Thank you. I thought this would shed some light on the challenges that go in to any new vehicle and especially a highly visable one like the 5th Gen Camaro. It's far too easy to point fingers and ask why this and that but very different from the decision making chair. All too well known to you and I. (Ok you more than I )

So are you going to let us know what GM spent on our little friend. Or do we need to read your tell all book?

 

Great exercise!

Oh how I'm sure Scott wishes those were the numbers for weight reduction.

I have a feeling the real numbers were much, much, higher, and they involved several unappealing compromises.

But for this exercise there are no compromises, so I'll take it.

LS3/L99 30
3.6DI 20
Platform: Zeta 100
Lead class handling: 20
21st century interior: 20
4-star crash: 10
Airbags: match 5
MY 2010: 10
6a/5m: 20+10
Par for class structure: 10
V8 weight under 3600: 80
V6 weight under 3800: 15 (v6 buyers not as demanding, and i'm out of money)

350 million

 

It'd be interesting to make a game out of this where each decision has an impact on things like weight and handling.

So that if you pick the Alpha, you get a free 100 pound weight reduction or if you pick the class leading rigidity, you add 50 pounds due to additional reinforcement. Of course, you may improve handling. The higher the max power, the more the base weight, etc. Then you get a base line weight at the end, and things like weight reduction is an exponential cost adder.

Of course, I wouldn't try that on this forum -- you'd need some sort of scripting to do that.

 

^FLASH GAME BABY!!! I wish I had a "better" computer, I would have gotten into it awhiel ago, man, somebody with experience, please!

 

So, whether I start with a Kappa or a Zeta, it costs the same to get weight under 3600 lb.? I don't think so. If Kappa had been delayed and made a multi-car platform, 3200-3400 lb. would have been a piece of cake for the V8 2+2 coupe variant (i.e., Camaro).

As far as cost and weight are concerned, there IS a strong correlation between the two, but most people have it backward. Lighter cars are generally cheaper, not more expensive. However, if you try to ADD light weight to an existing big and heavy platform, you can spend a ton of money and not really make much improvement.

Light weight is not a "feature" you can add on. It must be designed into the vehicle from the get-go. Choosing a very big and heavy sedan platform for the Camaro doomed it to being hideously overweight.

 

Why isn't Kappa on the list of platform options?

 

What do you base that on? What you suggest is far lighter than anything else out there. Please don't go back to cars from the '80s or '90s for your justification.

 

Interesting proposition.

First of all, the constraints on this problem, as set at the very high executive level, are exactly why the car is not as good as it could have been!

As chief engineer I would start with the following actions:

1) Force the decision makers to take a real hard look at why Mustang sales have been historically much higher than cam/fire sales and why Mustangs have such a huge enthusiastic following despite not always having the better car.
2) Make them realize that the Camaro has huge potential that has not been developed; realize that it is the only car GM makes that even has the potential to have a following like the Mustang has.
3) Convince them that it is time to stop treating the car like a red headed step child: Stop “building it on a budget” Stop building it on the cheap. Realize that this is the mistake that has been made on previous versions and the biggest reason for the ultimate demise, i.e. hiatus. Realize that 350 million is not enough to make a Camaro that achieves its full potential.
4) Make it absolutely clear: a “me too” version of the current Mustang is not acceptable. The bar needs to be set higher; It needs to be better in every way to the "next" generation mustang. Same size and weight of the current mustang is unacceptable. Bigger and heavier is inexcusable and grounds for dismissal!
5) Stop hunting, searching, to find a platform to build it on. We have been hearing this “no suitable platform” crap for years. Stop compromising the car to make it fit. BUILD A SUITABLE PLATFORM FOR THIS CAR!
6) When brilliant executives object, ask them to explain how they approved a dedicated platform for a small, 2 seat convertible that won’t sell 50,000 vehicles a year (Kappa), but that they expect the Camaro to use an unsuitable platform and do it all for 350 million.
7) Finally get approval for an appropriate budget after blood, sweat, tears, threats, and acts of GOD.
8) Develop a platform with the CAMARO as the lead car instead of the “afterthought” Approach that has always been taken previously. Make the platform SMALLER and LIGHTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! Optimize this platform around Camaro but make it flexible also. Make a SWB version for coupes (Camaro and others for Pontiac, Buick, Saturn, etc.) Also make a LWB version for small sedans for any and all of GMs divisions. This would give a big advantage on CAFÉ and let them downsize ZETA and Sigma based vehicles.
9) Scrap the horrific interior as shown in the concept and do one that is modern and sporty instead of pseudo-retro confused.

Like it or not………………That’s what I would have done as Chief Engineer.

 

Give this Chief Engineer a promotion!

 

And you're assuming that none of this was done?!?!

Kappa was never designed for a V8, four place coupe.......now what other platform would you have used to produce a Camaro priced Camaro????

Geez, you'd think those guys in Detroit never thought of any of this stuff since 1966......

 

Sorry. That chief engineer is fired.

I mean, it's fun to talk about the chief engineer 'forcing' the bumbling executives to bend to his will.

It doesn't work that way....

 

Awww, now that's too bad.

Oh, wait... He was just hired by your competitor... And your stock just dropped again...

And now your executives, who approved a new platform for a sub 50,000-unit per year car, but WOULD NOT approve a new platform for a 100,000+ unit per year car with higher margins, have been fired by the new Board of Directors that was appointed by the new stockholder that just bought a controlling interest in your company. (The new stockholder is a large hedge fund that doesn't really know the auto industry per se, but they understand how to turn a company around, or sell off its component subsidiaries for cash capital if they can't perform.)

Later, at the bar, as the now-jobless former executives try to figure out what they did wrong, it occurs to them that, perhaps, they should have listened to the Chief Engineer, rather than dismissing his ideas outright and firing him for even suggesting them.

But, nah, this scenario could never happen, right?

 

Developmental costs for new Camaro-$350 million
Hearing the first SS start up and drive off the line-PRICELESS!

 

It does seem unlikely, but you never know. The new company hiring him would not be doing so to force the execs to do something they didn't want to do. The execs might be hiring him to shake up the organization.

A chief engineer can make recommendations and cajole and wheedle. But at the end of the day, if a decision is made, he can decide to accept it or leave or be fired. In rare occasions, you may be able to get the person above you fired. That usually does not work.

 

I started out at $515M but managed to get under the $350M budget... and it was not very easy to delete things you expect/demand in such a revered car.

Total: $335M