xB's heritage is as American as the HHR!!
EVERYONE knows that Toyota went retro and designed the xB off the UPS trucks!! DUH!!

GTO's best competition for its size is probaly the MB CLK. Large, 2dr coupe. MT did a comparo of the CLK55 vs GTO. Price difference was nearly 30k, but performance and weight were about the same.
IMO, I think the GTO is heavier then it needs to be. I remember reading countless articles about Aussie cars using stronger parts due to the roads down under, which would add weight. I belive that if the Monaro was designed here, it would have dropped a few lbs, probably in the 3600lb range. The GTO's got a friggin skid plate!! Unessessary add ons like that would probably save weight in an American GTO.

 

Could you elaborate on your analysis of GM?

 

It is over designed, it also gained some weight due to the fuel tank relocation. the car also has a full size spare, with the best looking spare rim I have ever seen. Its better looking than 90% of the other cars regular wheels.
It also has a barrier behinnd the trunk to protect the gas tank. There are probably other things I don't know of.

 

Find an OEM that'll actually pay $10 per pound off a car and I'll hire you on the spot.

It doesn't happen.

Ever.

 

What do you think a more realistic number is?

 

Zero.

It is assumed to be engineered into the parts in the first place.

Now, you may think of that as a surprise, but I have yet to see a quote won on mass. Now, I haven't worked on Corvette, but in my entire career I have never seen a component sourced competitively where the decision came down to mass.

Walking into GM with a $.25 increase per part to save a pound will get you nowhere. You'll get laughed out of the building.

Maybe you'll get on Corvette, but I seriously doubt it.

Besides, the big mass reductions are in parts of the car they control - powertrain and body.

Hell, I can't GIVE a certain OEM who shall remain nameless $.25 per part, a mass reduction AND GIVE THEM A BETTER PRODUCT in one particular case (actually a lot more... there's usually 4 of them per vehicle so it works out to over a dollar a car...). If it's that difficult to save them money, take a guess at how hard it is to charge them more...

Well...

Don't guess...

Ask Tower, Intermet, Oxford, Collins and Aikman, Federal Mogul, Delphi and any of a bunch of others how easy it is to get a price increase out of the American OEM's.

 

So what you're saying is, that even if all things are equal, including cost, quality, function, durability, etc., the lower mass compnent has no advantage in the decision making process?

Jeeeeeze, that's stupid!

 

The above things you mention are rarely equal, therefore the use of mass as a defining difference is so uncommon that I've never seen it.

 

Ok.

Let's say that you're a VLE of a carline and you carry alittle bit of clout. If you tell your suppliers that mass is a pet peeve of yours' from the get-go, and you really push the issue........can you decrease mass on your product with little or no additional cost?

 

To answer from the hip:

No.

A standard measure for engineering time cost for a single individual is about $85/hr.

Have 1 person work on a project like this for a year (very easily done...) and you'll rack up over $160,000 just in engineering labor, and that has to be considered.

Now, to be fair to your question...

YES - I can take weight out of a car and balance the increased cost for changes to lower mass components off against cost savings I find in other areas.

In essence, as an engineer, balanced that stack of dishes for a living.

BUT, not every engineer can...

AND the company in question has to provide the authority to break down barriers to doing so... i.e. put someone in place with the horsepower to drive changes and not accept "no" or "we can't" for an answer.

The language used to execute changes like we are talking about is the Business Case. Ideas live and die by it.

 

Let's put it this way, if the GTO platform and chassis had been designed as a shorter, narrower chassis and to take a high rev 3.2l I6 instead of an LS-series V8, it would be significantly lighter. Maybe not quite as light as an M3, due to a different focus, but much lighter.

Again, I ask you to compare M3/330i/530i/545i if you're really interested. Also compare the C/CLK320 with the C/CLK55. I think you can see the difference in weight that a V8 generally brings with it.

Notice that that delta between 530i and 545i is much greater than between M35 and M45, while the delta between 330i and 530i is much less than between G35 and M35. I suspect this is because the M35 is essentially the same as an M45 except for the engine, whereas the 530i is highly optimized for the I6 and that there are chassis/driveline upgrades for the 545i.

 

Eh? Care to elaborate? I've always thought it's maximum TORQUE that drives things like required driveshaft strengths and weights, and regardless of how high an engine spins... there's only so much torque to be had. Plus - regardless how fast an engine revs - once you get to a driven axle... the gear reduction is all about the same.

 

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. Well...not really, but since all things are never equal and mass ranks lower than just about everything else... it's practically a non-consideration. Unless you design a glovebox with a molded in brick, nobody will pay much attention. If the car gets close to moving up a "weight class" then maybe they will pay attention, but only until they drop off a couple of pounds to get back under the line.

This has basically been my point all along. Thank you, PacerX.

 

Axle ratio, torque, and mass mean nothing without effective marketing.

 

LOL mmkay. The HHR doesn't look like a brick, it looks like a tennis shoe.


Smoooooooth