[kach22i]

Someone at GM still likes rear engined cars!

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/oct99/features/smooth/smooth.html

The ideal aerodynamic shape is a raindrop, of course. Yet, forcing that shape upon a functional car body posed a bit of a problem. Squashing the nose made very little space available to an engine, and stretching the tail added a fair amount of weight in unused structure. A rear-mounted engine could relieve a host of concerns. Because it could be mounted transversely between the two nonsteerable rear wheels, an engine in the rear would allow the frontal area to shrink. Frontal area would then depend on the needs of the passengers alone, not the demands of the drivetrain.

As another benefit, a rear-mounted engine would eliminate an exhaust system that spanned the car's entire length. No long, heavy pipe, catalytic converter, or muffler would dangle in the airstream. Thus, the new sedan could retain the flat underbody of the EV1 along with its minimal ground clearance.

Perhaps the biggest benefit of an engine in the rear, though, would be how it could eliminate front air intakes and underbody discharges. Such major surface features cost dearly on the CD ledger. Instead, the engine heat exchanger would take its air as needed through inlets along the rear fender surfaces. Exhausting cooling air out the back would actually help efficiency by filling the wake.

By wearing its cooling-air intakes on the rear fenders—a benefit that comes with mounting the engine in back—the new shape borrows from sibling EV1's success with low ram air