History / Originality Got a question about 1982-1992 Camaro or Firebird history? Have a question about original parts, options, RPO codes, when something was available, or how to document your car? Those questions, answers, and much more!

If SFC's are so great...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 31, 2002 | 01:23 PM
  #1  
85_ZED28's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,412
Likes: 0
From: St Catharines, ON
Car: '85 Z28
Engine: 350
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.23
If SFC's are so great...

Wait a minute...

If subframe connectors improve our cars so much, why didn't GM put them on the cars in the first place; basically, what is the advantage to a unibody? Why didn't GM just weld in a couple pieces of metal and improve the cars so much??
There are no disadvantages, correct? Weight maybe? They can't weigh that much.

Any thoughts on this?? :lala:
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2002 | 02:23 PM
  #2  
Skatepunk60's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 977
Likes: 0
From: Smithfield RI
Car: Hardtop 84' z/95' Cheyenne
Engine: 305 H.O./4.3L
Transmission: 5-speed manual/Auto
im guessing it all had to do w/ cost thats why the unibody is in there cause it cheaper .. i think
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2002 | 02:46 PM
  #3  
FruityOne's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,967
Likes: 0
From: Elk Grove Village, IL
Car: 1989 TransAm GTA
Engine: One sweet modified 355 TPI.
Transmission: The kind that shifts....
Probably because it was an added cost to the production. I dunno, I"m not too well versed in the subject. But the minor weight increase is well worth the increase in chassis stiffness.
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2002 | 03:30 PM
  #4  
CraZ-28's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,746
Likes: 0
From: Tucson, AZ
Car: 1991 Z-28
Engine: Can you say stroke?!?!
Transmission: 700-r4
Axle/Gears: 3.42
By going to the unibody you got a few things out of it.

lower manufacturering costs
less weight
smoother ride(more flex)

There are some other reasons but I can't remember them.
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2002 | 04:46 PM
  #5  
RB83L69's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 18,457
Likes: 16
From: Loveland, OH, US
Car: 4
Engine: 6
Transmission: 5
There were several obvious reasons:
  • They cost money
  • The car cost less to build without them
  • They were added expense
  • People who really cared could add them later
  • People bought the cars anyway whether they had them or not
  • No doubt an analysis of customer preferences was done, and it was discovered that sales would not be altered in a statistically significant way if they were added
  • The car would have cost more to make
There might be others, including perhaps the cost, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Oh, did I mention that they would have raised the cost of producing the car without adding a dime to the potential sales price, and would therefore have reduced the margin? This sort of decision usually gets made with alot more focus on financial performance (after all, even GM people like their paychecks) than on what we might call "performance".
Reply
Old Jan 3, 2003 | 02:45 AM
  #6  
easySPEEDcamaro's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
Car: 1992 Camaro Z28 Anniversary Edition
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: Borg Warner 5-Speed
Originally posted by RB83L69
There were several obvious reasons:
  • They cost money
  • The car cost less to build without them
  • They were added expense
  • People who really cared could add them later
  • People bought the cars anyway whether they had them or not
  • No doubt an analysis of customer preferences was done, and it was discovered that sales would not be altered in a statistically significant way if they were added
  • The car would have cost more to make
There might be others, including perhaps the cost, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Oh, did I mention that they would have raised the cost of producing the car without adding a dime to the potential sales price, and would therefore have reduced the margin? This sort of decision usually gets made with alot more focus on financial performance (after all, even GM people like their paychecks) than on what we might call "performance".
dude, you forgot raised costs. sfcs would probably raise the cost of producing the cars. jeez how could you leave out the cost.
Reply
Old Jan 3, 2003 | 10:25 PM
  #7  
Jason E's Avatar
2011 Norwood Gathering
ThirdGen Firebird Rep
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,435
Likes: 4
From: Sarasota FL
Car: 99 WS6 / 00 SS / 11 CTS-V / 13 300
Engine: LS1 / LS1 / LSA / 5.7 Hemi
Transmission: 4L60E / T-56 / 6L80E / W5A80
Axle/Gears: 3.23 / 3.42 Auburn / 3.23 / 2.62
Oh and by the way, they add more cost too....

I added them to my Z, and I gotta say, best investment ever. And thats on a 4th gen that is already notably stiffer than a third!
Reply
Old Jan 4, 2003 | 07:43 AM
  #8  
4L60bliss's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
From: Savannah, GA
'92 Convertibles came with them from the factory, but they really needed them more than the T-Top/Hardtop cars.
Reply
Old Jan 4, 2003 | 03:25 PM
  #9  
MdFormula350's Avatar
TGO Supporter
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 11,634
Likes: 3
From: Maryland; USA
most likely comes down to "MONEY"
Reply
Old Jan 7, 2003 | 03:13 PM
  #10  
TTA 1387's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
From: Diamondhead, MS
Car: 89 20th Ann. TA
Engine: Turbo 3.8 V6
Transmission: 200 4R
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Also fuel economy. That little bit of weight would have knocked off a little gas mileage.

They did all kinds of things to save weight to keep the mileage up.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TinnMann2
Canadian Region
16
Jun 18, 2017 05:10 PM
kairles
Camaros for Sale
7
Oct 26, 2015 09:13 PM
luvofjah
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
13
Sep 26, 2015 08:28 PM
luvofjah
Suspension and Chassis
8
Sep 10, 2015 10:41 AM
luvofjah
Aftermarket Vendor Review
1
Aug 31, 2015 11:22 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 PM.