guionM

Lots of misconceptions being thrown around.

1. The Zeta GM cancelled was a series of Premium RWD cars. This included a coupe and sedan for Buick and Pontiac.

2. GM decided against this primarily because the project lost it's cost avdantage. Examples: GM-Holden makes most all it's own components, GM-NA doesn't. Also, GM-NA would have spent as much money (if not more) setting up to make VEs here as they would doing their own car off a local model.

3. As for Velite, C.J. Fraleigh is on record saying he wants to get "Velite out in some form". Since GM's premium chassis is out, and Buick turned down Kappa early because it didn't fit with the direction it wanted to go, that leaves either trhe upcoming Chevy RWD chassis or a FWD based chassis. Buick is going with whichever is quicker & cheaper... which do you think will win out?

4. Zeta is just a name or better yet, a method. A way of making a series of RWD models of different configurations off of the same RWD structure. The VE was one, and the Chevy structure is another.

5. Though not originally concieved as a "Premium" car, Buick and Pontiac want to be a part of this new chassis.

6. Finally, go back a few years, and Bob Lutz and the rest of GM spoke of a RWD Premium chassis to use for future luxury & high performance models. GM has decided to use a lower cost platform to boost profit margins.

No more to add.

Supergrobo82

Thank You Guy. This may be one of clearest explanations of "zeta" I have herd.

Could you also clear this up:
What is/or is there a relation to sigma and/or sigma lite?

formula79

The Chevy one is the Sigma based Zeta...with the more cost effective components in the suspension and such. It's already well shown that Sigma is flexible (CTS, SRX, and STS), question is...how will the proportions look in an application smaller than the CTS? Also, now that Sigma is older...many of the original costs have been amoralized..making it cheaper to use for Chevy's. DCX does something similar by basing LX cars off of old Mercedes platforms.

ehaase

The CTS is only 2.5 inches longer and 2.2 inches taller than the Mustang. I don't think that there would be a significant size difference between a CTS and a Camaro.

SSbaby

Always great to read your material, Guy!

Thanks for the heads up again... no chance of steering any discussions off course now!

Chewbacca

NewbieWar

i thought we all agreed, that the new mustang was too big... didnt we have a thread a while back?

that means the if the cts was to be shrunk a bit, the cabin space is out of perportion to a coupe... but i'm sure GM is good at that...

Threxx

Wow... sounds familiar. Sounds uh... just like GM's accounting decisions for the last 20 years. I thought they'd figured out that cutting cost to boost profits but make an inferior product was not the way to retain long term customers?

SRFCTY

To quote Bob Cosby...Yawn!

Give it a rest already, because no matter what GM does it will be wrong in your eyes! I guess every Toyota made is on a premium chassis. Low cost doesn't have to mean inferior! Why don't you actually wait and see what comes out before you judge, after which I'm sure you'll bash it anyway with your idea of "facts".

ehaase

I don't think that the Sigma lite Camaro will be much smaller than the CTS or Mustang because Sigma-lite will probably also be used for RWD sedans for Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Buick, even if everyone here thinks that the Mustang is too big.

jg95z28

Speak for yourself. I have always advocated that the Mustang is the perfect size for a ponycar. I have even said so is the current GTO, if it had a slightly shorter roofline and slightly wider track.

The Mustang isn't as big as some people think. Place it side by side with a 4th gen Camaro and the new Charger. They make it look small.

Threxx

Interesting... so it's fine to praise a chassis or idea from GM long before it actually makes its way from the drawing board to the real world, yet it's not OK to simply make the comment that GM is where it is today ("on the road to redemption") due to their habit of cutting costs to make money short term without regarding customer satisfaction over the long term.

Oh, and FWIW I think Nissan has started making the exact same mistake in the last 4 years or so - so this isn't just my thought regarding GM.

formula79

I think there is confusion on what is meant by lower cost. Here it means that GM will save money because the Sigma based cars production processes are much more familiar and cheaper than retooling to Holden's V-car processes. Also, the Sigma based chassis that they are using was designed by Chevy, while Pontiac a Buick were caught up with VE..so naturally it will be budget minded. Also, as Guy mentioned earlier...VE has come in overweight. Too much weight is the enemy of engineers. The more weight, the more material cost. The heavier the car, the worse the fuel economy...and more gas it has to carry to reach a certain range...adding to weight. It is a viscious cycle,

Also, it is cheaper to give a low cost volume stripper platform premium components as the application dictates than it is dumb down a limited production premium platform to satisfy volume cost levels.

Threxx

That makes sense, but in the original post it was said

Which suggests the only reason they did it was to save money.

If it was a savings with no drawbacks then I retract my previous statement.

SRFCTY

If you read my post, I haven't praised anything, all I said was wait and see, rather than automatically assume it's the same old GM. If it does turn out to be a an inferior chassis then feel free to fire away, but I think seeing a product first before berating it or the manufacture (and before praising also) makes more sense.