I guess I'm going to be all over the map with you on this post.

First off, I agree wholeheartedly about the GT500 barely being quicker than the supercharged Cobras. The GT500 has nearly 100 more horsepower, but all the fortifications made to the drivetrain and chassis sop up most of that gain. That in turn begs a question I made some time ago here... "Have we gotten to the point in performance cars where we've reached the point of diminishing returns"?

That said, secondly, taking the position of "[i]If it performed this good with X amount of weight, imagine how it would perform at W, V, U, or even T weight. I don't buy into this because of 2 reasons.

1. Increased power equals increased weight. If you're running a 400 or 500 horsepower V8 rear drive 4 seat car based on a regular production chassis that's going to be cost effective, it's going to be at a certain weight level. The issue of how that car would perform if it was 500 pounds lighter is moot because if it was, it wouldn't handle the same horsepower without increased cost or reduced durability.

2. It's a hypotheiical slope that can easily fall to unrealistic extremes. "[i]What if the 600 plus horsepower ZR1 Corvette was put into a Mazda Miata? Ridiculous? Yes. Just as wondering what a 500 horse GT500 engine would be like if the car weighed 3400 pounds.... which it doesn't... and it can't.

So called "Over the Top" numbers are arbitrary, subject to the individual picking out a weight number out of thin air without regards to anything else but this random number. This includes the costs or engineering required to make this power dependable as well as the vehicle this power is installed in.

I can pick a random number... say 3300 pounds... and say anything over that is a pig or is extreme. Yet I'm free from any realistic limitations or bounderies that real engineers have to deal with in all of this.

 

That's retarded! The only way I can see it being fair is if the axle ratio and top gears are the same, then it would show the engines true low end capabilities, otherwise it's just spreading useless and pointless numbers.

 

retarded unless your the type that doesn't bother with downshifting at cruise, then its a pretty good comparison.

I wish I could remeber this line from a sales class, it was something along the lines of "performance you can't understand, but..." Anyways the jist of it was you don't have to understand something to make it valid.

 

I agree, but who says that "certain weight level" has to be 2+tons?? I'm not expecting it to weigh 2,XXXlbs or even 3,100lbs. I don't think expecting a sub 400-425hp pony car in the realm of 3,500-3,650lbs is "unrealistic" or "unattainable" nor does it have to come at a high cost.


That's assuming they simply downgrade all the parts to cheaper lighter-duty parts without exploring other weight saving methods. There is more than one way of reducing weight & not all of them automatically = increased $$$ or compromised reliability/durability.


Therein lies one of the problems and cause of the GT500's weight problem. That motor is the #1 issue & one of the reasons why the GT500 is so heavy to begin with. I believe the motor alone approaches or exceeds 700lbs. Now ask yourself, does a 500hp engine NEED to weigh 700+lbs? Compare it to something like the 500hp Ls7 which weighs 200+lbs less and is really no more expensive to build. Assuming Ford had an engine along the lines of the LS7 and used that in place of the S/c'd 5.4...That'd be 200+lbs off the total weight of the car & more importantly that'd be 200+lbs off the nose of the car. You've just shaved 200+lbs right there and you haven't compromised durability or reliability & we haven't even began to explore other potential weight saving methods like keeping the overall size of the car down.

There are ways of reducing weight without significantly jacking up the price or compromising durability. For starters, pony cars & sports coupes are getting quite large. To the point where they're exterior dimensions rival or exceed that of sedans. The new Challenger is 7" longer than a BMW 5series sedan. It is longer than a Cadillac STS & within half an inch of a BMW 7series. Is that necessary?? Are you now going to tell me that a 425hp pony car/sports coupe has to be that large to support that amount of power?? *Sarcasm*

Seems like you making excuses for short-sightedness and laziness on the automakers part. They've given us oversized sports coupes and 700lb motors, and we're supposed to accept that in the name of "realism"??

I'm understanding your argument, but you're assuming i haven't taken that into account. I have. I am saying it still DOESN'T have to be that heavy. If Ford/Chryser/GM really wanted to, they can build an affordable 400+hp 3,500-3,650b v8 sports coupe without compromising durability or reliability. It starts with keeping size down and finding efficient & cost-effective ways of reducing drivetrain, etc...weight.

& realistic limitations and boundaries don't have to = 2+tons.

 

How do you know this? Why wouldn't they want to if they could?

If you really wanted to, you could start your own company and build a 400+ hp affordable v8 sports coupe. What's stopping you?

It's just that easy to type this, but that doesn't make it true.

 

If you have a T56 you SHOULDN'T be in top gear at 30 mph. That's 600 RPM!

So your comparing the T56 with a 50-70 MPH shot in 6th gear at ~1000 RPM - ~1500 RPMs.

Where as the Bullitt gets to do it at from... 1600 RPM - 2300 RPM.

 

Yeah. Because i have millions and billions i can spend on research and development & because i have their resources at my disposal.

You probably made excuses for why they built crappy cars back in the 80's and 90's too. When someone said they could have built a better quality car, what did you tell them? that if that person felt that way, that they can build their own car in their backyard?

Why is that a challenger is as long as a BMW 7 series? Why is it still using an iron-block? Why is it that Nissan can shed weight in their upcoming affordable Zcar but that Chrysler "can't"?

It's like when the solstice/sky came out. I'm a BIG fan of both cars btw & especially the redline/Gxp series, but i was left scratching my head why the base N/A twins were 400+lbs heavier than the miata. Somehow, the miata manages to offer similar interior space/dimensions, cost about the same, but it manages to be significantly lighter. The answer was simple. Mazda just did their homework better & just put more emphasis on keeping weight down.

My whole point is that a sports coupe doesn't have to weigh 4,140lbs & that maybe Chrysler and the rest of the domestics should put a bit more emphasis on weight reduction. And not just in their sports coupes, but all their vehicles in general. With gas exceeding $4/gallon, this is becoming of even greater importance.

 

The Miata also has more trunk space and better mileage.

But despite the bloat, the comparisions I've read (on KAPPA boards to be fair) have the base Sky/Sol beating the Miata at everything but the 1/4 mile (where the LNF still wins). So like someone said above, maybe a nearly two ton Camaro wouldn't suck.

 

I'm not comparing anything - I'm just saying it doesn't have to be useful to you or me to be a valid test. Perhaps you might want to drop the editor a line and inquire as to why they perform these particular tests and the reason for them?

 

And Chrysler has billions to spend on the Challenger? You've made my point.

No, I'm making a point by taking an absurd comment to an extreme.

Because Chrysler has one version of their V8 engine, and one RWD V8 platform. They don't have the money to develop an Al version for the cars, and they don't have the money to develop a new platform for the Challenger. And if they did, you have to question whether the additional volume in sales would generate enough ROI.

Mazda spent more effort (time and money) on the Miata than GM did on the Solstice. The Challenger is a large sedan with two doors missing. In that light, 4140 pounds is perfectly understandable.

 

No, & you've completely missed my main point there. You compared someone who barely makes 30k a year (me) to a company that has more resources at their disposal. That was in response to your "well you go and build one yourself then" comment.


So they're cash strapped and can't pull a grade-A effort to build a lighter affordable sports coupe is what you're saying? I can accept that. But don't tell me they can't build a lighter car as if building a 3,6XXlb 400+hp sports coupe is an unbelievable feat that requires black magic. As if it can't be done without serious compromises. Guy made it sound that way. It can be done if the time and effort is put in. Whether the company feels that time and effort is worthwhile is a completely different debate/question.

Of course you get out what you put in. If you put in less effort and money, the end result will seem somewhat half-hearted.

It's only perfectly understandable because it is a large land yacht with 2 doors that's trying to pass off as a sports coupe. I'm not gonna lie, it does a pretty good job, but there's room for improvement & i think we can both agree on that .

I like the challenger, i'm just somewhat turned off by the size and weight.

 

Looks like Saleen will be having 2 supercharged Challenger models. Both will have the 5.7L Hemi, be street legal, and making between 500-700horses.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6846

 

Well you both lack the resources. You just have more of a lack.


To your other point, I don't know how easy it would be to build a (real) 4 seat coupe with 400+ hp/tq that comes in at 3600 pounds and includes IRS and has typical comfort and safety gear (rollup windows and no A/C or radio doesn't count). There are not any that exist, so it's obviously not trivial. It's surely possible if enough lightweight material is used, and enough effort is spent paring the grams.

But how much would it cost? I'm betting it would be quite a bit more expensive than the Challenger. The trouble is that in that price range, people expect more equipment in their car, not less. That adds more weight.

So you could build an $50K coupe with the same equipment as the $35K coupe, but 200 pounds lighter. But how many would you sell? Would you amortize development costs and production tooling?

But don't try to tell me that it's just a matter of not being lazy....

 

If that's the case, we can name an example. If not, then it would stand to reason this is not true.



See above.



LS7 is pushing 500 pounds, which is very light weight. The engine has titanium connecting rods, sodium filled valve stems, and a host of other exotic lightweight materials. And you pay for that light weight.. There's a reason why the engine isn't going to be in Camaros. FWIW, 200 pounds is the weight of a base 4 cyliner engine.

As far as price:
GM's hand built LS7 lists for $17,495 on GM performance parts catalogue (part#17802397).

Ford's blown 5.4 V8 (part number M-6007-C54) lists for $15,999

The Ford engine is cheaper.

http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/results...umber=17802397
http://www.fordracingparts.com/crate...dularcobra.asp



1. What ways exist to take off substantial weight without significantly jacvking up the price of cars?

2. If it were that simple, don't you think automakers would be doing it since it would increase their CAFE averages and give them and edge on the competition?

3. Since you compared a Challenger to a STS and BMW 7 series, lets compare the weights of all these cars in V8 form.

The Challenger R/T is a hair under 4000 pounds.
The Cadillac STS weighs 3995 (roughly the same weight as the Challenger R/T).
The Cadillac STS-V weighs 4233 versus Challenger SRT8's 4140.
The BMW 5 series with V8 (the 550i) weighs 3946... also in the R/T's ball park.
Your BMW 7 series weighs a frigging 4,486 pounds!

Might want to check the weight of vehicles before you use them as examples.


As every engineer who has posted here on this very subject has said, there is no free rides and one is only limited by how much money they want to spend. Saying automakers are lazy and shortsighted is the reason cars are heavy is (and I'm sorry to say this) is completely baseless. Reasons why I say that:

1. The people making these claims are not engineers.
2. The people making these claims can't name a vehicle to support their view.
3. The people making these claims can't offer any ideas on how.
4. The people making these claims aren't considering what the public is actually buying.

Anyone can sit in the comfort of their living room or office and type on their computer that automakers could easily and cheaply take weight off of a vehicle, but they are too lazy to do it. Yet, these same people seem unable to take the time and ask a simple question..."Does that claim even make an iota of sense?"

If it was easy to take weight off, then they would do it. If it could be done, some car company on the planet would do it. However, even cost-is-no-object makers like BMW and Mercedes or even Lexus and Infiniti would have come up with a way to do it.


Again, the question burns very clearly:

"If Ford/Chrysler/GM wanted to cut weight in their cars, and could cut weight in their cars, and make the whole thing affordable.... then why wouldn't they?..... Why hasn't any other company on the planet create a 400+ horsepower car that seats more than 2 people and weighs 3500 pounds?

It's one thing to type opinion on a computer keyboard.

It's a entirely different beast when you actually have to do it.



& realistic limitations and boundaries don't have to = 2+tons.[/QUOTE]