Ok ok ok.

- Dump the IRS - I don't want it anyway.
- The LSx V8 is compact and lightweight now - it can make 300, 400, or 505 HP at essentially the same weight. If we're worried about the chassis being able to take the power, I'll chose a 3400 lbs car that makes 400 HP over a 3920 lb car that makes 500 HP any day of the week, and twice at Sunday eliminations.
- I don't need 2 overdrives in my manual transmission. A 5-speed works fine. Yup, I'm dreaming here, but you asked.
- I, for one, don't have to have a car rated at "5 Stars" for safety. We can probably save some weight there. Am I dreaming? Yup. But you asked.
- Make the physical size down around 3 Series BMW vice 5 Series BMW. Am I dreaming again? Yup - but you asked. And no, I'm not suggesting it compete with the 3 Series. My wife has a 2002 330i. Nice car, but not my cup of tea (I'd take a 2002 low-option Z28 or Formula any day of the week).
- Dump the mega-size wheels for something more 90's-ish. 17" is fine with me....I'll end up putting 15's on it anyway. And ya, I know that's not popular these days, but but you asked ME, not Joe Hip-hop down the road.

Of course, I'd also give up a lot of the creature comforts that most other consider absolutely mandatory (power seats, heated seats, 50 cup holders, a make-up mirror, On-Star, boom-boom stereo, etc).

How's that?

Bob

 

What about chassis rigidity and wheelbase? If you're willing to accept a little shutter over large bumps rather than the "carved from a single block of steel" *thump*, you can save more weight. Of course, you might not help crash safety.

What about T-tops? You can design two versions -- one with, one without -- or you design one and make it strong enough either way.

 

I like T-tops. That's the one thing I might have to have that would add weight.

 

I'd say the ideal car for you would not be a Camaro, it would be the Mallett Solstice. Maybe ask for an LS7 transplant.

You'd almost be untouchable at the strip!

 

Wow, I can't believe I actually read this. Surely the only factor in deciding the weight of an engine is it's displacement and cylinder count, it's configuration (pushrod, SOHC, DOHC) as well as what it's made of doesn't matter! Last I knew the 328i had a 3.0L engine, although it's an inline 6, made of iron and has dual overhead cams it must be half the weight of that big 6.2L pushrod, aluminum, V-engine.

 

Err, then why does the Vette keep getting less expensive? The 1996 base price of $37,225US would be $47,640US today, where as the base price of the 2008 Vette is only $45,995US.

 

At least now we're getting some movement for conversation.

 

The 328i has an aluminum/magnesium engine.
The 335i has an aluminum engine, because BMW felt the magnesium was not strong enough with the turbo.

 

A couple of thoughts come to mind…

It might be a reflection of better (as in more efficient) manufacturing processes allowing GM to build the ‘Vette at a lower unit price than the prior model (all other things being equal) or at least more efficient enough to offset any increased costs because of the somewhat “exotic” things they are doing to keep the weight down.

I suspect a major reason, however, is simply a GM management decision to set the price at a level that puts the car into the financial reach of more people while still expensive enough to offer a level of exclusivity - in other words, a decision to make silghtly less per unit but increased volume.

I remember Scott S. mentioning, at an F-Body Gathering in Atlanta the summer before the C6 was released (he had one there at the event)...this was before any pricing had been released and he mentioned that there had been some singnificant "discussion" about just whtat the price of hte C6 should be; apparently some wanted it much higher than it was eventually released at.

 

So, is it still profitable? If so, by how much?

 

If I knew that I'd either be a VP at GM or a hell of a spy!

 

Maybe it costs GM less labor time (hours) to actually build the car today? Also, the economies of scale are far greater for some of the parts the Corvette uses i.e. LSx engines and transmissions... and the architecture is also shared with the XLR. There really isn't much difference b/w the converted price you calculated vs the actual price today. I don't know if place of manufacture of some components is also a factor in reducing overall cost.

Just some guesses, by no means facts.

 

It's also possible that there's just less profit margin -- at least in the base model.

 

Why do you think this? Some of Bob's suggestions may be unrealistic but I saw nothing "Anti-Camaro" about any of them.

I love it when the discussion of a smaller Camaro comes up that people bring up the Kappa cars. I would venture to guess that very few, if any, people want Camaro to be that small. You know it is possible to build a car somewhere in between the 3100 lb Kappas and the 3900 lb Zetas.

 

It's not so much as Bob's suggestions were anti-Camaro... it's more that I reckon I know what Bob's intentions will be given his design mandate. Bob's aspirations for Camaro are mainly track oriented, I'm sure. As for the rest of us who would buy Camaro for its relaxed manners, the smallblock's power, the superb balance/ride/handling and steering precision, we're grateful that GM is once again resurrecting the much revered nameplate.

This Camaro shapes up to be the best ever but people are unfairly dismissive given the assumed weight it will carry. Just reiterating, having driven a Zeta V8 Commodore in anger, I can tell you it's a fun drive and I can live with its bulk because I clearly believe it's a non-issue given I won't be racing it down the strip.

Believe it or not but Ford's Mustang doesn't tick all the boxes either. I'm sure many Mustang owners wouldn't care about the drag strip... they love the car for its many other tangible qualities.