91_z28_4me

Guy I rarely disagree with you (you are a major reason I still come backto the board) but my rebuttals are in boldAlpha is not a flexible architecture as far as we know it. Sigma has been a compact RWD sports sedan, a midsize 7 passenger SUV, a midsize luxury sedan, a large size luxury sedan (China STS-L) and has been paid off for how many years? Simply put could the $1 Billion (at least) put into Alpha have been better spent improving the 'narrow' Sigma? My guess is yes. Could some of that money have been spent making it a 'cheaper' platform for Camaro? Again my money is on yes.

The biggest gripe from enthusiasts about moving the Camaro to Sigma (around 2004) was the high firewall and later weight and I think we can all agree that these are moot points right now.

That being said could a wide Sigma with the short wheel base have made a good starting point for Camaro? Again I think yes.

guionM

Many points, and I can perfectly understand the logic, but there are quite a few things to clear up. This is going to seem a bit long winded, but there's plenty of details involved here, and (trust me) I'm trying to make this as short as possible.... I gotta do an online class for work before I go in today.

First, although the Cadillac CTS came out at the end of 2001 as a 2002 model, the engineering dates back to the late 90s. In fact, the project was started about 1995/96. So right off the bat we're talking about a platform that's at least 15 years old. In addition to suspension geometry, that also means no high strength steel or modern body strengthing sculpture.

Another issue with Sigma's age is that it's not space efficient. For example, the current large CTS has 14 cu/ft of trunk space, about the same as the STS had (both on Sigma). Meanwhile, a Chrysler 300 has 16 and the Zeta based Pontiac G8 had 17... yet all 3 are roughly the same size. Packing has improved greatly since the 1990s when Sigma was engineered.

Moving to rear suspension geometry, much has been written about the CTSv's rear wheel hopping during hard acceleration. GM managed to get it tamed somewhat over the CTS's life, where today it's not as prevelent, but that was a combination of engine programing and bushing changes. Whereas the Zeta's geometry has no shuh issue as proven in both G8s and current Camaros.


Then there's chassis flexibility. Sigma's firewall was incompatable with creating different vehicles because if you create a different firewall, you have to reengineer pretty much the whole vehicle's structure since it's at a critical point of the car (ie: you lower the firewall, you also have to lower the front structure that's attached to it, as well as the A-pillars). Changine one item has a cascading effect on what's needed to be done on other areas of the car.

Where the Zeta differed from Sigma most (outside of space efficiency) is that it essentially eliminated the "firewall" as a load bearing structure. As a result, GM could make a car with a high beltline (Camaro) on the same platform as a car with a low belt line (G8/Commodore/Caprice/Statesman). Also, instead of having stamped inner front structures that handles the load and crash protection up forward (which would be expensive to reengineer for different proportions and lower firewalls) it has what are upper and lower box frames jetting forward. This enables different beltlines as well as different front axle to passenger compartment proportions to be done without needed to reengineer the entire front end (the suspensuon mounts can be attached to at least a couple different points up front). Also different inner front assemblies (that tie the 4 "frames" together) can be made to make the car different lengths up front (the Commodore has a fairlt short front end from the passenger compartment, while the Camaro has a longer one, and if designers wanted it, the yet to be decided flagship Cadillac could have a longer one still. Rear overhang operates a similar way, by the addition of end pieces that fit onto a boxed miniframe.


Now the ATS has a more updated way of doing this, but since I didn't have anyone I knew on a personal level "hands on" engineering it this time around, I can't draw up blueprints or name dates things were done like I can Zeta, but I can give you enough basics.

First of all, the ATS was done from the ground up with an eye to saving weight and matching BMW's 3 series in chassis dynamics. There was no way that a 15 year old, 90s ere Sigma could do that (even Zeta did better.. and it was cheaper to manufacture). Also, cost was an issue with ATS. Sigma was engineered to get the best handling possible, worrying about decontenting for other uses later. Unfortunately, "later" GM didn't have the money and decontenting it for, say, a Camaro would have been expensive (Sigma Camaro would have been roughly the proportions of the GTO showcar from '99, and would have been forced to move upmarket due to the costs and likely would have seen a sales drop because of it all... combined with the whole St Therese issue and GM already being low on cash killed the 5th gen Camaro for nearly a decade).

Speaking of expense, development costs isn't the only pricing issue in a car. It's manufacturing costs.... cost per unit.

When a car is engineered, not only are it's components engineered fot fit together in a car, but also is engineered to be assembled a certain way on an assembly line with x-number of workers and machinery. Sure, you can create new machinery to take over certain things or change the assembly to a certain degree (which costs money to do, so it's not always cost effective). However, when you engineer an all new vehicle, you incorperate an all new method of assembly. When Sigma was engineered, it was done to late 1990s, start of the millinium assembly techniqies. There has been a tremendous leap in assembly automation, quality, and automation since then. The ATS is engineered from the start to take advantage of this. Sigma can not. If you look at the Mustang, save a few floor stampings, although it's start point was a DEW, its essentially a whole different structure (beyond the live axle).


Just touching on a few other points:

* Sigma was never a compact sedan. The original CTS was a larger midsized car. It was 190" long and 70" wide. A Malibu is 191" long, 70" wide. It was the smallest Cadillac, but it wasn't a compact. Sigma was a large luxury sedan in China, but that was simply lengthing it which doesn't make the Sigma (or any other car) flexible. All that's done was that the STS was lengthened. Chrysler's done it with the 300. There's a quite a few shops that do it to any car (or SUV) for limo companies. Basically cut a vehicle in half, add frame supports or inserts, and build the center. Flexible (outside of Zeta) could be demonstrated by the old Fox chassis. It was used in narrow featherweight Mustangs, all the way up to wider, top of the line, 4,000 pound Continental MK7s and numerous models in between.

* Although Sigma's development costs have been paid for some time, again you must look at cost per unit. At Ford, the MN12 (Thunderbird-Cougar-MK8) had such a high price per unit manufacturing cost that Ford never used it on Mustang or a replacement to the FWD Continental, and Ford even pulled the plug on the Thunderbird even though it was the best selling car in it's class because of manufacturing costs.

* Finally, If GM did the Alpha for just a billion dollars, then it's one of the cheaper all new structures ever made. Case in point, Ford spent 2 billion on the Mondeo (Contour-Mystique) structure... almost 20 years ago. The MN12 cost $1billion back in the 90s. Zeta cost about a billion. As for pouring that money into Sigma instead, it doesn't work that way.

1. the manufacturing issue I mentioned, which makes creating another version of a 90s based car pointless (believe it or not, Sigma is perhaps one of the oldest chassis around).

2. GM already did a "narrow" version of the Sigma in the CTS.

3. You aren't going to spend additional money on making Camaro cheaper. It's as cheap as it's going to get. First, the money spent creating Camaro was miniscule. It was the public response to the showcar and how cheaply it was done that we even have the car today. Public approval alone wouldn't have gotten the car approved... remember, GM was broke and selling junk bonds for cash at the time. Also, components (ie: that sophisticated IRS that withstands sever dragstrip punishment) are expensive to begin with. Price competition with Mustang actually made GM lose a few dollars on every base Camaro sold unless it was loaded with options. GM later jacked the price up on the base models to cover it. Ford jacked up the price of it's GTs close to where the SS was and used a little of the extra money on better interiors, and pocketing the rest for now.

Also, as anyone familiar with the "old GM" knows, if there is any way, shape, form, or fashion GM can take cost out of a vehicle, they will do it.... in fact, that's a key issue of what got them in trouble (peaking a few years ago) in the first place.

guionM

I wanted to do a separate post for this one issue since I did an piece for PHR on it about 10 years ago.

A high firewall wasn't the main thing that did in the Sigma Camaro. It was a combination of GM wanting to get rid of the St Therese plant, the expense of doing a Sigma based Camaro, the belief that the coupe market was caving in on itself, and the fact that GM didn't have a lot of money (as we know today, it was worse than anyone thought), so money went to projects that had high volume and/or high profit. Camaro was neither.


When you look at today's Camaro design, it's pretty obvious that the "high firewall" of the Sigma isn't an issue... Camaro's beltline is extremely high. Also, as I mentioned, the GTO concept was perhaps the 1st design shot across the bow towards a Sigma based 5th gen. I remember "Red Planet" came here and cryptically posted something to the effect of "Sigma... that all I can say". The project was moving.

They first looked at the Holden V car that was due in 1999. That was decided against when the other Holden projects for the US were shut down in favor of existing US platforms (Buick was to get a Sigma sedan along with Chevy getting a Camaro)

Later, the entire Camaro project was abruptly shut down (in 1999 or 2000 I believe), and a huge veil of secrecy came up. That secrecy was NEEDED because GM was working on St Therese and through an agreement with the CAW, that was the only place GM could make the Camaro. If anything got out before the plant was closed and made unable to be used ever again, GM could find themselves in a legal battle with the CAW, the government of Quebec, and perhaps even the Canadian government.

After the plant was razed, and all the legal issues settled, the issue was money versus sales. GM didn't have money, and Ford's Mustang got no expected huge jump in sales when Camaro was killed off, adding to the view (rightly or wrongly) that the coupe market was all but dead. If Mustang sales dramatically jumped (and GM wasn't desparately fighting for it's life) I have no doubt GM would have picked back up and continued developing the new Camaro on Sigma.

That changed when Ford's 2004 Mustang was debuted at Detroit and the crowd went wild. Lutz, Wagoner, and Welburn got together and managed to get an unsanctioned (and very secret) project going to do a show car (the concept was just barely done in time for Detroit's 2006 show). Then they kicked it off to Holden (which was putting together a Monaro-GTO successor).

Some people still have an issue with the Camaro. But they don't realize that there very easily could have been no Camaro whatsoever. Some say that GM should have simply waited. However, this is one of the most ridiculous notions I have ever read on this (or any) site.

1. GM would have missed out on a huge market and (by 2016) hundreds of thousands of sales (and much needed $$$).

2. A longer wait would have lost just about all Camaro equity. after being gone for 13+ years, you could bring Camaro back as a 4 door sedan, and only enthusiasts would care (as long as the car had performance to spare).

3. Nobody goes to a car dealership and puts a vehicle on a scale before buying it. The public looks at the price and the fuel economy rating on the window and how it compares with everything else they're intrested in buying. The Camaro could have weighed as much as an H3, but as long as it got 30 mpg, looked great, handled well, and was fun to drive, it would have still sold like it has. On the flip side, it could have weighed as much as a Miata, and it still wouldn't have changed it's sales numbers.

4. Finally, regardless as to what the Camaro was based on, it still would have weighed the same. Sigma is just as heavy as Zeta. And Zeta is actually significantly lighter than every other car it's size, market, and configuration on the planet. No car company is going to purposely add weight. To think so in this age of CAFE, borders on the edge of being moronic.

Even dismissing CAFE, the fact that less weight=less materials=lest cost to the manufacturer creates a huge incentive in itself. Every company wants to save money. Using 1 pound of steel or plastic instead of 2 is something everyone would certainly do if they got to charge the same amount for the same finished product.

In the end, there were multiple reasons for killing the last Camaro, and in the end heaps of reasons for not using Sigma (age, space efficiency, manufacturing costs, among others).

The simple item of the firewall would NOT have been enough to kill the idea of using Sigma if GM wanted to do a Camaro.... and in fact, GM was well along in creating a Sigma based Camaro when it pulled the plug on the whole project.

99SilverSS

Is it a foregone conclusion that the 6th Gen Camaro will be on Alpha?

jg95z28

Everyone assumes that to be the case, however I have my doubts.

CamaroBoy96Z28

Camaro will be on Alpha. GM doesn't have another platform to put it on. I don't see Camaro continuing on Zeta for the 6th gen. We have until 16MY to speculate though. The up side is that it should be at least lighter than the 5th gen leading into a re-introduction of a true Z28. (I hope)

jg95z28

I doubt it will be that much lighter.

guionM

Camaro wont be on "exactly" an Alpha, but a version of it. It'll have cost taken out and it will also probably be notably bigger than the ATS.

As for weight, the only way Camaro is going to be lighter is if it shrinks. Yes, the Alpha in Cadillac ATS form weighs just 3200 pounds. But the Cadillac ATS is barely bigger than a Chevy Cruze (Cruze is 181" long, the ATS is 182). Also, that 3200 pound ATS has a 4 cylinder engine as well as a drivetrain made for that 4 cylinder, not the torque of a V8.

At 190" long and 75" wide, the current Camaro isn't all that much larger than the Mustang's 188" by 74" (Camaro looks a lot bigger because it has a high beltline). Being that it's unlikely GM bolted lead weights to Camaro and that a square inch of Camaro's stamped steel sheetmetal weighs the same as any other square inch of stamped steel sheetmetal. Even using high strength steel througout isn't likely to cut more than a hundred pounds out of, say, a 900 pound car body.

I'd expect the next Camaro to shed maybe 150 pounds...absolute tops... unless it shrinks to Infiniti G35 coupe or Hyundai Genesis coupe size and even then, I wouldn't expect more than 250 pounds... and that's even being optimistic if we're talking about keeping the same horsepower levels.

99SilverSS

I would have no problem with a 6th Gen Camaro shrinking in size a bit to G35, 3 Series Coupe, Genesis Coupe or even ATS dimensions.

Weight savings seemed to be a top priority in the development of Alpha and I would hope that the same high priority would transfer to any vehicle that rides on Alpha.

ImportedRoomate

A couple of spy shots:

93RedDevilZ28

SWEET! I saw two of those cars last week on I-10 in Phoenix! One of them was right hand drive

I'll post pictures today after work.

ImportedRoomate

Did the other car have more of the front end visible? It obviously has less camo so I'm wondering why the spy photos don't show it.

jg95z28

I've spotted in the last week or so a plain black 2012 Caprice sedan at the park where I walk my dog. (Actually spotted the off-duty detective who drives it last night.) To me the Caprice has the perfect dimensions so I guess I curious why we're getting the shorter wheelbase version for the civilian model.

ImportedRoomate

Its supposed to be a sporty sedan. The G8 is just fine for me.

93RedDevilZ28

Here they are: