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 11-23-2013, 03:53 PM   #18
Doc
Dances With Mustangs
 
Doc's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1SS/RS MT
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,606
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.
__________________

Blue Angel is here!!
1SS/RS LS3 M6 IBM
Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 12:55 AM   #19
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy/2000 Ford Ranger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 33,676
Send a message via AIM to 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.
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

2003 GMC Envoy SLE - Airaid Cold Air Intake, Gibson Performance Catback Exhaust
2000 Ford Ranger XLT Regular Cab (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2013, 01:11 AM   #20
MasterZ
 
MasterZ's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS/RS
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Denham Springs, LA
Posts: 705
what ever GM has been doing in the past has apparently worked.. so keep doing it!
__________________
2014 C7 Z51~ M7 custom paint,
Mods soon to come, researching at the moment.
MasterZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2013, 11:02 PM   #21
OldScoolCamaro


 
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterZ View Post
what ever GM has been doing in the past has apparently worked.. so keep doing it!
..correction...in the recent past.... Your statement pretty much sums it up. We are marching to our own drum.
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
OldScoolCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2013, 12:18 AM   #22
camaro2lt
 
camaro2lt's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2LT VR/RS CGM Rally's
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Palmyra, PA
Posts: 5,565
I think our closest glimpse of what we can expect from the 6th gen might be the ats coupe
camaro2lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2013, 10:35 PM   #23
meissen
Founder - Michigan FBody
 
meissen's Avatar
 
Drives: 1994 Camaro LT1, 2014 Camaro 1LT
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chesterfield Twp, MI
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro2lt View Post
I think our closest glimpse of what we can expect from the 6th gen might be the ats coupe
I just had an ATS Sedan 2.0L Turbo AWD for a week. I know everyone's cheering Al O saying that there won't be a 4 banger in the 6th gen (and as much as I respect Al, I really really really doubt there won't be a 2.0L Turbo in the 6th gen...), but everyone who drove the car couldn't believe it was "only" a turbo 4 banger in there - everyone was swearing up and down it had to be atleast the LFX v6. It takes off real strong like a rocket, and it's VERY nimble.

I know when the 5th gen was pre-production they were saying to look at the Cadillac CTS to see what to expect for the 5th gen... And now that we're getting close to the 6th gen, we're seeing history repeat - only this time we're looking at the Cadillac ATS for clues (which is why I'm thinking there's going to be a 2.0L Turbo in the 6th gen).
__________________
2014 Camaro 1LT M6 - "Cherry Bomb" - Cold Air Inductions CAI, VMAX Ported Throttle Body, MGW Short Throw Shifter
1994 Camaro LT1 A4 - "Red Alert" - v6-to-LT1 Swapped Cruiser; Cammed, Stalled, Enjoyed

meissen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 07:32 AM   #24
rtcat600man
having FUN now 13.66@101
 
rtcat600man's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2LT IOM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Clarkston, Michigan
Posts: 8,787
subscribed.............love reading all the speculations.
__________________
rtcat600man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 09:36 AM   #25
PYROLYSIS
Remember the Charleston 9
 
PYROLYSIS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2004 KME PREDATOR, 2014 2SS/RS/1LE
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Summerv1LE SC
Posts: 5,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by meissen View Post
I just had an ATS Sedan 2.0L Turbo AWD for a week. I know everyone's cheering Al O saying that there won't be a 4 banger in the 6th gen (and as much as I respect Al, I really really really doubt there won't be a 2.0L Turbo in the 6th gen...), but everyone who drove the car couldn't believe it was "only" a turbo 4 banger in there - everyone was swearing up and down it had to be atleast the LFX v6. It takes off real strong like a rocket, and it's VERY nimble.

I know when the 5th gen was pre-production they were saying to look at the Cadillac CTS to see what to expect for the 5th gen... And now that we're getting close to the 6th gen, we're seeing history repeat - only this time we're looking at the Cadillac ATS for clues (which is why I'm thinking there's going to be a 2.0L Turbo in the 6th gen).
Just cause it's a good engine doesn't mean we'll see it in the sixth gen. The LGX could be even better and cheaper to produce. That other thread is confusing to the point where I don't know if Al O said no four cylinder or not. If he did say we aren't getting it, I would think we could take that to the bank.
__________________
BRING BACK THE B4C POLICE CAMARO!
2002 V-6 5 speed rally red (current camaro) Also driven:1992 Z-28 305 auto Red w/ black stripes (anniversary), 2001 V-6 auto light pewter metallic,1991 RS V-6 auto Black
PYROLYSIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 10:45 AM   #26
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution

Last edited by Number 3; 11-30-2013 at 11:27 AM.
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 11:23 AM   #27
MrWray
SYBIL
 
MrWray's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 2SS/RS, silver ice metallic
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,434
I just hope that GM doesnt screw up the 6th gen
__________________
MrWray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 03:16 PM   #28
meissen
Founder - Michigan FBody
 
meissen's Avatar
 
Drives: 1994 Camaro LT1, 2014 Camaro 1LT
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chesterfield Twp, MI
Posts: 2,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS View Post
Just cause it's a good engine doesn't mean we'll see it in the sixth gen. The LGX could be even better and cheaper to produce. That other thread is confusing to the point where I don't know if Al O said no four cylinder or not. If he did say we aren't getting it, I would think we could take that to the bank.
No, just because it's a good engine doesn't mean it will go into the 6th gen Camaro. But typically you'll see the same engine options shared among vehicles with the same architecture. So whatever the ATS has for engine options, it'd be really easy to see those same engine options come into the 6th gen Camaro.
__________________
2014 Camaro 1LT M6 - "Cherry Bomb" - Cold Air Inductions CAI, VMAX Ported Throttle Body, MGW Short Throw Shifter
1994 Camaro LT1 A4 - "Red Alert" - v6-to-LT1 Swapped Cruiser; Cammed, Stalled, Enjoyed

meissen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 03:18 PM   #29
midnighter
Account Suspended
 
Drives: nothing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: a hole
Posts: 17,971
To think that someone out there has already seen it, but they have been sworn to secrecy.
midnighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 03:48 PM   #30
Doc
Dances With Mustangs
 
Doc's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1SS/RS MT
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
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.



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.
Oh certainly someone out on the track with track experience could tell the difference in a 200 lb weight reduction, but for all the owners who never go on a track it's about the difference between driving by yourself and having a 200 lbs passenger with you; not very noticeable performance-wise.

The performance difference between a current Camaro, and a current one that has 100 lbs less unsprung and unsprung rotating weight is startling. You feel it the instant you press the gas pedal and start moving.

The fuel savings would come from not having to push the gas pedal as much to get the car moving, which is probably the majority of the type of driving most Camaro owners have to do. Unless you're driving long distances where you're cruising in 6th gear, most driving is around town with stop-and-go traffic. I barely have to push the gas pedal on mine to get moving and before I know it I'm at the speed limit without having to push the pedal any further. (I've done the weight reduction on mine). I've also done headers, cam, etc.... none of which are or were aimed at fuel economy. I'm pulling about 450 hp to the rear wheels. On the freeway at 70 mph in 6th gear I'm getting about 26 mpg. Around town with the way I like to drive I still get 14-15 mpg. If I was driving for economy that number could go up; and that's with all the performance mods I've done. I also have 19x10" wheels all-around which work against me for fuel economy.

Driving a stock SS it feels like I have to push the gas pedal 3 times farther to "try" and get it to go somewhat like mine does; and it's still not the same. It would be interesting to do the weight reductions on a current stock 1SS similar to what I've done and compare that to a stock non-modified car. The performance difference would seem like they aren't even the same type of car, even though nothing under the hood was modified. As for fuel economy, comparing both under the same around-town driving conditions I'm guessing you'd see an increase of maybe 2-3 mpg for the modified car. Not so much on the freeway at a steady speed where the extra weight on the unmodified car isn't that much a penalty once it's in motion.

Imagine though, if the new weight-reduced technology could be used across GM's product line, what adding 2-3 mpg could do for their corporate average. It might even be more than 2-3 mpg improvement on the bigger, heavier vehicles where the owners are pushing the engines harder to get them to move.

Remember, a potential buyer who tests drive a car is basing their decision on their perception of how it feels; how it responds, not a number. If they go for a test drive and the car just sparkles; they just barely touch the pedal and it goes... RIGHT NOW... they will think it has power and performance regardless of the "numbers". The actual hp number doesn't mean much if they have to push the pedal halfway to the floor and it takes several seconds before they feel like it's starting to really move. GM needs to engineer and design for perception rather than just numbers and spreadsheets. And don't forget that 100 lbs of unsprung and unsprung rotating weight is also static weight so the "number" does improve on weight reduction.

You can find about 50 lbs of reduction just in the wheels and tires alone. The other candidates are brake rotors, axles, flywheel, clutch, driveshaft. Shocks, shock towers, suspension arms and components, brake calipers, hardware, etc. Collectively across all 4 corners of the car you can find that other 50 lbs of reduction quicker than you might think.

Another area of improving the driving perception is by improving the efficiency of the drivetrain. Better low-friction fluids in the trans and diff. Spend the extra money on an efficient 1-piece driveshaft. I gained 8 hp and 9 lbs of torque to the rear wheels just by replacing the factory 2-piece shaft with a carbon fiber 1-piece:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...t=45165&page=5

I imagine an aluminum 1-piece would produce very close to the same results. If I were GM I'd go on a mission to reduce the unsprung and unsprung rotating weights, and then start advertising the rear wheel horsepower as the "real" power you feel. If they dynoed a stock Mustang or other "competitor" cars and started comparing rear wheel horsepower to the rwhp of a new "mission-improved" Camaro and could show there's more power where it counts on a Camaro, that could be a genuine marketing/sales advantage. Imagine being able to free up 8-10 horsepower to the rear wheels without having to do a single thing to the engine, but being able to advertise last year's to this year's improved "power you can feel". (I should trademark that lol).

I'm not saying they should stop improving the engines, I'm just saying that's not the only area they can look at to help meet upcoming cafe standards. Engine improvements are bloody expensive along with the lengthy testing/certification procedures. The knowledge, design and techniques they would gain reducing the right kind of weight would help them across the board on every vehicle they make.

By the way; as for the data you wanted to see, look through my project thread link I posted just above; I documented everything with weights and dyno sheets as I went along. My current vehicle weight with a full tank of gas (no driver) is 3,700 lbs. And that's with the 19x10" wheels. Interior is completely stock; back seat and everything, so I KNOW the reductions can be done; and I did it without gutting the car. Going with the stock wheel sizes which would be even lighter, I know GM could do it too.
__________________

Blue Angel is here!!
1SS/RS LS3 M6 IBM
Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 06:02 PM   #31
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
Oh certainly someone out on the track with track experience could tell the difference in a 200 lb weight reduction, but for all the owners who never go on a track it's about the difference between driving by yourself and having a 200 lbs passenger with you; not very noticeable performance-wise.

The performance difference between a current Camaro, and a current one that has 100 lbs less unsprung and unsprung rotating weight is startling. You feel it the instant you press the gas pedal and start moving.

The fuel savings would come from not having to push the gas pedal as much to get the car moving, which is probably the majority of the type of driving most Camaro owners have to do. Unless you're driving long distances where you're cruising in 6th gear, most driving is around town with stop-and-go traffic. I barely have to push the gas pedal on mine to get moving and before I know it I'm at the speed limit without having to push the pedal any further. (I've done the weight reduction on mine). I've also done headers, cam, etc.... none of which are or were aimed at fuel economy. I'm pulling about 450 hp to the rear wheels. On the freeway at 70 mph in 6th gear I'm getting about 26 mpg. Around town with the way I like to drive I still get 14-15 mpg. If I was driving for economy that number could go up; and that's with all the performance mods I've done. I also have 19x10" wheels all-around which work against me for fuel economy.

Driving a stock SS it feels like I have to push the gas pedal 3 times farther to "try" and get it to go somewhat like mine does; and it's still not the same. It would be interesting to do the weight reductions on a current stock 1SS similar to what I've done and compare that to a stock non-modified car. The performance difference would seem like they aren't even the same type of car, even though nothing under the hood was modified. As for fuel economy, comparing both under the same around-town driving conditions I'm guessing you'd see an increase of maybe 2-3 mpg for the modified car. Not so much on the freeway at a steady speed where the extra weight on the unmodified car isn't that much a penalty once it's in motion.

Imagine though, if the new weight-reduced technology could be used across GM's product line, what adding 2-3 mpg could do for their corporate average. It might even be more than 2-3 mpg improvement on the bigger, heavier vehicles where the owners are pushing the engines harder to get them to move.

Remember, a potential buyer who tests drive a car is basing their decision on their perception of how it feels; how it responds, not a number. If they go for a test drive and the car just sparkles; they just barely touch the pedal and it goes... RIGHT NOW... they will think it has power and performance regardless of the "numbers". The actual hp number doesn't mean much if they have to push the pedal halfway to the floor and it takes several seconds before they feel like it's starting to really move. GM needs to engineer and design for perception rather than just numbers and spreadsheets. And don't forget that 100 lbs of unsprung and unsprung rotating weight is also static weight so the "number" does improve on weight reduction.

You can find about 50 lbs of reduction just in the wheels and tires alone. The other candidates are brake rotors, axles, flywheel, clutch, driveshaft. Shocks, shock towers, suspension arms and components, brake calipers, hardware, etc. Collectively across all 4 corners of the car you can find that other 50 lbs of reduction quicker than you might think.

Another area of improving the driving perception is by improving the efficiency of the drivetrain. Better low-friction fluids in the trans and diff. Spend the extra money on an efficient 1-piece driveshaft. I gained 8 hp and 9 lbs of torque to the rear wheels just by replacing the factory 2-piece shaft with a carbon fiber 1-piece:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...t=45165&page=5

I imagine an aluminum 1-piece would produce very close to the same results. If I were GM I'd go on a mission to reduce the unsprung and unsprung rotating weights, and then start advertising the rear wheel horsepower as the "real" power you feel. If they dynoed a stock Mustang or other "competitor" cars and started comparing rear wheel horsepower to the rwhp of a new "mission-improved" Camaro and could show there's more power where it counts on a Camaro, that could be a genuine marketing/sales advantage. Imagine being able to free up 8-10 horsepower to the rear wheels without having to do a single thing to the engine, but being able to advertise last year's to this year's improved "power you can feel". (I should trademark that lol).

I'm not saying they should stop improving the engines, I'm just saying that's not the only area they can look at to help meet upcoming cafe standards. Engine improvements are bloody expensive along with the lengthy testing/certification procedures. The knowledge, design and techniques they would gain reducing the right kind of weight would help them across the board on every vehicle they make.

By the way; as for the data you wanted to see, look through my project thread link I posted just above; I documented everything with weights and dyno sheets as I went along. My current vehicle weight with a full tank of gas (no driver) is 3,700 lbs. And that's with the 19x10" wheels. Interior is completely stock; back seat and everything, so I KNOW the reductions can be done; and I did it without gutting the car. Going with the stock wheel sizes which would be even lighter, I know GM could do it too.
Doc, love your passion. But you won't get an EPA certified 2 to 3 mpg simply by reducing unsprung weight.

I absolutely agree that there are a ton of things you can do to simply make a car feel faster and quicker by simply adjusting throttle tip in. It can make a big difference in feel......................just not MPG.

Again, even assuming you are right, and I agree there is an element to how it "feels" in your point, it will be hugely expensive to get 100 pounds out of the car in this area. I can assure you that GM and every other OEM would literally kill for 2 to 3 mpg and if it were as easy as you suggest we'd see 13" tiny wheels and teeny tiny tires one every car. But you don't and there is a reason for that.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 06:20 PM   #32
Doc
Dances With Mustangs
 
Doc's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1SS/RS MT
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Doc, love your passion. But you won't get an EPA certified 2 to 3 mpg simply by reducing unsprung weight.

I absolutely agree that there are a ton of things you can do to simply make a car feel faster and quicker by simply adjusting throttle tip in. It can make a big difference in feel......................just not MPG.

Again, even assuming you are right, and I agree there is an element to how it "feels" in your point, it will be hugely expensive to get 100 pounds out of the car in this area. I can assure you that GM and every other OEM would literally kill for 2 to 3 mpg and if it were as easy as you suggest we'd see 13" tiny wheels and teeny tiny tires one every car. But you don't and there is a reason for that.
Are you absolutely sure about that? I never said it was easy; it wasn't easy for me but I was only modifying my one car. It would be "easier" to some degree for GM because they can actually make the technology they need; I had to wait and research like crazy to put together what I did. But based on my actual experience I can say it would be worth GM's time and money to do more research in this area. Yes it will be expensive initially, but what isn't in order to meet cafe standards?? The problem with pouring millions into certifying one engine is it's only good for that one engine; they have to do it for every new or modified engine if I understand it correctly. The tech they would develop for reducing unsprung I believe would actually be cheaper in the long run as it can be used across many vehicle product lines and can be carried over year to year. And there wouldn't be expensive certification tests involved.

I don't know how they go about getting an epa certified rating but I firmly believe it would be worthwhile to create one "mission modified" test car that's only had a reduction in unsprung to see what the actual results are. My car is modified for the track with appropriate cam and everything and I STILL get pretty decent gas mileage; especially on the freeway. If I was just modifying for street/daily driver I have no doubt I could get better mpg out of a stock SS without engine mods and it would be a noticeable improvement in performance. And that's just me modding an already manufactured car. If I had the backing and resources of GM behind me I'm absolutely positive I could improve the performance and mpg WITHOUT modifying the already-certified engine.

It would be an investment on GM's part but a worthwhile one that would pay off for years and years.
__________________

Blue Angel is here!!
1SS/RS LS3 M6 IBM
Doc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 07:16 PM   #33
yougojay
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lenoir NC
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWray View Post
I just hope that GM doesnt screw up the 6th gen
Oh they won't - believe me, just wait...
yougojay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2013, 08:31 PM   #34
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 4,442
I hope GM doesn't push the Camaro to meet European style and engine sizes. They need to keep the Camaro an American car. That's the only concern I have for the Camaro future.
Bhobbs is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

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 01:03 PM.


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