Why is the camaro so damn heavy?
01-07-2009, 02:20 PM
#46
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
01-07-2009, 04:30 PM
#47
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: AR (PA born and fled)
Posts: 859
So your point was that there were only two Mustangs listed at all, and only one of the current generation? That doesn't make any sense. I stand by my comment that the first link you posted does not support your argument as it doesn't have enough data to support any argument about Mustang GT versus Mustang GT 500.
I count nine "streetable class" (Stock and SP) Mustangs entered in the first link (Pro Solo).
I count thirty-six in the second link (Nats)
A lot of these are fairly new, recently purchased, current gen cars. A lot of them were bought because they are the cars to have. The GT500 is not found in the results because it is NOT the car to have.
My point is that the extra weight hinders that car. These guys want to win and if the GT500 was superior IT would be the model being purchased. *shrug* Believe what you wish.
I'm also not invested enough in this discussion to bother with digging up all of the magazine comparos I've read that say the production GT500 out performs the production GT in every category tested, with lap times, slalom times, quarter mile times, etc, to back up what they say. In fact, Edmunds has an article about all of the modifications they had to make to the production GT in order to best a GT 500 in cornering (it involved wheels, tires, springs, dampers, sway bars, and rear end links).
My questions were more aimed at understanding why guionM's statement comparing a production Mustang GT with a production Mustang GT 500 was countered with an argument that race prepped cars proved the production car statement to be wrong.
My questions were more aimed at understanding why guionM's statement comparing a production Mustang GT with a production Mustang GT 500 was countered with an argument that race prepped cars proved the production car statement to be wrong.
"Race prepped" doesn't mean a thing in Stock class with regard to our comparison making. The allowances are so minimal that everyone with the same type of car runs basically the same tires and modifications. Therefore we can still use this as a useful comparison. Also, almost everyone of them really are daily drivers since the modifications are so limited. Having claimed that you have participated in autocrosses I would think you'd know that.
01-07-2009, 04:53 PM
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
The only fallacy results from your reluctance to follow your own logic argument through to the end. Use logic to answer the following question.... Why does GM wish it was lighter?
Logically, if they wish it was lighter then it follows that they are at best unsatisfied with the current condition.
Logically, if they wish it was lighter then it follows that they are at best unsatisfied with the current condition.
Wishes do not necessarily imply dissatisfaction. In addition, satisfaction is not a binary attribute. There is not some magic number where I would be satisfied with my account balance and not want it to be any higher and 1 cent less would dissatisfied.
I've been told here repeatedly that weight doesn't matter as much as the "*****" may think. I've been told here repeatedly that weight is not a concern for anyone but those nitpickers. Funny, but as time passes the weight concern crowd seems to be much more in step with what GM wanted to accomplish with this car than those on the other side of the argument.
What I have said is that all cars have gotten heavier due to regulatory and market requirements, and the Camaro is not immune to those. That is a far cry from saying it doesn't matter.
What's unrealistic is to expect that Camaro could somehow avoid the weight gain that everyone else is suffering from.
I am sorry that I am reminded the Cobalt SS is an "amazing" performer when I compare track times between it and the Camaro. I find it odd that we are criticized for expecting to be amazed by the new Camaro when it is perfectly acceptable to be amazed by an econobox.
I am sorry that I expect a car that, in my opinion, is a bit farther up the food chain and has a history far more worthy of respect than a Cobalt to set new standards in Camaro performance with its amazing abilities.
I am sorry that I expect a car that, in my opinion, is a bit farther up the food chain and has a history far more worthy of respect than a Cobalt to set new standards in Camaro performance with its amazing abilities.
01-07-2009, 05:00 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: AR (PA born and fled)
Posts: 859
It was a general statement aimed at those who have made such claims within this thread, not you.
Last edited by Chewbacca; 01-07-2009 at 05:02 PM.
01-07-2009, 05:14 PM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 943
I have heard some GM people comment on the weight. I can't remember the exact words, but they were something to the effect of "The weight is the price we have to pay to be competetive in other areas of the car". Specifically things like the rear diff and crash ratings I would guess. Those are items that are improved to best in class at the tradeoff of increased mass. It is all about tradeoffs.
-Geoff
-Geoff
01-07-2009, 05:29 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
I have heard some GM people comment on the weight. I can't remember the exact words, but they were something to the effect of "The weight is the price we have to pay to be competetive in other areas of the car". Specifically things like the rear diff and crash ratings I would guess. Those are items that are improved to best in class at the tradeoff of increased mass. It is all about tradeoffs.
-Geoff
-Geoff
The new Camaro has stability control, which means you need a bunch of sensors and wiring, and that adds weight. It's got side and head airbags. Much more rigid unibody. Once again, you can say the same thing about nearly every new car model.
01-07-2009, 05:57 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Stockton, Ca. USA
Posts: 666
I agree totally and wish I could have got my hands on that G8, but I was watching the way car was reacting on course. For such a big car I was very impressed, not much sway, seemed very balanced with a little bit of push, but when the 4th gen followed up the G8, it is obvious to me the 4th gen was a much better handling car.
01-07-2009, 06:24 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
I agree totally and wish I could have got my hands on that G8, but I was watching the way car was reacting on course. For such a big car I was very impressed, not much sway, seemed very balanced with a little bit of push, but when the 4th gen followed up the G8, it is obvious to me the 4th gen was a much better handling car.
01-07-2009, 07:05 PM
#56
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Okemos, MI
Posts: 9,479
01-07-2009, 07:16 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Several times Scott has stated that the 4th gen could take a Corvette (C5 I think) on a road course, in spite of being a bit heavier. So I'd have no reason to doubt someone who told me that an F4 with the right tires and power would be faster than an F5 with similar tires (though on larger wheels!) on a smooth road course.
I've always heard that on a smooth course, a live axle is just as good as IRS.
My 2002 handles really well as long as the road isn't too bumpy.
Someone needs to take their mildly modified F4 to the Nurburgring and see what lap time they can get. I nominate Korry
I've always heard that on a smooth course, a live axle is just as good as IRS.
My 2002 handles really well as long as the road isn't too bumpy.
Someone needs to take their mildly modified F4 to the Nurburgring and see what lap time they can get. I nominate Korry
01-07-2009, 07:21 PM
#58
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: AR (PA born and fled)
Posts: 859
Not without some sort of uber NASCAR cage. 
I've watched enough in car video of that track to know it would scare the pee out of me with all those blind corners.
*EDIT* You're also right on the solid axle / smooth surface thing. In fact, on a very smooth surface, the solid axle is probably better since there are no camber curve control issues. Problem is, we don't all drive on billards tables do we?
I've watched enough in car video of that track to know it would scare the pee out of me with all those blind corners.
*EDIT* You're also right on the solid axle / smooth surface thing. In fact, on a very smooth surface, the solid axle is probably better since there are no camber curve control issues. Problem is, we don't all drive on billards tables do we?
Last edited by Chewbacca; 01-07-2009 at 07:25 PM.
01-07-2009, 07:51 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Not without some sort of uber NASCAR cage.
I've watched enough in car video of that track to know it would scare the pee out of me with all those blind corners.
*EDIT* You're also right on the solid axle / smooth surface thing. In fact, on a very smooth surface, the solid axle is probably better since there are no camber curve control issues. Problem is, we don't all drive on billards tables do we?
I've watched enough in car video of that track to know it would scare the pee out of me with all those blind corners.
*EDIT* You're also right on the solid axle / smooth surface thing. In fact, on a very smooth surface, the solid axle is probably better since there are no camber curve control issues. Problem is, we don't all drive on billards tables do we?
01-08-2009, 01:38 AM
#60
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463