Lets get real about the weight of the Camaro
08-22-2008, 05:34 PM
#211
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 233
Not too sure about that.
Depending on trim levels and tranmissions, all that seperates the V8 from the V6 is 144-163lbs for the auto and 80-119 for the manual. Considering that you'd probably want the turbo'd V6 to have the upgraded brakes and (probably) bigger sway bars, there really wouldn't be that much of a weight advantage. Hell, you could make up the weight difference by having less gas in the tank or going on a diet.
I'm not turbo "smart", so forgive me, but how easy would it be to get 122hp & 135lbs tq out of the V6 to match the LS3?
And then there might be an issue with reliability of the V6 transmissions holding up to LS3 power levels.
Sorry, but I just don't see it.
Depending on trim levels and tranmissions, all that seperates the V8 from the V6 is 144-163lbs for the auto and 80-119 for the manual. Considering that you'd probably want the turbo'd V6 to have the upgraded brakes and (probably) bigger sway bars, there really wouldn't be that much of a weight advantage. Hell, you could make up the weight difference by having less gas in the tank or going on a diet.
I'm not turbo "smart", so forgive me, but how easy would it be to get 122hp & 135lbs tq out of the V6 to match the LS3?
And then there might be an issue with reliability of the V6 transmissions holding up to LS3 power levels.
Sorry, but I just don't see it.
And bumping a 300hp DI V-6 to 400hp would be VERY easy. It's done all the time, reliably. I imagine they'd use a destroked/bored version of the engine to get some extra strength, and easily attain that power figure.
And I think a lot of people would buy that. Over in australia, where they have almost the exact same taste in vehicles as us (they love V-8's and full size cars), the Turbo-6 Falcon is outselling the V-8 by a large margin.
08-22-2008, 06:15 PM
#212
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Again, I'd like to direct you to the Australian Ford Falcon, which is built on the platform that competes directly with the one Camaro is based on. The V-8 version of that one handles significantly worse than the Turbo-6, because it's much more nose heavy, and it weighs about 120lbs less overall. The V-8 has a couple horsepower (seriously...like..a couple.) over the 6, but acceleration is inferior in the 8, because the 6 actually has a much better torque curve.
And bumping a 300hp DI V-6 to 400hp would be VERY easy. It's done all the time, reliably. I imagine they'd use a destroked/bored version of the engine to get some extra strength, and easily attain that power figure.
And I think a lot of people would buy that. Over in australia, where they have almost the exact same taste in vehicles as us (they love V-8's and full size cars), the Turbo-6 Falcon is outselling the V-8 by a large margin.
And bumping a 300hp DI V-6 to 400hp would be VERY easy. It's done all the time, reliably. I imagine they'd use a destroked/bored version of the engine to get some extra strength, and easily attain that power figure.
And I think a lot of people would buy that. Over in australia, where they have almost the exact same taste in vehicles as us (they love V-8's and full size cars), the Turbo-6 Falcon is outselling the V-8 by a large margin.
Ford Australia did the best they could with what they started with.
08-31-2008, 08:29 PM
#213
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: usa
Posts: 1,025
Did'nt have time nor did I want to read all 15 pages of this post. With that said I am disappointed in0 the new camaro in the fact that she is a poker. They could've made a lighter car and still met all the needs and requirements at the same price. Bottom line ford did on the mustang.
08-31-2008, 08:55 PM
#215
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 190
Did'nt have time nor did I want to read all 15 pages of this post. With that said I am disappointed in0 the new camaro in the fact that she is a poker. They could've made a lighter car and still met all the needs and requirements at the same price. Bottom line ford did on the mustang.
08-31-2008, 09:01 PM
#216
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 378
how the heck did your 95 come in at 4200lbs! my FULL SIZE full framed 1968 Galaxie Convertible with a big block and C6/9in rear comes in around 4000lbs. and thats with all stock steel body/bumpers and full complete interior. Did your 95 have some kind of cast iron roll cage?
08-31-2008, 09:25 PM
#217
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Houston Tx
Posts: 394
how the heck did your 95 come in at 4200lbs! my FULL SIZE full framed 1968 Galaxie Convertible with a big block and C6/9in rear comes in around 4000lbs. and thats with all stock steel body/bumpers and full complete interior. Did your 95 have some kind of cast iron roll cage?
09-01-2008, 03:43 PM
#219
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: usa
Posts: 1,025
pruettfan my statement needs no facts other then the new camaro is a beast, it weighs what close to 400-500lbs more then a 4th gen and what 300-400 more then a mustang. I dont care how it couldve been done, but it can be. Bottom line is Ford did it ( and I dont like ford)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
F'n1996Z28SS
Cars For Sale
8
08-23-2023 11:19 PM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
3
12-21-2014 06:55 PM
bossco
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
4
11-29-2014 10:18 AM
