The dual clutch gearboxes are pretty heavy. We're all asking for light weight and then we're asking for heavy technologies like 8 speed autos or dual clutch gearboxes.

 

I believe Camaro will be after ATS. After ATS gets it coupe, sedan and convertible.


Consider CTS kind of an offshoot of Alpha. Camaro will probably already be in the pipeline.

 

I did say Camaro 'exceeds' Federal crash standards.

I stand corrected but I do believe that Camaro uses UHSS in its B-pillars... Does the '11 Mustang have the same? I thought it only uses UHSS in its door intrusions beams and not the B-pillar?


There's many reasons for it. But just how does a device weighing around 20-30 lbs have any significant bearing on the F-R weight distribution on a 3850 lb car ( = ~ 1%)?

I've heard the reasons are more to do with packaging and crash-protection/safety. Many GM vehicles have their batteries in the trunk for this reason and not all are performance oriented cars e.g. HHR, Cobalt, CTS etc...

 

Maybe I didn't word it very well but all I'm saying is that Alpha will be slightly lighter due to being smaller than Zeta. I don't think there will be a lot of difference in weight between the two architectures. Whatever weight savings there are, it will be welcomed.

To assume Alpha will bring significant weight savings is being a little naive, IMHO. Just look at the current M3. It's no featherweight at 3700 lbs even if it is substantially smaller than Camaro... and there's a new generation M3 around the corner... so we'll see if it doesn't pack on more pounds.

 

Right. What I meant was that Alpha would be a clean sheet for Camaro because it is being taken under consideration from the get-go, where Zeta most definitely was not.

There had better be. Look, if Zeta Camaro is 3900 pounds and Alpha Camaro is 3700-3800 pounds, I don't see the point in developing the chassis for Camaro at all.

 

The best way to understand my point is to compare the current 3-series and 5-series BMWs.

You'd be surprised to know there isn't much difference in weight between the respective platforms... even though the 5-series has the considerably bigger footprint.

I would imagine the comparison will be much the same regarding Alpha and Zeta.

On that note, I do recall an article quite a while back when Holden engineers stated that a 'Torana' sized platform wouldn't yield big weight savings over the Zeta platform.

 

The more I hear this, the more I am starting to think we might have Camaro on Zeta for longer than we think. At least a on refresh.

My main reasoning is..

Alpha will be a lose, lose for the Camaro. It will either use light weight materials and cost a lot more than Zeta, or use heavy materials and cost only a little more. Without a lot of aluminum, there I can see no way that a V8 Alpha Camaro weighs less than 3700lbs.

The current Camaro sells like hotcakes..and if GM can keep it fresh without an all new platform..why add the per unit cost of Alpha? Ford was able to keep the fox body Mustang relevent for 25 years..that means Zeta Camaro could last 10. I know you guys are thinking.."Well coupes get old"..but the new Camaro has personality, and the public imagination like no other past Camaro. When 300 of them lined up for a cruise at Camaro5fest last weekend..people were actually running out of their houses, and lining the streets cheering them on.

I could see GM keeping Camaro on Zeta through first generation of Alpha, and then when Alpha is refreshed passing down the old platform like Mercedes did with Chrysler.

b)

 

I just don't get this line of reasoning at all. It seems to imply that you would never redesign a car unless you could drop more than 200 pounds, but that seems so obviously silly, so I'm left with not getting it. If I look at all the redesigns over the last decade, I can count on one had the number that had significant weight loss, and even then, they lost something like the 5% above. Didn't C6 weigh about the same as C5? Why redesign it?

What about all the other reasons mentioned before for putting the next Camaro on Alpha, like common architecture, better steering, etc. Besides, 5% is a good weight loss. I don't expect to see more than that from the vast majority of redesigns. Most of the new designs coming out this year are heavier than what they're replacing (Jag XJ, Audi A8, BMW 5), the Sonata being a notable exception. And most of the weight loss there is from the new design being limited to an I4.

 

No idea. From the sounds of it, you have no idea either.

Drag racers move the battery to the trunk all the time - road racers too (though perhaps forward of the rear axle). Anything that helps improve balance (or weight transfer, in the case of drag racing) helps.

Also, I think you'll find the battery is more like ~40+ lbs. If I take 40 lbs off the nose and move it to the rear, thats a shift of 80 lbs, which is closer to ~2%. 52/48 is better than 53/47, is it not? To an enthusiast, thiis is not a small thing. I suppose to you it might not mean a hill of beans, but I digress.

 

Correct, I have no idea about the Stang. Because it gets 5 stars today does not mean it will get 5 stars again in its current configuration for even tougher crash tests. I would say Camaro will still pass future tests in its current configuration as it does have one tough structure... but that is just pure conjecture on my part.

Anyway, these links should give you some idea (and probably also validate my claim)...

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Boron.pdf
http://www.boronextrication.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

Notice, no mention of UHSS in the B-pillars on the Mustang!


Drag cars and production cars are two different beasts. Totally irrelevant context.

If that is the case then, yes, that is a 'double' gain but if manufacturers always concentrated on F-R weight distribution, then all production cars would have near 50:50 weight distribution and all batteries, transmissions etc... would be located at the rear. But that is not actually the case, as you well know.

 

I guess we're assuming that the cost of stronger, lighter materials like aluminum will stay at a constantly high price.

If Alpha is a volume platform covering two different Cadillacs and Camaro, the old "economies of scale" buzzphrase comes into play at some point, no? Let's not forget that Camaro's business case (only Zeta car in North America) would appear to make little sense except for the fact that it is selling so well. And with CAFE ever increasing, automakers have to find ways to shave weight - making "exotic" materials not so exotic anymore.

Let me be clear. ANY weight savings in a re-design is warmly welcomed. In this case, what I am saying is that if you cannot significantly bring an Alpha Camaro down in weight from the Zeta Camaro, you might as well leave Camaro on Zeta, go through the process of sweating weight savings there, and focus Alpha once again on being the small RWD platform with 4 and 6 cylinder versions only. Why put in the development work and cost to package-protect the platform for a V8 Camaro when there would be little difference between it and Zeta?

Your Corvette analogy doesn't apply, we're talking about moving a car to a different (and more appropriate) platform in its redesign rather than looking for granular weight reduction and tweaking styling and features for the next generation.

 

According to Edmunds there's almost a 500 pound difference between a 335i and a 535i...

I know the M3 is a bit heavier (3700 pounds for the coupe) but I wouldn't expect the same level of "doodaddery" in the Camaro...

 

Aluminum is not 'expensive' although it is more expensive than steel. The fact that aluminum does not provide the same strength as steel means that more aluminum must be used (i.e. added thickness must be applied to the aluminum component) which does negate its weight saving to some extent. This leads to price creep.

 

Hmmmmm

I used C&D's specs:

335i: 3594 lbs link.

535i: 3660 lbs link.

But I certainly can't believe there's a 500 lb difference!

 

I see what's happening. The 2011 5 series is new, and is significantly heavier.

Edmunds.com agrees with your 335 weight http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/bmw/...941/specs.html

They have the 2011 535 at 4056 pounds.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2011/bmw/...618/specs.html


C&D agrees
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...goodies_page_2

So, the difference between the 3 and 5 is now quite large. The fact that the rather large previous (2010) 5 series was that light is quite impressive!