Alpha, Alpha + and Beta...
03-27-2010, 09:01 AM
#31
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
No. 3400 would be for a atmo V6 and a car engineered for maximum weight reduction.
I was going to say that if the V6 weighs as much as the V8, then there's something wrong with the V6.
The engine itself should be nearly 100 pounds lighter, and it is, going by these weights.
If the V6 is engineered for maximum weight reduction, then the V8 is going to need a heftier transmission, drive shaft, diff, brakes, spindles, wheels, tires, etc. I would even expect the V8's chassis to perhaps be a bit wider, to fit a 90 degree engine where a 60 degree or inline normally goes.
Go look at cars like the Merc C-class, where they actually do engineer separate V6 and V8 models. It's 300 or so pounds difference.
Now maybe they'll build one car for two engines, and then you'll be looking at a 100 pound weight difference like today. But then it's likely 3600 for the V6. We don't want that.
I was going to say that if the V6 weighs as much as the V8, then there's something wrong with the V6.
The engine itself should be nearly 100 pounds lighter, and it is, going by these weights.
If the V6 is engineered for maximum weight reduction, then the V8 is going to need a heftier transmission, drive shaft, diff, brakes, spindles, wheels, tires, etc. I would even expect the V8's chassis to perhaps be a bit wider, to fit a 90 degree engine where a 60 degree or inline normally goes.
Go look at cars like the Merc C-class, where they actually do engineer separate V6 and V8 models. It's 300 or so pounds difference.
Now maybe they'll build one car for two engines, and then you'll be looking at a 100 pound weight difference like today. But then it's likely 3600 for the V6. We don't want that.
The difference between V6 and V8 versions of both the current Mustang and Camaro is about 100 pounds. What makes you think Alpha will be any different?
Last edited by Z284ever; 03-27-2010 at 02:11 PM.
03-27-2010, 03:14 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 766
Alpha will be package protected for 4,6 and 8 cylinders. Is it possible that the 4 cylinder version has to carry alittle water in order to have a V8 version? Sure. To what extent, we can only guess.
The difference between V6 and V8 versions of both the current Mustang and Camaro is about 100 pounds. What makes you think Alpha will be any different?
The difference between V6 and V8 versions of both the current Mustang and Camaro is about 100 pounds. What makes you think Alpha will be any different?
I thought the very essence of Alpha's small nimble light-weight raison d'etre meant that V8s would pretty much be ruled out of the picture.
03-27-2010, 05:26 PM
#33
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
GM will have to walk the tightrope cautiously in order to keep a "small and nimble" Alpha from experiencing the weight creep that goes along with package protection for V8 powertrains - unless we're looking at more modest output than the VE cars were designed to handle. The heavy duty components can add up weight-wise. In that regard Alpha may not end up being too much smaller than VE.
I thought the very essence of Alpha's small nimble light-weight raison d'etre meant that V8s would pretty much be ruled out of the picture.
I thought the very essence of Alpha's small nimble light-weight raison d'etre meant that V8s would pretty much be ruled out of the picture.
GM's putting alot of effort into this. and all indications are that it will be a very modern and flexible architecture, perhaps breaking new ground in those areas.
Nevertheless, you make a valid point.
03-27-2010, 06:03 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 766
Initially, Alpha was to be 4 cylinder only, but for a number of reasons things changed. This came VERY early on BTW.
GM's putting alot of effort into this. and all indications are that it will be a very modern and flexible architecture, perhaps breaking new ground in those areas.
Nevertheless, you make a valid point.
GM's putting alot of effort into this. and all indications are that it will be a very modern and flexible architecture, perhaps breaking new ground in those areas.
Nevertheless, you make a valid point.
I suppose if BMW can do it all so magnificently with the 3-Series, than GM is certainly capable of it too, although pinning a "lower than Cadillac" Camaro price-point to Alpha may compromise some of the lofty goals of a true no holds barred 3-Series competitor for Cadillac in order to allow for the "down market" Camaro. I hope not. I hope GM can pull it off - it may be very tricky is all I'm saying.
03-28-2010, 01:57 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Alpha will be package protected for 4,6 and 8 cylinders. Is it possible that the 4 cylinder version has to carry alittle water in order to have a V8 version? Sure. To what extent, we can only guess.
The difference between V6 and V8 versions of both the current Mustang and Camaro is about 100 pounds. What makes you think Alpha will be any different?
The difference between V6 and V8 versions of both the current Mustang and Camaro is about 100 pounds. What makes you think Alpha will be any different?
I base this on looking at weights of other platforms where the V6 variants carry much less V8 water (I like the "carrying water" analogy).
Now if they go for a smaller V8 with less torque, then weights will be closer. That's one reason why BMW went with a 4.0 in the M3, when it would have been much easier to just stick in the 4.8.
03-28-2010, 01:59 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Let's hope it all unfolds like that, a lighter V8 platform without the penalty of enough increased weight to make Alpha less than it is currently billed to be.
I suppose if BMW can do it all so magnificently with the 3-Series, than GM is certainly capable of it too, although pinning a "lower than Cadillac" Camaro price-point to Alpha may compromise some of the lofty goals of a true no holds barred 3-Series competitor for Cadillac in order to allow for the "down market" Camaro. I hope not. I hope GM can pull it off - it may be very tricky is all I'm saying.
I suppose if BMW can do it all so magnificently with the 3-Series, than GM is certainly capable of it too, although pinning a "lower than Cadillac" Camaro price-point to Alpha may compromise some of the lofty goals of a true no holds barred 3-Series competitor for Cadillac in order to allow for the "down market" Camaro. I hope not. I hope GM can pull it off - it may be very tricky is all I'm saying.
03-28-2010, 09:42 AM
#37
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
The Mustang difference is 150. I believe that in order to hit 3400 pounds, the V6 variant will have to carry no water for the V8. The V8 will need to carry its own water, of course. With proper sizing of all components, I think we're looking at 300 pounds.
I base this on looking at weights of other platforms where the V6 variants carry much less V8 water (I like the "carrying water" analogy).
Now if they go for a smaller V8 with less torque, then weights will be closer. That's one reason why BMW went with a 4.0 in the M3, when it would have been much easier to just stick in the 4.8.
I base this on looking at weights of other platforms where the V6 variants carry much less V8 water (I like the "carrying water" analogy).
Now if they go for a smaller V8 with less torque, then weights will be closer. That's one reason why BMW went with a 4.0 in the M3, when it would have been much easier to just stick in the 4.8.
I'm thinking that dramatic weight differences (ie., your 300 pounds) might happen between Alpha and the larger Alpha +. Of course, that's mere speculation on my part.
I can't imagine 300 pounds between the V6 and V8. I mean, can you imagine GM pouring tons of money and time into a new from scratch architecture and then still outweighing Mustang by a substantial margin. I'd say, heads would roll.
One other thing. When VE was renamed Zeta and it's use for a North American coupe had begun, from it's very inception it was apparent that it would be heavy - FAR beyond goal. Alpha is quite abit further along now than that, and there aren't those complaints circulating - but I haven't really snooped around lately. To be honest, my disappointments with certain aspects of the current car, have made me lose interest in any snooping. But I'm starting to feel the tingle of excitement again....
A smaller, lighter, Camaro, with great steering and chassis dynamics, modern interior AND with a screaming (yet efficient) Gen V smallblock stuffed into it's snout
----whoa!
ATS-V and Z/28 may become blood brothers...........
03-28-2010, 11:40 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: South Bend , IN
Posts: 2,801
Especially since Popular Hotrodding just stomped a mudhole on a 2010 a6 SS with a 2011 GT a6 .
03-28-2010, 08:34 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
I'm thinking that dramatic weight differences (ie., your 300 pounds) might happen between Alpha and the larger Alpha +. Of course, that's mere speculation on my part.
I can't imagine 300 pounds between the V6 and V8. I mean, can you imagine GM pouring tons of money and time into a new from scratch architecture and then still outweighing Mustang by a substantial margin. I'd say, heads would roll.
I can't imagine 300 pounds between the V6 and V8. I mean, can you imagine GM pouring tons of money and time into a new from scratch architecture and then still outweighing Mustang by a substantial margin. I'd say, heads would roll.
Mustang itself was nearly from scratch.
Yes, I can imagine it, and I don't think heads would roll. I think you're still underestimating what it takes to package a powerful V8 with requisite equipment for stopping, durability, and safety requirements.
Maybe it can come in at 3550 or 3600. Everyone else with a similar layout is weigh(
) above that number, and that is not from lack of effort.If they can make a V8 work at 3550, then I think they should be able to make a V6 work at 3250-3300, which would also undercut everyone else.
03-28-2010, 08:35 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
03-28-2010, 08:59 PM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: South Bend , IN
Posts: 2,801
03-28-2010, 09:10 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,123
There's a discussion on GMI about Peter DeLorenzo on Autoline ... apparently he saw an Alpha car, which he described as "very nice" and there was some speculation about the weight being 3450 lbs... though it's a bit hard to believe all the hype... then there are also the conflicting arguments...
03-28-2010, 09:14 PM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
03-28-2010, 10:24 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,505
Skimmed through and didn't see this posted yet...
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/a...#ixzz0jX3g3v5K
Scoop: GM Flexes Alpha Platform Options
Last month, we reported that the new rear-wheel-drive General Motors platform, Alpha, designed for the 2013 Cadillac 3 Series-fighter, also will underpin the 2014 CTS and 2015 Chevrolet Camaro. The platform is proving flexible enough to serve as the basis for expensive Cadillacs as big as the next CTS, which we expect to grow to about 195 inches long, plus a smaller Chevrolet and/or Buick sedan, as well as the next-generation Camaro.
Now we’ve learned that the platform is being “protected” for a variety of engines, including four-cylinders, supercharged or turbocharged V-6s, and the small block V-8. By “protected,” we mean the bodies are designed to allow for proper fitting of the various engines, whether they are offered with all the engine choices or not. You don’t “close off” the design to make it impossible to add a different engine or transmission initially unplanned. While four-cylinder engines are smaller than sixes and eights, of course, the cars also must accommodate active engine mounts to account for less inherent refinement and smoothness in the fours.
Last month, we reported that the new rear-wheel-drive General Motors platform, Alpha, designed for the 2013 Cadillac 3 Series-fighter, also will underpin the 2014 CTS and 2015 Chevrolet Camaro. The platform is proving flexible enough to serve as the basis for expensive Cadillacs as big as the next CTS, which we expect to grow to about 195 inches long, plus a smaller Chevrolet and/or Buick sedan, as well as the next-generation Camaro.
Now we’ve learned that the platform is being “protected” for a variety of engines, including four-cylinders, supercharged or turbocharged V-6s, and the small block V-8. By “protected,” we mean the bodies are designed to allow for proper fitting of the various engines, whether they are offered with all the engine choices or not. You don’t “close off” the design to make it impossible to add a different engine or transmission initially unplanned. While four-cylinder engines are smaller than sixes and eights, of course, the cars also must accommodate active engine mounts to account for less inherent refinement and smoothness in the fours.
These plans are fluid. GM is said to be in a quandary over the transmission designed to accommodate these cars. It's developing an eight-speed automatic for its V-6s. The question is, will the eight-speed be designed for front-wheel-drive or rear-wheel-drive?
