Exactly!

Excessive weight CANNOT be cured by simply throwing horsepower at it.

On the other hand, removing weight makes every single quantifiable performance criterion better.

 

The easiest way to reduce weight at this point would be through accessories such as air conditioning and other small things that nobody but the part manufacturers and the car designers think of. Small things such as replacing a small metal part with plastic can add up in the long run. The car designers don't have a whole lot of controll over this though as these kind of parts are made by suppliers and are in general from the parts bin.

I would be curious to know how much more efficient \ lighter\ air conditioning units are today versus say the late 60's. An air conditioner used to be a huge drain on a car back then and now not so much. This is probably due to better design that no one pays attention to.

P.S. I'm surprised to see Scott here so recently as I assume he is a very busy man for the next few weeks.

 

Air conditioners are definetly more effficient nowadays, and compressors today are vastly lighter today than they were in the 60s. Alot of this has to do with the aluminum they use in AC parts nowadays though, as compared to the steel of the older years.

 

I remember PacerX posting afew times that lighter/cheaper/better parts could be supplied if it weren't for GM's bureaucracy.

How much weight and cost can you save on an entire car if you could slice through that BS?

 

How much cost can you save by cutting down people that get in the way of making the choices? How much money would that save? Less money into payroll means more money into lighter parts.

 

let it fail crash tests :dunno:



jk btw





























but not really







ya i am

 

how much does the BS cost?

 

There are specific problems at GM that have to be addressed that are not as cloudly as just some faceless bureaucracy.

Here's a specfic example:
From what I've seen in the F4, I could have fairly easily found the necessary mass reductions to offset the added weight of a heavier rear end such as the bigger 10 bolt that the G-bodies used.

There was low-hanging fruit in the seat adjusters, control arms, panhard rod, and torque arm mass-wise - just to name a few.

See, I've tried to make it a point to show the solutions to problems other than incessantly whining, but the truth of the matter is that it is just so much hot air because even those who may see the efficacy of them aren't in the position to make the necessary changes. I'm almost tired of talking about it.

There is a better way to do certain things. I just can't get to the right level to prove it or even discuss it - which is most likely a failing on my part, not anyone else's. I have to recognize the possibility that I'm just not equipped with the personality skills to get the point across in such a way as to get folks to actually make changes.

 

If the car is going to be a scrunched-down 2-door Cadillac coupe, I'd say there's no hope of it coming in under 3600 lb., which IMO is grossly overweight (IOW, I won't even be considering one).

You can't really ADD ON light weight (I've been saying this for ages, recently saw Gordon Murray's analysis of the pig-heavy Bugatti Veyron and he said nearly the exact same thing, so I'm in good company!). Light weight needs to be DESIGNED IN from the start. Design it in from the start, and light weight is CHEAPER. Try to "add on" light weight after the fact, and you'll only manage to save 10s, rather than 100s, of pounds, and have to live with reduced features and/or increased material costs.

 

If its the lightest car in its class somehow I don't think thousands of enthusiasts will swear off buying it like you have Dan.

Frankly the absolutism of a lot of people over here re: weight annoys the crap out of me.

Its no different than the "if it doesn't have T-tops I'm not buying it" crowd or the IRS vs. Live Axle "purists", etc.

The car will be what it is, and we should all withold judgement until we see the whole car, the complete package, and see what its capable of.

So even if the car runs 12.70s dead stock and .98g on the skidpad, you still won't buy it if its 3601 lbs? Give me a damn break.....

 

Boy, 3,601? I'll be high fiving everyone in sight.

 

Looking at the concepts vs the orginal 60's cars they are supposed to imitate the concepts even make the heavy 60's cars look small.
You can see that in the thread the guy did the over lays in the challenger concept thread.
In front of the front tire if you measure from where the fender starts to the top it's higher then most all cars it's compared to.
Quite simply it appears the concepts all have more surface area metal.
Metal adds weight. Why in the world are you making them so much bigger.
5 star side impact saftey has been cited before. Now looking at the NHTSA Ratings of an 02 Camaro it got 3 stars for side impact front and 4 stars for side impact rear (out of 5)
You got 3 stars by having nothing more then a flimisy bar in the door and uniframe body. Ok so now you add a much thicker bar, maybe 2 bars. Heck you can even add a whole NHRA 10pt roll cage and only add 150lbs. Probably under a hundred pounds for a 4 pt one. Of course you build it under the panels so you don't see it.
Now if we assume GM will continue to use plastic instead of metal like the front half of the 4th gen. Would it be safe to assume the rear half of a 5th gen will also be plastic. If not why not? Any added weight for saftey could be offset by that alone.
So again I say this weight thing is BS. I could kind of understand the idea of well the new 5th gen has all this hidden support you can't see for saftey. Although the above paragraph still makes me doubt thats a good excuse.
But when I can look at the new car and see that it has more surface area then the previous one it tells me its your own fault for it being heavy.

So my final thoughts.
-Use more plastic exterior panels. It's light, It doesn't rust, it doesn't dent, It's either broke or it pops back out.
-lower the overall surface area, the hood sits as high in the front as it does in the back. From the bottom of the frame to the base of the windows is really tall, from there up its like a chop top. Why the weird dimensions? Your adding more weight making the lower half come up so high.
Even the 68 camaro looks smaller and probably weighs less even though it's made out of heavy 60's steel.
-start with a tube frame cage for strength. The aluminum panels should only be to hold the interior plastic panels on. If I was to pull a door panel off I better see way more air space then aluminum panel. Interior panels and exterior plastic should be anchored to the tube frame for strengh with small supports, not big sheets of aluminum
Think Ford GT. It's interior looks like a regular interior but right under the skin it's been very cleverly attached. It weighs 3400lbs.
-how about this for the lazy minded. Steal ideas that are already there. Out of all the cars out there someone has the lightest seat, the lightest radio, the lightest a/c unit.
Whatever they did copy it if it's a feasible unit for your needs. How much easier can it get. If car X uses a bumper that has been getting a 5 star rating for years and we weigh car X's bumper and it's lighter then ours. Why not take a proven design and use it. Heck forget R&D, it's already in production as long as their supplier can legally sell it to you. If not change something very minor so it's 'different.' Why try and reinvent the 9-bolt(cough 10bolt)

But really why are we discussing this. The 5th gen is too far along to make major changes like that. GM gets pissy when there stuff gets released before it's done so that by the time it is your pretty much stuck with what you see.

 

If it's the lightest car in its class, I won't be swearing off buying it myself.
OK, I know what you meant of course
FWIW, I'm speaking only for myself (which should go without saying) when I tell you I won't even be considering a New Camaro that weighs 3600 lb.

Sen-si-TIVE!

That's right!
1/4 mile isn't my thing, track days/time trials are. Weight is FAR more important there than at the drags. Having driven 600 lb. (Formula440) up to 3400 lb. ('02 Z28) cars at the track, my impression is that lighter weight is way more fun, and it's generally FASTER, even with inferior power/weight.

"One break, comin up!"
(apologies to DLR)

 

We all would like a space frame designed Camaro, with aluminum skin, but that aint gunna happen. You must have missed the part where he asked "not raise the price."
5th gen CONCEPT is too far along to do any changes to it, but the CAR is not in production, and thoughts and ideas on how to built it to make it lighter will continue to pour in from inside GMs engineers.

What I dont like is that in the grand scheem of making things lighter, do you sacrafice quality? Some of these import sissy car mags talk about the "Weight" of controls. If GM moves back to thin cheap plastic, it will only bring the media down on it, killing any buzz.

And at 3600lbs, Ill do a back flip. I figured 3600-3800lbs is where this bad boy is gunna sit. Its coming up on that 2 ton mark real fast, aint it?

 

Kwik thot after reading Aaron91RS post...


A trunk instead of hatch and sunroof option instead of T's will be a much stiffer structure without additional weight compared to the 4th gen.