Actually, the "economy car" title is something I'd attach to any of the "Mid-Lux" cars. These are rental units, pure and simple

 

Sad to hear a fellow engineer say that

Hmm, guess I should go trade in the '91 Caprice wagon winter beater for something more... sensible. And perhaps I shouldn't have driven RWD vehicles for all five winters I spent in Houghton (including one winter where I used my '96 Impy as a daily driver, on the stock 255/50 BFGs, when we got 160" of snow in 6 weeks). And how our parents lived with only RWD, I've got no idea.

I could care less whether I've got RWD or FWD in poor weather - quality tires make far more difference than which wheels are being driven. But I know damn well I can drive a RWD car anywhere I can drive a FWD car, and without a decrease in mobility or safety. If only manufacturers would have stuck decent limited-slips in the back of RWD family cars, it would have been much harder to sell everyone on the myth of FWD traction. But had manufacturers stuck decent limited-slips in high-powered FWD cars, I'm sure that particular drive configuration could have also enjoyed a longer lifespan.

On the issue of the Charger vs. the Impala and overall sales, GM may very well sell many more Impalas than Chargers, but we'll see who makes more money on each model.

 

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Right here is a good question. Who will make more money per unit?

I can only imagine that the simpler and fully amortized W-car is cheaper to build than the more sophisticated LX. Powertrains should be cheaper for GM also, especially the V6's.

But....

If we go by recent history, Charger should sell at slightly below MSRP....but it may be difficult for GM to get that big rebate monkey off it's back.

I wonder really, who will actually make more money per car. I think GM can sell Impala for less than Charger and still make more money. As long as they don't need to resort to dropping $5,000 on the hood of each Impala.