[Posaune]

Originally Posted by Baywire

It's on their website.

http://www.chevrolet.com/performance...-cylinder.html

"MSRP $9,000*"

"*MSRP excludes tax, shipping and installation."

So you think MSRP equals their cost to build and put in a factory car?

Two minute search finds it as low as $6868 retail.
http://www.gmperformancemotor.com/parts/19328837.html

[Baywire]

Originally Posted by Posaune

So you think MSRP equals their cost to build and put in a factory car?

Two minute search finds it as low as $6868 retail.
http://www.gmperformancemotor.com/parts/19328837.html

I never said anything about GM's cost to build and install the LTG.

If you can find me stating that at any time that'd be sweet.

I literally said, "also it's EXTREMELY laughable that the LTG costs $9000".

Not sure where you got this idea.

[Posaune]

Originally Posted by Baywire

I never said anything about GM's cost to build and install the LTG.

If you can find me stating that at any time that'd be sweet.

I literally said, "also it's EXTREMELY laughable that the LTG costs $9000".

Not sure where you got this idea.

First you talk about what the LTG "cost" and then how "GM uses cost as an excuse Not to do it." Not hard to correlate the two in your statement.

Originally Posted by Baywire

Corporations overcomplicate the car making process through bureaucracy. Making cars is an investment business, you don't just make a car and see profits that's just not how it works. (also it's EXTREMELY laughable that the LTG costs $9000, since the engine specs wise is worth maybe half of that?) Please note that none of my argument is about how cheap it will be for GM to produce AWD for their sedans, my point is that GM uses cost as an excuse NOT to do it. My point is to spend the money now, see profits later... Well because... That's how investments work?

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Baywire

I don't think I'm grossly oversimplifying it at all.

Corporations overcomplicate the car making process through bureaucracy. Making cars is an investment business, you don't just make a car and see profits that's just not how it works. (also it's EXTREMELY laughable that the LTG costs $9000, since the engine specs wise is worth maybe half of that?) Please note that none of my argument is about how cheap it will be for GM to produce AWD for their sedans, my point is that GM uses cost as an excuse NOT to do it. My point is to spend the money now, see profits later... Well because... That's how investments work?

GMG has nothing to do with my concept of changing cars. They took the Pontiac G6 GXP coupe and turned it into the GXP.R going from FWD V6 to a RWD LS2 and I'm certain it took them less than a month to finish making it. Basically because they took an 08 GXP and placed it on a 05 GTO. Race teams do this on regular basis. (Yea it costs more to make a race car than an every day commuter car)

And I'm not even asking for a AWD Cruze Subaru STI killer "cause I need 400hp in my 20k car". Naw, I want an AWD Cruze with ~200hp for ~22k because Subaru seems to be able to do it just fine. They make 153hp Cruze for 16k they also make a 153hp Cruze for 23k. So... What did they do to it that costs 7k? See FCA, VW/Audi, Ford, Lexus as AWD options usually cost around 2-5k and that leaves 2-5k to spruce up the power based on that huge price gap the Cruze already has that apparently adds nothing to the car. Please note, this is not a power grab, this is not some car enthusiast thing. A lot of car companies seem to be able to do it, GM is clearly no different.

This is also not to mention the vast number of other cars that have FWD and AWD versions of the same car. It wasn't too expensive for VW to make a FWD and AWD CC. Toyota didn't think it was too expensive to make a FWD and AWD Sienna. Chrysler didn't think it was too expensive to make a FWD and AWD 200. And that's just three models I picked out of a hat. Subaru seems to think AWD is good for all of their cars except for the BRZ, go figure.

I guess I'm living in a fantasy world where GM does something that the tons of other brands and itself are capable of and I guess that's fine.

Topic of "Buick did XYZ and it sold poorly":
Buick should have died when Pontiac and Saturn did. There's no reason for the brand, it doesn't sell well and it just makes copies of the other cars GM already makes expect worse quality than Cadillac (interiors are no better) and less performance than Chevy (heavier and slower). What's the point of this brand, cheap and slow? Cadillac has a perfect entry level fleet GM doesn't need this brand at all.

Please take this with my deepest respect for your passion on the subject but you are flat wrong.

I've worked for over 30 years in the industry for 3 different OEMs. I've worked in the earliest phases of requirements development all the way through launch in many different capacities.

I also have significant experience I the cost and capital required and how to do the business case to do something and do it profitably.

I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you have so fire away.

[Baywire]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Please take this with my deepest respect for your passion on the subject but you are flat wrong.

I've worked for over 30 years in the industry for 3 different OEMs. I've worked in the earliest phases of requirements development all the way through launch in many different capacities.

I also have significant experience I the cost and capital required and how to do the business case to do something and do it profitably.

I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you have so fire away.

Sure, how is a company making almost exclusively AWD like Subaru (every model beyond the BRZ is AWD) the reported Most Profitable Car Manufacturer of 2015?

Edit: Clarification, if producing an AWD fleet of cars is so difficult then why would Subaru, Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Ford, Acura and Volvo all create these amazing AWD platforms? Like I've said before, "they" didn't think it was too expensive to produce an AWD platform, seems like GM is the only one "claiming" it's too expensive. And I'm not even talking the Cruze anymore, the Ford Fusion is Ford's best selling car (it's awd), and it's going to get refreshed again with a "Sport" edition which will compete with the BMW 340i in performance (It's using the Ford Mustang Ecoboost engine). (for 35k) Yes more expensive than the base model at 22k but they are still making it. Seems like Ford doesn't think it's too difficult to make and be profitable.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Baywire

Sure, how is a company making almost exclusively AWD like Subaru (every model beyond the BRZ is AWD) the reported Most Profitable Car Manufacturer of 2015?

Edit: Clarification, if producing an AWD fleet of cars is so difficult then why would Subaru, Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Ford, Acura and Volvo all create these amazing AWD platforms? Like I've said before, "they" didn't think it was too expensive to produce an AWD platform, seems like GM is the only one "claiming" it's too expensive. And I'm not even talking the Cruze anymore, the Ford Fusion is Ford's best selling car (it's awd), and it's going to get refreshed again with a "Sport" edition which will compete with the BMW 340i in performance (It's using the Ford Mustang Ecoboost engine). (for 35k) Yes more expensive than the base model at 22k but they are still making it. Seems like Ford doesn't think it's too difficult to make and be profitable.

The very simple answer is Subaru is profitable per car based on the fact that they have a simple offering using a lot of common parts with AWD and architecture development costs shared across an optimal volume mix. And they do this with a NA volume of 500,000 vehicles and global sales of almost a million.

As for AWD which you are very enamored with, (as am I, my Audi S4 was an incredible car) it alone is not some miracle path the profitability as you seem to think.

GM offers many cars with AWD. Leaving the SUVs out of the list, Cadillac ATS, CTS, XT5, XTS and CT6. Buick offers AWD on the LaCrosse and Regal. Oh and Buick exists to sell cars in China. Plane and simple. It is a bigger seller there than here. So if you are keeping it around for HUGE money in China then you have it for pretty cheap in NA. Easy business decision. Chevrolet offers no cars with AWD, although I had suggested that since Alpha enables AWD, the Camaro could offer it as a competitive advantage. But they do have quite a few. Not performance oriented AWD although the new system in the CT6 looks to be a big change for GM in this regard.

Now all this costs money and people to execute. And regardless of wherever you came to the conclusion that it was somehow overblown regarding how hard it is, every new part needs to be designed, developed, sourced, tooled and purchased. These probably all seem easy to you but they aren't. Every single drive configuration adds a level of complexity to the development plan for the car. It helps when you can share those costs, but even then it's still huge. Camaro off of Alpha still required thousands and thousands of tests and numerous development vehicles that can run well over $1,000,000 a pop to do the testing and evaluation. How many cars do you have to sell to make up for a $1,000,000 prototype? And in some cases you need several hundred of those. How many people in purchasing do you need to source a part and get it on contract? How many Supplier Quality Engineers do you need to get through PPAP? On and on and of for dozens of critical functions.

In a RWD car it's also a pretty big deal. All ATS and CTS have big hump in the passenger footwell that packages the driveshaft from the transfer case to the front axle. Even the RWD cars have this problem.

Now the big reason for not having AWD in smaller low cost cars is simply sales volumes. And this gets complicated. The key for turning a FWD car into an AWD car is one key factor. You have to have an IRS. If you don't it's not possible. So when you rear or hear that the "architecture doesn't enable AWD", what they mean is we didn't cost and package the car for an IRS. Now this is important here so pay attention. In the compact car segment, no one gives a sh_t about an IRS. GM sold as many Cruzes as Ford sold Focusesssss. Now you may ask why did Ford bother to have an IRS then. Well look at where the architecture was developed. Europe. In Europe, handling is prized by far over ride. This is the opposite of NA where we prefer ride over handling. So Ford had already developed an IRS for the Focus in Europe so it was simply a matter of accepting the higher piece price on the car and some tuning and you have it. A European car in NA. Now the Cruze? The dozen or so they actually sold in Europe were a joke. They do sell in China though. But if you didn't decide to add the cost, mass and complexity of an IRS and you instead put your money elsewhere in the vehicle you aren't going to have AWD..........ever. You can't just as you suggest get some mechanics in a garage in week or two and have it.

Now back to Ford again, and sorry for bouncing around, Ford has the Focus and Fusion which are simply the Focus and Mondeo in Europe. Ford has done a really great job in Europe and has some really great car there. But as I mentioned, those cars are engineered for German handling and the design and development work is done. So that's how they get AWD here. But for the Fusion, GM offers the AWD Buick Regal GS. An equally sporty car. May not be what you want, but it competes quite well with the Ford Fusion.

So in the end, adding AWD in a compact or midsize car is a big deal. It adds cost, mass and complexity to the car by requiring a IRS, a transfer case and a drive shaft. All are difficult to package in a compact car. But you have to add cost to the base car to enable it and that puts you at a disadvantage to the competitive set in the compact class.

Let's jump to Audi for a second. Great car IMO. Audi is the luxury version of VW. It's differentiating feature is AWD, a great performance AWD that even finds it's way to an occasional VW Golf. They can afford to make the decision to go with AWD simply because they are a luxury brand that can collect price for the feature. But the parent company VW has had very poor sales in the US. They happen to be #1 or 2 in the world right now, but in the US, their content created such a high price tag that they were not competitive. They went so far as to put a solid rear axle in the Passat (IRS in Europe) to try and get costs down.

In the end, if you add the cost, mass (ooooops FE suffers) and complexity for AWD (oooooooos FE suffers) you better be able to sell enough additional cars to cover the millions of dollars of additional cost to develop and tool the car and the parts.

GM has actually done this in many models. Just not Chevrolet.

So it's simply sales volume vs. development costs. Subaru has very limited offerings and although I'm not sure what their architecture play is, I believe they are dealing with pretty much one or two variants. And the BRZ? As you know, that is a JV with Toyota.

So give GM credit where it's due. They have many AWD models in passenger cars. Not a performance version other than the new CT6, but neither does Subaru.

If your complaint simply boils down to why not the Delta architecture it simply boils down to GM choosing to make a car that goes for the sweet spot of the segment rather than a small niche portion. Even the Focus ST is FWD. And the AWD RS? $35,000 plus.

Volume is everything here. And although you don't seem to want to understand the huge development costs it boils down to the number of sales vs the amount to add the content.

So to take the Cruze question further is if I spend $XX to develop a Watts link rear suspension that has very good ride and handling and satisfies almost all of my customers, how many more Cruzes would I sell if I add %5 in base price to enable a higher end AWD model that will on sell %5 more? The answer is simple. If the base Cruze costs %5 more your sales of the base model will drop. The question then becomes do I make it up by adding volume in the higher cost AWD version?

Other than Audi's marketing their way to "amazing AWD systems", I'm not really sure how everyone is so great while GM sucks. Every Cadillac car has AWD. 2 of 3 Buick cars have AWD. No, not track based but pretty darn good. If your only complaint is Chevrolet then I can assure you it's simply that GM has projected the sales to not be profitable.

But if in your imagination, that added piece cost and development cost is FREE, then I can't help you with your math.

Oh and a Fusion Sport won't be competing with a BMW anytime soon.




Now here is the real problem GM has. What is the other reason GM doesn't offer AWD in the Malibu (offered on the Regal) or Impala (available in the Lacrosse and XTS)? Answer...............it drives you up the chain to Buick or Cadillac. This has been GM's business model for pretty much 100 years. AWD is available in the Epsilon Short and Epsilon Long WB architectures. So it could be put those Chevrolets. They don't. Same for the Camaro.

GM has simply chosen not to content a Malibu to compete with the Ford Fusion Sport because they already have a car (and have for a few years actually) that does. It's called the Regal GS and it has AWD.

[Baywire]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The very simple answer is Subaru is profitable per car based on the fact that they have a simple offering using a lot of common parts with AWD and architecture development costs shared across an optimal volume mix. And they do this with a NA volume of 500,000 vehicles and global sales of almost a million.

As for AWD which you are very enamored with, (as am I, my Audi S4 was an incredible car) it alone is not some miracle path the profitability as you seem to think.

GM offers many cars with AWD. Leaving the SUVs out of the list, Cadillac ATS, CTS, XT5, XTS and CT6. Buick offers AWD on the LaCrosse and Regal. Oh and Buick exists to sell cars in China. Plane and simple. It is a bigger seller there than here. So if you are keeping it around for HUGE money in China then you have it for pretty cheap in NA. Easy business decision. Chevrolet offers no cars with AWD, although I had suggested that since Alpha enables AWD, the Camaro could offer it as a competitive advantage. But they do have quite a few. Not performance oriented AWD although the new system in the CT6 looks to be a big change for GM in this regard.

Now all this costs money and people to execute. And regardless of wherever you came to the conclusion that it was somehow overblown regarding how hard it is, every new part needs to be designed, developed, sourced, tooled and purchased. These probably all seem easy to you but they aren't. Every single drive configuration adds a level of complexity to the development plan for the car. It helps when you can share those costs, but even then it's still huge. Camaro off of Alpha still required thousands and thousands of tests and numerous development vehicles that can run well over $1,000,000 a pop to do the testing and evaluation. How many cars do you have to sell to make up for a $1,000,000 prototype? And in some cases you need several hundred of those. How many people in purchasing do you need to source a part and get it on contract? How many Supplier Quality Engineers do you need to get through PPAP? On and on and of for dozens of critical functions.

In a RWD car it's also a pretty big deal. All ATS and CTS have big hump in the passenger footwell that packages the driveshaft from the transfer case to the front axle. Even the RWD cars have this problem.

Now the big reason for not having AWD in smaller low cost cars is simply sales volumes. And this gets complicated. The key for turning a FWD car into an AWD car is one key factor. You have to have an IRS. If you don't it's not possible. So when you rear or hear that the "architecture doesn't enable AWD", what they mean is we didn't cost and package the car for an IRS. Now this is important here so pay attention. In the compact car segment, no one gives a sh_t about an IRS. GM sold as many Cruzes as Ford sold Focusesssss. Now you may ask why did Ford bother to have an IRS then. Well look at where the architecture was developed. Europe. In Europe, handling is prized by far over ride. This is the opposite of NA where we prefer ride over handling. So Ford had already developed an IRS for the Focus in Europe so it was simply a matter of accepting the higher piece price on the car and some tuning and you have it. A European car in NA. Now the Cruze? The dozen or so they actually sold in Europe were a joke. They do sell in China though. But if you didn't decide to add the cost, mass and complexity of an IRS and you instead put your money elsewhere in the vehicle you aren't going to have AWD..........ever. You can't just as you suggest get some mechanics in a garage in week or two and have it.

Now back to Ford again, and sorry for bouncing around, Ford has the Focus and Fusion which are simply the Focus and Mondeo in Europe. Ford has done a really great job in Europe and has some really great car there. But as I mentioned, those cars are engineered for German handling and the design and development work is done. So that's how they get AWD here. But for the Fusion, GM offers the AWD Buick Regal GS. An equally sporty car. May not be what you want, but it competes quite well with the Ford Fusion.

So in the end, adding AWD in a compact or midsize car is a big deal. It adds cost, mass and complexity to the car by requiring a IRS, a transfer case and a drive shaft. All are difficult to package in a compact car. But you have to add cost to the base car to enable it and that puts you at a disadvantage to the competitive set in the compact class.

Let's jump to Audi for a second. Great car IMO. Audi is the luxury version of VW. It's differentiating feature is AWD, a great performance AWD that even finds it's way to an occasional VW Golf. They can afford to make the decision to go with AWD simply because they are a luxury brand that can collect price for the feature. But the parent company VW has had very poor sales in the US. They happen to be #1 or 2 in the world right now, but in the US, their content created such a high price tag that they were not competitive. They went so far as to put a solid rear axle in the Passat (IRS in Europe) to try and get costs down.

In the end, if you add the cost, mass (ooooops FE suffers) and complexity for AWD (oooooooos FE suffers) you better be able to sell enough additional cars to cover the millions of dollars of additional cost to develop and tool the car and the parts.

GM has actually done this in many models. Just not Chevrolet.

So it's simply sales volume vs. development costs. Subaru has very limited offerings and although I'm not sure what their architecture play is, I believe they are dealing with pretty much one or two variants. And the BRZ? As you know, that is a JV with Toyota.

So give GM credit where it's due. They have many AWD models in passenger cars. Not a performance version other than the new CT6, but neither does Subaru.

If your complaint simply boils down to why not the Delta architecture it simply boils down to GM choosing to make a car that goes for the sweet spot of the segment rather than a small niche portion. Even the Focus ST is FWD. And the AWD RS? $35,000 plus.

Volume is everything here. And although you don't seem to want to understand the huge development costs it boils down to the number of sales vs the amount to add the content.

So to take the Cruze question further is if I spend $XX to develop a Watts link rear suspension that has very good ride and handling and satisfies almost all of my customers, how many more Cruzes would I sell if I add %5 in base price to enable a higher end AWD model that will on sell %5 more? The answer is simple. If the base Cruze costs %5 more your sales of the base model will drop. The question then becomes do I make it up by adding volume in the higher cost AWD version?

Other than Audi's marketing their way to "amazing AWD systems", I'm not really sure how everyone is so great while GM sucks. Every Cadillac car has AWD. 2 of 3 Buick cars have AWD. No, not track based but pretty darn good. If your only complaint is Chevrolet then I can assure you it's simply that GM has projected the sales to not be profitable.

But if in your imagination, that added piece cost and development cost is FREE, then I can't help you with your math.

Oh and a Fusion Sport won't be competing with a BMW anytime soon.




Now here is the real problem GM has. What is the other reason GM doesn't offer AWD in the Malibu (offered on the Regal) or Impala (available in the Lacrosse and XTS)? Answer...............it drives you up the chain to Buick or Cadillac. This has been GM's business model for pretty much 100 years. AWD is available in the Epsilon Short and Epsilon Long WB architectures. So it could be put those Chevrolets. They don't. Same for the Camaro.

GM has simply chosen not to content a Malibu to compete with the Ford Fusion Sport because they already have a car (and have for a few years actually) that does. It's called the Regal GS and it has AWD.

I'll try to add my comments to things in order.

Pointing out that Subaru sells less cars makes less sense as to why it's so profitable. In business, the more production you do, the cheaper it is to produce per unit.

I don't think that AWD is the "source" of all profitability, my argument is, and maybe not very well spoken, that GM seems to be to always be behind when compared to competitors in terms of technology the average person looks for in a car. Whether or not AWD is actually "safer" or "more reliable" or "better" than FWD or RWD does not matter, the perception of the average buyer is all that matters. My argument never has been that it's cheap to do.

GM does offer AWD vehicles outside of the SUV/Truck categories as you mentioned with Cadillac and Buick. Firstly, Buick needs to become a non entity (In my eye, I may stand alone on this and that's fine it's just my opinion) as month after month they seem to be the worst selling division of GM for the last 7 years. But the problem is none of those cars are attainable to the average person. I understand that a lot of the cars and brands I'm pointing out are in fact luxury brands however a significant amount of cars/brands are offering AWD in affordable fashions.

As for prototyping. This was exactly my point of the political bureaucracy that "costs" money. You "need" 4000 people to build a prototype? Or do you just use the parts you already have (no need to source new materials or contracts) to adjust the car you have (adjusting machinery isn't expensive)? It's fine that we clearly disagree on this.

"Through May, the tally is 1,024,852 for Ford to 872,363 for Chevy." -AutoNews.com, Car Sales 2016 Month to Date.

As for Ford vs Chevy in sales in global respect. Assuming (taking an average number generally used for car profit) Ford makes around 1000 dollars per sale, Chevy has to make another 15% on their cars to meet the same gross profit ford is. Now, please, I'm not saying they aren't making 15% more on their cars than Ford, but I'm willing to bet they aren't.

The Buick Regal GS is only a good comparison to the Ford Fusion once you hit Platinum where they have the same price (36k). The first AWD option for the Fusion starts at 27k, AWD doesn't start in the Buick until 31k.

As for adding AWD to a midsize/compact sedan: Seems like Ford said, "Hey guys we should prepare for the future." and GM said, "Chevy FWD or bust." which sounds awful when you go and compare the two brands as an average car buyer.

Yes I agree with you, you have to spend money to build something... However, if you just built the thing in the first place you wouldn't have to spend twice the amount of money building one and then the other. If GM decided when making the Cruze and new Malibu and new Impala that they wanted to make the platform with AWD capabilities they could have. But now that they decided to FWD or bust, they are stuck having to spend twice the amount of money.

My point is. When GM decides to produce new platforms for Cruze/Malibu/Impala. And they decide to go with FWD only. Well YEA! NOW it looks stupid if someone says "Hey we should maybe have an AWD option." because NOW they have to develop an AWD platform and spend twice the amount of money.

Bringing up that VW can afford to take parts from Audi and cover costs is no different than GM being able to afford taking parts from Cadillac. (That is unless GM is producing cars that don't make money )

"So give GM credit where it's due. They have many AWD models in passenger cars. Not a performance version other than the new CT6, but neither does Subaru."

What^^^? Subaru Impreza, Wrx/STI (Performance), Legacy and Forester are not Passenger cars?

Ford Fusion Sport Competes with 340i in specs, it's factual, not really a way to argue against it. Their 0-60 times are comparable, the Focus weighs ~100 lbs more but has more power and more torque and you even spoke about Ford competing in the European/German market for it's handling. Numbers don't lie and it's also coming out this summer. I guess time is relative though.
http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...es-aim-germans

As for your last two sections:

As Buick is constantly bringing the GM brand down (always being down in sales) GM is doing an awful job at "driving" customers up the chain at least to Buick. You do realize that the Regal is a Malibu right? Because that's been GM's model for the last 100 years also. Build the same car across multiple brands and hope it sells (please see Saturn and Pontiac for results).

And the Buick Regal GS being the answer to the Fusion Sport is awful. It competes on no levels. Ford Fusion Sport is cheaper, more powerful more performance driven, it's lighter, and the interior of the Regal GS really similar to the Fusion Sport. Regal being a luxury brand is all leather vs Fusions leather inserts, but look an the interiors side by side basically identical other than "styling" where fusion is more "square" and regal is more "elegant".

Now, it's probably time to end this debate. Personally I really love a good debate but at this point I believe that we will not come to agreements on much. Additionally I'm glad you took the time to come up with a good argument, I think we agree on pieces but not the big picture. I guess to bullet point my final opinions.

GM should have originally thought of Chevy as an AWD option. (Thus cutting costs doing "development" once instead of two times)

Buick is dead. (Unable to carry it's own weight/not competitive in luxury or performance markets)

Options are good. (This thread is about new entry performance car for Chevy, other brands have done it via GTI, Focus/Fiesta, BRZ/FRS, Mini Cooper S and more. All of which in the mid 20's, I would love an AWD option for a lot of Chevy models, but they don't offer anything in the realm of sporty for under 27k being the Turbo 4 Camaro)

Thank you for the good debate!