Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503
Don't know if you guys saw it, but the "CEO orders 15% diet" thread in this forum, one of the first things out of the gate..."Engineers say eliminating the V-6 for the 4cyl would save 200lbs..."...or something to that effect....
|
Hard to believe that. Take for instance the ATS weights:
2.5L RWD / Auto – (3315/ 1503)
2.0 Turbo RWD / Auto – (3373/ 1530)
2.0 Turbo RWD / Man – (3403/ 1543)
2.0 Turbo AWD / Auto – (3543 / 1607)
3.6L RWD / Auto – (3461/ 1570)
3.6L AWD / Auto – (3629/ 1646)
Thats less than 100 lbs difference between the rwd turbo and rwd V6. Sounds about right, b/c I find it hard to believe there is a 200 difference between the 3.6 V6 and the 2.0 turbo. Maybe if they compare the turbo to the new 4.3 V6...maybe??
You can't say that the extra lbs is removed from the chasis either, b/c GM would be dumb to use a weaker chasis to support the turbo 4, when the torque it produces isn't much less.
Edit: just read that part of the article. He was comparing V6 to I4. not a turbo 4.