... in camouflage , of course!

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=21184

 

Let the games begin!

 

Now that would make one sweet Impala.

 

The new "sophisticated" suspension is far more complex & expensive even over Holden's former trailing arm IRS.

As I've said till I'm blue in the face: More parts=more labor=more cost (regardless as to what engineer says differently). You want a sophisticated IRS system, you're either going to see a healthy price jump or are going to get cost cut elsewhere (struts, reduced choices, cheaper materials) or a healthy combo of the 2.

There is a REASON why GM skipped Sigma for the 5th gen, and why GM turned the thing over to Holden to see if they could have better luck cutting out cost from sigma components. Even Cadillac has to watch costs with the CTS to make sure it doesn't tip the wrong way.

Now.... wait till you see the weight gain on these things!

....then you can line up and tell me how wrong I am when I say IRS adds both weight & cost.

BTW: the car looks better than the pics indicate. If you liked the Torana concept, I think you'll like the new Como as well.

 

It sure would!

 

One more thing.

Unless GM-NA has done some serious backpeddling the past month (possible), and Holden is having second thoughts about cutting out that 3rd shift (also possible) don't pot too much stock in Buick getting a 2008 Holden to sell.

Dennis Mooney made alot of this clear back in August.

The disclaimer in all this is that GM-NA pumped a massive amount of money to expand Holden's production capacity. It would be in GM's best intrest to find something to make there that has a volume of 20,000 per year.

 

I beg to differ on the exhorbitant cost front... I can only point to the Commodore's Ford rival, the Falcon.. which has had a more sophisticated rear end for years... yet the cost of the car was contained somehow. Sure an IRS costs more and weighs slightly more... but in today's age, it's an expectation the market demands moreso than it overlooks.

Just my 2c.

PS I still fail to see how if Australia 'can do it' for its puny market, why can't GM do likewise for the US?

 

actually, Ford got a cheaper, less complicated rear suspension in its switch to the AU.

The current Control Blade rear end, introduced on BA, is still less sophisticated than the unit that sat underneath the last E-series cars.

 

I'm referring to the double wishbone rear, Mickey T.

 

So lets see how much using struts up front will save in cost and weight for North American usage. Any guesses people?

 

I won't tell you the exact cost...but it's about the same savings as live rear axle vs IRS.

But don't get the idea that VE/Zeta struts are absolute cheapies like on the 3rd gen. They're more like BMW's dual pivot struts.

Time to add a new term to your automotive glossary: multi-link strut


PS

Just a side note.....
The last GM ASIM had a BMW 530 available for comparison. In my own perverse mind, I imagined ...as I drove it..... a preview of the type of chassis dynamics I'm expecting from Chevy in the not too distant future.

 

So the 5th gen will have the following over the 4th gen:

Multi link struts
VVT V6 and V8s
DOD V8 and possibly DOD V6
6 speed auto available
Multi link IRS
handling to kill a 4th gen in the twisties
Better brakes maybe even factory 4 piston calipers on the top model.
And finally GM fully behind it ready to advertise the D*mn thing, about time!

Now if only we could stop the stealerships from sabatoging sales.