SS?

[G. David Felt]

 

 

By the way I would recommend you get to know a CT6. If you do you will realize it is never going to be confused for a Impala or cross shopped for an SS. They are product targeted at totally different groups. 

 

 

 

Makes to much sense to waste it on Smk. Its almost as crazy as people who say that the Camaro and ATS were gonna be cross-shopped. Brands be damned.. they are two totally different vehicles. I don't look at a Mustang and think.. "what's a 3/4 series have to offer"

 

 

What you do not think a Ford Mustang GT500 or Camaro Z28 should be cross shopped with a BMW M4?

 

[hyperv6]

 

 

By the way I would recommend you get to know a CT6. If you do you will realize it is never going to be confused for a Impala or cross shopped for an SS. They are product targeted at totally different groups. 

 

 

 

Makes to much sense to waste it on Smk. Its almost as crazy as people who say that the Camaro and ATS were gonna be cross-shopped. Brands be damned.. they are two totally different vehicles. I don't look at a Mustang and think.. "what's a 3/4 series have to offer"

 

 

I just commented on that else where. 

The Camaro will improve in status as it continues to execute better levels of performance and higher levels of quality but the volumes they need hurt their image for exclusivity. 

I suspect that JDN has new Ideas on the ATS at it transforms to a CT number. He has made it clear they have good cars but not good enough. That to me is very promising as they will not just stop where they are at. 

[regfootball]

 

 

 

I agree that Chevy needs a cheaper, more fuel efficient SUV to market to police deparments.  But that vehicle is also going to be a front drive unibody vehicle with the same engine and transmission from an Impala.  Assuming Terrain and Equinox move to D2XX and shrink in size, that leaves space for a mid-size Chevy on C2XX similar to the Acadia.

 

I am all for rear drive cars, but if Chevy wants a full size rear drive car, that means the Impala has to be it, and the FWD car has to die, and that rear drive Impala also would need to start around $28,000.  The brand can't support 2 full size sedans.  I just don't think GM will scrap the FWD Impala when it is too easy to make it and platform share with Malibu, Lacrosse, etc.

The key to the SUV over the Impala is more room and higher ground clearance. Durability still is not a strong suit but some departments will sacrifice it in the name of MPG.

A Colorado based SUV would be a good option here.

If GM does a RWD car they would kill the FWD Impala as why would you offer both. It is bad enough they are so close tot he Malibu in size now.

You are not going to get to $28K. First that does not buy you much Malibu now let alone an Impala. Start it around 33K and top the SS at mid 40's like an SS Camaro. Special editions could be offered in low numbers at higher prices. They just pad profits.

The whole point is why have a FWD Impala when you already have a new Malibu and new Lacrosse that have the whole spectrum covered?

Also where else in the world would the Impala sell well other than Canada?

A V6 model in a police package would give better handling, MPG and still run a high 13 second quarter performance.

 

the same reason why you don't kill a lambda size Acadia and expect that Acadia owner to get an Enclave or a Traverse.  The Impala driver doesn't want or need to step up to the LaCrosse.  The LaCrosse isn't cheap enough to appeal to those who want a large fwd car unless they de-content the base version.

 

no one buys performance cars anymore, which is why a RWD car won't sell in masses.........which is why no one buys the SS.  G8 v6 sold like a turd it was, no reason to believe an Impala RWD v6 would do any better.  The RWD used to own the cop segment but now they want Explorers instead.  

 

The new Malibu is a light car and the number of people who would want a larger more stout version of that in FWD is still way higher than any group that would want a Chevy badged RWD full size car at this point.  The best way to do a RWD full size car would be to add it to the Buick stable as the Avenir.  And then if you want to, commit to a new version of the SS, but not replace the Impala.

 

Toyota still has the Avalon.  It's a pulled Camry.  That's far easier to do then a whole new chassis just because its RWD, and it won't sell in the states unless you call it a performance car.  And that is a niche.  

 

GM could sell more SS if they advertised it and it looked good, but they would also have to drop the price.  It's one of those deals where they may grab some sales in year 1 and 2, but after that it would be 20k a year.  And they'd basically siphon the RWD crowd from Cadillac.

 

 

 

Again think globally. All 4 GM divisions would move enough of these cars to see a good profit at even only 50K units which is very obtainable. 

 

The reason the Zeta has not sold is pretty simple. For one it is not cheap. Two it is only sold in one variation. Three it is damn old. Four the styling while not bad is nothing to get exited about. 

GM did not advertise it as they only expected to import a small number. They also knew this car was a lame duck coming in as they knew it was to die soon. 

A V6 Alpha body sedan has every reason to do well and much better than the G8. The G8 was a turd to drive. The V6 Camaro will rune 13.5-13.6 quarter mile times, drive circles around most modern day sedans even without an SS on the flank. 

Or do you hate to have a standard Impala that is better than some of the better performance sedans on the market. Just look at what the V6 Camaro can do and you will see a standard car of world class quality. 

Give me a reason to make another FWD sedan that basically matches the Lacrosse and Malibu? Why would you need a 3rd car of the same thinking? Would it be better to offer something different and something much better and newer than the LX cars? 

 

Or we can continue with the North American only Impala FWD and just watch as its sales continue to drop below 100K and match up more with the Taurus at 50K. 

 

Like it or not the Malibu as it is now will do a lot of damage to the Impala sales. It is a much better car at a cheaper price with about the same rear seat room. You could not say that last year but you can now. 

 

the Impala is still plenty larger in width and girth and legroom inside in comparison to the new Malibu.  More importantly, it has a much more detailed interior, better seats, nicer dash.  We know the Malibu is a nice car now but I personally know people that would think the new Malibu is still too light, not nice enough, plus, the Malibu only has 4 cylinders.  If there is no other reason to have the Impala, it is because it has the 6 cylinder.

 

The reason the Taurus is down to 50k or whatever is the new styling which was cool in 2010, wore off in 2013.  The interior is not as large as the car (but it sure has a huge trunk).  People complained it was large and heavy and you couldn't see out of it.

 

My best analogy with the Impala is still the Avalon and the Maxima.  Some folks don't want Camry's and Altimas because that is slumming.  You send the RWD folks to Inifniti and Lexus.  The LACrosse is Buicks car but the Impala does great numbers still despite that.

 

So, difference of opinion.  The G8 v6 was a turd and no one wanted it.  The G8 v8 only sold as a performance car.  The SS only is offered as a performance car.  Much of the country due to weather and many of the buyers due to times changing just don't look for RWD cars in the showroom anymore.....the only exception is the smoky burnout / racing crowd.  They are all dying off if they are any left.  The younger set wants wither 3 series sized cars or WRX's and such.  The smoky burnout crowd is not going to replace the current Impala volume, and the LACrosse + Malibu combo is not going to absorb the losses if you kill the fwd Impala.  That's why Chevy has a 15% off MSRP incentive on unsold 2015 SS's now.

Edited April 1, 2016 by regfootball

[regfootball]

I think a year or two ago I made an argument for a RWD Impala, since why do they need a Malibu, Regal, Impala, LaCrosse all sort of on top of each other.  Sending the Impala to rear drive (with awd option) makes it more classic American and rwd is a superior platform.  You'd probably have to use Omega, an Alpha car would be too small, and no bigger than a Malibu or CTS.  But you can't make it a $40-50,000 car, that is to expensive for a Chevy.

 

If they made an Omega Impala about 202 inches long, with an NA 2.5 liter they could probably get weight to 3,600 lbs, in which case 200 hp and an 8-speed auto can move the car just fine.  That is a better power to weight ratio than the new Acada has.  Then offer a 2 liter turbo OR a V6, the Impala buyer would probably prefer the V6.  But if you start putting Corvette engines in it and selling it for $55,000 then it isn't an Impala anymore.  This is partly why the G8 and now SS have failed, there is just hardly any market for a V8, full size rear drive sedan.  They need an Impala that can cater to the masses or it will be dead.

 

And stop making Cruze and Malibu bigger forcing the Impala to extinction.  Kill the Spark, and downsize the Sonic, Cruze and Malibu.

Chevy's products are right sized now. 

 

The Impala is the right size.

The new Malibu is the right size and is spaced enough apart down from the Impala.

The new Cruze which i will sit in soon if its a bit bigger than the current Cruze will still be adequately down in legs and girth from the new Malibu.

We know the Sonic is adequately spaced down from the Cruze, and the same with the Spark to the Sonic.

 

Chevy has all the size bases covered now with their lineup.

 

Your points about what prices the RWD etc. Impala would sell at yes in fact is too much and means its not an Impala anymore.  Could it be an Avenir?  Yes, perhaps much better.

The current Impala already pushes its price ceiling when optioned at 40 grand etc.  Chevy has done a great job pushing up real transaction prices of the Impala with the new body style.  And yet they still have kept acceptable prices for the Chevy crowd.  The impala sells for less than the XTS by a bunch.  The new LAcrosse will move up in price.  I don't see a low volume RWD chevy sedan being able to match the pricing structure of the current successful Impala.  

 

GM wants to sell the current body style of the Impala for at least 8-10 years I bet.  The previous Impala went like 8 years.  They will want to max out as many units as they can on it so they have no plans to give up on it any time soon.  If anything i bet they put a new 2.0 or 1.8 turbo in it as the base engine at some point....which would easily extend the life of that car.

 

If they ever do bring a RWD impala they would probably still sell the current one as 'Limited' or 'Classic' for at least 2 years just because they can. Look at how long they sell the Captiva.

 

There is NO ONE out there I know of that would ever be looking at RWD Impala anymore.  My uncle / aunt looked at the new Impala but got the GMC terrain because it had AWD.

 

Even when Chevy adds all those new crossovers in the next two years, that is still not going to open up any new demand for a RWD CHevy sedan.

[hyperv6]

 

 

 

 

I agree that Chevy needs a cheaper, more fuel efficient SUV to market to police deparments.  But that vehicle is also going to be a front drive unibody vehicle with the same engine and transmission from an Impala.  Assuming Terrain and Equinox move to D2XX and shrink in size, that leaves space for a mid-size Chevy on C2XX similar to the Acadia.

 

I am all for rear drive cars, but if Chevy wants a full size rear drive car, that means the Impala has to be it, and the FWD car has to die, and that rear drive Impala also would need to start around $28,000.  The brand can't support 2 full size sedans.  I just don't think GM will scrap the FWD Impala when it is too easy to make it and platform share with Malibu, Lacrosse, etc.

The key to the SUV over the Impala is more room and higher ground clearance. Durability still is not a strong suit but some departments will sacrifice it in the name of MPG.

A Colorado based SUV would be a good option here.

If GM does a RWD car they would kill the FWD Impala as why would you offer both. It is bad enough they are so close tot he Malibu in size now.

You are not going to get to $28K. First that does not buy you much Malibu now let alone an Impala. Start it around 33K and top the SS at mid 40's like an SS Camaro. Special editions could be offered in low numbers at higher prices. They just pad profits.

The whole point is why have a FWD Impala when you already have a new Malibu and new Lacrosse that have the whole spectrum covered?

Also where else in the world would the Impala sell well other than Canada?

A V6 model in a police package would give better handling, MPG and still run a high 13 second quarter performance.

 

the same reason why you don't kill a lambda size Acadia and expect that Acadia owner to get an Enclave or a Traverse.  The Impala driver doesn't want or need to step up to the LaCrosse.  The LaCrosse isn't cheap enough to appeal to those who want a large fwd car unless they de-content the base version.

 

no one buys performance cars anymore, which is why a RWD car won't sell in masses.........which is why no one buys the SS.  G8 v6 sold like a turd it was, no reason to believe an Impala RWD v6 would do any better.  The RWD used to own the cop segment but now they want Explorers instead.  

 

The new Malibu is a light car and the number of people who would want a larger more stout version of that in FWD is still way higher than any group that would want a Chevy badged RWD full size car at this point.  The best way to do a RWD full size car would be to add it to the Buick stable as the Avenir.  And then if you want to, commit to a new version of the SS, but not replace the Impala.

 

Toyota still has the Avalon.  It's a pulled Camry.  That's far easier to do then a whole new chassis just because its RWD, and it won't sell in the states unless you call it a performance car.  And that is a niche.  

 

GM could sell more SS if they advertised it and it looked good, but they would also have to drop the price.  It's one of those deals where they may grab some sales in year 1 and 2, but after that it would be 20k a year.  And they'd basically siphon the RWD crowd from Cadillac.

 

 

 

Again think globally. All 4 GM divisions would move enough of these cars to see a good profit at even only 50K units which is very obtainable. 

 

The reason the Zeta has not sold is pretty simple. For one it is not cheap. Two it is only sold in one variation. Three it is damn old. Four the styling while not bad is nothing to get exited about. 

GM did not advertise it as they only expected to import a small number. They also knew this car was a lame duck coming in as they knew it was to die soon. 

A V6 Alpha body sedan has every reason to do well and much better than the G8. The G8 was a turd to drive. The V6 Camaro will rune 13.5-13.6 quarter mile times, drive circles around most modern day sedans even without an SS on the flank. 

Or do you hate to have a standard Impala that is better than some of the better performance sedans on the market. Just look at what the V6 Camaro can do and you will see a standard car of world class quality. 

Give me a reason to make another FWD sedan that basically matches the Lacrosse and Malibu? Why would you need a 3rd car of the same thinking? Would it be better to offer something different and something much better and newer than the LX cars? 

 

Or we can continue with the North American only Impala FWD and just watch as its sales continue to drop below 100K and match up more with the Taurus at 50K. 

 

Like it or not the Malibu as it is now will do a lot of damage to the Impala sales. It is a much better car at a cheaper price with about the same rear seat room. You could not say that last year but you can now. 

 

the Impala is still plenty larger in width and girth and legroom inside in comparison to the new Malibu.  More importantly, it has a much more detailed interior, better seats, nicer dash.  We know the Malibu is a nice car now but I personally know people that would think the new Malibu is still too light, not nice enough, plus, the Malibu only has 4 cylinders.  If there is no other reason to have the Impala, it is because it has the 6 cylinder.

 

The reason the Taurus is down to 50k or whatever is the new styling which was cool in 2010, wore off in 2013.  The interior is not as large as the car (but it sure has a huge trunk).  People complained it was large and heavy and you couldn't see out of it.

 

My best analogy with the Impala is still the Avalon and the Maxima.  Some folks don't want Camry's and Altimas because that is slumming.  You send the RWD folks to Inifniti and Lexus.  The LACrosse is Buicks car but the Impala does great numbers still despite that.

 

So, difference of opinion.  The G8 v6 was a turd and no one wanted it.  The G8 v8 only sold as a performance car.  The SS only is offered as a performance car.  Much of the country due to weather and many of the buyers due to times changing just don't look for RWD cars in the showroom anymore.....the only exception is the smoky burnout / racing crowd.  They are all dying off if they are any left.  The younger set wants wither 3 series sized cars or WRX's and such.  The smoky burnout crowd is not going to replace the current Impala volume, and the LACrosse + Malibu combo is not going to absorb the losses if you kill the fwd Impala.  That's why Chevy has a 15% off MSRP incentive on unsold 2015 SS's now.

 

 

The Impala is not that much larger and will only sell about 1/3 of what the Malibu will sell. What people do not like the Bu will have the Lacrosse filling the Impala role. As for those who feel tight or want a V6 Go to Buick. You are not going to make everyone happy. 

As for the Impala what other market other than North America would even hold an interest in it? None. The impala numbers are falling and it did hold an advantage of being newer than the Larcorsse. Well that one is gone. Having seen the new Lacrosse it make the Impala look more rental. 

The reason the Taurus is down is it is an expensive FWD car once options are added and the Fusion is a much better value. The Fusion has killed the Taurus and the Bu will do the same at GM. Hence attracting a new customer base with a different kind of sedan that will be much more refined and I would expect stable in sales globally. They don't have snow outside in Dubai or out back or south Africa or...... 

 

They still make a Maxima and Avalon? The Buck line would match up much better image and product wise being mostly Opel based. Some people have to have FWD all the time because they are just flat unskilled or uniformed that RWD works just fine in the snow. 

 

Funny how if RWD is that evil that anyone buys a BMW, Benz, Camaro, Mustang, even the old LX models still in good numbers. Only a small number of them here in the snow belt are AWD and we get around just fine. Not even all of them are hot rodders. Most of the remaining G8 cars are coveted and stock. 

 

There is a handful of WRX people but it is more cult like. They don't buy them for snow and most never see the snow as they have too much money wrapped up in them. 

 

The reason the SS is discounted is simple It looks old not very stylish it is anything but dramatic.  it is over weight and the at the end of the line for development. On the other hand the Alpha has proven to be world class and only is at the start of the development process. They also only offer it pretty much with a sun roof or not. It is priced to the max not like a V6 Impala would be priced. 

Here is the simple question. You will have a near sized improved and better Malibu out there now to cannibalize the sales of the Impala like the Fusion. You have a new Lacrosse that is better than the old Impala in about every way including AWD being an option. You also have a new Regal about to arrive. Now you want to keep another FWD on the roster that has no real global market? 

Sorry I would take a change up here to offer something different here that could be easily supported globally vs. a declining model in a segment already saturated with like models already. That is what got GM in trouble before. Enough is enough. 

 

In the future most models will sell in modest numbers in the sedan segment with the advent of the CUV. Global sales will be needed to sustain these models as each market will add up to a decent volume that one market can no longer support. 

 

By the way if winter is that big of an issue AWD can be offered in the Impala Alpha easily enough. 

 

Mark this done in one to two years the Malibu will be much like the Fusion and dominate the segment and would kill off the impala on it's own unless it goes global. 

Variety and global balance are key anymore. 

 

If you were going to replace the impala with a non global product you may as well make it a CUV as a new FWD would die fast with the Impala. You will not see 100K plus units again with the Bu here now. 

[smk4565]

It is very possible that in about 10 years the Chevy car line up in the USA is Volt, Bolt, Cruze, Malibu, Camaro, and Corvette.  I could see them having 6 gas powered crossovers and two Volt-like or pure EV crossovers.  If the crossover trend doesn't reverse, I think large sedans are dead, and the compact or subcompact cars are dead.  Basically just the small to middle size sedans will survive.

[hyperv6]

It is very possible that in about 10 years the Chevy car line up in the USA is Volt, Bolt, Cruze, Malibu, Camaro, and Corvette.  I could see them having 6 gas powered crossovers and two Volt-like or pure EV crossovers.  If the crossover trend doesn't reverse, I think large sedans are dead, and the compact or subcompact cars are dead.  Basically just the small to middle size sedans will survive.

 

That is fine so for 10 years you leverage out a platform you already have and make the best damn sedan in the segment offering what the others do not or have not refreshed in 12 years and mine the money globally. 

FYI you may want to note large sedans are declining in North America. The rest of the world is not mesmerized by CUV models. 

Hence again why this would be a global project. 

 

The real key to your theory is continued improvement of batteries as electrics still need to come down in price and improve in charging ability as in speed. The Volt systems need to improve in range and price too. They may but till they do we can not assume. 

 

Also GM needs to continue to cut the weight of these systems as much of their range is eaten up with moving mass. 

 

Just consider this. An Impala now is how heavy? It is right about 3800-3900 the way most are optioned. How much HP 305 HP? 

 

Now consider a Alpha Impala. With a 270 Hp Turbo 4 the Camaro is now 3367. WIth a longer wheel base a sedan could come in just over 3500 pounds as the ATS is at 3600 and the Chevy would have less content. So you are cutting 300-400 pounds and not giving up much in power and holding as much or more torque. Globally that would do well. 

[regfootball]

I see ten years from now there will be a lot of manufacturer that ditch the longitudinal platforms almost entirely.

There will be a weed out of luxury models and they will get rid of lots of the RWD bias platforms. The CLA's and X1's of the word plus the ongoing push to standardize platforms and build more models off of them with pushes and pulls will be the thing. Infiniti, Lexus, even BMW and Mercedes will incrementally move platforms to ubiquitous platforms that are primarily front drive and able to accept electrification.

I'll be shocked if Cadillac survives having more than 2 RWD platforms. I predict Chryslers LX replacement will get snuffed out by Sergio. Ford is creating a new Mustang platform again but I don't see that getting widely used. GM is probably your only hope for bargain RWD platforms and the only chance is as a hand me down.

GM will need to develop true Tesla competitors if the 3 takes off. Cadillac will need something to compete more directly with the S. Cadillac will have to spend their dollars making new electric friendly platforms. The Ct6 hybrid is a frankenstein and not at all purpose built electric.

The ubiquity of the fwd platforms and the need to change our vehicle architectures to electric will mean your chances of the rwd based performance car are going to go by the wayside.

Edited April 3, 2016 by regfootball

[Suaviloquent]

I think EVs are more flexible with the powered wheels. And you can do torque vectoring by just using more motors. like 4 corner power...that's crazy...

 

Maybe 10 years from now an SS replacement comes out, RWD, EV. Why not?

 

Like with EVs....you can get great space efficiency for the overall length of the vehicle and rwd..

 

[hyperv6]

I agree there is a lot you can do with EV drive motors. They are a real blessing with packaging. The real curse is the large space they take up, cost, weight and charging times. We are now seeing good range but the other issues are problematic yet. 

I expect improvements in the batteries but no one knows if we will see that big change with in ten years or just small jumps still looking for the solution. 

 

Now that is where the Hydrogen package really is good as the cell fits under the hood and the motors at the wheels and no large battery. The only issues are the filling times as it can take 20 min to fill a cell. Also where you can fill one. I have driven the GM Fuel Cell and it was great. Much of the GM EV driveline all crosses over. 

[hyperv6]

I see ten years from now there will be a lot of manufacturer that ditch the longitudinal platforms almost entirely.

 

There will be a weed out of luxury models and they will get rid of lots of the RWD bias platforms.  The CLA's and X1's of the word plus the ongoing push to standardize platforms and build more models off of them with pushes and pulls will be the thing.  Infiniti, Lexus, even BMW and Mercedes will incrementally move platforms to ubiquitous platforms that are primarily front drive and able to accept electrification.

 

I'll be shocked if Cadillac survives having more than 2 RWD platforms.  I predict Chryslers LX replacement will get snuffed out by Sergio.  Ford is creating a new Mustang platform again but I don't see that getting widely used.  GM is probably your only hope for bargain RWD platforms and the only chance is as a hand me down.

 

GM will need to develop true Tesla competitors if the 3 takes off.  Cadillac will need something to compete more directly with the S.  Cadillac will have to spend their dollars making new electric friendly platforms.  The Ct6 hybrid is a frankenstein and not at all purpose built electric.  

 

The ubiquity of the fwd platforms and the need to change our vehicle architectures to electric will mean your chances of the red based performance car are going to go by the wayside.

 

 

I would not call that ship sailed yet. 

You will see more EV hybrids like the CT6 driveline with longer range and more technical advancement. 

Even in EV form Cadillac will remain RWD/AWD. 

The only thing that will kill the LX is incompetence on Sergio's part. Even with the large old heavy dinosaurs they are still doing a decent volume better than most FWD large sedans but they are not making the money they should be on them with the large discounts. 

The fact is GM has invested int he Alpha and Omega to the point they will be around more than 10 years with future investments. GM did not sell out like Ford who now is paying a price with the Mustang being the only car on that platform. They now regret not sharing it with Lincoln as they were about to kill them. The new Conti is getting swacked for being FWD econo car based.

 

I do see GM maybe doing the next mid sized platform to be FWD, AWD and RWD able. With today's computer engineered platforms that is very possible today and yet still let the platform flexible enough to fill many needs and roles. Now that they can merge Aluminum and High Strength Steel I see many possibilites coming about with platforms. I expect this technology to be applied to the Alpha at some point with the replaced ATS and CTS moving to the CT cars. 

 

You have a greater chance on being right that the V8 will be gone before RWD vanishes. 

 

To be honest with the torque I would not want a powerful FWD EV. FWD suck for traction and putting the power to the ground. I know first hand as I have a hell of a time just putting 300 HP to the ground with a gas FWD with 315 FT LBS. Spinning the tires at 50 MPH sucks when you want to take off hard. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by hyperv6

[Suaviloquent]

Are you joking?

 

Tesla's RWD drive motor - its entirety is the size of a medium watermelon.

 

The front is the size of the a large melon.

 

And their drive motor includes everything... everything needed, the brushless AC motor components,and the reduction gear for torque multiplicaiton....

 

And, it is packaged like flat engines.....ev motors do not take up a lot of space. 

 

I think the real innovations will be made in charge times, battery charge cycle improvments instead of big range gains first,

 

Like to be honest, a 200 mile range with like a 20 minute, 100% charge time is pretty good at a supercharger for a target standard. You don't need any better, because if you can charge at home in an hour I don't see how people ever see face the issue of range anxiety, given that most motor vehicles spend more time sitting idle at the home or office than actually driving.

[smk4565]

One day Tesla will outsell GM.  The technology will shift, GM will be too slow to respond to it, and they will be the Blackberry of cell phones wondering how Apple took 50% of the market out of no where.

[hyperv6]

One day Tesla will outsell GM.  The technology will shift, GM will be too slow to respond to it, and they will be the Blackberry of cell phones wondering how Apple took 50% of the market out of no where.

 

Wow I really don't know where to go on this one with out being totally over the top insulting. 

The most polite comeback is when Pigs Fly! Not even on a Space X rocket as they need to remain alive too. Tesla will have to learn how to survive first before over taking anyone. 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/tesla-s-model-3-could-destroy-elon-musk-s-company.html?via=desktop&source=email

 

This is even a eco friendly site. 

 

I can say with out being insulting that you do not grasp  real business in the auto world as you have proven it fact  with this statement. 

Edited April 3, 2016 by hyperv6

[regfootball]

GM's bolt package to me seems where ev packaging may go for the next ten years or so. Flat low and heavy battery pack. Still f w d because much of the buying public in weather states is looking for that.

Eventually I do see 4 wheel motors being the thing.

[hyperv6]

GM's bolt package to me seems where ev packaging may go for the next ten years or so. Flat low and heavy battery pack. Still f w d because much of the buying public in weather states is looking for that.

Eventually I do see 4 wheel motors being the thing.

 

I fully expect to see even with ICE the 4 motors and brake by wire being the way forward. The ICE will generate the power for the motors in many vehicles that can not use battery power. 

Even in large trucks I could see this happening. We already see it in the large dumps at gravel pits as they have no mechanical connection. 

[oldshurst442]

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/bloomberg/article/musks-tesla-is-a-niche-car-not-a-revolution-edward-niedermeyer

 

 

By Edward Neidermeyer

 

The dude that wrote the article here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/tesla-s-model-3-could-destroy-elon-musk-s-company.html?via=desktop&source=email

 

 

What the link that I provided says and was written in March of 2014....2 years ago...

 

 

Which brings us to Tesla’s ability to disrupt the car market. If Panasonic believed sales of electricified vehicles held the sort of growth promise Musk anticipates, it would far more likely pursue that opportunity with Toyota, its electric- battery partner since 1996. Toyota, the world’s most valuable automaker and the industry leader in hybrid electrification, announced last year that it would increase joint lithium-ion battery production with Panasonic to 200,000 units per year. Having also owned a stake in Tesla since 2010, Toyota could easily have offered to cut Tesla into that deal. The fact that it didn’t supports the long-standing perception among Toyota- watchers that chief executive officer Akiyo Toyoda invested in an exciting car and brand four years ago, not a potential industry disruptor.

 

 

 

HA! HA! HA!

 

When Edward wrote his latest anti-Tesla article...because there are plenty...

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-11/tesla-will-get-trampled-by-the-mass-market

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/tesla-s-model-3-could-destroy-elon-musk-s-company.html

 

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/bloomberg/article/musks-tesla-is-a-niche-car-not-a-revolution-edward-niedermeyer

 

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5205029-the-competition-is-revving-up-against-tesla/

 

http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/edward-niedermeyer-toyota-bets-1-billion-that-tesla-is-speeding-115110800747_1.html

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/02/qotd-toyota-not-tesla-as-a-force-of-disruption/#more-757641  

 

When he wrote that article...he says that Tesla had 115 000 orders...

 

Musk described the vehicle at its unveiling in California on Thursday night as “the final step in the master plan, which is a mass-market, affordable car.” Already, 115,000 people have plunked down $1,000 deposits to order the car two years before it’s available.

 

 

 

 

HA! HA! HA!

 

Th Model 3 is up to 200 000 orders now...

And Toyota....with all that Prius automobile disruption that Ed wants to call it...has scaled down Prius projects...

 

Yeah...

 

Another dumb ass analyst "professional" like that Automobile styling "professional" named Cumbersome has an opinion...

 

 

That last part...about everybody else's opinion stinking up the place....

He could be right, he could be wrong...

But...he has been wrong with his other opinion based articles...more like blogs...

 

Yeah...I dont buy what he is shoveling...

[regfootball]

I was lot trolling while we were on vaca today. Dealer here has a new 16 black SS Manual. 50k. Despite the tame looks it is a sweet car. Options are guzzler tax and moonroof. Absolutely I'd love one of these as a playtoy but 14 mpg and limited use in winter means it's just a playtoy. I do admit the interior of the SS is awesome. Saw a close to new ZL1 at the gas station too.

Edited April 4, 2016 by regfootball

[Suaviloquent]

The SS is a sweet car. It's a hoot.

 

I would reckon it is the closest to a Camaro sedan - except with exceptional visibility.

 

Also, slealth wealth, and great resale. 

 

I would bring back SS. And then I'd bring back something a hell of a lot more Badass than SS. (Holden Commodore donating it's LSA anyone?!!)

 

And if you wanted purity of driving, it's like a Chevy F10 5 Series. I'd get it over a Cadillac VSport by the thinnest of margins too. Alpha is nice, but the SS has some chunky space inside. And the interior is just like any other large full-size sedan - by that I mean near-luxury, great materials.

[hyperv6]

I was lot trolling while we were on vaca today. Dealer here has a new 16 black SS Manual. 50k. Despite the tame looks it is a sweet car. Options are guzzler tax and moonroof. Absolutely I'd love one of these as a playtoy but 14 mpg and limited use in winter means it's just a playtoy. I do admit the interior of the SS is awesome. Saw a close to new ZL1 at the gas station too.

 

 

For to drive the car is great. 

As for looks people expect more in the styling department for the price. 

As for winter driving that is BS to any one who knows how to drive. We got buy for nearly 100 years with RWD cars on crap tires with no electronic aids. Now we have good tires with traction control, stability control and anti lock brakes and if you can not get around you should not be on the road. FWD traction is the big lie as simple physic prove it for traction as the weight transfer away's goes to the rear wheels. John Force is not FWD is he? 

 

The real killer is the sun roof only option that takes this car price wise few that buy  chevys want to go. If they want to spend that much they would just pay a little more for a Corvette or less for a Camaro. Now  make a sedan with a smaller engine at a little lower price in a much more modern styling and you will attract many more buyers. Even Chrysler has shown that even with an older outdated car. 

[regfootball]

Been through this 1000x ad naseum. The market long since spoke. You know it's a fact a big reason for the proliferation of f w d cars is their advantages in winter in weather challenged places. And the customer believes it, if you want to make a sale, you agree with the customer. And now those customers want AWD.

If anything this is what keeps the Mustangs and Camaros alive now. People don't buy those for utility. So they go into it knowing they are compromised for utility to begin with.

Edited April 5, 2016 by regfootball

[regfootball]

interesting bit on gmi

 

Impala has been gaining popularity in the local premium sedan market, with sales of more than 10,000 units in six months since its rollout.

 

That's in reference to the current fwd impala selling 10k units in Korea, in first six months.

 

Here's another interesting bit.  No more MT for v8 M5

 

http://blog.caranddriver.com/its-last-call-for-the-manual-transmission-bmw-m5/

[ccap41]

Our Chevy dealer had one on it's lot recently..like a weird light green. Probably the only color I wouldn't want on an SS. I wish the car got more..publicity..? It's a great freakin' car, absolutely perfect enthusiast/family car. I don't even know how many ppl know about it.

 

As for the winter thing.. those first 100 years were also done on super skinny and super heavy cars. Now we have lighter cars and much MUCH wider rubber both of which don't help winter traction. But, if you have the 50k for one of these then an extra grand for winter tires shouldn't be a big deal. 

 

Edit: 245's up front and 275's out back. 

 

A little comparison.. I know the car choice probably isn't perfect but it was the first "old school" car that came to my mind. 

1969 GTO: 215/75R14 tires and weighed around 3505lbs(okay definitely lighter than I had thought) 

2016 SS: 245's in front 275's out back and around 3975lbs(about 100lbs more than I thought)

 

I wish I could quickly figure out the weight per square inch of tire touching the ground. That would be the real answer. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by ccap41

[hyperv6]

Been through this 1000x ad naseum. The market long since spoke. You know it's a fact a big reason for the proliferation of f w d cars is their advantages in winter in weather challenged places. And the customer believes it, if you want to make a sale, you agree with the customer. And now those customers want AWD.

If anything this is what keeps the Mustangs and Camaros alive now. People don't buy those for utility. So they go into it knowing they are compromised for utility to begin with.

 

The truth is FWD is not better in the snow. 

The lie is that FWD is better and it was marketed like this back around 1980 to sell everyone on the smaller FWD cars. 

The rub many people believe it. 

The AWD is not as in demand as you may think. Just look at the sales of the Fusion as it is still below 20%. Added cost is a major factor and the fact only people on the fringe of the snow really demand it. Here in the snow belt not a common sight here as we know how to drive or have trucks. 

 

What keeps the Camaro alive is performance, Tradition and the lack of anything else with performance. Plus they are damn good cars to drive. 

[regfootball]

in OHIO according to http://blog.caranddriver.com/differential-distribution-where-rwd-awd-and-fwd-vehicles-are-sold-in-the-u-s-infographic/ you would never ask a volume brand and dealer network (chevy) to routinely stock as one of its 'volume models' (Impala) in a version where your population only buys 1 out of every 20 vehicles in RWD only.  Don't ask the customer why they don't and don't berate them for why they do.

 

Of that 5%, that is factoring in luxury cars, coupes, and performance models.  Luxury car sales are disproportionate in RWD percentage vs volume models.  If you subtract the luxury cars, coupes, and performance models out of that 5%, it probably becomes 1-2%.......that is your market for RWD Chevy demographic large sedans.  And you still only get a percent of that percent.  In other words you would be stocking the lot with cars no one have proven any desire to buy.

 

Talk about handicapping a brand and a dealer.  At best stocking the lot with a RWD Impala would see some numbers in the southeast, and that's about it.  No chance of recovering the lost sales of everywhere else.  Chevy can't afford to advertise and promote a car that won't sell in 3/4 of the country vs. one they can sell all across the US.  And, in Korea as well apparently (and Canada, etc.)

Edited April 5, 2016 by regfootball

[oldshurst442]

 

Been through this 1000x ad naseum. The market long since spoke. You know it's a fact a big reason for the proliferation of f w d cars is their advantages in winter in weather challenged places. And the customer believes it, if you want to make a sale, you agree with the customer. And now those customers want AWD.

If anything this is what keeps the Mustangs and Camaros alive now. People don't buy those for utility. So they go into it knowing they are compromised for utility to begin with.

 

The truth is FWD is not better in the snow. 

The lie is that FWD is better and it was marketed like this back around 1980 to sell everyone on the smaller FWD cars. 

The rub many people believe it. 

The AWD is not as in demand as you may think. Just look at the sales of the Fusion as it is still below 20%. Added cost is a major factor and the fact only people on the fringe of the snow really demand it. Here in the snow belt not a common sight here as we know how to drive or have trucks. 

 

What keeps the Camaro alive is performance, Tradition and the lack of anything else with performance. Plus they are damn good cars to drive. 

 

 

The truth is...FWD IS BETTER IN SNOW...

 

This coming from a guy the drives FWD...PREFERS FWD in snow...and drove RWD cars n the winter....

True...they were 1980s RWD cars...but still...

 

RWD cars...get very SQUIRRELY  when taking turns...when pressing the gas hard when engaging a turn...

RWD cars dont have GRIP...

 

One has to feather the peddle...or wheel spin happens...and guess what?

To get out of an icy patch...wheel spin IS necessary...

And...to get out of a small snow filled groove and some ice is under neath...wheel spin is necessary....

But with a catch...you need weight at the back of the wheels that drive...

 

Yeah...I know the tricks of the trade...sand bags...

There is no need for sands bags in a FWD car...

 

you could argue this all day long...

I dont know where you live...

I live in Montreal, Quebec Canada.

Buffalo, New York gets more snow than we do.

Minneapolis Minn. gets more snow than we do...

 

OK...we still get a lot of snow...

We Montrealers are getting snow tomorrow actually...

 

There are hardly ANY RWD cars being sold in Montreal...

You think its because of marketing?

 

Think what you will, but I believe Montrealers prefer FWD cars because they are a tad more predictable and easier to get out of snow banks than RWD cars...

 

You know...it aint even about predictability...

 

It really is the ease of not getting stuck in snow...

I dont need snow tires with a FWD car...I do just fine with all seasons...

Yet with a RWD car, peoplesay that winter tires are a necessity...

 

I repeat...I PERSONALLY do just fine with ALL SEASONS with a FWD car...I NEVER get stuck!

Ive gotten stuck countless of times with my 1988 Pontiac Firebird, with my 1985 Olds Delta 88, and with my uncles 1988 fullsize Chevy Van...

I learned to drive in winter conditions with that 1988 Chevy Van.

[Suaviloquent]

On the issue of traction alone, FWD cars do better in snow. 

 

But I don't think that is why it doesn't sell very well.

 

The problem with the Chevy SS is that despite being a great performance car - it can only convince those at the fringes that its marginal increases in performance are worth it over a MOPAR LX vehicle. Despite me thinking those two cars would attract two totally different buyers...

 

And it's not exactly expensive, but I don't think it's an outright bargain. It's low volume keeps it priced high, but it must have terrific resale just like the Zeta GTO. 

 

I think the person who gets the SS is a Chevy die-hard. And it's great that there's an option for them. But I just think the business case is weak, and gets much weaker as time goes by.

[regfootball]

Chevy if they are selling a 50k sedan will need to put AWD in it if they don't want it to be niche.  Camaro is the only car they can get away with RWD only (and Corvette but even some performance buffs want AWD added to Corvette to harness power)

 

When Chrysler first came out with the LX cars they sold a ton of Hemi equipped RWD versions.  

 

When Chrysler re did the 300 and Charger, they did two things, they upped the AWD build rate, and the v6 became more prominent.  So the v6 AWD combo became popular, and that explains i believe a fair amount of the sales remaining on the LX cars.  In fact an excoworker had traded in an original LX 300 for a new 300 AWD not too long ago.  He liked the 300 but wanted AWD.  The price cuts convinced him to stick with the 300, i think he got the v6 also.  It's actually not that common to see a v8 300 anymore.  Charger maybe has more v8's

 

Look at that earlier C/D link, in the northeast only about 4% of the vehicles sold are RWD.  If you don't stock the lots there with FWD or AWD you simply don't sell a vehicle..........

 

you don't tell the customer what is right or wrong you let them tell you, 96% is them telling you what is right

Edited April 6, 2016 by regfootball

[hyperv6]

in OHIO according to http://blog.caranddriver.com/differential-distribution-where-rwd-awd-and-fwd-vehicles-are-sold-in-the-u-s-infographic/ you would never ask a volume brand and dealer network (chevy) to routinely stock as one of its 'volume models' (Impala) in a version where your population only buys 1 out of every 20 vehicles in RWD only.  Don't ask the customer why they don't and don't berate them for why they do.

 

Of that 5%, that is factoring in luxury cars, coupes, and performance models.  Luxury car sales are disproportionate in RWD percentage vs volume models.  If you subtract the luxury cars, coupes, and performance models out of that 5%, it probably becomes 1-2%.......that is your market for RWD Chevy demographic large sedans.  And you still only get a percent of that percent.  In other words you would be stocking the lot with cars no one have proven any desire to buy.

 

Talk about handicapping a brand and a dealer.  At best stocking the lot with a RWD Impala would see some numbers in the southeast, and that's about it.  No chance of recovering the lost sales of everywhere else.  Chevy can't afford to advertise and promote a car that won't sell in 3/4 of the country vs. one they can sell all across the US.  And, in Korea as well apparently (and Canada, etc.)

 

Not bad when on of 50 offered are FWD. 

 

You can not compare numbers on what is sold anymore unless you counter it with what is offered. The choices are limited due to high prices, low volume and no verity. 

Just look if I want one for under $50K new what choices do I really have at GM? I don't want Chrysler because of age and quality and Ford only offers one. Imports much the same. 

 

The big lie is that few people demand AWD in the snow areas and the second lie is we all go out and buy winter tires. 

 

Even here with the city mostly employed by 4-5 tires companies here we all roll on All Season majority of the time. 

 

The percentages of cars where AWD is an option [Non Subaru} They generally sell a 5th of production or less. Most people in for AWD bought a CUV and to be honest only think they need it, Even then the CUV sales where it is an option is 50% or less in vehicles like the Nox or Terrain. Most are FWD. 

 

Now to the reality of the moment. The idea of a Alpha RWD is not going for market domination. The idea is to go where few others are to fill a global need that is out there. The market for RWD is small and I would be the first to admit that. But the reality is there still is a demand globally for a car the size and weight of a Alpha that is different than anything else on the market. It will not be expensive like a Cadillac. It will much more advanced than the Chrysler that for all their warts still sell well only in North America. 

 

It is not like they have to reinvest much to do it. 

 

On the other hand you can do another Impala that would only sell in North America and would sell for less money and in ever more shrinking numbers getting split by the Lacrosse and Malibu. 

I suppose you would like to sell 5 models of the Malibu under different divisions again? What did we learn there? 

 

The AWD Alpha option could easily be added with little added investment since it already is there to solve that argument point too. 

 

Look big picture here what would sell globally in better numbers? An Alpha sedan or a FWD impala? What would make more money Globally?  What would be more different Globally? 

As for FWD and AWD for North America you already have how many choices now and do you need anymore in similar size and configuration? 

 

Diversification of global models is key. We saw what happens if you fail to do that at Pontiac. Canadian sales are not going to save your ass even in 8 wheel drive. 

[hyperv6]

 

 

Been through this 1000x ad naseum. The market long since spoke. You know it's a fact a big reason for the proliferation of f w d cars is their advantages in winter in weather challenged places. And the customer believes it, if you want to make a sale, you agree with the customer. And now those customers want AWD.

If anything this is what keeps the Mustangs and Camaros alive now. People don't buy those for utility. So they go into it knowing they are compromised for utility to begin with.

 

The truth is FWD is not better in the snow. 

The lie is that FWD is better and it was marketed like this back around 1980 to sell everyone on the smaller FWD cars. 

The rub many people believe it. 

The AWD is not as in demand as you may think. Just look at the sales of the Fusion as it is still below 20%. Added cost is a major factor and the fact only people on the fringe of the snow really demand it. Here in the snow belt not a common sight here as we know how to drive or have trucks. 

 

What keeps the Camaro alive is performance, Tradition and the lack of anything else with performance. Plus they are damn good cars to drive. 

 

 

The truth is...FWD IS BETTER IN SNOW...

 

This coming from a guy the drives FWD...PREFERS FWD in snow...and drove RWD cars n the winter....

True...they were 1980s RWD cars...but still...

 

RWD cars...get very SQUIRRELY  when taking turns...when pressing the gas hard when engaging a turn...

RWD cars dont have GRIP...

 

One has to feather the peddle...or wheel spin happens...and guess what?

To get out of an icy patch...wheel spin IS necessary...

And...to get out of a small snow filled groove and some ice is under neath...wheel spin is necessary....

But with a catch...you need weight at the back of the wheels that drive...

 

Yeah...I know the tricks of the trade...sand bags...

There is no need for sands bags in a FWD car...

 

you could argue this all day long...

I dont know where you live...

I live in Montreal, Quebec Canada.

Buffalo, New York gets more snow than we do.

Minneapolis Minn. gets more snow than we do...

 

OK...we still get a lot of snow...

We Montrealers are getting snow tomorrow actually...

 

There are hardly ANY RWD cars being sold in Montreal...

You think its because of marketing?

 

Think what you will, but I believe Montrealers prefer FWD cars because they are a tad more predictable and easier to get out of snow banks than RWD cars...

 

You know...it aint even about predictability...

 

It really is the ease of not getting stuck in snow...

I dont need snow tires with a FWD car...I do just fine with all seasons...

Yet with a RWD car, peoplesay that winter tires are a necessity...

 

I repeat...I PERSONALLY do just fine with ALL SEASONS with a FWD car...I NEVER get stuck!

Ive gotten stuck countless of times with my 1988 Pontiac Firebird, with my 1985 Olds Delta 88, and with my uncles 1988 fullsize Chevy Van...

I learned to drive in winter conditions with that 1988 Chevy Van.

 

 

Anymore with a limited slip, stability control and anti locks RWD is just fine. 

 

FWD is good for those who have absolute no skid control skills that generally the Stability control deals with just fine. 

A RWD with some basic skills can be steered with the steering or throttle while if you lose traction with FWD you lose your traction and steering. Once the car understeers all you can do is get off the gas and hope you can recover. RWD you can get on the gas and steer out of it. 

 

I live on the side of the lakes that get all the snow vs. your side that only gets some. Much of this just comes down to basic skill levels. 

 

There is less traction with FWD as for every action their is a equal and opposite reaction. The weight transfers from the front to the back under take off. This is why cars do wheelies and in drag racing need wheelie bars to hold the nose down. This is also why FWD drag cars put the wheelie bars on the ground to keep the front wheels on the ground to get traction. 

We have now had several Generation now growing up in FWD and they just do not have the skills of past drivers to understand how to steer with RWD. I don't blame them as if you can not get your hands on a RWD you will never learn. We had to learn how to deal with it back when there was few FWD cars too. We used an old FIat and would blitz around a frozen parking lot learning how to deal with the FWD under-steer. No electronic aids then to say you. 

 

If you can find a FWD car with no electronics and just find out how bad FWD is with out them. 

[oldshurst442]

I also drove a 1986 Chevy Celebrity...

 

No electronics in that...

No problems.

 

A 1994 Pontiac Grand Am. Other than ABS brakes, drums in the back to boot, I had no problems in the winter.

 

 

RWD in winter, you could live with, especially with traction control...well, you need traction control that lets winter wheel spin happen.

I had a 1999 Olds Alero. Traction control sucked in winter, and that is with FWD.

I LOVED traction control in that car when the pavement was dry...not when it was snowy.

 

RWD in winter with modern cars. Drew once told me that a modern RWD car is more balanced and that plays a MAJOR role as compared to the real nose heavy RWD cars of yore. Ill go as far as agree to that, and lessen my haste for RWD cars in the winter when modern RWD cars are concerned.

But...modern FWD cars are also better balanced, with winter in mind as well.

Now, FWD cars, they plow forward, so they too have to be well driven in winter because if when does not know how to drive properly, a FWD car simply does not turn at all on a turn when snow is present....so...

 

All to say, that it takes a driver to understand what his car is doing at all times.

 

HOWEVER, when talking about grip...in snow...

AWD is the better choice.

Then its FWD.

Then its RWD.

Its all about traction.

 

And when a heck of a lot of weight is on the drive wheels on a FWD car, you got to be an idiot to get stuck.

An AWD car, especially one that senses slippage and cuts power to the wheel that slips and applies power to the others that don't, well...its self explanatory...

 

RWD...limited slip diff, traction control, well balanced...there is still not enough weight in the back to hunker down and force grip...

Its the nature of the animal...

 

Like I said, you could find all the positives you like with RWD...reality of FWD making better use of the its drive wheels in snow is just how it is...

[oldshurst442]

Its a bright phoking sunny day today. The weather guy announced snow for today...

 

Anyway, I could drive a RWD car in Montreal as a daily.

No problems.

What kind of RWD car are we talking about?

 Certainly not a V8...why?

Todays V8s make too much power, one has to feather even more, the gas peddle as to not over power the tires, and its easy to do with 400 ft-lbs of torque...in snow and ice...heck, its easy to do wit 90 horsepower and 90 ft-lbs of torque...

 

It gets squirrely fast when even driving in a straight line. Fish tailing seems like fun, not when the roads are narrow, because Montreal is an older city when horse and buggy was still the norm, and its even narrower when snow banks are part of the scenery...so, one has to be carefull not to fishtail and hit the guy in the next lane...and he is oh so close to you.

 

So...a 300 horsepower V6 will do?

Sure...problem is...its the same problem...300 HP with about the same amount of torques raises the same problems as with V8s...gone are the Ford Crown Vics that had 250 hoprswepower V8s...sure a Mopar LX car or a M-B C Class is better balance, but its still scary to drive this way.

 

One could buy an anemic 4 cylinder Cadillac ATS or BMW 2-3 Series...what for? Just because its got RWD?

My FWD Impala SS 3.8 liter supercharged V6 was a fun car to drive, even if torque steer was mildl;y present and was FWD...

 

Same argument put to the test...with FWD in the summer as one wants to defend RWD in the winter...

 

However, with FWD in the winter with my Impala...no worries about fishtailing...no worries about rocking the car back and forth...back and forth...back and forth...back and forth just to get out of a parking spot.

Winter citizens that drive in the winter, know exactly what it is Im talking about when I say rocking your car back and forth means...

 

Torque steering in the summer?

Hey...one has to learn how to control that for summer driving, non?

 

One could argue this all day long...

Like I said, FWD has more grip on its drive wheels...and some people prefer that for winter driving. I know I do.

And since winter is basically 6 months out of the year in Montreal...Id rather FWD.

Granted, global warming is putting a dent on the 6 month thing...

[ccap41]

 

 

 

Been through this 1000x ad naseum. The market long since spoke. You know it's a fact a big reason for the proliferation of f w d cars is their advantages in winter in weather challenged places. And the customer believes it, if you want to make a sale, you agree with the customer. And now those customers want AWD.

If anything this is what keeps the Mustangs and Camaros alive now. People don't buy those for utility. So they go into it knowing they are compromised for utility to begin with.

 

The truth is FWD is not better in the snow. 

The lie is that FWD is better and it was marketed like this back around 1980 to sell everyone on the smaller FWD cars. 

The rub many people believe it. 

The AWD is not as in demand as you may think. Just look at the sales of the Fusion as it is still below 20%. Added cost is a major factor and the fact only people on the fringe of the snow really demand it. Here in the snow belt not a common sight here as we know how to drive or have trucks. 

 

What keeps the Camaro alive is performance, Tradition and the lack of anything else with performance. Plus they are damn good cars to drive. 

 

 

The truth is...FWD IS BETTER IN SNOW...

 

This coming from a guy the drives FWD...PREFERS FWD in snow...and drove RWD cars n the winter....

True...they were 1980s RWD cars...but still...

 

RWD cars...get very SQUIRRELY  when taking turns...when pressing the gas hard when engaging a turn...

RWD cars dont have GRIP...

 

One has to feather the peddle...or wheel spin happens...and guess what?

To get out of an icy patch...wheel spin IS necessary...

And...to get out of a small snow filled groove and some ice is under neath...wheel spin is necessary....

But with a catch...you need weight at the back of the wheels that drive...

 

Yeah...I know the tricks of the trade...sand bags...

There is no need for sands bags in a FWD car...

 

you could argue this all day long...

I dont know where you live...

I live in Montreal, Quebec Canada.

Buffalo, New York gets more snow than we do.

Minneapolis Minn. gets more snow than we do...

 

OK...we still get a lot of snow...

We Montrealers are getting snow tomorrow actually...

 

There are hardly ANY RWD cars being sold in Montreal...

You think its because of marketing?

 

Think what you will, but I believe Montrealers prefer FWD cars because they are a tad more predictable and easier to get out of snow banks than RWD cars...

 

You know...it aint even about predictability...

 

It really is the ease of not getting stuck in snow...

I dont need snow tires with a FWD car...I do just fine with all seasons...

Yet with a RWD car, peoplesay that winter tires are a necessity...

 

I repeat...I PERSONALLY do just fine with ALL SEASONS with a FWD car...I NEVER get stuck!

Ive gotten stuck countless of times with my 1988 Pontiac Firebird, with my 1985 Olds Delta 88, and with my uncles 1988 fullsize Chevy Van...

I learned to drive in winter conditions with that 1988 Chevy Van.

 

 

Anymore with a limited slip, stability control and anti locks RWD is just fine. 

 

FWD is good for those who have absolute no skid control skills that generally the Stability control deals with just fine. 

A RWD with some basic skills can be steered with the steering or throttle while if you lose traction with FWD you lose your traction and steering. Once the car understeers all you can do is get off the gas and hope you can recover. RWD you can get on the gas and steer out of it. 

 

I live on the side of the lakes that get all the snow vs. your side that only gets some. Much of this just comes down to basic skill levels. 

 

There is less traction with FWD as for every action their is a equal and opposite reaction. The weight transfers from the front to the back under take off. This is why cars do wheelies and in drag racing need wheelie bars to hold the nose down. This is also why FWD drag cars put the wheelie bars on the ground to keep the front wheels on the ground to get traction. 

We have now had several Generation now growing up in FWD and they just do not have the skills of past drivers to understand how to steer with RWD. I don't blame them as if you can not get your hands on a RWD you will never learn. We had to learn how to deal with it back when there was few FWD cars too. We used an old FIat and would blitz around a frozen parking lot learning how to deal with the FWD under-steer. No electronic aids then to say you. 

 

If you can find a FWD car with no electronics and just find out how bad FWD is with out them. 

 

There's a pretty big difference between being "just fine" and being the better vehicle. The weight over the drive wheels on a FWD will always be superior to a rear driven vehicle. 

 

There also isn't a ton of "steering out of it" in snow. Once a car slides sideways in the snow there isn't a ton of margin for error like on dry pavement. Dry pavement you can definitely use throttle and steering to get out o being sideways but in the snow once you lose traction and are sideways the level of grip is just so much lower that counter steering and MORE throttle just isn't there, except for the few degrees of yaw. 

 

There is a weight transfer from front to rear upon acceleration but if there is snow on the ground you can't accelerate hard enough to get enough weight transfer to actually get more traction upon the rear wheels. If both a FWD and a RWD car could only use 1/4 throttle to get going the FWD will have more traction as there will be very little transfer of weight, the front won't lift and the rear won't squat. 

 

My Beretta didn't have traction control but did have ABS and it was hands down better than my Mustang with traction control on or off. 

 

I also think tires are being severely underrated  here. I will absolutely stand by a RWD car with winter tires is superior to a FWD or AWD vehicle with summer tires or all seasons. A good set of winter tires will transform a car in the winter. I think this is the biggest issue but people are cheap or in my case we usually only get a handful of snows a year and I cannot justify $1200 for 5 snows..or this past winter 1 1/2. 

[ccap41]

I also drove a 1986 Chevy Celebrity...

 

No electronics in that...

No problems.

 

A 1994 Pontiac Grand Am. Other than ABS brakes, drums in the back to boot, I had no problems in the winter.

 

 

RWD in winter, you could live with, especially with traction control...well, you need traction control that lets winter wheel spin happen.

I had a 1999 Olds Alero. Traction control sucked in winter, and that is with FWD.

I LOVED traction control in that car when the pavement was dry...not when it was snowy.

 

RWD in winter with modern cars. Drew once told me that a modern RWD car is more balanced and that plays a MAJOR role as compared to the real nose heavy RWD cars of yore. Ill go as far as agree to that, and lessen my haste for RWD cars in the winter when modern RWD cars are concerned.

But...modern FWD cars are also better balanced, with winter in mind as well.

Now, FWD cars, they plow forward, so they too have to be well driven in winter because if when does not know how to drive properly, a FWD car simply does not turn at all on a turn when snow is present....so...

 

All to say, that it takes a driver to understand what his car is doing at all times.

 

HOWEVER, when talking about grip...in snow...

AWD is the better choice.

Then its FWD.

Then its RWD.

Its all about traction.

 

And when a heck of a lot of weight is on the drive wheels on a FWD car, you got to be an idiot to get stuck.

An AWD car, especially one that senses slippage and cuts power to the wheel that slips and applies power to the others that don't, well...its self explanatory...

 

RWD...limited slip diff, traction control, well balanced...there is still not enough weight in the back to hunker down and force grip...

Its the nature of the animal...

 

Like I said, you could find all the positives you like with RWD...reality of FWD making better use of the its drive wheels in snow is just how it is...

This is a very VERY good point. 

 

My Mustangs were trash in the winter but they were 03-04 and one had a 4v hanging over the front end..iron block..HEAVY. So the balance definitely was not in favor of snow traction. 

 

I will give you guys the modern weight balance thing and traction control technology but I definitely stand by the wide rear tires killing traction compared to the older cars. 

[oldshurst442]

Yes CCAP.

With a modern RWD car, Im am not about to doubt that a RWD car with winter tires is better than a FWD car with all seasons.

However, I am FINE with a FWD car with all seasons.

A FWD car with winters, and I sure as hell don't need AWD...

 

So...what is the point in getting a RWD biased AWD car then?

It defeats the purpose of the nature of RWD. Weight and driving characteristics.

 

So...Ill just forego the RWD/AWD thing all together and find myself an enjoyable FWD car to own for Montreal.

 

THAT is the logic I hold.

Edited April 6, 2016 by oldshurst442

[ccap41]

Its a bright phoking sunny day today. The weather guy announced snow for today...

 

Anyway, I could drive a RWD car in Montreal as a daily.

No problems.

What kind of RWD car are we talking about?

 Certainly not a V8...why?

Todays V8s make too much power, one has to feather even more, the gas peddle as to not over power the tires, and its easy to do with 400 ft-lbs of torque...in snow and ice...heck, its easy to do wit 90 horsepower and 90 ft-lbs of torque...

 

It gets squirrely fast when even driving in a straight line. Fish tailing seems like fun, not when the roads are narrow, because Montreal is an older city when horse and buggy was still the norm, and its even narrower when snow banks are part of the scenery...so, one has to be carefull not to fishtail and hit the guy in the next lane...and he is oh so close to you.

 

So...a 300 horsepower V6 will do?

Sure...problem is...its the same problem...300 HP with about the same amount of torques raises the same problems as with V8s...gone are the Ford Crown Vics that had 250 hoprswepower V8s...sure a Mopar LX car or a M-B C Class is better balance, but its still scary to drive this way.

 

One could buy an anemic 4 cylinder Cadillac ATS or BMW 2-3 Series...what for? Just because its got RWD?

My FWD Impala SS 3.8 liter supercharged V6 was a fun car to drive, even if torque steer was mildl;y present and was FWD...

 

Same argument put to the test...with FWD in the summer as one wants to defend RWD in the winter...

 

However, with FWD in the winter with my Impala...no worries about fishtailing...no worries about rocking the car back and forth...back and forth...back and forth...back and forth just to get out of a parking spot.

Winter citizens that drive in the winter, know exactly what it is Im talking about when I say rocking your car back and forth means...

 

Torque steering in the summer?

Hey...one has to learn how to control that for summer driving, non?

 

One could argue this all day long...

Like I said, FWD has more grip on its drive wheels...and some people prefer that for winter driving. I know I do.

And since winter is basically 6 months out of the year in Montreal...Id rather FWD.

Granted, global warming is putting a dent on the 6 month thing...

Congrats on the bright and sunny day there, Olds! We're supposed to get storms here...

 

Well the difference in weight of that V8 to V6 hanging over the wrong driven wheels(for snow) could make a decent difference, more balanced with the V6 and the V6 will have skinnier tires!  

[ccap41]

Yes CCAP.

With a modern RWD car, Im am not about to doubt that a RWD car with winter tires is better than a FWD car with all seasons.

However, I am FINE with a FWD car with all seasons.

A FWD car with winters, and I sure as hell don't need AWD...

 

So...what is the point in getting a RWD biased AWD car then?

It defeats the purpose of the nature of RWD. Weight and driving characteristics.

 

So...Ill just forego the RWD/AWD thing all together and find myself an enjoyable FWD car to own for Montreal.

 

THAT is the logic I hold.

Yeah I'm with you here as well.. we get just enough snows a year to make RWD buying a conscious decision. 

 

RWD based AWD car..E63.. I'd get one just because it's a freakin' monster of a car!   But I do completely understand and agree with what you're saying. 

[oldshurst442]

True about the V6/V8 weight thing.

 

To be honest, I haven't checked out a Chrysler 300 Pentastar with winters to see how it is. And I haven't really tried any modern RWD car with winters in the winter. 

But then again, the Chrysler 300 Pentastar is old news for me. And I do enjoy a nice FWD V6 from time to time.

 

That is why I chose the Acura TL SH-AWD in 2012. Not for the AWD. But for the 305 naturally aspirated V6 horses under the hood.

The SH-AWD makes it that much more fun in the winter.  It does diddly squat for me in the summer.  It drives just as heavy as a normal FWD car in the summer. But...I don't have a problem with that. The 305 horses when most cars are little put put 4 cylinders in Montreal is aplenty of motorvation.

And I like a midsize heavyish car for cruising purposes more than I do corner carving madness. The TL SH-AWD is more than capable to corner carvbe though. THAT is what I LOVE about this car.  It has many facets to it. It aint a one-trick pony.

 

Well, the skies became a little darker, maybe we will get that snow afterall, so hold off on your congrats until tomorrow, CCAP!

[G. David Felt]

True about the V6/V8 weight thing.

 

To be honest, I haven't checked out a Chrysler 300 Pentastar with winters to see how it is. And I haven't really tried any modern RWD car with winters in the winter. 

But then again, the Chrysler 300 Pentastar is old news for me. And I do enjoy a nice FWD V6 from time to time.

 

That is why I chose the Acura TL SH-AWD in 2012. Not for the AWD. But for the 305 naturally aspirated V6 horses under the hood.

The SH-AWD makes it that much more fun in the winter.  It does diddly squat for me in the summer.  It drives just as heavy as a normal FWD car in the summer. But...I don't have a problem with that. The 305 horses when most cars are little put put 4 cylinders in Montreal is aplenty of motorvation.

And I like a midsize heavyish car for cruising purposes more than I do corner carving madness. The TL SH-AWD is more than capable to corner carvbe though. THAT is what I LOVE about this car.  It has many facets to it. It aint a one-trick pony.

 

Well, the skies became a little darker, maybe we will get that snow afterall, so hold off on your congrats until tomorrow, CCAP!

 

I have to say that the 300 even with a V6 is a great cruiser and still very fun to drive. Snow is NOT a problem with the 300. It is heavy enough to stay very stable if you only go RWD. The V6 with 8 speed tranny in base AWD form, added the convenience group and the sky roof is a nice clean package. You could not go wrong.

 

[smk4565]

I have a rear wheel drive car and use Blizzaks on it in the winter, it is worse than my FWD Aurora with all season tires in the snow.  On any kind of hill, even with snow tires my car can struggle.  Often I'd have to turn traction control off an spin my way up a hill.  No doubt that rwd is worse in snow.  That being said it snows maybe 10 days a year where the roads are well covered, so I don't mind since the other 355 I like the rear drive feel of the car.  Most buyers are not enthusiasts though, and don't want that.  Even in rain I can get the back end to kick loose at 1/4 throttle going around a turn.  Most drivers don't know how to drive a car like that, FWD appliance is easier to deal with.

 

Most buyers don't need AWD, but it is that safety net feeling, they feel more confident with it.  That is why you see so many crossovers, the people want that AWD because they are convinced that they need it, even id they don't.

[smk4565]

The Chevy SS is a dying breed.  Very few people want V8s anymore, very few want RWD.  We all like it, but most of the buying public does not.

 

Since the Cadillac CT8 is dead and they need another Omega platform car, I could see making the Impala on Omega, it would be the same size and weight as the current Impala, without the droopy proportions and super high belt like and 3 for thick C pillar.  They could use the 2.5 liter 4 and 3.6 V6 engines, add an AWD option for V6 cars and have an affordable large sedan that was different than Malibu or LaCrosse.  

[Suaviloquent]

I think it all has to do with perceptions and nothing to do with merit.

 

V8s can be made to be thrifty. 

 

RWD cars, due to tires and just ESC and other aids are arguably better in inclement weather than ever before.

 

But perceptions do drive the habits of the consumer.

 

It's too early to say the CT8 is dead. If it is it's a bummer.

[hyperv6]

 

 

 

 

Been through this 1000x ad naseum. The market long since spoke. You know it's a fact a big reason for the proliferation of f w d cars is their advantages in winter in weather challenged places. And the customer believes it, if you want to make a sale, you agree with the customer. And now those customers want AWD.

If anything this is what keeps the Mustangs and Camaros alive now. People don't buy those for utility. So they go into it knowing they are compromised for utility to begin with.

 

The truth is FWD is not better in the snow. 

The lie is that FWD is better and it was marketed like this back around 1980 to sell everyone on the smaller FWD cars. 

The rub many people believe it. 

The AWD is not as in demand as you may think. Just look at the sales of the Fusion as it is still below 20%. Added cost is a major factor and the fact only people on the fringe of the snow really demand it. Here in the snow belt not a common sight here as we know how to drive or have trucks. 

 

What keeps the Camaro alive is performance, Tradition and the lack of anything else with performance. Plus they are damn good cars to drive. 

 

 

The truth is...FWD IS BETTER IN SNOW...

 

This coming from a guy the drives FWD...PREFERS FWD in snow...and drove RWD cars n the winter....

True...they were 1980s RWD cars...but still...

 

RWD cars...get very SQUIRRELY  when taking turns...when pressing the gas hard when engaging a turn...

RWD cars dont have GRIP...

 

One has to feather the peddle...or wheel spin happens...and guess what?

To get out of an icy patch...wheel spin IS necessary...

And...to get out of a small snow filled groove and some ice is under neath...wheel spin is necessary....

But with a catch...you need weight at the back of the wheels that drive...

 

Yeah...I know the tricks of the trade...sand bags...

There is no need for sands bags in a FWD car...

 

you could argue this all day long...

I dont know where you live...

I live in Montreal, Quebec Canada.

Buffalo, New York gets more snow than we do.

Minneapolis Minn. gets more snow than we do...

 

OK...we still get a lot of snow...

We Montrealers are getting snow tomorrow actually...

 

There are hardly ANY RWD cars being sold in Montreal...

You think its because of marketing?

 

Think what you will, but I believe Montrealers prefer FWD cars because they are a tad more predictable and easier to get out of snow banks than RWD cars...

 

You know...it aint even about predictability...

 

It really is the ease of not getting stuck in snow...

I dont need snow tires with a FWD car...I do just fine with all seasons...

Yet with a RWD car, peoplesay that winter tires are a necessity...

 

I repeat...I PERSONALLY do just fine with ALL SEASONS with a FWD car...I NEVER get stuck!

Ive gotten stuck countless of times with my 1988 Pontiac Firebird, with my 1985 Olds Delta 88, and with my uncles 1988 fullsize Chevy Van...

I learned to drive in winter conditions with that 1988 Chevy Van.

 

 

Anymore with a limited slip, stability control and anti locks RWD is just fine. 

 

FWD is good for those who have absolute no skid control skills that generally the Stability control deals with just fine. 

A RWD with some basic skills can be steered with the steering or throttle while if you lose traction with FWD you lose your traction and steering. Once the car understeers all you can do is get off the gas and hope you can recover. RWD you can get on the gas and steer out of it. 

 

I live on the side of the lakes that get all the snow vs. your side that only gets some. Much of this just comes down to basic skill levels. 

 

There is less traction with FWD as for every action their is a equal and opposite reaction. The weight transfers from the front to the back under take off. This is why cars do wheelies and in drag racing need wheelie bars to hold the nose down. This is also why FWD drag cars put the wheelie bars on the ground to keep the front wheels on the ground to get traction. 

We have now had several Generation now growing up in FWD and they just do not have the skills of past drivers to understand how to steer with RWD. I don't blame them as if you can not get your hands on a RWD you will never learn. We had to learn how to deal with it back when there was few FWD cars too. We used an old FIat and would blitz around a frozen parking lot learning how to deal with the FWD under-steer. No electronic aids then to say you. 

 

If you can find a FWD car with no electronics and just find out how bad FWD is with out them. 

 

There's a pretty big difference between being "just fine" and being the better vehicle. The weight over the drive wheels on a FWD will always be superior to a rear driven vehicle. 

 

There also isn't a ton of "steering out of it" in snow. Once a car slides sideways in the snow there isn't a ton of margin for error like on dry pavement. Dry pavement you can definitely use throttle and steering to get out o being sideways but in the snow once you lose traction and are sideways the level of grip is just so much lower that counter steering and MORE throttle just isn't there, except for the few degrees of yaw. 

 

There is a weight transfer from front to rear upon acceleration but if there is snow on the ground you can't accelerate hard enough to get enough weight transfer to actually get more traction upon the rear wheels. If both a FWD and a RWD car could only use 1/4 throttle to get going the FWD will have more traction as there will be very little transfer of weight, the front won't lift and the rear won't squat. 

 

My Beretta didn't have traction control but did have ABS and it was hands down better than my Mustang with traction control on or off. 

 

I also think tires are being severely underrated  here. I will absolutely stand by a RWD car with winter tires is superior to a FWD or AWD vehicle with summer tires or all seasons. A good set of winter tires will transform a car in the winter. I think this is the biggest issue but people are cheap or in my case we usually only get a handful of snows a year and I cannot justify $1200 for 5 snows..or this past winter 1 1/2. 

 

 

Sorry but the weight still transfers with any acceleration.  You move the weight moves. 

 

 The bottom line is that people are brain washed into thinking FWD is better and the fact is so many people today just can not drive in the snow because they have been told how hard it is. 

My God you people would have been stranded 40 years ago! 

 

On Dirt racing and I mean wet slippery clay what do they run? RWD And I do not mean simple entry level FWD classes. 

Road racing Nissan just took a major hit when they tried to bring out a FWD Prototype car for Lemans. They have already scrapped the program. 

 

In all the years we had RWD cars a AWD was unheard of. Today now with the advent of FWD they have had to resort to AWD cars because FWD is not all a great as you want to make it. Hell you get into any deep snow the car will hang up where most others push through. 

I have spent years at my last house where the city seldom plowed the street and if they did they would plow the entrance in. The only car w have had to not make it in was FWD, All the RWD made it fine. Even my 2WD s-10 with no limited slip would bust through the piled up snow at the street entrance and still climb the hill to the house. 

 

I have had one RWD that was evil and that was an old Cougar. The brakes were the main issue as it would like to lock of the front brakes taking away the steering. 

 

The fact is so many people have not learned the simple skill of steering out of a skid and that is where the issue is. The RWD is not to blame just the operator lacking skills. 

 

If it were not for Anti Locks and traction control many FWD cars would be plowing head on into a curb with so many unskilled drivers. They would spin the tires and lose all steering and just plow or push right into a curb. We used to sell a lot of wheels tires because of that. 

As for tires All Season will handle most conditions as long as they have good tread depth. As for winter tires they are better on ice but are not something that is a must unless they are really bad tires. I have worked with many tire engineers from BFG, Goodrich and Firestone and seldom do any of them use a winter tire. To them they are just add on sales as most people really are not in conditions that the better AS can't handle. I am not going to say that winter tires are not better as they are but most people really don't need them. Most cars on the road have piss poor OE tires or just flat worn out tires as the problem. 

 

Oh I did have one other car that was a little bit of a handful and that was a GMC Spint SP 1972. With the El Camino based model with a big block under the hood and no weight in back with an open diff it was a little more challenging but nothing that did not get through 10" of un plowed powder. 

 

Edited April 7, 2016 by hyperv6

[hyperv6]

The Chevy SS is a dying breed.  Very few people want V8s anymore, very few want RWD.  We all like it, but most of the buying public does not.

 

Since the Cadillac CT8 is dead and they need another Omega platform car, I could see making the Impala on Omega, it would be the same size and weight as the current Impala, without the droopy proportions and super high belt like and 3 for thick C pillar.  They could use the 2.5 liter 4 and 3.6 V6 engines, add an AWD option for V6 cars and have an affordable large sedan that was different than Malibu or LaCrosse.  

 

Where is this different than what I have been saying? 

For god's sake you act like this is some original Idea and it is really what I have been trying to get across to you for days! You only left out the ability to sell it globally as a Holden or Opel. 

 

Did you just come to?

[hyperv6]

 

True about the V6/V8 weight thing.

 

To be honest, I haven't checked out a Chrysler 300 Pentastar with winters to see how it is. And I haven't really tried any modern RWD car with winters in the winter. 

But then again, the Chrysler 300 Pentastar is old news for me. And I do enjoy a nice FWD V6 from time to time.

 

That is why I chose the Acura TL SH-AWD in 2012. Not for the AWD. But for the 305 naturally aspirated V6 horses under the hood.

The SH-AWD makes it that much more fun in the winter.  It does diddly squat for me in the summer.  It drives just as heavy as a normal FWD car in the summer. But...I don't have a problem with that. The 305 horses when most cars are little put put 4 cylinders in Montreal is aplenty of motorvation.

And I like a midsize heavyish car for cruising purposes more than I do corner carving madness. The TL SH-AWD is more than capable to corner carvbe though. THAT is what I LOVE about this car.  It has many facets to it. It aint a one-trick pony.

 

Well, the skies became a little darker, maybe we will get that snow afterall, so hold off on your congrats until tomorrow, CCAP!

 

I have to say that the 300 even with a V6 is a great cruiser and still very fun to drive. Snow is NOT a problem with the 300. It is heavy enough to stay very stable if you only go RWD. The V6 with 8 speed tranny in base AWD form, added the convenience group and the sky roof is a nice clean package. You could not go wrong.

 

2016-AWD-Limited300.jpg

 

 

In laws have one and it is not an issue in the snow and right now with the big discounts it is a bargain if you can handle a few recalls. 

 

The electronics on it and decent tires it runs along fine. They do a lot of winter driving between their home here and in the mountains on a 5 hour drive, It is never dramatic. 

[Suaviloquent]

The 300 being made in Brampton, I'm pretty sure they have it sorted for Winter driving.

[smk4565]

 

The Chevy SS is a dying breed.  Very few people want V8s anymore, very few want RWD.  We all like it, but most of the buying public does not.

 

Since the Cadillac CT8 is dead and they need another Omega platform car, I could see making the Impala on Omega, it would be the same size and weight as the current Impala, without the droopy proportions and super high belt like and 3 for thick C pillar.  They could use the 2.5 liter 4 and 3.6 V6 engines, add an AWD option for V6 cars and have an affordable large sedan that was different than Malibu or LaCrosse.  

 

Where is this different than what I have been saying? 

For god's sake you act like this is some original Idea and it is really what I have been trying to get across to you for days! You only left out the ability to sell it globally as a Holden or Opel. 

 

Did you just come to?

 

I have said in the past that GM should make a rwd/awd sedan that is cheaper.   The risk of making an Omega Impala, is then they'll put an LT1 V8 in it and charge $55,000 and no one will buy it.  Big sedans don't sell well to begin with, they have to sell a value proposition if they do decide to do an Omega Impala. 

 

I'd like to see GM take a risk and put our a rear drive sedan in the $25-40k space, but I just don't think they will.  The beancounters will say how building a care off epsilon is cheaper, the sales/marketing people will say FWD is easier to sell.  And then we know what will happen.

[Suaviloquent]

Well, Omega opens up a hole lot of possibilities.

 

But I really don't see that happening...

 

Cadillac deserves on its name alone to have Omega or the best version of it reserved for itself.

 

If Omega is used to make another SS....No. The CT6 is barely established yet, and I can't quite imagine the General eroding the price point of what is a platform that has the most advanced body structure of any passenger car.

 

I think cheap RWD performance is going to be relegated to cars that are ultimately profitable and aligned with the needs of the brand. And Chevy doesn't need an M5 rival anymore. They need crossovers. They need the meat. And the potatoes.

[Robert Hall]

Saw not one, but two SSes tonight...a bright red one and the bright blue that I really like..about a mile apart.

[hyperv6]

The 300 being made in Brampton, I'm pretty sure they have it sorted for Winter driving.

What sorting? RWD is very capable for winter driving. We used it for 100 years with little issue.