Lets get real about the weight of the Camaro
08-06-2008, 12:01 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 61
The ~100hp more powerful engine will likely require a larger, heavier, stronger driveshaft. The 6-speed transmission will weigh more than the current 5-speed tranny. One way to look at it: A GT500 weighs 3850 without the Mach 1 stereo, subtract about 100 pounds going from the iron 5.4 to the aluminum 5.0L and maybe another 100 pounds for the supercharger, intercooler, and related components. That would be 3,650 and I could even see Ford getting it down to 3,600 (of course sacrifices will be made) but this 3,500 pound talk is wishful thinking.
SVT chassis engineers had their work cut out dealing with the extra 340 pounds heaped onto the front tires.
That's taken from a review of the GT500. Here's the complete article if you'd like to read it yourself. http://www.modernracer.com/history/f...00history.html
You've clearly underestimated just how much weight that blower adds to the front (and I can't say I blame you honestly). 340 pounds, that's just from the iron block and supercharger and related materials. It's insane, it's a garbage design, and it's also why the GT500 is the bastard stepchild of the Mustang Performance world. It's just a bad design...period.
So just to clarify, of the GT500s 440+ pounds over the manual GT, 340+ of that is just from engine and blower. Or in other words right around a whopping 75% of the weight gain is from the engine. So your estimate of the engine costing 200 pounds was off by 140 pounds. Knowing that, do you now think it possible that the next gen stang can keep it under 3600? Especially considering that the newer engine will be lighter than the current GT engine.
Ford will want to maintain traction while keeping up with the appearance trends of its competitors, so look for 18 to 20" wheels with wider tires, again more weight. Then there is vehicle content. If Ford is going to keep up with GM and offer higher content, it is going to add weight.
Now, the GT500 gets extra chassis stiffening at 500hp, will the Mustang GT get the same or similar at 400hp?
Another thing you have to ask yourself, is Ford really going to take the Mustang from the budget pony car to a more modern muscle car and up it 100hp in one leap!?! And if so, what will that do to the price of the car. If a Mustang GT costs $30k+ when you can get a higher content Camaro SS with IRS and more horsepower for the same price, it will be a very different battle than in the past. Believe it or not, many of the buyers of these cars do not even look at the curb weight or even know what it is!
Regardless, it's just WAY too early to talk about pricing, especially considering we still don't know the pricing of the Camaro. We can have this conversation a year from now and we'll be hopefully much better informed at that point.
Damn, that's the longest post I've written in a long long time. I've got that feeling we men get right after we've had some good sex, I just want to roll over and goto sleep.
08-06-2008, 03:17 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton, IL
Posts: 694
You have a very good point.
Thing is, we DO understand that. We ALL KNOW it's not a good thing. Guess what? Knowing something is a bad thing doesn't change it. I know gas prices going up is bad, doesn't change a thing.
The problem is that some people complain that it could have been lighter, people try using logic on them to no avail, then after Scott explains why it's so heavy (safety, features, mandating the use of the zeta platform, keeping it as close looking as possible to the concept, and most importantly and also the one most of the complainers never seem to consider, even after it's pointed out, cost) people scream BS and start spouting off again about how they aren't gonna buy one cause it's too heavy. So don't. We don't care. Really, we don't.
And when those of us who have accepted the weight for what it is don't run around like it's the armageddon, some people act as if their only purpose in life is to show us the one true way.
Thing is, we DO understand that. We ALL KNOW it's not a good thing. Guess what? Knowing something is a bad thing doesn't change it. I know gas prices going up is bad, doesn't change a thing.
The problem is that some people complain that it could have been lighter, people try using logic on them to no avail, then after Scott explains why it's so heavy (safety, features, mandating the use of the zeta platform, keeping it as close looking as possible to the concept, and most importantly and also the one most of the complainers never seem to consider, even after it's pointed out, cost) people scream BS and start spouting off again about how they aren't gonna buy one cause it's too heavy. So don't. We don't care. Really, we don't.
And when those of us who have accepted the weight for what it is don't run around like it's the armageddon, some people act as if their only purpose in life is to show us the one true way.
. These people wouldn't buy an unusually heavy M3 (3700 lbs.), a 4000+ lbs CTS-V, or a 3900+ lbs GT-R if given the money either I guess. The new Camaro has roughly 90% of the performance, comfort, and ride that these cars do for half the price. Not a bad tradeoff if you ask me.Let me put things into perspective.
SVT chassis engineers had their work cut out dealing with the extra 340 pounds heaped onto the front tires.
That's taken from a review of the GT500. Here's the complete article if you'd like to read it yourself. http://www.modernracer.com/history/f...00history.html
You've clearly underestimated just how much weight that blower adds to the front (and I can't say I blame you honestly). 340 pounds, that's just from the iron block and supercharger and related materials. It's insane, it's a garbage design, and it's also why the GT500 is the bastard stepchild of the Mustang Performance world. It's just a bad design...period.
So just to clarify, of the GT500s 440+ pounds over the manual GT, 340+ of that is just from engine and blower. Or in other words right around a whopping 75% of the weight gain is from the engine. So your estimate of the engine costing 200 pounds was off by 140 pounds. Knowing that, do you now think it possible that the next gen stang can keep it under 3600? Especially considering that the newer engine will be lighter than the current GT engine.
SVT chassis engineers had their work cut out dealing with the extra 340 pounds heaped onto the front tires.
That's taken from a review of the GT500. Here's the complete article if you'd like to read it yourself. http://www.modernracer.com/history/f...00history.html
You've clearly underestimated just how much weight that blower adds to the front (and I can't say I blame you honestly). 340 pounds, that's just from the iron block and supercharger and related materials. It's insane, it's a garbage design, and it's also why the GT500 is the bastard stepchild of the Mustang Performance world. It's just a bad design...period.
So just to clarify, of the GT500s 440+ pounds over the manual GT, 340+ of that is just from engine and blower. Or in other words right around a whopping 75% of the weight gain is from the engine. So your estimate of the engine costing 200 pounds was off by 140 pounds. Knowing that, do you now think it possible that the next gen stang can keep it under 3600? Especially considering that the newer engine will be lighter than the current GT engine.
Last edited by 95firehawk; 08-06-2008 at 03:21 PM.
08-06-2008, 04:17 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
What if that's an invalid assumption? No Camaro?
You're also assuming a Kappa Camaro would be a lot lighter. Maybe it would be. But looking at powerful V8 front engine RWD cars out there in the rest of the world, I don't see it.
Folks, what we have here is the equivalent of armchair quarterbacking.
It's one thing to say that you want it to be smaller. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
It's another thing to say with conviction that this change or that change would have saved 400 pounds or been cheaper in the long run, when one has only limited insight into such things.
08-06-2008, 06:59 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 356
You're also assuming a Kappa Camaro would be a lot lighter. Maybe it would be. But looking at powerful V8 front engine RWD cars out there in the rest of the world, I don't see it.
It's one thing to say that you want it to be smaller. That's a perfectly valid opinion.
It's another thing to say with conviction that this change or that change would have saved 400 pounds or been cheaper in the long run, when one has only limited insight into such things.
I bet my insight and foresight were better than GM's in this case, but we shall see... I don't wish the car to do poorly in the market, indeed I'd like to be able to look forward to a smaller and lighter-weight 6th-gen. But I believe the 5th-gen will do poorly
The opportunity was there to do something DIFFERENT from Ford or Chrysler and to be READY for higher gas prices and increasing CAFE. Camaro *could* have been on the GOOD side of these trends. Opportunity lost...
08-06-2008, 07:41 PM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
If assumption that GM is/was perfectly capable of designing a small rwd car platform that is configurable into a 2-seat roadster and into a 2+2 coupe is invalid, then the General is in way more trouble than I thought. If when they'd started developing Kappa it had been MANDATED that it would be so configurable, it would have been. Solstice/Sky would have been a year late, but we might have already gotten a BETTER Camaro by now.
The car business is very complex, but it's very easy to write "If when they'd started developing Kappa it had been MANDATED that it would be so configurable", as if what you're asking for is some simple obvious thing that no one at GM would have thought of.
I'm trying to suggest that you start by assuming that the folks at GM have thought of what you're thinking of (it is pretty obvious), and may have good reasons for not going that way.
Regarding a small RWD unibody platform, that apparently hinged on Caddy wanting something smaller than a CTS. Until fairly recently, they didn't. That looks like a mistake to me, since the C-Class, 3-series, A4, etc., are the bread and butter of the Euro luxury lines.
But since Camaro didn't get to build its own platform....well, you do the math.
So while I would criticize and have criticized GM for thinking that there was not a business justification for a small unibody RWD platform, I don't blame the Camaro team for that. And I don't blame the Solstice team for not using a unibody, 'cause they needed something fast.
08-06-2008, 08:58 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 356
The design of the platform likely would have been vastly different if it needed to be a 2+2. For one, it likely would have needed to be a unibody. A unibody apparently implies vastly more cost. So possibly what you would have gotten if you'd mandated that was no Camaro and no Solstice.
The car business is very complex, but it's very easy to write "If when they'd started developing Kappa it had been MANDATED that it would be so configurable", as if what you're asking for is some simple obvious thing that no one at GM would have thought of.
I'm trying to suggest that you start by assuming that the folks at GM have thought of what you're thinking of (it is pretty obvious), and may have good reasons for not going that way.
Regarding a small RWD unibody platform, that apparently hinged on Caddy wanting something smaller than a CTS. Until fairly recently, they didn't.
That looks like a mistake to me, since the C-Class, 3-series, A4, etc., are the bread and butter of the Euro luxury lines.
So while I would criticize and have criticized GM for thinking that there was not a business justification for a small unibody RWD platform, I don't blame the Camaro team for that. And I don't blame the Solstice team for not using a unibody, 'cause they needed something fast.
Instead of an orphan Solstice/Sky followed by Zeta cars, I would have delayed Kappa and made it the basis for a line of small rwd vehicles. 2-seat roadster Solstice/Sky, 2+2 coupe Camaro (and Firebird or Banshee?), 3- and 5-door Nomad wagons (think Mazda3 w/ rwd), and a 1-/3-series fighting Cadillac.
Small enough and light enough cars that performance is good even with very efficient 4-cylinders, stunning with turbo-4 or six-cylinder power, and absolutely blistering with LS horsepower.
It is easy to dream... Cheap, too!
08-06-2008, 09:08 PM
#52
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33
i would have loved a smaller camaro. i think the 4th gen is perfect except its size.
the camaro isnt entirely its own market anymore like it was in the begining.
many of the import 2+2 coupes, albeit fwd, are really small compared to the camaro, and i think thats part of the market it needs to be in.
the 5th gen is great for the people who like em big, but im hoping for a smaller 6th gen.
the much shorter overhangs were a huge step in the right direction though.
the camaro isnt entirely its own market anymore like it was in the begining.
many of the import 2+2 coupes, albeit fwd, are really small compared to the camaro, and i think thats part of the market it needs to be in.
the 5th gen is great for the people who like em big, but im hoping for a smaller 6th gen.
the much shorter overhangs were a huge step in the right direction though.
08-06-2008, 09:16 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Yeah. I see your other points too.
We shall see. I hope we'll see a small RWD from GM at some point. But it's clearly not top priority at the moment (can you say Volt?).
I still don't expect a small RWD to be a lot lighter than a midsize like Zeta, purely based on what's out there. The difference between a 335i and 535i (Zeta sized) is only about 100 pounds or so (if you look at base weight, adjust for equipment).
Any more weight savings will come from lightweight design.
But I don't think we'll solve that disagreement today.
If it weren't for the fact that every other V8 IRS 400 lb ft four seat car out there is about as heavy or heavier than Camaro, I'd be jumping on the 'cut the fat' bandwagon too.
We shall see. I hope we'll see a small RWD from GM at some point. But it's clearly not top priority at the moment (can you say Volt?).
I still don't expect a small RWD to be a lot lighter than a midsize like Zeta, purely based on what's out there. The difference between a 335i and 535i (Zeta sized) is only about 100 pounds or so (if you look at base weight, adjust for equipment).
Any more weight savings will come from lightweight design.
But I don't think we'll solve that disagreement today.
If it weren't for the fact that every other V8 IRS 400 lb ft four seat car out there is about as heavy or heavier than Camaro, I'd be jumping on the 'cut the fat' bandwagon too.
08-06-2008, 09:18 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Cobalt SS anyone? It has gotten great reviews, but I have the feeling it's being ignored by the same crowd that would slobber all over it if it had a "Honda" badge.
08-06-2008, 09:23 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33
only thing that keeps me away from it is FWD.
something like the 240sx is exactly what id want a new camaro to be (of course you know, newer and meeting todays standards.) but thats because im coming from the used 3rd/4th gen market. i highly doubt any 1st gen owners feel the same way.
08-06-2008, 09:27 PM
#56
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
the turbo ss is an amazing car. and im surprised that NO ONE talks about the damn thing. its so cheap (as in cost) too.
only thing that keeps me away from it is FWD.
something like the 240sx is exactly what id want a new camaro to be (of course you know, newer and meeting todays standards.) but thats because im coming from the used 3rd/4th gen market. i highly doubt any 1st gen owners feel the same way.
only thing that keeps me away from it is FWD.
something like the 240sx is exactly what id want a new camaro to be (of course you know, newer and meeting todays standards.) but thats because im coming from the used 3rd/4th gen market. i highly doubt any 1st gen owners feel the same way.
What do you think of the new Hyundai coupe? I think it'll be in the 35-3600 pound range with the V6.
08-06-2008, 10:05 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
08-06-2008, 10:10 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
!
I'm not saying "this change or that change" would have saved weight. I'm specifically saying that the decisions to 1) rush Solstice/Sky to market with a non-reconfigurable platform and then 2) to use use a hulking 4100 lb. sedan platform were not good decisions for the Camaro.
I bet my insight and foresight were better than GM's in this case, but we shall see... I don't wish the car to do poorly in the market, indeed I'd like to be able to look forward to a smaller and lighter-weight 6th-gen. But I believe the 5th-gen will do poorly The opportunity was there to do something DIFFERENT from Ford or Chrysler and to be READY for higher gas prices and increasing CAFE. Camaro *could* have been on the GOOD side of these trends. Opportunity lost...
I'm not saying "this change or that change" would have saved weight. I'm specifically saying that the decisions to 1) rush Solstice/Sky to market with a non-reconfigurable platform and then 2) to use use a hulking 4100 lb. sedan platform were not good decisions for the Camaro.
I bet my insight and foresight were better than GM's in this case, but we shall see... I don't wish the car to do poorly in the market, indeed I'd like to be able to look forward to a smaller and lighter-weight 6th-gen. But I believe the 5th-gen will do poorly
The opportunity was there to do something DIFFERENT from Ford or Chrysler and to be READY for higher gas prices and increasing CAFE. Camaro *could* have been on the GOOD side of these trends. Opportunity lost...
