It was sarcasm. I responded to the poster who claimed that building the car ground up as lightweight will save costs...

 

Your sarcasm was so subtle I thought you were agreeing with me!

I never meant to suggest that building ground-up would save money. I meant that starting with a platform that is lighter-weight should save money relative to starting with a platform that is heavier.

There is a general correlation between vehicle weight and vehicle cost. Heavier vehicles cost more. My point was that if you take a vehicle that's heavy and try to lighten it, that's expensive. If, on the other hand, you start out with a lighter-weight vehicle, you should come out saving money.

 

Thanks poSSum. Do you mean 5th gen?

 

Yes I do. Sorry.

 

I think a heavier vehicle is generally more expensive because of additional content.

There's no way a vehicle is cheaper to build if you use lighter weight materials, which are generally more expensive in the first place. (example: lighter aluminum is usually more expensive than heavier steel.)

 

I'm talking about using exactly the same materials and construction techniques. Size obviously has a big impact, but also design and engineering play huge roles. It is possible to make lighter-weight vehicles of the same size without resorting to costly materials and construction. And such vehicles would be cheaper because material costs would be down.

The fact is, automakers have gotten very LAZY about designing for light weight. The powerplant people have been giving them more power year after year (a GREAT thing!), and tire manufacturers have been giving them more grip, so they haven't had to really pay a lot of attention to keeping the weight down in order to give overall performance increases.

 

Well, I'm no engineer, but I'd agree that there could be many ways to build something without using more expensive materials that could result in less material being used, and therefore less weight...

But... do you have any specific area where this is the case?

I kind of doubt that manufacturers have simply gotten "lazy" about weight.... especially since weight inpacts the all-important CAFE requirements for fuel milage.

Also, I would think it is very possible that one setup that uses the same material, but is a bit lighter, could be less reliable and/or more complex to build... the reliablilty issue would be an obvious issue, but if it was more complex to build, that could add more cost as well... harder/longer to assemble, more parts (even if they are smaller and weight less than a bigger single part, etc...)

I'm not saying you are wrong (again, I'm not an engineer), but I guess I just would like to hear some specific area where a manufacturer has been purposefully "lazy in design" to reduce weight AND costs...???

 

Amen to that. It's not a matter of LAZY. It's a matter of competing priorities. Customers want all the latest gadgets... 6-disk stereos, for example.

Also, it's not safe to assume that structural advances proceed at the same rate as powertrains improve.

 

FWIW, I am a structures engineer. Currently life-testing an aluminum frame design for a large electric motorscooter. Let me tell you, for every ounce of primary structural weight I save somewhere, there's ten places where weight is being needlessly added elsewhere. What is required is for the program manager to have the WILL to beat on every part to get component weights down.

IMO, GM has done as well as any and better than most manufacturers at keeping weight reasonable. I mean, a 1970 Corvette weighed 3200 lb., and a new Corvette weighs 3200 lb. But building the next Camaro on a Cadillac platform does not bode well.

I know some of you guys think a 3600 lb. Camaro is okee-fine. But it is absolutely going to die an early death if it even makes it to market at all.

For my own selfish high-track-performance reasons, I would like it to be 3000-3200 lb. I know that's considered unreasonable. BUT, if gas prices continue to rise (with supply plateu'd and demand escalating, this is all but guaranteed), GM is going to find itself late to a party that is OVER with a 3600 lb. Camaro.

IMO this is a big opportunity for them to be ahead of the curve, WHILE OFFERING HIGHER OVERALL PERFORMANCE.

I think building the Camaro on a heavy luxury sedan platform will seal it's quick death. Building it on a lighter-weight Solstice platform would serve my desires for performance, and better ensure it isn't dead on arrival.

Anyway, these are my thoughts and opinions, take 'em for what they're worth.

 

Well it's great you are an engineer (me too BTW, MSME, PE certified, with CAE software development background). Unfortunately, that alone is not enough to make you an authority on how structurally optimized a given car or for that matter, a given car maker is. I see this thread wandering off into Camaro-land again, let's bring it back to the GTO. IMHO it's a little silly for example, to claim the designers of the 05 GTO were 'lazy' and could have made it much lighter (AT ITS PRICE POINT). Where exactly would you have made it lighter? One of the key reasons it's got some heft is to provide that (relatively) nice rear legroom craved by buyers with real rear seat passengers. Have you not noticed the other curb weights I posted herein? I suppose Nissan, with its 350Z, is also lazy and uncaring about their sports car's weight?

And thank you Swamy, for your sweeping predictions on future gas prices and Camaro sales, for a car whose spec's are not even known...

 

Precisely. Which is why I'm not driving a 350Z (that and I don't like the looks).
I'm becoming more convinced that you don't actually read my posts, I specifically stated that GM does as well as any and better than most manufacturers at keeping weight down.

You're welcome!
Again, did you not read where I said these are my *opinions*? I don't claim to know the future, I could be totally wrong. Either wey, I'd rather have a lighter-weight Camaro for performance reasons.

 

Starting to? Why even bother trying to bring this thread back to the GTO, there is a new one up about the GTO already anyway.

It seems that way to me as well.

 

Sure. I've read your posts. But the statement made by you above is flatly inconsistent with the other premises you keep repeating, claiming to know that GM's future efforts in the sporty coupe segment are likely doomed to be hopelessly overweight. How can GM be doing well with, for example the Corvette, but yet you are convinced they will bomb out elsewhere?

And I maintain... anyone who thinks current cars like the 350Z are overweight for their price point and content, ought to pony up (no pun intended) with specifics as to where modern carmakers should be doing better. I'm all ears on that.

 

That's what I THINK is LIKELY. I am totally open to being wrong when/if the car comes out. I'd be thrilled to be wrong! I WANT to be wrong! But word is the new Camaro will be based on a luxury sedan platform. So I worry...

Yeah, how could that POSSIBLY happen? GM has a hit with the Corvette, therefore any future GM rwd performance car will automatically be a hit, of course! But didn't the Fbod just fricking DIE a few years back? I'd call that "bombing out". How could that possibly have happened
(really, I *don't* know, I mean, mid-13s at 107+ STOCK, for $25k?)

Specifically, Nissan should've based the 350Z on the Silvia rather than on the G35, and brought BOTH (Silvia and Z) back to the US market.
Specifically, GM should base a new Fbod on the Solstice platform, rather than on a luxury sedan platform.

There, all done!

 

Why wait? Since you're already wrong on several points, you can go ahead and be tickled pink right now!
Gee I dunno. The nearly identically-spec'd 05 Mustang is doing just fine. Curb weight... 3450. Scant but usable rear seat. Solid rear axle, simple construction (no exotic lightweight materials unless you count the polymer hood), based off a luxury sedan. Gosh, how is it cheating death?
Wake me when you get past the arm waving generalities. Merely mentioning the politically correct platform to use isn't "specifics" in my book. It's like saying "ya, build the bridge somewhere over there, and... make it a suspension design!" *yawn*
So. Why is Ford allowed to create and sell a successful hi-value RWD 2+2 off a luxury sedan platform, yet somehow the amateurs ( ) at GM will never be able to? The seem to have done ok with the C6....