03-16-2013, 02:08 AM | #99 | |
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0 Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive." . 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon) |
|
03-16-2013, 07:40 AM | #100 |
|
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! |
03-16-2013, 10:16 AM | #101 | |
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,466
|
Quote:
...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 |
|
03-16-2013, 11:32 AM | #102 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Life is short, drive it like you stole it! |
|
03-16-2013, 11:57 AM | #103 |
Dances With Mustangs
|
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 |
03-16-2013, 12:02 PM | #104 | |
I used to be Dragoneye...
|
Quote:
|
|
03-16-2013, 12:10 PM | #105 |
Chu no guat a hasa is?
Drives: 14 Jeep G Cherokee Overland HEMI Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Some where in So Cal
Posts: 4,272
|
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
|
03-17-2013, 12:07 PM | #106 |
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,957
|
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!) |
03-18-2013, 08:08 AM | #107 |
Est.1775
Drives: '15 Challenger Hellcat (sold) Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,502
|
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.
|
03-18-2013, 08:12 AM | #108 | |
Est.1775
Drives: '15 Challenger Hellcat (sold) Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,502
|
Quote:
|
|
03-18-2013, 09:42 AM | #109 |
Drives: 2004 Pontiac Grand Prix Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lomita,CA
Posts: 806
|
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). |
03-18-2013, 09:45 AM | #110 |
Account Suspended
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!!
|
03-18-2013, 09:52 AM | #111 |
Drives: Love the one you're with Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Downtown Charlie Brown
Posts: 11,850
|
|
03-18-2013, 10:36 AM | #112 |
Dont H8 Me Cuz U Aint Me
Drives: 2016 SS Sedan, 2017 Explorer Sport Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,910
|
600lbs? so we're getting a 4cyl and a turbo v6? wont happen unless its short and skinny.
__________________
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|