CAMARO6
Page 5 of 5 1234 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

CAMARO6 (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/index.php)
-   2016+ Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=155)
-   -   GM CEO orders 15% diet for new models by 2016 (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282474)

OldScoolCamaro 03-22-2013 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome (Post 6317422)
I never said that either video explained how these fires got started. I was using them to show what happens when magnesuim is already on fire. Obviously the VW engine blocks were intentionally set on fire, but the SUV that was on fire was an accidental fire.

The purpose of that video shows that even a trained firefighter was not aware of the explosive nature of the fire, and if you actually watched it you will see that the burning magnesium actually burned completely through his fire coat, and he was saved from severe burns by the protection he was wearing under the fire coat. Molten metal is bad enough, but molten metal that is on fire does not cool off until it consumes itself. It burns through whatever it comes in contact with!!!

It must be really nice to be able to go through life unencumbered by logic and critical thinking.

I guess I have to spell it out for you....

1) Magnesium is a flammable metal.
2) Magnesium creates a highly flammable gas when exposed to water while burning.
3) Magnesium cannot be extinguised by anything other than being smothered by an oxygen barrier, or complete vacuum.
4) Magnesium is WAY easier to ignite if it is formed into a thin sheet or strip.
5) Car makers are beginning to produce cars with exterior body panels made from magnesium.
6) Body panels are traditionally THIN METAL SHEETS pressed into shape.
7) Most people instinctively try to extinguish a fire with water.

Therefore, cars are beginning to be made from this material in a much more dangerous form that is more likely to catch fire (in the traditional car fire scenario) and people will automatically introduce water into the fire, creating an explosion of burning metal.


Do you get my point now?


Enough people each year get burned because they don't know how to put out a grease fire on their stove. What do you think is going to happen when people start trying to put out a magnesium car body fire? BOOM!

So we are going to have cars that are made from this stuff that will eventually be involved in a fire, and someone is going to try and put it out with a hose and the hydrogen will explode and shower everything and everyone for several yeards around with burning slag that does not cool off.

People are eventually going to get hurt by this, and it's MUCH more dangrous than a fuel fire or oil fire. Those are much easier to control.

What could go wrong??!?!?

Do you think that auto body shops are NEVER going to accidentally take a torch to one of these things inside a garage to cut away some damage and NOT set it on fire? What are the chances water will be sprayed on it and burn down the whole building?

Look, if we all have to shell out $500 extra per car because some pencil pusher decided that every car has to have backup sensors and rear cameras because a MASSIVE 23 people a year get run over by BAD DRIVERS in cars backing up, how long do you think they will allow carmakers to continue using magnesium once people start getting hurt because it is so reactive? No matter WHAT the cause of the fire was.

It's not so awful using it for castings where thermal mass makes it hard to ignite, but body panels made from the stuff will ultimately get some ignorant pencil pusher to unilaterally BAN it from ANY use in cars. Then NOBODY will be able to use it for ANYTHING in a car.

I will quote this message when it happens and tell you "I told you so".
...retort to bold highlight...highlydoubtfull. Backup sensors and rear cameras are a smart approach to blind rear vision and shortcomings in drivers attention dealing with an awkward angle of view. Nothing against your trained firefighters opinion, but from my knowledge and experience paid trained firefighters know about water and a magnesium fire. So, you state there will be accidents and mishaps because of undertrained people working with this material? As opposed to what other technology do you base you conclusions on besides your own opinion? Provide some statistics. There are none in place. Many body/repair shops have been set on fire because someone welded too close to a gas tank. And that has happened more than you would like to know, or like to admit because it works against your advancement of technology argument and the presumed ingnorance of the world dealing with such so therefore we should not head in that direction. Let's make the Fred Flintstone mobile, and we would only have to worry foot injury, hows them apples? How long has gasoline technology been around and the mishandling of that technology causing physical harm? Ignorance is everywhere, even with posts on C5 for example. See above quote. :D

Captain Awesome 03-23-2013 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro (Post 6322091)
Nothing against your trained firefighters opinion, but from my knowledge and experience paid trained firefighters know about water and a magnesium fire.
Being that less than 30% of all firefighters are paid professionals, you have over 70% chance of having a volunteer firefighter respond to your call. There are many good volunteers who do awesome work, but there are also some who are not as trained or skilled. You WILL see magnesium fire accidents with water used. It is already happening, and we have not started using stamped panels commonly yet!

Quote:
So, you state there will be accidents and mishaps because of undertrained people working with this material? As opposed to what other technology do you base you conclusions on besides your own opinion? Provide some statistics. There are none in place. Many body/repair shops have been set on fire because someone welded too close to a gas tank. And that has happened more than you would like to know, or like to admit because it works against your advancement of technology argument and the presumed ingnorance of the world dealing with such so therefore we should not head in that direction.
Actually that SUPPORTS my position. I know of many examples of cutting torches cutting fuel tanks or fuel lines and starting a gas fire. If it can happen with gas then it will happen with magnesium. I assert that magensium is far more dangerous when burning than a run-of-the-mill pretroleum fire.

Imagine if the garage has a state required sprinkler system and one of these things touches off in a room full of mechanics?


Quote:
Let's make the Fred Flintstone mobile, and we would only have to worry foot injury, hows them apples? How long has gasoline technology been around and the mishandling of that technology causing physical harm? Ignorance is everywhere, even with posts on C5 for example. See above quote. :D
Why is anything they do in the name of fuel economy automatically a GOOD idea? Would you pay $3000 more for an extra 3MPG that you have to drive using $4.00/gal gas for 150K miles to break even on?

You seem like an intelligent person who can think it through. Why add additional hazardous materials to a car, which will never pay for themselves over the life of the car, just so that the manufacturer can meet an ARBITRARY mandate?

If you're so interested in saving weight at any cost, why not have your car made from Beryllium? It's way lighter than porky-pig magnesium!

Mr. Wyndham 03-23-2013 03:42 PM
All I can post in response to obvious arguing for argument's sake, rather than thoughtful discussion:

:facepalm:

The day is looming. And a sad day, it will be.


No. 3: Thank you for your response to my question about manufacturing techniques.

trademaster 03-23-2013 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham (Post 6324409)
All I can post in response to obvious arguing for argument's sake, rather than thoughtful discussion:

:facepalm:

The day is looming. And a sad day, it will be.


No. 3: Thank you for your response to my question about manufacturing techniques.
This is not the logical argument you're looking for

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3...wi58o1_500.gif

*007 03-24-2013 02:33 PM
I find the point-counterpoint educational. Let's not dismiss the knowledge shared by contributors as meaningless tripe. Not in this case anyway. As a simple observer I found some value from all contributors. Thank you for taking your time to do so. I think it was worth more than bladder product.

Captain Awesome 03-24-2013 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *007 (Post 6327542)
I find the point-counterpoint educational. Let's not dismiss the knowledge shared by contributors as meaningless tripe. Not in this case anyway. As a simple observer I found some value from all contributors. Thank you for taking your time to do so. I think it was worth more than bladder product.
Thanks for supporting an open discussion and encouraging all sides to participate.

90503 03-27-2013 01:04 PM
Well, boys...they pulled off some weight reduction with the Z/28...and put in an LS7...(Needless to say, I think it is a fantastic car, and shows certain unnecessary items can be eliminated and offered as options)...

I just hope this Z/28, it's no frills design, and it's LS7 engine carry into the 6thGen...Could be the monster car of all time...

Richy_Rich 03-27-2013 02:49 PM
3300 lbs would be great

KMPrenger 03-27-2013 06:43 PM
I still maintain the base Camaro...or whichever one has the Turbo 4 will weigh in at the 3,3xx range or a tad less.

As for the Z/28, whats really mind blowing is that I guarantee, with all the same extreme weight and performance measures taken on the Alpha chasis, the car would only weigh around the same weight of the base Camaro....so in the 3,300 to 3,400lb range.

Imagine the LS7 in THAT Camaro. Suddenly you have a Camaro performing near the same heights as the mighty Z06.

GretchenGotGrowl 03-27-2013 06:56 PM
I still think this is the swan song for the LS7. Glad that it is in the 5th Gen Z/28, but new CAFE standards are taking affect about the time the 6th Gen comes out. If I were an exec at GM I would not want to use my banked credits to support this platform into 2016 and beyond. I think we will probably see something just as awesome in the future. The Z06 has been around for a while, and they will probably (at least I hope) build a special powerplant for that badge in the C7. Eventually we may see a similar engine in a 6th Gen Z/28. I'm sure it will be just as awesome as the LS7. After all, GM seems to be out to make us performance enthusist happy. The LT1 sounds sweet and the Caddy's are getting a new VSport line with the LF3. I'm loving everything that's going on.

90503 03-27-2013 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl (Post 6345211)
I still think this is the swan song for the LS7. Glad that it is in the 5th Gen Z/28, but new CAFE standards are taking affect about the time the 6th Gen comes out. If I were an exec at GM I would not want to use my banked credits to support this platform into 2016 and beyond. I think we will probably see something just as awesome in the future. The Z06 has been around for a while, and they will probably (at least I hope) build a special powerplant for that badge in the C7. Eventually we may see a similar engine in a 6th Gen Z/28. I'm sure it will be just as awesome as the LS7. After all, GM seems to be out to make us performance enthusist happy. The LT1 sounds sweet and the Caddy's are getting a new VSport line with the LF3. I'm loving everything that's going on.
....Then again, if the I-4, TT-V6 and the AFM LT-1 will be out in the 6thGen...that may give some extra life to the LS7 as far as CAFE...dunno how all that works....Seems like only two years worth of the LS7 in a Z/28 would be sort of awkward...

GretchenGotGrowl 03-28-2013 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 6345348)
....Then again, if the I-4, TT-V6 and the AFM LT-1 will be out in the 6thGen...that may give some extra life to the LS7 as far as CAFE...dunno how all that works....Seems like only two years worth of the LS7 in a Z/28 would be sort of awkward...
It just might. I can't help but think that maintaining a line of engines that are hand built in a special plant will look pretty bad to the bean counters. It will all depend on who wins the arguement at GM.

fielderLS3 03-28-2013 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl (Post 6347659)
It just might. I can't help but think that maintaining a line of engines that are hand built in a special plant will look pretty bad to the bean counters. It will all depend on who wins the arguement at GM.
I think the LS7 is going into the Camaro partly because GM needs somewhere to put their production capacity of it for the last year or two now that C6 Corvette production, and with it the ZO6, has ended. Ultimately, the LS7 is going to go the way of the LS3. The new LT engine family will quickly replace all the LSs, so the LS7 will not be in the 6th gen Camaro. Give the next Vette a year or two, and there will probably be a higher performance version of the LTs coming for the next ZO6, or at least the ZO6 replacement if they change it to something else. Whether or not that engine will end up in the 6th gen Camaro as a low volume, special version is anyone's guess.

TRGunner 03-28-2013 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome (Post 6279467)
This frightens me to the point the hairs stood up on my neck. I see a lot of blather about needing to comply with CAFE and the other car companies are also feeling pressure to do the same.

Remember when the car company CEOs would go to washington and FIGHT against these onerous regulations?

Those were the days.

We STILL need to fight for our sanity against ridiculous regulations. America's businesses need to stay globally competetive.
We all need to get along and respect everyones opinions.
I still encourage us all to speak up America to our representatives for all matters including this one.:mad2:

KMPrenger 03-28-2013 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl (Post 6345211)
I still think this is the swan song for the LS7. ...
Oh I completely agree with that. Couple years in the Camaro and that will be it.

I was just thinking what it would be like to have it in a 3,300 lbl Camaro on the Alpha chassis. :D

GretchenGotGrowl 03-28-2013 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger (Post 6349243)
Oh I completely agree with that. Couple years in the Camaro and that will be it.

I was just thinking what it would be like to have it in a 3,300 lbl Camaro on the Alpha chassis. :D
FUN!

carlos@redline-motorsport 03-28-2013 02:28 PM
Stuffing a live axle in the back would cut weight and improve 1/4 mile performance.

Tampa Tuning 03-28-2013 08:04 PM
I could use a 15% weight reduction lol

90503 03-28-2013 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tampa Tuning (Post 6351270)
I could use a 15% weight reduction lol
Just have your CEO mandate it by your 2016 model year...If the pressure's on, you can do it!...lol...

SlingShot 03-29-2013 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger (Post 6349243)
Oh I completely agree with that. Couple years in the Camaro and that will be it.

I was just thinking what it would be like to have it in a 3,300 lbl Camaro on the Alpha chassis. :D
It would be something like this ...

90503 12-07-2013 08:03 PM
....Perhaps the 6th Gen Camaro may actually turn out to be a lighter weight car than the new Mustangs....

MikeT 12-08-2013 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 7245021)
....Perhaps the 6th Gen Camaro may actually turn out to be a lighter weight car than the new Mustangs....
I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. The fact that Ford has completely shut up about weight loss in the Mustang has led some to speculate that the new car has probably GAINED weight. An Alpha Camaro should have no trouble undercutting the new Mustang in terms of weight.

Ripstang 12-09-2013 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeT (Post 7246087)
I'd say that's a pretty safe bet. The fact that Ford has completely shut up about weight loss in the Mustang has led some to speculate that the new car has probably GAINED weight. An Alpha Camaro should have no trouble undercutting the new Mustang in terms of weight.
The news is out that the 2015 Mustang is 200 pounds lighter than the current S197 Model. Base engine offer will be a eco 4 with 2 turbo's Making over 300HP.6cyl and 8cyl are in the lineup.

MikeT 12-09-2013 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripstang (Post 7248910)
The news is out that the 2015 Mustang is 200 pounds lighter than the current S197 Model. Base engine offer will be a eco 4 with 2 turbo's Making over 300HP.6cyl and 8cyl are in the lineup.
Do you have a solid source for that 200lb claim? There has been rumor/speculation about the car losing 200 lbs, but as I understand it, Ford was silent on this point during their media splash last week.

That silence has been interpreted by some as a possible indication that there's no weight loss... and, in fact, a weight gain isn't impossible due to added equipment coupled with zero reduction in the overall dimensions of the car.

KMPrenger 12-09-2013 01:01 PM
I think this is great stuff for Camaro fans, and I'm also starting to think the Mustang hasn't lost much if any weight. Sure, the 4 cylinder will be lighter, but it appears that the Alpha Camaro should be right in the ballpark.

Ripstang 12-09-2013 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeT (Post 7248957)
Do you have a solid source for that 200lb claim? There has been rumor/speculation about the car losing 200 lbs, but as I understand it, Ford was silent on this point during their media splash last week.

That silence has been interpreted by some as a possible indication that there's no weight loss... and, in fact, a weight gain isn't impossible due to added equipment coupled with zero reduction in the overall dimensions of the car.
http://www.imotortimes.com/2015-must...-gallery-21761

News on a few sites as to the 200lb. loss, nothing confirmed solid as of yet.
Yes it could weigh more but I doubt it, everyone is working hard at dropping the pounds these days. Camaro is no exception, the Z28 if I heard correctly is 200 lb. lighter so nothing is Impossible.

jp23rockstar 12-09-2013 02:53 PM
It's like the new corvette, frame was lighter going with aluminum, but there was also weight added back due to electronics. I expect the same to go with the new mustang. Ford not releasing curb weight is a reason that it added weight.

KMPrenger 12-09-2013 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripstang (Post 7249041)
http://www.imotortimes.com/2015-must...-gallery-21761

News on a few sites as to the 200lb. loss, nothing confirmed solid as of yet.
Yes it could weigh more but I doubt it, everyone is working hard at dropping the pounds these days. Camaro is no exception, the Z28 if I heard correctly is 200 lb. lighter so nothing is Impossible.
There are other publications claiming they feel the weight may be no less, or even possibly a gain.

I don't think anyone except the insiders know yet, so we shall wait and see.

90503 12-10-2013 06:11 PM
GM Ceo Akerson who ordered this will be gone Jan 14th....I wonder if this weight reduction plan is still a "go", already in the works, subject to change, possibly scrapped...???....Maybe makes no difference...??

Number 3 12-11-2013 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 7252265)
GM Ceo Akerson who ordered this will be gone Jan 14th....I wonder if this weight reduction plan is still a "go", already in the works, subject to change, possibly scrapped...???....Maybe makes no difference...??
2016 cars are all well along in development. His retiring won't change the status of those programs.

OldScoolCamaro 12-11-2013 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 7252265)
GM Ceo Akerson who ordered this will be gone Jan 14th....I wonder if this weight reduction plan is still a "go", already in the works, subject to change, possibly scrapped...???....Maybe makes no difference...??
Mr. Akerson left due to family health reasons. If you know the full story, I suspect one would come to the conclusion it was an admirable decision.

90503 12-11-2013 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro (Post 7255271)
Mr. Akerson left due to family health reasons. If you know the full story, I suspect one would come to the conclusion it was an admirable decision.
Uh, yeah, I heard the story about why he's retiring....Is that a reason to not wonder what the new CEO might have in mind?

HeadonaStick 12-12-2013 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 (Post 6282100)
Much of the ppl are excited for the new platform. Here's the issue at hand. We ALL know how popular this car has become. GM should've taken into account from the get go on weight reduction to compete. What you have now is a hope and prayer that the 6th gen looks as good or better than it is currently. We're behind our competitors a bit and that's frustrating. At the track the 1LE and ZL-1 are great cars. But the SS lacks in competition amongst its rivals no? I love my car, but I wish it'd be a bit more competive out the gate or following yr than to just have a few upgrades on components here and there that make no difference for whet the purpose of the car is for. And that's strictly performance.

For many of us it isn't strictly performance. You are speaking for yourself, not everyone.

My car has to be a daily driver, last over 100,000 miles, be dependable, hold up to reasonable wear and tear, be reasonably affordable to purchase and maintain and it has to perform.

The market for a car that doesn't do all of those things is pretty small.

OldScoolCamaro 12-12-2013 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 7255374)
Uh, yeah, I heard the story about why he's retiring....Is that a reason to not wonder what the new CEO might have in mind?
Number 3 already answered your question before you posted it. Please refer to his post above yours. :)

90503 12-12-2013 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro (Post 7257571)
Number 3 already answered your question before you posted it. Please refer to his post above yours. :)
...lol...all good, brother...thought maybe you hadn't seen #3's post....

OldScoolCamaro 12-12-2013 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 7257689)
...lol...all good, brother...thought maybe you hadn't seen #3's post....
...dude, this is the worst example of back peddling I have seen you do yet, but it's all good bro......;)

90503 12-12-2013 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro (Post 7257721)
...dude, this is the worst example of back peddling I have seen you do yet, but it's all good bro......;)
You give me too much credit....I wouldn't know how to back-peddle if I wanted to...lol...

OldScoolCamaro 12-12-2013 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 7257755)
You give me too much credit....I wouldn't know how to back-peddle if I wanted to...lol...
...it's that innate ability you have... ;)

LSXaddict 12-14-2013 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ripstang (Post 7248910)
The news is out that the 2015 Mustang is 200 pounds lighter than the current S197 Model. Base engine offer will be a eco 4 with 2 turbo's Making over 300HP.6cyl and 8cyl are in the lineup.
The news is out in the same way that GM claimed the Z/28 to be 200-300 pounds lighter. Turns out they meant 200-300 pounds lighter than a ZL1. I would place my bets that the 200#'s they're talking about is from previous GT or GT500 weight to the new 4cyl with performance pack. GT to GT I would guess (wild speculation here) that they gained 50-100 pounds. Unless they found a new way to loose weight while keeping the car roughly the same size and adding IRS, more interior features, larger wheels, and more saftey equipment.

I could see the 6th Gen actually being lighter than the mustang though and I really hope that's true.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 PM.
Page 5 of 5 1234 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.