Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs
I'm not saying the Alpha isn't a great platform. My point is the more you try to do with the same thing, the worse it does them. Especially when you consider the fact that not all of them share the same end objective.
I starting thinking about this after reading this thread on GMI.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...01/index2.html
Now, clearly, the weight of the car (I'm guessing they meant what became the ATS) to be way under 4,000 lbs but it does bring up the fact that every change compromises something. |
First of all, the Base ATS started @ 33-and-change, with a 2.5 n/a 4-cylinder and, with the latest safety mandates, now weighs about 3400. Someone over there is trying to compare apples with oranges. There is NO ATS that weighs nearly 4000, so the car has NOT gained "500 lb". There
ARE CTS AWDs that weigh nearly that, but they're loaded AND larger than the ATS. And also larger than the Camaro will be.
One basic end objective for Alpha, for ALL models, is to be Class-competitive in areas such as vehicle dynamics, structural integrity, NVH, and safety. And WE wouldn't want it any other way.
As for "change compromises something", that would depend on the specifics of the changes involved. The greatest compromises have to do with CO$T$, where "changes" are discretionary. Not just @ GM, but with
any commodity from
any manufacturer. Perhaps Pagani, excluded.
Please keep in mind, the design and features of vehicles today are heavily predicated by government edict, as well as the changing landscape of customer expectations. The days of wind-up windows and push-down locks are over. Every feature that customers expect/demand, and that government demands, adds weight. And compromises, to some degree, "performance potential" and "real-world mileage expectations". But, build vehicles without what's "demanded" and you'll be out of business in a New York minute.