vetteconvert

I don't think so! That's if the car had an all aluminum space-frame.....and the Z06 doesn't have that.


Not even the all aluminum Jaguar XJ was able to get that kind of weight savings (percentage) going from traditional steel to all Al Space-Frame. And trust me, they tried real hard.

LTC Z06

Runge_Kutta

Sir, you should get a copy of

http://www.sae.org/servlets/productD...PROD_CD=970089

before you comment on the weight of Corvette frames. The C5 frame
is approximately 228kg = 502 pounds. The 2005 C6 frame has a bit
of aluminum - hence my comment 450-500 pounds. Weight savings
of up to 44% were deemed possible in the study of a Ford SUV
frame if it was switched from steel to aluminum and section
dimensions increased a bit - 20% with the same section sizes.
There are many more examples of 20%-35+% weight losses with
aluminum frames.

I'll say it again, there are many informative links that you might
want to read inside this thread

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=723777

Do you think that you've heard all of the weight loss issues associated
with the Z06 yet? Are you absolutely sure the exhaust system is not
titanium? Is GM going to make an aluminum frame and magnesium
subframes only to squander that weight savings on assorted lead weights.
The fact that there are now two frames and 2 sets of subframes tells
you worlds about the intent here: serious weight loss. That intent is
utterly inconsistent with a C6 Z06 weighing more than a C5 Z06.

On a more subjective note, given the inevitability of information leaking
before the embargo dates, holding a few details for the real release
makes sense.

ivan111

Here is an article were you can see the weight reduction that Ferrari got by changing to an Aluminum frame in the 360 Modena over the steel 355:

http://www.deskeng.com/articles/02/j...r/main_dig.htm



Ferrari 360 Modena AL chassis weight is 337 pounds, if you add 28% to that that equals 431 pounds for the 355 so the 360 net reduction is 94 pounds.....

Pretty good reduction despite the Modena being a larger frame than the 355......

So the C6 Z06 Aluminum frame has to be at least 100 pounds lighter than the base C6 steel frame.....

Talisker

Umm...I'm sorry, I really shouldn't be biting this bait, especially since you probably meant it as half a joke anyway, but I just couldn't resist replying to this. Can't resist, cannot resist---can not...


The *RX-8*???!?!!

??!?!?!?!??!?!!

!!!!!!!!!! ??????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SIR, PLEASE PUT DOWN THE CHALUPA AND BACK AWAY FROM THE CRACK PIPE SLOWLY...


Yeah, it's a sports car, and I suppose compared to some vehicles it's high performance, but this is most definitely not what the original poster meant. Note he said "over" 300 HP. There's a reason he said that. The reason was specifically to exclude chicken@#$* riffraff like RX-8's...or even 350Z's or 2005 Mustang GT's, the engine from either of which would turn the RX-8's transmission and/or rear differential into silly putty in about TWO hard launches. Okay, maybe THREE. Hell, one of them (the RX-8's tranny or diff) would probably just spontaneously explode like a liberal female facing reality the minute you cranked the starter after an engine swap.

The point the original poster was getting at is that there is no free ride. Everything has a cost, whether in money, weight, complexity, durability, performance...*something*.

The RX-8 makes decent power. After a few "oops, where did that power go?" episodes, Mazda eventually decided the car made 238 HP...at 8500 RPM! Think about what that really means to the metal south of the flywheel. It means 147 LB-FT. *Peak* torque is 159 @ 5500.

Now I'm not trying to get into a HP vs. torque debate. (That debate is simple: the only thing (no more, no less) you need to evaluate an engine is a *horsepower* dyno graph. A torque dyno graph will do...as long as you plan to convert it to a *horsepower* dyno graph. All of you "torque = accelleration, power = speed" guys don't understand WTF you're talking about, so please stop talking about it! Thank you. EOF.)

The relevant point is: instant shock loading is what breaks parts. Yeah, cumulative stress will do it eventually, but a single really big shock load is equivalent to a LOT of gradual stress. There are two ways to instantly shock load your drivetrain:

1. You are driving some turbo/RPM-whipped b*tchmobile like an RX-8 (which I haven't driven) or an S2000 (which i have driven, the original 2.0L motor, which has almost identical power characteristics to the RX-8) and you dump the clutch from a stop at 7000 RPM. Oh, wait, I forgot, the clutches of these cars are about as strong as a wad of cotton candy wrapped in wet Kleenex, so this doesn't even work so well. But humor me for a moment.

2. You are driving a man's car making 350+ LB-FT of torque at a reasonable RPM, and you suddenly punch the throttle. Anywhere. Anytime. Your engine makes enough grunt that it doesn't need a clutch drop to make the metal downstream feel a noticable nudge.

Now, let's imagine we're car manufacturers, who have stuff like warranty claims to worry about. Which happens more often among the GENERAL POPULATION: 7K RPM clutch drops, or punching the throttle in traffic?

That's right! You now understand why the rear differential in an S2000 (oooh! 240 HP! oooh!) is basically the same balsa wood 7th grade science project they put in the back of Miatas, and the differential in the back of your car is a Dana 44. And you're also a long way to understanding why the shifter in an S2000 is as sweet as a 16-year-old girl who just ran away from home and really REALLY needs a place to stay (Jesus, save me!)...and why your T-56 reminds you of your wife on her period.

In case you are still unclear on this concept, please visit a Mazda dealer and examine the half-shafts of an RX-8. Now go take a gander at the half-shafts of a 2003 SVT Cobra, a vehicle that is *ONE* paycheck away from 450 RWHP / 450 RWTQ. See anything different? Yes, that's called "metal." It weighs a lot.


Really, though, I shouldn't pick on this RX-8 guy. I think he was just fooling around anyway. But...

To all you guys who were ever licking enough windowpane to think the Z06 would weigh 2900 lbs...HELLO! Look at the S2000. It has much less space for people and for storage than a Corvette. It has a 2 liter 4 cylinder motor. It has 16" wheels with 205's and 225's (the one I drove, anyway). It has brakes small enough to fit in 16" wheels. It is a goddamn GO-KART!

And it is an absolute joy to drive, pure and wonderful, truly one of the best cars available for purchase today.....but it weighs 2800 LBS! A 2800 LB GO-KART. And you think a 475 LB-FT supercar that will likely run with Ferrari F430's will weigh 2900? For less than six figures? Hell the damn Ferrari weighs almost 3200 and it costs $170 grand! The Ford GT saves you thirty large but weighs ~3500.

An RX-8 weighs 3029 with common options according to Mazda's website. No Dana 44. No Viper-spec T-56. No 427 cubic inch V8 that will probably be making 650 crankshaft HP with readily available, affordable aftermarket heads & cams packages (that means no messing with internals! cheap labor!). A drivetrain made from toothpicks and pencils, fully capable of withstanding a whopping 159 LB-FT of torque...and still it weighs 3,029 LBS.


So, when this car comes in weighing 3130, or whatever...count your blessings. Praise Jesus or Allah or Satan or whoever it is you do obeisance to. The article on the C6 Z06 said their goal was the price of a base Porsche 911 Carrera. Apparently some of you do not have access to the *Internet*, but a quick check on Edmunds shows that to be around $69K, which is, in fact, *not* $75K. If GM can really deliver a daily drivable *Viper*, an affordable match for the Ferrari F430 (*3* seconds faster around Fiorano than the 360, only 2 seconds behind the $650K Enzo, per Ferrari supposedly) for ~$70K...

...they will sell every one they can make. No. Problem.


PS This post has been moderately incoherent. But, really...an RX-8? Come on. Cut me some slack.

Scissors

That's because the other web sites and the magazines got their information from that original site.

Runge_Kutta

ivan111

Runge you have said before that the Z06 AL frame weight savings should be about 110 pounds, more that 110 pounds you think is rather unlikely?

Scissors

Wow. It must have taken you a while to think up that response.

Scissors

Here we go. Looks like you were FOS...or simply mistaken. Either way you should have checked your facts before purposely being a jerk to me.

Here's someone reporting the correct 3,179 lb. curb weight on the 4th of January 2004. That would be the...uh...release date!

What's more, the link that the guy provided was to the official Corvette site.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=722990

I've admitted being wrong about the displacement of the Z06. I wonder if you are capable of admitting that you were wrong here. Somehow I doubt it.

Scissors

Here I am on the 26th of December 2003 attempting to debunk the 3,245 nonsense:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...post1546001703

As it shortly turned out, the true weights were even better than the ones I quoted from the RPO list. Not suprising since the list I was referring to had been around for a while.

The 3,245 number came from one site and soon spread to others and to magazines. I believe it was the Corvette Museum site, which had some erroneous info.