Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenderaddict2
My worry as well. The Mustang team set out to make this car lighter. We know there was then a midpoint design change to accommodate updated crash requirements (incorrectly reported as a failed crash test at the time), so I'm sure that added unexpected weight. Then there's the upgraded materials, increased content, IRS and larger dimensions. So at this point I'm guessing equal to outgoing car, or slightly over. Then the testing and some parts need to be beefed up. More gain. Then the worst off all, bean counters who need to offset costs incurred because of the above and you have yet more gain. I'm sure the numbers haven't been released yet because the required "diet" is probably an ongoing issue within Ford, how to address it both in engineering and the press. So, a fail perhaps, but based on the scenario above, one that could befall the Camaro. Of course GM has the advantage of following Ford, reading how this really does hurt then, if at all and how to prepare and adapt to avoid the same issue(s). This weight gain simply isn't good news for any fan of inexpensive American made performance vehicles.
|
The difference is Ford is going from an already lightweight chassis and adding IRS, updated crash requirements and increased rigidity. The Camaro is coming from a chassis designed for strength without as much regard to weight to a chassis designed specifically for high performance cars. It already had IRS, a relatively rigid chassis and one that was strengthened by adding mass. The Alpha should, or at least I would hope, have taken the lessons learned from Zeta and Zeta II so that it is both lighter and stronger.