I just want to give everyone a quick run through the concept behind the car we currently know as "Kappa".

Most of a car's development costs is in the suspension and drivetrain. Engineer those basic components, and ensure their durability, and the bulk of your work's done.

There is also crash protection. Items forward the firewall (thermal event separator for you engineering types... which I'm not) must perform in a certain way in a frontal crash. once this package is done & tested, you have just done most of the expense of creating a new car.

As for the body structure, a large portion of expense is buying the machinery to make the steel stampings, which can be huge and expensive. It also is what keeps the car stiff and together (minds outta the gutter please), and adsorbs crash forces. Alot of time and energy is spent engineering the inner stamped and welded structures, as a result, much of it is shared in because of convienence.

This is one of the multitude of reasons why Camaro wasn't built on the "Sigma" body and why a straight "Zeta" probally isn't practical either. Look at the height of the CTS' and STS' windshield base. that's the same hardpoint a Camaro would have had if based on the "Sigma". Much of the inner structure would have been carried over.

"Kappa" is a very different beast, and in a way very innovative.

Kappa, like a traditional car, has money spent on it's drivetrain and suspension components. However, unlike traditional cars, instead if having an inner structure of stamped steel, it's chassis is of hydroformed rails, much like a Corvette. This is cheaper and easier to make & has the added plus of being shapped in a wide range of variations.

Best way to look at a Kappa is look at a coat hangar. It can be bent into a number of shapes with less energy and machinery than something that needs to be stamped, like a cooking pan for instance. have it setup a certain way up front for crash protection, and underhood arrangement, and simply attach the standarized suspension & drivetrain to the car.

This means everything from the firewall, to the configuration of a sports car or a sedan can all be made under the same roof, on the same assembly line, in the same plant.

As for the other components (like the skin, floorpan, firewall, etc), they also cost less to create because they aren't load bearing. This means they can be made lighter, they can be made cheaper, and just as important, they can be made much quicker.

That's the idea behind the Torana. A 4 door sedan, that uses a standardized set of components, can be made at relative low cost, and can be made in the same plant as the Solstice & it's Saturn stablemate.


Zeta is a more traditional chassis, but engineered to be "modular". Like a set of building blocks, you can snap together (or more realistically, weld) various parts together to create variations of the car. The front structure would be standardized (much like Ford's "Fox" cars of the '80s were), while the rest of the car could be created in a wide array of vehicles.

For example, perhaps the floorpan is made in 2 sections. Putting together those 2 sections would create a short wheelbase car, or welding in an insert would create a long one. Or a firewall that is made in a way where the base of the windshield can be mounted higher or lower, depending on the model. Everything else is eithr plugged in, or attached to the basic structure.

This may not mean that GM-NA will actually build a wide array of cars off the Zeta. It does mean that GM-NA will have the flexibility to create new models, downsize models, replace models, or simply add redesigned parts to meet changing safety standards at far less cost at far greater speed for years & years & YEARS to come.



Trivia Time
One intresting related item you may also be intrested in is that the Ste. Therese plant was considered grossly underutilized making 60,000 cars with a 180,000 car capacity.

The Wilmington Deleware plant will be only making roughly 35,000 combined Solstices and Saturns but has a capacity in excess of 200,000 cars.

 

great post guy
that does clear things up for me

also, what you're telling us is..that that delaware plant looks like it needs another car to go with that one (atleast 1 car)
the questions are...what will that car be and is 160k units enough for one car to move?
another question, if one car isn't enough, is there a possible "partner" to that new car that will be made there?

oooo, so so interesting

 

Nice, Its really nice to see everything start to fall into place

 

Thanks Guy. I hate to say it, but it looks like I may be eating my own words down the road.

 

Sounds like I'm going on a road trip!

Central Jersey to Wilmington, Delaware to see if I can "investigate" the situation..

 

Very interesting.

I love information like this, nothing rock solid or necessarily ground breaking, but enough to keep my on the edge of my seat, thinking.

Thanks for the post Guy.

 

I believe it's going to become a "niche" plant for a variety of Kappa based cars before the end of the decade.

Deleware is certainly getting another car soon after Solstice and Saturn's "Lightning" production ramps up. Just no idea what it's going to be.

The Torana I'd say is likely for production if another GM division picks it up (much like the Volvo "mini wagon" that was dependent on Chevy's Nomad). Pontiac is the obvious choice for a RWD Kappa based sedan, but... let's just say "someone" at Pontiac is pretty dead set against the idea, even though a "top" GM product person is all for it. And you can't ram a product down a division's throat if they are against it.

Another certainty: The Deleware plant is also going to produce vehicles for other countries.

 

Guy,

As a "niche" car...do you still see a full line-up...i.e. V6, mid range V8 and Hi-hp V8 offerings?

 

So basically GM can make a Kappa/Torana Camaro very quick, and make it at Delaware. that is if the decision is made the call the Zeta coupe something else which continues to look more likely.

Also of note, T-tops would be much easier with hydroformed framerails. Also, I wonder if AWD will be seen on this chassis?

 

[QUOTE=guionM]

The Torana I'd say is likely for production if another GM division picks it up (much like the Volvo "mini wagon" that was dependent on Chevy's Nomad). Pontiac is the obvious choice for a RWD Kappa based sedan, but... let's just say "someone" at Pontiac is pretty dead set against the idea, even though a "top" GM product person is all for it. And you can't ram a product down a division's throat if they are against it.

[QUOTE]

Wonder who is against it at Pontiac. I know they have a new GM...I remember the last name Bunnel. Only other person i can think of is Bob Kraut. Who would turn down a car like that, and why?

 

[QUOTE=formula79][QUOTE=guionM]

The Torana I'd say is likely for production if another GM division picks it up (much like the Volvo "mini wagon" that was dependent on Chevy's Nomad). Pontiac is the obvious choice for a RWD Kappa based sedan, but... let's just say "someone" at Pontiac is pretty dead set against the idea, even though a "top" GM product person is all for it. And you can't ram a product down a division's throat if they are against it.

Let me "ammend" that to say a certain person who oversees a certain class of cars (which includes Pontiacs) is pretty dead set against it.

There's a pretty good story coming up that is related to this subject. This story includes the above mentioned mystery GM executive who's against producing the car for reasons I and seemingly other GM executives disagree with.

It's not my story and I can't disclose anything about it (I read it about 2-3 weeks ago), but it's going to be a great read when it comes out next week.

Tune in next Wednesday.

 

And why does it sound like the Camaro will be a purpose made lower production car?

 

Damn You Guy!!

Doesn't it kill you to not be able to share with us the wonderful world of future vehicles?

 

That really clears things up for me. So it seems like the Camaro will be a niche vechile built on the Kappa platform. That is absolutely awesome from the standpoint that I won't see them on the road all the time like the Mustang, but it better hit its sales target or I could see it going away again.

Now why don't we build this 4 door RWD car? It would be great competition against the hot 300C and upcoming Charger. Is it not profitable, is it a big risk? Is that why that one "mystery executive" is against it? Well Chrysler has proved that people want big, fun, nice driving, practial RWD cars. Or maybe this new car will tread on the toes of the CTS.

Which brings me to another point, once Cadillac restablishes itself with their new products, and their resale value improves, I think their prices should move to the stratosphere. Mercedes and BMW didn't build their reputation as being the best by being the cheapest luxury car. No, they had/have the best products and are not afraid to charge the big bux for them either.

 

Well, there is definitely something cooking. And I can't honestly say that I know exactly which way things are going to go. But I DO know that things are not as they were just afew months (****...JUST AFEW WEEKS), ago.

The key to this sporty architecture being successful and creating a sound business case, is if enough enthusiasm can be generated...and if enough products can be built off of it. Remember, Bob Lutz is on record as saying that the Torana's Kappa-esque architecture needs 120,000 global units to make it viable.
Guess which Chevy sporty car could pretty much do that on it's own. Compared to Solstice's small car, roadster Kappa... of which I cannot imagine more than 40,000 cars per year being built for GM, globally ..... I can EASILY think of 200,000 or more (maybe much more)..units off of the Torana's architecture.

I communicated with a contact from Holden yesterday, and asked how good the feedback has been for Torana so far. They responded, quote - "It's been fantastic, frankly".

I've also been told that if GM can cough up the cash for this new architecture, and commit afew products to it.....then the "Chevy ponycar" would be a relative bargain to develop off of. (I was told a figure, which I won't repeat here).

Certainly Caddy could use it for it's planned European/Asian market small car, sparing it the need to use Epsilon.... which many at GM, consider not premium enough for Cadillac.

There may be a political situation shaping up at GM right now. Torana's architecture seems to have alot of support in high places, but their are also people who don't want there programs being stepped on. And then of course, there's that thing about GM not having any money to spend.