Homepage Garage Wiki Register Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-16-2013, 03:08 AM   #99
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Don't disagree with you on CO2. But Europe disagrees with both of us. And reduction in CO2 is the same as CAFE. Reduction in CO2 requires the same reduction in FE.

Fracking is not the same as shale oil. Yes, I agree there are more alternatives that are now available as oil prices go up. But OPEC controls that. If they wanted the price to go down to the point that they would put Canadien Tar Sands out of business they could.

So yes, Tar Sands and North Dakota oil are all awesome. But they aren't "Jed Clampett Oil". That is the oil you can find by "shootin' at some food". It is expensive. And the Dakatos only add up to a 4 or 5 year supply of oil at our current consumption. Not the endless (LOL) supply that the 500 year supply of Shale Oil in the Rockies promises..
CO2 and fuel economy are closely correlated, but figuring gas vs diesel powered cars muddles it a little when only looking at miles per gallon. And that is also just tailpipe emissions of CO2. As these new, lighter weight, more energy intensive metals become more widespread, the tailpipe emissions will go down, but that will be offset somewhat by increases in what it takes to actually build the car.

You're right on the shale vs. fracking. Two completely different technologies. Sometimes my mind wanders and mixes up the terminology if I'm not thinking about it hard enough.

And yes, the Dakotas alone may only be 5 years or so total usage, but that could be 10% of total usage for the next 50 years, with technology improvements over those decades likely adding to what can be recovered. And that is just the Dakotas. Combine that with other locations that could be developed in the coming years, and the Canadian Tar Sands, all the natural gas we've suddenly come into, and you've got a nice long bridge to cover the gap until the real big shale deposits can be developed. It's not that far out there to imagine North American energy independence within 10-20 years.

Long term, I'm actually optimistic about oil and gas supplies. These unconventional supplies coming online are already eroding OPEC's real world influence, which isn't functionally as great anymore as people think. I only see this trend continuing. And the US actually gets very little oil from the Middle East today.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 08:40 AM   #100
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,497
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
lol...not a hazard by itself at all...on a car fire, for sure, started by a ruptured gas line or whatever....
And how often does this happen that we should be concerned? Lol you're talking final destination bs. Most ppl who's vehicles catch fire are not in it. Those that are and get burned to death, well... That was fate
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 11:16 AM   #101
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 12,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 View Post
And how often does this happen that we should be concerned? Lol you're talking final destination bs. Most ppl who's vehicles catch fire are not in it. Those that are and get burned to death, well... That was fate
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
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 12:32 PM   #102
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,497
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
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
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 12:57 PM   #103
Doc
Dances With Mustangs
 
Doc's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1SS/RS MT
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,635
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.)
__________________

Blue Angel is here!!
1SS/RS LS3 M6 IBM
Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 01:02 PM   #104
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 1LE...Drove: 2012 ZL1
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 28,634
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
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.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Twice Before You Post.
...Anxiously waiting to order a silver "Z"...

Mr. Wyndham is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2013, 01:10 PM   #105
SSGUNNER
Chu no guat a hasa is?
 
SSGUNNER's Avatar
 
Drives: 14 Jeep G Cherokee Overland HEMI
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Some where in So Cal
Posts: 4,282
Interesting...
__________________
11 2SS/RSL99No Longer Stock (Sold) 6/19/14:AAC Plasma DRL's | Plug n play harness | Elite CC | Tint: 35% & 5% | LED Dome light | Show-N-Go Plate Holder | Flowmaster AT | C.A.I. Intake | VMAX CNC Spiral Ported TB | Husky Splash Guards
SSGUNNER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 01:07 PM   #106
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 SS Camaro, 06 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 12,429
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.
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:08 AM   #107
FINALLYSATISFIED
Est.1775
 
FINALLYSATISFIED's Avatar
 
Drives: '15 Challenger Hellcat
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
This makes me happy. Weight is going to be a big player in the future of the auto industry.
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.
FINALLYSATISFIED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 09:12 AM   #108
FINALLYSATISFIED
Est.1775
 
FINALLYSATISFIED's Avatar
 
Drives: '15 Challenger Hellcat
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
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.
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.
FINALLYSATISFIED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 10:42 AM   #109
doc7000
 
Drives: 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lomita,CA
Posts: 620
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).
doc7000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 10:45 AM   #110
Blau camaro
Account Suspended
 
Blau camaro's Avatar
 
Drives: #1 CAMARO FAN
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Rockford IL.
Posts: 656
Better get with the program gm or you will be once again overtaken by the competition AGAIN!!
Blau camaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 10:52 AM   #111
motorhead


 
Drives: POS MOPAR
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Overlook hotel
Posts: 10,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post



Are we never satisfied?

No, I'm very happy with what I have. It was a joke. But really, more power isn't out if the question too.
motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2013, 11:36 AM   #112
The 2010 Sin
weaponsinc.com
 
The 2010 Sin's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Lifted 1500, 2013 2SS CRT
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,864
600lbs? so we're getting a 4cyl and a turbo v6? wont happen unless its short and skinny.
__________________
The 2010 Sin is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.