Nissan uses the FM platform/architecture for everything from the 350Z to the FX45.

If I understand correctly GM now has 5 RWD platforms on the road, being developed, or being considered for development.

Is it just terminology? ie. Are Sigma, Zeta and Beta related closely enough that they would be referred to as the same platform/architecture if a Nissan like definition were used or does GM really have that may irons in the fire?

 

Sigma and Zeta are very close but we won't know how close till Zeta debuts. Beta is a figment of someone's imagination, the 'Torano chassis'/Kappa LWB chassis doesn't have an official name yet. It does sound like GM will approve it and possibly move small cars RWD but until that time it isn't anything.

Kappa is basically a baby Y-body. It is smaller and uses a non rear mounted transmission and right now is 4 cyl only, this may change in a few years but for now Kappa is closest to the Y body than anything else.

 

GM has really fouled up when it comes to platform engineering.

1. Zeta looks like a replacement for Sigma. Sigma was too inflexible, too expensive....

2. It also seems as if the Kappa platform can't be stretched far enough for a near-luxury sedan. Now we have the "Beta" platform for the Torana.

3. Things are even more strained when it comes to FWD. For instance, you don't have to wonder why GM Europe is staying away from the Delta platform.

Compare GM to BMW, and it's obvious that the Germans are still ahead.

4. The 1-series and the E90 3-series share the same platform. In reality, the 1-series is probably no more of platform engineering departure than the 3-series Compact.

5. Technically, BMW is making do with only 2 (or perhaps more correctly 1 and 1/2) platforms. The 1/3/Z4/X3 share a single platform and the 5/6/7 share the same architecture, but only scaled up.

Nissan still rules when it comes to platform engineering.

6. To accomplish the same level of platform sharing, GM would have had to have based every RWD model from the Corvette C6 to the new STS on the same architecture. That should give you an idea of how flexible the FM platform is.

7. That's nothing compared to the F-Alpha truck platform. It's amazing how Nissan can scale a basic architecture to cover every segment from the Xterra to the Titan crew cab.

The bottom line is that GM is still at least 5-years behind in plaform engineering. Unlike BMW or Nissan, GM seems to be incapable of long-term planning.

 

I have a hunch that if GM were able to effectively stretch a $20,000 Solstice platform into a $100,000 uber-luxury Cadillac sedan, we wouldn't hear about how great GM platform engineering is from good ol' redzed but rather "That Cadillac sedan is a joke it's underpinned by a cheap Pontiac!!!!"

Personally I'd like to know my sports car isn't derived from a portly SUV, and vice-versa....why do you think purists hate the new 350Z? It's a pig compared to the car's ancestors.

 

I am glad that GM doesnt have a Nissan like platform. You get a pretty light truck and a real heavy 350Z. Its smaller than a vette but comes in at 300 lbs more

 

I'm sure in redzed's opinion that because its Nissan that designed the car, the platform is superior and he will fail to see the problem with that

He will also tell you that Nissan does this because its a way to save $$$ and is a wise decision, but if he does, please point out that in a previous post he stated he is a consumer and does not care what it costs a company to make a car. Sorry, just planning ahead...

I think its great to have so many platform variants. Ideally, this means the cars will be more tailored to their purposes. I think what Nissan has done with the FM chassis is great, and it shows their engineers can do a lot with a "non-specialty" chassis. However, in examples such as the 350Z, uhm, that's not helping soooo much. 300 lbs more than a Vette for a smaller V6 car isn't saying much. That means the car weighs as much as a G6. Fine for a G6, bad for a sports car...

 

Absolutely. The FM platform is wonderful for what its purpose is...to build as many variants as they can, as cheaply as they can. But in the glaring case of the 350Z, there are penalties in a "jack of all trades, master of none" chassis.

 

Has redzed achieved official "TROLL" status by now? Surely he must be getting close to this coveted award.

Is there a fund to which I can donate? Someplace where I send a vote? What needs to happen in order to push this through?

:blah:

Alright, so I'm (partially) kidding. But dude, you really need to take a deep breath...

 

Z28Wilson,
Put it this way...the Probe in my sig is my girlfriend's car. She's had my GP at school all week long while the Probe was laid up with a blown clutch line it took me forever to fix. Anyway, I've put 300 miles on the car in the last few days. Yes, its a 12 year old, 4 cylinder, FWD econobox, more or less. But its taught me alot about the value of weight, or lack thereof, in a sporty car. You can pitch this thing into a turn, and it literally hauls a** with relatively non-sporty all-season Firestones and worn shocks. According to a period road test I have, the car weighs about 2,650. A new Cobalt even weighs more than that.

Put performance tires on this thing and some KYBs, and it would be a very competent handling little car. Further, 115hp brings it 0-60 in 8.9 seconds...not a bad feat for 115hp. Livable acceleration (we are talking 1993 technology here, after all), nice handling and 33 MPG (observed upon first re-fill). All possible because of low weight.

Without a doubt, this car is inferior to nearly any sporty-type car it would compete with today, such as a Scion tC, Celica, etc...but its taught me the lighter the car is, the more fun and even economical it is. My next driver may very well be a Solstice after really enjoying this cheap little thing. Here's hoping they make the coupe!!

96,
Breathing in, and out...but still fired up Troll isn't the term I'm thinking of...

 

Jason E, sorry for the confusion. I was telling redzed to take a deep breath, not you.

 

No problem, man...he's got me boiling over in another post anyway Taking a deep breath probably ain't a bad idea...

 

Short of massive discounts and incentives on the C6 Corvette (just like the ones on "runout" 2004 C5s), there is no way the 'Vette can come even close to the 350Z on price.

I should also point out that a far hotter 350Z is on the way and it will have the same drivetrain of the Skyline GT-R, but without the AWD system. Considering that a loaded 350Z has a $17,000 price advantage on a loaded 'Vette, even the ultra-high performance Nissan Z will be competive with current base Corvette, despite Z06 levels of performance.

 

Then the car for you is the Lotus Eliese!

 

Great, thats what we need. A 50K plus 3900 pound Skyline.. Um a base vette is 45 k and a loaded 350Z (still less equip than a Vette) is about 38 k. I fail to see 17 grand there.

 

A C6 does not have to come close to a 350Z on price. A C6 does 0-60 in 4.1-4.3 seconds and handles almost 1g on a skidpad. I can beat a 350Z 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile with my Z28, running 5.4 seconds 0-60 with a high 13 second pass. A used '97 Z28 is $10,000. So? Price does not matter here. A 350Z is a porker...period. The fact that it is $17,000 less fully loaded is irrelevant.

Its amazing how your loaded "ultra-high-performance" Z car will compete with a new Z06 at a normal C6 price, despite the fact neither car is currently in production...funny how this is fact.