forget engines, what kind of 1/4mi. times should the 5th gen have. [Archive]

jsaylor

09-07-2003, 03:37 PM

Okay, I am a Mustang guys...died in the wool. However, before you stone me, I am also a "save the" F-body advocate because, well, life is just more fun with a direct competitor.
Having paid a great deal of atention to what the next generation Mustang is going to offer, I have heard the reports of "about" 400hp from the next Cobra, etc. I can also tell you that recent "leaks" from people like Coletti (SVT boss) and others within Ford tell us otherwise.
First, I believe it was Coletti who came out the other day and said the next gen Cobra would get the 5.4L DOHC engine underneath the blower this time as the next logical step up in development. This also fits with SVT's publically stated goal to have the Cobra compete with the Vette Z06 and Viper, as they say they intend to position the GT in 911 GT3 and Ferrari 360 terrirtory.

It is pretty well known that Ford is making a switch to Lysholm style twin screw superchargers to replace the roots-type they use now (The new blowers are made by the same company...If you know the companies name this is an ironic switch). This makes sense as the twin screw design is more efficient, runs much cooler, and basically is gonna cost about the same as the roots. Considering that every SVT concept produced lately (The new Lightning concept, the Mustang concept, and the new GT) have featured the twin screw blower it is a pretty safe assumption. The first production GT's have the twin screw already too.

My point is this. The current Cobra makes 400+hp now as the factory rating is a bit shy...just like the last Ram Air F-body cars. Generally, it is unlikely that a company is going to bump displacement nearly a liter, add a much better blower, and not make more hp. The 500hp number seems to be the leading candidate now. Frankly, Ford could simply bolt the twin screw on the current engine and crank out 50hp better than stock easy.

As for Vette hp, I am not very well informed about what the next gen Vette is going to be packing. I have heard rumours of a 6.0L more than once, and I am certain that if Ford is going to stuff 500 ponies into a Mustang Chevy is gonna make sure the F-Body is up to task.

I have wondered if Chevy will soon take the approach of their Aussie brother Holden and slap a blower on the LS1. My reason being that naturally aspirated, OHV engines (non big blocks here) that get in the 500hp plus range tend to show breathing deficincies in factory streetable trim. (The reason Holden went to a blower to make...you guessed it...500hp) And, GM has to make this thing pass emissions too, so it ain't like one of us doing it to our car. When you look at all the limitations, if Chevy does make 500hp from a n/a engine of 6.0L or less....I have to wonder how badly torque will suffer.

I am in no way bad mouthing Chevy, and the LS1 is awesome....but, even if the LS1 makes it throught the next Z06 with OHV and no blower (Assuming 500hp I would be impressed), I can't imagine it taking much more of hp bump without a switch to bigger cubes,OHC's, or artificial aspiration.

And, for those who have heard that the Ford GT makes 500hp which obviously does not jive with a Mustang making the same. Think about that for a second. Pretty much everyone in the know (including main stream auto mags) is already saying GT hp numbers are more like 590hp....at least. God save the new hp wars. :bow:

DarthIROC

09-07-2003, 04:04 PM

Everyone knows the Z28 and SS will be down around 13.0. I think the best thing GM could do for sales is having the base model V6 pushing high 13s, or 14.0. If they could do that with a little bit of styling they would sell alot more to the younger crowd who want a quick Camaro but cant afford a Z.

SNEAKY NEIL

09-07-2003, 05:04 PM

13.0 will NOT cut it! Not only did the last of the current F cars do about that but with the new C6 motor, anything not nicely in the 12's will be unacceptable. I don't think this is wishful thinking at all either. Take into fact that this will be in a few years so GM will have to leapfrog the current offerings to stay ahead in performance and that means Mustang too.

On a side note, I do believe the new ZO6 will be NA and up around 500, so get ready to be impressed. If they did go the blower route, they would have an engine capable of well over 500 hp or they could only use 2 pounds of boost to keep it at 500.

Z284ever

09-07-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by DarthIROC
I think the best thing GM could do for sales is having the base model V6 pushing high 13s, or 14.0. :eek: :eek: :confused: :confused:

DarthIROC

09-07-2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Z284ever
:eek: :eek: :confused: :confused:

Actually I wasnt paying attention to what I was typing, but I still wasnt far off. Low 14s I think would be doable. If they could make the V6s that younger guys could afford halfass compete with stock SRT-4's. Then have the all out Z28s, and SS's running into the high 12's they would gain respect, and thus sales.

Z28x

09-07-2003, 06:22 PM

I think the C6 will come in at:
base 12.5
Z06 11.8

it's the next Z06 getting a 6.4L LS7? if a 6.0L can put out 430HP/430tq (SS concept) then a 6.4L with higher compression should be about to put out 500HP/475tq

My friend has a 2003 Cobra and his best run is a 13.0. I'd expect a 400HP+/- 6.0L Camaro to do a 12.8-13.0.

The next Cobra will be faster due to being lighter but I don't think it will get the GT40 engine, not at first. Maybe a higher rated s/c 4.6L

jsaylor

09-07-2003, 06:31 PM

In regards to the 500hp n/a LS1 issue. First, I think you have to look at the hard facts of emissions and sheer limitations of engines to create power and meet requirements. First of all....not too far in the future new CAFE standards kick in. The current LS1 and LS6 still use the skip shift feature to meet current emissions requirements. Forgive my skepticism, but I am not very optimistic about the chances of adding cubes and around 100hp and not getting worse stuff coming from the exhaust.
If GM is willing to pay a tax to build a car that doesn't quite come in clean enough this may work out fine. But, as they already have a truck line that eats up a lot of extra credit, and the fact that they have not been willing to do this before. I am not convinced about the pushrod, n/a route to 500hp. Not in a car GM wants to build quite a few of. Cars like the Viper get away with this, but they are also very rare, and have a lot more cubes.
Here is my other thought. If you do build an engine that meets the new standards, makes 500hp without going into big block cubes territory, and still uses pushrods without a power adder.....I am not saying it cannot be done, but I am saying does GM want to make the comromise an engine like this would likely require?
It seems pretty obvious, and logical that given all the constraints and requirements the engine would have to be a high revving, high strung engine. In factory engines of less than mammoth displacement this almost always means a significantly weaker torque curve. The rev-it til she screams approach is fine, but it has never been what the Vette is about.
My personal opinion on a 500 plus hp Z06 engine. It will happen and it will be at least six liters. But it either won't have pushrods or it will have a blower. Just my opinion. Also, a blower on a Z06 engine requires a lot more than 2psi of boost to make 500hp. The LS1 is great, but even a four valve engine cannot flow like that.

SNEAKY NEIL

09-07-2003, 07:03 PM

You forgot that it won't be an LS1. It will be a new design and of course a better one.

RiceEating5.0

09-07-2003, 07:22 PM

I think they should atleast be as fast as the competitor (Mustang).

Having said that:

Base: Assuming next Mustang gets 250hp, expect mid 14's. A base car would need at least mid to high 14's.

z28: High 12's or at the slowest 13.0's. The next GT should be have 305-310hp and will most likely be in the 13.0-13.3 range (If you doubt the GT running that fast with only 310hp, just look at the current 305hp Mach 1's mag tested 13.0-13.2 1/4 mile and sub-107mph trap speeds).

SS: 12.5 to 12.7. I'm not implying that the SS should be the top model, GM has and is. It is best if they position the SS against the Cobra's.

As for the Cobra's Hp #'s. Nothing is certain to date, and the new Cobra is a good 2 years away (2006 model). The rumors have hinted at anything from 400-500hp stock. Colletti has said that it, the Lightning, and GT will have the supercooler which will boost output by 50-60hp for 45 sec periods (recharges automatically in 2 min). So realistically, you can expect anywhere between 450-550hp for the next S/c Cobra equipped with the standard supercooler. The S/c engine is either a 4.6L or a 5.4. Assuming it is the 5.4, the 500hp rating (not including supercooler) sounds possible since the Lightning will have a 500hp 5.4.

PacerX

09-07-2003, 08:09 PM

"My friend has a 2003 Cobra and his best run is a 13.0. I'd expect a 400HP+/- 6.0L Camaro to do a 12.8-13.0."

Holy buckets. I ran a 13.0 (107 mph) dead stock. Either he had bad air or he needs to learn how to drive.

Secondly...

GM does not lose horsepower wars with Ford.

C6 is going to beat on Cobras something ugly (500 lbs. is a LOT to overcome), and Viper better get it's act together or the C6 Z06 is going to show them taillights too.

If I were Ford, I'd make darn sure 500hp isn't the target number for the GT40 thingy... whatever they are calling it this week.

IZ28

09-07-2003, 08:33 PM

Base: 14.9
RS: 14.0
Z28/SS: 12.6 at the most
Or a limited content/production Z28: 12.2

By 06 this will all probably be too slow!!

Z28x

09-07-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
"My friend has a 2003 Cobra and his best run is a 13.0. I'd expect a 400HP+/- 6.0L Camaro to do a 12.8-13.0."

Holy buckets. I ran a 13.0 (107 mph) dead stock. Either he had bad air or he needs to learn how to drive.

LOL, he does need to learn how to drive :D , seriously the best 03 Cobra at the track near me has run 12.9X stock, most run 13.0 stock, maybe this fall as the air gets colder they will be quicker.
Right now the the 03/04 Cobra and base C5 seem to be about neck and neck, the C6 should end that.

Originally posted by PacerX
Secondly...

GM does not lose horsepower wars with Ford.

They are losing
Cavi vs. Focus
Silverado vs. Lightning
Camaro vs. Mustang

but the way I see it, they may have won those battles, but the war is not over.

jsaylor

09-07-2003, 09:54 PM

Hey, I was sad to say the F-Body go too. But, I hate to break it to you. If Chevy doesn't lose hp wars in your opinion then maybe you had better take another look at the Silverado SS-Lightning battel for supremacy. Chevy didn't lose, they never showed up. And, if you want to compain about a "Lighter" regular cab Lightning versus an extended cab SS, the Harley Hauler F-150 will smoke the SS nearly as handily. And both the Harley Hauler and Lightning cost less than the SS.
My point is to say that claiming someone "never" loses a hp "war" is ridiculous.

SNEAKY NEIL

09-07-2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Z28x

They are losing
Cavi vs. Focus
Silverado vs. Lightning
Camaro vs. Mustang

but the way I see it, they may have won those battles, but the war is not over.

You could also lok at it as Chevy beats all of them nicely model for model except for the SVT versions because Chevy does not have the counterpart for them. That is what they need to work on and accomplish so they can beat Ford accross the board like it should be.:)

RiceEating5.0

09-07-2003, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
If I were Ford, I'd make darn sure 500hp isn't the target number for the GT40 thingy... whatever they are calling it this week.

You refer to the best and only "real" exotic from the Big 3 as a "thingy":D?

It's been called the GT ever since they were approved for production some time last year.

I'm sure the actual numbers will be more than 500. The 500 seems to be an estimate that has been thrown around, and every article i've read with the 500hp estimate had also pointed out that the 500hp would be fairly "conservative rating". I've seen 550 published in Car & Driver once. With the supercooler providing an additional 50-60hp, actual number may very well be in excess of 600+ hp. "Estimates" of 0-60 in 3.5 sec and low 11 sec 1/4 miles were also published. No real #'s to date, just estimates.

We won't know till they hit the street next year or people strap them on to dyno's.

The c6 z06 will be a very nice car and even a better performance value for your dollar than the GT's, but the GT is just in a whole different class. I don't think Ford made the GT to directly compete with the zo6's and Vipers, but rather the Ferrari's, Lamborghini Gallardo's, and Porsche GT2's.

AdioSS

09-08-2003, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by jsaylor
I have wondered if Chevy will soon take the approach of their Aussie brother Holden and slap a blower on the LS1. My reason being that naturally aspirated, OHV engines (non big blocks here) that get in the 500hp plus range tend to show breathing deficincies in factory streetable trim. (The reason Holden went to a blower to make...you guessed it...500hp) And, GM has to make this thing pass emissions too, so it ain't like one of us doing it to our car. When you look at all the limitations, if Chevy does make 500hp from a n/a engine of 6.0L or less....I have to wonder how badly torque will suffer.

I am in no way bad mouthing Chevy, and the LS1 is awesome....but, even if the LS1 makes it throught the next Z06 with OHV and no blower (Assuming 500hp I would be impressed), I can't imagine it taking much more of hp bump without a switch to bigger cubes,OHC's, or artificial aspiration.

You've been brainwashed to believe that OHC engines are vastly superior to OHV pushrod engines.

Remember this, there is no replacement for displacement :)

~400cid making 500hp NA will be pretty impressive. That's 1.25hp per cid. If Ford's 4.6L was that strong NA, then it would be pushing over 350hp. Even with DOHC, did any NA 4.6L Ford make that much from the factory?

About the emmisions, with DoD, the engine will be cleaner than ever before dispite being much larger in displacement.

PacerX

09-08-2003, 08:19 AM

"They are losing
Cavi vs. Focus
Silverado vs. Lightning
Camaro vs. Mustang

but the way I see it, they may have won those battles, but the war is not over."

1) Camaro beat the snot out of Mustang for the 9 years prior to it getting axed.

2) Cavi vs. Focus? I own a Cavalier and I couldn't care less.

3) Silverado SS vs. Lightning. Yes. Rest of the truck line up? NO.

"My point is to say that claiming someone "never" loses a hp "war" is ridiculous."

Well then, we can establish that you're wrong. Ford has been beaten down in the power category since well before 1970. Let's see... Lightning.... 2003 Cobra... HD F-150.... ***Insert Cricket Noises Here***

It's never been close Ford had a little time in the sun with 5.0 liter Mustangs. Then GM fires back with Buick Grand Nationals and TTA's. Ugly...

GM's at the end of a powertrain cycle right now, Ford has just started one. The bar is going up a few notches in 2005...

"You refer to the best and only "real" exotic from the Big 3 as a "thingy"?

It's been called the GT ever since they were approved for production some time last year."

Real exotic? That thing?

Mark my words...

6 years from now, there will be Corvette, yet again, all alone as America's sports car. It has been, is and evermore will be. Maybe Viper can hang on that long (not looking promising...), but the Ford poser will be consigned to the scrap heap of history (again...) in short order.

uluz28

09-08-2003, 10:26 AM

Whoever said that the current Cobra is a even match for the current Z06 needs to put the crack pipe down. Current Z06's trap around 116 in stock form, and the Cobra is no where near that. From what I've seen (first hand) the Cobra runs around 110 stock...

RiceEating5.0

09-08-2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by PacerX

Real exotic? That thing?

Mark my words...

6 years from now, there will be Corvette, yet again, all alone as America's sports car. It has been, is and evermore will be. Maybe Viper can hang on that long (not looking promising...), but the Ford poser will be consigned to the scrap heap of history (again...) in short order.

Bro, don't take offense to this, but you have no idea how rediculous this post sounded. Brand loyalty is obviously getting the best of you. Just admit it. If it had a bowtie in place of an oval, you'd be praising it as gods personal gift to man;).

The GT fits the bill of an exotic to a T, and it is far from some "poser" as you billed it. The 1st GT was recently auctioned off at over $500,000+, and at $125-150k MSRP is a very worthy competitor in its class (360, GT2, Lambo Gallardo, etc...). Quite the poser. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is very far (as far as far gets) from the truth.

Again, the GT is not a direct vette competitor. Comparing the vette to a GT is like comparing a Cobra to a vette. The c6 will most likly be out-classed and outperformed in every aspect, just as the Cobra is.

As for the vette outlasting it. There are rumors that Ford may not build the GT after 07. The ONLY purpose of the GT was to apply some polish to the recently dirtied blue oval badge, and that called for a Halo car that boosted the image of Ford. Once things get back on track for Ford, they may do away with the GT. That wouldn't make the vette a better car though. What ever limited #'s Ford builds will all be sold off (Even at way above MSRP and with crazy markups), and they'll have their place in the history books. The vette may also have 50 years of history, but that doesn't hold a candle to the GT-40's legendary domination of Lemans. Quantity doesn't always equal quality;). That's not to say that the vette didn't have a quality 50 years (it did), but it's history is by no means any more storied or better than the GT-40's.

This isn't a put down on the vette since it shines in its very own way. The vette truely is an amazing car too. I'm just putting things into prospective.

RiceEating5.0

09-08-2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by uluz28
Whoever said that the current Cobra is a even match for the current Z06 needs to put the crack pipe down. Current Z06's trap around 116 in stock form, and the Cobra is no where near that. From what I've seen (first hand) the Cobra runs around 110 stock...

The Cobra could trap 150mph and it still wouldn't be a z06 caliber vehicle. Hp, 1/4 miles, or even performance alone don't make the car.

However, I've seen traps speeds as high as 113.5mph (from MM&FF and Motor Trend). Saying it isn't even close isn't true. That's pretty much inline with the 385hp z06's and not far from the 116mph you posted.

Still, the Cobra is and most likely never will be a c5 caliber car let alone a z06. It still is a Mustang.

poSSum

09-08-2003, 01:36 PM

Track Pack - stone stock - mid to high 12's under normal weather conditions with a competent, non-professional driver.

I would then expect someone like Evan Smith (sp?) to rip off a high 11 run under favourable conditions.

PacerX

09-08-2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Bro, don't take offense to this, but you have no idea how rediculous this post sounded. Brand loyalty is obviously getting the best of you. Just admit it. If it had a bowtie in place of an oval, you'd be praising it as gods personal gift to man;).

Not at all. If it had a bowtie on it I'd be knee-deep in somebody's a$$ screaming about how it is nowhere near enough car for the money.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
The GT fits the bill of an exotic to a T, and it is far from some "poser" as you billed it. The 1st GT was recently auctioned off at over $500,000+, and at $125-150k MSRP is a very worthy competitor in its class (360, GT2, Lambo Gallardo, etc...). Quite the poser. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is very far (as far as far gets) from the truth.

Pffft.

The Mosler Photon is an exotic. Lamborghini builds exotics. The Enzo is an exotic.

Ford + exotic is an oxymoron.

That's OK, Chevrolet doesn't build exotics either... they just build a car that outperforms many of them for a third of the price. And if I were Ford, I'd be afraid... very afraid. Chevrolet has a very good chance of embarrasing their "pseudo exotic" in short order.

P.S. I know a bit more about this car than you give me credit for... and we'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Again, the GT is not a direct vette competitor. Comparing the vette to a GT is like comparing a Cobra to a vette. The c6 will most likly be out-classed and outperformed in every aspect, just as the Cobra is.

Again, I HIGHLY doubt this. The General is packing serious heat this time around.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
As for the vette outlasting it. There are rumors that Ford may not build the GT after 07. The ONLY purpose of the GT was to apply some polish to the recently dirtied blue oval badge, and that called for a Halo car that boosted the image of Ford. Once things get back on track for Ford, they may do away with the GT. That wouldn't make the vette a better car though. What ever limited #'s Ford builds will all be sold off (Even at way above MSRP and with crazy markups), and they'll have their place in the history books.

It'll be gone. ***POOF***

Edsel...
Thundertub...
GT...

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
The vette may also have 50 years of history, but that doesn't hold a candle to the GT-40's legendary domination of Lemans. Quantity doesn't always equal quality;). That's not to say that the vette didn't have a quality 50 years (it did), but it's history is by no means any more storied or better than the GT-40's.

Step away from the crack pipe. Corvette vs. GT40? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I seem to remember some Corvettes winning LeMans...

There can be only one.

Supra found that out. So did the RX-8 and the 300ZX. Viper's next. The GT will follow shortly.

All consigned to the scrap pile of cars that dared to challenge the Corvette on it's own turf.

SNEAKY NEIL

09-08-2003, 03:27 PM

I have a really good feeling that the "GT" is going to get smoked by the next ZO6. Handleing is only going to get better on it too. Other wanabes better watch out. Of course this is all speculation but from what info is available at this time, the ZO6 is going to be a monster.

I also don't think the "GT" will be here that long, there are just too many variables for it's success(performance, dated styling, price, reputaion, competition, "exotic factor",ect).

Z28x

09-08-2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I also don't think the "GT" will be here that long, there are just too many variables for it's success(performance, dated styling, price, reputaion, competition, "exotic factor",ect).

THe GT is just ment to be a limited time niche vehicle, not a new model that will be around for the next 50 years.

I think if Caddy made the Cien they would been in the same boat. Make a Hot supercar for just a few years just to boost your brands image.

RiceEating5.0

09-08-2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
Not at all. If it had a bowtie on it I'd be knee-deep in somebody's a$$ screaming about how it is nowhere near enough car for the money.

And what are the basis for this? The vette? Gimme a break. You think all cars are built alike? Aluminum, space-framed, mid engined, hand-built, 15” braked, 200+mph cars don't come cheap. All cars aren't built the same. As an engineer, you more than anyone should know that.

Originally posted by PacerX
Pffft.

The Mosler Photon is an exotic. Lamborghini builds exotics. The Enzo is an exotic.

Ford + exotic is an oxymoron.

So that's the only logic you're going by? Not a very good one. Just because Ford isn't known for Exotics, the GT is less of an exotic? Going by that logic, the Cien wasn't an exotic because it was a Cadillac. The v12 powered Ford GT-90 and Indigo weren't exotic? “But…they've got a ford badge”. Come on man:D. The GT has the pure DNA of an exotic.

Vw is rumored to have a v12 powered exotic (Might share things with the new Buggati) in the works and Honda makes the NSX. The badge alone doesn't make one car less of an exotic. One can easily tell that the GT isn't your average Ford. Add in the Gt-40's well known history, and it having a Ford badge doesn't matter. It its own brand within a brand (much like corvette within Chevy)

Originally posted by PacerX
That's OK, Chevrolet doesn't build exotics either... they just build a car that outperforms many of them for a third of the price. And if I were Ford, I'd be afraid... very afraid. Chevrolet has a very good chance of embarrasing their "pseudo exotic" in short order.

To embarrass it, it’ll have to outperform and out-class it. Both of which I doubt the c6 will do. I don’t think the Ferrari 360 or 575M owner would care about a z06 beating or coming close to the performance of his sub-200k performance car. 2 very different markets with different consumers.

Originally posted by PacerX
P.S. I know a bit more about this car than you give me credit for... and we'll leave it at that.

Then give the GT and Ford their due credit.

Originally posted by PacerX
Again, I HIGHLY doubt this. The General is packing serious heat this time around.

So does the current and upcoming 2006 Cobra, but that doesn’t make it a vette competitor. #’s are only one part of the puzzle or what make a car. Heck, there are rumors of the next Cobra having a z06 matching 500hp. What ever it is, it’ll have more than the regular c6 vette.

Originally posted by PacerX
It'll be gone. ***POOF***

Edsel...
Thundertub...
GT...

The only thing that would kill the GT is Ford themselves. And i only say that because the GT owns its existance to Ford needing a Halo car to boost its somewhat tarnished image. Once thing are back on track, they may kill it off due to them not needing it as an image booster. Maybe they'll keep it around. The car will not fail or lead to it’s own grave. Someone already paid well over $500,000 in an auction for the 1st GT and he/She won't even recieve dilevery till next spring. lAnd demand is said to be so high, that getting one would have to involve you “be-friending” the dealer selling it. Doesn’t sound like the GT is struggling.

Originally posted by PacerX
Step away from the crack pipe. Corvette vs. GT40? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Please, even the Mustang has had a history rich lifespan. Some argue that it's very close to the vettes. Don't think 50 years and some good cars can hold a candle to pure "racing" heritage, domination, and legendary wins at the most coveted racing series.

Sorry, I don’t do drugs either. They’re bad for you;).

Yeah i know it laughable. Again, Cobra vs Vette like comparo. Bwahahahahhaha indeed.

Originally posted by PacerX
I seem to remember some Corvettes winning LeMans...

Ohh, i didn't know they finally took out Audi and posted 1, 2, and 3 overall. The C5-R does well in its respective class which is GTS. There's a difference between winning in your respective class, and winning Overall. Ferrari was the Audi of the 60's, and Ford had no trouble trouncing them for 1, 2, and 3 overall (multiple times). When Vettes beats those dominating Audi's and force them out of LeMans, i'll put the C5-R on the same pedestal as the GT-40. Lofty task though seeing as how Cadillac, which runs in the same class as the Audi’s has failed miserably. 40 years from now, will most of the auto industry recall or even mention the C5-R’s 2003 LeMans finish in GTS? Lol. Both have been successful in their respective classes, but it’s far from equal.

Originally posted by PacerX
There can be only one.

Supra found that out. So did the RX-8 and the 300ZX. Viper's next. The GT will follow shortly.

All consigned to the scrap pile of cars that dared to challenge the Corvette on it's own turf.

You’ve missing the point bro. All those cars were vette competitors (the supra was more than worthy), but the GT isn’t. They (GT) aren’t challenging vettes nor are they on the vette’s turf, they’re challenging certain Ferrari’s, Porsches, and Lambo’s and playing on their turf. Big difference. Compared to those exotics, the GT will pack a lot more performance and come in at substantially less. The Ferrari 360 was its specific target, and about the only Ferrari that’ll beat it would be the Mega-exotic Enzo. The 575 and the mid-trim Ferrari’s will fall short.

“When the GT goes on sale next spring, it will be a remarkable bargain at less than $150k. That undercuts the 360 Modena, a wonderful car that the GT should leave in its dust.” -----Car & Driver.

One mans rip-off is another mans bargain;). My father will tell you vettes are rip-offs (he can’t fathom paying that much for a car), but to most of us, it’s a bargain. For those that have the money, the GT will offer them everything the GT2’s, Lambo Gallardo’s, and 360’s offers at a much cheaper price. To them, the GT might be a bargain.

RiceEating5.0

09-08-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Z28x
THe GT is just ment to be a limited time niche vehicle, not a new model that will be around for the next 50 years.

I think if Caddy made the Cien they would been in the same boat. Make a Hot supercar for just a few years just to boost your brands image.

Finaly, someone that gets the real picture:D.

At the most 4,500 GT's will be built and 2007 is rumored to be the cut-off date. That's not certain, but those might be Fords goals.

PacerX

09-08-2003, 04:57 PM

SNEAKY NEIL

09-08-2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
And what are the basis for this? The vette? Gimme a break. You think all cars are built alike? Aluminum, space-framed, mid engined, hand-built, 15” braked, 200+mph cars don't come cheap. All cars aren't built the same. As an engineer, you more than anyone should know that.

---------Who cares what it is made out of or what the hardware is as long as it performs. Handbuilt just means more expensive to produce and a more expensive car for the consumer.

So that's the only logic you're going by? Not a very good one. Just because Ford isn't known for Exotics, the GT is less of an exotic? Going by that logic, the Cien wasn't an exotic because it was a Cadillac. The v12 powered Ford GT-90 and Indigo weren't exotic? “But…they've got a ford badge”. Come on man:D. The GT has the pure DNA of an exotic.

---------Ford isn't known for exotics, not by a long shot and I think it is a very tough area to break into. Ford definatly has thier work cut out for them. As PacerX stated, people are not going to cross shop a Farrari or a Lambo.............they have the name, weather that is right or wrong, that's the way it is.

So does the current and upcoming 2006 Cobra, but that doesn’t make it a vette competitor. #’s are only one part of the puzzle or what make a car. Heck, there are rumors of the next Cobra having a z06 matching 500hp. What ever it is, it’ll have more than the regular c6 vette.

---------So how do you know the Cobra will have more than a base Vette? We don't even know what the base Vette will have much less a Cobra that is years away. Even if the Cobra has more HP, don't think that this will make it faster because we do know that the Vette will be much lighter than the Cobra.

Please, even the Mustang has had a history rich lifespan. Some argue that it's very close to the vettes. Don't think 50 years and some good cars can hold a candle to pure "racing" heritage, domination, and legendary wins at the most coveted racing series.

---------The GT40's history is pretty old and very brief and no one actually owned one as a vehicle so there is no customer loyalty, stories of driving, or "feelings" in the car except for the, "I remember way back when I saw it on TV...................."

40 years from now, will most of the auto industry recall or even mention the C5-R’s 2003 LeMans finish in GTS?

---------They will when they keep winning.

You’ve missing the point bro. All those cars were vette competitors (the supra was more than worthy), but the GT isn’t. They (GT) aren’t challenging vettes nor are they on the vette’s turf, they’re challenging certain Ferrari’s, Porsches, and Lambo’s and playing on their turf. Big difference. Compared to those exotics, the GT will pack a lot more performance and come in at substantially less. The Ferrari 360 was its specific target, and about the only Ferrari that’ll beat it would be the Mega-exotic Enzo. The 575 and the mid-trim Ferrari’s will fall short.

---------------The GT is not a Vette competitor as such but if someone in a shiny new GT gets his doors blown off by a lowly Vette, then there will be an image problem and that person might not feel as good about thier purchase.
Also, Farrari, Porsche, and Lambo have been doing this for decades so don't think that it is so easy to just jump right in. I am not saying that the "GT" won't be successful, but I think they have an uphill battle for themselves.

“When the GT goes on sale next spring, it will be a remarkable bargain at less than $150k. That undercuts the 360 Modena, a wonderful car that the GT should leave in its dust.” -----Car & Driver.

--------------We will have to see what it can do when it comes out.

RiceEating5.0

09-08-2003, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
I know this...

For 50 years, and more specifically since 1984, Chevrolet has managed to build a car that can compete with any of the exotics built and normally available.

That “any exotic built” is stretching it out a bit;). Real exotics aren’t normally available either (available as in corvette available) and are rather rare. I’m not trying to take anything away from the vette, but I want to give those exotics their due credit as well. The z06 and the Zl-1’s are the real vette winners here. The lt-1 and Ls-1 vettes were just mediocre when compared to exotics. They aren’t slaying any many Porsche 911 turbos. They’d have their hands full with the average Supra TT, M3, and sub-4000lb M5 sedan.

Originally posted by PacerX
They do it year in and year out.

Corvette doesn’t disappoint (except the 70’s and early 80’s and that’s excusable).

Originally posted by PacerX
No Corvette driver that brings one to a track needs to hold his head in shame running them against all comers.

They shouldn’t. We aren’t talking about a cavvy here. The corvette is a respected premium performance car and the #’s the z06 brings to the table shouldn’t be taken lightly. No shame there. It still is one heck of a car.

Originally posted by PacerX
The entire assumption of your thread is that Ford is someway, somehow going to do something smarter than Porsche, BMW, Ferrari and Lamborghini have been trying to do for decades and have failed at - embarrasing a Corvette. Hasn't happened.

Porsche, BMW, Ferrari, and Lambo are not failures. They are success stories and the pinnacle of styling, performance, class/prestige, technology, quality, etc…. They cost and fetch a hefty premium, and for good reasons too. They never tried to embarrass or go after the vette. They had their own sets of goals, standards, and values.

Originally posted by PacerX
Now, the rest is subjective, but I can guarantee you this:

Corvette makes money. Corvette makes lots of money. Cars that make money get money invested into them so that they can continue to make money.

Ford seemed to have invested heavily in the GT. They don’t plan on mass-marketing the GT as chevy does the vette. They’ll build a certain amount (few thousands), charge a certain price (100k+), and sell all of them. End of story. Ford doesn’t want them on every block.

Originally posted by PacerX
Viper loses money.
Supra lost money by the bushel because Toyota couldn't give them away, so did RX-7 and 300ZX. The GT will NOT make money, and Ford is hurting.

The GT wasn’t put into production to make money, it was put in to boost image. If they were worried about sales, they’d have offered a lesser and cheaper alternative. Ford has made that very clear. If money was the big issue, they wouldn’t have bothered with the GT to begin with. That task belongs to the Mustangs, F-series, taurus’s, focus’s, expedition, explorers, escapes, etc…. Not the GT.

Originally posted by PacerX
It's a walking victim, and it's gonna get the ax.
I'm an engineer, and I can tell you this:
Either you make money, or you're dead meat.

See above. There are exceptions to the rule. That and Ford will easily sell the dew thousands they plan on building.

Originally posted by PacerX
WRONG.

1) If you think for a second that a Ferrari owner is going to cross-shop a Ford, I submit you are VERY wrong.

Again, you try and paint the GT as just another Ford. That’s the missing link in your argument, therefore voiding this whole assumption. It’s more than just another Ford and one look is all the proof one needs.

Jay leno seemed to have taken a liking to the GT. In fact, he and a few other celebs as well as the media showed up for some test drive or media intro not too long ago. Ever looked Leno’s garage? I’m sure you’ll find lots of Euro’s finest. He seems to be a ready and eager customer.

Originally posted by PacerX
2) The Corvette DOES NOT have to out-perform it or out-class it. First, it's a Corvette, and by the name alone it already out-classes the GT - which the general public will have to be EDUCATED about in the first place. Corvette is an icon, everybody knows what it is.

The corvette outclassing a GT? Lol. Just due to the name? If you can’t recognize or recall the GT-40, you don’t deserve to own the GT. A huge part of exotics is performance, and anyone who has a clue of performance and racing history knows the GT/40. Ford isn’t selling the GT to the general public so it doesn’t matter whether the masses are educated on the GT or not. It isn’t for the average joe. The average joe wouldn’t know what a Buggatti, Konigg, Mosler, or a Mclaren is. I guess the vette out-classes all of them just due to the fact that it’s recognized by the average joe? Nope. Heck, the civic and Mustang are well recognized name-plates. To think Fords own Mustang out-classes their GT…that’s one heck of a thought:D. Same logic since the Mustang too is an Icon and one of America’s favorite cars.

Originally posted by PacerX
Second, all Corvette has to do is get CLOSE in performance for 1/3 of the price to embarrass it - and it will easily. GM does not take Corvette lightly, and they have TONS more money to throw at it than Ford does at the GT. Bet the farm on that one.

Again, have a look at the Ferrari 360 Modena and 911 Turbo. I doubt they or their buyers care that a car costing a third less is creeping close to their #’s. I’d hardly say they feel embarrassed. You’re buying more than just #’s.

As for money thrown in, A look at how the GT is built is and the stuff that went into building it all the proof I need. There’s nothing cheap about it. In the end, one company is charging 120-150k for one and the other 60-65k at most. Which has more money thrown in it? :D. Chevy couldn’t offer a “REAL” GT caliber vehicle (not just performance but everything else) for less than 100k. That’s fine though, since that wasn’t GM’s goal nor the vettes formula.

Originally posted by PacerX
Corvette vs. Mustang?

Not even worth a response.

It isn’t, and that holds true for the GT vs Vette. 2 different cars with 2 different intentions.

Originally posted by PacerX
It's a fun discussion though GT vs. Vette. Regards!

It is fun. It’s also funny how our opinions and views strongly differ too:D.

Z28x

09-09-2003, 12:31 AM

I'll try to get this thread back on topic.

I think the base V6 target times should be that of around the V6 Altima, Accord, and V6 stang which should be around 14.8-14.9

assuming the Z28/SS is going to use a 6.0L V8 at around 400HP and be able to do the 1/4mi. in 12.9 or less, I think we could use a Camaro that can do between LS1 and LT1 times, say 13.9. LT1s were fast cars and not everyone wants/needs a 12 sec. car, A Camaro 13.9 Camaro should be fast enough to make a lot of people happy.

RiceEating5.0

09-09-2003, 12:53 AM

---------Who cares what it is made out of or what the hardware is as long as it performs. Handbuilt just means more expensive to produce and a more expensive car for the consumer.

For the price they charge, I care as do many others. The hardware and about everything else matter. When you spend upwards of 50,000 dollars, things other than performance matter a great deal. If I wanted performance alone, I’d have bought some cheap car and modded it myself for tons less(which I’m doing).

Going along this whole performance/dollar logic and it being an indicator of a cars value, why even buy a C5 vette when I can get an f-bod with the same exact powertrain for 50% of the price? Does the 50% price equal a 50% increase in performance over an Ls-1 F-bod? Nope. I get the same exact ¼ miles and 70% of the handling. Maybe even closer to 80% of handling with the 1LE upgrade. Is the C5 a rip-off when an Ls-1 f-bod costing 50% less will give you roughly 80% of the performance?. No. That’s the point I’m making here. The GT may cost more than a c6 z06, and the c6 zo6 may be able to give you roughly 80-85% of the performance, but does that make it a better car and the GT a rip-off? Take a good look at the ls-1 f-bod and c5 scenario. There’s a good reason why one costs more than the other. A lot more went into that C5, just as a lot more obviously went into that GT.

Hand-built=craftsmanship and attention to detail. Yes it = expensive which is why only very expensive cars and exotics usually get this treatment.

---------Ford isn't known for exotics, not by a long shot and I think it is a very tough area to break into. Ford definatly has thier work cut out for them. As PacerX stated, people are not going to cross shop a Farrari or a Lambo.............they have the name, weather that is right or wrong, that's the way it is.

I understand but I believe that the GT/40 also has the name and the history. I personally feel that the potential buyer will see the GT for what it is and not just a Ford. I don’t view the vette as just a chevy, the vipers as just a dodge, the NSX as just a Honda/Acura, the Cien concept as just a Cadillac, the GT/90 and Indigo concepts as just Fords, etc… The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The GT is not short on image, class, performance, or exotic factor just because it has a blue oval badge. It is more than just a Ford, it’s the Halo car, and one that conjures images of the original racing legend.

The stripped Cobra R, a lowly Mustang (not really lowly), was marked up to hell and sold like hotcakes. The 300 were sold quickly and were probably spoken for before even production. Some went for as high as $90,000 dollars. It was a Mustang and a Ford, so why didn’t that stop it from demanding a very high premium? I think this holds true for the GT (the GT is actually worthy of the hefty premium unlike the Cobra R)

---------So how do you know the Cobra will have more than a base Vette? We don't even know what the base Vette will have much less a Cobra that is years away. Even if the Cobra has more HP, don't think that this will make it faster because we do know that the Vette will be much lighter than the Cobra.

It’s like asking “how do we know the c6 z06 will perform as well as the GT’s or even close?” We don’t, and it’s based purely off speculation. The rumored c6 #’s have hinted at a sub-420hp for base and 500hp for the z06. The current Cobra already makes close to 410-420 realistically. Colletti has said it and all other S/c svt vehicles will receive the supercooler as well. Expect a 50-60hp boost there. There’s also rumors of a 500hp version and it packing a S/c 5.4 in place of the S/c 4.6L, and this rumor could be true for all we know. The Lightning will get a 500hp S/c 5.4. 3 years ago, no one would have believed Ford would have a 400+hp Cobra in 2003, so don’t dismiss this. Unless the base c6 is packing upwards of 460hp (110hp increase over c5), the Cobra (with supercooler) could very well likely outpower it.

I’m sure the Cobra won’t hold a candle to the c6’s handling, but straight-line acceleration may/could be close (again, speculation). The fastest 03 Cobra’s have already turned 12.4’s and sub-113mph traps. It doesn’t take much to get low 12’s or even high 11’s. With a good enough HP increase and extra boost from supercooler for the 06 Cobra, these times could be possible depending on output. However, that wont put it in the same class or make the Cobra a vette competitor.

---------The GT40's history is pretty old and very brief and no one actually owned one as a vehicle so there is no customer loyalty, stories of driving, or "feelings" in the car except for the, "I remember way back when I saw it on TV...................."

You want stories of driving? Talk to guys like Dan Gurney (sp?) who have driven them to the finish lines. He’ll have plenty of good stories to tell. Much better ones too than some average joe across the street. History is what has made certain cars (ex: Mustang and vette) popular, why can’t it do the same with the Gt-40’s. Loyalty, and feelings of past models go out the door here. This isn’t some mass-produced car and it isn’t a car for everyone. Very few could afford it, and even less would be able to buy it since it will be sold and built in limited #’s.

---------They will when they keep winning.

You missed the point. It isn’t going to have the whole racing world on its heels. Say 40 years from now and people look back at the sub-2000 year LeMans, they’ll be talking of Audi dominating with a 1, 2, 3 finish, not the C5-R finishing 7th or 8th overall. The C5-R’s record has been very impressive, and is unrivaled in GTS, but those wins are not Gt-40 or Audi caliber wins. That’s not to discredit the C5-R’s Lemans accomplishments though. The C5-R has been successful, and hopefully will continue to be successful. I root for every American car and the C5-R is a personal favorite of mine.

---------------The GT is not a Vette competitor as such but if someone in a shiny new GT gets his doors blown off by a lowly Vette, then there will be an image problem and that person might not feel as good about thier purchase.
Also, Farrari, Porsche, and Lambo have been doing this for decades so don't think that it is so easy to just jump right in. I am not saying that the "GT" won't be successful, but I think they have an uphill battle for themselves.

Every new comer has to fight an uphill battle. Some are successful right from the start, and others aren’t. The secret formula is to offer a just as good product for less, and the GT comes with the goods and a very competitive price. While the Lambo’s may have decades under their belt, they don’t have quality LeMan records/wins. The GT will not be lacking history, image, or passion despite it being a new-comer. Trust me on that. It isn’t a complete “freshmen” or newbie in the racing/performance world.

Yes they have an uphill battle, but the road up this hill imo seems nicely paved;).

RiceEating5.0

09-09-2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Z28x
I'll try to get this thread back on topic.

I think the base V6 target times should be that of around the V6 Altima, Accord, and V6 stang which should be around 14.8-14.9

assuming the Z28/SS is going to use a 6.0L V8 at around 400HP and be able to do the 1/4mi. in 12.9 or less, I think we could use a Camaro that can do between LS1 and LT1 times, say 13.9. LT1s were fast cars and not everyone wants/needs a 12 sec. car, A Camaro 13.9 Camaro should be fast enough to make a lot of people happy.

What was the original topic again?:p. We have gotten way off base.

To get back on topic, I doubt we'll see more than 2 engines in a 5th gen (one 6 and one 8). That pretty much rules out a middle engine.

PacerX

09-09-2003, 01:21 AM

"Hand-built=craftsmanship and attention to detail. Yes it = expensive which is why only very expensive cars and exotics usually get this treatment."

Absolutely, completely, totally and unconditionally wrong.

NO human being is more repeatable or accurate than a machine. NONE.

Hand built = "we didn't have enough cash to buy the proper fixturing and equipment to make a world-class car".

Human being vs. robotic welder?

Robotic welder every time.

Human being vs. automated setting fixture?

Automated setting fixture every time.

Human being vs. CNC mill or lathe?

CNC mill/lathe every time.

Rolls Royce buys transmissions because they can't afford to manufacture them - they buy GM transmissions because GM can. Hand built, $500,000 car... 4L80 tranny.

Same one GM trucks get.

Now... here's another point.

Porsche and Ferrari have gotten their rumps handed to them by the Z06, at less than HALF their price point - FOR YEARS. Go check the numbers.

On top of that, the quality disaster known as Ferrari can't hold a candle to Corvette for build quality, and Corvette routinely hammers on the Porsches in JD Powers surveys.

Now, explain to me, really slowly, how a hand build (i.e. SUBSTANDARD) body process is going to beat a state of the art body shop.

ANSWER: It won't.

siggs229

09-09-2003, 03:13 AM

Could that thread be any longer ???? :confused:

Highlander

09-09-2003, 05:09 AM

This thread has evolved into something else...but:

I do want to comment on the original posts by jay:

DoD as said by AdioSS is a good idea and it will work. Remember that the Ls1 had many criticism for being a OHV engine, and look what has become of it... 1) imagine an engine doing over 30mpg and still making 12s in the 1/4 without a hitch!!!!!!!! 500HP is not all that difficult for the current Lsx engines... Specially when you add headers and you add other stuff... Look at what for did to the Mach 1 ;) may aftermarket combos already from factory... it makes a meaner factory engine, but still... not good enough..

There is a rumor that the c6 will get the 427 (7L) engine. I do not see that being difficult to hit the 500HP mark with it.. With bigger displacement you can have a radical cam and not be hurt down low or lack of torque ;) this is not a 4.6.

Check out the people at www.cartek.net and you will see what the current LS is still capable of... I think that with the variable timing it would help out reach the 500HP mark.. The new engine comes with more improvements in head design over the LS6 and that is impressive..

A side note... the ohv engine is a lot cleaner and more efficient in the lower rpms than it is the OHC engine with 4 valves/cyl... If they cant hit the power mark from factory to meet emissions or something else I am sure they will make the design that with 500 bucks of bolt ons it will be surpassed EASY... We have to wait and see what it comes out...

GM has always been just a bit ahead of everyone else with regards to performance and some aspects, or at least that is my impression...

The cobra is an outstanding competitor and its in the ls6 territory for 15k less and the cobra has an expandability that the corvette doesn't have...

Hitting the 500HP mark with a supercharger should be easy, but I think it would raise the cost of the engine in forging and I strongly believe that Ford is LOOSING $ on the cobra just to gain it on the other models, for having bragging rights? or just to convert cheaper ones into cobras easily and have bragging rights... So, I dont think they will put a S/C on it.. Besides, they have had many problems with the 3.8s/c. So.. I dont thinkso.. or at least not for the moment ;)

My thoughts are a bit jumpy but its 5am ;)

RiceEating5.0

09-09-2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
Absolutely, completely, totally and unconditionally wrong.

NO human being is more repeatable or accurate than a machine. NONE.

Hand built = "we didn't have enough cash to buy the proper fixturing and equipment to make a world-class car".

Tell that to every maker of 100,000+ dollar cars. If it's so sub-standard, then why do these respected manufacturers openly advertise it? Why is it basically expected/mandetory in the 100,000+ dollar price bracket? Why does ford advertise that the 4.6 Cobra engine is hand-built? truely, Ford does have the resources to mechanize everythiing for the GT and Cobra, so why did they take that specific route? Why did they hand-build the Cobra engine and the whole GT if it was so sub-standard? They clearly have access to machining, robotics, etc...Heck, why do i see stuff like "hand-painted", "hand-made", etc... adverticed in products all the time?

As for the Gm tranny, there are exotics that use stock, slightly modified, and heavily modified Ford 4.6L cobra engines. I could name 3-5, with one of them being the 250mph Konigg CC (sp?). Maybe they thought that product was good enough for use in their cars. GM does make excellent tranny's and some of them are more than good enough for use in any car, even a R-R.

Now... here's another point.

Porsche and Ferrari have gotten their rumps handed to them by the Z06, at less than HALF their price point - FOR YEARS. Go check the numbers.

Actually, the z06 is no faster than 911 Turbo nor is it any faster around a track than either it or the 360. I've seen the numbers. As close as they may be, no rumps are being handed to Porsches 911 turbo. The GT2's and carrera GT's are out of this league.

You completely miss out on the price thing. Porsche and Ferrari aren't in the market to sell "cheaper" cars nor do they cater to the masses. One look in and outside a vette and a porsche and you'll notice the obvious price difference.
On top of that, the quality disaster known as Ferrari can't hold a candle to Corvette for build quality, and Corvette routinely hammers on the Porsches in JD Powers surveys.

Quality disaster? is there a definite study backing this? JD survey? really? I have a hard time beliving a 45k vettes build or quality holds a candle to a car like the Porsche 911. How come year after years, JD lists Porsche as one of the most reliable car manufacturers while positioning chevy at the bottom? To top it off, Porsche only makes performance cars. Sounds like a quality company to me.

Now, explain to me, really slowly, how a hand build (i.e. SUBSTANDARD) body process is going to beat a state of the art body shop.

ANSWER: It won't.

See 1st reply.

I have to run for class, so i might add better replies later.

Highlander

09-09-2003, 02:07 PM

The term hand built is not that they do not use robots, its there is people that are checking everthing.. EG: Oh... there is a "sleeve" here... there is a mismatch there, etc etc etc, and they fix all the imperfections the machines leave behind... Port matching... Removing grooves... Smoothing things... That may not account for much more HP numbers, but it will account for the smoothness and the quickness of the engine that will make the engine a lot faster...

Rice Eating 5.0

I beg to disagree on a few things... Depending on who you ask the Z06 is not faster than the modenas, but after you visist the tracks constantly you see that the z06 are beating the modenas easy on the roadcoarse...

On the mags the z06 is not faster than porsche 911 gt2... $$$$ for the mags.. you see... Porsche pays a lot of $ to the advertisement on the mags... The z06 will never beat it in a mag... But go to the street and Damn... There has not been a single porsche get near me in my z06... NONE!!!! and I am stock, through stock mufflers...

Porsche does cater to the masses or what do you call the BoxterS??? I call it the Embarrasement S.

QUality from porsche??? Everything breaks... Everything LEAKS... everything is bothering always and everywhere on those cars.. Do you own one??? You should ask the HONEST owners, because the majority will never say the car is a POS after they have spent 200K for a car that does not behave like a 60k car... That shouldn't be, but it is...

I dont agree with your post... You should go out more...

Joe K. 96 Zeee!!

09-09-2003, 02:25 PM

Utz has handbaked potato chips.....

I don't know how the workers there put up with holding thier hands in the ovne like that....Ouch! :eek:

PacerX

09-09-2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Tell that to every maker of 100,000+ dollar cars. If it's so sub-standard, then why do these respected manufacturers openly advertise it? Why is it basically expected/mandetory in the 100,000+ dollar price bracket? Why does ford advertise that the 4.6 Cobra engine is hand-built? truely, Ford does have the resources to mechanize everythiing for the GT and Cobra, so why did they take that specific route? Why did they hand-build the Cobra engine and the whole GT if it was so sub-standard? They clearly have access to machining, robotics, etc...Heck, why do i see stuff like "hand-painted", "hand-made", etc... adverticed in products all the time?

K, don't take this wrong, but it's time for some education...

Hand operated processes are never any better than the operator. A simple visual inspection for a paint mark to indicate something on a part is automatically assumed to have a 10% failure rate. Meaning that, no matter how good the human beings are, how badly they want to do their jobs, in a production environment you have to assume this level of failure.

Now, a visual system that checks for an automatically applied paint mark has a failure rate FAR below .1%. So far below that is can be assumed to be zero.

No human being can weld as well as a robot. They put the same weld down every time, within a thousandth of an inch, day in and day out. They monitor weld parameters that human beings cannot and will stop immediatly if the parameters are not met.

For building a body, the human eye cannot even see tolerances below .004". A machine can mate parts easily to within +/-.001". CNC machining centers can machine parts to within +/-.0004 without special processing. A human operating a Bridgeport mill can't even come close to that number, and couldn't even MEASURE IT reliably with hand tools (micrometers, calipers, etc...).

So, back to the question at had...

Why can't Ford build the GT by hand as well as GM can build Corvette with an automated line?

See above.

Why doesn't GT have an automated line?

Money.

It can't pay for it. The equipment is too expensive for the program to capitalize at the voume the car is going to run. If I want to buy a $1,000,000 machining center for Corvette for one year, it costs me $25 a car (at 40,000 units) to pay for it (if I only amoritize over one year). For the GT, it costs me $250 (at 4,000 units). That's not a factor of two or three, that's a factor of TEN. So, Corvette can easily afford tooling and equipment that GT could never pay for.

Now, why is it necessary in the $100,000 price bracket to hand build a car? Simple - no one builds 40,000 $100,000 cars a year. The volumes are too low, and you couldn't sell them. Selling 40,000 $50,000 car is no big deal (as long as their Corvettes), but as the price rises from the Corvette's price point, volume drops off drastically.

Because the volume doesn't exist to sell 40,000 $100,000 cars, to stop the costs from becoming prohibative, the manufacturers of these cars rely on something that doesn't require a gigantic capital investment - people. Unfortunately, people can't build a better finished car than a state-of-the-art body line can - they are, without argument, a lower quality build. Gaps and flushes aren't as good, the final finish isn't as good, the fits aren't as good.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
GM does make excellent tranny's and some of them are more than good enough for use in any car, even a R-R.

Here are the facts. You don't have to like them.

Ford makes decent motors, terrific live axles, and miserable automatic transmissions. They are conversion kits for Mustangs to take TH-400 and TH-350 GM transmissions for a reason. Just like there are conversion kits to swap 9" rear ends into Camaros.

The point of the example was that even Rolls Royce, who can literally charge anything they want for their cars, recognizes that an automated process is far superior at building transmissions than a hand process. And they can afford either.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Actually, the z06 is no faster than 911 Turbo nor is it any faster around a track than either it or the 360. I've seen the numbers. As close as they may be, no rumps are being handed to Porsches 911 turbo. The GT2's and carrera GT's are out of this league.

A Carrera 2 or Carrera 4 can't beat a 2002 SS on a road course. Neither are a match for the Z06. Even the 911 Turbo was slower than the Z06.

In the brother vs. brother comparision, the Z06 cleaned house. The only car close was the Ferrari, and if I remember right it was more than 4 times as expensive.

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Quality disaster? is there a definite study backing this? JD survey? really? I have a hard time beliving a 45k vettes build or quality holds a candle to a car like the Porsche 911. How come year after years, JD lists Porsche as one of the most reliable car manufacturers while positioning chevy at the bottom? To top it off, Porsche only makes performance cars. Sounds like a quality company to me.

Porsche makes a freaking truck... sort of.

Chevrolet tracks light years ahead of Porsche in both initial quality and long-term reliability. Chevrolet beat both Mercedes and BMW in 3-year reliability. You need to read the surveys.

PacerX

09-09-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by The Highlander
The term hand built is not that they do not use robots, its there is people that are checking everthing.. EG: Oh... there is a "sleeve" here... there is a mismatch there, etc etc etc, and they fix all the imperfections the machines leave behind... Port matching... Removing grooves... Smoothing things... That may not account for much more HP numbers, but it will account for the smoothness and the quickness of the engine that will make the engine a lot faster...

Sorry, but this is wrong.

Hand-built means hand built.

No automated setting fixtures for the body, no automated machining and inspection.

Now, GT will have some automation in the drivetrain components, but 4,000 cars can't justify much of a body line.

A CNC machining center leaves no imperfections behind if programmed properly. None. They are so precise that you couldn't see the imperfections even if they were there. The human eye cannot even see a .001" difference from one part to the other.

Sixer-Bird

09-09-2003, 04:15 PM

FYI The C5-R had an overall win at the Rolex 24 in Daytona, true, its not Le Mans, but it is just as gruelling of a race. The Vette beat out all of the competing prototype cars.

RiceEating5.0

09-09-2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by The Highlander
I beg to disagree on a few things... Depending on who you ask the Z06 is not faster than the modenas, but after you visist the tracks constantly you see that the z06 are beating the modenas easy on the roadcoarse...

On the mags the z06 is not faster than porsche 911 gt2... $$$$ for the mags.. you see... Porsche pays a lot of $ to the advertisement on the mags... The z06 will never beat it in a mag... But go to the street and Damn... There has not been a single porsche get near me in my z06... NONE!!!! and I am stock, through stock mufflers...

First, GT2? The GT2 puts out numbers I’ve never seen matched by a stock z06. When the current z06 can turn consistent 3.X sec 0-60’s, high 11 sec ¼ miles, with sub-121mph trap speeds, I’ll believe that. Anything can go in the street and i've only seen one 911 turbo and one GT2 to date and neither were racing a z06, or racing period. Beating on a Boxter S is no accomplishment. An Ls-1 camaro will out-drag one. If there was a stock 911 turbo vs z06 match, i'd put my money on the 911. Driver aside, a more powerful AWD Turbo 911 could outlaunch or beat a rwd z06 on the street. On a prepped track, it’s probably any ones race since their numbers are fairly close. There is also the X50 450hp performance option one can take into consideration when ordering a 911 Turbo.

Originally posted by The Highlander
Porsche does cater to the masses or what do you call the BoxterS??? I call it the Embarrasement S.

I still see way more c5's and z06’s. How many do they sell a year? Boxter S production is still very low. How many Porsche dealers are there? How many seats does the typical Porsche have? Two which is unpractical. I'd hardly call that catering to the masses. Other than the standard sub-40k Boxter and 53k Boxter S’s, the rest of the lineup is way too pricey for 95% of the people to afford. Ever looked at the price tag of a Carrera 4S, GT3, 911 turbo, GT2, Carrera GT? Having cars that cost between 40,000 to well over 400,000 dollars doesn’t equal a company that makes cars for the masses in my book.

Originally posted by The Highlander
QUality from porsche??? Everything breaks... Everything LEAKS... everything is bothering always and everywhere on those cars.. Do you own one??? You should ask the HONEST owners, because the majority will never say the car is a POS after they have spent 200K for a car that does not behave like a 60k car... That shouldn't be, but it is...

I guess you're that owner right? Every quality and reliability test/survey i've seen has had Porsche as a company in the top half. Owner reliability surveys continue to rank Porsche on top. Go ahead, show me published studies, and prove that wrong. I won’t accept my neighbors, mothers, ex-dog’s new owner had a Porsche and it was a POS as a valid answer. Show me representative facts and studies. These studies are based off tests, actual owners, etc…Otherwise, I’m sticking to what I’ve seen thus far. But hey, they (studies) must all be lying right? Please, no conspiracy theories.

Here’s a fairly recent article highlighting JD’s top ranking of Porsche.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/wheels/articles/0712wheels12autoreport.html

And what exactly is the meaning of Quality? There is no one definition. If it’s by reliability alone, than the civic/accord is a more quality vehicle than a vette/Porsche. How about other aspects of quality like interior quality/layout/material, parts used, suspension/brakes and technology, body panels construction/material, dash material, seating design and material, engine parts and construction, etc…. Don’t let your loyalty fool you into thinking a vette is of higher quality than a Porsche, because it ISN”T. That my friend is a fact and isn’t even debatable;).

Originally posted by The Highlander
I dont agree with your post... You should go out more...

Going out more won’t have me putting the z06 on a pedestal while pissing on Porsches and Ferrari’s. I like all 3. Sorry. I can appreciate a nice car when I see one and seeing each for what they really are. That’s no crime. Thinking there are nicer cars out there than the z06, doesn’t mean I don’t get out much.

RiceEating5.0

09-09-2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by PacerX
K, don't take this wrong, but it's time for some education...

Learning’s always good in my book;). I’m no engineer so I’m sure you’re more versed on this.

Originally posted by PacerX
Hand operated processes are never any better than the operator. A simple visual inspection for a paint mark to indicate something on a part is automatically assumed to have a 10% failure rate. Meaning that, no matter how good the human beings are, how badly they want to do their jobs, in a production environment you have to assume this level of failure.

Now, a visual system that checks for an automatically applied paint mark has a failure rate FAR below .1%. So far below that is can be assumed to be zero.

No human being can weld as well as a robot. They put the same weld down every time, within a thousandth of an inch, day in and day out. They monitor weld parameters that human beings cannot and will stop immediatly if the parameters are not met.

For building a body, the human eye cannot even see tolerances below .004". A machine can mate parts easily to within +/-.001". CNC machining centers can machine parts to within +/-.0004 without special processing. A human operating a Bridgeport mill can't even come close to that number, and couldn't even MEASURE IT reliably with hand tools (micrometers, calipers, etc...).

I see your point, and it’s a very good one. But are you saying that Ferrari, Porsche, Bentley, and every maker of mega-dollar exotics haven’t thought of this and that they are just willing to forego these flaws? Highly doubtful. They’ve been doing this for decades. I think they know what they’re doing.

Also, they do machining. It’s not like they hand-make engine parts, brakes, suspension, etc…. out of solid metal with chisels and knives.

Originally posted by PacerX
Why doesn't GT have an automated line?

Money.

It can't pay for it. The equipment is too expensive for the program to capitalize at the voume the car is going to run. If I want to buy a $1,000,000 machining center for Corvette for one year, it costs me $25 a car (at 40,000 units) to pay for it (if I only amoritize over one year). For the GT, it costs me $250 (at 4,000 units). That's not a factor of two or three, that's a factor of TEN. So, Corvette can easily afford tooling and equipment that GT could never pay for.

What’s 250 dollars on a 120,000-150,000 dollar car? By comparion it still factors out to be a just as small percentage as the vettes. Heck, you could tack on 2,500 on the GT and the potential buyers wouldn’t even bat an eyelid. 250 dollars is miniscule.

Originally posted by PacerX
Here are the facts. You don't have to like them.

Ford makes decent motors, terrific live axles, and miserable automatic transmissions. They are conversion kits for Mustangs to take TH-400 and TH-350 GM transmissions for a reason. Just like there are conversion kits to swap 9" rear ends into Camaros.

Oh, I know about the weakness of the Ford Auto’s. I also know about Gm’s auto’s which is why I said “GM makes excellent auto tranny’s” in my previous post.

Originally posted by PacerX
A Carrera 2 or Carrera 4 can't beat a 2002 SS on a road course. Neither are a match for the Z06. Even the 911 Turbo was slower than the Z06.

In the brother vs. brother comparision, the Z06 cleaned house. The only car close was the Ferrari, and if I remember right it was more than 4 times as expensive.

An SS beating a Carrera 4 on a road course? A boxter I might believe, but I’m having trouble believing this one. You’re also saying that a zo6 not only beats a 911 turbo, but it beats it soundly as in it isn’t even close?

Originally posted by PacerX
Porsche makes a freaking truck... sort of.

Sort of is right. I’m personally no fan of it, and I’m sure most Porsche purists aren’t either. In the companies long history though, this is a first for 2003. It’s distinctly Porsche though. You can get one with the X50 performance option. The end result is a truck that’ll put up sport cars number. 0-60 in 5.4, 13.7@102.47 ¼ mile, 60-0 in only 112’, 66mph slalom. Not bad for a 5,192lb Suv;).

Originally posted by PacerX
Chevrolet tracks light years ahead of Porsche in both initial quality and long-term reliability. Chevrolet beat both Mercedes and BMW in 3-year reliability. You need to read the surveys.

I do, they just proved otherwise. I can throw studies in here if you’d like. The ones listed below are 5 year long-term durability/reliability studies from J.D. The year 2000 study actually goes back to 95. I think they’re pretty unanimous. Consumer Reports doesn’t seem to be too fond of chevy’s in long-term tests either seeing as how they’ve place almost the whole chevy lineup in their reliability risks. No Porsche was listed as a reliability risk. That Consumer Reports long-term test dates back to 1993. Porsche on the other hand has fared very well.

2003 Vehicle dependability study. 5 year study
Porsche 1st place manufacturer, GM 6th.
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050a.gif

Porsche ranked 4th among individual brands, Chevy 17th
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050b.gif

Highest ranked premium sports car in durability: Porsche 911 winner. Boxter S get honorable mention. No z06.
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050c.gif

2002 Vehicle dependability study
Porsche ranked 6th among individual brands. Chevy ranked below average (even below Ford). Boxter gets honorable mention in most durable premium sports car. No z06
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2002141a.gif

2001 Vehicle dependability study
Porsche ranked 9th among individual brands. Chevy ranked below average (even below Ford). Porsche 911 gets honorable mention in most durable premium sports car. No c5/z06 mentioned.
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/01102a.gif

2000 Vehicle dependability study
Porsche ranked 2nd among individual brands. Chevy ranked below average (even below Ford). Porsche 911 ranked best in durability among premium sports cars.
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2074b.gif

95Zvert

09-10-2003, 12:12 AM

I had something to say, but after reading through this whole thread, i forgot. For the most part I think I agree or disagree with most of it. :D

Anyway, in no specific order:

The Z/28 should be ~425 hp. I think I saw 300 hp somewhere. Why in the hell should the new Z have less HP than the old one?? Plus, the new GTO will be starting at a RATED 350. SHould the Z/28 have more? I think so. 13.0 1/4s??? The new Z should also be faster, significantly faster.

The SS? With what GM is doing to the SS badge, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT WHORED ON A CAMARO AS WELL! It is a dead badge, which no longer has any meaning other than body kit and bling bling. Want a top camaro? Choose from another historic badge that GM has not yet whored into the grave.

The GT is a 'cool' car. It IS an image builder, much the way the viper was. It is not in the same class as a vette, even if the vette kicks its @ss. It is a collector/halo/image building/"see what we can build" type of car. Is it an exotic? Dunno. I dont think of it as one. I think of it as a really expensive ford. May change after I see one in person, but an important part will have to be pure domination in the performance area, since that IS the image they are trying to capitalize on.

The example given of $250 per car to construct a facility to build GTs was an example. Not real #s. If you think you can build that facility for a mere 1 million dollars you are kidding yourself. Also, that cost would be spread over many more years with the vette vs the GT (assuming it IS a short run). The cost WOULD be prohibitive to design, engineer, build, operate and maintain an automated facility....a LOT more than $250 per car!

OK, TH400s and 350s are bad @ss. The 4L80 is good in its own right, but.....the 4L60E is the biggest piece of trash I have ever seen! Too big for a paper weight, and too small for a wrecking ball. But, can't think of another use for one. Well, maybe I exaggerate. They may be OK for motivating underpowered, super lightweight cars driven by 90 year old grandmothers for the occasional block drive to sunday night bingo....as long as they dont live past 91. Yah, there is also a reason they make conversion kits for putting 350s/400s in 4th gen camaros ;)

The C5-R is top performer, I can't see why anyone would try to tarnish its accomplishments. My memory could be wrong, so dont flame, but I believe it took 1-2 OVERALL at 24 hours of Daytona. PRETTY DAMN IMPRESSIVE!

Porches: I dont know how they get good durabilty rating, because I PERSONALLY know several owners, and they are CONSTANTLY down. They have serious leaking issues, and tons of other quirks. One person I knew finally talked his wife into letting him get a 911 turbo one year. He put ~5,000 miles on it in 3 years. Oh, this was in FLA where there is no need to store in the winter. It was just CONSTANTLY in the shop....and he bought it brand new. His was the worst case of them all, but they all have a tendancy for down time. It is kind of expected with some vehicles. Hell the old lambo's were probably the worst, and most expensive at the same time. A guy I knew couldnt even drive it during the day in FLA, because it could not tolerate traffic for any duration. It would just overheat. And, it had to go in for service of some type on an almost monthly basis. He finally garaged it as it was just too much of a pain in the @ss to use :D

Lesson: if you want to buy a car that expensive, be prepared for it to be expensive to use/keep on the road. BUT.......there will always be people to buy them! Why? coolness/exclusivity factor. The GT will have this, but since it is a ford, it will desperately need to trounce the vette for adequate respect. Otherwise, only die hard rich ford guys will buy them, and that market will be saturated pretty quick. After that, who else will buy? (although, I don't think longevity is part of the plan for the GT)

*whew*

jsaylor

09-10-2003, 05:05 PM

Okay, with all due respect. Anyone who believes that a robot, in a real life scenario, can outweld a GOOD human welder has either A: Never worked with automated welders (I have) B: Never learned how to weld themselves (Again, I have...And I don't just mean the unfortunate and common "I can lay a big, nasty bead with a MIG"....I can MIG and TIG both thank you....and very well.)or C: Is an engineer (Possibly the most unfortunate of all).

The problems with autmated welders (And up until 2000 I worked with the state of the art) is that they only recognize that something is wrong when they are TOLD to recognize it. They are never and could never be told everything, or even most things, that can go wrong. They also most often cannot account for variations in size and shape of a part.

I have personally seen, with mine own TWO EYES...robot welders create a weld that looked marvelous and passed very inspection the machine had without a glitch. Even an engineeer would have passed it as I have seen them do it. Someone who knows how to weld and knows what they are looking for....like me...wouldn't and didn't. Often you could grab the part slap it on the wall and...clunk...what happened to the weld? This is so obvious to a "real" welder when we see it we sometimes forget others don't notice.

To truly tell if a weld is "perfect" you gotta start x-raying welds. Guess what......that doesn't happen very often. Not to mention in an auto factory I can , every time, lay down a weld that looks great....and is without doubt far stronger than the parts it holds together. And if the weld is bad (rare) I can tell be looking at it. Although honestly I can tell through my helmet and by sound how nice of a weld I am laying down.

Breaking out the x-ray machine and checking every weld for microscopic stress cracks is necessary when you are doing some high tech...high spec stuff....Virtually none of which is on a car. The vast majority of welding done on a car can be done better by a well trained HUMAN...period. The reason you don't see it is it cannot be done cheaper by a well trained human.

RiceEating5.0

09-10-2003, 06:50 PM

Jsaylor, thank you for that much needed first hand input/experience.

I have a hard time believing a company like Ferrari would simply leave major imperfections (ex: bad welds) purposely on their half a million plus dollar Enzo. They've done it for decades, so i'm sure they know exactly what they're doing and what to look for. I’m also sure they take certain precautionary actions to ensure the quality of everything. When you take into account that each Enzo takes over a month to build and has to pass rigorous individual tests before delivery, you know a lot of attention is being paid to every aspect of the car. That and i'm sure they employ only the best and not some joe across the street.

PacerX

09-10-2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by jsaylor
Okay, with all due respect. Anyone who believes that a robot, in a real life scenario, can outweld a GOOD human welder has either A: Never worked with automated welders (I have) B: Never learned how to weld themselves (Again, I have...And I don't just mean the unfortunate and common "I can lay a big, nasty bead with a MIG"....I can MIG and TIG both thank you....and very well.)or C: Is an engineer (Possibly the most unfortunate of all).

Here ya go:

I want every bead within .1mm for location. I want every bead within .1mm for radius. I want every weld penetration within .1mm (we don't X-ray for penetration, we cut and etch). Every weld to be destructively tested must take parent material on separation.

Dimensionally, I'll provide a drawing showing tolerancing for the components to be joined. The join will be 90 degrees +/- 1 degree, no reworking the part (in other words, you can't bang it back into place after you put too much heat into one side - and you will...).

There are also requirements for distortion of the surface just past the weld and on up the flange. The profile of the surface must be within .25mm AFTER welding.

Material is .75mm M190 - which is heat treated AND high carbon. During destructive testing, we'll know if you put too much heat in the part.

The part is a structural tower for an all-belts-to-seat system. If you screw up (and you will...), people die.

This part is produced exactly as I describe (the tolerances are right off the drawing), process is GMAW using Fanuc/Lincoln equipment. A vision/laser system with automated fixture setting and variable fixturing holds the part. Every weld is x-rayed, 6 an hour are pulled apart, 6 an hour are cut and etched.

Wow... ruining 12 parts an hour just for testing sounds like a lot right?

Wrong, the 8-cell system spits out 400 completed assemblies an hour at full tilt.

Since 1998, 1.4 million vehicles per year (2.8 million assemblies) have been produced, and there has not been ONE weld failure.

Not ONE.

Collect anybody you want. Get the best hundred welders you've ever met, and I guarantee you that you won't go a week without a failure at that volume.

That's what modern automation can do, and it costs BIG DOLLARS.

Originally posted by jsaylor
The problems with autmated welders (And up until 2000 I worked with the state of the art) is that they only recognize that something is wrong when they are TOLD to recognize it. They are never and could never be told everything, or even most things, that can go wrong. They also most often cannot account for variations in size and shape of a part.

Then you need better weld techs and engineers.

jsaylor

09-10-2003, 08:45 PM

First of all, your system is marvelous and wonderfully laid out. And for nearly ever autmotive weld done today sooooo much overkill it is unreal. I cannot think of a single area on a car that requires the tolerances you describe unless your just like making tolerances for the sake of making tolerances. Some auto maker somewhere mayhave a need for those tight tolerances, but I don't see it. I can, however, see how Grumman could make great usage of this on the naval ATF. lol

Get real......Big dollar stuff simply for the sake of big dollar stuff is stupid. I am beginning to think you really ARE an engineer. Yes, Ford and Chevy, etc. have a place for high speed automated welding system EXACTLY AS I alluded to before. Ferrari...mass production just isn't in the works and, as I said before, the actual quality is not IMO better.

If, for some reason you think that spewing off all those reeaaally impressive requirements are impressing me.....they aren't....Yes, I have heard their like before and unlike some in here will think due to their "impressive" length they aren't that big a deal.........sorry.

unvc92camarors

09-10-2003, 08:48 PM

man, i must be in the wrong thread, i thought this was about what camaro's quarter mile times should be:p

well, i say somethin in the 12's, prob about mid 12's for the "top" v8

PacerX

09-10-2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by jsaylor
First of all, your system is marvelous and wonderfully laid out. And for nearly ever autmotive weld done today sooooo much overkill it is unreal.

These welds fail, people die.

For however terrific you claim to be with a heater, you're not good enough.

That's OK, I'm not either, and I have a Miller combined MIG/TIG in my garage.

Originally posted by jsaylor
I cannot think of a single area on a car that requires the tolerances you describe unless your just like making tolerances for the sake of making tolerances.

Control arms? Laser-welded body blanks?

I COULD make them out of boiler plate and lower strength materials so that a human being could be trusted to weld them, but even then... robots never come to work drunk... they never show up late... they don't holler for their committeeman if I change their program...they don't strike...they don't take long lunches...

And day in/day out, they lay down a perfect weld, 3200 times a shift.

Originally posted by jsaylor
Get real......Big dollar stuff simply for the sake of big dollar stuff is stupid.

It's faster, it's higher quality, AND if you have the capital and volume to pay for it - it's less expensive in the long run.

Originally posted by jsaylor
I am beginning to think you really ARE an engineer.

Oh, I am an engineer, and I've forgotten more about welding than you will ever know. And somewhere near 10 million folks are going to get in their trucks in the next 24 hours and rely on a welded seat frame I designed and engineered and tested and validated.

Originally posted by jsaylor
Ferrari...mass production just isn't in the works and, as I said before, the actual quality is not IMO better.

Then I am glad that we have conclusively established that you don't have even the SLIGHTEST clue as to what you are talking about.

Originally posted by jsaylor
If, for some reason you think that spewing off all those reeaaally impressive requirements are impressing me.....they aren't....Yes, I have heard their like before and unlike some in here will think due to their "impressive" length they aren't that big a deal.........sorry.

No reason to impress you, you don't know what you don't know. When you do learn what you don't know, maybe you'll revisit this subject.

RiceEating5.0

09-10-2003, 11:32 PM

I don't have the slightest clue on welds, so i'll stay out of that topic:D.

What i still can't figure out is why Ferrari, Lambo, Saleen, Buggati (sp?), R-R, Bentley, Mclaren (sp??), etc.... would sell their mega-dollar products with design (ex: Weld) flaws. Most of these companies are big time racers and experienced race car builders as well. And one of the most important things in race cars is their durability and ability to take the abuse of long races and immense stress. A race car sees more stress in a few hours than most cars would in a lifetime. A lot of these companies apply their race technology to their cars. The Enzo is said to be a road-going F-1 car.

Are you saying that a company like Ferrari doesn't have a system, proccess, or some setup to insure quality welds? That for the last 50+ years of hand-building cars, they haven't figured it out?

PacerX

09-11-2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by RiceEating5.0

Are you saying that a company like Ferrari doesn't have a system, proccess, or some setup to insure quality welds? That for the last 50+ years of hand-building cars, they haven't figured it out?

More precisely, what I am saying is that they simply cannot afford state-of-the-art equipment and the resources that go along with it. Even with selling a car at $600,000 a pop, the tooling and capital requirements are so money-intensive that they simply can't swing them. No bank would loan them enough money to purchase them, and it would take them 20 years to pay them off - they're obsolete in 10.

Now, because they can't afford the equipment, they are left with less precise means of trying to accomplish the same things that are routine to a manufacturer like GM.

They can't afford automated setting and welding of their body and chassis components like even Cavalier can. And what you will very quickly find is that even a lowly Cavalier has better body build repeatability. The Cavalier has better gaps and flushes, far fewer panels are pre-stressed into position.

Then, look at this - tooling...

If I am going to make 5,000,000 parts of something, I can afford a very expensive and very precise tool (say a stamping tool) to make it - it adds very little cost to the individual parts. If I'm only building 500 of something - I can only really afford a prototype tool (aluminum or kirksite). You can get 500 parts of some of these prototype tools, but they wear badly and buying another one is out of the question. Aluminum and kirksite, simply because their material properties, aren't hard and strong enough, and tend to flex also. That means that even my first part is suspect... Meanwhile, the high-volume tool is made out of tool steel and wear is negligible. The first parts (if the tool is built right) are darned near perfect.

Now, consider this:

If GM has a powertrain problem that is difficult to figure out, they can throw an army of eggheads at it to solve it. For Corvette, the powertrain is basically a shared item across a number of platforms (trucks, F car, CTSv, Holden, etc...). Because the program can bury costs somewhat against the others, Corvette can get lots of attention, from LOTS AND LOTS of experts.

Now, the Ford GT shares some of that benefit because of the engine family, but it simply doesn't have the resources that Corvette does. Ford, IN TOTAL, doesn't have the powertrain resources that GM throws into the LSx family alone... Ferrari has fewer powertrain engineers than GM has Vice Presidents for Pete's sake.

Hand-built cars are just that. Hand built.

Hand built used to be the best thing you could get, but beginning in the 1970's, machines started to leave humans behind for certain tasks (welding, machining, electronics assembly, etc...). The machine is not only more repeatable and builds in higher quality, but in the end, if I can build enough cars and have the capital resources to pay for it up front, it's less expensive too.

Everyone is familiar with the term "Economy of Scale". Monetarily speaking, if I can make lots and lots of something, in the end the individual parts themselves become less expensive.

What people have a harder time understanding is that "Economy of Scale" applies to quality also. As my volume goes up, I can start looking at individually more expensive and concurrently more precise and repeatable processes to make the parts, and in the end the individual parts themselves are higher quality.