Chazman

If it were my car, it would be in black primer.

Hey, I might be interested in buying this site, I've been here from the beginning. Does Walt still own it? Someone give me some details, I'm serious.

This is what the AE had to say today:

Yes, in that it needs to weigh as little as possible....which, I admit, will be tough, considering factors like crash ratings, component weight for high horsepower and enough structural rigidity for expected chassis refinement, etc. With all due respect to my buddy Scott, I can imagine a 3,500 lbs car reaching all the previously mentioned performance benchmarks (and adding CAFE and emissions as well), much more inexpensively than a 3,900 lbs car. IOW, any added cost put toward weight savings might be a very good value on investment in the long term.

YES!!!

http://64.65.63.61/forums/showthread.php?t=450541

Oh, I don't think it'll get the Northstar....but I think they'll give the engine compartment that extra inch or so of clearance for one.

An oversight on GM's part. Something that will be fixed in '08.

I'm sure it will too. I just don't remember anyone using the word Zeta and Northstar (or it's replacement) in the same sentence before.

And here's another thing. Will a Northstar fit in the large Zetas? I'm sure they would need to...but I was just wondering.

I can guarantee you that if the Velite concept had been approved...it would not have been for young people.

For right now, Velite is dead.

Although the Impala will have alot of under the skin commonality with the Commodore, the Camaro and it's platform are still being created. Even if the assembly lines were operational today, Camaro still wouldn't be ready by next year.

I seem to also remember Bob Lutz telling us what the Bel Air would be priced at IF it were approved. He says alot of things about alot of cars.

Like I said, you're going to be disappointed.

All I can say is, that you will be sadly disappointed. No GTO in the current plan. And certainly no Camaro next year.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I literally wince when they find a cherry old car and then dispose of everything except for the body shell. I don't know why they couldn't use the chassis of the Impala they're working on right now.

As do you. That... and maybe some time at charm school wouldn't hurt, because when you imply someone is a liar, is stupid or is dense...it tends to piss them off. And hey...thanks for signing off.

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.

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?

Okay, eventhough I'm getting bored with this exchange, I've got some time to kill until the Sopranos start... 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. 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. 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. You've lost me.... STS styling was affected by the CTS. The next CTS will be affected by the current STS. Look up commonality. If it were just that easy....... Okay, outta time gotta go.....

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. 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 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? 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.

No.

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.

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...