03-13-2013, 04:48 PM | #43 | |
Drives: 1998 Nissan, 2010 Camaro Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 827
|
Quote:
I would like a lighter muscle car, too. But I can already buy a lighter car if I wanted to. I want a muscle car first. |
|
03-13-2013, 04:55 PM | #44 | |
General Motors Aficionado
Drives: 2023 GMC Canyon, 2020 Colorado Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 37,371
|
Quote:
And you can change that last number and be happy as well.
__________________
2023 GMC Canyon Elevation 2020 Chevrolet Colorado W/T Extended Cab (State-issued) |
|
03-13-2013, 05:00 PM | #45 |
Founder - Michigan FBody
Drives: 1994 Camaro LT1, 2012 Camaro 2SS/RS Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New Haven, MI
Posts: 2,598
|
The only thing I see from this announcement is prices on new cars going up. I love the idea of weight reduction, but same with CAFE regulations I think they need to have REALISTIC time frames.... giving a deadline of 2016 seems too fast to do and that's what worries me... short deadlines means expensive measures.
That said - Dan Akerson is a beast and I love listening to him talk.
__________________
2012 Camaro 2SS/RS L99 - "Zooma"
1994 Camaro LT1 A4 - "Red Alert" - v6-to-LT1 Swapped Cruiser; Cammed, Stalled, Enjoyed "Gone But Not Forgotten" 2016 Camaro 1LT A8 - "Elmo" 2014 Camaro 1LT M6 - "Cherry Bomb" 2012 Camaro 1LS M6 - "Clifford" Michigan FBody Association http://www.mifbody.com/ |
03-13-2013, 06:32 PM | #46 |
Drives: 2013 Triple Black ZL1 Vert M6 ECF Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Trenton, Michigan
Posts: 7,047
|
There is no doubt that moving to higher strength steel , carbon fiber type composites , aluminum , etc can help shed weight, but odds are they will add to the overall cost of manufacturing the vehicles. Will people be willing to pay more? Time will tell.
i work for a company that tests automotive components and entire vehicles for all the manufacturers, and we were just commenting the other day just how much a simple control arm has changed over the years. In the OLD days, they "seemed" to be stamped out of 1/4" plate steel and weighed a ton. Nowadays with all the solid modeling tools they have, the same control arm has morphed into a sleek hollow aluminum casting with much more strength, and only a fraction of the weight. We have come a long way over the years. |
03-13-2013, 07:29 PM | #47 | ||
Account Suspended
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
|
Quote:
Remember when we had CAFE and the car companies figured out that SUVs could skirt the laws by virtue of being classified as trucks? They were much bigger and less efficient than the cars were at the time and what actually happened was that people who wanted a large safe vehicle to protect their passengers and themselves practically jumped over the econoboxes to get their hands on an SUV. I believe if one brave automaker would build a car that people want and sell it at the actual cost (sans the hidden fees imposed to modify buyers choices) they would have a massive hit on their hands. Quote:
The same weight savings that you get by switching out some piece of aluminum for magnesium (at 50% higher cost) could be accomplished by getting rid of mandates that have porked up our cars to this point. It will lower the cost of the car in the process too. For example: You can save 10 pounds and $300 by NOT being forced to buy a car with backup sensors and cameras that are required by "law". You can save 1 or 2 pounds and $50 by deleting the CHMSL as well. How much does a craptalytic converter weigh and what does it cost? Cars would be lighter AND less expensive by having less mandatory content. Let people decide which items they buy, instead of mandating them. |
||
03-13-2013, 07:35 PM | #48 | |
Account Suspended
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
|
Quote:
We don't need 5MPH bumpers. Learn to drive instead. We don't need Backup sensors and cameras, learn to drive instead. Which is more useful? a) A backup camera. b) A spare tire and jack. Yet, one is required and the other is not. |
|
03-13-2013, 07:40 PM | #49 |
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will. Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,851
|
...if NASCAR reduced the Gen 6 Cup car by 150 pounds, it's not very hard for GM to go on a leaner meaner plan as well, it makes sense, and it's easily doable.
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
|
03-13-2013, 07:42 PM | #50 |
Account Suspended
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
|
The same is true for the "Shut up, because it's gonna be AWESOME!" but in 12 months the "Hey!!!! THIS SUCKS! What idiot said they should do this?!?!?!" crowd.
|
03-13-2013, 08:01 PM | #51 |
Drives: 2013 Triple Black ZL1 / 2006 TB SS Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: MN
Posts: 2,250
|
Weight reduction is a great thing; I just don't think GM will hit their goal in such a short time period. If they do that's great; but no doubt it will drive up the cost of vehicles. I also wonder how they can reduce so much weight without compromising safety. Let's hope they can do it all; a lightweight, high-performance car that gets great gas mileage with a 5-star safety rating.
|
03-13-2013, 08:04 PM | #52 |
Drives: 12 MP4-12C, 16 Quattroporte Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Working
Posts: 707
|
CAFE standards were not created to reduce pollution. Remember that when debating this stuff folks.
Weight reduction is a great way to increase performance and efficiency if they do it right. Removing weight in the right places can lower the center of gravity and removing weight in general will help in nearly all aspects of performance. I doubt they'll be able to cut fleet weights by 15% by then, but it's not like it is the end of the world if they don't quite meet the stated goal. |
03-13-2013, 08:06 PM | #53 | |
CamaroFans.com
|
Quote:
It's great to see GM is getting ahead of the game and investing in new technology to lighten things up. Exactly what we asked for. |
|
03-13-2013, 08:14 PM | #54 |
SoCal Race Team #13
|
This is a positive sign that the "thinking" is going in the right direction, and that GM wants to do business in a profitable way. This type of thinking (among other aspects) is what will get future buyers.
Its easy to say, go cut 400lbs off... actually doing it is going to be a challenge, and one thats not insurmountable. For example, go pick up a rear view mirror from a 70's/80's car, and then pick up one from a 2005+ model... theres a huge weight increase... in 1 part thats not even structural. GM just needs to trim weight on everything, not removal of mass but actual engineering to do the same job with less/lighter materials.
__________________
A.K.A - Diarmadhi (old handle) - So much to do.. So little money
Owner : Fast-Stache Industries LLC |
03-13-2013, 08:17 PM | #55 |
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will. Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,851
|
...now that statement sounds like something coming from the oval office that we have been putting up with for how many years now, and it's the most most recent gaff that the press secretary is trying to spin.....a play on words, not to you Captain <place that post in context to the current events>...ooops, no politics...sorry....
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
|
03-13-2013, 09:02 PM | #56 |
Drives: 2013 1SS Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 723
|
A 15% weight reduction isn't a lofty goal. It can be done now, but nobody will want to pay for it when the technology (we already have) is implemented.
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|