I'm not believing the rumor until I see it.

The dynamics in Oz are slightly different to those in NA in that FPV (Ford's performance arm) is developing a S/C Coyote V8 for Falcon. HSV (Holden's performance arm) normally have their rivals easily covered - but on this occasion it would be hard to match up a blown Coyote engine, that thing would be insane!

Having said that, Holden do use their own GM-spec engines i.e. the L98 (basically an L76 minus AFM for manual versions) but the "LS3+" engine, if true, sounds like it would take the LS3 to 450 bhp without too many issues.

Btw, that link does go on to mention headers as well so... GM and Holden could always add headers the the LS3 without any drama...

Just some interesting tidbits.

 

What smaller lighter RWD platform was available 4 years ago for Camaro?

 

GTO?
lowercase...

 

The GTO, while slightly lighter, was still heavy. So it wasn't really smaller, or lighter.

 

Not really. The GTO platform was a bucket of bolts in comparison to Zeta. Honestly!

The GTO never used Ultra High Strength Steel components in its chassis and didn't employ a proper multi-link rear end (more a swing axle), nor did it have a cradle (sub-frame). Zeta is this century's architecture. The GTO platform is definitely last century's... even if some here don't care about the engineering advances I point out.

Could GM lighten Zeta? Probably. But I doubt it would drop that much weight.

Given Sigma was touted as being a premium platform, there is nothing premium about it in terms of weight savings... especially in relation to the cheaper Zeta. Just compare the weight of the CTS-V coupe to the larger Camaro [coupe]... Camaro is substantially lighter.

It was really a no-brainer for GM to base Camaro on Zeta given what was available to GM.

 

When it comes to keeping heat in the exhaust, which is essential for a quick "fire" of the cats, there IS a degree of drama involved in maximizing flow of exhaust.

Cats like a pretty high operating temp. Getting them to function efficiently as quickly as possible is something car manufacturers have to consider. Conversely, really good flowing headers scavenge and drop temps below the cat's happy zone.

Emissions compliance is somewhat counter productive to maxxing power in all situations. Cats are moved further and further forward to achieve light-off. Subsequently, the feasible header length possible gets compromised.

As an example, the exhaust temps required for diesels to meet EPA has gone way, way up.

 

Agree completely, but that wasn't part of the criteria.

 

Yeah, you're right. But it's safe to say "one's" criteria is vastly different to GM's criteria, especially at that time.

I still feel there is nothing wrong with 'Zeta II' because it's flexible enough to have produced a coupe without too much trouble. For all intents and purposes it's very much a capable platform. GM could easily transform Camaro into a more driver oriented car even if others have already dismissed it in favor of a new platform.

Zeta still has another ten years to run its course...

 

The GTO was based on VZ, the predecessor chassis to the current VE Zeta. Since VZ was EOL it can't be considered a valid option for a 2010MY vehicle. Thus still interested in what small RWD platform Sax1031 would have considered putting Camaro on.

 

Why isn't an old platform an option? Old platforms are inexpensive, and sometimes they get the job done. See Ford's Panther and Fox platforms, and see the 1982-2002 F-body platform.

 

For one it wouldn't pass 2007 US crash regulations. If memory serves me correct there were deficiencies in VZ that would have required significant investment to to meet US crash regulations.

Considerations.....

*All slated vehicles were transitioned from VZ to VE.
*The company has already invested one billions dollars in the replacement for VZ, VE was ready and had all necessary investment, development, and an assembly plant done and ready to go.
*Cost to carry over VZ and related parts, components and assemblies would increase significantly since most of any volume buying went away along with the other VZ vehicles.
*Where would the VZ chassis and assembly be produced? The plant that used to produced VZ is now tooled for VE.
*VZ isn't any smaller than VE in significant proportions to classify it as smaller or to warrant the use, or investment required to keep it alive for one vehicle.

 

100% correct on all fronts.

There are many claims that Camaro was done without too much relative cost because Holden already had a flexible, US platform developed.

Zeta spawned VE, WM and Holden could have also have built Coupe60 but there wasn't much point in having two world coupes in the GM world on the same platform. Holden's manufacturing process has proven to be the most flexible, and most vertically integrating, within the GM world.

<rant>It's just a shame we Aussies are still waiting on GM to deliver on their end of the bargain and supplying us with that VE coupe (... perhaps even coercing Holden into doing it).</rant>

For a GM car, Camaro is not that heavy and GM did make a concerted effort to take weight out of the chassis. People think it weighs so much purely because of its size but I have my doubts that a coupe one size smaller would net a weight saving of more than 150 lbs. In that respect, it would still not go far enough to satisfy some folk here who demand a much lighter car.

 

regardless of zeta, alpha, or otherwise, from a consumer perspective, they don't give a damn about what platforms gm has 'available' for the reborn camaro. as a manufacturer who took eight years off building camaros, the average car enthusiast is disappointed that gm returns with a car weighing in more than a gto, and bigger than a family sedan malibu or camry. if gm didn't have a suitable smaller platform when they decided to remake the camaro, they should have designed one for it and perhaps a shared rear drive architecture for other cost-saving concerns and vehicles. in 2010, this size vehicle is not the province of a high-performance pony coupe with looming 2016 cafe standards. gm messed up and made this car much too large and heavy.

follow the pattern from a laymans viewpoint: 3rd gen lighter and smaller than 4th gen, and now 4th gen smaller and lighter than 5th gen. in the last 20 years fbodies have grown in size and weight and suffered in handling and lightness-on-their feet. meanwhile, crosstown rivals ford mustang, has remained consistently smaller and lighter, and now again in 2011 it's still smaller and lighter and with an arguably superior motor and exhaust note. ford is making the mustang a very very tough choice to beat. i don't often quote magazine writers, but one did sum it up very well: for 2011 the mustang gt is the car to beat.

 

Have the curtailed the horrendous wheel hop the 05 and ups have been plauged with? I saw the motortrend video of the 2010 GT-500 test and when they burned out the wheels were just bouncing up and down the entire time like a basketball. How can you charge $50k foa car with a solid axle that does that? I liked them til I saw that, I get enough of that with my Cobalt.

 

I dunno about superior, superior would be 7 liters, yeah that'd be superior

The coyote 5.0 is good engine though, I see SMS has bumped power to 440 N/A hp. I'd love to see what the 5.0 could do with a short runner intake and bigger cams on the same headers? The heads eclipse the Ford GT/GT500 in flow.

05-09 Mustangs should be getting cheap and plentiful soon and stripping one down to the bare essentials and being able to retrofit the coyote would make for a fun vehicle.