Eat less, excersize more. No disadvantages with that plan.

 

Eat less.........


Excercise more..........

Hmmmm......

 

I'm not an economics guru or a manufacturing expert so please don't read the following as an 'I can do better type rant' and excuse me if it seems naive . Rather it strikes me that a compnay has to be an innovator, willing to push the boundries of product quality and performance in order to gain new respect from consumers and market share from competitors in the longer term.

Why are these materials more expensive? Is it because they are not used that much (demand and hence supply are lower), making raw material cost higher? Is it because they're harder to work with?

In which case, how do economies of scale affect the end cost then? I.e. if GM said... well we're going to step it up a notch and use these materials a lot more accross the board to make our entire range lighter and stronger -> i.e. ultimately better cars. Wouldn't GM get a price break or be able to negotiate prices for buying a lot more of material X than anyone else does and also be able to distribute the cost of tooling and engineering for material X across all their vehicles?

 

You'll not only save money on gas but save money on food too. So more money for aftermaket parts! How many burgers (of your favorite brand) would you need to pass up in order to buy that supercharger?

 

Burgers.

Let's say I spend $5 on a burger.
Let's say the supercharger kit, all told, is $5000.
That's 1000 burgers.
I probably average two burgers per week.
That's 500 weeks.
So, you're suggesting that I don't even get the occasional burger to keep me happy while I wait almost ten years for a supercharger kit?



Scott, I'm sure everyone here knows that you guys pay attention to weight. I suppose this discussion is spurred on by the Challenger and GT500, which both tip the scales north of two tons. People are getting scared.

Thankfully, those heavy cars are built on luxury car platforms, using OHC motors. As we all know, pushrod engines weigh a lot less than OHC motors, and they take up less space and cost less to build, too. This means that the Camaro has a running start on a weight advantage.

Hopefully, the chassis (Kappa, if the rumors are true) trumps LX (Challenger platform) and DEW (Mustang platform) for weight.

Many of us wouldn't be F-body fans if the 4th gen wasn't such a great car. And who was responsible for that? Scott. And who's responsible for the 5th gen? Scott. I don't think we need to worry.

I'm betting the new Camaro comes in at 3500 lbs. A little more for the vert, a little less for a stripper hardtop. I don't think Scott will let it out the door until it accelerates and handles like a Camaro should.

 

Challenger is an OHV engine. But still built on a heavy platform. (At least the concept is)

 

Well, the 1LE was kind of in that spirit, though not as extreme. The Z06 is really GM's closest offering to the GT3.

It'd be great to see a 1LE package on the new cars. I'm not holding my breath, though, as it was never exactly a hot seller. We'll see...

 

Epsilon is the FWD platform that carries the Malibu and G6. I don't think that's what you meant.

Further, the GT500 will not be north of 2 tons, but around 3800 pounds. I realize we might be splitting hairs here but if we're asking GM to sweat the details we might as well too.

 

Doesn't Nissan's Z car come in 3 different flavours... at one end of the range it's a loaded sports tourer whilst at the other end, it's a more stripped down track car?

 

Yep, though it looks like they have five flavors now (Coupe/Enthusiast/Touring/Track/Grand Touring, in ascending order of price). They all have the same engine, of course.

 

Indeed, I meant Kappa. Fixed in my original post.

There's a thread here that just came out today. GT500 vert is 4000+. Base is 3900+. Put a driver in it, and that's two tons.

 

The Hemi is also an iron block engine, so it might not have the increased top end weight and bulk of the Ford modular engine, but it doesn't have the advantage of the lighter LS blocks either.

 

My 1985 Ford Mustang LX 5 speed 5.0 coupe weighed in at a mere 3100 lbs.

However, it didn't have IRS, power windows, power seats, power doorlocks, heated leather seating surfaces, 255 series tires, 18 ir even 16 inch rims, disc brakes at all 4 corners the size of manhole covers, sophisticated front suspension, reinforced chassis that was incredibly low in NVH, power trunk release, it's unistructure had an annoying tendancy to fold in half right above the front seat in head on collisions, no real side impact protection, a floor pan thiner than notebook paper (seat bolts actually tended to rip out!), side floorpan rails that that made you wonder how the car survived potholes, no antilock braking system, very little sound adsorbing materials, no power mirrors, no folding rear seat, the hood was held up by a single thin prop not a pair of struts, and a mere 14 gallon fuel tank (15 gallons? Hah!) hung out the back with a filler neck that could be measured in inches.

Though I still have fond memories of that car (and brought quite a few of it's successors), I'm not so worried about weight that I'd be willing to accept all this (or lack thereof) again if the car I purchase is extremely quick, gets the same or better fuel economy, and handles better. I doubt there are many people willing to forgo alot of these things again either.

Weight is a number. I'm intrested in the whole package.

 

Unfortunately weight is an extremely important number, and one that will affect every performance aspect of the vehicle. I share z284ever's concerns with the weight of the up and coming Camaro, given its two direct competitor, the Mustang and (especially) the Challenger, are putting on pounds at a very alarming rate.

 

Is weight a problem? No problem at all…Just throw more power at the F5, right? More power will mandate a more robust (physically heavier) transmission, differential, and axles. This will require larger brakes, which necessitate larger diameter wheels. In turn, the effect of which produces one of the greatest passive mass offenders, additional rotational mass. Also, let’s also not forget the suspension and footprint required to get this thing to produce respectable handling numbers, also increasing unsprung weight.

However, that’s ok ‘cause the engineers will just give it more power.