Lutz talks about a streched Kappa for Pontiac (MT)

[Northstar]

In the new MT, there was a short interview with Lutz as a compliment to the Solstice article. Here's what Lutz said: "If you could have a magic wand and have a four-door version, then maybe strech the architecture and have a sort of a BMW 3 Series, that's what the Pontiac guys want. We have to pick out investments and allocate our engineering assests carefully, but that's their desire." So it sounds as if Kappa CAN be streched, it's just a matter of whether they want to spend the money to do it or not.

[Guest Josh]

It can be stretched. It can also accomodate a V6 or even V8 engine. The question is does General Motors want to spend the needed capital to do it?

I'll say....YES.

The Nomad got many thinking inside the company and that vehicle was essentially an all new architecture from Kappa due to the stretching.

[BlkHhr104]

Well I dont think a V-8 is needed because of the GP and the V-6 is questionable but then there is the G6 but a powerfull 4 would make this a great car

[bobo]

Just do it, and I'll buy it. Keep it lightweight, and the 2.4 liter ecotec should be fine.

[tmp]

I think that Kappa is the answer to keep Pontiac alive and well- they should make a 3 series killer out of it now: not the bloated, Bangled, burdened-by-electronic 3 series of today, but a lean, mean driving machine: and they should be able to keep it exclusive for two years, before Cadillac is able to use the platform for a more luxurious version to be the BLS in both Europe and the US.

[turbo200]

A stretched Kappa makes so much sense it boggles my mind as to why GM wouldn't do it. Make a stretched Kappa and then give us a 3-series competitor for Pontiac, or even 1-series, I don't care, make it a coupe and a sedan, make a Solstice hardtop. Make a stretched Kappa a 4 seater Buick vert to compete with the Lexus SC430, price it at around 40-55k, beautiful styling, great engines, sumptuous interior, great features. Make a Camaro-brother, a smaller Probe sized RWD sports coupe, call it the Panter, whatever, make a Saturn twin. Whateva- so many ideas, too bad I'm not an exec...

[ToniCipriani]

If the price point is near the Cobalt, I might consider it.

[Northstar]

Something like this would definetly be near or at the top of my list when it comes time to buy a new car (not for a few years, until I'm through college) and if they could get a turbo 2.4L Ecotec with ~250HP to me for around $27k and close to loaded, I'd definetly buy it assuming I could afford it right out of college. The possibilities on a LWB Kappa are endless. Nomad, Curve-like coupe (maybe Sky but with four seats and no convert?), trucklets, mini sport wagons, possibly a TRUE 3-Series fighter for Cadillac if they spent the money to put the V6 in it. The whole Pontiac small-car line could morph onto Kappa: sedan, Solstice, Solstice coupe, Vibe.

[Chazman]

It ain't gonna happen guys. I wish it would, but it won't.

[LosAngeles]

My Kappa wishlist: Pontiac Phoenix compacts: four-place coupe/sedan/wagon (Ecotec, Atlas 5, could easily be engineered for an Atlas 6 or, for a limited production model, a V-8. Why should it be stuck with a pushrod V-6?) Buick Thrasher compact sedan (Ecotec turbo, HF) Pontiac Firebird grand touring car: 2+2 coupe, targa coupe, convertible (again, Atlas 6 and V-8s of two sizes) Chevy Camaro (ditto, but not in looks, and no targa model available) Pontiac Solstice coupe the discontinuation of the Sky!! I think a Cadillac compact (named Manchester) and a new Eldorado should stick to Sigma

[radioactivesob]

The Nomad got many thinking inside the company and that vehicle was essentially an all new architecture from Kappa due to the stretching.

[post="11030"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I would buy the Nomad yesterday if it was on the market.

[Cory Wolfe]

I didn't like this article as it said too many bad things about the Fiero. Fucking bastards. :angry: Anywho... I just want a 4-seat coupe and sedan powered by various versions of Ecotec engines including turbo-charged. Oh, and a starting price below $20,000... Even if just. But what I really want is for the engine to be switched to the other end, with two seats, fastback flying buttresses (sp?), and the name Fiero.

[erunion]

Of course its possible to build a RWD 4 door for Pontiac. Anything is possible. However, just because its possible doesnt mean its price effective. It just a matter of money to be able to do it, but will they ever get the money back? If it sounds like anything, its that Lutz has been watching the online community and has seen our pleas for a Kappa Sunfire replacement. That doesnt mean anyone at GM has looked into actually doing it. Edited September 8, 2005 by erunion

[evok]

NS: We have had this discussion before. Kappa sucks as a flexible architecture. It is not that easy to stretch. Not saying it is not possible. The problem is the center structural tunnel. There would have to be a lot of rework to the structure to make it practical for a 3 Series sort of car.

The kappa platform would need a significant amount of rework to the point that it would not be recognizable as a kappa. So the cost benefit is just not there.

GM as I have said before, would be better off, developing a flexible small car rwd platform and base the next generation roadsters off that and use that as a basis for a 3 Series type vehicle.

Kappa by design is horrible for anything other than sports type cars. Edited September 8, 2005 by evok

[SimonDavid]

I agree with Evok GM made a mistake with Kappa - they built basically a shrunken Corvette, in the process making it inherently unsuitable for anything other than a low volume sports car. They should have built a conventional small RWD platform and used it for, among other things, a competitor for the BMW 1 series, which is selling like hotcakes in Europe. But they do have a platform in the broader group which would make a great 3 series competitor - the Subaru WRX. Not a rebadge like the 9-2X but put an all new body on it and there's your 3 series.

[Cadillacfan]

It ain't gonna happen guys. I wish it would, but it won't.

[post="11125"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's what people said about the Solstice being built and look what happened there.

[Chazman]

That's what people said about the Solstice being built and look what happened there.

[post="11252"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Nobody said that about Solstice.

If you want to stretch Kappa....you won't have Kappa anymore. You'll have an all new architecture - that costs like an all new architecture.

Believe me, I've wanted it to happen and I've looked into it.

[evok]

To add to Chazman's comments in response to Cadillacfan's, here is some insight into the Solstice and Kappa as explained to me: 1) The design for the Kappa architecture was for the most part complete when Lutz arrived at GM. Meaning the math data for a small sports car platform was sitting as 1 and 0's in a mainframe. So it was off the shelf in many ways from a technical perspective. 2) The Solstice styling was for the most part complete when Lutz steped on board. He championed the orgaization to develop a running prototype using off the shelf parts for NAIAS in record time. 3) Most import, the Solstice from 2002 concept to 2005 production was a mechanism for Lutz to push to product development organization. In essense the Solstice and Sky were managerial exercises. Edited September 8, 2005 by evok

[z28luvr01]

evok, am I correct in interpreting your comments as you saying in a roundabout way is that Lutz is getting more credit than he should with regard to the Solstice. In reality, the car was in the pipeline (long) before he got there and many aspects of it were already decided on before he got there. If true, then that's very...interesting to know.

[evok]

evok, am I correct in interpreting your comments as you saying in a roundabout way is that Lutz is getting more credit than he should with regard to the Solstice. In reality, the car was in the pipeline (long) before he got there and many aspects of it were already decided on before he got there. If true, then that's very...interesting to know.

[post="11276"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Lutz is the father of the Solstice and without him there probably would not be a Solstice or a Sky. Prior to Lutz, there was no Solstice program.

The couple of points I was making:

From a product development perspective and getting the vehicle to market as quickly as they did, a lot of the up front (hard part) engineering of the platform was done. This probably save a year if not more in gestation time.

So as a result, to "rush" the program as quickly to market as possible, kappa is a platform with limited flexibility.

Lutz also needed a high profile project to make his mark on the organization fast. With Solstice he did not have to kill programs that were already in development, recadence launches or spend limited resourses. This was a pet project that did not cause the organization to go into disarray or disrupt product development but showed quickly what he is in the process of doing with the rest of product development.

Finially portfolio and design work on a lot of stuff that never gets a GMX/T code or will ever see the light of day on the road. Kappa was just one of those projects that happen to make it to market for some of the reasons I mentioned above. Edited September 8, 2005 by evok

[CaddyXLR-V]

So the best we can hope for is for GM to be working on a Kappa II for the next gen Solstice and Sky, and that they will make Kappa II flexible enough to be used for something with a backseat?

[Cremazie]

If they ever made it I would have to buy it! But then again, I may just have to buy before they make that decision!

[Guest Josh]

Not to mention the build process on Kappa is so difficult GM has only produced about 800 of the first 1,000 vehicles since production started the last week of July. Many vehicles sit in the shipping lot awaiting inspection.

[heintz]

I would buy the Nomad yesterday if it was on the market.

[post="11140"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My mantra. A friend of mine thought the Nomad nothing special until he saw it the San Francisco auto show. He started drooling!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Kappa could revolutionize GM. It has the ability to save Pontiac, make Cadillac a credible competitor in Europe and spawn an affordable pony car for Chevrolet just to name a few. But, I think it'll be a wasted opportunity. If it is true that Kappa isn't that flexible (Which would make sense being that it is essentially a scaled down Y-Body) then why not try to justify the volume for the needed major changes and then commit the resources. Basically, I think a business case could be made for a stretched Kappa if GM implements it well enough. I'm talking 3 cars for Pontiac (Solstice coupe/convertible, Small RWD sedan & A Vibe replacing wagon) BLS and BRX replacements for Cadillac, The Sky for Saturn, the convertible for Opel/Vauxhall a Camaro for Chevrolet, maybe a coupe or 4-door convertible for Buick. The possibilities are endless (Of course with those endless possibilities comes endless $$$ and complexity) but maybe, just maybe they can build a business case.

[evok]

Kappa could revolutionize GM.

It has the ability to save Pontiac, make Cadillac a credible competitor in Europe and spawn an affordable pony car for Chevrolet just to name a few.

But, I think it'll be a wasted opportunity.

[post="11326"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The problem is Kappa is really not an architecture in GM lingo and neither is the Corvette/XLR Y-Body. They both are more along the lines of a platform. As I said earlier in this thread, in GM's need for speed in getting the Solstice to market, they boxed themselves into a corner by using the the kappa tubular structure. There are significant packaging issues with that platform for anything beyond 2 seaters or possibly tight 2+2 as in the concepts when translated from stage to showroom. If the possibility of throwing in a larger motor if it can be shown to fit would seriously throw off weight distribution and vehicle dynamics. You add 100lbs up front you are going to have add 100 lbs in the rear. Now kappa weights as much as a Vette.

It is a shame but true. GM would have to seriously redesign the platform from the firewall back to make it practicle. But then it would not be kappa.

Kappa is not a revolution but a managerial exercise in orgaanizational behavior to speed product development and get some excitement back in the company. Edited September 8, 2005 by evok

[IntimidatorSS]

Wasn't EpisonII supposed to be able to support FWD AWD and RWD? I say just take that platform and build Pontiac a RWD 3 series competitor..........Isn't it supposed to be more modifyable? Heck if it could support RWD you could build a Malibu and Camaro in the same plant and a G6 FWD Coupe Sedan an a Firebird/3 series Sedan. Then you could build the Aura RWD Cadiliac Sedan and maybe even a RWD Buick............

[CaddyXLR-V]

I would really like to know if Kappa is profitable selling only 2 roadsters. Will 40,000 units a year cover the cost? It seems like kappa is only suitible for low volume, so even if GM developed a new platform that could be used for sedans and coupes, it couldnt be built like kappa due to the higher volumes compared to the roadsters. Could GM make a new platform that could sell about 100,000 and be profitable, but still inexpensive?

[Guest Josh]

The cost of Kappa was roughly $250 million. There will be three roadsters. The Solstice, Sky and the Opel version which will be the Sky rebadged. I also think Vauxhull may be thrown into the mix.

[evok]

Wasn't EpisonII supposed to be able to support FWD AWD and RWD? I say just take that platform and build Pontiac a RWD 3 series competitor..........Isn't it supposed to be more modifyable? Heck if it could support RWD you could build a Malibu and Camaro in the same plant and a G6 FWD Coupe Sedan an a Firebird/3 series Sedan. Then you could build the Aura RWD Cadiliac Sedan and maybe even a RWD Buick............

[post="11366"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No that was piss poor info passed on by Autoweek a while back. From what I have heard AWD for EPII might not be in the cards either. Notice I used the word might.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Wasn't EpisonII supposed to be able to support FWD AWD and RWD? I say just take that platform and build Pontiac a RWD 3 series competitor..........Isn't it supposed to be more modifyable? Heck if it could support RWD you could build a Malibu and Camaro in the same plant and a G6 FWD Coupe Sedan an a Firebird/3 series Sedan. Then you could build the Aura RWD Cadiliac Sedan and maybe even a RWD Buick............

[post="11366"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That would be an ideal situation, and common sense.

But I doubt GM will do it.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

No that was piss poor info passed on by Autoweek a while back.  From what I have heard AWD for EPII might not be in the cards either.  Notice I used the word might.

[post="11397"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If GM doesn't design Ep II to at LEAST be capable of AWD then this mess has reached a whole new level of stupidity.

Research shows and has shown that consumers are quickly moving toward AWD purchases as the preferred choice, witness the STS debacle for an example. Just think, if GM could beat most of the other major players to the punch with a mid-size AWD, then we'd be in really good shape, especially if it had dual mode hybrid capability as well.

GM really needs to nail Ep II. It's a high volume program that competes in a market where GM products need SERIOUS help both sales-wise and image-wise. In fact Epsilon itself is so big that it could either make or break a division alone (Witness Pontiac and the G6) In my opinion Epsilon II should be the GMT900 of cars for GM as in; a lot of focus, a lot of R&D, a lot of innovation and LOTS of $$$

But, alas, GM has given nothing but the bare minimum for decades now, so it wouldn't surprise me if Ep II followed the " just average" mantra as well.

[Ultra Magnus]

I think we all agree they SHOULD do it. But I think of it like this, if the GMT900 doesnt at least look like it will break even, then dont expect big spending from GM anytime soon. I just will have to wait and see.

[lakefire]

what about the holden torrano (sp?) isn't that a kappa?

[Northstar]

The Torana was sort of it's own platform. It wasn't Kappa or Zeta but a mix of a bunch of stuff I think. Would it be easier to strech Kappa if you were just going for a 2+2 sedan because of the center tunnel being so big?

[ehaase]

Most of you young people will be husbands and fathers before GM has any small RWD cars that hold more than two people. I think it would be ideal if GM had four main platforms - large and small FWD platforms and large and small RWD platforms - all of which are capable of handling a wide variety of engines and be used as coupes, sedans, crossovers, and roadsters.

[LosAngeles]

If GM doesn't design Ep II to at LEAST be capable of AWD then this mess has reached a whole new level of stupidity.

[post="11410"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Really, they may as well refine the current one....after all, the W-body was kept for 16 years....if that's good enough, and Ep II isn't revolutionary and flexible, Ep I's good enough to continue another ten years.

It hurts to not really be able to influence the direction they're going.

[Northstar]

The Malibu and G6 could stand to be a bit bigger so that they offer more interior room than they currently do (which is not as much as some competitors). I think Epsilon II will be bigger and thus grant more interior room. AWD is a must, but there are other things that need improvement too. Keeping Epsilon for 16 years like W-Body would be a huge mistake and is the old GM-think. GM should be constantly upgrading everything to keep up with competitors; even already world-class platforms (like Sigma).

[LosAngeles]

The Malibu and G6 could stand to be a bit bigger so that they offer more interior room than they currently do (which is not as much as some competitors). I think Epsilon II will be bigger and thus grant more interior room.

AWD is a must, but there are other things that need improvement too. Keeping Epsilon for 16 years like W-Body would be a huge mistake and is the old GM-think. GM should be constantly upgrading everything to keep up with competitors; even already world-class platforms (like Sigma).

[post="11543"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

While I agree, there's a thing some of the Japanese (we know how much folks hate the Japanese around here) used to do called 8-4-2:

8 years between chassis changes
4 years between totally redesigned bodies
2 years before mid-cycle facelifts.

While this wasn't tightly adhered to, I don't see where decent chassis like Epsilon and Delta couldn't follow that template. Especially with W-body dating back to 1987 (and still being used) and the J-body having run for 23 years (with only 2-1/2 redesigns).

Would be interesting to go back to the days of bodies changing every year...but the Americans woudl have to control 60% of the market before that could happen...that may be why things have slowed to the grind they have the past 20 years.

[Guest Josh]

The Holden Torana was Holdens idea at trying to jump in the RWD Architecture bandwagon inside General Motors.

Holden (If I Remember right) developed the Torana concept without the approval of General Motors. They ended up changing the architecture so much, it shared very, very little in common with Kappa.

Many of the suits at GM were quite peeved by Holdens "antics" when putting the Torana together.

[4gm]

Do any of you insiders know what new vehicles, if any, are planned for Pontiac?

[evok]

Do any of you insiders know what new vehicles, if any, are planned for Pontiac?

[post="11573"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:( Edited September 9, 2005 by evok

[thegriffon]

Publicly GM NA was very supportive of the Torana as a concept. For Holden it demonstrated their design and engineering capabilities. To save time and money it borrowed elements from all of GM's existing rwd architectures, but was not "based" on any per se. The general structural paradigm followed that of the Premium Sportscar and Kappa architectures with a "lower-dominant" design, but as a concept it would be a mistake to think of the Torana as having an "architecture" at all. If something similar had been approved for production, then like the Solstice a suitable "architecture" would still have to be developed, with all the extra requiremets of a production model such as production compatibilities, cost, safety, productivity etc. Edited September 9, 2005 by thegriffon

[ehaase]

Do any of you insiders know what new vehicles, if any, are planned for Pontiac?
[

Well, I am no insider, but it appears to me that Pontiac and Buick will mostly be a collection of a few cars to be sold by GMC dealers. GMC is the strongest brand among the three and will expand to FWD/AWD crossovers.

The recent Automotive News issue that outlined GM's product plans for the next 3 or 4 years did seem to indicate that GM is studying a replacement for the Grand Prix.

[thegriffon]

THe G6 effectively replaces the current Grand Prix in (actual) market position. The new sedan would be a larger performance sedan giving BPG an alternative to the Avalon and more expensive versions of the Charger and 300. Target pricing would be below the Avalon and perhaps even Kia Amanti. Given bargain pricing for the Charger I would expect $24-25K for a base (well equipped) V6, with a relatively modest sales target of 110K per annum, but far better margins than the Grand Prix.

[91z4me]

NS:  We have had this discussion before.  Kappa sucks as a flexible architecture.  It is not that easy to stretch.  Not saying it is not possible.  The problem is the center structural tunnel.  There would have to be a lot of rework to the structure to make it practical for a 3 Series sort of car.

The kappa platform would need a significant amount of rework to the point that it would not be recognizable as a kappa.  So the cost benefit is just not there.

GM as I have said before, would be better off, developing a flexible small car rwd platform and base the next generation roadsters off that and use that as a basis for a 3 Series type vehicle.

Kappa by design is horrible for anything other than sports type cars.

[post="11238"][/post]

Holden found out just how much had to be done to make Kappa into a viable 2+2 platform. That work has been done and Torana shares very little with Kappa other than the front and rear suspension and other bits like firewall and steering column.

The Curve and Nomad concepts are more inline with Kappa. They are lower and the rear seats are tiny by comparison to the Torana concept. They are also further away from reality than the Torana was.

So lets look at it like this: a 2+2 rwd light weight platform could be built using kappa parts but it wouldn't be a kappa.

Rear leg room


Torana with rear seats folded down.


Nomad concept with seats folded down


As you can see the rear seats on the Nomad are tiny and pretty useless while the Torana is much more livable.

Shell of car


Kappa shell


The rear bulkhead of the Kappa frame is gone on the Torana and so much metal is added the two are almost entirely different.

[LosAngeles]

So, it's different. Big deal, as long as it's ready enough to build a production architecture out of. So it's not Kappa anymore, just name it something else and begin building the compacts it can generate.

[Northstar]

THe G6 effectively replaces the current Grand Prix in (actual) market position. The new sedan would be a larger performance sedan giving BPG an alternative to the Avalon and more expensive versions of the Charger and 300. Target pricing would be below the Avalon and perhaps even Kia Amanti. Given bargain pricing for the Charger I would expect $24-25K for a base (well equipped) V6, with a relatively modest sales target of 110K per annum, but far better margins than the Grand Prix.

[post="11753"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The new sedan would just be larger on the interior, right? The GP is already close to 200" long, so I don't think it would be bigger than the GP; or did you mean bigger than the G6?

[turbo200]

The new sedan would just be larger on the interior, right? The GP is already close to 200" long, so I don't think it would be bigger than the GP; or did you mean bigger than the G6?

[post="11855"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

To me it doesn't sound like he was saying larger than the GP, just a larger performance sedan in general, large like the size of the 300. the way griffon is talking about it, it sounds like the business case has been made, the mission of the car is outlined, and it's already been approved. This could be your Pontiac car.

[sciguy_0504]

Turbie... :) Edited September 11, 2005 by sciguy_0504