I like everything but getting rid of the interior. Especially point 4. I think this is part of the problem with GM in general that is starting to get a little bit better.

As I read it he never suggested that kappa be used for the Camaro. He simply said if Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice (and Corvette for that matter) can get their own platform (all at much lower volumes) then why can't the Camaro. He also left the door open for other divisions using a modified Camaro platform instead of the other way around which is the way it should have been IMO. Geez you think people read the first few lines of a post and decide they know what the whole thing says. J/K

 

This game is what I'd call single optioned as it doesn't have a lot of cross changes for picking one option, platform, which will have effects on the other options. This game is only a slight taste of what the Camaro team had to deal with. But to correlation between a budget, more and less important options and their price values is the aspect of the game true to life.

I have my doubts that Kappa would have been a lot lighter. I think one of the reasons it wasn't picked is the stretch and adaptations that would need to be made to make it into a 2+2 coupe capable of handling up to 500+ hp would have increased weight. Maybe not to the levels seen with the Zeta platform but heavier than you might think. But when you factor in the cost to basically redesign Kappa into a Camaro and I think it's quite a bit more than at the time shared Zeta's.

You are correct that lighter cars designed to be light can be cheaper. The point you’re missing is that the Camaro, a v8 2+2 with some strong handling and safety needs isn't a formula for lighter and cheaper. Now that can change for a potential Gen 6 but it will need to be something in the strategy from day one. The 5th Gen had to use a cheaper and available RWD platform and so the field of choices is narrow.

I agree "light" isn't an add on feature but you can dump money into expensive and lighter exotic materials to build your components out of. Again all for a price.
The whole point to consider here when the Camaro is done and everything is completed and added up it still needs to be Mustang priced and GM would like to make a profit off of it.

 

I thought that on one of the numerous debates on here over weight that some credible info was talked about stating that Kappa couldn't support V8's and that to make it into a Camaro would cost so much and the supposed gains wouldn't be as much as we think it would.

Again the game is a small scratch of the surface like Scott mentioned. I'm sure there are many more options that we didn't even knew existed.

 

Didn't Kappa use a new process that allowed them to build it quickly but also dramatically limited the number of vehicles that could be built?

There may have been scaling problems. I wonder if it was even possible to build a four seat V8 coupe using the Kappa process.

Anyway, if Kappa were feasible, I'm sure it was considered.

 

I agree that a game to cross ref. some of the options would add much more. I took about 20 minutes putting this game together. The real game at GM will take about 3 years so it's easy to see how much further down the rabbit hole this game can go.

 

You’re correct If money was no object this world would be a very different place. The cars we drive the places we live and play and the girls in our lives would all be much different. But in reality there must be compromises.
I believe this Camaro will overachieve for the price GM paid to design, engineer and produce it.

A chief engineer or VLE is a mediator as much as they are leader. Many people’s agendas are at work in this car and all the others to have ever been or will be produced. One person can't design and produce this car. The job of the chief engineer or VLE is to help determine goals for the car and expect to surpass many of them just a bit. But to stick to the plan objectives of the car. This must be achieved in a timely and under budget. The goal of engineering isn't to make things indestructible but just good enough for the cost and time allotted. It's said even the Egyptians had a schedule to meet for the pyramids.

1) They did and that's why this car is more user friendly with a more upright seating position and better ergonomics. The emphasis has been put on V6 or base model sales as Ford has cashed in on since 1964.5.

2) I think they are well aware of that and in some instances from a true enthusiasts view I'd say the Camaro is on equal footing as the Mustang. Being a Chevy and always having the dependable and always cheaply powerful SBC sure helps!

3) 350 Million was a monopoly money number. I'm not sure the real number is known as I'm sure there has been some cross budget with other platforms and models along the way. But either way it's a far lower number than say the Silverado or Malibu was to develop. But you spend big money to make big money and the Camaro is a much more specialized vehicle and thus the sales aren't likely to support a huge cost. Know that all vehicles are on a budget. It's just a fact of life.

4) Some could say the Camaro has always been Chevy's "me too Pony car". It was certainly developed later and has always trailed the Mustang in sales. I think this car has set the bar much higher over the current Mustang in many areas but mostly as a full content 21st Century sports coupe. We'll see what Ford returns with and either way it's better for both cars to have competition. I certainly welcome it as it's good for us and the Mustang lovers.

5) The Camaro has never had its own platform and now platform development is more expensive and complicated than ever before. I added it as one of the options just to show that it was more than the whole budget for the car. One of the only reasons this car made the business case to come back was it's sharing of Zeta. Obviously that has changed a bit from 2006. I'd love for it to happen but I'm a realist. The Mustang doesn't have its own platform either.

6) Ask them how the Vette (XLR) has its own full frame platform and factory to itself? Somehow the numbers support the Kappa's and Corvette/XLR but not the Camaro. GM is in the business of making money and if the Camaro was worthy of it's own platform and could bring the ROI back then it would have one. Something makes me think that's not the case. This isn't GM's first try at building a production car.

7) The budget was appropriate as we have a 5th Gen Camaro that will have class leadership in many performance areas and probably great build quality with the best safety equipment available on a rather quick timeline. (Long too many but a new car with all the Camaro has in 3 years from Concept to production is very good.)

8) As it has turned out the Camaro is the leader of the Zeta platform. As it stands now only Holden and maybe another domestic product will use it. This wasn't the plan. Also it's been mentioned that the Camaro Zeta platform is quite a bid different than what’s under the G8/Commodore. Smaller and lighter will probably head the list of Gen 6 development objectives. CAFE will make it so or the Camaro name will again fade away.

9) Interior style like exterior style is in the eye of the beholder. I've not seen it in person but I know someone who has and their valued opinion is that the pics do not do the whole car justice. The exterior is better in person and so is the interior. It’s much cleaner and nicer than pics depict. The materials and details are magnificent in his opinion. BTW he was not a fan of what he saw in the concept. I've had my complaints also but it's what we have and with a nice color choice, HUD and that very nice dash LED pipe lighting the looks get better IMO. I'd say hold final judgment until you sit and drive the car. That only seems fair correct?

 

I expect that gross margin on the Vette is pretty high, and that pays for a lot more NRE. Also, the Vette has pretty long development cycles.

 

Kappa was seriously considered, but was rejected as unfeasible. Not because it couldn't package a smallblock, it could. The structure wouldn't allow a 2nd row of seats and a gas tank.

BTW, I think GM has over a billion and a half dollars already invested in Zeta itself and it's programs. For a 'cheap' architecture, it sure wasn't cheap.

 

I think you've covered lots of ground pretty well here.

 

I'm seing a trend among our mostly enthusiast board here to cut back on safety and airbags and even structure to keep the weight down. And yet even doing so you ran out of money for a Special Model.... Z/28.

While I'm not against cutting back on some of the less performance oriented options for the car. The bread and butter V6 buyers will care and I'm glad GM didn't go cheap in that area. This Camaro isn't all about performance and that's probably a good plan for better sales.

 

I'll admit to building a car for me

It's anything but easy to figure out what will be the most successful, especially when so much is out of your control.

 

Minor problem

Is that because of the style of frame? I presume the same issue would prevent a four seat Corvette from being feasible.

 

Again, an *ounce* of foresight and a little patience would have paid off handsomely. Kappa was rushed to market, and in the rush they purposely didn't make any accomodations to making the platform adaptable to a 2+2 configuration. What they *should* have done was slow the hell down and make SURE they could build both a Solstice/Sky *and* a Camaro *and* (why not?!) maybe even a Nomad (imagine a smallish rwd Mazda3 competitor, I'd be all over that as well!).

It might have cost them a year to market for the Solstice/Sky, but the Camaro could conceivably have come out by now, and at fighting weight rather than at nearly 4000 lb.

Ah, what might have been...

 

Exact same issue with the Corvette.

 

Yeah, Kappa was quickly created to to get the Solstice out ASAP. It's a one trick pony. If it had any flexibility at all, I'm sure that Camaro would have had a better than even chance to ride on it.