A lot of Americans seem to like to drive ugly cars with hideous body cladding and fake hood vents.

Hey! C’mon now. I resemble that remark.

Also, you forgot faux spoilers.

My point with NUMMI was that the UAW may be a pain in the ass sometimes but they are flexible enough to make changes where needed, but you may still be right it could be that they wouldn’t allow efficiences during production that might cost jobs.

My point was they exist in other markets, with similar regulations, maybe not exactly the same but we aren’t talking about India or South America and having weak regs. If other companies are making them and somewhat successful at it why not GM.

Still, if they made a better Civic, would they not sell?
It would surely sell, but GM’s attempts are dismal in competing with the Civic. And since they can’t take that market seriously I highly doubt a small RWD would be an exception.

Hopefully we will get to see if the imports jump into this with something good in the near future, with Hyundai, Toyota/Subaru, and maybe an efficient VW/Porsche.

Is it really fair to bring up NUMMI? It’s one thing to have part of your production be less flexible, it’s a whole nother thing to have almost all of it on the UAW plan. Isn’t it?

Also, we have higher safety and pollution rules at present in the US. And the tax scheme is different. Overall, I think the euro market has enough differences that it makes using them as an example a bit challenging. It’s not an invalid comparison, but I am not sure it is spot on either.

I like your point about the fact that they may all be looking for the homerun, and ignoring chances at singles. There is likely a bit of that in there.

Still, if they made a better Civic, would they not sell?

Still, they all seem to HATE that idea. It’s a really, really good question. What part of the equation makes it so impossible for the domestics to build a nice, simple, efficient car?

They HATE that because it doesn’t bring quick easy profits so they can get their nice yearly bonuses. If you look at what they have done in the past every effort is to maximize profits and don’t waste your time with anything else.

My guess is labor.
It could be labor’s inflexibility but I don’t think it is, Toyota runs the NUMMI plant very efficiently with the UAW. And if it was they should have made huge strides in the recent negotiation to fix that.

The other guess is government and safety constraints.
I don’t believe this is the problem either, efficient RWD cars exist in Europe with similar safety and efficiency requirements.

What it comes down to is my first statement, they can’t maximize profits out of it. They have a history of not being able to downsize their cars because they don’t see the profit in it and making a small genuinly efficient RWD car is just not worth their time. Think Cavalier/Cobalt and the rest of the small car half-assed attemts they have done.

Still, they all seem to HATE that idea. It’s a really, really good question. What part of the equation makes it so impossible for the domestics to build a nice, simple, efficient car?

My guess is labor. They can’t get efficiency by making the car easier to build because of union contracts. The unions want to suck up all the value derived in the process of simplification.

The other guess is government and safety constraints. Perhaps you can no longer build a simple little car because there are just too many “got to haves” to make the whole thing possible? I don’t know.

At any rate, they aren’t hitting any out of the park with FWD either. I think they would be better off pleasing the rwd fans than pleasing no one.

As for efficiency, I can see a slight decrease, but no where near the decrease that comes with AWD/4WD.

CAW union boss Hargrove needs intimidating.

It isn’t jumping the gun, it is physics. For a given design RWD is heavier, has higher rotating mass and lower driveline efficiency. I prefer the driving dynamics of RWD, but the fuel economy advantage clearly goes to FWD.

“1. Why DOES Pontiac exist?”

A lot of Americans seem to like to drive ugly cars with hideous body cladding and fake hood vents.

“2. Given the new Malibu, why does the Imapala exist?”

Something needs to serve as a basic platform for the next Buick Roadmaster.

On the other side of the coin, I think it’s a bit of a leap to assume the Zeta cars would succeed based on their rear-drive alone. After the initial affirmative back-patting from enthusiasts (who’ll then buy aforementioned 3-Series), the car will still be judged a total package, and the mainstream may well prefer FWD interior packaging.

Killing the Zeta project is altogether defensible assuming GM has a better alternative in mind (also something of a leap). What rubs me the wrong way is GM’s shameless political scapegoating. Blaming CAFE for a decision that undoubtedly had more to do with bureaucracy and beancounters is insulting to the enthusiasts they’re trying to rile up.

The Avalon (197.6) is 8.5 inches longer than the Camry (189.2), so I don’t see the Avalon being more irrelevant. The new Accord (194.1) kinda splits the difference between the two.

Could we not ask the same question of the Camry and the Avalon?

If only life was so simple.
The success of the Camry fanchise is the reason Toyota is able to expand its core brand and is offer up bigger and better alternatives in the same showroom. Chevy is NOT is in the same position as Toyota and the Malibu and Impala are (or will be) so similar to each other in size and performance that they become redundant.

Once again we come to the realization that GM brand structure is doomed. Does a happy Mailbu onwer step up to an Impala or a Pontiac/ Buick? Considering how close the prices are between a top of the line Chevy/ Buick/ Pontiac and entry level Cadillac why not make the jump to a Caddy?

And before anyone claims they have plans they aren’t telling us, that would be fine and dandy if they weren’t saying stuff like this. Pubicly advertising their total confusion makes them look like a bunch of idiots.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why Detroit is so quick to jump the gun on RWD = poor fuel economy.

Oh, I don’t know. BMW and Mercedes have done quite well selling RWD cars to enthusiansts.

GM’s rear wheel drive fears are a product of a broken corporate culture. I’m sure if you got some of their talented engineers together and put management will behind them, they could do a fun rear drive car with decent mileage.

-ted

Could we not ask the same question of the Camry and the Avalon?

If the Impala were RWD, then why would Pontiac exist?

1. Why DOES Pontiac exist?

2. Given the new Malibu, why does the Imapala exist?