Cts Architecture Mention

[Bruce Nunnally]

I thought this was an interesting part of the larger discussion here:

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102918

with GM's Performance Division Director Mark Reuss:

Does “low cost” rule out using the Cadillac CTS platform?

Well, I don’t know. If you look at the CTS, you have to look at the good things, such as the straight frame barrels on the front that are very efficient for crush and very stiff for vehicle dynamics. We have an short- and long-arm front suspension and a multi-link rear and those … inherently perform very, very well. There are some cost issues compared to a strut suspension. But the geometry and components that you have in a short- and long-arm architecture could change to make a low-cost rear-wheel-drive architecture. We also have aluminum components. We have some pretty expensive materials in there. There are a lot of different ways to get costs down. Right now we are trying to look at what the portfolio looks like for the next 20 years. What are the things we want to do with it? I don’t think the know-how is lacking. It’s specifically, what do we want to do with it over the next 10 years and then making an efficient business decision to address those needs.

What else is the Performance Division working on?

We are actually doing some things for mainline vehicles, such as uplevel engines and with packaging and execution, things we have not been asked to do in the past. I’m launching the Cadillac XLR-V and STS-V, and Chevrolet Trailblazer SS right now. We are spending a lot of time on those launches making sure those cars are right.

[Bob D]

Right now we are trying to look at what the portfolio looks like for the next 20 years.

Now, there's an interesting concept...