Edmunds Feature - GM's LS7 427 Chevrolet Camaro SS (2009 Camaro SS Preview)
06-06-2007, 10:20 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Flounderville, MI, USA
Posts: 589
And yet it still sucks. BTW, if you ever try to push one, you'd swear it weighed over 4000lbs!!
It was mentioned that the 5th gen was going to weigh about 500lb more than that car, not 500lb more than an average 4th gen. My next question is this:
Is that mule an otherwise full weight, 3450lb car, or is it a 3100lb stripped out box with an engine?? I'd take a 3600lb car no problem, heavier than I'd like, but on par with where theh industry is at.
It was mentioned that the 5th gen was going to weigh about 500lb more than that car, not 500lb more than an average 4th gen. My next question is this:
Is that mule an otherwise full weight, 3450lb car, or is it a 3100lb stripped out box with an engine?? I'd take a 3600lb car no problem, heavier than I'd like, but on par with where theh industry is at.
06-06-2007, 10:21 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
BTW, Mazda is playing with some 300 hp turbo RX8's - and I believe someone makes an LSx conversion kit for RX7/8. But I get your point.
06-07-2007, 02:53 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Someone mentioned aluminum and the Audi TT. That car is a Golf at +$10000.
What would people think of a Chevy Camaro at $30000 and 3900 pounds and then a Pontiac <choose-your-favorite-nameplate> at $35000 and 3700 pounds? Or a Cadillac or whatever. The upmarket nameplates have the margin to spend on that if buyers cared enough. It looks like they don't, though that may change?
The RX8 certainly isn't setting sales records, though I guess it's doing okay. A number of reviewers have commented that they wished it had a V6. But what would that mean to size?
06-07-2007, 07:03 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oshawa - Home of the 5th-gen
Posts: 5,308
Wow, more speculation 
. Nice read, but still taking it with a grain of salt like all the rest of the "rumours" until we see something OFFICIAL :blah:.
... back to your regularily scheduled pipe-dreams!
. Nice read, but still taking it with a grain of salt like all the rest of the "rumours" until we see something OFFICIAL :blah:.... back to your regularily scheduled pipe-dreams!
06-07-2007, 11:44 AM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
06-07-2007, 09:19 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Killeen, Texas
Posts: 347
06-08-2007, 02:24 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
06-08-2007, 07:59 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 388
06-08-2007, 08:11 AM
#44
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
All well and true, Kemosabe, but don't forget the cardinal rule of horsepower... "There's no replacement for displacement".
From your 'naturally aspirated' friend from the south.....
06-08-2007, 10:47 AM
#45
Disciple
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada (20 min. down the road from the "Shwa"!)
Posts: 270
Just for fun, the 2007 3000 lb., 232 HP manual 1.3 litre Mazda RX8 EPA #'s are 16 city, 22 highway and 18 combined. Compare this to the EPA numbers for the last 2002 manual Z28 which were 17 city, 26 highway and 20 combined. I sure know which car I'd rather have, based on which one is more fun to drive and provides more performance. We won't even talk economy of operation here.
To me, weight is only one # in the whole equation... that is made up of performance and fuel economy as well.
Edmunds concedes that the low weight of the Mazda powerplant allows for a 50/50 weight distribution, but fuel economy and torque are disappointing features of the car.
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/rx8/2007/review.html
Different strokes for different folks. (if you'll pardon the pun)
Best regardSS,
Elie