Ok then, here we go:


1) You have to re-cert the entire package for both emissions and fuel economy. Old engine in a new car = a cert.

2) Tooling has a given life to it. Extending a program arbitrarily almost universally means added tooling cost.

3) Increasing volume requires increased throughput, meaning additional machines/gages/fixtures/tools/bodies. This stuff isn't free.

4) You have to re-validate the entire package for durability. In particular, the drivetrain behind the motor will need it... because...

5) There will be attendant drivetrain changes. To take advantage of the extra revs, it is reasonable to assume that both the transmission and the rear end will require gearing changes. Furthermore, to withstand the added power and maintain acceptable durability, you're going to most likely beef up some parts. A clutch launching a 4000 lbs. car has to be significantly more robust than a clutch launching a 3200 lbs. car, as do the driveshaft and rear end.


I work for a supplier...

And...

Ummm....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because we're suppliers doesn't mean GM doesn't pay for our tools. As a matter of fact GM ALWAYS pays for tooling if they want to own it (they usually do...), and if they don't want to own it... well, they pay for it anyway...

Not because we're being mean and nasty and dirty rotten suppliers, but because it's a real expense that somebody HAS TO pay for... just like Ragu, you can pay for it upfront, or you can pay for it in piece price, but IT'S IN THERE...


I seriously doubt that. To make a decision so unfounded in reason that it results in you buying a GT500 over a Corvette pretty well means that some bias had to initially exist that blinded you to the blatantly obvious in the first place.

 

And that's not an investment. They already have people hired to do that.


If it's a GM part (block), the tooling lasts longer than the ~20k that they've made so far. If it's a supplier part (rod), they're already paying for new tooling in the piece price, as you point out below. Either way, it's negligible compared to developing a new engine.


If it's adding assemblers like you said earlier, that's negligible cost.



Obviously, they'd use the LS7's transmission. They'd be silly not to.




I agree...but that makes my point. When they buy an LS7 piston, they're paying for the tooling built into the piece price. So if they want more, they don't have to pay for more tooling...they just have to pay for more pieces. That's part of the reason they don't mind sticking in the piece price...then you can figure out how to juggle things when GM wants more pieces. That's why they look the other way - to stick it to you in cases like this.

I mean, we're saying the same thing. You're just not recognizing how very negligible all this cost is versus a new engine in the car. It's the difference between buying a 6-pack versus buying the brewery. It's millions, but still negligible compared to tens of millions or hundreds of millions.



It speaks for itself. They paid the same amount or more, but they chose GT500. They wanted "muscle" with a back seat. A Z/28 customer is not neccessarily a Corvette customer.

It your weird 'screw the stupid customer' attitude that has gotten GM to where it is now. Somebody will give the customer what he wants. It just won't be you.

 

At the very least, it's an investment in time (diverting people away from other projects), and we all know time is money. I have to believe a certain amount of R&D still goes into it. I'm sure it isn't as simple as "plug-and-play".

GM has to be careful here. Does stealing away a fraction of GT500's 10,000/year buyers even justify the development costs of a Z28? You know there's a balance sheet somewhere weighing that. At the same time, how close CAN you get to a base Corvette in price and not effectively kill it before it leaves the launch pad? The business case isn't as cut-and-dry as a lot of people think it is.

 

YES! The "it weighs too much" vocal minority is never going to be satisfied with the new platform. At this point, anyone who wants it to weigh less than it weighs is out of luck. The car is too far down the road to do anything about it. So let's at least get the "it costs too much" people satisfied - and the LSA is the cheapest way to get the most horsepower in the Z28.

 

Bravo! I don't see why the bickering persists. They already have an aluminum hood on the car. It seems like many people think it's easy to loose weight - oh, just call Summit, order up a fiberglass hood and trunk, and some carbon fiber body panels. Hey, we car throw some lexan in for the windows while we're at it. The car's body is done. The weight is what it is. Some make it sound like it's the end of the world. Look at heavier German cars and how well they can handle. With the time GM has spent at the 'Ring, I'm sure they've got the chassis tuned as good as it can be for the way the car is equipped.

I also agree with the cost thing. Get the LSA in there. I don't think validation would be too tough since it's already been validated in the CTS-V. Adding power, I think, is going to be the cheapest/easiest way to offset the increased weight of the chassis and drivetrain. That, and I'd love to have 550+ supercharged horsepower

 

For what it's worth, I think that if the LS7 were a viable option for some model of Camaro, GM would use it in some model of Camaro.

I mean, the option is sort of staring them in the face.

I think the same could be said of the CTS.

There is a very low production version of an HSV (at least I think it was HSV) that will be getting an LS7. There's a huge hike in price, and very few will be built.

 

Sir...

I'm trying to be gentle here...

Where people are concerned:
It's an investment. In cost estimates of every stripe it's a line item known generally as ER&D (Engineering, Research and Development), the costs for which are paid up front, and then have to be made up later.






Too simplistic and an incorrect part to choose - blocks are investment cast. Look at a forging die, like the ones used for pistons, rods and crankshafts.

They wear out and have to be replaced.



No. Generally, because GM wants to have the flexibility to move the part to a cheaper supplier and protect themselves from things like bankruptcies, they pay for the tools up front.

If... say... GM's fuel injector rail supplier goes under one day, and GM didn't pay for the tooling up front, guess who owns it?

The bank, and they are under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that GM gets fuel rails. The bank takes possession of the tools, decides to sell them off to a different supplier (who has had enough of GM playing hardball with THEM), and then strolls on into GM Purchasing and says:

"Oh, so you want fuel rails? OK... the price is now 3 times what it used to be. If you don't like it, tool it yourself or don't build cars - we don't really care either way."



Who says they're going to develop a new engine that's unique to the car?

They're not.

Whatever they use - it'll piggy-back off of the trucks for the lion's share of the componentry and, most importantly, to PAY FOR THE INVESTMENT USING THE HIGHEST VOLUME PROGRAM.

The problem with the LS7 is, and remains:

1) It's BRUTALLY expensive.

2) It's not a normal production motor like the LS3 - meaning that you'd have to pour a whole bunch of money into it to make it one.



Erm...

Have you seen what GM UAW employees are paid?

If it was negligible, my father would still have his GM funded retiree health care, and GM wouldn't be retiring people like it's going out of style.

It's not negligible.


Sir, the LS7's transmission is at a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT END OF THE CAR than it would be on a Camaro.


The problem is and remains that you can't make an individual car for every customer, and the market for what you are talking about is dominated by another GM car - which is very, very, capable and an icon to boot.

 

Right on the money.

 

This is tiring. You're just one of those dudes who is unwilling to concede any point at all in order to win. It's silly. I've already agree with you, but said that you're exaggerating. You're looking at absolutes, rather than comparisons. e.g. Is $10M a lot? Yes! Agreed! You're right!

Is it a lot for a new powertrain program? No! It could NOT possibly be any lower!!




ER&D is approximately 4-6% of a new vehicle cost. Do you think that's a lot??







First, pistons and rods are purchased, so GM doesn't care about the supplier and its tooling. Not sure about the crankshaft...but is it your belief that a forging die lasts 20k parts?? [Again, you're just saying things that you can't support just to win.]



Absolutely NOT true. The supplier (and its financier) are under a contractual obligation to support GM - either with the parts or with the tooling. They cannot take the tooling. They cannot sell the tooling. They cannot change the price from what the contract says. The contract says what it says, regardless who owns the tool. [Again, saying cool things without basis.]




Like LLT? Like LS3? Like L99?



It's not that expensive, and it's not so expensive the customers don't pay for it. Just like GT500. Just like the Viper engine.





No offense to you dad, but you could pay your dad's salary for the next few lifetimes and still cost less than a block machining center.

Again, I agree with you. An employee costs a lot. In absolute. In relative terms, it's a really inexpensive option to buying new tooling and machinery. You're not looking at things from a relative perspective.


The M12 is externally like any other Tremec. Are you saying a Tremec won't bolt to an LSx? [Again, really good point. But the caps helped.]



And people should either buy that car...or get lost and go to another company. That's a good strategy that serves GM well.

 

OK, let's see if GM brings out a $45,000-50,000 Camaro with an LS7 in it.

And then, when it tanks (it will...), you can explain why.

 

I'm not going to address much else in the drivel you posted, besides the bullsh!t above.

In a bankruptcy of a supplier, GM has no rights to the tooling whatsoever if they did not pay for it.

Period.

End of discussion.

If you believe anything else, then go read the UCC (Uniform Commericial Code) and get back to me.

 

This point of the argument is almost patently ridiculous. A GT500 customer is not someone who wanted "muscle with a back seat". At least, that isn't even close to the reasons that they are chosen over the similarly priced Vette.
I know a few GT500 owners, and they fall into two groups. One are the absolute Ford/Mustang loyalists who wouldn't be caught dead in a Camaro. The other group has enough money that the GT500 is simply in addition to their fleet of toys, which often enough includes a Vette as well. Either way, the GT500 certainly isn't their main car, and the back seats get used for little more than a package shelf.
The main problem with equating the top dog Camaro with the GT500 is that while the Camaro and Mustang are direct marketplace competitors, they don't hold the same position in their respective manufacturers lineup. The Mustang is Ford's halo car, while the Vette holds that position for GM/Chevy.

 

Yeah, that's something easily forgotten. I'll agree that Ford needs the GT500 model more than GM probably needs a similar Camaro model. Still, I don't think there is any comparison between the GT500 and any model 'Vette. That car weighs like another 1000 pounds more than a 'Vette and can in no way match in terms of handling. I think a GT500 owner just wants excess everything - power, looks, price, etc.

 

In bankruptcy, the supplier is still bound by the contracts it signed with GM. In those contracts, there are clauses that say that the supplier can't sell tooling that is unique to GM, can't use it for another company, etc. So GM does have some rights to the tooling, even if it doesn't pay for it. And the UCC doesn't have anything to do with that. Why would you think the contractual terms would change just because there is a bankruptcy?

But even the UCC is on my side in this one...
UCC 2-502
Buyer's right to goods on seller's repudiation, failure to deliver, or insolvency
"...a buyer who has paid a part or all of the price of goods in which he has a special property under the provisions of UCC 2-501 may on making and keeping good a tender of any unpaid portion of their price recover them from the seller"


I don't know what this has to do with the Z/28, but it was fun playing with you.

 

I would totally buy one.