ZL1 1LE

[68fbjjz109]

No, the 6th Gen Camaro's rigidity IS NOT fine. Chevy refuses to release chassis info but we know better. The only reason Chevy withheld that info was due to the ATS Alpha's structure performance. Trust me, how else would tgePill know exactly where and what weights are moving in and out unless he had chassis info.

I challenge GM to release the structural info for the Alpha Camaro... THEY WILL NOT. Hard numbers prove the Camaro's Alpha design is very, very flawed.

It IS NOT the same Alpha, it only has 3/4rds of the rigidity the ATS and Mustang have (29,000-32,000). In fact, it's slightly more rigid than the S197 :(

Another huge issue is airflow... we have already seen the extent both ZL1 and Motorsport versions needed to change in order to breathe right.

Seek out pics of a naked 6th Gen and examine the area between the B and C pillars. We haven't seen metal removal that bad since the late 60's. Yes, sorry to say but the platform is floppy.

Can you clarify some of your statements. There is always a good conversation to be had. But big generalizing statements are not the way to do it.

-Very Very Flawed: In what way? It is very mass efficient.

The S550 has a solid 110lbs on the Alpha Camaro, so you have to keep that in mind. Even if GM is bolting in 60-90 lbs of reinforcements. The body structure is still lighter, and it may be far exceeding internal targets for the segment and platform.

I know the 2SS we have has no additional substructure, connecting rockers, frame rails, sheer plates.

The Camaro gets high marks in handling, Randy sure isn't saying the chassis feels like a wet noodle.

I have seen Modal numbers for the ATS and CTS. They are not in the realm in which you mentioned above. This makes me wonder. What if any components where included in the numbers you are claiming.

The numbers I have seen, have glass, IP Cross car, and cradles mounted. I would genuinely like to know more about the numbers you have, and where they came from.

Now this B to C pillar issues. It's not one. The load paths do not go through that area, and they don't on the mustang either.

The extension of the single panel does not add any significant structure on the Mustang. In order to add structure you need panels to be fully boxed. You get a little with the fact this area is captivated by the wheelhouse, roofbow, B and C pillar, and the body side outer. However by industry standards, that is not a load path.

Sponsored

 

[02gtnh]

Can you clarify some of your statements. There is always a good conversation to be had. But big generalizing statements are not the way to do it.

-Very Very Flawed: In what way? It is very mass efficient.

The S550 has a solid 110lbs on the Alpha Camaro, so you have to keep that in mind. Even if GM is bolting in 60-90 lbs of reinforcements. The body structure is still lighter, and it may be far exceeding internal targets for the segment and platform.

I know the 2SS we have has no additional substructure, connecting rockers, frame rails, sheer plates.

The Camaro gets high marks in handling, Randy sure isn't saying the chassis feels like a wet noodle.

I have seen Modal numbers for the ATS and CTS. They are not in the realm in which you mentioned above. This makes me wonder. What if any components where included in the numbers you are claiming.

The numbers I have seen, have glass, IP Cross car, and cradles mounted. I would genuinely like to know more about the numbers you have, and where they came from.

Now this B to C pillar issues. It's not one. The load paths do not go through that area, and they don't on the mustang either.

The extension of the single panel does not add any significant structure on the Mustang. In order to add structure you need panels to be fully boxed. You get a little with the fact this area is captivated by the wheelhouse, roofbow, B and C pillar, and the body side outer. However by industry standards, that is not a load path.

He's just trying to look smart. For one, the 1le only gained 63lbs over the 1ss, not 85 like he says. Of that 63lbs, over 40 of that is in the eLSD, the rest is in the mag ride and larger brakes. There was no 85lbs of chassis stiffness added.

Another, have no clue what he talking about as far as taking off bumper at the last race for cooling. Sounds really made up for his propaganda.:headbonk: and the zl1 le lost weight, so that really puts a hole in his thinking.:cheers:

 

[Sasuketr]

I m certain with just an exhaust and wheel upgrade the zl1 and zl1 1le can further loose more than 60 lbs. Stock exhaust on the camaros are pretty heavy, combine an aftermarket borla type exhaust with a flow formed 20 lbs wheels and its more than 60 lbs.

 

[88mph]

I can understand why some people feel disappointed by Ford, but really, all Dodge and Chevy are providing is lower times and higher hp numbers - which are only good if you like paper and spreadsheets, since the better driver would still win in a race between the three despite the car they are driving.

Doesn't matter what they do to the Challenger or Camaro, they will never have the history, personality and the biggest flat plane crank V8 ever made that our GT350s get. This last thing not even Ferraris and Lambo's get.

So, in my book, we are still way ahead of Chevy and Dodge in the whole ownership experience department.

But hey, that's just me!

 

[68fbjjz109]

There is no reason to be disappointed.

There is only more optimization left in the S550/S650. And the car isn't overweight. Just not this 3400 lbs some people where throwing around.

The S550 platform is doing well where it matters. Desire, Racing, and Sales. There will be more Ford Performance variants, maybe even more support and funding for them because not only are they selling well, they are winning and bringing alot of positive attention to Ford, and Ford Performance.

This means we get more trickle down, and if sales are projected to stay high that means it's easier to amortize cost performance, content, or lightweighting.

I think Ford plays the long game well.

 

[thePill]

Can you clarify some of your statements. There is always a good conversation to be had. But big generalizing statements are not the way to do it.

-Very Very Flawed: In what way? It is very mass efficient.

The S550 has a solid 110lbs on the Alpha Camaro, so you have to keep that in mind. Even if GM is bolting in 60-90 lbs of reinforcements. The body structure is still lighter, and it may be far exceeding internal targets for the segment and platform.

I know the 2SS we have has no additional substructure, connecting rockers, frame rails, sheer plates.

The Camaro gets high marks in handling, Randy sure isn't saying the chassis feels like a wet noodle.

I have seen Modal numbers for the ATS and CTS. They are not in the realm in which you mentioned above. This makes me wonder. What if any components where included in the numbers you are claiming.

The numbers I have seen, have glass, IP Cross car, and cradles mounted. I would genuinely like to know more about the numbers you have, and where they came from.

Now this B to C pillar issues. It's not one. The load paths do not go through that area, and they don't on the mustang either.

The extension of the single panel does not add any significant structure on the Mustang. In order to add structure you need panels to be fully boxed. You get a little with the fact this area is captivated by the wheelhouse, roofbow, B and C pillar, and the body side outer. However by industry standards, that is not a load path.

No no, examine the Camaro's Alpha... the ATS Alpha and Camaro are not as related as people think. The ATS/Mustang off full b-c pillar support.

These areas were removed on the Camaro and the sub-frame system was used in its place.

Trust thePill, it the absolute worst possible way to save weight.

 

[EcoVert]

There is no reason to be disappointed.

There is only more optimization left in the S550/S650. And the car isn't overweight. Just not this 3400 lbs some people where throwing around.

The S550 platform is doing well where it matters. Desire, Racing, and Sales. There will be more Ford Performance variants, maybe even more support and funding for them because not only are they selling well, they are winning and bringing alot of positive attention to Ford, and Ford Performance.

This mean we get more trickle down, and if sales are projected to stay high that mean is easier to amortize cost performance, content, or lightweighting.

I think Ford plays the long game well.

That's why there's never been a break in Mustang prodution

 

[68fbjjz109]

No no, examine the Camaro's Alpha... the ATS Alpha and Camaro are not as related as people think. The ATS/Mustang off full b-c pillar support.

These areas were removed on the Camaro and the sub-frame system was used in its place.

Trust thePill, it the absolute worst possible way to save weight.

I have looked at all of there body in whites. I access to an ATS, CTS, Camaro, Challenger, and a Mustang.

The Camaro is on the Alpha platform, it is not a direct copy of the ATS. How each OEM flexes a vehicle platform is different. I could tell you exactly what panels are unique, similar, or common on all three. Send me a high res picture of yourself and I'll take pictures of any part of there body structure with you face in it if you want.

The "Inter" B to C pillar area of the car serves no real function for structure, it's just a panel. In many cars swiss cheese that area for weld head access.As it is a assembly enabler.

The Mustang has no true structure their either. Please see the above image with the Mustang's .85mm body side outer removed. There is no structure joining the B pillar the the rest of the body aside from the rocker panel to rear rail interface, and the roofbow.

Frankly it's a great place to take weight out. I would put money it's almost solid blue in a FEA analysis.

The Camaro is lighter due to material optimization, panel shape and forming, scalloping, castellation, and cast aluminum shock towers, and here is the ringer...

It's smaller in every dimension which equates to less weight.

The Camaro's additional structure is primarily in the convertible. The SS enjoys a larger and more integrated front cradle sheer plate, and two pencil braces over a lessor Camaro coupe.

 

[thePill]

http://m.chevrolet.com/2016-camaro-sports-car.html

Examine the naked structures profile on the Chevy site. It is THE ONLY pic of the Camaro's Alpha they will release.

As you can see, just comparing the ATS's Alpha (please see Coupe) and the Camaro Alpha, you can see why Triangulation was attempted sub-frame. You can visually see the missing metal...

That was how the larger Camaro became extremely lighter than the smaller ATS. However, the Camaro platform suffered in such amounts that Chevy WILL NOT release platform rigidity specs. If they did, we could instantly see the difference between the ATS (29,000) and the Camaro. It is probably 75% of what the ATS is capable of.

 

[thePill]

Long story short, thePill was specific about the ZL1 and 1LE merger when the z28 got canceled. I also discovered where my 80-100lbs went from the base SS, it reappeared later in the 1LE due to rigidity demands. I was also specific that the base ZL1 was NOT using adequate tire/wheel because we now see those were reserved for the ZL1LE. We have also witnessed the great extent on which the GT4 needs to go to keep the cool, that's a pretty big modification and should support thePill's need for an AC delete.

 

[thePill]

I have looked at all of there body in whites. I access to an ATS, CTS, Camaro, Challenger, and a Mustang.

The Camaro is on the Alpha platform, it is not a direct copy of the ATS. How each OEM flexes a vehicle platform is different. I could tell you exactly what panels are unique, similar, or common on all three. Send me a high res picture of yourself and I'll take pictures of any part of there body structure with you face in it if you want.

The "Inter" B to C pillar area of the car serves no real function for structure, it's just a panel. In many cars swiss cheese that area for weld head access.As it is a assembly enabler.

The Mustang has no true structure their either. Please see the above image with the Mustang's .85mm body side outer removed. There is no structure joining the B pillar the the rest of the body aside from the rocker panel to rear rail interface, and the roofbow.

Frankly it's a great place to take weight out. I would put money it's almost solid blue in a FEA analysis.

The Camaro is lighter due to material optimization, panel shape and forming, scalloping, castellation, and cast aluminum shock towers, and here is the ringer...

It's smaller in every dimension which equates to less weight.

The Camaro's additional structure is primarily in the convertible. The SS enjoys a larger and more integrated front cradle sheer plate, and two pencil braces over a lessor Camaro coupe.

Nope, that's all marketing fluff. You can see the missing metal with a naked eye.

http://www.boronextrication.com/2015/12/27/2016-chevrolet-camaro-body-structure/

This IS NOT missing on any modern vehicle.

 

[thePill]

Naked 6th Gen structure vs. the S550:

http://www.autosteel.org/~/media/Files/Autosteel/Great Designs in Steel/GDIS 2014/Shawn Morgans.pdf

Notice the S550 behind the B Pillar? Tank...

Go back and examine the area behind the Camaro's B-Pillar. Hell, even the ATS Coupe has metal there. This area should not be missing or, be capable or simply unbolting a few screws.

As I stated long ago, the Camaro potentially required intrusion beams behind the B-pillar :(

 

[thePill]

...okay, I don't have any more time. Nothing more about the ZL1LE I haven't said already.

I'm waiting for the GT500, it's suppose to be around here somewhere.

 

[EcoVert]

I have looked at all of there body in whites. I access to an ATS, CTS, Camaro, Challenger, and a Mustang.

The Camaro is on the Alpha platform, it is not a direct copy of the ATS. How each OEM flexes a vehicle platform is different. I could tell you exactly what panels are unique, similar, or common on all three. Send me a high res picture of yourself and I'll take pictures of any part of there body structure with you face in it if you want.

The "Inter" B to C pillar area of the car serves no real function for structure, it's just a panel. In many cars swiss cheese that area for weld head access.As it is a assembly enabler.

The Mustang has no true structure their either. Please see the above image with the Mustang's .85mm body side outer removed. There is no structure joining the B pillar the the rest of the body aside from the rocker panel to rear rail interface, and the roofbow.

Frankly it's a great place to take weight out. I would put money it's almost solid blue in a FEA analysis.

The Camaro is lighter due to material optimization, panel shape and forming, scalloping, castellation, and cast aluminum shock towers, and here is the ringer...

It's smaller in every dimension which equates to less weight.

The Camaro's additional structure is primarily in the convertible. The SS enjoys a larger and more integrated front cradle sheer plate, and two pencil braces over a lessor Camaro coupe.

Here a brace there a brace everywhere a brace brace :lol:

 

[Armen]

Every review I've read on the Camaro talks about how amazing it drives and give kudos to the platform, and that's even for the V6. Car&Driver purposely tried to get the ZL1 to overheat and couldn't.

Sponsored