DeLoreanized C7
02-01-2010, 05:02 PM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2002
Location: Chapel Hill NC
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DeLoreanized C7
IMO:
The emphasis in GM will be on the Camaro
The C7 will be delayed.
When it appears:
It will be built on the same unibody chassis as the Camaro
It will be built at the same plant as the Camaro
It will be an exercise in badge engineering from the Camaro ala the Cobra designation on the Mustang
The emphasis in GM will be on the Camaro
The C7 will be delayed.
When it appears:
It will be built on the same unibody chassis as the Camaro
It will be built at the same plant as the Camaro
It will be an exercise in badge engineering from the Camaro ala the Cobra designation on the Mustang
02-01-2010, 05:47 PM
#2
Instructor
IMO:
The emphasis in GM will be on the Camaro
The C7 will be delayed.
When it appears:
It will be built on the same unibody chassis as the Camaro
It will be built at the same plant as the Camaro
It will be an exercise in badge engineering from the Camaro ala the Cobra designation on the Mustang
The emphasis in GM will be on the Camaro
The C7 will be delayed.
When it appears:
It will be built on the same unibody chassis as the Camaro
It will be built at the same plant as the Camaro
It will be an exercise in badge engineering from the Camaro ala the Cobra designation on the Mustang
02-02-2010, 09:32 AM
#4
Drifting
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2002
Location: Chapel Hill NC
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from Corvette from the Inside: (pg 259) “the good folks in the middle management at Chevrolet and GM have never really understood how special the brand (Corvette) is. . . . if they ever get their way - perhaps during a time of economic downturn – Corvette could still be threatened (with cancellation) or at least might get watered down. And if that is done (watered down), the fanatic customer could be driven away and the brand would or could die.”
IMO:
It is a time of economic downturn.
Chevrolet and GM middle management doesn’t understand the Corvette.
The upper level management, GM Chair, GM Marketing/Sales head and most dealers do not understand the Corvette or the Corvette customer.
Facts isolating the Corvette from the mainstream GM car:
No other GM car is based on the 2-3-2 chassis architecture.
No other GM car uses a separate body on chassis.
No other GM car uses a transaxle.
On other GM car uses the body material.
No other GM car uses the compromise aluminum chassis architecture.
(Compromise in that the aluminum chassis design had to be compromised in order to be built on the standard steel chassis production line.)
Corvette sells about 15,000 units a year.
Less than 500 production line workers work at BG.
The Corvette is built at a plant which can only build cars based on the 2-3-2 chassis architecture.
If the C7 is to continue to develop the Corvette as a brand it will require considerable capital investment in product and production facilities.
IMO:
The GM halo car is the VOLT not the Corvette.
The Camaro introduction was accompanied by the identification of the Camaro as the GM "sports car" of the future.
Possible Futures:
1.Produce the C6 and very low investment cost variants (as the GS) as long as there is a market. When that market dries up, shut down the BG plant and build a badge engineered Camaro ala the “Shelby” Mustang at the Camaro plant.
2.As above for the C6 and BG, but then build at the Camaro plant a 2 seat version of the Camaro and badge engineer A corvette. (unibody)
3. As above for the C6, but build a BMW Vision EfficientDynamics type Corvette in the 5000 to 15000 unit range at BG.
The BMW Vision EfficientDynamics is a 356-horsepower and 590 pound-feet of torque plug-in electric car (one lithium-polymer battery stack + two electric motors) with dedicated lighter-weight three-cylinder diesel range-extending engine mounted amidships. The production car will retain the prototype’s powertrain and basic sub-3,000-pound assembly but “there will be less of the synthetic glass and more solid structure added to the final design.
IMO:
It is a time of economic downturn.
Chevrolet and GM middle management doesn’t understand the Corvette.
The upper level management, GM Chair, GM Marketing/Sales head and most dealers do not understand the Corvette or the Corvette customer.
Facts isolating the Corvette from the mainstream GM car:
No other GM car is based on the 2-3-2 chassis architecture.
No other GM car uses a separate body on chassis.
No other GM car uses a transaxle.
On other GM car uses the body material.
No other GM car uses the compromise aluminum chassis architecture.
(Compromise in that the aluminum chassis design had to be compromised in order to be built on the standard steel chassis production line.)
Corvette sells about 15,000 units a year.
Less than 500 production line workers work at BG.
The Corvette is built at a plant which can only build cars based on the 2-3-2 chassis architecture.
If the C7 is to continue to develop the Corvette as a brand it will require considerable capital investment in product and production facilities.
IMO:
The GM halo car is the VOLT not the Corvette.
The Camaro introduction was accompanied by the identification of the Camaro as the GM "sports car" of the future.
Possible Futures:
1.Produce the C6 and very low investment cost variants (as the GS) as long as there is a market. When that market dries up, shut down the BG plant and build a badge engineered Camaro ala the “Shelby” Mustang at the Camaro plant.
2.As above for the C6 and BG, but then build at the Camaro plant a 2 seat version of the Camaro and badge engineer A corvette. (unibody)
3. As above for the C6, but build a BMW Vision EfficientDynamics type Corvette in the 5000 to 15000 unit range at BG.
The BMW Vision EfficientDynamics is a 356-horsepower and 590 pound-feet of torque plug-in electric car (one lithium-polymer battery stack + two electric motors) with dedicated lighter-weight three-cylinder diesel range-extending engine mounted amidships. The production car will retain the prototype’s powertrain and basic sub-3,000-pound assembly but “there will be less of the synthetic glass and more solid structure added to the final design.
Last edited by I Bin Therbefor; 02-02-2010 at 09:34 AM. Reason: spelling
02-02-2010, 12:29 PM
#5
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2000
Location: North Dallas 40 TX
Posts: 6,451
Received 4,375 Likes
on
2,066 Posts
Quote from Corvette from the Inside: (pg 259) “the good folks in the middle management at Chevrolet and GM have never really understood how special the brand (Corvette) is. . . . if they ever get their way - perhaps during a time of economic downturn – Corvette could still be threatened (with cancellation) or at least might get watered down. And if that is done (watered down), the fanatic customer could be driven away and the brand would or could die.”
IMO:
It is a time of economic downturn.
Chevrolet and GM middle management doesn’t understand the Corvette.
The upper level management, GM Chair, GM Marketing/Sales head and most dealers do not understand the Corvette or the Corvette customer.
Facts isolating the Corvette from the mainstream GM car:
No other GM car is based on the 2-3-2 chassis architecture.
No other GM car uses a separate body on chassis.
No other GM car uses a transaxle.
On other GM car uses the body material.
No other GM car uses the compromise aluminum chassis architecture.
(Compromise in that the aluminum chassis design had to be compromised in order to be built on the standard steel chassis production line.)
Corvette sells about 15,000 units a year.
Less than 500 production line workers work at BG.
The Corvette is built at a plant which can only build cars based on the 2-3-2 chassis architecture.
If the C7 is to continue to develop the Corvette as a brand it will require considerable capital investment in product and production facilities.
IMO:
The GM halo car is the VOLT not the Corvette.
The Camaro introduction was accompanied by the identification of the Camaro as the GM "sports car" of the future.
Possible Futures:
1.Produce the C6 and very low investment cost variants (as the GS) as long as there is a market. When that market dries up, shut down the BG plant and build a badge engineered Camaro ala the “Shelby” Mustang at the Camaro plant.
2.As above for the C6 and BG, but then build at the Camaro plant a 2 seat version of the Camaro and badge engineer A corvette. (unibody)
3. As above for the C6, but build a BMW Vision EfficientDynamics type Corvette in the 5000 to 15000 unit range at BG.
The BMW Vision EfficientDynamics is a 356-horsepower and 590 pound-feet of torque plug-in electric car (one lithium-polymer battery stack + two electric motors) with dedicated lighter-weight three-cylinder diesel range-extending engine mounted amidships. The production car will retain the prototype’s powertrain and basic sub-3,000-pound assembly but “there will be less of the synthetic glass and more solid structure added to the final design.
IMO:
It is a time of economic downturn.
Chevrolet and GM middle management doesn’t understand the Corvette.
The upper level management, GM Chair, GM Marketing/Sales head and most dealers do not understand the Corvette or the Corvette customer.
Facts isolating the Corvette from the mainstream GM car:
No other GM car is based on the 2-3-2 chassis architecture.
No other GM car uses a separate body on chassis.
No other GM car uses a transaxle.
On other GM car uses the body material.
No other GM car uses the compromise aluminum chassis architecture.
(Compromise in that the aluminum chassis design had to be compromised in order to be built on the standard steel chassis production line.)
Corvette sells about 15,000 units a year.
Less than 500 production line workers work at BG.
The Corvette is built at a plant which can only build cars based on the 2-3-2 chassis architecture.
If the C7 is to continue to develop the Corvette as a brand it will require considerable capital investment in product and production facilities.
IMO:
The GM halo car is the VOLT not the Corvette.
The Camaro introduction was accompanied by the identification of the Camaro as the GM "sports car" of the future.
Possible Futures:
1.Produce the C6 and very low investment cost variants (as the GS) as long as there is a market. When that market dries up, shut down the BG plant and build a badge engineered Camaro ala the “Shelby” Mustang at the Camaro plant.
2.As above for the C6 and BG, but then build at the Camaro plant a 2 seat version of the Camaro and badge engineer A corvette. (unibody)
3. As above for the C6, but build a BMW Vision EfficientDynamics type Corvette in the 5000 to 15000 unit range at BG.
The BMW Vision EfficientDynamics is a 356-horsepower and 590 pound-feet of torque plug-in electric car (one lithium-polymer battery stack + two electric motors) with dedicated lighter-weight three-cylinder diesel range-extending engine mounted amidships. The production car will retain the prototype’s powertrain and basic sub-3,000-pound assembly but “there will be less of the synthetic glass and more solid structure added to the final design.
The Corvette does not have a transaxle. It has a rear mounted transmission and a separate differential. So no proprietary transaxle.
While Corvette may be at 15k now, in many years of the past decade it have exceeded 30k in production.
While it maybe the only CAR that is body on frame (really more body panels on a space frame), the trucks are body on frame.
The Corvette is where they test production of many items that move to other product lines. The hydroformed frame rails is a great example, pioneered on the Vette and moved to the trucks that were the highest volume vehicle they produced. What they learn from the Vette on the aluminum frame will help them move that technology to other platforms in the quest to reduce weight and improve mileage.
A more likely scenario that being based off the Camaro is to use the VVA chassis type technology from Lotus as a platform as it is designed for lower volumes and to have great flexibility in production.
You are likely to see more SMC and GRP body panels on other models in the quest for reduced weight. The last Camaro had front fenders of one of those, and IIRC so were the doors.
Given the inaccuracies of the data presnted by GM Insider, the prediction does not hold much weight with me.
02-02-2010, 02:07 PM
#6
Drifting
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2002
Location: Chapel Hill NC
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Corvette does not have a transaxle. It has a rear mounted transmission and a separate differential. So no proprietary transaxle.
While Corvette may be at 15k now, in many years of the past decade it have exceeded 30k in production.
While it maybe the only CAR that is body on frame (really more body panels on a space frame), the trucks are body on frame.
The Corvette is where they test production of many items that move to other product lines. The hydroformed frame rails is a great example, pioneered on the Vette and moved to the trucks that were the highest volume vehicle they produced. What they learn from the Vette on the aluminum frame will help them move that technology to other platforms in the quest to reduce weight and improve mileage.
A more likely scenario that being based off the Camaro is to use the VVA chassis type technology from Lotus as a platform as it is designed for lower volumes and to have great flexibility in production.
You are likely to see more SMC and GRP body panels on other models in the quest for reduced weight. The last Camaro had front fenders of one of those, and IIRC so were the doors.
Given the inaccuracies of the data presnted by GM Insider, the prediction does not hold much weight with me.
While Corvette may be at 15k now, in many years of the past decade it have exceeded 30k in production.
While it maybe the only CAR that is body on frame (really more body panels on a space frame), the trucks are body on frame.
The Corvette is where they test production of many items that move to other product lines. The hydroformed frame rails is a great example, pioneered on the Vette and moved to the trucks that were the highest volume vehicle they produced. What they learn from the Vette on the aluminum frame will help them move that technology to other platforms in the quest to reduce weight and improve mileage.
A more likely scenario that being based off the Camaro is to use the VVA chassis type technology from Lotus as a platform as it is designed for lower volumes and to have great flexibility in production.
You are likely to see more SMC and GRP body panels on other models in the quest for reduced weight. The last Camaro had front fenders of one of those, and IIRC so were the doors.
Given the inaccuracies of the data presnted by GM Insider, the prediction does not hold much weight with me.
According to some speculation on production, this year's numbers are closer to 8,000. 30k was a while ago.
I've heard the statement that the Vett is where GM tests things and moves them to other vehicles. Nowhere, in any GM press release, SAE paper, biography or auto biography of a Vett engineer can I find such a plan or any other documentation, just speculation by Vett fans (of which I am one - a fan). What I do find is Vett engineers looking at the technologies being developed and doing a very good job of selectively applying them to the Vett. That includes the hydroforming. Reference, Corvette from the Inside for one. I think the Vett as a research vehicle is all hindsite. Using hydroforming on trucks is not going to keep BG open.
A VVA chassis type technology from Lotus as a platform would be VERY nice, but it costs money to engineer that and I don't see GM putting that kind of money into the Vett.
Rumor for the coming year model is an update to the Z06 and two new colors. Maybe apply the ZR1 suspension?
Your reference to the GM Insider has me at a loss. I'll research it.
Last edited by I Bin Therbefor; 02-02-2010 at 03:35 PM. Reason: spelling
02-03-2010, 11:41 AM
#7
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jul 2000
Location: North Dallas 40 TX
Posts: 6,451
Received 4,375 Likes
on
2,066 Posts
From Wikipedia (OK, maybe not authoritative)
1999 33,270
2000 33,682
2001 35,627
2002 35,767
2003 35,469
2004 34,064
2005 37,372
2006 34,021
2007 40,561
2008 35,310
2009 16,956
For the life of me, I was sure I saw a link to GM Inside news (maybe it was someone else) that mentioned a number of the same items as you. The Camaro chassis one stood out to me. Now I cannot find the link.
Let me accept you position that the short transmission (no tail housing) and the hydroformed rails were actually developed for the trucks, and the LSx engine, they all came out in the Vette first. This would also mean that the Corvette development cost is not that great, as it reuses development that is already done.
Actually Lotus would engineer the chassis for GM. More correctly they would adapt the design to the Corvette specifications for wheelbase, track, engine size and position. It is designed to GREATLY reduce engineering costs.
I am not sure that the chassis of the current version would have to change that much for the C7. Some tweaking to improve the stiffness to new higher standards, take adantage of improved hydroforming technology to reduce weight and increase strength and stiffness.
I am not as concerned about the future of the Corvette as some are. I realize it has almost been cancelled several times, yet it survived, inspite of the notion that the GM management team does not understand the Corvette or the Corvette customer.
Car companies in general don't understand a lot of things. They think a car is like a toaster. They do focus groups and strive for a high average rating, say 7 out of 10. This may work on a Camry, or other cars that are basic transportation. However, for many vehicles that is not the right goal. If everybody rates a car a 7 they think, an average of 7 that is great. If a car is rate a 1 by half the people and a 10 by the other half, that is an average of 5.5 so not nearly as good a response as the first car, so they go with the first design. That is erroneous in thinking. People who rate a car a 10 will buy one when the time and money comes, maybe even before. People who rate a car a 7 are not motivated to by that car now, or maybe even ever. They may as well buy used.
I think they will go to an aluminum chassis for all models. I think they may not changed the chassis design other than small tweaks mentioned above. I think they will go to direct injection and maybe variable valve timing. I expect no radical changes in the C7. More C5 to C6, than C3 to C4
1999 33,270
2000 33,682
2001 35,627
2002 35,767
2003 35,469
2004 34,064
2005 37,372
2006 34,021
2007 40,561
2008 35,310
2009 16,956
For the life of me, I was sure I saw a link to GM Inside news (maybe it was someone else) that mentioned a number of the same items as you. The Camaro chassis one stood out to me. Now I cannot find the link.
Let me accept you position that the short transmission (no tail housing) and the hydroformed rails were actually developed for the trucks, and the LSx engine, they all came out in the Vette first. This would also mean that the Corvette development cost is not that great, as it reuses development that is already done.
Actually Lotus would engineer the chassis for GM. More correctly they would adapt the design to the Corvette specifications for wheelbase, track, engine size and position. It is designed to GREATLY reduce engineering costs.
I am not sure that the chassis of the current version would have to change that much for the C7. Some tweaking to improve the stiffness to new higher standards, take adantage of improved hydroforming technology to reduce weight and increase strength and stiffness.
I am not as concerned about the future of the Corvette as some are. I realize it has almost been cancelled several times, yet it survived, inspite of the notion that the GM management team does not understand the Corvette or the Corvette customer.
Car companies in general don't understand a lot of things. They think a car is like a toaster. They do focus groups and strive for a high average rating, say 7 out of 10. This may work on a Camry, or other cars that are basic transportation. However, for many vehicles that is not the right goal. If everybody rates a car a 7 they think, an average of 7 that is great. If a car is rate a 1 by half the people and a 10 by the other half, that is an average of 5.5 so not nearly as good a response as the first car, so they go with the first design. That is erroneous in thinking. People who rate a car a 10 will buy one when the time and money comes, maybe even before. People who rate a car a 7 are not motivated to by that car now, or maybe even ever. They may as well buy used.
I think they will go to an aluminum chassis for all models. I think they may not changed the chassis design other than small tweaks mentioned above. I think they will go to direct injection and maybe variable valve timing. I expect no radical changes in the C7. More C5 to C6, than C3 to C4
02-03-2010, 12:54 PM
#8
Le Mans Master
They do focus groups and strive for a high average rating, say 7 out of 10. This may work on a Camry, or other cars that are basic transportation. However, for many vehicles that is not the right goal.
I think they will go to an aluminum chassis for all models. I think they may not changed the chassis design other than small tweaks mentioned above. I think they will go to direct injection and maybe variable valve timing. I expect no radical changes in the C7. More C5 to C6, than C3 to C4
I think they will go to an aluminum chassis for all models. I think they may not changed the chassis design other than small tweaks mentioned above. I think they will go to direct injection and maybe variable valve timing. I expect no radical changes in the C7. More C5 to C6, than C3 to C4
As to focus groups, the target audience is very limited for a Vette compared to a car like the Camry. I would like to find out how GM deals with this kind of research.Totally agree about the chassis going aluminum for all models, the DI and VVT. The radical changes will not necessarily be seen as I think there will be a lot of changes to connection technology to save weight in the C7.
02-03-2010, 01:53 PM
#9
Drifting
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2002
Location: Chapel Hill NC
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Wikipedia (OK, maybe not authoritative)
1999 33,270
2000 33,682
2001 35,627
2002 35,767
2003 35,469
2004 34,064
2005 37,372
2006 34,021
2007 40,561
2008 35,310
2009 16,956
For the life of me, I was sure I saw a link to GM Inside news (maybe it was someone else) that mentioned a number of the same items as you. The Camaro chassis one stood out to me. Now I cannot find the link.
Let me accept you position that the short transmission (no tail housing) and the hydroformed rails were actually developed for the trucks, and the LSx engine, they all came out in the Vette first. This would also mean that the Corvette development cost is not that great, as it reuses development that is already done.
Actually Lotus would engineer the chassis for GM. More correctly they would adapt the design to the Corvette specifications for wheelbase, track, engine size and position. It is designed to GREATLY reduce engineering costs.
I am not sure that the chassis of the current version would have to change that much for the C7. Some tweaking to improve the stiffness to new higher standards, take adantage of improved hydroforming technology to reduce weight and increase strength and stiffness.
I am not as concerned about the future of the Corvette as some are. I realize it has almost been cancelled several times, yet it survived, inspite of the notion that the GM management team does not understand the Corvette or the Corvette customer.
Car companies in general don't understand a lot of things. They think a car is like a toaster. They do focus groups and strive for a high average rating, say 7 out of 10. This may work on a Camry, or other cars that are basic transportation. However, for many vehicles that is not the right goal. If everybody rates a car a 7 they think, an average of 7 that is great. If a car is rate a 1 by half the people and a 10 by the other half, that is an average of 5.5 so not nearly as good a response as the first car, so they go with the first design. That is erroneous in thinking. People who rate a car a 10 will buy one when the time and money comes, maybe even before. People who rate a car a 7 are not motivated to by that car now, or maybe even ever. They may as well buy used.
I think they will go to an aluminum chassis for all models. I think they may not changed the chassis design other than small tweaks mentioned above. I think they will go to direct injection and maybe variable valve timing. I expect no radical changes in the C7. More C5 to C6, than C3 to C4
1999 33,270
2000 33,682
2001 35,627
2002 35,767
2003 35,469
2004 34,064
2005 37,372
2006 34,021
2007 40,561
2008 35,310
2009 16,956
For the life of me, I was sure I saw a link to GM Inside news (maybe it was someone else) that mentioned a number of the same items as you. The Camaro chassis one stood out to me. Now I cannot find the link.
Let me accept you position that the short transmission (no tail housing) and the hydroformed rails were actually developed for the trucks, and the LSx engine, they all came out in the Vette first. This would also mean that the Corvette development cost is not that great, as it reuses development that is already done.
Actually Lotus would engineer the chassis for GM. More correctly they would adapt the design to the Corvette specifications for wheelbase, track, engine size and position. It is designed to GREATLY reduce engineering costs.
I am not sure that the chassis of the current version would have to change that much for the C7. Some tweaking to improve the stiffness to new higher standards, take adantage of improved hydroforming technology to reduce weight and increase strength and stiffness.
I am not as concerned about the future of the Corvette as some are. I realize it has almost been cancelled several times, yet it survived, inspite of the notion that the GM management team does not understand the Corvette or the Corvette customer.
Car companies in general don't understand a lot of things. They think a car is like a toaster. They do focus groups and strive for a high average rating, say 7 out of 10. This may work on a Camry, or other cars that are basic transportation. However, for many vehicles that is not the right goal. If everybody rates a car a 7 they think, an average of 7 that is great. If a car is rate a 1 by half the people and a 10 by the other half, that is an average of 5.5 so not nearly as good a response as the first car, so they go with the first design. That is erroneous in thinking. People who rate a car a 10 will buy one when the time and money comes, maybe even before. People who rate a car a 7 are not motivated to by that car now, or maybe even ever. They may as well buy used.
I think they will go to an aluminum chassis for all models. I think they may not changed the chassis design other than small tweaks mentioned above. I think they will go to direct injection and maybe variable valve timing. I expect no radical changes in the C7. More C5 to C6, than C3 to C4
I have no problem with your engineering suggestions. I've even got a few myself.
My concern is over the actions of the political science, business and liberal arts majors who appear to be in the position of making the decisions as to the future of the Vett. Will they take advantage of the current situation to destroy that which they do not understand, the Vett? All it takes is a couple of decisions in the name of "good business" to drive away the customer base.
02-07-2010, 09:02 AM
#10
Drifting
Thread Starter
Member Since: Feb 2002
Location: Chapel Hill NC
Posts: 1,260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpha Chassis and v-6 engine?
From Motor Trend
Chevrolet's next Camaro will switch to the global Alpha platform that General Motors is developing for Cadillac's new BMW 3 Series fighter. The new Camaro is scheduled for the 2014 calendar year according to consultancy firm Grant Thornton LLP and analysis firm CSM Worldwide.
Grant Thornton director James Ricci outlined GM's rear-wheel-drive model plans in a presentation to the Automotive Press Association Thursday afternoon, on the subject of major automakers' move to more common, global platforms. He included some information GM probably would prefer hadn't gone public.
with the 2015 Camaro, the Alpha platform would replace the Sigma platform under Cadillac's CTS sedan a year earlier, in calendar '13 as the '14 model. Ricci says the CTS coupe and wagon would then be discontinued. As we've reported in the past, the next CTS is to grow in size, solidifying its position as Cadillac's mainstream luxury car.
The Alpha-based 3 Series fighter, codenamed ATS, would be the global-market luxury model slotted below the CTS in price. GM already has previewed a coupe version of the ATS. There will also be a sedan and possibly a wagon. The ATS is due in calendar '14, about the same time as the next Camaro.
Keep in mind that in Grant Thornton's world, "global platform" refers to manufacturing processes and the ability to build several related models in one factory. This would allow GM to adjust production between Camaro, ATS and CTS depending on demand.
So with Alpha handling two different-sized Cadillacs and the Camaro, it would have to be a very flexible RWD platform. We expect the CTS sedan to grow about half a foot in overall length from its current 191.8 inches. Alpha will thus accommodate at least two wheelbases; the current CTS has a 113.4-inch wheelbase and the Camaro's is 112.3.
We expect the next Camaro to be lighter, to GM North American President Mark Reuss' liking, and somewhat smaller, with a supercharged or turbocharged version of the gas direct-injection 3.6-liter V-6 the SS performance engine. Less heft will enable GM's entry in the muscle car battle to better challenge the more nimble Mustang. All cars will have to be more fuel efficient to meet 2012-16 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and the move in general will be to shorter overhangs and larger or unchanged wheelbases, in order to take advantage of the CAFE "footprint" formula.
GM had been considering a next-generation Camaro on the Alpha platform since before the latest model launched on the Zeta platform last year. Designed for Cadillac, though, it was considered too expensive for a sub-$30,000 (base price) sport coupe. The Grant Thornton revelation suggests that various levels of, for example, aluminum and other lightweight materials will be used, depending on whether it's a Chevy or a Cadillac.
Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/6604864/fu...#ixzz0erI1iECN
And the Vett follows???? Being built on the Alpha platform at the same plant with the Cadillac and Camaro and using the same V-6 performance engine in the 2014 time frame
Chevrolet's next Camaro will switch to the global Alpha platform that General Motors is developing for Cadillac's new BMW 3 Series fighter. The new Camaro is scheduled for the 2014 calendar year according to consultancy firm Grant Thornton LLP and analysis firm CSM Worldwide.
Grant Thornton director James Ricci outlined GM's rear-wheel-drive model plans in a presentation to the Automotive Press Association Thursday afternoon, on the subject of major automakers' move to more common, global platforms. He included some information GM probably would prefer hadn't gone public.
with the 2015 Camaro, the Alpha platform would replace the Sigma platform under Cadillac's CTS sedan a year earlier, in calendar '13 as the '14 model. Ricci says the CTS coupe and wagon would then be discontinued. As we've reported in the past, the next CTS is to grow in size, solidifying its position as Cadillac's mainstream luxury car.
The Alpha-based 3 Series fighter, codenamed ATS, would be the global-market luxury model slotted below the CTS in price. GM already has previewed a coupe version of the ATS. There will also be a sedan and possibly a wagon. The ATS is due in calendar '14, about the same time as the next Camaro.
Keep in mind that in Grant Thornton's world, "global platform" refers to manufacturing processes and the ability to build several related models in one factory. This would allow GM to adjust production between Camaro, ATS and CTS depending on demand.
So with Alpha handling two different-sized Cadillacs and the Camaro, it would have to be a very flexible RWD platform. We expect the CTS sedan to grow about half a foot in overall length from its current 191.8 inches. Alpha will thus accommodate at least two wheelbases; the current CTS has a 113.4-inch wheelbase and the Camaro's is 112.3.
We expect the next Camaro to be lighter, to GM North American President Mark Reuss' liking, and somewhat smaller, with a supercharged or turbocharged version of the gas direct-injection 3.6-liter V-6 the SS performance engine. Less heft will enable GM's entry in the muscle car battle to better challenge the more nimble Mustang. All cars will have to be more fuel efficient to meet 2012-16 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and the move in general will be to shorter overhangs and larger or unchanged wheelbases, in order to take advantage of the CAFE "footprint" formula.
GM had been considering a next-generation Camaro on the Alpha platform since before the latest model launched on the Zeta platform last year. Designed for Cadillac, though, it was considered too expensive for a sub-$30,000 (base price) sport coupe. The Grant Thornton revelation suggests that various levels of, for example, aluminum and other lightweight materials will be used, depending on whether it's a Chevy or a Cadillac.
Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/6604864/fu...#ixzz0erI1iECN
And the Vett follows???? Being built on the Alpha platform at the same plant with the Cadillac and Camaro and using the same V-6 performance engine in the 2014 time frame
Last edited by I Bin Therbefor; 02-08-2010 at 08:16 AM.
02-12-2010, 02:24 PM
#11
Le Mans Master
Corvette is already a lightweight. Its present engineering is paid for. Because it's a unique platform in a small market, its evolution need not be as dramatic as passenger cars in general, i.e. the next iteration doesn't have to cost a fortune to engineer, especially when it's so well-done, well-honed, and competitive already. Much of the improvements we'll see in C7 will piggyback on (or lead) broader corporate efforts -- improved electronics and a new V8 (likely direct injection) for example. New bodywork and perhaps tweaked proportions won't break the budget. Corvette doesn't need much to remain viable.
No evidence of Corvette leading GM technology? Go back to All Corvettes Are Red.
.Jinx
No evidence of Corvette leading GM technology? Go back to All Corvettes Are Red.
.Jinx
02-14-2010, 12:32 AM
#12
Race Director
Member Since: Aug 2001
Location: Hurricane Alley
Posts: 10,776
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
IMO:
The emphasis in GM will be on the Camaro
The C7 will be delayed.
When it appears:
It will be built on the same unibody chassis as the Camaro
It will be built at the same plant as the Camaro
It will be an exercise in badge engineering from the Camaro ala the Cobra designation on the Mustang
The emphasis in GM will be on the Camaro
The C7 will be delayed.
When it appears:
It will be built on the same unibody chassis as the Camaro
It will be built at the same plant as the Camaro
It will be an exercise in badge engineering from the Camaro ala the Cobra designation on the Mustang
I needed a good laugh. 
03-22-2010, 01:27 AM
#13
Successful Plumber
Member Since: Feb 2001
Location: Top of the hill, 3rd mailbox on the right. Texas
Posts: 43,830
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
6 Posts
CF NCM Ambassador
CI 6-7-9-10 Veteran
St. Jude Donor '06-'07-'08-'09-'10
NCM Member '09
I think the only thing you got correct in this entire discussion is the spelling of Corvette.
GM will not be moving Corvette production to Canada.
The production declines you point to are not specific to Corvette, but mirror GM losses across the entire line.
As for the Corvette as a test bed indeed it is. Don't just read Corvette from the Inside, read the better book - All Corvettes are Red. Hydroforming is but one area - magnetic ride, powertrain, carbon fiber, SMC bodywork all pioneered for GM on Corvette. And don't just look at Corvette impact on US product. Holden uses many of the Corvette drivetrain products in it's line up.
As for GM's emphasis on the Camaro, when GM fields a factory backed Camaro racing program and shuts down Doug Fehan's bunch, I'll believe they've changed course.
GM will not be moving Corvette production to Canada.
The production declines you point to are not specific to Corvette, but mirror GM losses across the entire line.
As for the Corvette as a test bed indeed it is. Don't just read Corvette from the Inside, read the better book - All Corvettes are Red. Hydroforming is but one area - magnetic ride, powertrain, carbon fiber, SMC bodywork all pioneered for GM on Corvette. And don't just look at Corvette impact on US product. Holden uses many of the Corvette drivetrain products in it's line up.
As for GM's emphasis on the Camaro, when GM fields a factory backed Camaro racing program and shuts down Doug Fehan's bunch, I'll believe they've changed course.
