CAMARO6 - View Single Post

stovt001 · 02-26-2008, 09:18 PM

The way I see it, having smaller RWD vehicles can actually help meet CAFE standards. The way I see it, and my logic may be off, there is a sizable segment that wants RWD performance, period (aka us). So either they'll defect to Ford and Chrysler, or they'll stick with GM, but be forced into one of the larger RWD vehicles like the G8 or Cadillacs. I mean the smallest Caddy is the CTS, which is almost the size of a BMW 5 series. Size (and the consequential weight) really harm MPG, so pushing people into larger vehicles actually can hurt fleet average. However, if they instead offer small RWD cars with the fantastic 2.0L and 3.6L DI engines, they'll see better efficiency numbers.

02-26-2008, 09:18 PM	#6
stovt001 Drives: 2006 Cobalt, 2004 Taurus wagon Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: California Posts: 3,812	The way I see it, having smaller RWD vehicles can actually help meet CAFE standards. The way I see it, and my logic may be off, there is a sizable segment that wants RWD performance, period (aka us). So either they'll defect to Ford and Chrysler, or they'll stick with GM, but be forced into one of the larger RWD vehicles like the G8 or Cadillacs. I mean the smallest Caddy is the CTS, which is almost the size of a BMW 5 series. Size (and the consequential weight) really harm MPG, so pushing people into larger vehicles actually can hurt fleet average. However, if they instead offer small RWD cars with the fantastic 2.0L and 3.6L DI engines, they'll see better efficiency numbers.