Lutz on "new" Zeta.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Lutz on "new" Zeta.
From TCC:
GM's vice chairman set out to set the record straight on a variety of issues following the Opel reveal on Tuesday. For one thing, he told reporters, the automaker's new rear-drive Zeta platform "is not dead or cancelled." Well, not exactly. The original version was, indeed, scrapped a few months back because "we did a lot of not-smart things…that didn't make business sense. We accepted the delay." As originally planned, GM's Australian subsidiary, Holden, will play the lead in developing the revised Zeta platform. But it is less and less likely that it will be able to export cars based on Zeta, at least to the United States. The Australian dollar's gain on the U.S. dollar "pretty much cancels your profits margin," Lutz lamented, so "exports to the U.S. don't look real promising at this point." But there will still be opportunities for Holden to ship product to other markets, such as the Middle East.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Lutz on "new" Zeta.
Frankly, I don't know where all this "Holden will take the lead role in the revised Zeta" comes from. Perhaps they're talking about specific programs....I don't know.
Rest assured that NA will get it - eventually -that's pretty much the whole reason for it to be developed.
Rest assured that NA will get it - eventually -that's pretty much the whole reason for it to be developed.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Lutz on "new" Zeta.
Originally Posted by Z284ever
Frankly, I don't know where all this "Holden will take the lead role in the revised Zeta" comes from. Perhaps they're talking about specific programs....I don't know.
Rest assured that NA will get it - eventually -that's pretty much the whole reason for it to be developed.
Rest assured that NA will get it - eventually -that's pretty much the whole reason for it to be developed.
The only thing that changed is the jump off point. Holden's was the "V" car since basing it on that saves them money. Our's is "Sigma", since it would save us (GM-NA) money. You'll still see Holden developed suspension and components on our cars.
Like I've been saying all along, GM-NA didn't cancel Zeta for NA because of some "inferior" engineering. It's simple economics, and finding a more cost effective way to do all this.
That's all. Nothing more.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,381
Re: Lutz on "new" Zeta.
Originally Posted by guionM
Holden does all the engineering work for volume RWD models. That never changed.
The only thing that changed is the jump off point. Holden's was the "V" car since basing it on that saves them money. Our's is "Sigma", since it would save us (GM-NA) money. You'll still see Holden developed suspension and components on our cars.
The only thing that changed is the jump off point. Holden's was the "V" car since basing it on that saves them money. Our's is "Sigma", since it would save us (GM-NA) money. You'll still see Holden developed suspension and components on our cars.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 200
From: Sydney, Australia
Re: Lutz on "new" Zeta.
How much RWD car experience is there in the NA engineering studios? Corvette and Sigma. That's about it. No low cost, car specific stuff there. So why would GM decide that the best way to utilise its money is to ignore an existing RWD engineering skill base (at Holden), and spend millions builing another engineering center to duplicate something they already have.
GM is a multinational, and the way it is going to survive is to use all the resources it has to their fullest - not by playing the "Not Invented Here" game.
GM is a multinational, and the way it is going to survive is to use all the resources it has to their fullest - not by playing the "Not Invented Here" game.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Lutz on "new" Zeta.
Originally Posted by Decromin
How much RWD car experience is there in the NA engineering studios? Corvette and Sigma. That's about it. No low cost, car specific stuff there. So why would GM decide that the best way to utilise its money is to ignore an existing RWD engineering skill base (at Holden), and spend millions builing another engineering center to duplicate something they already have.
GM is a multinational, and the way it is going to survive is to use all the resources it has to their fullest - not by playing the "Not Invented Here" game.
GM is a multinational, and the way it is going to survive is to use all the resources it has to their fullest - not by playing the "Not Invented Here" game.
I have no argument with that. It's just my impression that Holden is not the lead in this new architecture.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
Re: Lutz on "new" Zeta.
Originally Posted by Decromin
How much RWD car experience is there in the NA engineering studios? Corvette and Sigma. That's about it. No low cost, car specific stuff there.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Lutz on "new" Zeta.
Originally Posted by guionM
Like I've been saying all along, GM-NA didn't cancel Zeta for NA because of some "inferior" engineering.
The issue was never inferior design or even "not invented here" syndrome.
It was always the inability to incorporate something designed for a different process into our system.
Imagine if GMNA were told they needed to start manufacturing the Ford Taurus....and you'll get the idea.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
Re: Lutz on "new" Zeta.
Originally Posted by Z284ever
It was always the inability to incorporate something designed for a different process into our system.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Lutz on "new" Zeta.
Originally Posted by 97z28/m6
maybe they need to change the system.
Look, Saab changed enough on it's Epsilon.....that it would not be possible to manufacture at a US Epsilon plant. That's the whole reason for EP II, to commonize this individual architecture, so any Epsilon can be built at any Epsilon plant.
The goal is to standardize Holden's RWD's with GMNA by the next generation.
Last edited by Z284ever; Sep 15, 2005 at 11:16 AM.