Here's the kicker:

Most companies have a fixed monetary target for what 1 pound of weight is worth.

I know Ford's, but I have never, ever, ever, ever heard GM's in 15 years of dealing with them.

Without it, you really can't do a mass business case as informally as we are trying to do here. We'd just look kinda stupid when a suggestion was made and a buyer or DRE shot it down in flames.

"Here's a 1 pound mass reduction!!! YAY!!!!"

"Muahahahaha!!! You fool!!! It cost $.50 to get it and $50,000 in investment, so BACK TO THE FIELDS WITH YOUR STINKY SELF, PEASANT!!!!"



*

 

Funny, I see those things and think of GMMG chambered resonators to replace them.

 

Don't forget that all of our suggestions need to be thought of as the OEM would...IOW, they need to be made to last under warranty (no tubular exhaust headers that rot out in no time).

Another question...what of any regulations, i.e. sound drive by, etc...can a low volume model be exempted from?? I'd like low restriction intakes and no plastic engine covers....saves $$ and fluff....

 

Thanks

 

According to that link:
Now just how much weight would that save? IMO once you start hitting the weight savings that would have resulted in better MPG you've just hit the point to bring people in even with the increased costs. Hell people will pay $5k+ premium for a hybrid, I'm sure they'd be willing to pay a fraction of that to gain MPG normally too.

 

Logically, yes. But you are giving the average car buyer too much credit. That word hybrid is essential to the equation. When you get a hybrid you are "cool" and "saving" the planet. And teaming up with the divine Al Gore

No doubt higher mpg is more attractive but let's be honest, everyone would still be bitching if the V6 got 28mpg so it would not justify increasing the price. It's a tough balancing act because their is no nominal value where you can say, ok we hit XX mpg so people will pay $1,000 more for it.

 

good posts and i do really mean that...but damn guys that exotic materials and other wants is goin be exspensive...$50k car (sans adm's) for sure and who is going to buy that?..not me and not the guys GM would need to sustain Z/28 production for any length of time....personally..i dont agree with GM not releasing a Z/28 varient on launch....the heritage of the camaro does not support a Z/28 until 2 years after inception so may be its not such a biggie..but i would have loved to have seen a Z/28 at launch and i firmly believe most dealers would have as well...im not a dealer or even much of a car guy but i do understand marketing and that car (Z/28) woud have generated tons of foot traffic at GM dealerships...i still believe for GM to pull this off the camaro in general needs to be affordable with killer mpg and it needs something to counter the new 5.0L mustang/gt500..as it stands the SS is not that car and is nothing more then a mustangGT opposite....ford is simply going to cut price on the mustang GT and for most people thats what makes the buying decision...if i was in charge i would make sure GM dealerships have tons of the V6 varients on the lot and some SS varients (9:1 ratio)...i would then introduce the Z/28 on the same day the new 2010 boss is introduced and or the new 6.2L gt500 (thats unknown even though i doubt the death of the 6.2L)..the boss 302 reintroduction makes the most sense since historically the Z/28 was GM's answer to the boss 302 but all that depends on what GM believes the Z/28 competiton to be...id like to think it is the gt500 but would bet any Z/28 depends on if ford returns the boss 302 (5.0L)..at this point the vette would be the logical competitor to the shelby as was the case in the 60's and with that i can not argue against GM's reasoning for not building an exotic totally unsellable Z/28 much to the shagrin of many here....just my belief..

 

http://www.ussautomotive.com/auto/steelvsal/aclass.htm

 

Too bad it's 2 DIFFERENT cars. I'm talking same car compare. Plus the fuel prices they use are off, so i imagine it's a much better business case now.

 

From what I'm understanding, they are two different vehicles because you can't have the same design/construction for the two differing metals: steel/aluminium. I'm assuming that aluminium requires a greater volume of metal than does steel to achieve the same amount of stiffness? I'd like to be corrected if wrong.

EDIT: Think I've found my answer...
EDIT: Also, the link talks about cost of 'raw' material... but isn't aluminium processing where most of the cost lies?

 

Also some maintenance issues wrt aluminium...

 

How do you know that?

 

In the exciting and dangerous, cutting edge world of automotive door hinges and door checks, I have insider information available to me.

I can't say too much more...

While this company doesn't have black Suburbans, were certain secrets to get out, a group of midgets wearing black lederhosen may show up in a Kubelwagen with a can of WD-40 and spritz me in the eyes.

That's all I can say...

They see all.

Well, as long as there isn't anything tall in the way they do...




*

 

Mufflers are ridiculous these days. A switch to Flowmasters would probably be like a 10lb. weight loss LOL.

I think the first "mod" many people are gonna do is rear seat removal. Camaro owners are gonna be weight reduction specialists in no time!

 

Nope, you're right.

Either a greater volume of metal or you have to change the shape.

Not to get into a statics/strength of material class here, but basically on any structural member like the A arm in the IRS above, you'd have to deepen the section and use a thicker gauge of material to get the same stiffness.



Not really. The material itself is simply more expensive than steel, in large part because splitting aluminum oxide into aluminum and oxygen takes a whole lot more energy than splitting iron oxide into iron and oxygen.





*