Z28 and the 5th Gen Refresh.

[BoostedX2]

You are right on the headroom, I guess I looked at the wrong figure. But there is 1.6 inches more shoulder room, I assume that also applies to the camaro hip room which I can't find. However, the extra shoulder and hip room just makes it more comfortable for me--I don't feel as squished.

But Thanks for keeping me straight, facts are facts...

Hey, I was stationed at Ramstien for 4 years, I liked that area..

Do you have a 1/4 mile predicion for a good driver for the ZL1 M6?

T

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Mr T

You are right on the headroom, I guess I looked at the wrong figure. But there is 1.6 inches more shoulder room, I assume that also applies to the camaro hip room which I can't find. However, the extra shoulder and hip room just makes it more comfortable for me--I don't feel as squished.

But Thanks for keeping me straight, facts are facts...

Hey, I was stationed at Ramstien for 4 years, I liked that area..

Do you have a 1/4 mile predicion for a good driver for the ZL1 M6?

T

I get numbers confused all the time, I constantly have to recheck what I'm typing. Ramstein is still over populated with the new BX they put in it is even worse. If the horsepower figures remain at the CTS-V levels 556hp and 551tq and I figure that the weight is going to be around 4152lbs. I'm thinking the magazine times for the ZL1 with the manual will be capable of 12.6@116mph to 12.2@118mph. I am thinking that the extra tire width is over kill, the CTS-V did not have traction issues with the 19 inch 285's so I see no real advantage other than handling coming from 305's. I think the CTS-V's 19's will prove to be the better of the two for acceleration because of the less rotational mass and smaller diameter. I think the CTS-V's wheel/tire combo would be great for the Z28. If GM provides the optional 6L90 automatic, I can see it being 2 tenths faster than the manual but the extra weight from the 6L90 will put the ZL1 close to 4200lbs according to my calculations.

[BoostedX2]

Originally Posted by thePill

I get numbers confused all the time, I constantly have to recheck what I'm typing. Ramstein is still over populated with the new BX they put in it is even worse. If the horsepower figures remain at the CTS-V levels 556hp and 551tq and I figure that the weight is going to be around 4152lbs. I'm thinking the magazine times for the ZL1 with the manual will be capable of 12.6@116mph to 12.2@118mph. I am thinking that the extra tire width is over kill, the CTS-V did not have traction issues with the 19 inch 285's so I see no real advantage other than handling coming from 305's. I think the CTS-V's 19's will prove to be the better of the two for acceleration because of the less rotational mass and smaller diameter. I think the CTS-V's wheel/tire combo would be great for the Z28. If GM provides the optional 6L90 automatic, I can see it being 2 tenths faster than the manual but the extra weight from the 6L90 will put the ZL1 close to 4200lbs according to my calculations.

I just think with the PTM that it will be faster--I am predicting an 11.9 FWIW...

[Number 3]

Just a few comments:

There is no Z28 at this point, GM has not announced anything and until they do there is no such thing. So you can SPECULATE all you want and that's a good thing. It's what I love about this site, not just the speculation, but the passion that goes with it. But to say there is one or make comparissons as if there was some announcement is just fun.

Comparing SAE interior measurements is the accepted industry method for comparing vehicle dimensions, both interior and exterior. And if you look at the exterior numbers you will see the Camaro is wider and longer than a Mustang driving up the weight. That size does not always mean a larger interior, although I believe the Camaro has an edge in rear seat room, which I think means with the front seat all the way back, it gives you 1 inch rather than 1/2" LOL. However, sit in a Camaro and sit in a Mustang (I have) and compare how much leg splay you have. There is more room in the Camaro and that is the "feeling" the bigger guys are noticing and reporting. A feeling of roominess that goes beyond the SAE measurements. A good bit of the weight of the Camaro is simply from the styling that makes the car sooooooo damn sexy. How about those hips? Huh? Nice!!! Well that's a "thicker" car than it needed to be and more mass but arguably a sexier shape. (Note: long drawn out comparison to the female form omitted so as not to remove clarity from the discussion)

Mythical future Super Mustangs...............LOL. Again, speculation no more accurate than many of the rumors here on Camaro5. So PILL unless you know someone at Ford that has put their job at risk to confirm to you such an animal exists, then lets just agree we are comparing speculative internet rumors with equally speculative internet rumors.

It is "likely" that Ford would like to have a RWD Mustang. But for that to happen Ford needs a Global RWD strategy to share the development costs. You can't spend the amount in engineering costs and capital unless you have something to share it with. And 80 to 100,000 Mustangs is NOT enough to do that. Now Ford may want to put their RWD Aussi sedan on this platform as well, but that is also very low volume. The advantage of the Zeta platform is it is exported around the world in decent volumes. I've also read claims that the next Falcon would be Taurus based. Again there is a need to get that platform up in volume as well. I don't think it is meeting Ford's needs for volume with Taurus/Lincoln/Explorer. So for Ford to come out with this mythical all new platform, it means either a big jump in $$$$$ on the sticker, or a broader plan for RWD vehicles. So I hope Ford is doing this, but it better be based on more than internet speculation. I know our product plans and I also know what is available on the internet and magazines is either old information, wrong information and generally both. Maybe that's why I enjoy the speculation so much.

Mass................always a great topic. It's an engineering based topic.

All OEMs are trying for low mass solutions. Not for performance mind you because you can ususally use premium materials and charge for it. But post 2016 CAFE has everyone scared. I posted in another thread, "Be affraid..................be very affraid". Mass and aero drive Fuel Economy. Mass is critical for the City number and also for maintaining some bit of driving performance with the smaller engines that will result. Aero IS the highway number. But even there, mass drives rolling resistance which adds the numbers. Further, any electrification strategy requires even lower mass to off set that added content. But for Ford to add an IRS, which will be an increase in mass will they offset it by not offering other features? Likely not if they do, making any Mustang with an IRS a bit heavier, by about 50 pounds and hundreds of $.

But there are really three ways to get mass out.

The easiest is to remove content. Many of the Z28 worshippers talk of removing the rear seat as an example. The problem here is you make the car less useful. To limit content as an example (i.e. sunroof) to keep weight down means there is a customer out there that will not be happy. Another one seems to be sound deadener. Pounds of it are used in every car to keep the cabin quiet(er). And some customers won't care....................but many do. And they may be so unhappy they go to another OEM. So you have to be very careful on eliminating or restricting content.

Second and also easy but now increasingly more expensive is to substitute premium materials for regular steel and plastics. Carbon Fiber, everyones baby here, is hugely expensive. Simply because as a molded part it's cycle time is in the hours rather than minutes for SMC or seconds for steel or aluminium. Even Aluminium is much more expensive than steel and has nearly traded commidity pricing compared with steel. And use of Aluminium or Magnesium requires unique strategies for preventing galvanic corrosion which again simply drives the costs higher. Oh, yes, I said magnesium. Very light weight................and verrrry expensive. Z06 Corvette front cradle....mmmmmmmmmm. And yes, PILL, there are high strength steels but they are not a mystery. GM, Ford as well as the other OEMs widely use these for specific applications. The problem becomes the harder (and stronger) the steel, the harder it is to form. And that is what makes these either expensive or unusable for most of what a car body is built from. Form hardened and bake hardened steels are widely used. So, yes, there is some room left in the application of these high strengh steels, but not a lot.

Third and the both the cheapest and hardest is simply to eningeer the car for lower mass. Can you use 2 fasteners instead of 3? Can you use lower gage wire? Can you thin out the steel and use formations in the panel to replicate the stiffness? Can you make the part smaller? This is the future (and excitement) in engineering. This takes skill and hard work. All of the normal requirements for stiffness, durabilty and performance still apply. Anybody can make a part lighter by making it less durable or have less strength. You can't just buy a lighter but more expensive material, you can't simply check a box that eliminates and RPO code. You have to work for it.............hard................every single day.

There, just a few comments I thought might add to the discussion.

And PILL, it is clear that your posts are well thought out and researched as are the thoughts of the moderators here (DGthe3 being one). But that doesn't always mean we will agree.

[Fightinfire921]

Originally Posted by Number 3

There is no Z28 at this point, GM has not announced anything and until they do there is no such thing. So you can SPECULATE all you want and that's a good thing. It's what I love about this site, not just the speculation, but the passion that goes with it. But to say there is one or make comparissons as if there was some announcement is just fun.

I guess this means those of us that had hope and excitement for a new
Z/28 can focus our time and energy elsewhere.

Thanks for the heads up and good luck with the ZL1.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by WYKOFF69Z

I guess this means those of us that had hope and excitement for a new
Z/28 can focus our time and energy elsewhere.

Thanks for the heads up and good luck with the ZL1.

Never said there wouldn't or couldn't be one. That's why it's good to keep the discussion going so GM clearly knows there is a strong interest in such a car. My point was simply that until GM acknowledges anything no one can assume there is one based on Internet rumors and speculation. We went through this with the ZL1 for two years and those were good discussions IMO.

[z28camaro2471]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Never said there wouldn't or couldn't be one. That's why it's good to keep the discussion going so GM clearly knows there is a strong interest in such a car. My point was simply that until GM acknowledges anything no one can assume there is one based on Internet rumors and speculation. We went through this with the ZL1 for two years and those were good discussions IMO.

And the most important point above, implied but not stated specifically, is that the ZL1 did ultimately appear!

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by thePill

What really turned me off about the ZL1 was that the lower fascia, the part that was suppose to really set the car aside from the SS, was borrowed from another GM product. The Fascia was taken from the 2008 Vauxhall VXR8 that carries the LS3. Once I seen that, I threw up. I hope the Z28 doesn't try to copy and paste parts from foreign cars, regardless if it is a performance model... people do live in other countries and are willing to bust them on this... Hurry up and look at this, I want to take this down.

Perhaps the color (blackout) concept was borrowed.....but that's about it...Sorry to hear you're puking, I -and many others- LOVE the way the ZL1 looks.

Originally Posted by thePill

The way you think the gas guzzler tax test is performed is completely wrong, instead of telling me that my post is BS, please ask me how I come to my conclusions before you make me look like an idiot. As I said before, the GT500 did not pass the GG test, but the production numbers were low enough at the end of the year that Ford was able to avoid the tax completely based on the GT500's average full consumption (which was decent). If the CTS-V were to try the same thing only producing 5500, it would have still had to pay a tax, but it would not be the same rate as it is now. It is totally up to GM...

Please pay me some respect, when I post something... it isn't going to be BS...

GG tax is applied whether or not a vehicle line sells X amount of models. I'm not sure where you got your information from - but it's wrong as of this afternoon.

Visit the EPA's website and find where it mentions cars under a reserve amount sold are exempt:http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm

The only exemptions I see are non-passenger, rail, limousines over 6000 lbs, ambulances, and trucks.

Also note the explanation of the in-use-shortfall as it pertains to the GG tax.

Originally Posted by Number 3

Just a few comments:

There is no Z28 at this point, GM has not announced anything and until they do there is no such thing. So you can SPECULATE all you want and that's a good thing. It's what I love about this site, not just the speculation, but the passion that goes with it. But to say there is one or make comparissons as if there was some announcement is just fun.

Comparing SAE interior measurements is the accepted industry method for comparing vehicle dimensions, both interior and exterior. And if you look at the exterior numbers you will see the Camaro is wider and longer than a Mustang driving up the weight. That size does not always mean a larger interior, although I believe the Camaro has an edge in rear seat room, which I think means with the front seat all the way back, it gives you 1 inch rather than 1/2" LOL. However, sit in a Camaro and sit in a Mustang (I have) and compare how much leg splay you have. There is more room in the Camaro and that is the "feeling" the bigger guys are noticing and reporting. A feeling of roominess that goes beyond the SAE measurements. A good bit of the weight of the Camaro is simply from the styling that makes the car sooooooo damn sexy. How about those hips? Huh? Nice!!! Well that's a "thicker" car than it needed to be and more mass but arguably a sexier shape. (Note: long drawn out comparison to the female form omitted so as not to remove clarity from the discussion)

Mythical future Super Mustangs...............LOL. Again, speculation no more accurate than many of the rumors here on Camaro5. So PILL unless you know someone at Ford that has put their job at risk to confirm to you such an animal exists, then lets just agree we are comparing speculative internet rumors with equally speculative internet rumors.

It is "likely" that Ford would like to have a RWD Mustang. But for that to happen Ford needs a Global RWD strategy to share the development costs. You can't spend the amount in engineering costs and capital unless you have something to share it with. And 80 to 100,000 Mustangs is NOT enough to do that. Now Ford may want to put their RWD Aussi sedan on this platform as well, but that is also very low volume. The advantage of the Zeta platform is it is exported around the world in decent volumes. I've also read claims that the next Falcon would be Taurus based. Again there is a need to get that platform up in volume as well. I don't think it is meeting Ford's needs for volume with Taurus/Lincoln/Explorer. So for Ford to come out with this mythical all new platform, it means either a big jump in $$$$$ on the sticker, or a broader plan for RWD vehicles. So I hope Ford is doing this, but it better be based on more than internet speculation. I know our product plans and I also know what is available on the internet and magazines is either old information, wrong information and generally both. Maybe that's why I enjoy the speculation so much.

Mass................always a great topic. It's an engineering based topic.

All OEMs are trying for low mass solutions. Not for performance mind you because you can ususally use premium materials and charge for it. But post 2016 CAFE has everyone scared. I posted in another thread, "Be affraid..................be very affraid". Mass and aero drive Fuel Economy. Mass is critical for the City number and also for maintaining some bit of driving performance with the smaller engines that will result. Aero IS the highway number. But even there, mass drives rolling resistance which adds the numbers. Further, any electrification strategy requires even lower mass to off set that added content. But for Ford to add an IRS, which will be an increase in mass will they offset it by not offering other features? Likely not if they do, making any Mustang with an IRS a bit heavier, by about 50 pounds and hundreds of $.

But there are really three ways to get mass out.

The easiest is to remove content. Many of the Z28 worshippers talk of removing the rear seat as an example. The problem here is you make the car less useful. To limit content as an example (i.e. sunroof) to keep weight down means there is a customer out there that will not be happy. Another one seems to be sound deadener. Pounds of it are used in every car to keep the cabin quiet(er). And some customers won't care....................but many do. And they may be so unhappy they go to another OEM. So you have to be very careful on eliminating or restricting content.

Second and also easy but now increasingly more expensive is to substitute premium materials for regular steel and plastics. Carbon Fiber, everyones baby here, is hugely expensive. Simply because as a molded part it's cycle time is in the hours rather than minutes for SMC or seconds for steel or aluminium. Even Aluminium is much more expensive than steel and has nearly traded commidity pricing compared with steel. And use of Aluminium or Magnesium requires unique strategies for preventing galvanic corrosion which again simply drives the costs higher. Oh, yes, I said magnesium. Very light weight................and verrrry expensive. Z06 Corvette front cradle....mmmmmmmmmm. And yes, PILL, there are high strength steels but they are not a mystery. GM, Ford as well as the other OEMs widely use these for specific applications. The problem becomes the harder (and stronger) the steel, the harder it is to form. And that is what makes these either expensive or unusable for most of what a car body is built from. Form hardened and bake hardened steels are widely used. So, yes, there is some room left in the application of these high strengh steels, but not a lot.

Third and the both the cheapest and hardest is simply to eningeer the car for lower mass. Can you use 2 fasteners instead of 3? Can you use lower gage wire? Can you thin out the steel and use formations in the panel to replicate the stiffness? Can you make the part smaller? This is the future (and excitement) in engineering. This takes skill and hard work. All of the normal requirements for stiffness, durabilty and performance still apply. Anybody can make a part lighter by making it less durable or have less strength. You can't just buy a lighter but more expensive material, you can't simply check a box that eliminates and RPO code. You have to work for it.............hard................every single day.

There, just a few comments I thought might add to the discussion.

And PILL, it is clear that your posts are well thought out and researched as are the thoughts of the moderators here (DGthe3 being one). But that doesn't always mean we will agree.

Thank you for your comments, N. 3....

This thread is making me sick....

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Perhaps the color (blackout) concept was borrowed.....but that's about it...Sorry to hear you're puking, I -and many others- LOVE the way the ZL1 looks.


GG tax is applied whether or not a vehicle line sells X amount of models. I'm not sure where you got your information from - but it's wrong as of this afternoon.

Visit the EPA's website and find where it mentions cars under a reserve amount sold are exempt:http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm

The only exemptions I see are non-passenger, rail, limousines over 6000 lbs, ambulances, and trucks.

Also note the explanation of the in-use-shortfall as it pertains to the GG tax.






Thank you for your comments, N. 3....

This thread is making me sick....

In............a......................good way

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Never said there wouldn't or couldn't be one. That's why it's good to keep the discussion going so GM clearly knows there is a strong interest in such a car. My point was simply that until GM acknowledges anything no one can assume there is one based on Internet rumors and speculation. We went through this with the ZL1 for two years and those were good discussions IMO.

That's the main reason behind my Z28 campaign is to keep the chatter alive, it totally killed my momentum in your first post but gave me some hope on your follow up. I love solving problems, especially problems that seem hopeless but no problem that cannot be solved. I am met with resistance but who cares, that's half the fun. As for the super Mustang, we will save the details for when they are confirmed (and nobody will lose their job). That being said, I think the announcement of the Z28 will be a great defense to the next Gen Mustang. You really got me thinking now, I think a full Camaro lineup including the possible Z28 (released in spring 2013) would be difficult to beat. I am beginning to think that a mid Gen refresh would be better served as a last resort, maybe when the actual Mustang III hits the lots. I am working on the curb weight for the Z28 but need the weight of the FE4 option, for it will be an essential piece of the chassis.

By the way, thank you for reading my thread and the post that pertained to the Z28. Also, thank you for the respect on this perticular topic.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Number 3

In............a......................good way

Thaaat's it.......

Originally Posted by thePill

I am working on the curb weight for the Z28 but need the weight of the FE4 option, for it will be an essential piece of the chassis

It's standard, as it's a configuration of the suspension...not a "thing they added", per-say...

[thePill]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

GG tax is applied whether or not a vehicle line sells X amount of models. I'm not sure where you got your information from - but it's wrong as of this afternoon.

Visit the EPA's website and find where it mentions cars under a reserve amount sold are exempt:http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm

The only exemptions I see are non-passenger, rail, limousines over 6000 lbs, ambulances, and trucks.

Also note the explanation of the in-use-shortfall as it pertains to the GG tax.

Thank you for your comments, N. 3....

This thread is making me sick....

I initially got my information from the EPA site and I posted it here. The GT500 isn't exempt, it just wasn't produced in high enough numbers to be taxed. It avoided the tax merely because of it's overall numbers sold for the year. I will try to dig up some more on this when I get back to a computer. None of this really matters though as the Z28 will have no problems avoiding the tax.

My intention is not to make anyone sick. Please give me a chance here to try and get some interest. I have invested a lot of my spare time on this.

[GQ4Life]

Those wide body kits be nice.. Like to be able to fit wider rears..
I think just suttle look change like different splitter up front but continue to tweak body and suspension to handle better.. 2012 suppose to handle better we'll see

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by thePill

My intention is not to make anyone sick. Please give me a chance here to try and get some interest. I have invested a lot of my spare time on this.

Interest has never been lacking.