Agreed....but at what cost does lightweight come? Flexible cars? Buzz boxes? Mini-sized cars? Cars that fall apart at 50k miles? Expensive, exotic material cars?

Smart cars push this theory to the limit, but no-one thinks they'll really sell here...even though I'd like one to drive to work...if it's cheap enough.

Also, how many cars can you build on that lightweight platform? Cars that a large enough portion of the buying public wants?

 

FWIW there's a 6 month waiting list for Smart cars around here, and they're not cheap compared to Echos/Aveos etc.

 

I'm hopeful.. If they could put aluminum lower control arms in the new Tahoe's to reduce unsprung weight, then hopefully we can see similar weight saving details in whatever global platform the next gen Camaro is off of..

 

Repeat: If you make light weight a design goal from the start, you shouldn't have to resort to "expensive, exotic materials".

I'd LOVE to have a now-discontinued Smart Roadster (<1600 lb.), and swap a Hayabusa motor into it

I dunno, we just got the wife a Mazda3 wagon for $17.8k pretty well equipped. I'd be happy to spend $22k or more on a similar rwd car for myself.

I think if a company did a new line of cheapish, relatively light, rwd/irs small car family (2- and 4-door sedans and 3- and 5-door wagons), a modern Datsun 510 lineup, I bet they'd do alright. Then build a minimalist, decently-powered 2+2 coupe and a shortened/lightened 2seat sports car on that platform.

Hmmm, maybe I should start a car company...

 

I would easily pay that as well. $2000 more is alot, but a car that is 200lbs lighter is also no small achievement. As mentioned, thils is not likely on the normal Camaro derivitave modles, but I would love to see weight reductions bring the weight down like this on the high performance track car, whatever it may be called.

 

I'm a random car enthusiast, and my name isn't Jessica. I voted ZERO!

A base Camaro costing 1 or 2K over the Mustang or a performance Camaro costing nearly 30K to Mustang's 25K is the exact same "enthusiast at the expense of the common buyer" approach that contributed to the death of the Camaro as it is.

Camaro MUST compete with Mustang to have a future, not be some enthusiast only car.

 

I don't understand what the problem would be with the top model performance Camaro costing a thousand (or even two) more to accommodate some lightweight augmentations over the more mainstream versions. The GT500 will likely be a hair under $40,000. How much could a top version (be it SS or z28) of the Camaro cost? I can't see it costing as much as the GT500, with its much cheaper-to-produce LS type engine, whatever it may be. I really can't see the IRS hiking the price up on the Camaro either, since it will be integrated right into the platform designs across the whole board. Why couldn't GM kick the price up another $1000 on the top model for some nice weight saving pieces? It will likely still cost less than a comparitive GT500. 1000 bucks isn't that much more onto the pricetag of a $30k car, especially one that is likely to be purchased by performance junkies.

 

Oh yeah?

Just for that you're buying me a drink this weekend...anywhere from Sunday afternoon 'til Tuesday morning.

 

That's right. And what's a good motivator to make light weight a design goal from the start? The notion that consumers would reject obese automotive sloth.

 

I think you're missing my point Guy. I don't think Jessica would see the value in that $1,000. Nor am I saying she should pay that premium. But light weight should be a design priority from the start though. Jessica will appreciate the better gas mileage and sporty pick-up...she'll tell her friends too, and they'll be jealous of that efficient, sporty, Camaro. The thousand buck premium though, is for the enthusiast....not Jessica.

And please, the fairy tale that the 4th gen died because it was too much of an 'enthusiast car' has grown extremely tiresome. Let's be perfectly honest....the 4th gen died because it was simply unappealing to more than 20-30,000 people per year. Period.

But getting back to enthusiasts and their cars - specialized lightweight kit on a specialized performance car, to an enthusiast, is like the scent of blood to a predator.....irresistible. One g-note for it is chump change.

It's time that Mustang had to compete with Camaro for a change....don't you think?

 

Isnt that saying the same thing? The Camaro didnt appeal to more than 20-30k consumers per year BECAUSE it was an enthusiasts car whose base model suffered because of the performance model.

 

No, it is not saying the same thing, and z284ever is saying the same point I have been trying to make for months. The 4th gen didn't die because of its performance value, it died because there simply were no serious redesigns of the car when they needed to be done, and the car simply stopped being the GM "gotta have" car that it needed to be. Early year 4th gens sold well, GM simply ignored the car far too long into its 4th generation lifespan. Why fix something that is not broken? The cars performance was great; the 5th gen needs to stay fresh, and constantly revised.

 

What I'm saying is, that it was an excellent motor in a mediocre box. The box was mediocre on it's own volition, it wasn't made mediocre in order to focus in on or appeal to enthusiasts, and to the exclusion of everyone else. An excellent motor in an excellent box would have snared more enthusiasts in fact.....and lots more non-enthusiasts.

 

As much as I hate to agree with you, you misguided cretin, you've hit the nail on the head here.

The lost key to the success of the 4th generation was a quick replacement right around MY 1998.

Instead, other decisions were made for a host of reasons that are all so much dust in the wind (note the way-cool 70's prog-rock reference, wayward sons...).

It was a huge, gigantic, tremendous error to let the car continue on the F platform into 1998 instead of replacing it.

We got the best performing Camaros ever, but the 20 year old box had outlived it's market viability.

Contrary to what I believe Guy's position is, I do not believe that raging power and wide market appeal are mutually exclusive:

Malibu/Chevelle/Chevelle SS LS6 454
Regal/Grand National/GNX

The key is to make the mass-market trim level appealing and not to fail to pull out the big guns at the top of the performance spectrum.

Rough numbers:
The base and RS cars have to have enough appeal to pull in 45,000 or so customers a year, and the high performance cars have to be able to pull in around 30,000 or so.

 

Good question. I'm not sure. But I can imagine every Zeta version, coupe, convertible, sedan, etc., getting a unique engine cradle.