ZL1-LSA-MR+LS7+Pedders Coilovers = Z28?

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

I do, however, have an even more insightful idea as to where Number 3's "business case" concerns come from. Here are a couple of recent exerpts from a Detroit News interview with Dan Akerson, GM's Board Chairman and CEO:

In a recent meeting with engineers, for example, Akerson pressed them to explain the logic behind putting a big 6.2-liter engine in an unspecified car whose competitor has a 4.4-liter turbocharged engine. The engineers replied: "Well, we want to be able to beat the other guy."

Akerson responded: "I don't think the average buyer is going to buy an eight-cylinder, 530-horsepower (car)." His point: Decisions must be supported by a solid business case, and not just for bragging rights or as a marketing tool.

And this one:

Akerson, who became CEO Sept. 1 and board chairman Jan. 1, already is weighing in on new vehicles. He recently greenlighted the next generation of the compact Chevrolet Cruze, but vetoed a new engine for a sports car set for production in 18 months.

So, folks, if 500+ hp is "necessary", it's the LS7 or nuthin'...

dont forget this one by Akerson....

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news...n=money_latest

[DGthe3]

Non-mechanical content eh? Alrighty then ...

How about starting with 1LT/1SS content, 4 pack gauges standard, RS package optional, no sunroof, no vert, stripes unique to the Z28 come standard (but with no-cost delete), suede on the steering wheel (like whats available on the ZL1), manually adjustable seats with extra side bolstering.

I think that will appeal to those who want a track oriented car without alienating those who may still want to drive it every day

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Z284ever

We should really talk a little about limited content. Keeping in mind that a Z/28 would be a narrowly focused package, we should be careful to make sure that it doesn't become all things to all people. As has been metioned, things like ac/pw/radio delete are not going to fly, but some of the other optional content needs to be scrutinized.

I really like the approach which Chevy took on the C5 Z06. I'd like to see some of Dave Hill's philosophy applied here. Specific components which added performance and subtracted weight. Limited to the lightest most rigid body style and manual trans only. Beyond that it was content limited. Perfect. The Boss Mustang follows this approach as well, and also does it successfully.

In the Camaro's case, a Z/28 needs to be coupe only, manual trans only. Sunroof and convertible need not apply. Also strictly limit any additional luxury options. The folks who are willing to pay the price for this car - both in terms of money and limited luxury offerings - know what they'll be getting. All others can buy a cushy SS.

The problem was the C5 Z06 actually started out as a "stripper" model to get a low cost entry into the fold. But at the time, building every car they could someone asked, "why do I want to offer the customer and opportunity to spend less money for my car"? Mrs. Number 3 actually had one home, cloth seats........ Anyway, the cheap car was also a lighter car and a stiffer car because the roof was fixed and you didn't have that big giant hunk of glass in the hatch. So simply adding a 380 HP small block and calling it a Z06 enabled a higher end car rather than a lower end. By year two, 400 even and call it a day.

So the Z06 didn't start out as a light weight high performance car, it just ended up that way. The glass hatch and removable roof were expensive. Just happened that eliminating them made the car lighter and stiffer.

[ShnOmac]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

dont forget this one by Akerson....

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news...n=money_latest

That is all I'm sayin......

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The problem was the C5 Z06 actually started out as a "stripper" model to get a low cost entry into the fold. But at the time, building every car they could someone asked, "why do I want to offer the customer and opportunity to spend less money for my car"? Mrs. Number 3 actually had one home, cloth seats........ Anyway, the cheap car was also a lighter car and a stiffer car because the roof was fixed and you didn't have that big giant hunk of glass in the hatch. So simply adding a 380 HP small block and calling it a Z06 enabled a higher end car rather than a lower end. By year two, 400 even and call it a day.

So the Z06 didn't start out as a light weight high performance car, it just ended up that way. The glass hatch and removable roof were expensive. Just happened that eliminating them made the car lighter and stiffer.

And why did it?
I'm gonna guess there was a market for it. Ditto the Z28. (I'm not worried about it being overly lightweight)

Give us a 1SS with a much better suspension, LS7, ZL1 brakes, ZL1 rearend, ZL1 wheels and a Z28 specific front fascia and hood, and I think we'll be very very very happy. It sounds like GM loves "options" then go for it!!!
I'll order mine the way I want it and if someone wants everything including the kitchen sick... have at it.

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by ShnOmac

That is all I'm sayin......

VERY VERY self-interested.
He just wants more people to buy the little gas miserly cars to assist them in meeting mpg quotas. Why not? Makes his life easier.

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by LOWDOWN

I do, however, have an even more insightful idea as to where Number 3's "business case" concerns come from. Here are a couple of recent exerpts from a Detroit News interview with Dan Akerson, GM's Board Chairman and CEO:

In a recent meeting with engineers, for example, Akerson pressed them to explain the logic behind putting a big 6.2-liter engine in an unspecified car whose competitor has a 4.4-liter turbocharged engine. The engineers replied: "Well, we want to be able to beat the other guy."

Akerson responded: "I don't think the average buyer is going to buy an eight-cylinder, 530-horsepower (car)." His point: Decisions must be supported by a solid business case, and not just for bragging rights or as a marketing tool.

And this one:

Akerson, who became CEO Sept. 1 and board chairman Jan. 1, already is weighing in on new vehicles. He recently greenlighted the next generation of the compact Chevrolet Cruze, but vetoed a new engine for a sports car set for production in 18 months.

So, folks, if 500+ hp is "necessary", it's the LS7 or nuthin'...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but GM only has 1 sports car, right?
So the GenV V8 is done? Here come turbo V6's. Bye Bye Torque.

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by Z284ever

Yep, having the FRC "Billie Bob" version worked out pretty well for the Z06. If I'm not mistaken, it also made up about 25% of total sales as well. Nothing to sneeze at.

I know that the bean counter is always looking for ways to load up cars and make the quick buck. But someone needs to be an advocate for the very focused performance package we are discussing here. My sense is that folks like Hill were just that for the C5 Z06. Someone needs to argue that products like these are good for the equity of the brand. That watering down a performance package like the Z/28 with needless fluff, essentially creates a non-product. A non-product which has little appeal to the enthusiast/opinion makers who would otherwise buy it.


In the end, products like this increase the long term value of the brand. For every Z/28 sold - you'll create new buyers for V6 and SS versions. And it could be argued to Mr. Beancounter, those folks, you can rape with abandon on extra cost doo-dads.

Why care what "options" a guy may add to his own Z28 as long as they make the Z28 AND GM is happy. As long as we can order our Z28 the way we want it, I say sell em any way you want to!

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by Z284ever

Yes, the GenVs are done. As I mentioned afew posts back they even have their engine codes.

???

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by Z284ever

Codes. The engines have names.

Yeah that I know, I guess you were saying that they were far enough along to even be named when they were cancelled?

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by Z284ever

Because everything you do to a car like that waters it down for everyone. In the end you are left with the lowest common denominator. It's great for the guy who wants a, hrm.. "Z/28", with a convertible top, automatic trans, AWD, heated and cooled 72 way adjustable seats, nav, automatic parking, etc.

But I submit to you that all of those features water down the car for those who don't or wouldn't want those features, rendering it a non-product to the hardcore enthusiast. Like I said, if you don't want what a Z/28 offers, buy a $40K SS.

I understand you, but Number 3 throws road blocks at us and I'm willing to compromise to get the Z28 done. However, a convertable NO, just basic "tid bits", a better stereo, leather, etc.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

I understand you, but Number 3 throws road blocks at us and I'm willing to compromise to get the Z28 done. However, a convertable NO, just basic "tid bits", a better stereo, leather, etc.

Roadblocks:(

I'm just letting you suffer what it's like to develop a hot car from the OEM point of view. Easy to just sit down and name the parts or even worse, invent ones that don't exist.

I don't recall anyone suggesting anything that is (or nearly) impossible.

You just have to also consider that every idea we have discussed here in this and other threads has likely been discussed within GM. But as Fbodfather likes to point out, "I don't recall him sitting in our planning meetings" and I'm not privy to everything that gets talked about in every meeting............as much as I'd like to. So it's possible no one has thought about the Z28, but without telling tales out of school, I'm pretty sure we all know that isn't likely to be true. So there may or may not be such a car in somebodies plan. But the art of speculation lives strong here on Camaro5.

But there are certain things that have to be considered when you are developing a car.

Legal requirements - for example FMVSS 208, frontal crash. Must pass

GM requirements - for example OnStar included in all GM cars as part of a comprehensive safety package, yes even on the Z06. Or 4 or 5 star safety requirements driving airbags and structure.

Financial requirements - investment and piece cost, volume, cost of marketing, etc. which must result in profit. If it isn't profitable, you are much less likely to see it.

Customer requirements - for example beat the Boss

Roadblocks? really?

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

Correct me if I'm wrong, but GM only has 1 sports car, right?
So the GenV V8 is done? Here come turbo V6's. Bye Bye Torque.

Leaping to rather "Evil Knievel jump over the Grand Canyon" conclusions there aren't we? Considering this is attributed to an attributed statement that may not have even occurred in the context with which it was attributed.

[2cnd chance]

Actually thanks for the education. The older I get the more I like the reality of things.
If you notice I've become much more realistic from, a GM point of view.

Regarding the GenV I'm just asking questions???
Inquiring minds want to know, you know?!