Vauxhall believes it has two more years to make a decision before the design loses its appeal

Vauxhall-Opel continues to plan the production of the rear-wheel-drive GT concept, unveiled at the Geneva motor show in March, and believes it has two more years to make a decision before the design loses its appeal.

Vauxhall-Opel chairman Karl-Thomas Neumann said: “It’s a car we all love and the public love, so we really want to build it. The question is what the right approach is, so we are studying different directions we could follow.”

The two main possibilities are to create a ‘parts bins’ rear-wheel drive platform or to borrow an off-the-shelf platform. A rear drive platform is essential if the GT is to retain the concept’s proportions in production. Neumann said: “The platform is a complication.”

However, Neumann appeared to rule out the chances of parent company General Motors (GM) creating a parts-bin platform.

“You can take parts and pieces, but it’s a matter of cost. If you do a lot of engineering on the platform, then you can’t do it,” he said.

The most likely solution is to team up with a partner to create a new rear drive platform.“Then you need something off the shelf,” Neumann said. GM’s Chinese partner, SAIC, which owns MG, has been cited as a possibility, but Neumann refused to comment.

Neumann is prepared to wait to find a solution rather than push it with GM’s top brass and risk getting the project canned.

Vauxhall GT makes Geneva motor show debut

Vauxhall GT could get rear-wheel drive system adapted from Mokka SUV

Join our WhatsApp community and be the first to read about the latest news and reviews wowing the car world. Our community is the best, easiest and most direct place to tap into the minds of Autocar, and if you join you’ll also be treated to unique WhatsApp content. You can leave at any time after joining - check our full privacy policy here.

Join the debate

Comments
11
Add a comment…
Ian French 22 January 2017

MAKE THE DAMN THING

This needs to be made. Definately a cool car that will improve Vauxhall's image
winniethewoo 28 December 2016

Christ, why bother? Its like

Christ, why bother? Its like McD's trying to churn out a gourmet burger. For what end? Just keep churning with cheap appliances for people who dont care about cars. Why confuse people? An enthusiast wouldn't touch this with a barge pole anyway, so who is it for?
MG Writer 6 January 2017

winniethewoo wrote:

winniethewoo wrote:

Christ, why bother? Its like McD's trying to churn out a gourmet burger. For what end? Just keep churning with cheap appliances for people who dont care about cars. Why confuse people? An enthusiast wouldn't touch this with a barge pole anyway, so who is it for?

A bit like your comment - why bother? What did you add to the debate?

Einarbb 27 December 2016

A front wheel platform is the obvious solution

I can't see why it can't have the same proportions or quite close to those presented. And FWD platforms are plentiful in GM's parts bin. We know from the BMW Mini that FWD platforms can be fun to drive. Moreover with FWD platform the car could be made -- cheaply enough. No particular reason why it needs to be a direct competitor to the MX5. Let's recall that Lotus did make a FWD sports car years ago. So it's not like it's never been done before. I know some purists will shake their heads in horror. But it's really the only practicably viable solution - if the car is to be built at all in some form. No reason I can perceive why it can't look fairly close to the concept -- assuming all production cars anyhow will have conventional window treatment, no matter which wheels do the driving.
MG Writer 6 January 2017

I see your logic, but it's flawed

Yes, the sports car could be FWD; yes, the MINI is a good(ish) role model. But the Lotus Elan in FWD guise was a flop. If you are going to take the easy way out with FWD then it is a short step to saying why not just make it an Astra Coupe... and so on down the slippery slope to mediocrity. To both fire passion and be successful this project needs both credibility and viability... admittedly not an easy combination to secure.