Alpha platform in trouble: overweight, over cost

[CSpec]

A GMI original story, apparently:

Initially Alpha was going to be a four-cylinder only chassis for small premium cars, so naturally development focused on optimizing the Alpha platform for four-cylinder mills in a very light package. Well, Cadillac’s first condition was that Alpha be re-engineered to package a naturally aspirated V-6 engine – and that was non-negotiable. This about-face on engine selection would become the first of at least two engine requests that led to a re-engineering of the Alpha chassis to accommodate the new requirements. More changes (read: more mass and cost) were required for the addition of all-wheel drive.

What started out as a great handling, small RWD program, began it’s mission creep from being very focused to being all things to all people. And as it evolved, certain “hard-points” from previous development were locked in, even though the base program had transformed itself. For example, Alpha was designed with a very sophisticated multi-link front suspension with near perfect geometry for the car as it was developed at that point. That geometry was “locked in”. As the car grew and became heavier with more features and content, that original geometry was no longer optimal. Our sources tell us that GM is now attempting to mask this sub-optimal geometry with chassis tuning rather than doing the right thing and actually fix it.

According to sources familiar with the Alpha program both internally at GM and the supplier level, GM has made several other additions to the requirement list of Alpha beyond engines. Among the additions were: a new electronics system and aerodynamic shutters (similar to the Volt).

Each addition has caused another issue to engineer around, thus causing the Alpha program to exceed GM’s mass requirements for the car by nearly 500-pounds. It is unclear how heavy Alpha products will be, but every independent Alpha source GMI has communicated with has indicated that the final curb weight could push 4,000-pounds

unless GM puts the program on a mass reduction plan before launch.

Source

Alpha reportedly cost $1 billion. Reminds you of what got GM into bankruptcy in the first place doesn't it?

[Robert Hall]

Ok....sounds like Alpha will really be more of a hefty Zeta and Sigma replacement instead of a light compact car platform. Of course, anything under 4500lbs is 'light' for GM, who is used to building 5000-6000lb trucks and SUVs.

Worst case scenario, the bean counters will axe the program and the Caddy ATS will be a Delta FWD generic.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[loki]

yes i thought alpha was going to be 4's , maybe a 6.. and then zeta and sigma were kinda merging for the 6's and 8's....?

isn't good news, if true...

[Z-06]

Alpha reportedly cost $1 billion. Reminds you of what got GM into bankruptcy in the first place doesn't it?

The cost is not out of proportion for a brand new platform development. That is why platform sharing is important to recuperate the costs.

[CSpec]

Alpha reportedly cost $1 billion. Reminds you of what got GM into bankruptcy in the first place doesn't it?

The cost is not out of proportion for a brand new platform development. That is why platform sharing is important to recuperate the costs.

The cost is out of proportion for a compromise platform that will not be able to compete.

[Drew Dowdell]

again, there is no way a 4-cylinder vehicle the size of the 3-series will weigh more than the 5-series unless they are building it from lead and lining the doors with gold.

Could the Alpha weigh up to that number? Sure... since they are planning on putting the CTS on it eventually too.

GMI is making a lot of hay over this... but some addition, subtraction, and basic deduction will lead you to a different conclusion than theirs.

The Epsilon platform can weigh as little as 3100lbs (Saab 9-3) or over 4200 lbs (Lacrosse AWD, Saab 9-5) and probably even more for the XTS. ZOMG! Sky is falling!

[Z-06]

again, there is no way a 4-cylinder vehicle the size of the 3-series will weigh more than the 5-series unless they are building it from lead and lining the doors with gold.

Could the Alpha weigh up to that number? Sure... since they are planning on putting the CTS on it eventually too.

GMI is making a lot of hay over this... but some addition, subtraction, and basic deduction will lead you to a different conclusion than theirs.

The Epsilon platform can weigh as little as 3100lbs (Saab 9-3) or over 4200 lbs (Lacrosse AWD, Saab 9-5) and probably even more for the XTS. ZOMG! Sky is falling!

Well said. That is the beauty of a platform being very flexible. No one knows what vehicles GM wants to build on this Alpha. I think someone at GMI is feeling a little insecure.

[CSpec]

The Epsilon platform can weigh as little as 3100lbs (Saab 9-3) or over 4200 lbs (Lacrosse AWD, Saab 9-5) and probably even more for the XTS. ZOMG! Sky is falling!

Different Epsilon. Either way, none of those cars are meant to compete with the 3-series. Driving dynamics are everything.

[Justin Bimmer]

Platforms HAVE to be flexible. I recall an article Borger sent me that talked about Alpha needing to be more flexible. This has been in the works for at least a year if not longer.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Epsilon platform can weigh as little as 3100lbs (Saab 9-3) or over 4200 lbs (Lacrosse AWD, Saab 9-5) and probably even more for the XTS. ZOMG! Sky is falling!

Different Epsilon. Either way, none of those cars are meant to compete with the 3-series. Driving dynamics are everything.

None of the bigger Alpha cars will be meant to compete with the 3-series either.

[SAmadei]

Initially Alpha was going to be a four-cylinder only chassis for small premium cars, so naturally development focused on optimizing the Alpha platform for four-cylinder mills in a very light package. Well, Cadillac's first condition was that Alpha be re-engineered to package a naturally aspirated V-6 engine – and that was non-negotiable.

Why would this be a big deal, platform-wise? Typically, V6s, especially GM's narrower V6s easily fit into a space where a longer inline 4 has been intended. Assuming that Alpha's engine is longitudinal, not being able to fit a v6 would indicate an awfully narrow car.

Of course, reading between the lines... I don't see V8s mentioned here. If the next Camaro is Alpha based, has GM already nixed the V8?

What started out as a great handling, small RWD program, began it's mission creep from being very focused to being all things to all people. And as it evolved, certain "hard-points" from previous development were locked in, even though the base program had transformed itself. For example, Alpha was designed with a very sophisticated multi-link front suspension with near perfect geometry for the car as it was developed at that point. That geometry was "locked in". As the car grew and became heavier with more features and content, that original geometry was no longer optimal. Our sources tell us that GM is now attempting to mask this sub-optimal geometry with chassis tuning rather than doing the right thing and actually fix it.

Again, this is what I feared when Alpha was announced... a small platform that will be twisted and perverted to fit every application under the sun. Except in this case, I figured GM would have gotten Alpha to market as the ATS before GM started trying to use it for mopeds, boats and cubevans. GM has not learned that the one size fits all approach results in cars that are compromises before they can even get off paper.

According to sources familiar with the Alpha program both internally at GM and the supplier level, GM has made several other additions to the requirement list of Alpha beyond engines. Among the additions were: a new electronics system and aerodynamic shutters (similar to the Volt).

The electrical harness is considered part of the Alpha platform now? I imagine the electrical harness used on most cars changes constantly over the course of the years.

And what does the aerodynamic shutters have to do with the platforms?!? I simply don't see how this is specifically related to the platform. GM added these to the Cruze after the platform was designed.

I can only assume that the platforms have to be engineered specially for each color the cars are going to come in, as well. That would explain why GM is so limiting on the colors your car can be.

Each addition has caused another issue to engineer around, thus causing the Alpha program to exceed GM's mass requirements for the car by nearly 500-pounds. It is unclear how heavy Alpha products will be, but every independent Alpha source GMI has communicated with has indicated that the final curb weight could push 4,000-pounds unless GM puts the program on a mass reduction plan before launch.

Well, that don't surprise me. I'm sure one way or the other, Zeta will look good compared to Alpha because it suffered from less design-by-committee and more was-finished-5-years-ago. You would think by now GM would realize that a bird in the hand beats a bird in the bush.

[Z-06]

The more I read the article, the more I see the author's lack of understanding between a "car" and a "platform".

I think initially GM was going to have three independent RWD platforms - light Alpha, medium Sigma, and heavy Zeta. It seems like GM will end up having two, Alpha and the new Chi?? Future vehicles on Sigma and Zeta platforms may be now part of the Alpha, which may also be inter-related with Zeta "light" or Zeta 2.0. Since these cars (Camaro and CTS of the two) shift to Alpha, the author's argument that bigger engines were added later is true.

However the author fails to understand simplicity of modularity. If Alpha is modular, for a 4 cylinder engine the structural component of a bigger size may just have to be replaced with a smaller size and the weight essentially is decreased.

[Drew Dowdell]

The more I read the article, the more I see the author's lack of understanding between a "car" and a "platform".

I think initially GM was going to have three independent RWD platforms - light Alpha, medium Sigma, and heavy Zeta. It seems like GM will end up having two, Alpha and the new Chi?? Omega Future vehicles on Sigma and Zeta platforms may be now part of the Alpha, which may also be inter-related with Zeta "light" or Zeta 2.0. Since these cars (Camaro and CTS of the two) shift to Alpha, the author's argument that bigger engines were added later is true.

However the author fails to understand simplicity of modularity. If Alpha is modular, for a 4 cylinder engine the structural component of a bigger size may just have to be replaced with a smaller size and the weight essentially is decreased.

Fixed. Chi was the stillborn FWD sedan platform based off Lambda. DT7 and NG-Lucerne.

I think Sigma is dead after this round. It will be Alpha and next gen Zeta.

Alpha being as modular as Zeta could explain a large weight range between the extreme ends of the platform applications.

If they build an Alpha CTS-V that weighs 4,100lbs.... so what? That's what it weighs today.

[dwightlooi]

There are a few dubious assertions here...

(1) That the suspension geometry becomes sub-optimal because heavier V6 or even V8 engines are fitted is utter rubbish. Suspension geometry has everything to do with maintaining proper camber and toe during cornering and braking/acceleration. Given a particular geometry, the amount of these you experience has everything to do with the amount of actual body roll and squat. It has nothing to do with the weight of the vehicle. If the vehicle is say 10% heavier, you'll simply increase the spring rate and anti-roll bar size by the appropriate amount so the roll an squat at a given driving condition remains the same. Of course it is fixed by tuning, you don't change the control arm length or pick up points to fix these. You only change that if you are trying to lower or raise the ride height or change the centering force, etc. None of that has anything to do with weight!

(2) That somehow protecting the car for V6 or V8s will make the car heavier. Well, that may be the case when you actually install those engines, but the chassis weight probably won't change very much. The weight distribution may become less favorable with the heavier engines, but when these engines are not installed then the weight distrubtion ought to be as favorable as before.

(3) That a car can somehow benefit from being I4 only in terms of packaging and handling is also for the most parts nonsense. First of all an I4 is for the most parts as long as a V8. A V6 is shorter! Width wise, most cars are governed by the width of the desired passenger cell, not be the engine width. Let me put it this way... the widest suspension tower boxes in the industry are the 1990s Honda ones because of the double wishbone fronts. Even then, if you look at an S2000, there is plenty of room on each side of the F20C Inline-4. The additional width introduced by a 60 deg DOHC V6 or a 90 deg Pushrod V8 is about the same as the room needed for a typical Inline-4's intake runner andd plenum assembly!

[hyperv6]

What they fail to say is that the platform will be able to support models from 3400-4000 pounds.

I am sure a CTSv V8 or TT V6 with AWD in the longest and widest wheel base may be 4000 pounds. That does not mean the Camaro or ATS and other models will be that heavy.

Also when you share a platform there will be comprimises that will add to weight or the ability to do some things that a single model platform can do. When you gain flexibility you have to comprimise in some areas.

I would not hit the panic button yet on this deal. While when it comes out I am sure many will say it could or should be lighter but they would still say that at 3100 pounds too.

Lets just see what we really get.

[smk4565]

GM does tend to cut costs or take short cuts when they can. So if they go that route with Alpha and compromise the platform to make it all things to all people it will be sad. What worries me, is they have to make it cheap enough for Chevy, build a small Cadillac, a mid-size Cadillac, possibly another car. The 3-series platform is purpose built, they don't have to compromise it. It would be unfortunate if the Alpha platform is not capble and the ATS and next-gen CTS are just mediocre. But only time will tell.

[dwightlooi]

GM does tend to cut costs or take short cuts when they can. So if they go that route with Alpha and compromise the platform to make it all things to all people it will be sad. What worries me, is they have to make it cheap enough for Chevy, build a small Cadillac, a mid-size Cadillac, possibly another car. The 3-series platform is purpose built, they don't have to compromise it. It would be unfortunate if the Alpha platform is not capble and the ATS and next-gen CTS are just mediocre. But only time will tell.

Let's put it this way... the 3-series is not that light. The E90 is not the E36, not by a long shot. The E90 3-series is about 3425 lbs for a 328, going up to about 3850 lbs for a well equipped 335xi. If the ATS comes in at 3800 lbs for a V8 or Bi-turbo V6 powered ATS-V, that's not ideal but its not the end of the world. I don't think it'll be that bad though... the Zeta is "only" 3900 lbs with the V8 and just by virtue of the shorter wheelbase alone -- even if none of the weight saving efforts paid off -- the Alpha would be no more than about 3800 lbs with a V8. That's not great, but that's not horrible either. Of course we all hope for a 3600 lbs ATS-V with Small block power (maybe 3650~3700 if they went with a twin turbo V6). This will peg a 3500 lbs entry level car with a V6 or Turbo I4 (the V6 and I4 actually weigh about the same). That's fully competitive.

Edited May 19, 2011 by dwightlooi

[riviera74]

The progress of the Alpha program sounds a lot like what GM should guard against: too many (bad) ideas spoiling the whole thing. I was watching the latest Mazda commercial, and it implied that they know how to craft a small nimble vehicle while "behemoth automakers" (read GM and Ford) simply cannot. Unfortunately, Alpha was not as well-protected as the Corvette program, hence all the screw-ups and conflicting demands. Cadillac does not really need a 4cyl car unless it is worth driving (avoiding the curse of Cimarron). Alpha should actually be a Chevy (if not a Buick) and let Caddy have a somewhat larger car take care of the ATS.

[Chazman]

There are a few dubious assertions here...

(1) That the suspension geometry becomes sub-optimal because heavier V6 or even V8 engines are fitted is utter rubbish. Suspension geometry has everything to do with maintaining proper camber and toe during cornering and braking/acceleration. Given a particular geometry, the amount of these you experience has everything to do with the amount of actual body roll and squat. It has nothing to do with the weight of the vehicle. If the vehicle is say 10% heavier, you'll simply increase the spring rate and anti-roll bar size by the appropriate amount so the roll an squat at a given driving condition remains the same. Of course it is fixed by tuning, you don't change the control arm length or pick up points to fix these. You only change that if you are trying to lower or raise the ride height or change the centering force, etc. None of that has anything to do with weight!

What if control arms, etc, were repositioned in order to gain clearance for a DOHC V6 or smallblock V8?

[Z-06]

There are a few dubious assertions here...

(2) That somehow protecting the car for V6 or V8s will make the car heavier. Well, that may be the case when you actually install those engines, but the chassis weight probably won't change very much. The weight distribution may become less favorable with the heavier engines, but when these engines are not installed then the weight distrubtion ought to be as favorable as before.

Disagree there slightly. The structural components used to support the engine will vary in size depending on the size of the engine. Since the size is directly proportional to the mass of the vehicle, increasing engine size means increasing structural components' mass to carry the load while maintaining the same structural stiffness. Most of these components are high strength steel alloys, which add a lot of weight.

So for a hypothetical example, if a 3" diameter torsion bar is selected for a 8 cylinder engine member support, for a 4 cylinder engine, the same job can be done by a 2.1" diameter member, assuming the the 4-cylinder weighs exactly half of the 8-cylinder engine. That is almost 30% weight saving.

There are a few dubious assertions here...

(1) That the suspension geometry becomes sub-optimal because heavier V6 or even V8 engines are fitted is utter rubbish. Suspension geometry has everything to do with maintaining proper camber and toe during cornering and braking/acceleration. Given a particular geometry, the amount of these you experience has everything to do with the amount of actual body roll and squat. It has nothing to do with the weight of the vehicle. If the vehicle is say 10% heavier, you'll simply increase the spring rate and anti-roll bar size by the appropriate amount so the roll an squat at a given driving condition remains the same. Of course it is fixed by tuning, you don't change the control arm length or pick up points to fix these. You only change that if you are trying to lower or raise the ride height or change the centering force, etc. None of that has anything to do with weight!

What if control arms, etc, were repositioned in order to gain clearance for a DOHC V6 or smallblock V8?

Yes, they will be needed to modified to control the additional weight transfer more than gaining clearance.

[Chazman]

There are a few dubious assertions here...

(2) That somehow protecting the car for V6 or V8s will make the car heavier. Well, that may be the case when you actually install those engines, but the chassis weight probably won't change very much. The weight distribution may become less favorable with the heavier engines, but when these engines are not installed then the weight distrubtion ought to be as favorable as before.

Disagree there slightly. The structural components used to support the engine will vary in size depending on the size of the engine. Since the size is directly proportional to the mass of the vehicle, increasing engine size means increasing structural components' mass to carry the load while maintaining the same structural stiffness. Most of these components are high strength steel alloys, which add a lot of weight.

So for a hypothetical example, if a 3" diameter torsion bar is selected for a 8 cylinder engine member support, for a 4 cylinder engine, the same job can be done by a 2.1" diameter member, assuming the the 4-cylinder weighs exactly half of the 8-cylinder engine. That is almost 30% weight saving.

There are a few dubious assertions here...

(1) That the suspension geometry becomes sub-optimal because heavier V6 or even V8 engines are fitted is utter rubbish. Suspension geometry has everything to do with maintaining proper camber and toe during cornering and braking/acceleration. Given a particular geometry, the amount of these you experience has everything to do with the amount of actual body roll and squat. It has nothing to do with the weight of the vehicle. If the vehicle is say 10% heavier, you'll simply increase the spring rate and anti-roll bar size by the appropriate amount so the roll an squat at a given driving condition remains the same. Of course it is fixed by tuning, you don't change the control arm length or pick up points to fix these. You only change that if you are trying to lower or raise the ride height or change the centering force, etc. None of that has anything to do with weight!

What if control arms, etc, were repositioned in order to gain clearance for a DOHC V6 or smallblock V8?

Yes, they will be needed to modified to control the additional weight transfer more than gaining clearance.

I know weight tranfer was a concern when Alpha was modified to accept a HFV6.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Chazman

[Robert Hall]

I know weight tranfer was a concern when Alpha was modified to accept a HFV6.

Balance I would think would be an issue....

Certainly BMW and M-B have figured it out w/ their compact cars..after all, the 3 series is available w/ 4s, straight 6s, and V8s...and the Merc C-class is available w/ 4s, V6s, and V8s...and both are widely regarded as the best in the business for compact luxury/sports sedans/coupes.

I know GM has no history of building such cars, but Alpha is their opportuntity to prove they can build big league-competitive compact luxury sports sedans and coupes..I hope they can pull it off..

Edited May 20, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

The problem, as I see it, with this article is the assumption that all vehicles built on the Alpha have to compete with the 3-series.

That isn't true.

The Camaro would and should have a very different driving personality than the ATS. If Buick were to get an Alpha for.. oh I dunno.. a Riviera, that would have a much softer performance threshold than the first two I mentioned and yes would probably be 3700 lbs. And if Alpha can be scaled up to be CTS sized... then yes, I expect it to weigh to 4,000 lbs in fully loaded AWD format.

Only one of the vehicles known to be on this platform has to compete with the 3-series and that is the ATS. It'll be in showrooms in about 12-14 months to make its case.... lets try to not bash it too much before we even see it.

[Robert Hall]

The problem, as I see it, with this article is the assumption that all vehicles built on the Alpha have to compete with the 3-series.

That isn't true.

The Camaro would and should have a very different driving personality than the ATS. If Buick were to get an Alpha for.. oh I dunno.. a Riviera, that would have a much softer performance threshold than the first two I mentioned and yes would probably be 3700 lbs. And if Alpha can be scaled up to be CTS sized... then yes, I expect it to weigh to 4,000 lbs in fully loaded AWD format.

Only one of the vehicles known to be on this platform has to compete with the 3-series and that is the ATS. It'll be in showrooms in about 12-14 months to make its case.... lets try to not bash it too much before we even see it.

I would think making a model competitive w/ the 3-series, etc would be the main focus..anything else is secondary. Cadillac absolutely has to have a hit in this niche.

It will be interesting to see if they can scale it up to midsize to accomodate 4000lb CTSes and Camaros. It would have to be able to scale in width, length, track, etc. An ambitious goal.

[smk4565]

A C-class is 3,527-3,615 lbs for the V6 models. If the 4-cylinder model goes on sale here (which I think it is) I assume that will be more in the 3,480 lbs range. A 328i is 3,428 lbs. I think the ATS needs to be in that 3500-3600 lb range, and should have a turbo 4-cylinder and DOHC V6.

The Camaro should be in that weight range too, a Mustang is around 3,500 lbs and the Genesis coupe is even less. CTS can be 4,000 lbs, all those mid-sizer are now, but then again, with CAFE going higher and higher, automakers will be forced to cut weight.

Edited May 20, 2011 by smk4565

[Drew Dowdell]

OMG I agreed with SMK on something.

[Drew Dowdell]

and furthermore, wasn't the whole point of the alpha that GM had a nose module in different sizes, a body module in different sizes and a tail module in different sizes? Then they can swap the modules around for the different cars they need to build...

[Robert Hall]

and furthermore, wasn't the whole point of the alpha that GM had a nose module in different sizes, a body module in different sizes and a tail module in different sizes? Then they can swap the modules around for the different cars they need to build...

Lego cars! Interesting idea... I wonder how they accomplish this with unibody construction..usually there are some fixed hard points that are hard to deviate from..

[ZL-1]

What if control arms, etc, were repositioned in order to gain clearance for a DOHC V6 or smallblock V8?

That's most likely what is implied in the article.

My impressions after reading their writeup were:

1. There was a lot of back-and-forth changes/redefinitions regarding Alpha.

2. Cadillac signing on the architecture later in the development stages instead of at the very beginning meant some compromising had to happen, leading to point nr 1.

3. Listening to how these compromises had to be made, knowing that GM is taking a good look at the 3-Series (actually disassembling them - though I believe this is common industry practise), and having an outsider's view of GM's product development culture, it gts a bit scary.

Still, I hope the ATS to be a very competent car, much like the CTS already is.

[CSpec]

The problem, as I see it, with this article is the assumption that all vehicles built on the Alpha have to compete with the 3-series.

That isn't true.

The Camaro would and should have a very different driving personality than the ATS. If Buick were to get an Alpha for.. oh I dunno.. a Riviera, that would have a much softer performance threshold than the first two I mentioned and yes would probably be 3700 lbs. And if Alpha can be scaled up to be CTS sized... then yes, I expect it to weigh to 4,000 lbs in fully loaded AWD format.

Only one of the vehicles known to be on this platform has to compete with the 3-series and that is the ATS. It'll be in showrooms in about 12-14 months to make its case.... lets try to not bash it too much before we even see it.

I would think making a model competitive w/ the 3-series, etc would be the main focus..anything else is secondary. Cadillac absolutely has to have a hit in this niche.

It will be interesting to see if they can scale it up to midsize to accomodate 4000lb CTSes and Camaros. It would have to be able to scale in width, length, track, etc. An ambitious goal.

Yeah, I don't see how you can make a platform to fit so many personalities and do them all well. As others have said the 3-series leads the pack for a reason. Are the IS and A4 and C-class platforms shared either?

[Robert Hall]

The problem, as I see it, with this article is the assumption that all vehicles built on the Alpha have to compete with the 3-series.

That isn't true.

The Camaro would and should have a very different driving personality than the ATS. If Buick were to get an Alpha for.. oh I dunno.. a Riviera, that would have a much softer performance threshold than the first two I mentioned and yes would probably be 3700 lbs. And if Alpha can be scaled up to be CTS sized... then yes, I expect it to weigh to 4,000 lbs in fully loaded AWD format.

Only one of the vehicles known to be on this platform has to compete with the 3-series and that is the ATS. It'll be in showrooms in about 12-14 months to make its case.... lets try to not bash it too much before we even see it.

I would think making a model competitive w/ the 3-series, etc would be the main focus..anything else is secondary. Cadillac absolutely has to have a hit in this niche.

It will be interesting to see if they can scale it up to midsize to accomodate 4000lb CTSes and Camaros. It would have to be able to scale in width, length, track, etc. An ambitious goal.

Yeah, I don't see how you can make a platform to fit so many personalities and do them all well. As others have said the 3-series leads the pack for a reason. Are the IS and A4 and C-class platforms shared either?

Well, the A4 is shared w/ the A5...but the larger A6 isn't shared as far as I know. I think the IS platform is unique, and the C-class may have some things in common w/ the larger E-class, but I don't know how much. I know that the E-class coupe has E-class styling, but is based on the C-class platform (like it's CLK predecessor was).

[Camino LS6]

and furthermore, wasn't the whole point of the alpha that GM had a nose module in different sizes, a body module in different sizes and a tail module in different sizes? Then they can swap the modules around for the different cars they need to build...

I think this is the key aspect of the platform that we should be focusing on.

Zeta was remarkably flexible in this regard (although the attribute has so far been under-utilized). I expect Alpha to be even moreso.

You have to think that some lessons have been learned.

I remain optimistic about both Alpha and the Zeta II/Zeta light/Zeta-Sigma larger car platforms.

[Drew Dowdell]

There is another new RWD platform looming out there for large cars. I don't know what it's based on originally, whether it is a derivative of Zeta, Sigma or just what..... but it's called Omega. It will debut with the Cadillac flagship over the XTS.

[Drew Dowdell]

and furthermore, wasn't the whole point of the alpha that GM had a nose module in different sizes, a body module in different sizes and a tail module in different sizes? Then they can swap the modules around for the different cars they need to build...

I think this is the key aspect of the platform that we should be focusing on.

Zeta was remarkably flexible in this regard (although the attribute has so far been under-utilized). I expect Alpha to be even moreso.

You have to think that some lessons have been learned.

I remain optimistic about both Alpha and the Zeta II/Zeta light/Zeta-Sigma larger car platforms.

I believe that GM ran into an issue with the flexibility of Zeta when they tried to start using it for things it wasn't originally intended for. Look at the amount of effort and changes just to get the Camaro we have today.

But as you say, lessons (hopefully) have been learned for Alpha. Hence the requirements that it be able to accept 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines.

[Z-06]

and furthermore, wasn't the whole point of the alpha that GM had a nose module in different sizes, a body module in different sizes and a tail module in different sizes? Then they can swap the modules around for the different cars they need to build...

I think this is the key aspect of the platform that we should be focusing on.

Zeta was remarkably flexible in this regard (although the attribute has so far been under-utilized). I expect Alpha to be even moreso.

You have to think that some lessons have been learned.

I remain optimistic about both Alpha and the Zeta II/Zeta light/Zeta-Sigma larger car platforms.

I believe that GM ran into an issue with the flexibility of Zeta when they tried to start using it for things it wasn't originally intended for. Look at the amount of effort and changes just to get the Camaro we have today.

But as you say, lessons (hopefully) have been learned for Alpha. Hence the requirements that it be able to accept 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines.

The problem with Zeta or platforms in general is going smaller, which shows in the Camaro. You can add to a platform, but you cannot go other way around in an efficient manner. That is why GM decided to go with a smaller platform - Alpha and then build up to various configurations.

Audi's ultramodular platform similarly was build to target smallest vehicles prior to building bigger ones.

[Z-06]

Yeah, I don't see how you can make a platform to fit so many personalities and do them all well. As others have said the 3-series leads the pack for a reason. Are the IS and A4 and C-class platforms shared either?

Imagine as Lego blocks. The common base design should always start from the smallest possible vehicle that will be build, and then consequently build on to bigger vehicles.

Well, the A4 is shared w/ the A5...but the larger A6 isn't shared as far as I know. I think the IS platform is unique, and the C-class may have some things in common w/ the larger E-class, but I don't know how much. I know that the E-class coupe has E-class styling, but is based on the C-class platform (like it's CLK predecessor was).

As a matter of fact an entire gamut of Audis share the MLB - ultramodular platform.

MB and Toyota are good about hiding things about their platforms, so the idea remains sketchy at best. Remember, the E class coupe was originally thought to have shared platform with the E class Sedan, till MB went out to say it is in fact based on the C class platform. I will not be surprised that these people share platforms in a vertical manner too.

[Drew Dowdell]

Almost every FWD car at Toyota bigger than the Corolla is a Camry derivative.

Camry, Venza, Sienna, Highlander, RX, Avalon - all related.

[Camino LS6]

and furthermore, wasn't the whole point of the alpha that GM had a nose module in different sizes, a body module in different sizes and a tail module in different sizes? Then they can swap the modules around for the different cars they need to build...

I think this is the key aspect of the platform that we should be focusing on.

Zeta was remarkably flexible in this regard (although the attribute has so far been under-utilized). I expect Alpha to be even moreso.

You have to think that some lessons have been learned.

I remain optimistic about both Alpha and the Zeta II/Zeta light/Zeta-Sigma larger car platforms.

I believe that GM ran into an issue with the flexibility of Zeta when they tried to start using it for things it wasn't originally intended for. Look at the amount of effort and changes just to get the Camaro we have today.

But as you say, lessons (hopefully) have been learned for Alpha. Hence the requirements that it be able to accept 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines.

I don't believe it was a flexibility issue per se, the dash-to-axle length was extended to accomodate the Camaro design. However, the hard points of Zeta meant that a smaller Camaro wasn't possible while keeping the heritage design in proportion.

It could have been smaller, but it would have looked different.

Alpha should fix that for Camaro.

Zeta would have been a better base for a Chevelle.

[CSpec]

Almost every FWD car at Toyota bigger than the Corolla is a Camry derivative.

Camry, Venza, Sienna, Highlander, RX, Avalon - all related.

Different type of car--driving dynamics aren't important.

[Robert Hall]

Almost every FWD car at Toyota bigger than the Corolla is a Camry derivative.

Camry, Venza, Sienna, Highlander, RX, Avalon - all related.

Different type of car--driving dynamics aren't important.

True, Those are just FWD generic appliances...the audience knows nothing about handling or cares nothing about handing. Likewise, I would assume GM's CUV platforms--Theta-Epsilon and Lambda--are similar to the car Epsilon/Epsilon II platforms...

Edited May 20, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[hyperv6]

The fact GM will have two different size RWD platforms will help the need to stretch either platform to extremes. Where as the Zeta tried to be big and small now the Alpha will cover the low end.

Size alone should keep the Alpha under the Zeta weight in RWD form. Now when you add AWD etc it has to add mass and there is little you can do when you add more parts. The fact remains the more you stretch a platform the more compromised it becomes. With he cars we know so far for the Alpha it is not being over used too much. If anything the Camaro will benefit from the investment from Cadillac as it will get more funding that Chevy can share to make it a better Camaro.

As of now the only people who really know anything are not talking. Even criptic hints are few as since the Chapter 11 things have gone dark at GM. It is like Area 51 anymore. Much of the lose talk on other models have been just that. Even the few people I know are not saying as much if anything anymore. So to get to freaked out now on the Alpha is a little premature. Once we get some real info and facts lets not get to worked up here.

Lets face it most of what GM has done may have not all been home runs [no one hit all home runs] but they are now building some of the best cars they ever have and I expect it to improve now with enough money to do the new models right.

When the Alpha comes out I suspect few here will be disapointed. This is kind of like the new Malibu as many freaked out at the early drawings and half finished interior shots and now it looks as if they will have a very good car for the market slot.

[Drew Dowdell]

Almost every FWD car at Toyota bigger than the Corolla is a Camry derivative.

Camry, Venza, Sienna, Highlander, RX, Avalon - all related.

Different type of car--driving dynamics aren't important.

Is that why every rag out there tests mid-size family sedans by running them through a battery of tests and then picks the one with the best combination of handling and acceleration?

I'm not saying that handling isn't important, but if Alpha is "near perfect" for a 3-series size vehicle, what are we upset about?

Are we upset that if it is sized like the 5-series it won't handle like a 3-series? Well I've got news for you....neither does the 5-series.

Just because the platform can be sized up doesn't mean the vehicle at the small end will be compromised. I disagree with the notion that the ability, by itself, to accept a V8 compromises the platform. The Audi S5, the Mercedes C-class, Lexus IS-F, and previous generation 3-series, are sitting there taunting that idea.

People with limited funds have been putting the small block V8 into the Miata since there has been a Miata and their biggest concern is typically cooling or getting the rear wheels to stick. I'm sure GM can figure it out for a 3-series size sedan.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ok class, let's do some math.

Let's say that when equipped with the 4-cylinder turbo and automatic, the ATS is 3400 lbs. Sounds about right for a vehicle around 180 inches long, after all, that's the weight of the base 3-series.

How did we get that number? The Camaro, which is generally considered to be a fat pig, is 190 inches and 3769 lbs. in automatic form. Saving 300lbs on a new platform designed to be 10 inches smaller and uses higher strength steel is child's play. But "The Camaro is a V6!" you say. Righto - Lets look at the weight difference between the 4-cylinder Malibu and V6 Malibu.

A Malibu LT 4-cylinder is 3415

A Malibu LTZ 6-cylinder is 3649

Let's also assume there is extra weight on the LTZ coming from non-drivetrain parts. 50lbs

So the Camaro could save 150 lbs. just by switching to a 4-cylinder. Leaving just 150lbs to find somewhere in the Zeta platform in order to hit the 3400lb weight target on a 10 inch shorter vehicle that uses higher strength alloys.

Not even GM could screw that up.

Let's work the other way round.

Base ATS starts at 3400lbs... but there is no way the Camaro will get all of the equipment and sound deadening the Cadillac will. Having 2 fewer doors, less equipment, less sound deadening, can easily end up giving back 200lbs. So you're looking at a possible 3200lb Camaro (yes, powered by a 4-cylinder in base form... come to the year 2011 please).

So you have an ATS at 3400lbs and a Camaro at 3200lbs.

Lets start adding things back in:

Turbo V6 for Camaro and ATS - add 250lbs to 3650 and 3450 respectively. The 335i is 3605lbs and the Mustang V6 base is 3453.

Smallblock V8 for Camaro and ATS-V - add another 200lbs each to 3850 and 3650. The M3 is 3753 by increasing aluminum usage and the Mustang GT is 3605.

Now - lets stretch the Alpha platform all the way up and over 5-series 193" size to 196 inches. Why that number?

Well because even "heavy" Zeta can come in at 40lbs lighter than the 535i. The 196" Pontiac G8 GXP V8 weighed 4050lbs and the 2008 Cadillac STS V8 clocked in with 3995 lbs on Sigma.

So GM can use either of it's two heaviest RWD platforms and literally ANY engine it produces save for the Duramax and still be lighter than a 3 inch shorter 2011 BMW 535i.

Why am I worried about the smaller, lighter, Alpha platform weight again?

[Drew Dowdell]

BTW, Sigma cost $1 billion to develop and they got, what 4 cars out of it? 6 if you count the coupe and wagon variants separately?

ATS will get sedan, coupe, and convertible.

Camaro will be on it

CTS will move to it (along with at least one of it's non-sedan body styles)

Holden will get a copy or 3, Opel might if there is a wagon.

Buick will get at least one

6 with a possible 6 more vehicles worldwide.

[dwightlooi]

BTW, Sigma cost $1 billion to develop and they got, what 4 cars out of it? 6 if you count the coupe and wagon variants separately?

ATS will get sedan, coupe, and convertible.

Camaro will be on it

CTS will move to it (along with at least one of it's non-sedan body styles)

Holden will get a copy or 3, Opel might if there is a wagon.

Buick will get at least one

6 with a possible 6 more vehicles worldwide.

I am not so sure about Buick. Buick probably won't get a RWD or Longitudinal AWD car.

[CanadianBacon94]

and wasn't there supposed to be a convertible besides the ATS olds?

[Drew Dowdell]

Halo Riviera - we've already been given the wink and a nod that a Riviera was coming.* When I stated that I thought it should be FWD like the Riviera was for most of it's life as a model (not a trim), they asked my why it shouldn't be RWD. The rest of the conversation we had didn't shine a light anywhere, but the question they asked me I believe was a hint.

*When asked about why they chose the name "Regal" for the current car and not something new, GM replied that Regal got the second highest positive response in their customer focus groups regarding nameplate image. Later when asked if Buick would ever bring the Riviera back, the reply was "Well there was only one name that got a higher score than Regal."

and wasn't there supposed to be a convertible besides the ATS olds?

For what brand? Camaro would certainly get a convertible.

[smk4565]

BTW, Sigma cost $1 billion to develop and they got, what 4 cars out of it? 6 if you count the coupe and wagon variants separately?

ATS will get sedan, coupe, and convertible.

Camaro will be on it

CTS will move to it (along with at least one of it's non-sedan body styles)

Holden will get a copy or 3, Opel might if there is a wagon.

Buick will get at least one

6 with a possible 6 more vehicles worldwide.

True that they can make multiple vehicles out of it. But they can't specialize it for one (or two) kinds of cars though. And the previous generation C-class cost $1.9 billion to develop and that was 10 years ago. Even since the 80s, each S-class cost over $1 billion by itself. I couldn't find the W221's cost, but the W220 S-class was over $1.6 billion to develop and that was late 90s money. I don't know if Cadillac has the funds to spend over $1 billion on the ATS alone, another $1 billion on the CTS, another $1 billion on a large car, etc. The problem GM runs into, is they want to make a 3-series killer, but they also want to build 4 other products off that platform. I think to kill the 3-series, it the platform has to be designed with one thing in mind.

[Camino LS6]

I'd even bet that an LS-powered Camaro won't weigh any more than a TTV6 Camaro.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'd even bet that an LS-powered Camaro won't weigh any more than a TTV6 Camaro.

All of my numbers were "worst case" to reflect any additional hardware each engine might need. The LS and TTV6 engines might weigh the same, but the LS almost certainly is capable of more torque that the chassis needs to handle.

True that they can make multiple vehicles out of it. But they can't specialize it for one (or two) kinds of cars though. And the previous generation C-class cost $1.9 billion to develop and that was 10 years ago. Even since the 80s, each S-class cost over $1 billion by itself. I couldn't find the W221's cost, but the W220 S-class was over $1.6 billion to develop and that was late 90s money. I don't know if Cadillac has the funds to spend over $1 billion on the ATS alone, another $1 billion on the CTS, another $1 billion on a large car, etc. The problem GM runs into, is they want to make a 3-series killer, but they also want to build 4 other products off that platform. I think to kill the 3-series, it the platform has to be designed with one thing in mind.

BMW did it. The 5-series is a cut down 7-series.