More speculation
3/1/06, 09:27 PM
#141
Legacy TMS Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(max2000jp @ March 1, 2006, 1:45 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I am really hoping that the Camaro and GTO aren't tanks like the GT500. Manufacturers need to realize that you don't need all this hp if you build a lightweight car. A lighter car handles and brakes better as well. Now if the governement implemented harsher fuel economy requirements, everyone would be designing lighter cars, but that's a pipedream.
[/b][/quote]
Insurance companies would put a stop to that. They are in love with 5 star ratings. Unfortunately as a consequence modern vehicles have to bulk up in order to get those ratings due to material/cost/technology constraints wvwn though engineers agonize over trying to find effective ways to minimize the weight gain
I am really hoping that the Camaro and GTO aren't tanks like the GT500. Manufacturers need to realize that you don't need all this hp if you build a lightweight car. A lighter car handles and brakes better as well. Now if the governement implemented harsher fuel economy requirements, everyone would be designing lighter cars, but that's a pipedream.
[/b][/quote]
Insurance companies would put a stop to that. They are in love with 5 star ratings. Unfortunately as a consequence modern vehicles have to bulk up in order to get those ratings due to material/cost/technology constraints wvwn though engineers agonize over trying to find effective ways to minimize the weight gain
3/1/06, 11:42 PM
#142
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bob @ March 1, 2006, 10:30 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Insurance companies would put a stop to that. They are in love with 5 star ratings. Unfortunately as a consequence modern vehicles have to bulk up in order to get those ratings due to material/cost/technology constraints wvwn though engineers agonize over trying to find effective ways to minimize the weight gain
[/b][/quote]
That's simply not true. Heavier doesn't mean safer. Lightweight materials, such as Carbon Fiber, is actually lighter yet stronger than steel.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GT98 @ March 1, 2006, 7:35 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
No because they dont have the UAW to deal with as a Union. For a compairson...GE workers where paying $200 a year for medical, but until recently...UAW where paying NOTHING!
[/b][/quote]
What Jack Frost said does hold true. GM/Ford management let the UAW control too much, which could be attributed to poor bargaining skills by management.
Insurance companies would put a stop to that. They are in love with 5 star ratings. Unfortunately as a consequence modern vehicles have to bulk up in order to get those ratings due to material/cost/technology constraints wvwn though engineers agonize over trying to find effective ways to minimize the weight gain
[/b][/quote]
That's simply not true. Heavier doesn't mean safer. Lightweight materials, such as Carbon Fiber, is actually lighter yet stronger than steel.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GT98 @ March 1, 2006, 7:35 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
No because they dont have the UAW to deal with as a Union. For a compairson...GE workers where paying $200 a year for medical, but until recently...UAW where paying NOTHING!
[/b][/quote]
What Jack Frost said does hold true. GM/Ford management let the UAW control too much, which could be attributed to poor bargaining skills by management.
3/2/06, 06:18 AM
#143
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(max2000jp @ March 1, 2006, 10:45 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
That's simply not true. Heavier doesn't mean safer. Lightweight materials, such as Carbon Fiber, is actually lighter yet stronger than steel.
[/b][/quote]
Partly "simply not true."
Structural rigidity of carbon fiber is definitely stronger than many forms of steel (discounting, of course, alloys like titanium), but the tensile strength of carbon fiber during something like a high speed impact is a different story - it tends to shatter.
And of course, while you can certainly have strength AND light weight - you will pay for it.
That's simply not true. Heavier doesn't mean safer. Lightweight materials, such as Carbon Fiber, is actually lighter yet stronger than steel.
[/b][/quote]
Partly "simply not true."
Structural rigidity of carbon fiber is definitely stronger than many forms of steel (discounting, of course, alloys like titanium), but the tensile strength of carbon fiber during something like a high speed impact is a different story - it tends to shatter.
And of course, while you can certainly have strength AND light weight - you will pay for it.
3/2/06, 06:57 AM
#144
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 3, 2005
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05fordgt @ February 28, 2006, 9:30 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
About the next Mustang, When the Challenger comes out (and its been stated it will only be a 6.1, 6-speed auto, expensive, and in limited #'s like the Shelby, see Letters in new April Road & Track), and the Camaro (won't be out before 2010), the new 2009 Mustang will be out, and by then, I bet we will see a vastly changed, and improved car, with an IRS, and 6-speed, and more HP, and more creature comforts.
[/b][/quote]
But as per my very first post...2009 is waaaay too late in this market.
The Mustang you just described, should've been on offer NOW.
About the next Mustang, When the Challenger comes out (and its been stated it will only be a 6.1, 6-speed auto, expensive, and in limited #'s like the Shelby, see Letters in new April Road & Track), and the Camaro (won't be out before 2010), the new 2009 Mustang will be out, and by then, I bet we will see a vastly changed, and improved car, with an IRS, and 6-speed, and more HP, and more creature comforts.
[/b][/quote]
But as per my very first post...2009 is waaaay too late in this market.
The Mustang you just described, should've been on offer NOW.
3/2/06, 07:14 AM
#145
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 3, 2005
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GT98 @ March 1, 2006, 8:35 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
No because they dont have the UAW to deal with as a Union. For a compairson...GE workers where paying $200 a year for medical, but until recently...UAW where paying NOTHING!
[/b][/quote]
And whose fault is that?
What bothers me about Ford and GM bringing up the whole 'legacy cost' thing...is that both Ford and GM are increasingly using it in the press as an excuse for what is really inexcusable. Having the convenience of something to fall back on better not be taking their attention away from the real, organic, problems.
BTW, I was an engineer at GE in the early 90's...the so-called 'Neutron Jack' years. I wasn't a member of any of the unions within GE, but I remember them going on strike a few times, so GE does wrestle with labour issues like anybody else. But those issues have never been a factor in their balance sheet.
A car purchase is different because it is one that is heavily influenced by emotion. It is a purchase comparable only to buying a home. Peeps don't by a car the way they buy a clothes washer. And that's why I don't buy the legacy cost excuse. If somebody really wants a car, a mere coupla thousand, + or -, ain't gonna stop them from buying a car they love.
No because they dont have the UAW to deal with as a Union. For a compairson...GE workers where paying $200 a year for medical, but until recently...UAW where paying NOTHING!
[/b][/quote]
And whose fault is that?
What bothers me about Ford and GM bringing up the whole 'legacy cost' thing...is that both Ford and GM are increasingly using it in the press as an excuse for what is really inexcusable. Having the convenience of something to fall back on better not be taking their attention away from the real, organic, problems.
BTW, I was an engineer at GE in the early 90's...the so-called 'Neutron Jack' years. I wasn't a member of any of the unions within GE, but I remember them going on strike a few times, so GE does wrestle with labour issues like anybody else. But those issues have never been a factor in their balance sheet.
A car purchase is different because it is one that is heavily influenced by emotion. It is a purchase comparable only to buying a home. Peeps don't by a car the way they buy a clothes washer. And that's why I don't buy the legacy cost excuse. If somebody really wants a car, a mere coupla thousand, + or -, ain't gonna stop them from buying a car they love.
3/2/06, 08:50 AM
#146
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BC_Shelby @ March 2, 2006, 7:21 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Partly "simply not true."
Structural rigidity of carbon fiber is definitely stronger than many forms of steel (discounting, of course, alloys like titanium), but the tensile strength of carbon fiber during something like a high speed impact is a different story - it tends to shatter.
And of course, while you can certainly have strength AND light weight - you will pay for it.
[/b][/quote]
I've seen Carbon Fiber shatter before in accidents, but it was at extreme speeds in race cars. F1 cars and many Supercars use monocoque CF safety structures. I don't know if you saw the picture of the Enzo that crashes and hit a telephone pole on PCH. The black box showed the car was doing 160 at the time of impact and the driver walked away with a bloody lip. This obviously isn't feasible in lower priced cars, but aluminum could be.
Partly "simply not true."
Structural rigidity of carbon fiber is definitely stronger than many forms of steel (discounting, of course, alloys like titanium), but the tensile strength of carbon fiber during something like a high speed impact is a different story - it tends to shatter.
And of course, while you can certainly have strength AND light weight - you will pay for it.
[/b][/quote]
I've seen Carbon Fiber shatter before in accidents, but it was at extreme speeds in race cars. F1 cars and many Supercars use monocoque CF safety structures. I don't know if you saw the picture of the Enzo that crashes and hit a telephone pole on PCH. The black box showed the car was doing 160 at the time of impact and the driver walked away with a bloody lip. This obviously isn't feasible in lower priced cars, but aluminum could be.
3/2/06, 01:16 PM
#147
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, titanium is not an alloy of steel, which is actually an iron alloy, but a metalic element all its own. While actually fairly common in the earth's crust, it is combined with other elements and takes a great deal of energy to extract and process, much like aluminum. A shame, because is has about the weight of aluminum, the strength of steel and is corrosion proof to boot.
As for CF, it is extremely strong, but generally along specific, directional load vectors. Thus, CF structures need to be more carefully fabricated than typical metal structures to realize its benefits, which makes them very, very expensive.
Yes, CF structures, much like all composite materials, tend to shatter in impacts. But this is a rather good trait. As with crush zoned steel structures, the process of shattering absorbs a huge abount of the kinetic energy thereby cushioning the passenger compartment in the process. Properly designed and engineered CF structures can provide a huge level of impact safety to the driver, albeit at a huge price.
Of course, with any material, proper engineering is by far the greatest variable in providing accident survivability beyond any inherent traits of a particular construction material itself.
As for CF, it is extremely strong, but generally along specific, directional load vectors. Thus, CF structures need to be more carefully fabricated than typical metal structures to realize its benefits, which makes them very, very expensive.
Yes, CF structures, much like all composite materials, tend to shatter in impacts. But this is a rather good trait. As with crush zoned steel structures, the process of shattering absorbs a huge abount of the kinetic energy thereby cushioning the passenger compartment in the process. Properly designed and engineered CF structures can provide a huge level of impact safety to the driver, albeit at a huge price.
Of course, with any material, proper engineering is by far the greatest variable in providing accident survivability beyond any inherent traits of a particular construction material itself.
3/2/06, 03:52 PM
#149
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Knight @ March 2, 2006, 4:44 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
I think Ford should use the cheapest interior plastics they can get their hands on and get the Mustang GT to price under $20k
[/b][/quote]
Never going to happen.
I think Ford should use the cheapest interior plastics they can get their hands on and get the Mustang GT to price under $20k
[/b][/quote]
Never going to happen.
3/2/06, 05:39 PM
#150
Needs to be more Astony
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(max2000jp @ March 2, 2006, 4:55 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Never going to happen.
[/b][/quote]
i know
I am just saying what i want...not really speculating.
Never going to happen.
[/b][/quote]
i know
I am just saying what i want...not really speculating.
3/2/06, 05:42 PM
#151
Legacy TMS Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(max2000jp @ March 2, 2006, 1:45 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
That's simply not true. Heavier doesn't mean safer. Lightweight materials, such as Carbon Fiber, is actually lighter yet stronger than steel.[/b][/quote]
Currently Defunct F-bod - uses plastic body components - heavier than the all steel SN95 mustangs , around 25,000
Corvette Z06 - uses some carbon fiber (in no structural capacity that I'm aware of) - costs 68,000 (although this is a car that uses composites in the form of fiber reinforced plastics)
Saleen S7 TT - uses lightweight materials, along with carbon fiber (possibly in a streesed configuration to enhance rigidity as well as reducing weight, or simply to reduce weight) - costs 590,000
Mosler MT900S - see Saleen TT - costs 211,000
Ford GT- see above - 156,000
Bugatti Veyron - Carbon Fiber structure with alloy attatchments - cost 1,000,000 IIRC
Mclaren F1 - see Veyron - cost almost 1,000,000 IIRC
ad nauseum...
Now a little more practical (not really from my stand point) The aluminum front structures used by BMW in its cars, the big benefit! 50% lighter than a comparable steel front structure (Z8 aside) apprently no loss of strength. Downside, only 6 places in the world can repair the car if you bend that structure bad enough at about 20,000 dollars to repair. Most insurance companies will junk your Bimmer if you wreck that jewel of a front end due to repair costs.
I dunno, I'm seeing a trend here?
Anywhosit, it would be nice to see incremental weight reductions using afforable technology. I'm not holding my breath. Then again while I'd like a lighter car (simply because 300 HP would take me farther with less weight) I'm not gonna lament the weight of the current car. Its simply the result in a world we have chosen to create.
That's simply not true. Heavier doesn't mean safer. Lightweight materials, such as Carbon Fiber, is actually lighter yet stronger than steel.[/b][/quote]
Currently Defunct F-bod - uses plastic body components - heavier than the all steel SN95 mustangs , around 25,000
Corvette Z06 - uses some carbon fiber (in no structural capacity that I'm aware of) - costs 68,000 (although this is a car that uses composites in the form of fiber reinforced plastics)
Saleen S7 TT - uses lightweight materials, along with carbon fiber (possibly in a streesed configuration to enhance rigidity as well as reducing weight, or simply to reduce weight) - costs 590,000
Mosler MT900S - see Saleen TT - costs 211,000
Ford GT- see above - 156,000
Bugatti Veyron - Carbon Fiber structure with alloy attatchments - cost 1,000,000 IIRC
Mclaren F1 - see Veyron - cost almost 1,000,000 IIRC
ad nauseum...
Now a little more practical (not really from my stand point) The aluminum front structures used by BMW in its cars, the big benefit! 50% lighter than a comparable steel front structure (Z8 aside) apprently no loss of strength. Downside, only 6 places in the world can repair the car if you bend that structure bad enough at about 20,000 dollars to repair. Most insurance companies will junk your Bimmer if you wreck that jewel of a front end due to repair costs.
I dunno, I'm seeing a trend here?
Anywhosit, it would be nice to see incremental weight reductions using afforable technology. I'm not holding my breath. Then again while I'd like a lighter car (simply because 300 HP would take me farther with less weight) I'm not gonna lament the weight of the current car. Its simply the result in a world we have chosen to create.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Zastava_101
Ford Discussions
19
8/14/07 09:55 PM