So, maybe cut another 100-200 pounds out of the Z28, then add back whatever is added to increase and take power either from a supercharged engine or maybe an extra large displacement engine?

 

Aha! So there will be a Z28. The cat's out of the bag!

Scott, seriously, how do you put up with some of us?

 

Well, there's the key.

GM needs to aggressively pursue mass reduction on the car. The concurrent activity is to PAY for the mass reduction by finding cost savings that do not de-content the car or influence salability negatively.

GM's current system relative to the supply base will be problematic there... for a lot of reasons I shan't go into here... let's just say that the the supply base is dis-incentivized (is that a word???) from pursuing it themselves.

Yes, I fully believe they have aggressively pursued mass reduction up to this point... but i really think more can be done. That's no great intellectually earth-shaking assertion on my part... truth is, more can ALWAYS be done.




Believe it or not, apart from the sweat of the brow from engineers and designers, part of it it CAN actually come for free.

That's the difference between world-class engineering and the aftermarket. The aftermarket sees a problem or something they think is an improvement, and then throws money at it - that YOU end up paying for in absolutely stupid prices...

Like 16 "improved" rod bolts from Katech for the LS7 costing TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS. $200... for 16 bolts... think about that for a second...

Here's the point...

Any idiot can make something lighter by making it more expensive. It takes a real engineer to make it lighter and hold the cost, or pay for it elsewhere.

AGAIN, it CAN BE DONE!!!!




*

 

Some of us have meaningful ideas.

The question comes down to implementation.

All the ideas in the world mean nothing if you can't get them implemented.

I gave GM $120,000 and a half pound mass reduction for free in a different thread here for FREE. It'll take some research, but research is free (you're already paying for the engineers... so there's no incremental cost there...). I'm confident that it's got a good enough chance to see the light of day that I would personally pursue it at my company.

Did that off a PICTURE. Yeesh... if I can see the actual parts or take a car apart, there would be a whole lot more.



Can it get implemented? The problem is not necessarily that the idea is bad, the problem circles back to the way such things get encumbered within the system.

Even if it IS a bad idea, it can certainly spring-board into other ideas that aren't.

The key remains to never take no (or "it's impossible") for an answer and then remove or bypass any encumberances that get thrown in the way.




*

 

I'm not fixated on autoX, I do road course time trials.
I just misread and/or assumed autoX. Thanks for the info.
I agree that around a good road course, a solid axle could be less a disadvantage.

 

I never said I don't believe you. I *do* believe you.

But I still bet the SS had a tire advantage. They both had "Eagle F1's", but there are a LOT of "Eagle F1" variants, ranging from track/autoX-worthy tires a notch under DOT race tires all the way to long-wearing all-season tires. The stock Corvette EMT's are not very highly rated as track tires.

I'd also be interested to know the camber settings for both cars, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Corvette's camber at the low end and the SS's maxed out.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the 1LE had power/weight parity at least and possibly a slight advantage.

In my experience 4th-gen F-bodies are light-years from C5 lap times at the track. Indeed, competent F-body drivers do well to keep up with the likes of 287-hp 350Z's and S2000's.

 

I think we were all under the impression that the original concept for the Z28 would be an LSA-powered car in the GT500 mold (and by association would probably exceed 4000 pounds.)

That delta was much smaller during the C5 run, which is more like what I was envisioning for Z28.

 

If you start comparing 4th gen f-bodies to vettes, 350z's, and s2000's especially. Youa re really comparing apples to oranegs. The torque curves and powerbands of these vheicles are MAJORLY different, and powerband plays a big part around road course and auto-x courses.

 

And so probably are the folks at Ford and Chrysler. Hmmm.

 

I keep hearing about how a '99 SS 1LE is faster than a '99 Corvette Z51 around a road course. I'm just pointing out that in my experience, F-bodies are not just slower, they're *much* slower than C5 Corvettes at the track, more in the 350Z/S2000 realm as far as lap times.

 

Hmm. Posts seem to be disappearing from this thread -- perhaps because the original poster is deleting them or is something else going on?

I saw one from 1fastdog last night that's still in my browser cache, but nowhere to be found. Then I have an email saying that Bob Cosby added a post, but it's nowhere to be found.

 

Wow took a few days off, now look what happened. This turned in to a monster.

 

We didn't get a grip, but we do have new smileys.

 

Good point. I was comparing magazine review numbers for the G8 with manufacturer numbers for the Camaro.

The magazine tests have said that G8 GT actually weighs about 4100 lbs, not the 3995 that GM claims. This is probably due to optional equipment, but I don't know. We'll have to wait and see what Camaro SS weighs in the real world.

Nonetheless, Camaro is both lighter and more powerful, which gives me very high hopes for the driving experience.

 

Actually, that first one has been around for a few months now. I created it on March 13th, and Jason had it on the site that same day.