I would vote for a fabric top, but I wouldn't be buying either one, so I'm not voting.

If I bought a Cadillac Alpha, it would likely be a four-door sedan, unless they build a 1-series competitor, in which case it'd be a four-door hatch (not too likely for the U.S., I know) or a two-door coupe.

 

In case you're thinking it, you can forget getting a V8 in the ATS.

 

Does that also cover Alpha overall?

Holden stated quite a while back that Alpha was not intended to accommodate a V8.

 

How heavy will an Alpha Camaro with a 450hp LS-next be?

Charlie, where does it have to be for you not to complain? If it came in at 3726 but had great steering, would you accept it, or do you need it to hit a specific number?

 

Hey, this is not about me complaining or not. I'm not GM's daddy or CEO. I'm not even a shareholder anymore, (now that my shares are worthless). This is more about what it takes for me to write GM a check for a car. Push my buttons, the checkbook goes flying. Don't push my buttons and the checkbook stays in my pocket.

BTW, what do you think the next gen 450 hp Mustang might weigh? More than the current one or less. I'll give you a hint - NOT more.

 

I thought that too until I actually saw one in person. Top down it isn't an issue. However with the top up, a soft-top just looks cheap. The hard-top looks "finished" and more "expensive".

On an Alpha Chevy, I wouldn't have an issue. However on an Alpha Cadillac that is supposed to be world class? I think it needs the hard-top to take it to the next level.

I also don't buy the "enthusiast" argument others have made. This is a Cadillac folks. Sure some enthusiasts drive Cadillacs and people do buy the V-series. However far fewer than the number of Cadillacs that GM will need to sell to make the ATS a success. The majority of folks can care less how much extra weight the hard-top would add; which in BMW's case is nothing. Cadillac needs to do the same, and GM needs to strive to meet or beat that level of quality. My wife would be a target buyer for an ATS convertible. I can tell you that she would only consider a hard-top for a vehicle at this price point.

 

I don't believe for one second that the 3 Series convertible would have weighed just as much with a soft top as it does with a hard top.

I bet the previous gen 3 Series convertible was not 400 lbs heavier than the equivalent coupe version. Heavier, yes, for some extra bracing.

The convertible Mustang GT is, what, 100-150 lbs heavier than the coupe?

EDIT: Hmm, accoring to these specs, it was something like a 330 lb weight penalty from 330 Coupe to 330 Convertible for an '05 3 Series. I'm actually surprised it is that high.

On the current hardtop conv, the difference really isn't all that much more. About 375 lbs.

That shocks me. Maybe the weight can be managed somewhat effectively at these higher price points, after all?

Or, maybe the previous gen 3 Series needed a crapload of bracing to meet BMW's design parameters, so even though the top itself was light, the extra bracing negated some of the savings.

Hmmm. Maybe we are reaching the point where hardtops, using aluminum or whatever other lightweight materials, will not pose such a huge weight penalty.

If that is the case, then why do convertibles in general need to weigh so much more than their coupe counterparts these days? Chassis structures have gotten stiffer and stiffer over the years, so it would seem that cars could go open top without requiring 300 lbs of bracing. Maybe crash requirements are playing a role...

According to Left Lane News, however, a Mustang convertible is only about 120 lbs heavier than an equivalent coupe.

 

And there you have it. Two confirmed potential ATS convertible customers in this thread and one of us won't be once they make hardtop vs. softtop decision. Such is the fate of the product planner.

 

Actually that doesn't surprise me. In order to turn a coupe into a convertible, you're going to have to add strength somewhere to add back in the rigidity that's lost in cutting off the roof so to speak. Depending on how much material needs to be added and how little you'll allow the body to "twist" can be a little or not so much depending on what you started with. Regardless of whether you go soft-top or hard-top you'll need to add the roof frame and motors back in, and their size and strength will depend upon what the final assembly weighs. Now here's the kicker than many here are failing to grasp, cost does factor into this. On a less expensive car, say sub $40k, maybe you'll accept a little body twisting and your primary goal is to save cost. In that case you may need to add a little more weight, or a lot more if you go hard-top. However on a more expensive car, say over $50k, maybe you've designed the base architecture for both coupe and convertible and don't need to add much rigidity back in. Or maybe, you can go with a little more exotic materials, and save weight that way. Thus why on one car it can be a huge difference and on another more expensive car, it can be negligible.

 

What will it take to bring out that checkbook?

Solid axle?

 

Lemme just say, I will not spend a nickel on a car which doesn't feel great to drive. I know alot of people have their own definition of that, as do I. Whether it's a sportscar or sedan or minivan, it's gotta feel right to me - or no sale. Obviously I know a minivan or SUV will not have the same dynamics as a Camaro, nor do I expect them to. But I do expect a Camaro to feel a certain way - from base to performance version.

Getting back to your question about what specific weight a 450 hp 6th gen would need to have to make me happy, I can't really answer. That's just seems so arbitrary. The less, the better for sure though. Mass is the enemy of all driving goodness. And if it doesn't have loads of that goodness, my checkbook stays safely in my clenched fist.

As far as the next gen Mustang. IRS yes, but I don't know if that's across the board.

 

So if you enjoy driving it, it doesn't really matter what it says on the spec sheet? I'm just wondering, because it seems like you dismissed the F5, based on the spec sheet, before you ever drove it.

I do enjoy driving my '98 and '02. They just feel right.

Well then I'll believe "not more" when I see it

On a slightly related topic, it seems as though the new BMW 5-series is a couple of hundred pounds heavier. So I guess the move towards lighter starts in 2012, not 2011. At least at BMW. Well, GM too, if the Regal and LaCrosse are anything to go by. I still say it's a lot easier to say you want to make cars lighter than it actually is to make them lighter.

 

Sure, but physics is physics.

I remember the severe flamings I got (and still get) on my fears of what the Camaro's mass would do to it's dynamics. And................I was right.

Before I drove it, I had still hoped that someway, somehow, it would cheat the laws of matter and motion. Of course, it doesn't.

 

I'll be watching it closely and with interest. There is some very serious work going on with the next gen Mustang to reduce weight. All things being equal, the next one WILL be lighter. Ford is sweating lots of details to remove alittle weight everywhere. As I mentioned in another post, weight loss doesn't have to be restricted to merely throwing expensive exotica at a car. Ford is doing the hard work of combing through every last component on the car dropping 1 pound here, 2 pounds there. Think of it as Mazda's "Gram Strategy" meets 2010 technology. They are also very cognisant of halting the dimensional creep which has recently afflicted our cars.

Is it possible that a next gen Mustang with IRS and 450 hp could weigh less than a current GT? Sure. I'd love to see them do it.

 

I'd cast my vote for soft top mostly because almost all hardtop convertibles have to swell up in the back in order to fit the folding top. Even on a Ferrari, it looks terrible.

There are a couple of exceptions, but in general: Folding hardtop = gigantic *** and higher beltline at the rear.

That, and if you take one of these cars on a road trip, you can take your luggage or put the top down, but not both.

I'm also skeptical that they'll stay reliable long term....there are just too many moving parts compared to a conventional soft top.