Dodge Challenger, Chevrolet Camaro

[SVT666]

Yeah except it wasn't an all-new chassis.? It was a derivative of the Lincoln LS, which was a four-door sedan, as 93JC noted.

Although so heavily modified that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Lincoln's chassis.

[93JC]

Oh please... Frame rails, floorpans, structural members: I'm not saying S197 is nothing but DEW98 in Mustang clothing, but to say they "don't resemble each other" is farcical. They share quite a bit.

Whether you believe that or not, to suggest the GM Zeta chassis is inferior because it's adaptable from two-door GTs to four-door wagon applications is idiotic.

[SVT666]

Oh please... Frame rails, floorpans, structural members: I'm not saying S197 is nothing but DEW98 in Mustang clothing, but to say they "don't resemble each other" is farcical. They share quite a bit.

From Wikipedia: "At the 2004 North American International Auto Show, Ford introduced a completely redesigned Mustang which was codenamed "S-197" and based on an all-new D2C platform for the 2005 model year."

Whether you believe that or not, to suggest the GM Zeta chassis is inferior because it's adaptable from two-door GTs to four-door wagon applications is idiotic.

That was Nethead.  Not me.

[Vinsanity]

6.? ?They figure that there are thousands of disenchanted import owners just waiting for the chance to upgrade to a car that was legendary for its quality and utility, or...

I don't know about thousands, but I wouldn't mind replacing the old Infiniti with one of these beasts. If I can get away with having a muscle car and an s2000 in the driveway, then hell yeah I'd buy one (I don't consider myself "disenchanted", though, unless you're talking about owning older cars)

[93JC]

From Wikipedia: "At the 2004 North American International Auto Show, Ford introduced a completely redesigned Mustang which was codenamed "S-197" and based on an all-new D2C platform for the 2005 model year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D2C_platform

Despite rumours hinting otherwise, D2C is loosely based on the Ford DEW platform which served as the basis for the Lincoln LS, Ford Thunderbird, and Jaguar S-Type. The 2005 S197 Mustang was originally designed to use a "Lite" version of the DEW98 platform, but while that plan was eventually scrapped as too expensive, most D2C platform development completed prior to that decision was retained. This led to the carryover of several DEW98 chassis components. These components include the floor pans, portions of the transmission tunnel, the front frame rails, and fuel tank design.

Differences between D2C and DEW98 are most noticeable in the suspension: The DEW98-based Lincoln LS uses a 4-wheel independent double wishbone suspension. The D2C platform's MacPherson strut front suspension and solid axle rear suspension are less expensive to produce than DEW's more complicated setup. D2C also shares components with other Ford platforms. These include Ford's global C1 platform, with which D2C shares front strut and rear trailing arm components.

That was Nethead. Not me.

I know. The more important point of my original post was that sharing parts is not a bad thing, contrary to what he suggested.

[Raza]

I really want the Challenger.  I'll probably buy one in 2011 or 2012.

[SVT666]

I really want the Challenger.? I'll probably buy one in 2011 or 2012.

I'm with you on this.  I don't understand the hatred some people have for this car.  I probably won't ever buy one because feep fown I want a Mustang more, but I really do love the Challenger.

[Raza]

I'm with you on this.  I don't understand the hatred some people have for this car.  I probably won't ever buy one because feep fown I want a Mustang more, but I really do love the Challenger.

Every time I see the S197 from a rear 3/4 angle, I fall in love with it.  But the Challenger is so...god damn cool.  I can't stand it.  Now the Camaro I don't care for, but that Challenger...I need to own one.  I can't explain it.  I haven't felt this way about a car other than the GTO, 911, and Elise.

[SVT666]

Like this?



That is apparently the Bullitt.  The colour of course will be highland green and I also hear black will be available.  Those black wheels will be part of the package as well.  Unfortunately the specs are not that that impressive.  It will be a Shelby GT in Bullitt trim.  It's not what Mustang fans were expecting.

[Raza]

I'd buy it in black, though.  I saw that Bullitt remake chase in some magazine, and that's when I fell for the Mustang.  Seeing it without the spoiler rocking through San Fran...that did it. 

[SVT666]

I'd buy it in black, though.? I saw that Bullitt remake chase in some magazine, and that's when I fell for the Mustang.? Seeing it without the spoiler rocking through San Fran...that did it.?

Black instead of the highland green?? Every time I see a 2001 Bullitt in green I fall in love with it all over again.? Even though it only has 5 hp more then a standard GT.

[SVT666]

But this is the one I love the most from that body style.

[Raza]

I just don't like green.

[Nethead]

Oh please... Frame rails, floorpans, structural members: I'm not saying S197 is nothing but DEW98 in Mustang clothing, but to say they "don't resemble each other" is farcical. They share quite a bit.

Whether you believe that or not, to suggest the GM Zeta chassis is inferior because it's adaptable from two-door GTs to four-door wagon applications is idiotic.

93JC:  No one's saying the Zeta is "inferior"--but if it's light enough to help the CAFE numbers for the sedans, mini-SUVs, and a xB-ish wheeled box, then is it stiff enough to withstand the torque of a big inch V8?

Nah.  Too many variants with different design expectations.  Under 250 HP, the chassis might could meet all expectations satisfactorily.  At around that amount of power and obviously beyond that amount of power, the compromises will out.  Twisting under big torque will start the rattles, the squeaks, and eventually the driveline strains that insufficient stiffness creates for every vehicle.  Add high speed to insufficient stiffness and things get tricky.  Don't take my word for it, wait and see the editorials and web postings a year after the cars hit the dealerships.

And, yes, the Nethead here is talkin' pounds per inch of deflection again--the statements are true, nonetheless, and I can't change them because I don't know if one inch of deflection at an extreme corner of a body/frame while the other end of the body/frame is rigidly clamped horizontally equals one degree of deflection or not.  It might only be a half of a degree, or three-eighths of a degree, or...  But the "free" corners of the body/frame will bend only a distance of one inch when around 7500 pounds is suspended from that corner. 

Now, you might be able to compute degrees of deflection per pound of suspended weight by measuring the  distance from the clamped location at one end of the body-frame to the point at which the weight is suspended.  This would be a radius (say 14 feet (168 inches), but it's probably longer than that) and the clamping point would be the center of an imaginary circle.  Compute the circumference (pi--say 3.14--times diameter (twice 168 inches, which is 336 inches) which works out to a circumference of approx 1,055 inches) of our imaginary circle here and divide that circumference by 360 (which works out to about 2.93 inches per degree for a circle 28 feet in diameter).  This is a seriously rough calculation, but it says that one degree of deflection would mean a drop at the corner of almost 3 inches.  Which means it takes nearly 7500 pounds to twist the Mustang's body/frame about one-third of a degree.  I'll let you convert this to Newton-joules, or whatever the term may be that physicists would use.  JCDude, you are also welcome to apply more precision to this computation (such as providing a more precise pi value than my rough guess of 3.14 and the exact length of an S197 Mustang's body/frame versus my intentionally understated 14 feet).

Sounds seriously effin' stiff to the Nethead here...and I'll bet that the Zeta won't match that level of torsional rigidity.  Inwardly, I don't think the Zeta will even be close...It's not that it can't be done, but that it won't be done...The Challenged will be much closer to the Mustang in body/frame torsional rigidity--but it will have a shortened version of a body/frame designed from the outset to handle big, powerful engines in a heavier car.  No pussy CAFE considerations here, for sure!

[93JC]

*sigh*

Nethead: I'm sorry, but you're woefully ignorant on this. I don't pretend to be an expert in chassis dynamics by any stretch, but even I can tell you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about.

Once and for all, torsional rigidity is not measure in force/length. For your own sake forget you ever heard this 6500 lb/in figure you bandy about, because it's wrong. Very wrong. Quit saying it. Quit purporting it's somehow 'true': it is not.

Now, you might be able to compute degrees of deflection per pound of suspended weight by measuring the distance from the clamped location at one end of the body-frame to the point at which the weight is suspended. This would be a radius (say 14 feet (168 inches), but it's probably longer than that) and the clamping point would be the center of an imaginary circle.  Compute the circumference (pi--say 3.14--times diameter (twice 168 inches, which is 336 inches) which works out to a circumference of approx 1,055 inches) of our imaginary circle here and divide that circumference by 360 (which works out to about 2.93 inches per degree for a circle 28 feet in diameter).  This is a seriously rough calculation, but it says that one degree of deflection would mean a drop at the corner of almost 3 inches.  Which means it takes nearly 7500 pounds to twist the Mustang's body/frame about one-third of a degree.  I'll let you convert this to Newton-joules, or whatever the term may be that physicists would use.  JCDude, you are also welcome to apply more precision to this computation (such as providing a more precise pi value than my rough guess of 3.14 and the exact length of an S197 Mustang's body/frame versus my intentionally understated 14 feet).

The fact you're trying to figure this out shows you EXACTLY why torsional rigidity is expressed in force-length/degree.


Face it: you just do not know what you're talking about.

Look: http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9480/ford-mustang-gt-convertible.html

Fifth paragraph down: Ford says the droptop Mustang's torsional rigidity torques out at 6500 pound-feet per degree of twist. The old convertible was rated at 3000.

The convertible has a torsional rigidity of 6500 ft-lb/?. Now shut the fuck up about this 6500 lb/in NON-SENSE!


Now, 6500 ft-lb/?: that's crap. That's not bad for a convertible, but it's not very stiff at all, in the grand scheme of things.

More searching yields this: http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/05/05/safety.htm

The body structure is 31 percent stiffer in torsion, meaning that a twisting force of 15,500 foot-pounds can deform the body by only one degree.

So the coupe is 15500 ft-lb/?: much better, as it should be.

Now, 15500: where does that stand in the grand scheme of things?
The VW Passat is 23900 ft-lb/degree.
The Mini Cooper is similar.

So, now what do you think of your assertion that "if it's light enough to help the CAFE numbers for the sedans, mini-SUVs, and a xB-ish wheeled box," then it is not "stiff enough to withstand the torque of a big inch V8"? Keeping in mind a mid-size German car and a shitty little sub-compact are stiffer than a Mustang.

[Raza]

Passat rules!

[Rich]

So, now what do you think of your assertion that "if it's light enough to help the CAFE numbers for the sedans, mini-SUVs, and a xB-ish wheeled box," then it is not "stiff enough to withstand the torque of a big inch V8"? Keeping in mind a mid-size German car and a shitty little sub-compact are stiffer than a Mustang.

[Raza]

We rock!


And the Passat's a compact, I believe. 

[SVT666]

I think someone just got owned.

[93JC]

Sorry NetDude, looking back on it it comes off as pretty rude on my part.

[Nethead]

*sigh*

Nethead: I'm sorry, but you're woefully ignorant on this. I don't pretend to be an expert in chassis dynamics by any stretch, but even I can tell you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about.

Once and for all, torsional rigidity is not measure in force/length. For your own sake forget you ever heard this 6500 lb/in figure you bandy about, because it's wrong. Very wrong. Quit saying it. Quit purporting it's somehow 'true': it is not.

The fact you're trying to figure this out shows you EXACTLY why torsional rigidity is expressed in force-length/degree.


Face it: you just do not know what you're talking about.

Look: http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9480/ford-mustang-gt-convertible.html

Fifth paragraph down: Ford says the droptop Mustang's torsional rigidity torques out at 6500 pound-feet per degree of twist. The old convertible was rated at 3000.

The convertible has a torsional rigidity of 6500 ft-lb/?. Now shut the fuck up about this 6500 lb/in NON-SENSE!


Now, 6500 ft-lb/?: that's crap. That's not bad for a convertible, but it's not very stiff at all, in the grand scheme of things.

More searching yields this: http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/05/05/safety.htm

The body structure is 31 percent stiffer in torsion, meaning that a twisting force of 15,500 foot-pounds can deform the body by only one degree.

So the coupe is 15500 ft-lb/?: much better, as it should be.

Now, 15500: where does that stand in the grand scheme of things?
The VW Passat is 23900 ft-lb/degree.
The Mini Cooper is similar.

So, now what do you think of your assertion that "if it's light enough to help the CAFE numbers for the sedans, mini-SUVs, and a xB-ish wheeled box," then it is not "stiff enough to withstand the torque of a big inch V8"? Keeping in mind a mid-size German car and a shitty little sub-compact are stiffer than a Mustang.

93JC: The Nethead here does not deny being "woefully ignorant" in body/frame torsional rigidity verification.  Like you, I ain't got a Mustang out in the driveway to clamp down rigidly and start loading the corners at the far end with sand bags to see how many sandbags I can pile on to see whether an inch of measurable deflection occurs first or a degree of measurable deflection occurs first.  So I googled awhile and found this on a Ford website, referring to current Mustangs as opposed to the '05s Brad Barnette's site discussed in your link.  '06 and later Mustangs are more rigid than all previous Mustangs, including the '05s.  These figures are in JCspeak, too, which should satisfy your inner physicist!  There are no "before" figures for measurements taken before the add'l seam welds and the integrated safety cage.

CHASSIS
Type: Uni-body full seam welded with integrated safety cage
Structural Performance: Over 20,000ft-lbs/degree(torsional)
Construction: Ford - modified stock steel

In any case, we will eventually see some figures of a similar nature for the new Camaro and the new Challenged (which will likely be improved over the current Charger if anyone can find these figures for Chargers).
The Challenger may be as rigid as the body/frame of the Mustang--or even more rigid--but the Camaro won't be. 

[93JC]

The Challenger may be as rigid as the body/frame of the Mustang--or even more rigid--but the Camaro won't be.

Why?

[SVT666]

Why?

I would like to know too actually.

[omicron]

93JC: No one's saying the Zeta is "inferior"--but if it's light enough to help the CAFE numbers for the sedans, mini-SUVs, and a xB-ish wheeled box, then is it stiff enough to withstand the torque of a big inch V8?

Nah. Too many variants with different design expectations. Under 250 HP, the chassis might could meet all expectations satisfactorily. At around that amount of power and obviously beyond that amount of power, the compromises will out. Twisting under big torque will start the rattles, the squeaks, and eventually the driveline strains that insufficient stiffness creates for every vehicle. Add high speed to insufficient stiffness and things get tricky. Don't take my word for it, wait and see the editorials and web postings a year after the cars hit the dealerships.

Hang on. What do you think Zeta is being used for? It's first application was the VE Holden Commodore - a large, heavy RWD sedan, fitted with anything from a 241hp V6 up to a 412hp 6.0 V8 in the HSV variants. Lack of body stiffness or torsional rigidity has never been called into question; in fact, quite the opposite.

[rohan]

Really Nethead, what does being a pushrodder have to do with anything?? That's right...nothing.? The Camaro and Challenger will die quick deaths because they are way too late to the party and the cost of fuel will keep people from buying them.

Not to mention that GM knew they were only going to build the GTO for 3 years.  Man is he one track minded- anything to make the GTO and GM look bad.  I have one and it's one of the best cars GM made in a long time - it's so quiet and rides SOOOO nice but handles crisply and turns really small circles for a bigger car - then if you want to smile- stomp on the gas!   

Just make sure you turn off that darned anti-spin crap.

[rohan]

people don't want pushrod engines,

Really?? Seems like the Hemi and the LS2 do fairly well in sales and they have reasonably high RPM redlines now.? ?My 6.0 has a redline of about 6800 and pretty mchu hits it in stride without losing it's breath then makes funny blue stuff from the tires goinig into 2nd and sometimes 3rd gear.? ?Nto being a smartarse just seems like they sell pretty well to their market.

Can someone do me a favor and tell me if they think this sounds accurate or is way off?
http://www.cheersandgears.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15551&hl=

It won't come up but it's on Cheersandgears.com in the C&G Tech Corner, GM powertrains, A case for the Pushrod...

[ro51092]

Most people don't know what a pushrod engine is.

[rohan]

Most people don't know what a pushrod engine is.

Don't you mean most young people?

[JYODER240]

*sigh*

Nethead: I'm sorry, but you're woefully ignorant on this. I don't pretend to be an expert in chassis dynamics by any stretch, but even I can tell you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about.

Once and for all, torsional rigidity is not measure in force/length. For your own sake forget you ever heard this 6500 lb/in figure you bandy about, because it's wrong. Very wrong. Quit saying it. Quit purporting it's somehow 'true': it is not.

The fact you're trying to figure this out shows you EXACTLY why torsional rigidity is expressed in force-length/degree.


Face it: you just do not know what you're talking about.

Look: http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/9480/ford-mustang-gt-convertible.html

Fifth paragraph down: Ford says the droptop Mustang's torsional rigidity torques out at 6500 pound-feet per degree of twist. The old convertible was rated at 3000.

The convertible has a torsional rigidity of 6500 ft-lb/?. Now shut the fuck up about this 6500 lb/in NON-SENSE!


Now, 6500 ft-lb/?: that's crap. That's not bad for a convertible, but it's not very stiff at all, in the grand scheme of things.

More searching yields this: http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/05/05/safety.htm

The body structure is 31 percent stiffer in torsion, meaning that a twisting force of 15,500 foot-pounds can deform the body by only one degree.

So the coupe is 15500 ft-lb/?: much better, as it should be.

Now, 15500: where does that stand in the grand scheme of things?
The VW Passat is 23900 ft-lb/degree.
The Mini Cooper is similar.

So, now what do you think of your assertion that "if it's light enough to help the CAFE numbers for the sedans, mini-SUVs, and a xB-ish wheeled box," then it is not "stiff enough to withstand the torque of a big inch V8"? Keeping in mind a mid-size German car and a shitty little sub-compact are stiffer than a Mustang.

Where did you find numbers for the Passat? I'd like to know what the 350Z is.

[S204STi]

Don't you mean most young people?

I would say most people in general.  Anytime I talk with a customer about their car I discover they know precisely squat about how their car works on any level.