[If i remember correctly, didn't the Torana concept vehicle only have like a 3 gallon fuel tank? It was a styling concept and an idea for a possible future platform, so it would have taken a lot of development to turn into a production model. They couldn't just approve it for production after it was shown at the auto shows.

 

The Torana was as cobbled together as any other concept.

And yes, it's architecture would have needed to be developed.

Can you imagine how 'Johnny on the spot' GM would look like, had they developed that architecture then and were selling it now?

 

What about a stretched Kappa? The Kappa based cars are now around 2900-3000, V8 capable and I know they are going to a stretched Kappa as the base for another vehicle.

 

Kappa won't stretch. They considered that.

 

I was thinking they were also talking about the opposite at one point - a shrunken Alpha for the next generation Solstice and Sky.

 

Yeah, there's talk like that. But who knows.

 

I don't understand comments like this. Do they mean that it's not financially viable to do the engineering work that would be required to stretch it? If that's the case, shouldn't they say "stretching Kappa would be too expensive"? Or, better yet, "stretching Kappa would be more expensive than engineering a whole new platform"?

 

No, it simply won't stretch. This was explained to me on two seperate occasions by two different engineers afew years ago. Let me see if I can remember.

The issue(s) IIRC, has to do with the way the lower dominant structure relates to that structural hoop which joins the two rails. The hoop CANNOT be moved (ie., to make room for a back seat), and if you move it, you essentially have to sh!tcan the whole deal and start from scratch. Kappa and the Y-car architectures are one trick ponies.

 

I scanned the article from the magazine: