We know that the CTS is rear wheel drive,

We know it can fit the LS1 or LS2 and the T-56...

Then why doesn't GM just throw on a new body, interior, and call it the new Camaro?

Just looking for some insight.

Mike

 

Too much $$$$$$$$$$ a Camaro needs to be cheaper. THe LS6 CTS is $50K and the V6 is $30K-40K

 

Why?

1. The LSx engines did not fit the chassis. The CTS' front structure has been redone for the 2005 model year in order to fit the LS6.

2. It was never intended for other GM cars. It was developed exclusively for Cadillac. That changed just recently (a year or so ago). Cadillac had the "Sigma" chassis exclusively in order to become a world luxury player again... courtesy of then general manager, John Middlebrook and help from (gasp!) former CEO Ron Zarella!

3. The final & most important reason (as mentioned by Z28x) it simply cost too much.

Before we get into discussions of reduction of costs through volume, let me point out that the new Mustang was initially slated to be based on the DEW chassis. But that would have been the end of the sub-$20,000 Mustang. And that's running over 175,000 vehicles per year.

Instead Mustang (though it has what is basically a DEW chassis) has a different front & rear suspension system (modified struts-front, live axle or a revised lower cost IRS-rear).

Even discarding development costs, there is still the cost of the alumunum and the fact it takes far more labor to assemble an IRS substructure than simply making a live axle and bolting it to the chassis. That complex front suspension isn't cheap either.

Running Camaro on Sigma would have driven up the price substantially and/or driven down the profit margin on the car. I believe GM would most certainly have gone that route had it been feasible.

A couple people here will probally say "So what? It would be a kick*ss car!!" But those same people don't realize that the car industry doesn't do charity work & this market is known for cheap performance.

To be honest, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the next Camaro doesn't have at least 1 version that's live axle.

 

And I wouldn't be extremely suprised either. Afterall the OneTonne chassis is very similar to the GTO except the rear half. I wouldn't put it past the Holden engineers I think those guys could basically do anything they wanted with a whole new plaform and a bigger budget than they had for the V-series cars.

 

I've never really understood why Sigma has always been considered too expensive as a basis for Camaro. It's just black metal...nothing more, nothing less.

Are Sigma control arms titanium plated or something? No, I don't think so. Take one look at the $20,000 Kappa architecture....now that one looks expensive!

Sigma has some architectural issues that a Sigma/Camaro would need to address. For one, the cowl is pretty high...a very expensive and major tear up, to change that for Camaro. Also, eventhough Sigma was touted as being very flexible...there were some questions if a Camaro sized car could ultimately be built on it.

In the meantime.....

Zeta is incredibly flexible....it can be built in various widths, lengths, heights, wheelbases, overhangs....and other stuff I can't think of right now. And Zeta based vehicles will be built in the hundreds of thousands per year.

As far as expense though...part for part...does anyone think Zeta is cheaper than Sigma? Not me.

 

Actually, the LS6 is a drop in for the CTSv. The CTSv was originally going to have a HF turbo V6 of around 320hp. When it was determined that this package wouldn't have the requisite power to take this package where it needed to go...a version of the Northstar was considered. This is the engine that wouldn't fit without some expensive surgery. The LS6 was a literal bolt in...the toughest part was all the political maneuvering to get the Corvette Team to share.

Quote:

Instead Mustang (though it has what is basically a DEW chassis) has a different front & rear suspension system (modified struts-front, live axle or a revised lower cost IRS-rear).

Even discarding development costs, there is still the cost of the alumunum and the fact it takes far more labor to assemble an IRS substructure than simply making a live axle and bolting it to the chassis. That complex front suspension isn't cheap either.

Regardless of what Ford says regarding enthusiats desires...Mustang went to a live rear axle to hold down cost. The front McPherson struts were a cost cutting move also...but on this, Ford had few other choices, DEW98's sophisticated SLA front suspension...wouldn't leave much room for the Mustang's wide Mod motors. The cheaper and more compact front struts got the greenlight.

Quote:

To be honest, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the next Camaro doesn't have at least 1 version that's live axle.

Anything is possible....but that would sure be a surprise to me.

 

I stand corrected on the LS6. The extensive modifications were to the engine itself such as the dipstick, motor mounts, exhaust manifolds & accessory drive. But the rear suspension cradle of the 2004 is made of heavier gauge metal.

You are 100% correct about the CTSv initially planned as a turbo V6. But it was the cost savings the LS6 provided that sold the program. Corvette wasn't about to give up the LS6 (and they weren't exactly willing to give up the Y chassis for the XLR either), but when the case was made in the language of dollars and cents, the Vette guys had to fork it over. Of course, the intention was to get more power for the CTSv, but it was done in a somewhat deceptive way.

As for the Mustang, things just worked out in favor of Ford saving money. The DEW wasn't designed for Ford's modular motor as you pointed out, so Ford went with struts up front. As you know, the Mustang in it's early stages was also slated to have the 3.9 V8.

(For those of you who don't know, only the Thunderbird & the LS have the 3.9 V8, which is essentially a Jaguar engine, not the bigger "modular" Ford cammer)

The rear axle story is becoming a case of "he said, she said" so I'm not going to step in that one.

As a side note, the fact that the D2C is designed for Ford's regular engines (unlike the DEW), makes it a certainty that we'll be seeing other cars (including sedans here & Austraila) coming from Ford once the Cobra is finally out.