GM puts a hold on rear-wheel drive-cars

The new Camaro is stunning! It will be an instant classic with those who loved the muscle cars in the 60's and 70's. It's bold and beautiful. The interior I have yet to see in detail so quality is still on my mind. As for resale, well it's a domestic, don't expect much.

Just because it's not a Lexus you ladies don't have to deboost me yeaaa knowww :P

I wouldn't be surprised if in 2 weeks he'll come back and say that they are back on.

Another prove how cheap GM is. Front wheel cars cost less to build, are more prone to break, don't handle as well as a rear wheel car. In short, I consider front wheel cars to be on the small and mid size cars that are affordable, anything other than that is just cheap manufacturing.

The guy who takes rwd in the snow when he can choose a fwd car is CRAZY! It's not only me saying it, but also tons of magazines, tests and LIFE. Or death for the RWD crazy guy in the snow :)

RWD in the snow for me too. Plenty of snow here in CO to back that up! There is just no way that a plowing front is ANY safer than a controllable slide of the back. It takes practice to drive a RWD quickly and safely in the snow which is probably why more people think that FWD is better. They just hop in and drive like normal until they slam into my 400E because they went straight when they turned the wheel.

Aveo??

How dare you !!! Even suggest that GM dosent make
1) Great engines..
2) Handling cars
3) Fuel efficient Cars
How dare you ..!!! (In a apoplectic fit ) Do you have any idea the sweat and tears of the american worker that goes into the above products .. Do you !! DO YOU !!
So what if its an SOHC engine from the 1960's , i dont ask how much Horse piss is there in French wine ..
So what if the car cant turn ... the roads only go STRAIGHT in america . do i ask why you Euro's always tuck your tshirts into your jeans ???(sniggers)

So what if our cars dont sip gas like the Japanese cars, we like everything Super Size ....

k they rant has got me all hot and bothered and its time for my break ...

This message has been brought to you by the UAW .. the folks that got you the second house with the hot tub on the Michigan lake ..( umm atleast those of you who are members)

I don't know what GM products you have owned, but I have owned many (we drive a lot here). I bought a brand new Chevy Cavalier (35 mpg) for only US$10,400. and it has 60,000 miles on it and has needed absolutely nothing. It runs better than new, and I put it through the paces. BEAT THAT value with a beamer.

Fully agree with Designer1's comments above. I would not be surprised if GM found a tier 1 supplier in some far-away foreign land who makes a cheap front wheel drive module that GM can simply pop into the engine bay complete with engine and transmission. If winter traction is a problem, my advice is to get 4WD or AWD. FWD is a pain in the neck to fix and maintain. I'd rather have a RWD car with limited slip differential. If GM is serious about a practical winter car with fuel economy, then why can I not find a GM car with an economical diesel, RWD and limited slip differential?

You don't drive in much snow or ice do ya pal. You must be an island dweller.

Perhaps because most drivers don't appreciate the difference between FWD and RWD. Apparently including many on this site, I might add...

It's absoultely true that front drive cars are cheaper to make, but not necessarily more prone to break.

With a GM car, everything is prone to break.

Snow handling is WORSE in front drive. Just a few reasons:

1) When you overspin your front wheels, you loose steering.

2) When you are using the same tires for traction as for steering, you divide up the already minimal amount of traction available to that tire. Rear wheel drive splits these roles, improving handling and traction.

3) Snow TRACTION (not handling) can be better on front drive, but only when the car is not balanced (eg, if a BMW, which is 50/50 perfect balance front-rear, were front drive, it would have no more traction than the rear drive equivalent, and even LESS traction when turning and accelerating at the same time).

Bottom line: GM is going cheap. The added costs of a driveline/bearings, separate rear differential housing, seals, U-joints, bearings, and suspension components are definitly more expensive, but make for a better car. And to do this right you want independant rear suspension. More money and GM can't afford it.

I dont know who started it, but it's been caught like a virus. I imagine that it's because drivers in this country dont spend enough time learning how to drive. FWD "feels" safer to those who buy cars as appliances.

Sorry, this is a long post, but you asked for this.

Front drive cars are cheaper to make only if that is how your factory is set up. Mid-engined, rear-drive cars would be even less expensive than FWD, front-engined cars if car manufacturers and customers would wake up. Preston Tucker proved that back in 1948, not to mention Ferdinand Porsche long before that.

"With a GM car, everything is prone to break."
-- This is a statement of pure ignorance. Show me your perfect car and I will show you how to break it. GM's accountants have definitely cheapened some of their products to hit their price targets, especially on interior materials. But many of their products are world class, especially the fundamentals that non-engineers overlook. Consistent? Perfect? Most attractive? Best dealerships? Often not. But no car manufacturer is. None. Don't be so close-minded!

GM is NOT "going cheap" by abandoning RWD cars for so long. Their marketeers screwed up by focusing on large utility vehicles and trucks for too many years. In case you forgot, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, and most other popular US-selling manufacturers also abandoned hatchbacks, wagons, and RWD sportscars -- because advertisers mislead American buyers into the belief that bigger was better, and that everyone would benefit from 4WD (not so!). Now the pendulum is swinging back as we realize that bloated cars make for boring driving. GM will offer more RWD cars in the future -- meanwhile don't tell real auto enthusiasts that the Solstice or Corvette aren't superb handling cars, or that BMW is the only company that can make a high performance RWD sedan, or that only Toyota makes a reliable car. Stereotyping is a clear indication of someone who is too lazy to seek the whole story.

All carbuilders, including Asian and European manufacturers, are forced to economize on components they think the customer is not willing to spend more to buy. Guess what: most people won't pay more for higher on-track performance. If so, everyone would have modified their cars to optimize them for their driving circuit. RWD cars ARE better at handling on good roads -- mid-engined cars are the best -- but if you aren't a performance enthusiast or simply need economical & reliable 4-season transportation, then FWD is an acceptable compromise. That's why they sell so well.


"Snow handling is WORSE in front drive."
This general statement doesn't consider all the critical factors, or the vastly different vehicle technologies that affect the vehicle dynamics of different vehicles. Ignoring AWD for this discussion, i would agree that RWD, properly balanced, with limited slip differential and other important bits, is the performance car buyer's best choice. But all things being equal, on stock tires, FWD will keep up in snow! It's complex to explain in a flame-ridden blog, but let me try just the basic elements:

If optimal HANDLING is what you desire, then maximum traction -- FRICTION -- on all tires

... If optimal HANDLING is what you desire, then maximum traction -- FRICTION -- on all tires, in all directions (fore, aft, lateral), at all times, is what you want. This is physically impossible, however, because of surface irregularities, dynamic weight transfer, suspension geometry, etc -- and ice. BMW fans always stand up and claim superiority - "how can you beat static 50/50 F/R weight distribution?", they demand. Well, sit down and put down your flame thrower for a minute. 50/50 is not always ideal! The "ideal" static balance is different on dry track than it is on the snow; it's different on a twisty road course than it is in a straight line! The perfect static balance depends on what you do with your car, on what surface. So if 2wd Nurburgring lap records in winter is what you seek, don't be so quick to dismiss FWD.

Concentrating our snow vehicle discussion to 2wd vehicles and conventional tires: No powerful road-legal front-engine, rear-drive vehicle has enough weight over its rear all-season radials to keep them hooked up under acceleration on slippery conditions -- hence the reason all expensive RWD cars offer traction control. Your car's computer is cutting power to the rear tires because 50% aft weight isn't enough to provide the traction you want! Add sandbags to weight the rear, and you destroy both braking and lateral handling. Get a mid-engined, rear-drive car that naturally has a 50-60% rear weight bias, and you've got a phenomenal vehicle layout in almost all conditions -- except the steering is more twitchy on snow because of relatively lighter weight (traction) on the front (steering) tires. Bottom line -- unless you install 4 high traction tires for snow use, you can't have BOTH great steering and powerful acceleration in a RWD chassis in snow EVEN WITH 50/50 (or more sporting 45/55%) weight balance! Yes, i recommend the RWD car even over AWD for most regions and most drivers, but it is THE TIRE that makes it driveable in the winter.

For reference, the WRX has over 60% of its static weight ON FRONT TIRES -- about the same as a typical FWD car. So despite the FWD car's dry track limitations of power transfer, torque steer, suspension geometry, etc -- these suddenly become less significant when surface friction drops. The front-weight bias that lowers the FWD handling thresholds on dry roads becomes an asset in snow when you can deliver directional traction -- both steering and acceleration -- at the same time. When traction is limited, those situations where the FWD can't deliver power, a RWD can't either. It's as simple as that. Around an icy track, the FWD can do as well as the RWD. Should you dry off the track or add studded tires, then the formula changes and properly balanced RWD becomes more desirable. Put a bigger V-8 in your RWD truck (>70% front tire weight) and we will laugh as you fishtail around helplessly on snow.


As to your points:

1) a competent driver steers the entire vehicle, n

...

1) a competent driver steers the entire vehicle, not just the front tires. With proper tires, either skill, or computer nanny functions, "losing steering" with a FWD car is not an issue. If you're in a FWD car spinning tires or sliding out on slippery roads, then stop driving like a hoon - you're just showing lack of skill. install the right tires. Conversely, a RWD even with the best winter tires will spin every now and then. It's unavoidable.

2) dividing up steering and driving duties to different tires offers state-of-the-art for handling using today's technology on a dry track, no argument from me. But this changes when you drop the friction coefficient of your track without installing proper winter tires. Then suddenly no tire has enough traction. The perfect weight & balance of the vehicle you had on a dry road can be trumped by putting the engine over your driving wheels AND your steering wheels at the same time, as explained above. The best handling 2wd snow car with studded tires is probably a Cayman or M3, sure, but on all-season tires, these elite machines are vulnerable to a well-sorted FWD car. Head to a frozen lake this winter and set up an autocross circuit to prove it to yourself.

3) we all know that a "better balanced" car is always superior. But remember, you can only get traction from a tire that is loaded -- and all other things being equal, a pair of heavily loaded tires up front can give you a better lap time than a RWD car that has to make due with lesser traction in front and limited power application to the rear. In the dry, about 55% static rear weight bias is best for a sportscar to optimize both traction and braking. But ideal balance changes whatever course you drive, at whatever speed you go, and the balance advantage disappears when traction is limited to a low value - ideal weight alone doesn't get you the traction you seek.

The problem with GM is that they change their decision all the time. Who want to put its money in a brand that doesn't seems to know where it going? Same problem with Ford. Stop prodution of Taurus one year because it dont sell. One year later they bring it back! WHY? Tell me when did gm took the decision to introduce rear wheel drive on their future model? Maybe five or six post back? Seriously, GM is in trouble and they don't seems to realize that changing their decision all the time isn't making customers confident about future.

FINALY, if they want to be considered has a good and reliable brand, they have to start by assuming their decision.

wow im sorry, there are GM fans on autospies?

We all agree that GM sucks.

We just like to debate about how MUCH and in WHICH WAY they suck.

I don't agree. I have a trouble free 06 CTS. Everyone like to put GM down, but they have not had a poor product launch in years. All thier trucks are solid and reliable and thier cars are always getting better.

Ok, my bad, we have ONE GM fan in here and she drives a rear drive GM car.

How would your CTS do in Front Wheel Drive and no multi-link rear suspension? It would go from a mediocre car to yet another GM car that sucks.

Do you get the point now?

Mistake!

Lutz continually disappoints me. This could bring them more profit than they've seen in decades.