First, GT2? The GT2 puts out numbers I’ve never seen matched by a stock z06. When the current z06 can turn consistent 3.X sec 0-60’s, high 11 sec ¼ miles, with sub-121mph trap speeds, I’ll believe that. Anything can go in the street and i've only seen one 911 turbo and one GT2 to date and neither were racing a z06, or racing period. Beating on a Boxter S is no accomplishment. An Ls-1 camaro will out-drag one. If there was a stock 911 turbo vs z06 match, i'd put my money on the 911. Driver aside, a more powerful AWD Turbo 911 could outlaunch or beat a rwd z06 on the street. On a prepped track, it’s probably any ones race since their numbers are fairly close. There is also the X50 450hp performance option one can take into consideration when ordering a 911 Turbo.


I still see way more c5's and z06’s. How many do they sell a year? Boxter S production is still very low. How many Porsche dealers are there? How many seats does the typical Porsche have? Two which is unpractical. I'd hardly call that catering to the masses. Other than the standard sub-40k Boxter and 53k Boxter S’s, the rest of the lineup is way too pricey for 95% of the people to afford. Ever looked at the price tag of a Carrera 4S, GT3, 911 turbo, GT2, Carrera GT? Having cars that cost between 40,000 to well over 400,000 dollars doesn’t equal a company that makes cars for the masses in my book.

I guess you're that owner right? Every quality and reliability test/survey i've seen has had Porsche as a company in the top half. Owner reliability surveys continue to rank Porsche on top. Go ahead, show me published studies, and prove that wrong. I won’t accept my neighbors, mothers, ex-dog’s new owner had a Porsche and it was a POS as a valid answer. Show me representative facts and studies. These studies are based off tests, actual owners, etc…Otherwise, I’m sticking to what I’ve seen thus far. But hey, they (studies) must all be lying right? Please, no conspiracy theories.

Here’s a fairly recent article highlighting JD’s top ranking of Porsche.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...utoreport.html

And what exactly is the meaning of Quality? There is no one definition. If it’s by reliability alone, than the civic/accord is a more quality vehicle than a vette/Porsche. How about other aspects of quality like interior quality/layout/material, parts used, suspension/brakes and technology, body panels construction/material, dash material, seating design and material, engine parts and construction, etc…. Don’t let your loyalty fool you into thinking a vette is of higher quality than a Porsche, because it ISN”T. That my friend is a fact and isn’t even debatable.

Going out more won’t have me putting the z06 on a pedestal while pissing on Porsches and Ferrari’s. I like all 3. Sorry. I can appreciate a nice car when I see one and seeing each for what they really are. That’s no crime. Thinking there are nicer cars out there than the z06, doesn’t mean I don’t get out much.

 

Learning’s always good in my book. I’m no engineer so I’m sure you’re more versed on this.

I see your point, and it’s a very good one. But are you saying that Ferrari, Porsche, Bentley, and every maker of mega-dollar exotics haven’t thought of this and that they are just willing to forego these flaws? Highly doubtful. They’ve been doing this for decades. I think they know what they’re doing.

Also, they do machining. It’s not like they hand-make engine parts, brakes, suspension, etc…. out of solid metal with chisels and knives.

What’s 250 dollars on a 120,000-150,000 dollar car? By comparion it still factors out to be a just as small percentage as the vettes. Heck, you could tack on 2,500 on the GT and the potential buyers wouldn’t even bat an eyelid. 250 dollars is miniscule.

Oh, I know about the weakness of the Ford Auto’s. I also know about Gm’s auto’s which is why I said “GM makes excellent auto tranny’s” in my previous post.

An SS beating a Carrera 4 on a road course? A boxter I might believe, but I’m having trouble believing this one. You’re also saying that a zo6 not only beats a 911 turbo, but it beats it soundly as in it isn’t even close?

Sort of is right. I’m personally no fan of it, and I’m sure most Porsche purists aren’t either. In the companies long history though, this is a first for 2003. It’s distinctly Porsche though. You can get one with the X50 performance option. The end result is a truck that’ll put up sport cars number. 0-60 in 5.4, 13.7@102.47 ¼ mile, 60-0 in only 112’, 66mph slalom. Not bad for a 5,192lb Suv.

I do, they just proved otherwise. I can throw studies in here if you’d like. The ones listed below are 5 year long-term durability/reliability studies from J.D. The year 2000 study actually goes back to 95. I think they’re pretty unanimous. Consumer Reports doesn’t seem to be too fond of chevy’s in long-term tests either seeing as how they’ve place almost the whole chevy lineup in their reliability risks. No Porsche was listed as a reliability risk. That Consumer Reports long-term test dates back to 1993. Porsche on the other hand has fared very well.

2003 Vehicle dependability study. 5 year study
Porsche 1st place manufacturer, GM 6th.
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050a.gif

Porsche ranked 4th among individual brands, Chevy 17th
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050b.gif

Highest ranked premium sports car in durability: Porsche 911 winner. Boxter S get honorable mention. No z06.
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2003050c.gif

2002 Vehicle dependability study
Porsche ranked 6th among individual brands. Chevy ranked below average (even below Ford). Boxter gets honorable mention in most durable premium sports car. No z06
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2002141a.gif

2001 Vehicle dependability study
Porsche ranked 9th among individual brands. Chevy ranked below average (even below Ford). Porsche 911 gets honorable mention in most durable premium sports car. No c5/z06 mentioned.
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/01102a.gif

2000 Vehicle dependability study
Porsche ranked 2nd among individual brands. Chevy ranked below average (even below Ford). Porsche 911 ranked best in durability among premium sports cars.
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/images/2074b.gif

 

I had something to say, but after reading through this whole thread, i forgot. For the most part I think I agree or disagree with most of it.

Anyway, in no specific order:

The Z/28 should be ~425 hp. I think I saw 300 hp somewhere. Why in the hell should the new Z have less HP than the old one?? Plus, the new GTO will be starting at a RATED 350. SHould the Z/28 have more? I think so. 13.0 1/4s??? The new Z should also be faster, significantly faster.

The SS? With what GM is doing to the SS badge, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE IT WHORED ON A CAMARO AS WELL! It is a dead badge, which no longer has any meaning other than body kit and bling bling. Want a top camaro? Choose from another historic badge that GM has not yet whored into the grave.

The GT is a 'cool' car. It IS an image builder, much the way the viper was. It is not in the same class as a vette, even if the vette kicks its @ss. It is a collector/halo/image building/"see what we can build" type of car. Is it an exotic? Dunno. I dont think of it as one. I think of it as a really expensive ford. May change after I see one in person, but an important part will have to be pure domination in the performance area, since that IS the image they are trying to capitalize on.

The example given of $250 per car to construct a facility to build GTs was an example. Not real #s. If you think you can build that facility for a mere 1 million dollars you are kidding yourself. Also, that cost would be spread over many more years with the vette vs the GT (assuming it IS a short run). The cost WOULD be prohibitive to design, engineer, build, operate and maintain an automated facility....a LOT more than $250 per car!

OK, TH400s and 350s are bad @ss. The 4L80 is good in its own right, but.....the 4L60E is the biggest piece of trash I have ever seen! Too big for a paper weight, and too small for a wrecking ball. But, can't think of another use for one. Well, maybe I exaggerate. They may be OK for motivating underpowered, super lightweight cars driven by 90 year old grandmothers for the occasional block drive to sunday night bingo....as long as they dont live past 91. Yah, there is also a reason they make conversion kits for putting 350s/400s in 4th gen camaros

The C5-R is top performer, I can't see why anyone would try to tarnish its accomplishments. My memory could be wrong, so dont flame, but I believe it took 1-2 OVERALL at 24 hours of Daytona. PRETTY DAMN IMPRESSIVE!

Porches: I dont know how they get good durabilty rating, because I PERSONALLY know several owners, and they are CONSTANTLY down. They have serious leaking issues, and tons of other quirks. One person I knew finally talked his wife into letting him get a 911 turbo one year. He put ~5,000 miles on it in 3 years. Oh, this was in FLA where there is no need to store in the winter. It was just CONSTANTLY in the shop....and he bought it brand new. His was the worst case of them all, but they all have a tendancy for down time. It is kind of expected with some vehicles. Hell the old lambo's were probably the worst, and most expensive at the same time. A guy I knew couldnt even drive it during the day in FLA, because it could not tolerate traffic for any duration. It would just overheat. And, it had to go in for service of some type on an almost monthly basis. He finally garaged it as it was just too much of a pain in the @ss to use

Lesson: if you want to buy a car that expensive, be prepared for it to be expensive to use/keep on the road. BUT.......there will always be people to buy them! Why? coolness/exclusivity factor. The GT will have this, but since it is a ford, it will desperately need to trounce the vette for adequate respect. Otherwise, only die hard rich ford guys will buy them, and that market will be saturated pretty quick. After that, who else will buy? (although, I don't think longevity is part of the plan for the GT)

*whew*

 

Okay, with all due respect. Anyone who believes that a robot, in a real life scenario, can outweld a GOOD human welder has either A: Never worked with automated welders (I have) B: Never learned how to weld themselves (Again, I have...And I don't just mean the unfortunate and common "I can lay a big, nasty bead with a MIG"....I can MIG and TIG both thank you....and very well.)or C: Is an engineer (Possibly the most unfortunate of all).

The problems with autmated welders (And up until 2000 I worked with the state of the art) is that they only recognize that something is wrong when they are TOLD to recognize it. They are never and could never be told everything, or even most things, that can go wrong. They also most often cannot account for variations in size and shape of a part.

I have personally seen, with mine own TWO EYES...robot welders create a weld that looked marvelous and passed very inspection the machine had without a glitch. Even an engineeer would have passed it as I have seen them do it. Someone who knows how to weld and knows what they are looking for....like me...wouldn't and didn't. Often you could grab the part slap it on the wall and...clunk...what happened to the weld? This is so obvious to a "real" welder when we see it we sometimes forget others don't notice.

To truly tell if a weld is "perfect" you gotta start x-raying welds. Guess what......that doesn't happen very often. Not to mention in an auto factory I can , every time, lay down a weld that looks great....and is without doubt far stronger than the parts it holds together. And if the weld is bad (rare) I can tell be looking at it. Although honestly I can tell through my helmet and by sound how nice of a weld I am laying down.

Breaking out the x-ray machine and checking every weld for microscopic stress cracks is necessary when you are doing some high tech...high spec stuff....Virtually none of which is on a car. The vast majority of welding done on a car can be done better by a well trained HUMAN...period. The reason you don't see it is it cannot be done cheaper by a well trained human.

 

Jsaylor, thank you for that much needed first hand input/experience.

I have a hard time believing a company like Ferrari would simply leave major imperfections (ex: bad welds) purposely on their half a million plus dollar Enzo. They've done it for decades, so i'm sure they know exactly what they're doing and what to look for. I’m also sure they take certain precautionary actions to ensure the quality of everything. When you take into account that each Enzo takes over a month to build and has to pass rigorous individual tests before delivery, you know a lot of attention is being paid to every aspect of the car. That and i'm sure they employ only the best and not some joe across the street.

 

Here ya go:

I want every bead within .1mm for location. I want every bead within .1mm for radius. I want every weld penetration within .1mm (we don't X-ray for penetration, we cut and etch). Every weld to be destructively tested must take parent material on separation.

Dimensionally, I'll provide a drawing showing tolerancing for the components to be joined. The join will be 90 degrees +/- 1 degree, no reworking the part (in other words, you can't bang it back into place after you put too much heat into one side - and you will...).

There are also requirements for distortion of the surface just past the weld and on up the flange. The profile of the surface must be within .25mm AFTER welding.

Material is .75mm M190 - which is heat treated AND high carbon. During destructive testing, we'll know if you put too much heat in the part.

The part is a structural tower for an all-belts-to-seat system. If you screw up (and you will...), people die.

This part is produced exactly as I describe (the tolerances are right off the drawing), process is GMAW using Fanuc/Lincoln equipment. A vision/laser system with automated fixture setting and variable fixturing holds the part. Every weld is x-rayed, 6 an hour are pulled apart, 6 an hour are cut and etched.

Wow... ruining 12 parts an hour just for testing sounds like a lot right?

Wrong, the 8-cell system spits out 400 completed assemblies an hour at full tilt.

Since 1998, 1.4 million vehicles per year (2.8 million assemblies) have been produced, and there has not been ONE weld failure.

Not ONE.

Collect anybody you want. Get the best hundred welders you've ever met, and I guarantee you that you won't go a week without a failure at that volume.

That's what modern automation can do, and it costs BIG DOLLARS.


Then you need better weld techs and engineers.

 

First of all, your system is marvelous and wonderfully laid out. And for nearly ever autmotive weld done today sooooo much overkill it is unreal. I cannot think of a single area on a car that requires the tolerances you describe unless your just like making tolerances for the sake of making tolerances. Some auto maker somewhere mayhave a need for those tight tolerances, but I don't see it. I can, however, see how Grumman could make great usage of this on the naval ATF. lol

Get real......Big dollar stuff simply for the sake of big dollar stuff is stupid. I am beginning to think you really ARE an engineer. Yes, Ford and Chevy, etc. have a place for high speed automated welding system EXACTLY AS I alluded to before. Ferrari...mass production just isn't in the works and, as I said before, the actual quality is not IMO better.

If, for some reason you think that spewing off all those reeaaally impressive requirements are impressing me.....they aren't....Yes, I have heard their like before and unlike some in here will think due to their "impressive" length they aren't that big a deal.........sorry.

 

man, i must be in the wrong thread, i thought this was about what camaro's quarter mile times should be

well, i say somethin in the 12's, prob about mid 12's for the "top" v8

 

These welds fail, people die.

For however terrific you claim to be with a heater, you're not good enough.

That's OK, I'm not either, and I have a Miller combined MIG/TIG in my garage.



Control arms? Laser-welded body blanks?

I COULD make them out of boiler plate and lower strength materials so that a human being could be trusted to weld them, but even then... robots never come to work drunk... they never show up late... they don't holler for their committeeman if I change their program...they don't strike...they don't take long lunches...

And day in/day out, they lay down a perfect weld, 3200 times a shift.



It's faster, it's higher quality, AND if you have the capital and volume to pay for it - it's less expensive in the long run.



Oh, I am an engineer, and I've forgotten more about welding than you will ever know. And somewhere near 10 million folks are going to get in their trucks in the next 24 hours and rely on a welded seat frame I designed and engineered and tested and validated.



Then I am glad that we have conclusively established that you don't have even the SLIGHTEST clue as to what you are talking about.



No reason to impress you, you don't know what you don't know. When you do learn what you don't know, maybe you'll revisit this subject.

 

I don't have the slightest clue on welds, so i'll stay out of that topic.

What i still can't figure out is why Ferrari, Lambo, Saleen, Buggati (sp?), R-R, Bentley, Mclaren (sp??), etc.... would sell their mega-dollar products with design (ex: Weld) flaws. Most of these companies are big time racers and experienced race car builders as well. And one of the most important things in race cars is their durability and ability to take the abuse of long races and immense stress. A race car sees more stress in a few hours than most cars would in a lifetime. A lot of these companies apply their race technology to their cars. The Enzo is said to be a road-going F-1 car.

Are you saying that a company like Ferrari doesn't have a system, proccess, or some setup to insure quality welds? That for the last 50+ years of hand-building cars, they haven't figured it out?

 

More precisely, what I am saying is that they simply cannot afford state-of-the-art equipment and the resources that go along with it. Even with selling a car at $600,000 a pop, the tooling and capital requirements are so money-intensive that they simply can't swing them. No bank would loan them enough money to purchase them, and it would take them 20 years to pay them off - they're obsolete in 10.

Now, because they can't afford the equipment, they are left with less precise means of trying to accomplish the same things that are routine to a manufacturer like GM.

They can't afford automated setting and welding of their body and chassis components like even Cavalier can. And what you will very quickly find is that even a lowly Cavalier has better body build repeatability. The Cavalier has better gaps and flushes, far fewer panels are pre-stressed into position.

Then, look at this - tooling...

If I am going to make 5,000,000 parts of something, I can afford a very expensive and very precise tool (say a stamping tool) to make it - it adds very little cost to the individual parts. If I'm only building 500 of something - I can only really afford a prototype tool (aluminum or kirksite). You can get 500 parts of some of these prototype tools, but they wear badly and buying another one is out of the question. Aluminum and kirksite, simply because their material properties, aren't hard and strong enough, and tend to flex also. That means that even my first part is suspect... Meanwhile, the high-volume tool is made out of tool steel and wear is negligible. The first parts (if the tool is built right) are darned near perfect.

Now, consider this:

If GM has a powertrain problem that is difficult to figure out, they can throw an army of eggheads at it to solve it. For Corvette, the powertrain is basically a shared item across a number of platforms (trucks, F car, CTSv, Holden, etc...). Because the program can bury costs somewhat against the others, Corvette can get lots of attention, from LOTS AND LOTS of experts.

Now, the Ford GT shares some of that benefit because of the engine family, but it simply doesn't have the resources that Corvette does. Ford, IN TOTAL, doesn't have the powertrain resources that GM throws into the LSx family alone... Ferrari has fewer powertrain engineers than GM has Vice Presidents for Pete's sake.

Hand-built cars are just that. Hand built.

Hand built used to be the best thing you could get, but beginning in the 1970's, machines started to leave humans behind for certain tasks (welding, machining, electronics assembly, etc...). The machine is not only more repeatable and builds in higher quality, but in the end, if I can build enough cars and have the capital resources to pay for it up front, it's less expensive too.

Everyone is familiar with the term "Economy of Scale". Monetarily speaking, if I can make lots and lots of something, in the end the individual parts themselves become less expensive.

What people have a harder time understanding is that "Economy of Scale" applies to quality also. As my volume goes up, I can start looking at individually more expensive and concurrently more precise and repeatable processes to make the parts, and in the end the individual parts themselves are higher quality.

 

That makes sense.

 

 

When will we stop arguing about this issue? This Human Welder vs Robot Welder debate is so old. How do we expect Red Planet to hang on our every syllable, and give us the $14,000 big block Camaro we've been asking for, if all we do is argue about Cavalier vs Modena welds?

Just kidding.....

This is actually an interesting debate and you guys can talk about whatever you want.

But I found this interesting.......

 

425 hp will be too much, not that it isn't welcome, but you won't see it rated that high. This of course does not mean that the engine isn't putting this out at the crank. I wonder if GM will keep the ratings closer together like with the L98 or widen them like the LS1. I think a 25 hp difference is between the Corvette and Camaro is about right and will probably satisfy the Corvette faithful. So maybe the Corvette 425 and the top Camaro-400.