Re-Engineered Commodore To Be More Economical Than Camry, Says Holden

[redTT]

Originally Posted by BBDOS CV8

Holden can introduce some things that won't affect the core structure of the car. Like the lightweight plastic used for the tailgate of the Malloo, cast in one piece including the inner panel, strong enough for a big man to jump up and down on. That can be used for bonnets, boots and other non-critical panels.

I applaud Holden for keeping a certain degree of strength in their cars using steel, going down the exotic alloys path for main body components is going to produce a more disposable and expensive product with a higher mean write-off rate. Or more lives will be put at risk in cars with compromised and improperly-repaired crash structures, as is happening now.

Just bolting in a smaller motor won't produce sizable fuel savings if everything else stays the same.

Yes lightweight plastics is a great path to follow.

[GMusa]

Good.. so we should see this more economical car in the G8 too?

[BigAls87Z28]

Camaro is also heavy due to its lengthend dash to axle ratio vs the VE cars like a g8.

[MonaroSS]

OK Guys (& mikmak no poo pooing transaxles),

Here's what I'd do with Commodore. I'd go to the OZ Government and suggest they subsidize
the use of aluminium for none structural components such as bonnet, boot, doors, seat frames,
and suspension as part of the Green Car Program.

Then I'd add a new re-engineered version of the VE and call it say the Commodette. As seen below
in making the new aluminium bonnet and boot I would take the opportunity to shorten both.

The Commodette is entirely new from the firewall forward in that it is not only shorter but engineered
lighter as it has only to take the weight of the sole engine choice, GM's DI 2.0 I4 in both Hi and
Low Boost Turbo form (300hp/250hp). And the front is even lighter still as, yes mikmak, I'd detach the
gearbox from the engine and move it back and attach it to the front of the diff, creating a transaxle.

Yes the tunnel stamping will be a little wider but no more than we all knew from the live axle days.

The beauty of the transaxle is that it adds back to the rear the weight lost by the alloy rear seat,
doors and shorter alloy boot, so it continues to use the same suspension (only now made of alloy)
as the full sized Commodore. So only the front suspension and components needs to be
all new and lighter, perhaps borrowed from the new Chevy Cruze on Delta. The weight of
carrying the light Cruze body with FWD mechanicals may equal carrying only the Commodore body
structure and 2.0 I4 sans gearbox.

I reckon the weight would be down to 3500 lbs and 46/54 F/R for very agile handling.



PS. I've left the front and rear the same here for size comparison, but obviously the Commodette
would have unique front and rear styling, but I'm not sure I'd put the Torana badge on it
because of the expectation for V8's, which this car is all about the opposite of.

PPS. I'd also take advantage of no front gearbox and offer a dash or column mounted shifter
and no front center tunnel as an option with bench seat for a true 6 seater others don't offer.

PPPS. My suggestion is not unlike what GM Opel did themselves in Germany in the late 70's
when they had the Opel Rekord I4 and the Senator I6. Both cars used the same passenger
compartment (see wheelbase is the same within a half inch; due to the IRS on the Senator
locating the wheel a little further back). But you can see below that in overall length the lighter
Rekord is 9.5 inches shorter, due to a shorter boot/trunk and due to a shorter front overhang.

These are exactly what I have proposed for the change to Commodette, which is several inches shorter.
Note that the Rekord weighs 827 lb less. That’s a lot. Even the 2.0 I4 version of the Senator that
weighs 2943 lb is 474 lb more than the Rekord. And the Rekord doesn’t even use aluminium panels etc
as I have proposed. I think that a 400-500 lb reduction in weight of the Commodore can be achieved
in a dedicated I4 version like Commodette. If they could do it in the 70’s then they can do it today.




1978 Opel Rekord
Wheelbase 2667 mm 105 in
Track front 1422 mm 56 in
Track rear 1397 mm 55 in
Length 4597 mm 181 in
Width 1727 mm 68 in
Height 1422 mm 56 in
Kerb weight 1120 kg 2469 lb

1978 Opel Senator 3.0E
Wheelbase 2683 mm 105.6 in
Track front 1447 mm 57 in
Track rear 1472 mm 58 in
Length 4839 mm 190.5 in
Width 1722 mm 67.8 in
Height 1388 mm 54.6 in
Kerb weight 1495 kg 3296 lb

BTW, to save money the Commodette’s shorter rear inner pressings and lightweight boot lid would
be shared with the next Monaro Coupe (remember the old one had a shorter rear overhang too).
And the Commodette’s lighter shorter I4 nose could be used even on the Statesman in markets like China
and India where they tax or abhor big engines.

[Slick_Holden]

Originally Posted by 63GrandSport001

I think that if Holden is able to drop 100 pounds of weight, improve under body airflow, replace the 3.6L V-6 with the 3.0L direct injected unit making 260BHP and mate it to the 6 speed auto I think that they would be able to get some great fuel economy from the Commodore and its not something that is way out of the question.

They don't need a smaller motor, But if they do, It will be diesel..
They will soon ad the 3.6 V6 DI and 6 speed auto.. Hopefully ad the 5 speed auto to the base models.. Do a few things that have talked about doing, But one thing that wont change fast is weight.. That will be the next model after VF more then likely.

[mmciau]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

OK Guys (& mikmak no poo pooing transaxles),

Here's what I'd do with Commodore. I'd go to the OZ Government and suggest they subsidize
the use of aluminium for none structural components such as bonnet, boot, doors, seat frames,
and suspension as part of the Green Car Program.

Then I'd add a new re-engineered version of the VE and call it say the Commodette. As seen below
in making the new aluminium bonnet and boot I would take the opportunity to shorten both.

The Commodette is entirely new from the firewall forward in that it is not only shorter but engineered
lighter as it has only to take then weight of the sole engine choice, GM's DI 2.0 I4 in both Hi and
Low Boost Turbo form. And the front is even lighter still as, yes mikmak, I'd detach the gearbox
from the engine and move it back and attach it to the front of the diff, creating a transaxle.

Yes the tunnel stamping will be a little wider but no more than we all knew from the live axle days.

The beauty of the transaxle is that it adds back to the rear the weight lost by the alloy rear seat,
doors and shorter alloy boot, so it continues to use the same suspension (only now made of alloy)
as the full sized Commodore. So only the front suspension and components needs to be
all new and lighter, perhaps borrowed from the new Chevy Cruze on Delta. The weight of
carrying the light Cruze body with FWD mechanicals may equal carrying only the Commodore body
structure and 2.0 I4 sans gearbox.

I reckon the weight would be down to 3500 lbs and 46/54 F/R for very agile handling.



PS. I've left the front and rear the same here for size comparison, but obviously the Commodette
would have unique front and rear styling, but I'm not sure I'd put the Torana badge on it
because of the expectation for V8's, which this car is all about the opposite of.

PPS. I'd also take advantage of no front gearbox and offer a dash or column mounted shifter
and no front center tunnel as an option with bench seat for a true 6 seater others don't offer.

Thinking outside the box - very good concept and features indeed. The greenies might do you over because aluminium takes lots of electricity to produce (carbon, carbon, carbon!!!!!)

Are plastics cheaper top produce when compared to aluminuim?

And KRUDD can hand out $35Ml straight out to balance the 35 he flicked to Toyota!!

[MonaroSS]

Originally Posted by mmciau

Thinking outside the box - very good concept and features indeed. The greenies might do you over because aluminium takes lots of electricity to produce (carbon, carbon, carbon!!!!!)

Are plastics cheaper top produce when compared to aluminium?

And KRUDD can hand out $35Ml straight out to balance the 35 he flicked to Toyota!!

The great thing about aluminium is that while it may cost more energy to make the first time, with it's lower melting point, it costs much less to recycle. And because it's so recyclable then once the Aussie car fleet has built up a mass of aluminium, and if the government mandates the recycling like they do in Europe, the then cheap scrap aluminium would go back into future Aussie cars.

So the subsidy is a short term thing that then pays and spreads it's dividends to several future generations of Australians as that aluminium keeps being cheaply recycled at a lower energy cost than steel. And as one of the world's greatest sources of aluminium, this investment in our own vehicle fleet future would be a good example to set for the rest of the world so they can buy more aluminium off of us to do the same. Up here for thinkin'

[RedVee8]

Just hoping that the strength of Holden Commodores won't be sacrificed in the persuit of lightness.
Perhaps the strength and structural longevity should be used as an promotional tool against vehicles designed for other conditions, even in those other territories?
F'instance, I'd say that ME and SA customers would probably like to know these cars are built for harsh conditions? Possibly Sth Americans as well? Would NA (Pontiac) customers be interested in knowing this?

Unique Selling Proposition?

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

PPPS. My suggestion is not unlike what GM Opel did themselves in Germany in the late 70's
when they had the Opel Rekord I4 and the Senator I6. Both cars used the same passenger
compartment (see wheelbase is the same with a half inch; due to the IRS on the Senator
locating the wheel a little further back. But you can see below that in overall length the lighter
Rekord is 9.5 inches shorter, due to a sorter boot/trunk and due to a shorter front overhang.

These are exactly what I have proposed for the change to Commodette, which is several inches shorter.
Note that the Rekord weighs 827 lb less. That’s a lot. Even the 2.0 I4 version of the Senator that
weighs 2943 lb is 474 lb more than the Rekord. And the Rekord doesn’t even use aluminium panels etc
as I have proposed. I think that a 400-500 lb reduction in weight of the Commodore can be achieved
in a dedicated I4 version like Commodette. If they could do it in the 70’s then they can do it today.

Also similar to the two versions of the LC and LJ Toranas, one 4 cyclinder SWB and the other 6 cyclinder LWB.

[mikmak]

^^^Oh good, we can call it Sunbird then.

I like the idea of the Commodette [sp? ] and yes, I even like the idea of a transaxle. What i would really like to know is, would it qualify for a dip in the Billion Dollar Green Car development bickie tin? All these measures are well and good, but how much development would be new? Would the feds pay for Holden to utilise current technology when the yshould have been using it already? It's like giving your kid a lollipop because he stopped hitting his sister. Obviously it will be upto Holden to market any such measures, in a way to make it seem new. I like the Aluminium (<--- Stupid spell checker. Check the ****in periodic table!) angle. That is, promoting use of local materials to boost utilisation of our own resources whilst guilting the rest of the world into feeling like they need to do the same

It is easy to see its appeal. Keeping performance figures realistic, you could get the whole 0-100 shebang over in perhaps 9.0 or less, with consumption in the 8s to 9s/100km (around 25mpg) making the difference between owning a small car to a large car seem barely significant. Another insurance policy is always nice to have, and keeping a level of parity between the fat and skinny versions would aid development costs for both at the same time. I'm struggling to find a downside.

[RedVee8]

^ A 2.8TTV6 would be the Sunfire or the Starfire then...

[Kamshaaft]

I sure as **** like the new rims that Calais sportwagon is rockin. I wouldn't mind getting myself a set.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by davidlane

I believe the Corvettes went to run flats with the C5 over 10 years ago. As to weight, Mazda has been taking this approach for some time. They refer to it as adding lightness. Even further back is Lotus. Given the regulatory climate in North America and Europe all the manufacturers are going to have to do this or the fines will eat them alive. No wait they'll just pass them on to the buyer. The only vehicle GM seems to be able to do this with is the Corvette. Otherwise, for a given amount of usable interior space the GM products tend to have the largest foot print and the highest weight when compared to their competition. To introduce a "pony car", Camaro, that is the size and almost the weight as a Cadillac CTS is inexcusable IMO. And yes I'm aware Chrysler did the same thing with the Challenger. And both for the same reason, didn't have the resources/commitment to develop a reasonable size/weight alternative. While GM is not the only offender on weight they are one of the more egregious IMO.

While going to run-flats did save the Corvette some weight, the main reason was packaging. If you got a flat, and changed your tire for the spare, just what were you planning to do with that huge flat one? Leave it at the side of the road?

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by redTT

.......If Holden does decide to use aluminum they should contact some local producers, they should be able to provide Holden with any materials at a cheaper price than America.

Aluminum production is tied more to the local cost of electricity (generally, that would be cheap hydroelectric) than the cost, or location of the ore. The United States is the largest producer of Aluminum, but imports all of the bauxite from which it is made (almost half of that from Australia).

In addition, we have to refine the "aluminium" to remove that extra "i" to make the proper aluminum (makes it lighter).

[MonaroSS]

Originally Posted by mikmak

^^^Oh good, we can call it Sunbird then.

I like the idea of the Commodette [sp? ] and yes, I even like the idea of a transaxle. What i would really like to know is, would it qualify for a dip in the Billion Dollar Green Car development bickie tin? All these measures are well and good, but how much development would be new? Would the feds pay for Holden to utilise current technology when they should have been using it already? It's like giving your kid a lollipop because he stopped hitting his sister. Obviously it will be up to Holden to market any such measures, in a way to make it seem new. I like the Aluminium (<--- Stupid spell checker. Check the ****in periodic table!) angle. That is, promoting use of local materials to boost utilisation of our own resources whilst guilting the rest of the world into feeling like they need to do the same

Well we don't have aluminium stamping and panel manufacturing which uses rivets and bonding technology, so the government could fund a joint venture for all OZ manufacturers and the local aluminium industry. And such stamping and fabricating, when highly automated and robotized as it is, does not cost a lot compared to low labour cost countries.

So such a stamping and fabricating plant could also do export contracts providing doors, hoods and trunk lids to the rest of the world like we do with cast alloy mag wheels. It's a way of value adding to our raw material assets. The cost of bringing the aluminium manufacture technology to OZ and establishing a plant I think would fall under the Green Scheme because it helps cars use less fuel and politicians like export earning potential.

Originally Posted by mikmak

It is easy to see its appeal. Keeping performance figures realistic, you could get the whole 0-100 shebang over in perhaps 9.0 or less, with consumption in the 8s to 9s/100km (around 25mpg) making the difference between owning a small car to a large car seem barely significant. Another insurance policy is always nice to have, and keeping a level of parity between the fat and skinny versions would aid development costs for both at the same time. I'm struggling to find a downside.

That's also why I'd like to see Commodore go transaxle too, so the floor stampings are exactly the same. GM already has the Commodore’s transmissions in a 6M and auto transaxle version - sitting under Corvette. They don't need to design a new one or set up manufacturing. And it can handle everything HSV could throw at it.

They would need to provide lightened versions for the Commodore V6 and Commodette I4 Turbo engines, but that's easy and not costly. You just cut back on the thickness of the cogs and shafts etc. It's much easier to make a weaker lighter version of a transmission from a strong one than a stronger one from a light & weaker one.

And besides then also being able to offer an optional front bench seat with spacious legroom in the Commodore too, and the Ute, it will make the Commodore handle even better. And that is important. Commodette would be entry level (I'd offer every interior to match Commodore, Base Omega, Berlina, Calais, SS - yes, a 300hp turbo 4 with 6M and 3500lb 46/54 F/R could be real fun to throw about) so you probably are not going to get real interest in entry level Commodores.

So you start at Berlina 3.6 Auto and SV6 2.8 Turbo 6M. That pushes Commodore upmarket where it will have to compare and compete with the Euro's even more. And while it handles OK now, with a transaxle it will have even sharper handling and make sure the big V8's are still 50/50 F/R or even 49/51. And it’s ability to handle well for such a large vehicle is the big Holden’s real USP….