You're damn right we are and its really exhausting, frustrating, annoying, and makes me not want to care every time a new "shoe drops".

Either GM is pulling off one heck of a snow job on everybody, or, more likely, they have their collective thumbs up their rears and time is being wasted daily.

Forgive me for my lack of tact, but I'm just to the point I don't really care at this point. If they bring Camaro back, great, but I'm not going to come in here holding my breath for it and waiting on every word and twist out of the rumor mill.

Somebody get in touch with me so I can come back in here when actual progress is being made.

I still trust RP in all this but one man can only do so much, and he's not a decision maker on products, only an advocate.

The upside, if there is one, is that CTS/sigma updates should be pretty far along, and a re-badge/reskin/reinterior job shouldn't be that time consuming vs engineering a totally new chassis architecture.

But then the downside of that is are we looking at a Camaro that is too tall and has tiny little wheels/tires?

The only conclusion I can draw here is that Zeta was always a Sigma derivative/evolution and that the dissolution of the GMNA/Holden Zeta partnership isn't the stake through the heart of a Camaro in this decade that it seems at first blush.

 

Consider this:

If Zeta were an evolution of Sigma, GM wouldn't have spent the last year and a half trying to re-engineer it to be built in NA. Sigma meets GMNA's manufacturing bill of process perfectly.

 

And also consider the facts that the program numbers don't match up (GMX282 or GMX284 vs GMX322 or GMX325). This arguement would be null if the 2 platforms have recently been combined though...

 

Isn't GM's long winded bureaucracy the reason its falling behind???

 

IIRC, Sigma has it's own manufacturing process that was developed for it. Holden use a different process developed by themselves to suit their needs. I read an article or thread about this some time ago but I can't find it now.

I take it this is the issue? NA wants to build it with the Sigma process but Holden has designed it with their system in mind.

 

I'd say that's probably pretty close to the truth.

 

:blah: Thats pretty sad that they didnt figure this out sooner...

 

Well, I sort of see it this way.....maybe this is an opportunity.

Alot of people seem to have this impression that Zeta was the niftiest thing since sliced bread. That it would have been at least as good as Sigma...but somehow, someway, magically much cheaper.

If all this rigmarole, actually brings things full circle, and brings Camaro and Sigma back together.....then it'll be all worth it.

 

We are not going around in circles right now. GMNA knows what it is doing and Holden knows what it is doing. I've said before, I'll say again.

I don't mean this in a negative way but the only bad news we are hearing about Zeta not being capable of a real Camaro are those that for whatever reason wish for Zeta to not house the new Camaro. Everybody has an opinion on what they would like to see, but what's done is done and the pieces of the puzzle have all been put in place.

Sit back and wait (im)patiently for things to be said. Until then, speculate as you wish but don't "lose the faith" as one Father once said.

 

Pieces of the puzzle may all be there Josh, but I think they may get re-arranged.

 

Most of what you have been wittnessing is the evolution of information. As things move closer to intro date, more & more info becomes available as more people are involved in development.

I've been saying for some time that Holden was basing their car off the Sigma, not the "V" car (although the next Holdens will be designated "V"). I'm not as privvy to early development GM-NA engineering as I am to Holden's, but if Holden is developing the Zeta, and their jump off point is the Sigma, and North America is using the Zeta, then...

Zeta as far as I can tell isn't replacing Sigma. However, they seem to have ALOT in common. Zeta is a lower priced version of the Sigma. Sigma uses alot of top drawer pieces. Zeta has more steel than alumunum in it's pieces. The savins per car may be somewhat modest, till you multiply that by 400,000 units per year. Then we are talking millions.

Also keep in mind, the biggest difference between Zeta & Sigma: Zeta is modular! The whole reason Holden ended up with the project in the 1st place is because they are extremely experienced in taking a chassis, and economically creating multiple versions of it for next to nothing. That is the basis of Zeta.

So in short, think of a Sigma made in a way that multiple versions of it can be made without having to spend as many millions in certifying & testing. Various structures (including the firewall) can be assembled in building block fashion, and multiple suspensions can be installed (AWD, RWD, even different front & rear suspensions depending on application).

That should clear up what Zeta is & isn't.

 

I understand, but what I dont understand is why NOT go with Zeta? Is it that GM thinks that having 2 chassis nearly identical would be a waste?

 

Time to bring out the chainsaw & balencing stick & slice through some things without saying crossing the line.

Australia is a far less litigous society than we are here in the US. GM-NA tends to test the living daylights out of things in every remotely concievable situation. GM-Holden simply tests things to make sure they hold up.


So very true. There is a alot of mis-info going on here. There seems to be some things that were grossly exaggerated before being passed on to some of us. Don't blame the messenger, it's probally coming from the inside.


There are differences, but it's being grossly exaggerated.

The 18" wheels didn't make it over because our roads typically are not as smooth as roads elsewhere, including Australia. The wheel profile on the car was so thin that GM-NA was concerned about claims filed about rim damage. Again, GM-NA prepares for all possibilities.

Whoever told you that validation line is lying to you or doesn't have all the facts.

Yes & No.

Again, being in a country where everyone likes to sue, and big automakers are juicy targets, GM North America MUST cross the "T's" and dat the "I's". Foreign automakers don't export their newest stuff till it's been on the market for awhile for the same reason...Americans love to S-U-E.

Holden engineers don't fly by the seats of their pants. It's that Holden doesn't have to spend precious time going over the same things over & over again.



Perfect example. The 4th gen Chevrolet Camaro. That nortorious hump under the passenger side was under the seat under the 3rd gen, and could have easily been erased simply with a new stamping, or even a slight modification on the stamping machine. Pretty much every engineer will tell you that wouldn't affect the car's structure, & would have no effect on crash tests. Holden would have stamped the hump out, and kept going. However, GM-NA would have taken the time to study it's effects not just on impact tests, but also suspension, drivetrain & attachments, and on top of that, run the car for thousands & thousands of miles. All would have been expensive & taken too much time. Result? Hum in the passenger's floor.

Another glaring example is the 4th gen's 1998 redesigned front end. The cost of that front end was more than the total cost to Holden to convert the Commodore to the Monaro!

Yet simply converting the Monaro to the GTO cost as much if not more. Why? Certifying each piece of the car. The only structural to the Monaro change was moving the fuel tank, but most all of the money went to GM-NA's certification process. That Pontiac nose barely cost anything. So it's not that Holden's engineers fly by the seat of their pants, or cut corners.



Holden & NA worked together on the Zeta. Both sides were linked up via GM's computer linkup, so info and criteria (as well as engineering changes) was shared in real-time. The engineers involved had the specifications, and know what it takes to meet them. Those guys have metal, stress, etc... down to a art.

The problem is that Holden will have their cars out 1st because they don't have to spend an extra year or 2 testing everything for lawsuit protection. Not that everything hasn't already been tested. Holden tends towards over-engineering because their durability standards tend to be higher than here in the states (if anything, GM-NA is looking for ways to squeeze money out of the engineering).

There are probally last minute changes now that Zeta is likely in the begining of their testing phase (the C5 went through similar setbacks around this time if Zeta's schedule holds).

Remember the hostility & the "Not-invented-here" mentality that many inside GM displayed against the idea of bringing any Holden's here a few years ago? Now imagine that mentality today, knowing that the same division is now taking over the lead engineering responsibilities of engineering YOUR cars? Any and every hiccup would be exagerated & criticized, even if it was normal.

To a large extent, that's what's happening here.

 

so do we get better quality?

 

Guy and I have compared notes afew times. We have some contradictions in our info.

The next 6 months will reveal a whole bunch.