Sorry for confusion...As far as magnesium goes for car parts to lose weight, I'd say it's probablby the best idea I saw on that list...There is no hazard or safety concern whatsoever...
...All I meant was that in fully involved car fires, the engine blocks,(aluminum/magnesium) once they burn for whatever reason, burn extremely hot and are more problematic to extinguish....
...Magnesium car parts do not just spontaneously combust...lol

Right! Lol just let the fire department handle it ok ;) besides... If your cars burning? It's ****ed! Off to the dealership or used car lot you must go. Lol

Being one of the long-time champions in Camaro5 of weight reduction on the Camaro, I'm extremely happy to see this being a focus from the top down at GM. I'm also wondering how they're going to implement this. That would take the current SS at a factory stated weight of 3860 down to 3281 which is great but at what cost? That's a LOT of weight to remove.

I documented everything I did in my project thread

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45165

and I was able to reduce the car about 190 lbs without gutting it. It wasn't cheap to do so. Removing 579 lbs which is what a 15% reduction would be seems rather extreme. I'm all for it but I'd be perfectly happy with a 5-10% reduction if it was the right kind of weight. Even a 5% reduction would take it to 3667 which is great; I'm at 3690 on mine and with the increase in power the car really moves, and it moves quick.

If they focused on removing unsprung and unsprung rotating weight, that would be a more modest reduction but would have a much greater effect on performance than just removing dead weight. For example I could remove 100 lbs out of the interior and the car might seem a tad quicker, but if I removed 100 lbs by taking 25 lbs of unsprung weight from each wheel/corner? The difference would be startling. If the money spent on carbon fiber panels etc. to remove 100 lbs of dead weight were instead spent on lighter wheels, brake rotors, driveshaft, etc. to remove 100 lbs, you'd be shocked at how much different the car would be compared to just having lighter body panels.

I think 5-8% is realistic without seriously increasing the price of the car, with 5% being very realistic. However since he said 2016 that means they're working on it right now in order to get a car finished, certified and ready to be produced in time for 2016. If he's talking model year, that means these cars would go on sale in 2015...just 2 years from now. That seems rather ambitious and I just hope it doesn't increase the base cost of an SS to $40k and 1LE, Z/28, ZL1's go up from there.

(Yes I know they haven't said anything about a Z/28 but it's ridiculous to think they're going to let such a legendary model just sit in the dust bins of history.)

I think the easiest way is to start small...less physical material means less mass from the get-go. And then work along the same lines as you did. I followed you build real close when it was "new". Very impressed then...and still impressed now. :thumbsup:

Interesting...

Doc I completely agree with you, and hopefully that kind of approach is what GM is looking into.

The lightest Camaro coming in at around 3,300 and the heaviest with the V8 coming in at or near 3,600 would be great. Its too bad they couldn't do it with this gen....nothing would be able to touch it still.

I'm all for GM and further models going the less weight route but they better beef up the safety options on the models (I.E blind spot sensors, guide lines in back up camera display, front-end collision sensors). The SRT8 models have it in Dodges lineup, I can't speak for the Mustang lineup as I've never owned one.

It isn't rocket science, other auto manfacturers will/would have followed suit. Less weight=faster vehicle of course depending on the engine specs. If I wanted a less weight vehicle I would have opted for a Elise Lotus, Miata of even the BRZ. I'm all for it though but hopefully they don't cut other corners in the development of future models.

Lutz actually admitted in an article that he played a significant role in the current weight problem at GM. He stated that when vehicles were being engineered the weight of the vehicle was a non factor, they just produced the vehicle and whatever it weighed it weighed.

On the alpha platform GM admitted that there were further things that they could have done to bring the weight down. However those things may not have been acceptable on a entry level compact luxury sedan such as the ATS. I am betting that some of those tricks they can use on the Camaro, though how much weight will they remove is a good question. Current ATS base weight for each engine is as follows:

ATS 2.5: 3,315lbs
ATS 2.0T: 3,373lbs
ATS 3.6: 3,461lbs

The biggest weight gainers I would guess for the ATS at higher trim levels are tyhe magnetic shocks and bigger wheels/tires. If the base Camaro is to pack a turbocharged I-4 engine on the Alpha platform producing about 300BHP I would estimate weight to be 3,200-3,400 pounds (based on estimates for the new Mustang it would need to be on the lower end).

Better get with the program gm or you will be once again overtaken by the competition AGAIN!!

No, I'm very happy with what I have. It was a joke. But really, more power isn't out if the question too.

600lbs? so we're getting a 4cyl and a turbo v6? wont happen unless its short and skinny.

It's probably going to be a smaller car than the 5th gen.

I'm fine with that. I'm honestly excited for future models, as alot of the current models at out there have options I'd never think of a car doing. Wifi in GM vehicles is one of those things. Just hoping it stretches to all of Chevrolets line up.

I don't think you need to worry about Magnesium catching fire... the lowest temperature it will ignite/spark is 880F+ and that is pure magnesium. If you get your car up to that temperature you are doing something wrong :biggrin:

I am not sure if it has been confirmed, but I feel this '15%' is probably a fleet number... I don't see the 6th gen Camaro's coming out weighing 3250 lbs. I hope they do... But I fear that is not likely :pout:

Also that would mean vette's around 2800 lbs..... So I am fairly confident they are talking fleet

History repeats itself.... No Need to Buckle Up.
 

This is just a rehash for some of us. No need to get your panties in a wad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfzgNdkdbYs

future motor?

http://blog.caranddriver.com/cadilla...d=1458_7340041

No. That's not what I'm saying. Actually, you went from A-Z right there all on your own.

This is true....

Yeah, and I bet it will take a turn for the worst. It will look like crap. It will most likely be as good looking as a chevy "SS" they just came out with (NOTHING SPECIAL THERE) The past repeats its self, 67 to 69 Camaros COOL, from there on down hill in the looks dept. Camaros from 10 to what? 14? COOL then from there down hill. Just Watch.................

Buy your cars now! Stock up.

This is the beginning of the end. Remember what happened to GM cars during the '70's and '80's after dumb GM edicts like this one? The cars were flimsy, slow junk. It takes time to properly design and engineer a car.

Michael

Different times now, it's the 21st century, time to quit living in the past....

It's all been done before, light cars. Car engineering is nothing new at all and everything has been tried. How about 50-60's European sports cars. Very light with the safety of a moped.
What will change the world of modern cars is composite materials and the way they are manufactured to reduce costs.
Composites will reduce the weight that is needed to get great mileage and performance while retaining the strength for safety that is so important these days.
Until the day that cars are affordable with what we think today, are exotic materials, we are destined to have Sonic sized cars made of steel and iron and aluminum that are light and safe.
The point is that with metals, a CAT front end loader has to weigh what it does to lift a load of logs for physics and engineering strength.
A car has to weigh what it does at a certain size for the same reason with safety in mind.
I personally think we are a few years off yet from composite cars being affordable.
So a light cheap steel/iron/aluminum affordable car will have to be smaller than we might like for the next decade or so until advancements are made, which will happen I'm sure..

Oh... I feel you are saying "Shut up and eat your broccoli".... LOL OK we all need to shut our pie holes and "go with the flow"...

"Only dead fish go with the flow"....

Wow, it means times have changed and technology has changed we have moved forward, it does not mean it has to go backwards.... As living in the past means.