You don't know if such a car would CAFE negative, you're just speculating. As you are about a 200 pound weight savings. If a nicely equipped Alpha Camaro comes in at 3700 (+) pounds, I'd call that a waste of time and developement money.

I'll believe a light weight Zeta when I see it. So far they're talking deleting the spare tire from the Commodore. Okay, that's a start I guess. Light weight needs to be baked in from the start. It wasn't with Zeta - and anyone who's worked any of those programs knows it.

And I'm all for the smallest possible external dimensions as well....

 

We're all just speculating, except for the few who are actually involved in it. But as I've said before, I'm basing my speculations on what else is actually available in the industry today. I'm not sure what your speculations are based on. I'll let you state.

Yes. Which is why I think the current Camaro was better aimed than you give Chevy credit for.

I agree with the direct statements.

However, you imply that light weight was not a concern with Zeta -- I don't know if you meant to. Anyway, I don't think that's true. While they didn't go to extraordinary efforts, weight definitely was a concern, because they didn't want worse fuel economy than the previous. But they also needed to match and beat the Falcon in comfort, safety, structure, etc., and those all add weight. But the Alpha will need to be good in all those things too. And you could imagine a Zeta3 with a unit body made from high strength steel, light seats, tires, Al IRS, etc., dropping 100+ pounds.

 

This is one of those silly circular arguments. You speculate that an Alpha Camaro would only save 200 pounds over the current one. I say that would be a waste of time. You say - ahha - then give Chevy more credit for the Camaro.

Honestly, I fear greatly for this Camaro. Especially since my feeling is, that if this one fails - that'll be that for the marque.

I sure would feel more confident about it, if for example, someone like you - one of it's most ardent defenders regarding it's mass - were actually strongly considering purchasing one.


Are you kidding? Weight was a HUGE concern with every Zeta program. Even going back to the old GMX284 and 282. Those programs were hundreds of pounds over their targets. And so is the Camaro.
It's not that no one was concerned about weight - BELIEVE-YOU-ME - that was not the case. It's just that Zeta's structure is especially heavy. Trust me, there is no high-fiving going on at GM over this.

Alpha will absolutely not be nor need to be like Zeta. Zeta is an overbuilt, overmassed, large -to- very large car architecture.

Alpha will be the antithesis of Zeta. It will be small. It will be engineered for low mass from the start. It will probably use lighter, more advanced materials. It will be developed with global appeal in mind. It will be much different than Zeta. MUCH different.


Your statement comparing Alpha to Zeta is analogous to saying that the 3 series cannot possibly be much smaller or lighter than the 7 series.

 

Okay. When I see someone who actually seems to know what he's talking about:

And then your reply:

I think hmm. Best I can tell, you have no basis for the mass complaints other than product team targets (who knows where you get that info, but I'll assume it's genuine). Then I suggest that targets are often set at a very aggressive level, and that you should not confuse a target with reality. No reply. So I'm tempted to take the "that's for guys like you to figure out" at face value.



There are plenty of heavy cars built with global appeal in mind that are heavy. Have you checked the weight numbers for the Golf recently?

Zeta is heavier than some and lighter than others. It's right there with most other RWD platforms of the same size. Lighter, more advanced materials will help some. But I've seen the effect of those in cars like the A8 and the Jag XJ and XK, which though lighter than their competition -- they aren't that much lighter.

Not at all. It's like saying that size alone won't make it much lighter, because the 3 series isn't much lighter than the 5 series. Where do you think I came up with the savings?



Let's try another tack. Six cylinder Alpha. 300hp. 2 doors. 181 inches long. How much lighter will it be than the same-size 2008 model 335i or G37 coupe?

 

You know what? You're annoying. You keep asking me the same stuff over and over again, in thread after thread, and I keep giving you the same answers - and then you keep asking me again. It's like a freaking episode of the Twilight Zone.

And if I say to a pro, that I think he's more likely to solve a problem in his area of expertise, than a lay person would (such as myself), you're gonna burn me for that?

Let me say this clearly. You're arguments do not sway me. I have my opinion and you have yours. I really don't give a **** that a fully contented European or Japanese luxury GT weighs almost as much as a Camaro.

The weird part here is, with all of your bluster, you are no more likely to buy this car than I am. So why are you bustin' my ballz then?

 

True.

The supercharged 3800's tend to do better then the naturally aspirated ones, only difference is a longer final drive.

 

Because I don't get straight answers. I may write a post, to which you'll quote just a small part. Does that mean you agree or disagree with the rest? I really have no clue. I can't read your mind. If I'm annoying, it's because you're frustrating and I'm persistent.

Why? What's in the GT that won't be expected in the Camaro? The difference between a luxury car and a Camaro in terms of equipment is pretty small, especially if you compare a popularly equipped model of a Camaro with a base entry lux model. You have yourself used those cars as a comparison point.

Because you're so vocal on the topic and seem to know so many insiders, I'm trying to understand why you have such extreme opinions. Maybe you don't listen to them. Maybe there's some reason why you're so hard on Zeta, when for all I can see, it's not heavy compared to other RWD V8 195" long sedans. When the Camaro is not all that heavy compared to other current RWD cars with similar power and specification. Maybe, maybe. It is baffling to me (see part about persistance above).

Bluster? You're accusing me of bluster? Hello Mr. Pot.
I find it interesting that you think you know how likely I am to buy this car, or that the likelihood somehow affects whether I should be posting on the topic or questioning your statements. I'm not asking for in depth engineering analyses or anything like that -- just, show me a car out there that's even close to what you're asking for. I think the end of this is that you can't and that it doesn't matter to you that you can't (from the part above where you say that my arguments, which are not based on structural engineering but market analysis do not sway you). I also understand that you don't have enough expertise (most of us don't) to do the structural analysis either. Really, that would take quality time from a team of experts. So I agree that there isn't much left.

So I'll summarize it straight and leave it at that. I think your unrealistic expectations/desires are damaging to the success of the Camaro. That talking about 3400 pound 400hp 5.0 litre V8 Alpha 6th gens won't help sell more 5th gens. I assume that your opinion matters, so I want to understand what's behind it, and either change mine or convince you to change yours. That may be incorrect and naive, but there you have it.

 

I honestly don't see how a V8 powered Alpha could ever be more CAFE positive than a V8 powered Zeta. Sure, it might get a little better fuel mileage, but there's no way its getting north of 35mpg average. (Which is what it would take to make it CAFE positive.) At least not with current engine technologies.

Again another plug for GM to develop sub 4.0L V8s with DI.

 

Well, I figure a smaller, lighter, package, with a smaller displacement, higher tech engine, should do better than 23 mpg? 35 mpg from a V8, probably no way.
But other versions certainly could hit or even surpass that. And the V8 version could be much less CAFE negative, perhaps even rated at around 30 mpg.

The point is that no version of 5th gen Camaro, will be CAFE positive or neutral. Even the base V6 version will be CAFE negative. Think about that.

 

Would you want to see both a 3.6l V6 and 3.6l V8, even if the V6 had nearly equal power and better mileage? Also, the V8 would be more expensive due to higher build complexity and reduced volumes.

Small V8s seem to have been a market failure. The 3.0 liter BMW V8 only lasted here a few years. It stayed around longer in Europe, growing in size over time, but I believe the turbo 6 killed it. You could also buy a small Jag V8 in Europe.

 

For what its worth - a V6 will have fewer frictional losses than a similar sized V8.

 

It'll be interesting to see how things might pan out. Although I'm all for a burbling smallblock, if given the choice between that or a substantially smaller amd lighter package with a high performance V6, it'd be a tough choice.

But then again, I'm still not clear on why a compact, pushrod, Gen V, smallblock would not be packageable in a space which packages a (much more expensive), DOHC, 4V, turbo, intercooled, V6.

 

LNF Camaro should save about 150lbs. over the V6 and get the Camaro to 30mpg EPA hwy rating.

I made a similar thread about a 4cyl. awhile back https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=622780

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would assume from a design/engineering perspective a small V8 would have additional advantages over a V6 with a similar displacement. One area is AFM. A V8 with half its cylinders turned off would be more "balanced" than a V6 with cylinder deactivation. We've already read that GM is switching from a I3 to a I4 for the Volt's "generator" because it will be smoother. A smoother running engine means less strain on parts, more durability and yes, better fuel mileage regardless of the number of cylinders.

Lets not limit our options by using old world thinking that a V6 will always get better mileage than a V8. Lets simply build a better V8.

 

Other than the Torana concept, I've not seen anything saying that a turbo V6 is on the table, except maybe the 2.8 turbo V6, which isn't even as powerful as the DI 3.6.

If it's two tiny turbos, they could be packaged on the side with a 60 degree V6. The V8 would be longer -- nothing you can do about that. There are a bunch of cars that will fit a turbo V6 that will not fit a V8.

Maybe if they reduce bore size to reduce length of the V8 ....