Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
No, it wouldn't. They shouldn't show ANYTHING. In fact the test mules should have generic no-particular-style body panels specifically for the purpose of just testing everything underneath the body panels. Keep the body style under tight wraps until the car is within 90 days of being in production and for sale on the street.
And PLEASE GM pay somebody to take ACCURATE photos of what the car colors actually look like so the build-your-car website is correct. In fact take 3 color sample photos; one in the day in sunlight, one indoors under indoor lighting, and one at night under street lights. Show all 3 so colors don't get short-changed and discontinued (ABM) because of a web image that isn't even close to the way it really looks.
Avoid gimmicky and trendy; you don't lead by following trends. You lead by creating them. Instead of spending millions and millions trying to squeeze 1 or 2 mpg out of the engine and emissions systems, spend a good chunk of that money on re-engineering all the unsprung and unsprung rotating mass objects on the car. Improve the efficiency of the drivetrain. Not only will you find those extra mpg you were looking for, you'll also find speed and performance without having to add 1 extra horsepower. And don't focus on horsepower anyways; that's top-end pedal-to-the-metal flat-out stuff that you can't even use on the street. Focus on torque. You'll feel and use that every single time you accelerate.
Removing 200 lbs of static weight out of the car is nice but wouldn't make as big a difference in the feel of the car as people think it would. Remove half that; just 100 lbs of unsprung and unsprung rotating weight out and believe me, you'd notice the difference immediately. By pouring R & D money into that one critical area, GM could realize across-the-board gains in performance and mpg for every vehicle they produce without having to do a single thing to their engines.
Keep the next gen Camaro under wraps until the last minute. Make it exciting and choose exciting colors to match so when you do finally unveil everything; the excitement will carry through to sales because people will be able to order and get one within no more than 90 days at the most. None of this "Isn't this exciting? Oh, you can't order one until next year...maybe" jazz.
|
Removing 200 pounds of static weight would be noticeable by most folks on a track. Every day, it's doubtful. I actually enjoy the feel of our S4 compared to Mrs. Number 3's ATS and some of that is simply the rigidity and solid feeling of the Audi compared to the Cadillac. And the Audi weighs in about 300 pounds or so heavier.
I would like some clarity on how you think 100 pounds of wheel/tire/rotor(rotating unsprung mass) and caliper/lower control arm (unsprung mass) is going to save significant fuel. Yes it's directionally correct and in fact would do as much for wheel control by the chassis as anything else.
FE is rolling resistance, aerodynamics and powertrain.
If you have data, I wouldn't mind seeing it. What you suggest is interesting, I just think it would be so small as to not matter.
Besides, pulling 100 pounds out of the wheel/tire/rotor would be huge. I think the Z/28 with carbon ceramic brakes and 19" wheels didn't come close to the 100 pounds. That will be a very hard 100 pounds to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65
In any case, they'll probably be running ATS Coupe mules, not Camaros, for 6th gen development. There's a good chance we'll never even know it's a Camaro underneath there depending on how similar the two cars are.
|
Mules will have the production intent architecture underneath. That means underbody, chassis and powertrain must be correct. You are correct, they've put some pretty strange stuff on top of those architectures i.e. recent photos of Chevy Caprice on top of what is rumored at least to be Omega.
Keep in mind, if the NG Camaro doesn't have a 4 cylinder then you can kiss outselling the Mustang goodbye. This suggests that Ford is 1) going global as 2.0 is a main tax threshold in most other countries 2) going after the total coupe market as I've suggested Chevy should do, meaning taking sales not just from Camaro, but also Nissan and Honda and 3) has a CAFE miracle up their sleeve. Not sure how you get to where the Camaro has to be for CAFE without a 4 cylinder. And please don't suggest that GM can get 6 MPG out of the current 3.6L. It's just not there. Look at the same 3.6L in the ATS. Rated at 28 in a much lighter car, 2 less than the Camaro.
I'm very skeptical GM would even want to pass up on a 4 cylinder solution unless they want to watch Mustang sales soar and not have anything to compete with.