CAMARO6

CAMARO6 (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/index.php)
-   2016+ Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=155)
-   -   GM CEO orders 15% diet for new models by 2016 (https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282474)

FenwickHockey65 03-13-2013 10:45 AM

Zeta and Epsilon II both come to mind as platforms that needed weight reduction yesterday. It's one of the main problems with the new Malibu.

Wizard1183 03-13-2013 10:59 AM

We only complain because the weight shaving is not enough. We want a feather light 500HP camaro that takes off the line like a rocket and blows the competition away like a hurricane :D

90503 03-13-2013 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizard1183 (Post 6281100)
We only complain because the weight shaving is not enough. We want a feather light 500HP camaro that takes off the line like a rocket and blows the competition away like a hurricane :D

As far as complaining, just sounds like this CEO order sort of came out of left-field...All plans for the next Gen Camaro were already in place...now this...
...Shave-off, down-size, reduce weight...all good...(just don't do it in the engine compartment!)...lol

FenwickHockey65 03-13-2013 11:16 AM

Alpha was what kicked off the weight reduction campaign at GM. And the 6th gen is Alpha based, so...I don't see what the problem is.

90503 03-13-2013 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65 (Post 6281187)
Alpha was what kicked off the weight reduction campaign at GM. And the 6th gen is Alpha based, so...I don't see what the problem is.

Not arguing with you, brother...Just previous posts show 15% didn't jive with even the Alpha...all guessing on our end what it's all really about, of course...

Wizard1183 03-13-2013 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 6281176)
As far as complaining, just sounds like this CEO order sort of came out of left-field...All plans for the next Gen Camaro were already in place...now this...
...Shave-off, down-size, reduce weight...all good...(just don't do it in the engine compartment!)...lol

I think that's the biggest issue. They rely on putting in a smaller engine to reduce most of the weight. Why not reduce it on the body, interior and components rather than engine weight reduction by throwing in a 4 cyl? That's how you satisfy. Engineers need to reduce chassis weight by 15%. Make it weight approx 3200lbs minus the engine. You'd be around 3450-3600? And that's a v8!

FenwickHockey65 03-13-2013 12:13 PM

They already are reducing weight in the chassis and body.

fielderLS3 03-13-2013 12:16 PM

Yes, we've been screaming for weight reduction on this forum, but weight reduction for the sake of increasing performance and the driving experience. Weight reduction by removing half the engine was not what we had in mind, and would seem to run counter to the goal we had in mind.

FenwickHockey65 03-13-2013 12:19 PM

Using the 2.0T isn't the only method employed to reduce weight. Did any of you follow Alpha development at all? The measures GM took to reduce weight in the chassis were close to ridiculous.

IMJ 03-13-2013 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65 (Post 6281467)
Using the 2.0T isn't the only method employed to reduce weight. Did any of you follow Alpha development at all? The measures GM took to reduce weight in the chassis were close to ridiculous.

Ya, it's silly to reduce weight as a goal only to have that manifest in a smaller, less capable engine struggling harder to pull a car of the same weight class around as before.

The steel stamping in this car is already pretty thin as I understand it, but why aren't there better materials for frame connections and stability, other ways in the body construction to reduce weight? It's not impossible....

KMPrenger 03-13-2013 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizard1183 (Post 6281269)
I think that's the biggest issue. They rely on putting in a smaller engine to reduce most of the weight. Why not reduce it on the body, interior and components rather than engine weight reduction by throwing in a 4 cyl? That's how you satisfy. Engineers need to reduce chassis weight by 15%. Make it weight approx 3200lbs minus the engine. You'd be around 3450-3600? And that's a v8!

As it is currently, a V8 Camaro on Alpha should be between 3,500 to 3,600 lbs...closer to 3,600.

Wizard1183 03-13-2013 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMPrenger (Post 6281611)
As it is currently, a V8 Camaro on Alpha should be between 3,500 to 3,600 lbs...closer to 3,600.

I hope that's WITH the automatic tranny and a good increase in HP. It should be no more than 3600lbs and have 500 HP. That's ideal.

chef-beavis 03-13-2013 01:31 PM

I'm not saying it's good or bad, either way, but all of the people demanding huge weight cuts on this car are also screaming there's too much plastic, the paint is too thin, the body dents too easy, etc. You can't expect to have your cake and eat it, too. Life is full of compromise; so is engineering and manufacturing.

It's coming whether we like it or not. I'm glad I've got mine. I hope for good things to come for the rest of you. If you only car about weight and performance, start removing components that don't figure into that equation. Making the chassis thinner just leaves you with a noodle, at some point.

Wizard1183 03-13-2013 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chef-beavis (Post 6281733)
I'm not saying it's good or bad, either way, but all of the people demanding huge weight cuts on this car are also screaming there's too much plastic, the paint is too thin, the body dents too easy, etc. You can't expect to have your cake and eat it, too. Life is full of compromise; so is engineering and manufacturing.

It's coming whether we like it or not. I'm glad I've got mine. I hope for good things to come for the rest of you. If you only car about weight and performance, start removing components that don't figure into that equation. Making the chassis thinner just leaves you with a noodle, at some point.

Isn't that why the camaro SS was produced? For performance? Both the mustang and challenger outperform the SS. Now I understand the challenger has 45HP more than an SS but a mustang has less HP and out performs it. If you're buying the car for looks alone then get a V6. Guys who want the muscle performance from the factory should get just that. It's a war, but the camaro SHOULD outperform in many categories. And weight has become an issue that they can cut back on.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.