El Kabong

MT: GM's Mixed-Material Body Strategy

20 posts in this topic

El Kabong    273

"Engineers at GM are on the verge of putting a couple parts for the Cadillac CT6 sedan into production that are notable because they require welding steel to aluminum. GM is only months away from assembling seat backs and hood reinforcements using spot welding to join the two metals.

"It is potentially a game-changer for an industry seeking the fastest and cheapest way to make lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Others have expressed interest in GM’s technology. Ford’s strategy, so far, is not being emulated by others."

Read more on GM's future approach to car making at the link:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/war-ideas-gms-mixed-material-strategy-vs-fords-bet-aluminum/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfelt    1,774

Very cool read on how they are bonding aluminum to steel in a special spot weld approach. This will save millions and if it works properly should also greatly help out flexibility in the plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suaviloquent    713

Great read, except Motortrend completely missed the mark how Ford has other strategies too on light-weighting. Aluminum bodies was for trucks. 

 

Google Ford Fusion Hybrid concept or Fusion Lightweight Concept.

 

Very similar mixed material strategy, not the same as welding two metals....but anyways, according to Ford those techniques are production ready right now, they just need to bring the costs down. 

 

That same Fusion concept weighed as much as a Fiesta, and they had their 1.0L EB as the powertrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccap41    1,161

Great read, except Motortrend completely missed the mark how Ford has other strategies too on light-weighting. Aluminum bodies was for trucks. 

 

Google Ford Fusion Hybrid concept or Fusion Lightweight Concept.

 

Very similar mixed material strategy, not the same as welding two metals....but anyways, according to Ford those techniques are production ready right now, they just need to bring the costs down. 

 

That same Fusion concept weighed as much as a Fiesta, and they had their 1.0L EB as the powertrain.

I forgot about that. Nice call.

 

http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/ford-builds-800-pounds-lighter-fusion

 

""There's not a one-size-fits-all approach to light-weighting," said Matt Zaluzec, Ford's technical leader for global materials and manufacturing research. "The Lightweight Concept gives us the platform to continue to explore the right mix of materials and applications for future vehicles.""

Edited by ccap41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suaviloquent    713

It was a slow day for Motortrend, so they churned the pot a bit. Anyways, Evans said it before, their goal is to rouse opinions and get views/sell magazines whether by design or by coincidence. Look how many comments that article got. 

 

But how they would have such a glaring omission is just laughable. By the way, I think it's great that Cadillac has the mixed material mojo, and it might end up of use for a pickup truck coming as 2018/19 model.

 

So - is the technology out there for use today? Yes, and now let me call the PR BS, and mention how an 8 year old Jaguar XJL weighs just 26 pounds more than a comparable CT6 3.0T. I think the extra rear legroom causes it to weigh more, don't ya think?

 

Where's the new fangled lightweight champ now? Or can I also counter that cherry pick with something something about an F150 and Silverado, where in that case there was a clear indication one was a top level, fully loaded to the guts truck versus a light-level high trim truck?!

 

And then let me grab something about some Denali truck that MT tested where they said and I quote, "“How does a Denali not have A/C vents in back? Or rear heated seats? Or any real luxury feature?” associate editor Christian Seabaugh said. “I can get heated back seats in a Kia Soul! C’mon, GM.”

 

And now I pull out a Trump card by saying "NO Pano Vista roof to add weight is there, or additional a/c bulk, especially for a Denali, is there, mo-fo?"

 

Sheesh.... I'm not here these days, but I check periodically. You wanted a discussion. I ended it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Kabong    273

So basically GM's tech is bringing all the attention because it demonstrably works, and Ford's only gets them to the level of GM's current steel pickups.

An expensive bottle of catchup, it would appear

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surreal1272    677

It was a slow day for Motortrend, so they churned the pot a bit. Anyways, Evans said it before, their goal is to rouse opinions and get views/sell magazines whether by design or by coincidence. Look how many comments that article got. 

 

But how they would have such a glaring omission is just laughable. By the way, I think it's great that Cadillac has the mixed material mojo, and it might end up of use for a pickup truck coming as 2018/19 model.

 

So - is the technology out there for use today? Yes, and now let me call the PR BS, and mention how an 8 year old Jaguar XJL weighs just 26 pounds more than a comparable CT6 3.0T. I think the extra rear legroom causes it to weigh more, don't ya think?

 

Where's the new fangled lightweight champ now? Or can I also counter that cherry pick with something something about an F150 and Silverado, where in that case there was a clear indication one was a top level, fully loaded to the guts truck versus a light-level high trim truck?!

 

And then let me grab something about some Denali truck that MT tested where they said and I quote, "“How does a Denali not have A/C vents in back? Or rear heated seats? Or any real luxury feature?” associate editor Christian Seabaugh said. “I can get heated back seats in a Kia Soul! C’mon, GM.”

 

And now I pull out a Trump card by saying "NO Pano Vista roof to add weight is there, or additional a/c bulk, especially for a Denali, is there, mo-fo?"

 

Sheesh.... I'm not here these days, but I check periodically. You wanted a discussion. I ended it.

Most of those comments came from one particular troll named "Cali". At least half were by that imbecile.

 

BTW, what in the world are you babbling about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surreal1272    677

It was a slow day for Motortrend, so they churned the pot a bit. Anyways, Evans said it before, their goal is to rouse opinions and get views/sell magazines whether by design or by coincidence. Look how many comments that article got. 

 

But how they would have such a glaring omission is just laughable. By the way, I think it's great that Cadillac has the mixed material mojo, and it might end up of use for a pickup truck coming as 2018/19 model.

 

So - is the technology out there for use today? Yes, and now let me call the PR BS, and mention how an 8 year old Jaguar XJL weighs just 26 pounds more than a comparable CT6 3.0T. I think the extra rear legroom causes it to weigh more, don't ya think?

 

Where's the new fangled lightweight champ now? Or can I also counter that cherry pick with something something about an F150 and Silverado, where in that case there was a clear indication one was a top level, fully loaded to the guts truck versus a light-level high trim truck?!

 

And then let me grab something about some Denali truck that MT tested where they said and I quote, "“How does a Denali not have A/C vents in back? Or rear heated seats? Or any real luxury feature?” associate editor Christian Seabaugh said. “I can get heated back seats in a Kia Soul! C’mon, GM.”

 

And now I pull out a Trump card by saying "NO Pano Vista roof to add weight is there, or additional a/c bulk, especially for a Denali, is there, mo-fo?"

 

Sheesh.... I'm not here these days, but I check periodically. You wanted a discussion. I ended it.

Funny how you cherry picked the heavier model of the CT6 when it starts at 3647lbs while the XJ starts at 3891lbs. Just keeping things in perspective while you wander off in that post of yours.  :wavey:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Kabong    273

Is now a bad time to mention that C/D just had a four-banger CT6 that turned in a better acceleration time than MT got from an EcoBoost Mustang?

Sounds to me like GM's tech has the inside line on efficiency, dunno about anyone else...

Also, butthurt downvoting remains hysterically funny :D

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfelt    1,774

Is now a bad time to mention that C/D just had a four-banger CT6 that turned in a better acceleration time than MT got from an EcoBoost Mustang?

Sounds to me like GM's tech has the inside line on efficiency, dunno about anyone else...

Also, butthurt downvoting remains hysterically funny :D

Since it is so funny, I will give you an additional butthurt down vote for this! ;):roflmao:

 

-1

 

:roflmao::metal:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suaviloquent    713

I took the exact words from Car And Driver of comparably equipped CT6 and XJ models. I'm trying to point out the absurdity of doing that exact thing - taking words out of context to make it appear as though it's the only truth. And it's not a cheery pick if you actually consider than it was a LWB, loaded up blown V6 XJ versus CT6 3.0TT. That's VERY comparable. Of course a four cylinder CT6 will weigh less than an XJ. The point is that some would want to believe the CT6 is magical with how feather weight it is. But it really isn't when you try to find a config that matches to some of the competition, such as the XJ and A8 in features and powertrain.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that lightweighting isn't going to stop at any mfg. And only idiots would believe that the GM trucks are the same weight as the aluminum trucks. Period. Go anywhere, typically equipped, like for like, tit for tat, the F150 is 400 to 500 lbs lighter than the Silverado/RAM. That's not up for debate.

 

Even more idiocy is where people quote the numbers on how much it cost to reconfigure the Dearborn and Kansas plants for Ford, without realizing those assembly plants were archaic and needed a do-over anyways. 

 

I agree with the C/D test on the F150 only being 81 pounds lighter for that test. But that's wholly appropriate, when we know one easy way to lower curb weights is to just skimp on features and then call such a vehicle fully loaded. And then MT corroborating how the GMC Denali trucks pitifully lack any sort of luxury feature is just evidence of how GM trucks currently try to keep the weight down on their trucks. I can agree with that. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surreal1272    677

I took the exact words from Car And Driver of comparably equipped CT6 and XJ models. I'm trying to point out the absurdity of doing that exact thing - taking words out of context to make it appear as though it's the only truth. And it's not a cheery pick if you actually consider than it was a LWB, loaded up blown V6 XJ versus CT6 3.0TT. That's VERY comparable. Of course a four cylinder CT6 will weigh less than an XJ. The point is that some would want to believe the CT6 is magical with how feather weight it is. But it really isn't when you try to find a config that matches to some of the competition, such as the XJ and A8 in features and powertrain.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that lightweighting isn't going to stop at any mfg. And only idiots would believe that the GM trucks are the same weight as the aluminum trucks. Period. Go anywhere, typically equipped, like for like, tit for tat, the F150 is 400 to 500 lbs lighter than the Silverado/RAM. That's not up for debate.

 

Even more idiocy is where people quote the numbers on how much it cost to reconfigure the Dearborn and Kansas plants for Ford, without realizing those assembly plants were archaic and needed a do-over anyways. 

 

I agree with the C/D test on the F150 only being 81 pounds lighter for that test. But that's wholly appropriate, when we know one easy way to lower curb weights is to just skimp on features and then call such a vehicle fully loaded. And then MT corroborating how the GMC Denali trucks pitifully lack any sort of luxury feature is just evidence of how GM trucks currently try to keep the weight down on their trucks. I can agree with that.

It is not comparable when you only tell part of the story, the very same thing you criticized MT for here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suaviloquent    713

Either way, Toyota's TNGA architecture and the new Lexus platform are supposed to be very efficient with weight too. 

 

The new Honda Civic (which is larger) in most config's weighs less than the new Cruze.

 

There's a lot of other things happening out there in the automotive world that aren't being mentioned, because they wouldn't garner as much a.r.p.u. (average revenue per user/viewer) where light weighting is a huge priority to mfg's.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ccap41    1,161

Eh, a Cadillac being faster than a Ford? I don't just expect that, I would demand it. 

 

And thing less is worthy of seppuku/harakiri. 

It's quicker to 60 but slower through the 1/4. So it's a yes and no. I assume gearing played a major role in the differentiation between the two.

 

CT6:

0-60: 6.1

1/4 mile: 14.7@92mph

300ft skidpad: 0.81g

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-cadillac-ct6-sedan-20t-luxury-test-review

 

Ecoboost Mustang:

0-60: 6.3

1/4 mile: 14.5@98

300ft skidpad: 0.95g

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-ford-mustang-ecoboost-first-test-review/

 

I put the road holding "ability" in for good measure because of how $h!ty the mustang handles and how superb the Cadillac does. *sarcasm* 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surreal1272    677

Either way, Toyota's TNGA architecture and the new Lexus platform are supposed to be very efficient with weight too. 

 

The new Honda Civic (which is larger) in most config's weighs less than the new Cruze.

 

There's a lot of other things happening out there in the automotive world that aren't being mentioned, because they wouldn't garner as much a.r.p.u. (average revenue per user/viewer) where light weighting is a huge priority to mfg's.

So what Suave? It does not diminish what GM is trying to do anymore than it does Ford with their aluminum strategy.

Don't know why you have to get so bent out of shape over this. Just because you feel that way doesn't make it so yet you continue to pass yourself off as the be all end all in these types of discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suaviloquent    713

There's a limit to what GM can do. They've already mentioned they are going to double the useful lives of their platforms. What it means is that more aggressive competition could come up and beat GM back.  But don't confuse with what's in the CT6 is already present anywhere else, it isn't. And the Silverado getting aluminum body panels is such a complete turnaround to what even GM tried to due with the bear cage ad campaign.

 

But this MT piece clearly lacked any kind of thought as to what other automakers are really doing for lightweighting in the future. Aluminum bodies is nothing new to the industry. Already another utility mfg - Land Rover was doing it. Audi does it. Jag does it. Tesla does it. So I could see why it appears "no one else is following Ford." It's already being done everywhere, except American trucks. But still, across the range the F150, depending on equipment, if compared against the competition in exactly equipped models, enjoys a 300 to 600 lb weight advantage. 

 

That's it. The piece is inaccurate, and presents story that is just incomplete. And that invalidates it and points out the real intention. This was a pure editorial piece. And it lacked depth. So it's of low value. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suaviloquent    713

I think Bong wants to see a CT6 and Mustang comparo to happen, just so Christian Seabaugh at MT can say how the CT6 feels like a Town Car in the nicest way possible.

 

Yep, let's post Pohbst in both at the streets of Willow and see how the CT6 gets destroyed by the Mustang at the track, at the strip and on the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surreal1272    677

There's a limit to what GM can do. They've already mentioned they are going to double the useful lives of their platforms. What it means is that more aggressive competition could come up and beat GM back.  But don't confuse with what's in the CT6 is already present anywhere else, it isn't. And the Silverado getting aluminum body panels is such a complete turnaround to what even GM tried to due with the bear cage ad campaign.

 

But this MT piece clearly lacked any kind of thought as to what other automakers are really doing for lightweighting in the future. Aluminum bodies is nothing new to the industry. Already another utility mfg - Land Rover was doing it. Audi does it. Jag does it. Tesla does it. So I could see why it appears "no one else is following Ford." It's already being done everywhere, except American trucks. But still, across the range the F150, depending on equipment, if compared against the competition in exactly equipped models, enjoys a 300 to 600 lb weight advantage. 

 

That's it. The piece is inaccurate, and presents story that is just incomplete. And that invalidates it and points out the real intention. This was a pure editorial piece. And it lacked depth. So it's of low value.

So it's, once again, your opinion that it is an opinion piece. Thanks for confirming that and a few other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surreal1272    677

So what we get from Sauve here is GM can't to anything to make their product better and if they try then it will just suck anyway versus the competition. Also, how dare MT focus on the biggest carmaker in the world to see what plans they have for weight savings. They obviously should have talked about what everyone was doing so that's it's fair for everyone else. How dare them. </sarcasm>.

Funny how I don't seem to recall this level of bitching when MT dedicated multiple articles to Fords aluminum process even they are not the only ones to have used aluminum.

Edited by surreal1272
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.