Sky, Solstice and Corvette: S.O.S.

[evok]

I think I can speak for Evok and others when I say that the Kappa roadsters are great, but we are wistful with what could have been...

Yes

[Northstar]

Enough with the childish fighting, guys, and I don't need to name names, you know who you are. This thread has been pretty productive up until now, and there's no reason to ruin it.

Josh, what vehicles do you have codes for?

[evok]

Enough with the childish fighting, guys, and I don't need to name names, you know who you are. This thread has been pretty productive up until now, and there's no reason to ruin it.

Josh, what vehicles do you have codes for?

That is what I find so interesting. Why have the codes not leaked out?

[CaddyXLR-V]

I think I can speak for Evok and others when I say that the Kappa roadsters are great, but we are wistful with what could have been...

...Imagine Pontiac coming out with a volume, 1 and 3 series competitor with US styling cues, at 20% less sticker...you'd easily sell 200K and we could stop the insanity of calling the G6 or GP a sports sedan...they are blue plate specials with GM's interpretation of 'exciting, sporty' styling.

I for one would love a 4 seat $20K 1series that didn't look like the abomitable effort BMW is trying to pawn off in Europe.

Yes!

I have been saying that was something Pontiac needed ever since I first heard of kappa.

[evok]

I think the argument is this. There is a need in the market for a small premium rwd architecture. Back when kappa was being developed many of us were hearing rumours that kappa would be a high volume platform.

Bells went off in my head that GM finially was ahead of the curve and will do for small cars what DCX was about to do for the upper mid/full size segment with the LX cars.

As a GM exec once said "You define you niche and then exploit it." That was my first reaction when I heard what I heard about the forth coming kappa.

Trust me my heart sank when I saw the actual kappa platform. And you know what GM had a perfect opportunity to create a whole new market with endless possibilies with a flexible small rwd platform.

But you know what, they blew it and wasted money and time with the current platform.

Hell, I though back in 2003 that Pontiac and Buick might actually become relevant in the market again by offering something you can not get at other brands. Affordable, compact, rwd.

Zeta even comes second to a smaller rwd platform.

Hell, it would have gotten me into a Buick or Pontiac dealer if the cars were done right.

But GM, you blew it.

Edited April 30, 2006 by evok

[ZL-1]

I think the argument is this.  There is a need in the market for a small premium rwd architecture.  Back when kappa was being developed many of us were hearing rumours that kappa would be a high volume platform. 

Bells went off in my head that GM finially was ahead of the curve and will do for small cars what DCX was about to do for the upper mid/full size segment with the LX cars.

As a GM exec once said "You define you niche and then exploit it."  That was my first reaction when I heard what I heard about the forth coming kappa.

Trust me my heart sank when I saw the actual kappa platform.  And you know what GM had a perfect opportunity to create a whole new market with endless possibilies with a flexible small rwd platform.

But you know what, they blew it and wasted money and time with the current platform.

Hell, I though back in 2003 that Pontiac and Buick might actually become relevant in the market again by offering something you can not get at other brands.  Affordable, compact, rwd.

Zeta even comes second to a smaller rwd platform.

Hell, it would have gotten me into a Buick or Pontiac dealer if the cars were done right.

But GM, you blew it.

I'd only add Cadillac to what you wrote, because I don't think we'll see Buicks this side of the Atlantic, even if they're compact. A Caddy would fit your 'endless possibilities' point, though.

[evok]

I'd only add Cadillac to what you wrote, because I don't think we'll see Buicks this side of the Atlantic, even if they're compact. A Caddy would fit your 'endless possibilities' point, though.

They could switch the BLS to kappa have it compete head on with the 3 Series.

The Pontiac version for starters could start at 16k and a Buick slightly above that.

I am firm that Buick needs a small progressive vehicle on the lower end of the midsize market. They need younger buyers and younger product to change the image of the brand.

This will make products like the Torana viable as well as wagons etc.

Plus the added bonus is, there are only 2 other volume rwd small car platforms on the market right now. The Benz and BMW platforms. GM would be the first and they can charge a premium.

[Northstar]

What about Toyota? Wouldn't the IS platform work or is it too expensive for a Toyota?

Isn't the NG BLS supposed to be a 2010 or 2011MY? If so, could they still yet switch it over to Kappa?

[evok]

What about Toyota? Wouldn't the IS platform work or is it too expensive for a Toyota?

Isn't the NG BLS supposed to be a 2010 or 2011MY? If so, could they still yet switch it over to Kappa?

I forgot about the Toyota platform.

But my point was, if kappa was done right and from what I expected early on, GM could have had a volume compact rwd on the road today, instead of in 20??.

[4gm]

But my point was, if kappa was done right and from what I expected early on, GM could have had a volume compact rwd on the road today, instead of in 20??.

Instead Pontiac gets the G5. Way to think ahead, GM!

[CaddyXLR-V]

I think the argument is this.  There is a need in the market for a small premium rwd architecture.  Back when kappa was being developed many of us were hearing rumours that kappa would be a high volume platform. 

Bells went off in my head that GM finially was ahead of the curve and will do for small cars what DCX was about to do for the upper mid/full size segment with the LX cars.

As a GM exec once said "You define you niche and then exploit it."  That was my first reaction when I heard what I heard about the forth coming kappa.

Trust me my heart sank when I saw the actual kappa platform.  And you know what GM had a perfect opportunity to create a whole new market with endless possibilies with a flexible small rwd platform.

But you know what, they blew it and wasted money and time with the current platform.

Hell, I though back in 2003 that Pontiac and Buick might actually become relevant in the market again by offering something you can not get at other brands.  Affordable, compact, rwd.

Zeta even comes second to a smaller rwd platform.

Hell, it would have gotten me into a Buick or Pontiac dealer if the cars were done right.

But GM, you blew it.

Thats what I was thinking. Outside of the ugly RX8, no one offers a car like that. GM wont do it until DCX or Hyundai are successful at it, and own the market, then GM will finally have a competitor 5 years later, just like what happened with the LX cars, and the Mustang. But who will continue to get all the good press? It wont be GM

[ZL-1]

They could switch the BLS to kappa have it compete head on with the 3 Series.

The Pontiac version for starters could start at 16k and a Buick slightly above that.

I am firm that Buick needs a small progressive vehicle on the lower end of the midsize market.  They need younger buyers and younger product to change the image of the brand.

This will make products like the Torana viable as well as wagons etc. 

Plus the added bonus is, there are only 2 other volume rwd small car platforms on the market right now. The Benz and BMW platforms.  GM would be the first and they can charge a premium.

I agree re BLS and Pontiac. Obviously, Holden/Opel/Saab/Daewoo apllications of kappa would be interesting.

Re Buick, I find it a little harder to picture its role, maybe because of the "old man's car" perception... I see Buick as extremely elegant styling and detailing for the price, but excluding the Enclave and (to a lesser extent) the Lucerne I'm not really into Buicks.

[Chazman]

If Kappa could have been part of a small, more flexible, RWD architecture, that would have been really, really great. GM could have had a line of cars in the same spirit as the BMW 2002, Alfa Romeo Giulia Super and Datsun 510. Also, and importantly for me personally, such an architecture may have spawned a lighter, tidier Camaro.

Would have been very awesome.......but consider this:

If Kappa had been anything more than a "field expedient", off the shelf, quick to engineer, cheap to produce (in limited numbers that is, without the need for an expensive, high volume, highly automated assembly line), we wouldn't have had the current Kappa.....let alone a flex small car architecture.

Solstice was ramrodded through by Bob Lutz personally. Had Kappa cost 5 or 10 times more - which a more flexible, high volume, platform would have cost......AND if you had to get every freakin' VLE involved with what they wanted for their sedan/wagon/coupe/convertible......Kappa wouldn't have been out till next decade, or more probably, not at all.

Just something to think about...

Edited April 30, 2006 by Chazman

[Mr.Krinkle]

If Kappa could have been part of a small, more flexible, RWD architecture, that would have been really, really great. GM could have had a line of cars in the same spirit as the BMW 2002, Alfa Romeo Giulia Super and Datsun 510. Also, and importantly for me personally, such an architecture may have spawned a lighter, tidier Camaro.

Would have been awesome.......but consider this:

If Kappa had been anything more than a "field expedient", off the shelf, quick to engineer, cheap to produce (in limited numbers that is, without the need for an expensive, high volume, highly automated assembly line), we wouldn't have had the current Kappa.....let alone a flex small car architecture.

Solstice was ramrodded through by Bob Lutz personally. Had Kappa cost 5 or 10 times more - which a more flexible, high volume, platform would have cost......AND if you had to get every freakin' VLE involved with what they wanted for their sedan/wagon/coupe/convertible......Kappa wouldn't be out till next decade, or more probably, not at all.

Just something to think about...

about this i could not agree with you more. instead of being force fed idealogies that involve gm constantly failing us and focusing and all the negative aspects the truth leans closer to the point you make.

these ideas are so general. there is no thought behind it. no details are provided.

yes, build a better car, price it affordably, make it look good too. hey isnt that what they did with these 3 cars....yeah, i know more more more.

im gonna make a better chocolate bar. its going to be sweeter than hersheys and tastier than lindt. it will have less calories too.

then i will build a tv. with a clearer picture and better sound.

whos interested?

thats all i got. so what ive learned today. build a car thats cheap and competitive with power looks quality materials low price great mileage etc etc. and well have a winner!

its as if no ones ever come up with ideas like this before i read it here.

the point again is people for the most part love these little cars and makes a lot of heads turn and faces smile. for good reasons.

[Croc]

Had Kappa cost 5 or 10 times more - which a more flexible, high volume, platform would have cost......AND if you had to get every freakin' VLE involved with what they wanted for their sedan/wagon/coupe/convertible......Kappa wouldn't have been out till next decade, or more probably, not at all.

Can you back that up with facts and figures?

Also, I highly doubt there would be a lot of VLEs involved...pushing things back.

What would have happened is likely what sort of happened...the architecture is developed, the two main vehicles are rushed through...and then the other variants requiring more time would come later. The only difference is an extra 6 months wasn't spent making sure Kappa could be stretched or modified AT ALL.

Again, though, if you have facts or statements from Lutz and Wagoner on this that I haven't heard, please prove me wrong.

Finally...thanks to the people keeping this discussion intelligent. Discussing the technical aspects of Kappa is really helping with our collective understanding of things, and I especially thank enzl and evok for bringing their vast resources to the table. Now let's continue keeping this thread intelligent

Edited April 30, 2006 by Croc

[enzl]

about this i could not agree with you more. instead of being force fed idealogies that involve gm constantly failing us and focusing and all the negative aspects the truth leans closer to the point you make.

these ideas are so general.  there is no thought behind it.  no details are provided.

yes, build a better car, price it affordably, make it look good too.  hey isnt that what they did with these 3 cars....yeah, i know more more more.

im gonna make a better chocolate bar.  its going to be sweeter than hersheys and tastier than lindt.  it will have less calories too.

then i will build a tv.  with a clearer picture and better sound.

whos interested?

thats all i got.  so what ive learned today. build a car thats cheap and competitive with power looks quality materials low price great mileage etc etc.  and well have a winner!

its as if  no ones ever come up with ideas like this before i read it here. 

the point again is people for the most part love these little cars and makes a lot of heads turn and faces smile.  for good reasons.

They're engaging in constructive criticism....maybe a GM'er reading this site will know he/she is not alone....

By you standards, we should have the blue-prints ready for a production case....that's GM's job, not ours, which is the point of the criticism in the first place!

You wouldn't want Pontiac to have the spiritual successor to the 2002 in its lineup in 1 or 2 years from now? I know I would!

[Mr.Krinkle]

the sky was never meant to be anything more than an attention getter.

it was built to pave the way for saturns rebirth so to speak.

it was never meant for volume.

no one ever questions how come the y bodys never got used for anything else.

im sure they could have made a bunch of kick ass cars with it. different prices and styles all while riding in the giant coat tails of the car that spawned it.

doesnt anyone have faith that new platforms are on the way. i know we all wanted them yesterday but $h!...time and money play a role too.

im still pissed at pontiac for letting bonne go. i thought it was a damn shame but you cant make the proverbial omelette. if they still exist in some form or another and not relying on buicks as large near luxury sedans...the next generation of pontiac should be hot.

as far as kappa being limited...so what. theres some good that came out of it, and soon enough there will be more, maybe not the same kappa but more nonetheless.

[Croc]

the sky was never meant to be anything more than an attention getter.

it was built to pave the way for saturns rebirth so to speak.

No one's disagreeing with that.

it was never meant for volume.

Agreed.

no one ever questions how come the y bodys never got used for anything else.

Of course not; the Y-bodies are some of the most profitable cars GM sells. The Kappas are not at all. In fact, their profitability has been questioned.

im sure they could have made a bunch of kick ass cars with it.  different prices and styles all while riding in the giant coat tails of the car that spawned it.

Well, maybe...but other than a true coupe, I don't see it happening. It doesn't need to, though, because the pricing of the Corvette (and now XLR) make the Y very profitable. Spawning variants is only an issue when fixed platform costs are high compared to the transaction price of the vehicles. Corvettes base at twice the price of Solstice. The financial profit models for each are completely different.

doesnt anyone have faith that new platforms are on the way.  i know we all wanted them yesterday but $h!...time and money play a role too.

That's the point. 6-12 months wouldn't have hurt Solstice/SKY sales. Yet that time would've yielded a much better platform, one that maybe could address the issues of Solstice and SKY as well, providing for an above-and-beyond better package than MX-5 (as of now, they are all about equally matched). Also remember...the Solstice launch was delayed almost 6 months from what was initially forcasted.

im still pissed at pontiac for letting  bonne go.  i thought it was a damn shame but you cant make the proverbial omelette.  if they still exist in some form or another and not relying on buicks as large near luxury sedans...the next generation of pontiac should be hot.

You and I both. I always liked the Bonnie, but as for a next-generation, the outlook isn't too good at this point. Pontiac is really a big question mark right now...and GM needs to figure it out soon!

as far as kappa being limited...so what.  theres some good that came out of it, and soon enough there will be more,  maybe not the same kappa but more nonetheless.

What "more"? What else is going to come out of it, other than excellent roadsters?

[Trimnell1]

Hey Krinkle, why don't you take your attitude and go screw yourself? Sorry Northstar, but I'm not here to attack anyone and if I support evok then that's my business. If you don't agree with my opinions that's fine, but why be an asshole about it and go on childish rants against other members. How many more people must get pissed off with this site's constant in-fighting before the mods do something about it?

[Northstar]

Trimnell1 and Mr.Krinkle: I understand you don't agree, but you need to respect each others opinions and if you really have a problem with each other, please take it to PM to get it worked out. Thanks.

[hyperv6]

Lets take this from opinion to facts.

Can anyone here provide what the present Kappa program cost to bring to market. To be fair you can also factor in the marketing value and added TV and press coverage of this project since that was much of the point of the program.

Can anyone project what a RWD expandable platform would have cost and how much more profitable it could have been. [i know it would only be an estimate but keep it realistic]

Can anyone give the odds of such a program being approved and how long would it have taken to bring to market. If it was started at the same time when would the cars have come to market?

Could GM have afforded this program and doing the new Trucks and SUV programs at the same time? All this while tring to keep Zeta alive?

Can anyone give an estimate of how much over 5-6 years it will cost to improve the present Kappa to keep sales up. New engines,wheels, colors, new options, special editions, etc. Will it be as cheap to maintain like the Miata?

I am staying neutral and not taking sides on this one. I just want to see if either side can provide numbers to take the point on this one over opinion.

At this point whats done is done but it would be interesting to see and compare realisitc estimated numbers for each of the programs.

Also, as I have said keep it real so we don't have arguments over the numbers too. Not saying that would happen around here.

Edited April 30, 2006 by hyperv6

[Mr.Krinkle]

croc--the "more" i was refering to is the epsilons and even the sigmas that caddy has been blessed with.

i think the general mightve been in AA for a while and takes these things one day at a time.

awd-fwd-and rwd all in one package. everyone pretty much agrees flexibility wouldve been great. its a no-brainer.

however it was a project that got spearheaded by lutz, and rushed into production ahead of the upcoming platforms. it makes a statement. dont you rememebr the first glimpse of the solstice and then hearing the expected date of production?

delta and j fell apart so it was going to take longer. vague, i know but unequivocally taken longer.

im thinking of it as a sneak preview kind of a deal. i really dont see the harm in that. people are paying attention a little more closely now and when new and better products get to market, we can say...i remember those neat little roadsters.

[Trimnell1]

You're right Northstar, I try to respect other people's opinions and I don't have a problem with Krinkle at all. But if you come here and say something negative about me then I'm sure as hell not going to take it kindly. Like I said, I'm here to talk about cars and the auto industry, not to pick fights with people that I don't like or disagree with.

Edited April 30, 2006 by Trimnell1

[Mr.Krinkle]

all of this is pure conjecture.. longer and more money is the best i can come up with right now.

ya know about timetables and cost--the camaro is almost for surely getting built and yet its been taking how long? gauging reaction, feasibility and such.

its been a while. too damn long. it should have never left in the first place, and we al know they are going to build it so whats the hold up?

but i digress.

ya know gm's got some cash, lots of expenses are around the block(buyouts contracts, hc, etc) and a vast empire of cars and trucks to look out for. thats a great point by the way about the trucks program and simutaneously producing other platforms. how thin do they need to be stretched?

now i said they have cash--but enough for all that at the same time?

one day at a time.

Edited April 30, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[Croc]

Simultaneously producing platforms isn't an issue at all...the problem is simultaneously developing them. Platform development costs money, but once a platform comes to market, the platform becomes a sunk cost that generally needs volume to pay it off...because most cars are not niche market cars. MSRP and volume have an inverse relationship for the most part.

[Guest Josh]

Than post the codes -

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And ruin the fun? I've been down this road before and GM Legal and Josh do not belong in the same paragraph.

You'll hear about them in about two months. I'm guessing that is when information will leak on what they are/might be but unfortunately, it won't be from me.

[evok]

And ruin the fun? I've been down this road before and GM Legal and Josh do not belong in the same paragraph.

You'll hear about them in about two months. I'm guessing that is when information will leak on what they are/might be but unfortunately, it won't be from me.

I just find it odd that they have not been leaked yet. They have been out there since last summer.

[enzl]

Simultaneously producing platforms isn't an issue at all...the problem is simultaneously developing them.  Platform development costs money, but once a platform comes to market, the platform becomes a sunk cost that generally needs volume to pay it off...because most cars are not niche market cars.  MSRP and volume have an inverse relationship for the most part.

I've heard figures as low as $250m to product Kappas....even at 50K/year, they will clearly make money...at some point.

Now, let's take the far end of costs for a flexible Kappa, at a cost 10x of that figure....$2.5B

First, the production bottleneck wouldn't be an issue, as the stampings could be amortized over more years & models, meaning that the 50K could be as high as 500K, with 2 facilities running at a max for the 5 years the rollout of 5-6 products would take. (A GM plant running at capacity, how about that?):

roadster, sedan, coupe (w/vert.), wagon (3/5 door)...crossover, if AWD is configured as well....

Now, spread this product out amongst Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Chevy and Buick...sell 'em around the world in various guises...take advantage of current exchange rates and....

Then, send the tooling to China or Korea when the next gen are ready. I'm sure Buick (China) or Daewoo or Chevy Europe could use the bones for a whole slew of new (old) product...

Instead, the Kappas will be either a)outdated and need upgrade in 5 years, b) useless to other interests within the GM realm because the difficulty producing 'em fast and, as only 2 seaters, a limited audience elsewhere anyway...

As I've said before, the Kappas are great. A symbol, hopefully, of better days to come...but it had the chance to be something bigger. I think we all can recognize that as a lost opportunity...

(btw- the Lexus IS is a downsized GS platform...not suitable for a 20-30K RWD toyota 2002 unfortunately.)

[Chazman]

Can you back that up with facts and figures?

Also, I highly doubt there would be a lot of VLEs involved...pushing things back.

What would have happened is likely what sort of happened...the architecture is developed, the two main vehicles are rushed through...and then the other variants requiring more time would come later.  The only difference is an extra 6 months wasn't spent making sure Kappa could be stretched or modified AT ALL.

Can you back that "extra 6 months" up with facts and figures?

Here's one more thing to consider. Kappa could be the most flexible architecture on the planet, and it's assembly line still wouldn't be able to build more than 40,000 of them. And that's because Kappa was designed to be built by hand and in low volume. There is very little automation on the Kappa line. And some of the construction processes don't lend themselves to high volume/automation.

And as far as VLE's not being involved...you're kidding me, right? It's their job to be involved. The Buick guy would want more leg room. The Saturn guy wants more headroom. The Chevy guy (who is probably footing the lion's share of the tab), wants to make a Camaro, but needs to re-engineer for 400-500 hp. The Cadillac guy wants more refinement. What does the Pontiac guy want? It's a Pandora's box.

[CaddyXLR-V]

How many units could kappa sell if it were more flexible?

My guess would be around 200k annually

110k sedans, 40k coupes, 30k roadsters, 20k wagons.

I would guess the average transaction price would be somewhere around $22k-$23k.

I think they would have pretty good profit margins.

Anyone agree/disagree?

[Chazman]

Could GM have afforded this program and doing the new Trucks and SUV programs at the same time? All this while tring to keep Zeta alive?

No.

[Guest Josh]

Plus that's why Chi died. $$$$$$ is/was tight and the finances weren't there to justify it. Plus the go ahead with Zeta.

And for those that want a flexible Kappa right now it was the Torana concept. Only problem is, Holden made so many changes it was essentially an entirely new platform making production never a possibility. So, there was a flexible Kappa and the program couldn't be done in time...at that time.

[CaddyXLR-V]

No.

I say let Zeta wait. GM should've brought us the full line of kappas and been first to the segment. With the Zetas they will just be following DCX. GM could've created, and owned a new segment, instead they will be competing in one that already has solid entries to compete with, that are already building a loyal customer base.

[ocnblu]

I still say GM has so much latent loyalty out there. They just haven't built the right car to get people back. Zeta's a huge first step, but yes, a smaller RWD platform would compliment Zeta beautifully. Kappa is fine as is... a sports car platform.

[Croc]

Can you back that "extra 6 months" up with facts and figures? 

I don't need to, and even if I did, I couldn't since I was dealing with hypotheticals. You said a definite. That a more flexible architecture WILL cost 5-10 times more. Prove it. My guestimate of 6-12 months for additional engineering isn't that unreasonable of a guess, given the short development time of Kappa. Essentially my point is that if GM hadn't trimmed the 12 months off of Kappa that they had, they would have a more flexible platform...not a Swiss Army Knife platform, but something MORE flexible than they currently have.

Here's one more thing to consider. Kappa could be the most flexible architecture on the planet, and it's assembly line still wouldn't be able to build more than 40,000 of them. And that's because Kappa was designed to be built by hand and in low volume. There is very little automation on the Kappa line. And some of the construction processes don't lend themselves to high volume/automation.

Frankly, this argument is stupid. So Kappas start out hand-built. As volume increases, GM automates it more. GM is idling/closing plants across the nation...I'm sure if they produced a higher volume Kappa they could have found a plant to build it.

And as far as VLE's not being involved...you're kidding me, right? It's their job to be involved. The Buick guy would want more leg room.  The Saturn guy wants more headroom. The Chevy guy (who is probably footing the lion's share of the tab), wants to make a Camaro, but needs to re-engineer for 400-500 hp. The Cadillac guy wants more refinement. What does the Pontiac guy want? It's a Pandora's box.

No, I'm not kidding. Just because the platform is developed doesn't mean it's earmarked from the start for every division to use it. Whether or not Kappa were delayed 6 months to further engineer it has no bearing on the fact the first two vehicles off of it were SKY/Solstice, two nearly identical vehicles. Was the Saturn guy holding everything up because he wanted more leg room? Please.

Basically, GM was once again being shortsighted. Had they the forsight, they would have made the platform more flexible and more usable for FUTURE PROJECTS. Not every vehicle is envisioned at the outset of a platform.

[Guest Josh]

This is going to come off as bad as I want it to be but Croc, you're showing you know absolutely nothing about the production of a vehicle. If you think the "Saturn guy" is not looking out for his specs, requirements while the "Pontiac guy" is then you are sadly mistaken my friend.

The Solstice was to be based off of the Corvette platform but the Chevrolet guys stopped that one REAL quick!

[Chazman]

I don't need to, and even if I did, I couldn't since I was dealing with hypotheticals.  You said a definite.  That a more flexible architecture WILL cost 5-10 times more.  Prove it.  My guestimate of 6-12 months for additional engineering isn't that unreasonable of a guess, given the short development time of Kappa.  Essentially my point is that if GM hadn't trimmed the 12 months off of Kappa that they had, they would have a more flexible platform...not a Swiss Army Knife platform, but something MORE flexible than they currently have.

You're a funny fellow. What do you think, I've got a briefcase full of GM documents and I'm going to send you in a pdf file? What I said is based on what I know. Please feel free to completely disregard it if you want.

Frankly, this argument is stupid.  So Kappas start out hand-built.  As volume increases, GM automates it more.  GM is idling/closing plants across the nation...I'm sure if they produced a higher volume Kappa they could have found a plant to build it.

Really? Just like that. Kinda like Mickey Rooney used to say "hey kids, lets do a show", and magically a set appeared. Stupid??? You do of course, realize....since apparently, you are not stupid, that Kappa's structure needs to be MIG welded.....by hand. MIG welding is hard to automate. And maybe someone not quite as stupid as I, can jump in on this, but you just don't add automation to a platform engineered to be built by hand. And lots of automation = $$$$$$.

No, I'm not kidding.  Just because the platform is developed doesn't mean it's earmarked from the start for every division to use it.  Whether or not Kappa were delayed 6 months to further engineer it has no bearing on the fact the first two vehicles off of it were SKY/Solstice, two nearly identical vehicles.  Was the Saturn guy holding everything up because he wanted more leg room?  Please.

No? I'm assuming that we're talking about engineering an architecture that can spawn a 2+2 coupe, 2+2 sedan, 2+2 or 2+3 wagon, 2 seater roadster and so on....isn't that what the last few pages of this thread is about? Or did I miss something? Is it possible that the Buick program manager might want more legroom in the backseat of his 2+2 convertible, which might have an affect on the styling of the Pontiac 2+2 coupe? Is that possible? And if Chevy wants an LS3...does that mean more structure, more rigidity, bigger brakes, bigger halfshafts, et, al? And how does that affect the Ecotec powered Saturn sedan?

Basically, GM was once again being shortsighted.  Had they the forsight, they would have made the platform more flexible and more usable for FUTURE PROJECTS.  Not every vehicle is envisioned at the outset of a platform.

Well, tell us how you would do it? How would you juggle all of these programs? GMT900, Lambda, Zeta, etc. There is only so much money and so many engineers. I'm looking forward to hearing what you've got to say.

[Croc]

This is going to come off as bad as I want it to be but Croc, you're showing you know absolutely nothing about the production of a vehicle. If you think the "Saturn guy" is not looking out for his specs, requirements while the "Pontiac guy" is then you are sadly mistaken my friend.

The Solstice was to be based off of the Corvette platform but the Chevrolet guys stopped that one REAL quick!

So, Josh, how does the SKY differ dimensionally from the Solstice? Does the SKY have more legroom? More trunk space? No, didn't think so. Nice attempt to attack my credibility, though next time you'll have to do better.

Vehicles of the same segment (i.e. midsized sedans, compact roadsters, etc) generally have identical or near-identical dimensions if they share a platform for obvious reasons. If Buick wants more trunk room, then they will have a longer rear overhang.

Also, if one vehicle requires extra engineering to accomodate some special need (brand-specific engine, different rear seat, etc) then it will just come out later than the other models on the same platform...in other words one vehicle won't hold up the entire platform. Did Solstice get delayed until SKY was ready? No.

[Guest Josh]

But, if you add more rear overhang you are going to throw off the dimensions of the vehicle and the weld points to ensure structural rigidness to prevent flux, etc.

It's not as easy as it sounds. Most platforms can only see 3 or 4 different vehicles based off of it and all are nearly identicle in terms of length, wheelbase, etc.

The Sky was made to give the Solstice a business case. Where's the Nomad? It should be as easy as adding a few inches in rear overhang, right?

[Croc]

You're a funny fellow.    What do you think, I've got a briefcase full of GM documents and I'm going to send you in a pdf file? What I said is based on what I know. Please feel free to completely disregard it if you want.

You make a claim like that, though, and you need at least some anecdotal proof. Did a similar program cost that much more? Just guessing 5-10x more cost isn't very convincing.

Really? Just like that. Kinda like Mickey Rooney used to say "hey kids, lets do a show", and magically a set appeared. Stupid??? You do of course, realize....since apparently, you are not stupid, that Kappa's structure needs to be MIG welded.....by hand. MIG welding is hard to automate. And maybe someone not quite as stupid as I, can jump in on this, but you just don't add automation to a platform engineered to be built by hand. And lots of automation = $$$$$$.

Not every Kappa would have to be produced in one plant. The GMT900s are produced in 3. The point was that GM would have the capacity to support volume if that's what they wanted. Even if they just had two plants hand-building Kappas at a max capacity of 40k, then that's still twice as much as current.

No? I'm assuming that we're talking about engineering an architecture that can spawn a 2+2 coupe, 2+2 sedan, 2+2 or 2+3 wagon, 2 seater roadster and so on....isn't that what the last few pages of this thread is about? Or did I miss something?  Is it possible that the Buick program manager might want more legroom in the backseat of his 2+2 convertible, which might have an affect on the styling of the Pontiac 2+2 coupe? Is that possible? And if Chevy wants an LS3...does that mean more structure, more rigidity, bigger brakes, bigger halfshafts, et, al? And how does that affect the Ecotec powered Saturn sedan?

Huh?? The basic engineering of a platform would be completed for the vehicles initially planned for it. In Kappa's case, that was the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn SKY. None of these other body styles had been greenlighted at the time. That said, GM should have made Kappa more flexible so they could have feasibly been done.

As for your hypothetical scenarios, the Buick affecting the Pontiac's styling would only have an effect if the two were being developed simultaneously with the intention of having identical dimensions. Again, that wasn't the case with Kappa. The Buick would have come later, and the essential architecture would have been completed. Had Kappa been flexible, then Buick could stretch it slightly to accomodate that legroom, but that wouldn't affect the Pontiac.

What you're saying is like saying the Sigma STS wanting more legroom would stretch and affect the Sigma CTS and its styling...it doesn't. Even though Sigma isn't all that flexible either, it can at least be feasibly stretched a bit to accomodate different lengths, unlike Kappa.

Well, tell us how you would do it? How would you juggle all of these programs? GMT900, Lambda, Zeta, etc.  There is only so much money and so many engineers. I'm looking forward to hearing what you've got to say.

What do you mean? The same way they develop any other program and juggle all of them. All that was really needed was for an engineer or two to say "Hey, let's make sure this platform can be stretched to accomodate more than just the two roadsters currently planned for it!" As it is now, GM made a platform that is great for small, 2-seat roadsters...they try to develop other vehicles, and go "&#036;h&#33;...we didn't develop this program with a 2+2 wagon in mind...and there's no way to give it any cargo space."

The whole "juggling" platforms just doesn't make much sense from an argument standpoint...Kappa was already being developed, my gripe is that GM didn't develop it enough. Would it have cost more money? Yes...but until you can provide some basis for your 5-10x more cost estimate, I am going to continue to assert it won't be anything near that. The additional costs would be recouped through the additional volume and higher MSRPs that these other variants could provide.

Also, a more flexible platform is something GM could be using for over a decade. Limited unflexible platforms have much shorter lifecycles, meaning that there is less time for GM to recoup the sunk costs. Look at Ford's Panthers. That was an incredibly well-engineered platform in its day as it has lasted all this time and only in the past 5 years has it been showing its age less than gracefully. The point is, though, that all of the sunk costs in engineering that platform were paid off loooooooooong ago.

[Northstar]

The Torana platform was far too expensive for GM to build, so I think that we were either going to end up with the Solstice and Sky or nothing at all with GM's financial situation. Maybe what evok saw/heard was going to be way too expensive for GM at the time, and when the coffers are lined again, maybe we'll see a more expensive Kappa II.

[Croc]

But, if you add more rear overhang you are going to throw off the dimensions of the vehicle and the weld points to ensure structural rigidness to prevent flux, etc.

It's not as easy as it sounds. Most platforms can only see 3 or 4 different vehicles based off of it and all are nearly identicle in terms of length, wheelbase, etc.

The Sky was made to give the Solstice a business case. Where's the Nomad? It should be as easy as adding a few inches in rear overhang, right?

Well of course the structural rigidity would have to be addressed in adding the extra inch or two of overhang.

I am well aware that generally a platform spawns identically dimensioned vehicles...though look at the last-gen G-body. Aurora had a dramatically-different overhang than LeSabre or Deville.

As for the Nomad, tweaking the exterior dimensions for an extra inch or two of length wouldn't be enough for a vehicle like the Nomad. It would still be painfully deficient in cargo room--that's why a flexible Kappa that can be stretched would be necessary for a Nomad.

[Chazman]

Okay, eventhough I'm getting bored with this exchange, I've got some time to kill until the Sopranos start...

You make a claim like that, though, and you need at least some anecdotal proof.  Did a similar program cost that much more?  Just guessing 5-10x more cost isn't very convincing.

Not just a guess, and actually I'm surprised you are questioning it. And not just because I said so, but because I think it would make sense to anyone who follows the auto industry. I'll tell you what, I'll share some anectodal evidence with you if you can explain to me how you came up with the "6 more months" time frame to convert the current Kappa into the super duper flexible Kappa.

Not every Kappa would have to be produced in one plant.  The GMT900s are produced in 3.  The point was that GM would have the capacity to support volume if that's what they wanted.  Even if they just had two plants hand-building Kappas at a max capacity of 40k, then that's still twice as much as current.

It's one thing to quickly set up shop in the corner of an idled plant....it's another thing to use it as a manufacturing paradigm for multiple plants.

Huh??  The basic engineering of a platform would be completed for the vehicles initially planned for it.  In Kappa's case, that was the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn SKY.  None of these other body styles had been greenlighted at the time.  That said, GM should have made Kappa more flexible so they could have feasibly been done.

Shoulda/woulda/coulda......developing it for more than the low volume roadsters would...like I said... cost way more time and money. But of course, you're about to show me how it would have been FREE, had GM only given it 6 more (free) months.

As for your hypothetical scenarios, the Buick affecting the Pontiac's styling would only have an effect if the two were being developed simultaneously with the intention of having identical dimensions.  Again, that wasn't the case with Kappa.  The Buick would have come later, and the essential architecture would have been completed.  Had Kappa been flexible, then Buick could stretch it slightly to accomodate that legroom, but that wouldn't affect the Pontiac.

You've lost me....

What you're saying is like saying the Sigma STS wanting more legroom would stretch and affect the Sigma CTS and its styling...it doesn't.  Even though Sigma isn't all that flexible either, it can at least be feasibly stretched a bit to accomodate different lengths, unlike Kappa.

STS styling was affected by the CTS. The next CTS will be affected by the current STS. Look up commonality.

What do you mean?  The same way they develop any other program and juggle all of them.  All that was really needed was for an engineer or two to say "Hey, let's make sure this platform can be stretched to accomodate more than just the two roadsters currently planned for it!"  As it is now, GM made a platform that is great for small, 2-seat roadsters...they try to develop other vehicles, and go "&#036;h&#33;...we didn't develop this program with a 2+2 wagon in mind...and there's no way to give it any cargo space."

If it were just that easy.......

Okay, outta time gotta go.....

Edited May 1, 2006 by Chazman

[Croc]

you have nothing to show. You need to be better at bluffing...I hope you don't play poker much.

I NEVER said 6 months would make Kappa the amazingly flexible Kappa platform. All I've ever said is that additional time would yield additional flexibility. Are you going to dispute that?

I've also never said ANYTHING about additional development time being free. You came up with that on your own.

Also, derr CTS influenced STS...but reread my post. STS did not influence CTS...which is what you were saying: the later "Buick" would hold up and influence the "Pontiac." No, the opposite would happen. Reread my post.

I don't really want to continue this much either...it seems pretty circular.

[Chazman]

:

I NEVER said 6 months would make Kappa the amazingly flexible Kappa platform.  All I've ever said is that additional time would yield additional flexibility.  Are you going to dispute that?

Oh, okay....you're right. You merely said that the added six months would add additional flexibility....not amazing flexibility. How would they have used that added 6 months to add that flexibility? And why six months and not 6 weeks or two years? And why don't they simply add that flexibility now?

Edited May 1, 2006 by Chazman

[Croc]

Oh, okay....you're right. You merely said that the added six months would add additional flexibility....not amazing flexibility. How would they have used that added 6 months to add that flexibilty? And why six months and not 6 weeks or two years? And why don't they simply add that flexibilty now?

Ummm...what do you mean "how"? The same way they continue to develop programs. I'm not a platform engineer; if you want to know exactly how they go about continuing to develop a platform, ask one.

My estimates have been 6-12 months. That is an educated guess based on how much time it usually takes to develop a platform and how much time was shaved off of Kappa. If it could be done in 6 weeks, great!

Why not add that flexibility now? Please. Because the platform is finished. It wasn't engineered from the start to be flexible...that flexibility just can't be "added in" because it would require a fundamental reengineering that would make it essentially an all-new platform due to the sheer amount of structural changes necessary.

[Chazman]

Ummm...what do you mean "how"?  The same way they continue to develop programs.  I'm not a platform engineer; if you want to know exactly how they go about continuing to develop a platform, ask one.

I have.

Kappa is, what it is...both in it's conception, design and the way it's manufactured. That's it. Another 6 months would have made no difference. It's not like it has to ferment or anything.

For it to be manufactured in high volume, on automated assembly lines, in various configurations....would have required a completely new platform. Cost? At least $1 billion....just like any other volume architecture.

[Croc]

I have.

Kappa is, what it is...both in it's conception, design and the way it's manufactured. That's it. Another 6 months would have made no difference. It's not like it has to ferment or anything.

For it to be manufactured in high volume, on automated assembly lines, in various configurations....would have required a completely new platform. Cost? At least $1 billion....just like any other volume architecture.

Well at this point, yes. But had it been designed from the get-go to accomodate more flexibility, that would have required slightly more time. This isn't that difficult to comprehend. At this point nothing can be done. No one is saying at this point that it can be made more useful.

I wasn't meaning to convey that adding 6-12 months at the END of the development cycle would have done anything, but that the engineering work to CREATE a flexible platform would have caused it to come to market about 6-12 months later. ALL I HAVE BEEN SAYING IS THAT A MORE FLEXIBLE PLATFORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCEIVED FROM THE BEGINNING. HAVE I EVER SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY? NO!

I'm finished with this thread. If you read my posts throughout this thread and were still dense enough to completely misinterpret what I have been saying this much to conclude that I have been suggesting Kappa be "fermented"...seriously think about that for a minute. If "fermenting" were all that was needed, that could be undertaken now. NO! I have used language throughout this thread that "fundamentally" Kappa is inflexible. IT IS. I have also REPEATEDLY stated that Kappa should have been designed FROM THE BEGINNING with greater flexibility. I've used words such as "forsight" that further make it very clear that things should have been conceived BEFORE a limited platform were developed.

If I seem frustrated right now, it is because I cannot see where I have been remotely vague or unclear about my stance on Kappa so that you would seemingly misinterpret it to the extent that you apparently have.

You've been debating me in this thread, when in the end you essentially agree with me: Kappa is Kappa, Kappa is limited, and that if GM wants a flexible compact RWD platform (which it does) that it would need to develop a whole new one because Kappa was not developed to be flexible.

Sir, you need to read posts more carefully.

Croc, signing off

Edited May 1, 2006 by Croc

[Guest Josh]

Croc, get over it. You are wrong.

Lets look forward to 2009/10.

It might make you happy. Then again there is no pleasing you, so it probably won't.

But either way, Charlie, I'm throwing in YOUR towel because I'm sick of reading the pointless banter. It's not all gravy Croc and this businesses does not work in "6 month" time frames to make something flexible. How long did the G6 GXP take? It ain't all that easy.

I rest my case. Off to bed.

[RJB]

I believe this statement is true about Corvettes being sold out. We had a yellow Z06 in the lobby here at the tech center. Poof gone! I only got to drool over it for a very short period of time. Usually the cars they have in the lobby sit for months. Not the case here. I am very sad, it brightened my day when I came in. I'm thinking they gave it to a dealership to fill an order.