:blah:


Let me guess, even though you think the HHR is "hot" you think the xB is ugly, right?

 

Are those really fair comparisons? Those are all extremely high content, 4 door sedans.

I think it may be more fair to compare the GTO to other RWD, 2+2 coupes, like BMW 3 coupe/M3, G35 coupe and Mustang GT. Compared to those cars, GTO is 200-550 lbs heavier.

 

I think it's a fair comparison. The extra door makes little difference in weight (compare G35 and 3-series 4 door and 2 doors). The equipment level will make a difference -- sophisticated versus somewhat simpler IRS, side airbags, stability control, etc. How much does all that add? 100 pounds? 200 pounds?

But then the 5-series has an aluminum front end. I think the GS has some aluminum.

Compare the G35 with the M45. The latter adds probably 400 pounds with similar equipment. I think the latter is much closer to the GTO in overall size and engine.

The BMW 3 and G35 coupe are both significantly smaller than the GTO and do not have a V8. Not a reasonable comparison. The Mustang is quite a bit smaller in accommodation. It's only about 150 or so pounds lighter. It also has a solid rear axle. Make it a bit bigger and add the IRS and you're at about the same weight, right? The old Fox platform 390 (rated) hp Cobra weighed the same as the GTO.

 

So what?

You're saying GTO's pudgyness is excused because it's 2+2 interior is wrapped in a large car exterior? Is that some sort of advantage?

And comparing GTO to the '03/'04 Cobra doesn't win any points with me - weight wise, that car was a pig.

 

I think I've already explained, but I'll try to make it really simple.

The GTO doesn't have a 2+2 interior. It's quite a lot roomier than a Mustang. A bigger car weighs more.

The Cobra had similar power to the GTO (actually a bit more, based on acceleration times). The G35/330i have a lot less power. A more powerful car weighs more because it needs a stronger chassis and drivetrain. A stronger chassis and drivetrain weighs more, 'cause it has more metal.

This is why you can't (well, I guess you can and did, but it's a pointless comparison) compare weights between 6 cylinder cars with 220-270 lb ft of torque with 8 cylinder cars with 400 lb ft of torque.
The Mustang, in addition to having a significantly smaller back seat than the GTO, also only has 320 lb ft of torque. Both should be factored in. Then there is also the solid rear axle in the Mustang, which probably saves around 100 pounds.

Btw, that "pig" of a Cobra had an IRS.

Don't just take my word for it. Compare weights of the E350 with the E500, the GS300 with the GS430, the 530i with the 545i/550i, the M35 with the M45, etc., etc.


That's "so what".

 

LOL, guion, 2 posts! That's a lot of emphasis!

BDF will try to spin it a different way, but he's just been

 

I'll tell you what makes me feel uncomfortable. Your point...as I understand it... is that it's justifiable for a 2+2 RWD, sporty car to weigh 3,770 lbs, because extremely highly contented luxury sedans are also very heavy. After all, the GTO weighs the same as a shockingly overweight previous Mustang model, so that makes it double ok for the GTO. Fine so far, because frankly, what those cars weigh is not a large concern to me. But the implication to me however....since this is a 5th gen forum and all....is that it's ok for our ponycar to weigh that much....who knows, maybe even more...because these other cars do. See where I'm going? Maybe I'm reaching on that one...but that's where my discomfort comes from.

Just a side note on vehicular weight/mass requirements and horsepower. The '04 GTO weighed no less the the '05 did with "only" 350 hp. The '04 M3 (since we're comparing premium cars to the GTO), came with 333 hp. So you're saying that the GTO needed to weigh 350 lbs more than M3, to support 17 more hp and afew more mm of rear leg room?

And when I count the seats in a GTO, I see 2 in front and 2 in back. 2+2.

 

I think you're reading a bit more into my post than I intended. First of all, I'm not trying to justify weight of a future Camaro. Given that it will apparently have IRS, I expect it to be between 3600 and 3700, based on weights of similar cars. I'd rather have it be 3400, but I'm trying to be realistic.

M3 versus GTO. Not a fair comparison. The M3 is really more of a high end sporty coupe, first of all. The M3 that C&D tested in 2003 was very lightly equipped (cloth, manual buckets, etc.) and came in at 3400 pounds (less than the new 330i). Okay, great. It has a light weight high revving inline 6 on a significantly smaller chassis than the GTO. The big advantage to a high-revving engine is that the horsepower from the high revs is nearly free from a weigh perspective (only around 260lb ft of torque -- about 2/3 of a GTO). Compare it with the C32 (again a 6 but supercharged) and S4 (a V8 AWD on a smaller chassis than the GTO) at 3650 and 3865 pounds, and the GTO looks quite a bit better.

As to the GTO, it weighs essentially the same as a Commodore SS, which is a four door sedan that compares quite closely with the V8 luxury sedans from several posts ago.

If a new Camaro is based on a Zeta Commodore (I can't tell from the teasers on this website), it'll likely be only a hundred or two pounds lighter than the Commodore, unless GM goes to great lengths (expense) to remove the extra weight. Compare the 350Z and the G35.

Regarding weight difference between the '04 and '05, I suspect it's nil, because they didn't strengthen anything significantly, or perhaps because maybe the LS2 is a few pounds lighter than the LS1, cancelling weight gain in other areas. It gained 30 lb ft of torque, which is probably within the design parameters of the original.

Summary: The GTO is quite competitive in weight when compared to other V8 sedans -- or coupes based on a sedan (BMW 645i) -- that are the same size, and its the expected amount heavier than smaller V8 couples and sedans.
To save weight from the sedan, you need to redesign a lot of components, which is expensive (M6 has aluminum roof; M5 doesn't), because two big doors weigh about the same as four smaller ones.
Six cylinder sedans and coupes, even those with high hp from advanced, high revving engines, on smaller platforms would be expected to weigh less than the GTO.

Question. What's the lightest mass produced V8 car available today in the U.S. and how much does it weigh? Is the answer "Ford Mustang" and 3500 pounds?

Question 2. What's the weight penalty for a sophisticated IRS and a powertrain designed for 400/400 instead of 300/320? Now subtract a bit for lighter weight of a GM engine, and since we're all GM fans, better engineering. I think I come up with 3600 - 3700, based on equipment.

 

yada yada yada.............

(it's late......I'm tired......)

The above relates to the whole thread in general.....

now......

Werm......I don't know what you do within the industry or what meetings you sit in on......but I can tell you that weight concern is everything.

I'm sure you've heard of CAFE? Weight class is tied to it.

yes, we COULD produce some of our cars and drop 500 pounds.......but at what cost? We already know that GM has a $2000 a car disadvantage based on health care ..........

We DO have to price our cars and trucks competitively.

 

Which is why you were shocked that anyone would think that GM (or any company) doesn't care about it. Weight is incredibly important on every car subject to CAFE or guzzler taxes.

500 pounds would be hard I think, except maybe on an Escalade
The new aluminium Jag XK saves something like 100 lbs. over the old steel model. How do they get the next 400. Magnesium? Helium baloons? (doesn't help mass). It is late

 

THANK YOU. Finally, some fair and balanced analysis. (It's a shame some here don't fully comprehend your statement about the GTO not having a 2+2 interior. I agree! It's got a massive amount of rear legroom for a coupe with only 2 back seats)

Huh? Have you not read what I've posted? OF COURSE there are problems at GM. I pointed out they have made mistakes, and have lost a lot of market share... and OF COURSE that matters. My POINT (which either flew right over your head, or you choose to ignore because you know you don't have a prayer at refuting it) was, it's a little silly to condemn GM and more specifically, GM divisions like Buick and Pontiac based on the metrics you offered... especially in your opening posts of the thread. Now that you are realizing this, I see you've bolstered your rant with more pointed criticisms ( ). Sure, I agree GM's got problems - moreso than many of their competitors. Sure (I will say it AGAIN so you don't have to go and actually READ my posts) they've made mistakes. But if you and some of the others here were not so infected with cynicism, you'd be able to see and acknowledge, they also have a lot of assets and advantages; their people, their incredible racing heritage, deep and wide brand equity, massive dealer network and rising quality trends. And if you DON'T think the UAW and its bloated wage/benefit structure is a major (should I say MAIN?) source of GM's problems, friend, it's YOU who are in denial.

 

And another thing.

Guess what. I don't work for GM. I don't own any GM stock. I could give a rip about the stock price (aside from the fact I hope it recovers so GM can still offer cool cars like they have in the past). I don't have a million dollars, and never will, so I don't waste my time test-driving Maseratis since I know I will never own one. I'm just a middle-class guy from a blue-collar family, who is grateful a carmaker made a car like my GTO - since that is the only way I will ever realistically be able to enjoy Maserati-LIKE performance and luxury on my medium income. No, it's not THE SAME as a Maserati Coupe. But it delivers 80-90% of the performance and luxury at 1/3 the price. To me, that's a proud and wonderful achievement. YMMV

 

Much of your sales analysis is wrong or offbase from which you draw your conclusions specificly when you compare GM to the other two. Ford and GM are in the same boat because they are both leverage by trucks/suvs. Fords market share drop off has been more severe as a rate. GM has been consitently closing plants throug out the years. Even little Chrylser's market share and profits are not setting the market on fire when I look at the profits. But, I will say GM and Ford are in for a rude awakening over the next two years. The companies will downsize and cut programs. It is already happening and I would not bank on anything at this time...

See the link below to see the trends.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...C01-386265.htm

 

Hell yes the xB is ugly. It's a flippin' box-on-wheels.

The HHR has smooth lines and heritage styling. The xB's heritage is a brick.

 

Are you trying to say that a high revving engine is not hard on a tranny? The GTO makes more torque than an e46 m3, but it also spins nowhere near as high. Very high rpms can be just as hard on a drivetrain; there are no free lunches. Besides, the 3.2 liter inline 6 BMW uses in their M3 weighs more than an LS1 or an LS2, so you would think the GTO would have recovered some of the weight necessary in strengthening the drivetrain through the lighter engine. The GTO still weighs alot more.