[SEVEN-OH JOE]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I'm not saying the Alpha isn't a great platform. My point is the more you try to do with the same thing, the worse it does them. Especially when you consider the fact that not all of them share the same end objective.

I starting thinking about this after reading this thread on GMI.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...01/index2.html

Now, clearly, the weight of the car (I'm guessing they meant what became the ATS) to be way under 4,000 lbs but it does bring up the fact that every change compromises something.

First of all, the Base ATS started @ 33-and-change, with a 2.5 n/a 4-cylinder and, with the latest safety mandates, now weighs about 3400. Someone over there is trying to compare apples with oranges. There is NO ATS that weighs nearly 4000, so the car has NOT gained "500 lb". There ARE CTS AWDs that weigh nearly that, but they're loaded AND larger than the ATS. And also larger than the Camaro will be.

One basic end objective for Alpha, for ALL models, is to be Class-competitive in areas such as vehicle dynamics, structural integrity, NVH, and safety. And WE wouldn't want it any other way.

As for "change compromises something", that would depend on the specifics of the changes involved. The greatest compromises have to do with CO$T$, where "changes" are discretionary. Not just @ GM, but with any commodity from any manufacturer. Perhaps Pagani, excluded.

Please keep in mind, the design and features of vehicles today are heavily predicated by government edict, as well as the changing landscape of customer expectations. The days of wind-up windows and push-down locks are over. Every feature that customers expect/demand, and that government demands, adds weight. And compromises, to some degree, "performance potential" and "real-world mileage expectations". But, build vehicles without what's "demanded" and you'll be out of business in a New York minute.

[DGthe3]

Also, there hasn't been a single year where the Camaro has not shared a platform with something. For decades, it was the Firebird. At the moment, it shares its underpinnings with a bunch of Holdens. Soon it will share bones with some Cadillacs.

[Number 3]

Ok, let me just end this discussion right now.

Ford is NOT doing this with the Mustang because it's an advantage, or because it makes the car more focused or because it makes the car unique or even because they want to.

They are doing it because THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

Ford wishes upon every star in the sky that is wishable that they had more than one single car with only 100,000 units at best to share the development costs with the Mustang. Other than an old Fox based sedan in Australia, they have no RWD cars other than the Mustang. Not even a Lincoln.

For this reason alone, the Gen6, if off of Alpha, will have the advantage of a better parts bin simply because the development work has been done and many of those parts tooled up. It would be down to tuning and specific execution. Tuning and execution, it should be noted, are still huge costs specific to a model, but much less when the foundation is shared.................and even better when that foundation is results in cars considered better than a BMW 3/4/5 Series.

[McRat]

Originally Posted by SEVEN-OH JOE

First of all, the Base ATS started @ 33-and-change, with a 2.5 n/a 4-cylinder and, with the latest safety mandates, now weighs about 3400. Someone over there is trying to compare apples with oranges. There is NO ATS that weighs nearly 4000, so the car has NOT gained "500 lb". There ARE CTS AWDs that weigh nearly that, but they're loaded AND larger than the ATS. And also larger than the Camaro will be.

One basic end objective for Alpha, for ALL models, is to be Class-competitive in areas such as vehicle dynamics, structural integrity, NVH, and safety. And WE wouldn't want it any other way.

As for "change compromises something", that would depend on the specifics of the changes involved. The greatest compromises have to do with CO$T$, where "changes" are discretionary. Not just @ GM, but with any commodity from any manufacturer. Perhaps Pagani, excluded.

Please keep in mind, the design and features of vehicles today are heavily predicated by government edict, as well as the changing landscape of customer expectations. The days of wind-up windows and push-down locks are over. Every feature that customers expect/demand, and that government demands, adds weight. And compromises, to some degree, "performance potential" and "real-world mileage expectations". But, build vehicles without what's "demanded" and you'll be out of business in a New York minute.

^This^

The ATS is not really heavy by today's standards.

Take those 2016 Camaro spyshots and a ruler, and compare it the picture below, using wheel dia as a reference. If those spyshots were a Camaro, it's going to be about the same envelope dims as the ATS. However... those "camaro" spyshots might have actually been an ATS-V in disguise.

The ATS coupe is 3411 lb curb weight. That is with Cadillac NVH and luxury. A Camaro can be lighter.

The upcoming ATS-V with the existing 420HP/430TQ V6 will be a dragstrip competitor to the next Camaro SS. It's going to be a lot quicker than the 2015 SS.

[LOWDOWN]

Originally Posted by Number 3

They are doing it because THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

The other "foot" that's yet to drop is, contrary to a certain Ford disciple's bleating to the contrary, there will be a Lincoln Sports Sedan based on the S550 platform...and, unlike Cadillac, Lincoln will only have one initial version that MUST be at least ATS-sized, if not larger, for "competitive reasons"...

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, let me just end this discussion right now.

Ford is NOT doing this with the Mustang because it's an advantage, or because it makes the car more focused or because it makes the car unique or even because they want to.

They are doing it because THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

Ford wishes upon every star in the sky that is wishable that they had more than one single car with only 100,000 units at best to share the development costs with the Mustang. Other than an old Fox based sedan in Australia, they have no RWD cars other than the Mustang. Not even a Lincoln.

For this reason alone, the Gen6, if off of Alpha, will have the advantage of a better parts bin simply because the development work has been done and many of those parts tooled up. It would be down to tuning and specific execution. Tuning and execution, it should be noted, are still huge costs specific to a model, but much less when the foundation is shared.................and even better when that foundation is results in cars considered better than a BMW 3/4/5 Series.

That makes a lot of sense. When it comes to a modern platform like the Alpha, how much can they change stuff like suspension geometry, wheel base and wheel/brake size? I would imagine a 4 cylinder ATS and something like a Z/28 would have significantly different suspension set ups.

[102SS]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

The other "foot" that's yet to drop is, contrary to a certain Ford disciple's bleating to the contrary, there will be a Lincoln Sports Sedan based on the S550 platform...and, unlike Cadillac, Lincoln will only have one initial version that MUST be at least ATS-sized, if not larger, for "competitive reasons"...

I can see that but it will most likely be only available in AWD in keeping with their current theme of FWD or AWD at Lincoln.

[TommyTheCat]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

No. Platform sharing significantly reduces costs. Besides, there's a lot of room on modern platforms for cars to be distinguished from one another.

+1
in the end it all comes down to $$$
so long as we're still buying Camaros, they're saving big time money

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

That makes a lot of sense. When it comes to a modern platform like the Alpha, how much can they change stuff like suspension geometry, wheel base and wheel/brake size? I would imagine a 4 cylinder ATS and something like a Z/28 would have significantly different suspension set ups.

It all depends on what they designed into the platform from the start. Some are very limiting in what can be done to them, others can make you wonder how car A manages to share anything with car B (the current Camaro and Holden Ute kinda typify this). And given the fact that -V series Cadillacs are a thing, I'm sure there is plenty of high performance capability built into Alpha.

[MikeSVX]

Actually, you need to look a little more into the options packages. Yes, the Mustang and Camaro are in the same price range, however, I believe the base model Camaro has better options then the equally priced Mustang. Thats were the use of across the board chassis useage comes in. The more vehicles that share a chassis, the faster you can recoupe the cost of development. Thats also how the Camaro ended up with the LS3 in the first place. The enfine was already in the fleet. It was easier to use the Corvette engine then it was to develop a new engine for it.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by MikeSVX

Actually, you need to look a little more into the options packages. Yes, the Mustang and Camaro are in the same price range, however, I believe the base model Camaro has better options then the equally priced Mustang. Thats were the use of across the board chassis useage comes in. The more vehicles that share a chassis, the faster you can recoupe the cost of development. Thats also how the Camaro ended up with the LS3 in the first place. The enfine was already in the fleet. It was easier to use the Corvette engine then it was to develop a new engine for it.

I understand the sharing of engines and transmissions from a cost stand point but in the competitive side of things, that is a limitation on the Camaro. While Ford and Dodge improve their engines, GM doesn't. We already basically know what engine will power the Camaro and close to what it will put out. That gives the other companies a big advantage. They can continually add more power and top the Camaro knowing that the Camaro won't get any power added.

[McRat]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I understand the sharing of engines and transmissions from a cost stand point but in the competitive side of things, that is a limitation on the Camaro. While Ford and Dodge improve their engines, GM doesn't. We already basically know what engine will power the Camaro and close to what it will put out. That gives the other companies a big advantage. They can continually add more power and top the Camaro knowing that the Camaro won't get any power added.

It would be too much to cover all the GM, Ford, and Dodge engine development. Seriously, GM has 420HP/430tq six at the dealers.

So let's just focus on the V8's the companies have used for their cars this century.

I'll get these numbers and years wrong, but you will get the point.

1997 debut of LS1 SBC. 305 to 350HP ratings.
2001 freshen to LS6 to 385HP
2002 freshen to LS6 to 405HP
2005 freshen to LS3 at 430HP
2006 freshen to LS7 at 505HP
2009 freshen to LSA at 556HP
2010 freshen to LS9 at 638HP
2012 freshen LSA to 580HP
2014 unofficial bump in LS7 power, bump in torque.
2014 freshen to LT1 at 455-460HP
2015 freshen to LT4 at 650HP


All of these engines share bore spacing, packaging, and interface. No need to mention truck engines using it, or GMPP options to push displacement to 454CI.

All are 2v V8 engines. You could fit the 650HP LT4 into a 305HP Camaro.

How many different V8 engine configurations did Ford and Dodge use from 1997 to 2015? (we won't count the failed V10 efforts).

Ford went from a new 2v SOHC V8 at 215HP, to a 3v SOHC, to a 4v DOHC, and ended up with 662HP in the end. But the DOHC was considerably different in width, heavy, and could not just drop in the early cars.

Dodge car V8's of the current generation "Hemi" arrived in 2006 at 340HP-425HP, bumped to 485 for 2015, then 707HP supercharged for 2015

While Ford and Dodge currently win the Blown HP awards, and rightly so, the idea that GM just sits there is a joke.

GM, went from 305HP naturally aspired to 505HP naturally aspired in under 8 years.

Ford, 215HP NA to 444HP NA in 15 years?

Dodge went from 340HP NA to 485HP NA in 9 years.

GM can always up the boost again, but can Dodge or Ford get a NA engine up to where GM was in 2006? And with 24hr endurance racing records to back it up?

Now, if it's just going to be blower war from here on out, don't be surprised at what GM does next.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

The other "foot" that's yet to drop is, contrary to a certain Ford disciple's bleating to the contrary, there will be a Lincoln Sports Sedan based on the S550 platform...and, unlike Cadillac, Lincoln will only have one initial version that MUST be at least ATS-sized, if not larger, for "competitive reasons"...

They better make a great sedan if/when they Make a lincoln on the S550. I want Lincoln to survive and they desperately need something cool like that

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by McRat

It would be too much to cover all the GM, Ford, and Dodge engine development. Seriously, GM has 420HP/430tq six at the dealers.

So let's just focus on the V8's the companies have used for their cars this century.

I'll get these numbers and years wrong, but you will get the point.

1997 debut of LS1 SBC. 305 to 350HP ratings.
2001 freshen to LS6 to 385HP
2002 freshen to LS6 to 405HP
2005 freshen to LS3 at 430HP
2006 freshen to LS7 at 505HP
2009 freshen to LSA at 556HP
2010 freshen to LS9 at 638HP
2012 freshen LSA to 580HP
2014 unofficial bump in LS7 power, bump in torque.
2014 freshen to LT1 at 455-460HP
2015 freshen to LT4 at 650HP


All of these engines share bore spacing, packaging, and interface. No need to mention truck engines using it, or GMPP options to push displacement to 454CI.

All are 2v V8 engines. You could fit the 650HP LT4 into a 305HP Camaro.

How many different V8 engine configurations did Ford and Dodge use from 1997 to 2015? (we won't count the failed V10 efforts).

Ford went from a new 2v SOHC V8 at 215HP, to a 3v SOHC, to a 4v DOHC, and ended up with 662HP in the end. But the DOHC was considerably different in width, heavy, and could not just drop in the early cars.

Dodge car V8's of the current generation "Hemi" arrived in 2006 at 340HP-425HP, bumped to 485 for 2015, then 707HP supercharged for 2015

While Ford and Dodge currently win the Blown HP awards, and rightly so, the idea that GM just sits there is a joke.

GM, went from 305HP naturally aspired to 505HP naturally aspired in under 8 years.

Ford, 215HP NA to 444HP NA in 15 years?

Dodge went from 340HP NA to 485HP NA in 9 years.

GM can always up the boost again, but can Dodge or Ford get a NA engine up to where GM was in 2006? And with 24hr endurance racing records to back it up?

Now, if it's just going to be blower war from here on out, don't be surprised at what GM does next.

I think you misunderstood my point. I am not saying GM doesn't build multiple engines. I am saying that when they build an engine, they leave it until it is retired. Outside of a few examples, that is the case. The LS3, 7, 9 and A all remain at the same output they did in their respective forms from the day they were released. Yes, the LSA got a bump moving from the CTS to Camaro but that was due to a more room in the Camaro, at least what I read.

How many variations of the 4.6 did they build? How many variations of the 5.0 have they built? How many engine changes did they make for the GT500?

When the Camaro was being killed off, did GM drop in the LS6 as a final farewell? No. You can't tell me the LS6 was that much more expensive than the LS1.

The LS3 in the Camaro is rated lower than the LS3 in the Corvette. The LS1 Camaros were rated way lower than the LS1 Corvettes even though they had essentially the same engine.

The LSA is nowhere near the LS9 in power output. When the GT500 came out with 662 hp, GM didn't do anything to the ZL1 to make it a little faster.

The only reason the Z/28 got the LS7 is because they had not other option.

As for Ford only having 444 hp N/A as of now, I bet the GT350 matches or beats the LS7. GM has completely given up on N/A engines for higher performance trims.