Been pretty active lately, getting some insight during this auto season. Ironically, it seems to be the easiest time to talk to some people.

Right now, outside of car sales, the biggest concern is the early portion of the new Corperate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE). A decision on 2011 and 2012 standards was supposed to be done by the current administration well before the end of last year. Right when it was due, the bottom fell out of the car market and everything was put on hold. Now it's being punted to the incoming administration.

By federal law, the NHTSA MUST give automakers, at minimum, 18 months lead time on any changes to CAFE. By legal definition, NHTSA must have a rule written and submitted before April 1st since 2011 cars (via CAFE standards) cover vehicles produced after September 1st 2010.

CAFE standards are based on a combined average fuel economy based on vehicle sales, not individual models. A car like the Ford Shelby GT500 and Chevrolet's ZR1 Corvette do not affect each company's CAFE rating because both are sold in such small quanities versus the sales of the entire company. Meanwhile, the sales of family sedans have a dramatic impact on CAFE.

Both GM and Ford planned new versions of large rear wheel drive sedans, scheduled to appear during the 2011, 2012 model years. However, uncertainty over the new standards has caused each to greatly modify their plans.

The Ford Crown Victoria and Chevrolet Impala, are both potentially high volume sedans. The Chevrolet Impala sold over 300,000 in 2007. Both cars are relatively old. The Chevrolet Impala is going on it's 4th year, while the Crown Victoria is even more overdue for replacement. With a series of small changes, the Crown Victoria is going into it's 10 year.

Both cars need more than 18 months lead time, since if CAFE standards start off aggressively, both automakers will possibly need to switch development to different chassis (wasting both vital time and very hard to find dollars).

General Motors last year ended their waiting game by abandoning plans for moving the upcoming Impala to a new RWD chassis this round in favor of basing the new Impala on the same revised FWD Espilon architecture that Buick will use for the all new LaCrosse, set to debut at Detroit's International Auto Show this week. GM's other large RWD cars are on hold while the cars they are to replace (Cadillac's current DTS and Buick's current Lucerne) are expected to continue production an extra year until new CAFE rules are known.


Ford, also, isn't in the mood to wait. Ford's Crown Victoria replacement was initially to be based on a modified Mustang platform and manufactured both here and in Australia in shortened form as the Falcon. However, Ford is close to a final decision on whether to make the replacement based on the structure of the new FWD based Lincoln MKS.

Although by all accounts there is no weight (or costs) advantage to either design, if Ford based the Crown Victoria and Australia's Ford Falcon on the MKS, it would be compatable with an existing AWD system that has fans within Ford. Ford Australia, however, is resisting as well as a contengent at Ford North America. This was enough to keep the final decision open (it was all but decided a year ago).


Meanwhile, Chrysler is pushing ahead with the redesigned rear wheel drivve Chrysler 300 and Dodge Challenger (both will debut at the same time). Chrysler recently redesigned the Hemi V8 to achieve the fuel economy of a V6 while improving the power output by up to 12%. Chrysler also intends to add hybrid syetems and possibly a diesel to the line by the time revised versions debut.

Chrysler is also helping their overall CAFE rating by filling in the small car void left when they discontinued the Neon 4 years ago. The Dodge Hornet subcompact is expected to reach production by the 2011 model year.

The new rule conbining trucks and cars in CAFE ratings will impact Chrysler more than any other car maker. Up to 80% of Chrysler's sales are classified as trucks, and as a result, Chrysler has created a wide range of higher mileage vehicles to offset the sales volume of their large Ram pickup. However, while this worked as long as trucks and cars were classified separately, it won't work went both are combined. Therefore, Chrysler is also expecting a much improved midsize sedan to replace the current Sebring and Avenger & expected to greatly boost sales volume and impact (positively) Chrysler's CAFE.


CAFE has little effect on performance cars. Performance cars are roughly 3-5% of a carmaker's total car sales volume, and even less when trucks are added in. Also, CAFE's fuel economy ratings are far more optimistic than the EPA's fuel economy rating you see on the window sticker. A car that averages 25 mpg by EPA standards gets a significantly higher rating by NHTSA's CAFE rating.

The car model that number applies to is farther influenced (as a group) by how many models are sold with each engine. It goes all the way up till all sales of all engine combinations are added together and averaged. More sales, the greater the impact. The more V6 Camaros (or upcoming Chevy Cruizes) are sold, the safer the future of cars like the a LS3 Camaro SS (or a RWD Impala) are.

 

I guess I still don't understand why RWD is so much more fuel inefficient?

 

Drive shaft plus axles. Look at an FWD setup, yove got a trans coming off the engine essentially connected to a reduction gear and then onto the halfshafts, no driveshaft to deal with and in the case of IRS some additional joints as well. Then I guerss maybe there is the whole "its better to pull than to push" going as well if that isn't some sort of wives tale??? I think the difference reported here is a 1% or so improvement in mileage, but when your grasping for straws or jumping through hoops, 1% is nothing to sneeze at.

 

Because with a rearwheel drive car the engine is perpendicular to the drivewheels. Due to this, the power angle is split at the axle. When you divert power by 90*, there is a massive loss.

On the other hand, a front wheel drive car maintains the engine parallel to the drive wheels. This avoids the powerloss of diverting power 90* at the rear axle.

Because of the reduction in powerloss, accompanied with avoiding the weight of a driveaxle front wheel drive cars tend to be more fuel efficient.

 

I wonder if the "its better to push than to pull" arguement comes from this?

 

My assumption is just that Ford will drop the Panthers after 2011, and the Taurus and MKS will be its largest sedans then. My guess is that the Taurus will eventually get a 2.0L turbo 4 cylinder as its standard engine because of CAFE. I never took these GRWD rumors seriously. And if the new Taurus isn't a hit, I wouldn't be surprised to see the car dropped by 2015, with the Fusion as Ford's biggest sedan.

Count me in with the group who believe that Chrysler will soon be history.

I question the need for Chevrolet to have a sedan larger than the Malibu in a few years.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with driveshafts.

The simple fact is that a RWD car costs more to build than FWD.
Which means they have to a different marketing plan
Which means they have to push the high-end V8-powered muscle versions
Which means the car ends up with a reputation as a gas-guzzler
Which means sales are predominately on the V8 end
Which wrecks the CAFE average.

(This was the Chrysler playbook anyway.)

Also the average consumer doesn't care which wheel drive. America's favorite sedan is the I4 Camry, and we saw how Mailbu sales shot up when it got the 4cyl/6spd combination.

IMO a 30MPG Impala would sell a lot better than a RWD one.

 

It's not massive. It's tiny. Small enough that you won't find a generally-agreed upon number out there.

I think the issue with a RWD Impala is that some percentage (10%?) would be V8s, and that would pull down the average. Also, it would theoretically be heavier, as the RWD design would be stronger, so that it could handle the power of V8 models. But then the new LaCrosse came in heavier than the G8, so....

The Genesis V6 gets better mileage than even the 3.0 La Crosse, it has more power than the 3.6 model, and it's RWD.

Mostly, though, I'll bet it's a lot fewer $$ upfront to build an EpII Impala than a Zeta Impala.

 

In reality, all things being equal in every other way, it isn't.

This is just my opinion based on what I see, but I feel the real factor is cost. I just feel that both GM and Ford are cheaping out regarding large RWD, even though they have managed to come up with vehicles that don't cost alot to produce.


Consider both GM's Espilon and Ford's D3 platforms. Both require no real investment other than sheetmetal and interior to create new full sized cars. GM's new Espilon 2 and Ford's D385 versions require no changes whatsoever since the new Lacrosse and MKS are already done.

On the other hand, doing a volume North America GM Zeta or Ford E8 chassis is a different kettle of fish from a relatively low production Camaro or Mustang. While alot of the Camaro parts can come from Australia and Mustang can get parts from all over Ford, doing a high volume sedan require setting up all new specific infrastructure and supply systems right "locally".

The question then becomes "If we're going to make that type of investment, how long will that vehicle be viable"?.... "Are we getting the most for our money"?..."Does it really concern the people buying the car which wheels are driving"?

The FWD Impala is a very strong selling car. Buick buyers seem to favor FWD. Cadillac has been hesitant to move the DTS to RWD since Cadillc's reinvention was just begining 10 years ago because of (again) FWD fans. Allan Mulally's ear seems to be currently in the pocket of Ford's large FWD platform chief.

 

Long term, I don't see EPII or this Ford D385 being any more viable than Zeta or Ford GRWD, given their mass. That is, if EPII can be sold here in 2018, then so can Zeta. If Zeta can't be then neither can EPII. But they should be a lot cheaper to bring out, and $$ is a huge issue right now.

But with all this talk of large RWD, I think what GM and Ford really need now is a mid-size RWD, both for Cadillac/Lincoln and for Holden/Ford AU.

He got an earful when he visited Australia, but will a small market be enough to change his mind?

 

 

One last point on this regarding RWD vs FWD efficiency.

Both Holden and Chrysler which already have a modern RWD platform have no plans whatsoever to discontinue those cars. In fact, both are working on the next versions (which will be the same size as the current ones).

Chrysler announced the next 300 & Challenger will beat new fuel economy standards. The Hemi will still be available for performance models, but won't be the focal point for volume. A new Hybrid system (Ford recently got rated 40mpg city on the new 3700 pound Fusion hybrid), and the new Phoenix V6 (expected to get high power and high mileage) will form the core of the new LX engines, and is planned to form most of the sales.

If FWD offered any advantage, one would expect Chrysler (of all makers) to marginalize the LX in favor of their upcoming new midsize platform (to be based on a Nissan).

Even the V8 has alot of life to it.

The new Hemi saw a huge power increase, while mileage was boosted to what most of today's V6s achieve. Holden recently downed the power of the Commodore's 6.0 liter 13 horsepower (still an impressive 349hp) but gained nearly 2 mpg in the process.

Bob Lutz claim that the RWD Impala was killed over a 1 mpg difference was either false or shows that GM's decision making process is still extremely disfunctional.

..... or perhaps GM should hand over the helm to their Australian Holden division, since they seem to know how to do things GM's North American division find impossible.


http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/holden+commodore/
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...-Chrysler-300/

 

I have to admit, although I have never owned a FWD vehicle, I have driven some. However, if I am in the market for an "appliance" vehicle, I really am not concerned whether its FWD or RWD... other issues play a much bigger factor. That's not to say I'd accept a FWD performance coupe, or even a FWD pickup truck, its just that for me when it comes to appliance vehicles factors like mpg, safety, ergonomics and usability come more in to play that the "excitement" factors I'd look for in a performance coupe or the "utilitarian" factors I'd look for in a truck.

One thing that still troubles me is why GM (and other manufacturers) are not looking at bringing more european style turbo-diesel powertrains to North America to help with meeting these regulations. It seems to me that the time is right to ween Americans off of gasoline engines and show them that diesels can provide the performance and efficiency that consumers are looking for.

 

No one ever followed up as to where this 1mpg was coming from. It could have been over the entire fleet where a RWD model would have high end V8 models. Or perhaps it's because hybrids do a little better with FWD, presumably because you can recover more energy, because the front wheels do the majority of the braking.

Or perhaps it was just blowing smoke.

 

Diesel is about a buck a gal. more expensive than gasoline.