http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=06843876

The last paragraph is somewhat interesting...

Do you think Camaro could be in this group?

It even says they could use unique platforms....

 

I don't really see how Camaro fits into that. The word is that Camaro will come back as a high volume Mustang competitor (like it should be IMO) and not a niche vehicle. I'm thinking stuff like Solstice and perhaps Bel-Air. I do however love the idea of a twin turbo Trailblazer...perhaps they should forget the Silverado SS all together (since they couldn't do it right ) and give the market something that Ford and no one else has yet...

 

wait a minute

i could of sworn I read another article before that GM didn't want to puruse high perf SUV's because the expectations and the execution was just way too difficult.. If they do it, they better make sure its FAST.. We don't need another Silvarado SS (nice truck, but needs more power to hold up its name!)

Anyways, seeing how fast they can bring designs to productions with limited runs sounds great.. If GM can show that they can dance on their toes and throw exceiting and well designed products out fast..... that would be crazy..

 

What I am noticing is that information on Belair (Monte Carlo?) and Solstice are seeping out pretty steadily, but where's Camaro?

Being that it seems to take 3-4 years to bring a car from concept to production at GM, I suspect that if we don't see a potential Camaro idea this auto show season, we'll be looking at 2008 as the next earliest year for the 5th gen.

 

Why can't relatively low volume cars be made profitably? It's not as if different variations need to be manufactured at the assembly plant anymore.

The CTS, for example has it's front and rear suspensions manufactured at outside supplier facilities ( the rear is made by Visteon and the front escapes me right now),and shipped to the GM assembly plant as modules to be bolted to the CTS.

Couldn't these modules have different specifications and still be relatively interchangeable at the level of the assembly plant?

It's like every month conflicting info comes out of GM.

ie:

*Sigma will be spread over the entire GM line to reduce it's cost.

*Sigma is too good and expensive to be spread over the whole GM line to reduce cost....it will be reserved only for Cadillac.

*GM needs a new RWD drive platform for Solstice and to make it profitable, it must be used by Opel, maybe Saturn, maybe Bel Air and maybe others (Camaro??????).

* ...and now the latest....GM can make a limited run car on it's own platform profitably.

I give up!

 

LOL.

In a word: CHAOS!

... ...

 

They still require TONS of unique parts, wheels, body panels, bumpers, essentially the whole interior, glass, etc. Sure sharing parts saves money, but what new parts are required must be amortized over a small volume. It doesn't matter if they come in as modules - someone has to pay for the tooling, materials and processing of these new parts.

BTW - "Relatively Interchangable" is BAD NEWS at an assembly plant - Remember Murphy's law .

 

Ok WERM, I'll admit that you've got me there.

But flexibility seems to be the watchword for new plants like Lansing. In addition to the CTS, GM will build the SRX, the Seville's replacement (STS?), and goodness knows what else at the same plant.

All these models require unique parts...but surely, they can be assembled much more economically than if they required their own assembly plants.

 

That's nothing. Up at the NUMMI Fremont plant near San Francisco, they make the Vibe, Matrix, Corolla, and soon the Voltz (to be exported to Japan) on the same assembly line.

Tacoma is also made in that plant as well.