Weight
03-01-2007, 11:19 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 151
Weight
I know this has been discussed about trying to get the weight down. Fbodfather is talking about safety i can understand that and if it comes around 3800pds i dont really mind just as long as it runs good, safe and gets good gas mileage. What im wanting to know is how it ways so much i have a 67 camaro and it has a cast iron small block and all metal and weighs 3600pds. I know the concept is little bit bigger but it has a aluminum small block and mostly all fiberglass. The only thing i can conclude would be the chasis independent suspension and the billet interior that is weighing it down. So if you know why it weighs so much please explain.
03-02-2007, 08:01 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 336
I know this has been discussed about trying to get the weight down. Fbodfather is talking about safety i can understand that and if it comes around 3800pds i dont really mind just as long as it runs good, safe and gets good gas mileage. What im wanting to know is how it ways so much i have a 67 camaro and it has a cast iron small block and all metal and weighs 3600pds. I know the concept is little bit bigger but it has a aluminum small block and mostly all fiberglass. The only thing i can conclude would be the chasis independent suspension and the billet interior that is weighing it down. So if you know why it weighs so much please explain.
03-02-2007, 10:25 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
I know this has been discussed about trying to get the weight down. Fbodfather is talking about safety i can understand that and if it comes around 3800pds i dont really mind just as long as it runs good, safe and gets good gas mileage. What im wanting to know is how it ways so much i have a 67 camaro and it has a cast iron small block and all metal and weighs 3600pds. I know the concept is little bit bigger but it has a aluminum small block and mostly all fiberglass. The only thing i can conclude would be the chasis independent suspension and the billet interior that is weighing it down. So if you know why it weighs so much please explain.
I find your post and question disturbing, not just because you seem to know very little about today's cars, but you are using a car that's 40 years old as the basis for your question.
There has been 40 years worth of safety items added to cars since 1967. This includes side impact beams in the doors, 5 mph bumpers, and improved crash standards. All of which require stronger structures to support these, which add weight . If it wasn't for 40 years worth of engineering advances, cars today would weigh as much as tanks.
The second item is that there are far more comfort items and gizmos in todays cars than there was 40 years ago. Cars carry computers with many times over the calculating power that NASA was using on moon missions 40 years ago in small boxes. Cars have standard power windows and locks. Cars have AC standard. There's far more insulation in today's cars. Navigation systems, today's stereos, heated seats, and a whole host of items we have today all add up to additional weight.
Theres components. 40 years ago, cars had a lifespan of about 50,000 miles. Today it's about 200,000. That means stronger components and better materials and engineering.
There's emissions equptment. Catalytic converters are heavier than a plan pipe. In a dual exhaust car like the Mustang, there's 4 of them. Wasn't around 40 years ago. Neither were air pumps. Or onboard dianostic computers.
Tires are heavier today than they were 40 years ago. A '67 Camaro's G70X14s are virtural featherweights next to today's VR275/50-17 or even the 245s on my 2002. Brakes are bigger and heavier. The multi-link live axle in my 2002 is probally also a heavier assembly than the rather simple (and relatively ineffective) version in the '67 when it comes to handling. Yes, the independent rear suspension assembly is even heavier still.... quite a bit heavier.
If you're getting the view that it's something of a miracle that cars today aren't heavier than they already are, then you're starting to get the picture. If you get the idea that things have GREATLY changed in 40 years, then I think you're begining to see why I was amazed at the question and example you posted. There's alot more involved in a car's weight than a stripped bare 250 pound block of iron for the engine.
BTW: The Camaro concept is both shorter than the 1967 Camaro, and it's not made mostly of fiberglass.
Even if the skin was made of fiberglass, a fiberglass body does not impact the weight of the car. Fiberglass bodies or body parts are used because it can be formed without expensive steel stamping machines and therefore are alot cheaper than steel. Ditto plastic.
Last edited by guionM; 03-02-2007 at 10:29 AM.
03-02-2007, 10:49 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463
SSRich, In answer to your question weight is an issue on any new car. Especially a car made for spiritied driving like the Camaro. Most cars these days do pick up weight due to all the necessary crash standards, emissions and numerous creature comforts we can't seem to have ever lived without. Where there is a will there is a way and GM seems comitted to making the Camaro right. In other topics here recently posted there is one about GM calling Jenny Craig for the Camaro and thats important because they know weight is a performance and economy killer. Just know that GM did great with the C6 and while the Camaro is sold at a cheaper price point the engineering to fight the weight is there. I say fear not but until the car is sitting on a dealer lot I'd hate to speculate.
03-02-2007, 03:23 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
I know this has been discussed about trying to get the weight down. Fbodfather is talking about safety i can understand that and if it comes around 3800pds i dont really mind just as long as it runs good, safe and gets good gas mileage. What im wanting to know is how it ways so much i have a 67 camaro and it has a cast iron small block and all metal and weighs 3600pds. I know the concept is little bit bigger but it has a aluminum small block and mostly all fiberglass. The only thing i can conclude would be the chasis independent suspension and the billet interior that is weighing it down. So if you know why it weighs so much please explain.
03-02-2007, 06:30 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oshawa - Home of the 5th-gen
Posts: 5,308
There has been 40 years worth of safety items added to cars since 1967. This includes side impact beams in the doors, 5 mph bumpers, and improved crash standards. All of which require stronger structures to support these, which add weight . If it wasn't for 40 years worth of engineering advances, cars today would weigh as much as tanks.
Methinks the solid steel wins 
. I mean, I could test it between my '02 and my Dad's '73, but I think my car would need a new bumper 
.
Originally Posted by guionM
Theres components. 40 years ago, cars had a lifespan of about 50,000 miles. Today it's about 200,000. That means stronger components and better materials and engineering.
The only thing that prematurely fell apart (more like "disappeared") on old cars was the BODY. After that, it's the components on the NEW cars that have been questionable for high mileage, IMO 
. How many 4th-gen fuel pumps crap out, and/or fuel gauge sending units vs. the old ones? I had a wheel bearing fail with about ~30k on it. 3rd/4th-gens had a glass differential ... 1st/2nd? 8.5" 10-bolt at LEAST 
.
Originally Posted by guionM
There's emissions equptment ... Wasn't around 40 years ago. Neither were air pumps.
'69 Camaros had air pumps! Sorry, gotta bug a bit, Guy!!
To a degree, I'm with SSRich ... how much does a little extra bracing and stuff REALLY weigh, and considering how much aluminum and plastic is used nowadays vs. all the cast iron and steel of yester-year, things should pretty much balance out?
03-02-2007, 06:47 PM
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 151
[QUOTE=guionM;4451135]
Theres components. 40 years ago, cars had a lifespan of about 50,000 miles. Today it's about 200,000. That means stronger components and better materials and engineering.
Yea maybe but how many sensors do you have to replace that is one reason i dont like new vehichles because all of these sensors, yes they have their good points but also have worse points. The reason i said the new camaro is fiberglass because what are mostly all new vehicles made of?? fiber glass
Theres components. 40 years ago, cars had a lifespan of about 50,000 miles. Today it's about 200,000. That means stronger components and better materials and engineering.
Yea maybe but how many sensors do you have to replace that is one reason i dont like new vehichles because all of these sensors, yes they have their good points but also have worse points. The reason i said the new camaro is fiberglass because what are mostly all new vehicles made of?? fiber glass
03-02-2007, 06:53 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,123
Ha!! Tell me honestly ... which do you think will take a ~5 mph "bump" easier ... the plastic POS on a 4th-gen, or a solid steel chrome bumper on any ~'67 - '73??? Methinks the solid steel wins . I mean, I could test it between my '02 and my Dad's '73, but I think my car would need a new bumper .
Methinks the solid steel wins . I mean, I could test it between my '02 and my Dad's '73, but I think my car would need a new bumper .Sorry buddy thats nuts.........
03-02-2007, 08:52 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 77
Did you read his post at all? He was saying that steel bumper of the 60's and early 70's was heavier. Second, he said that in a "bump" not a wreck, the steel bumper is going to kick the **** out of the 5mph bumper on the late model. I don't think we said he want to be in a wreck.
03-02-2007, 10:36 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
, but those 1st gen Camaros weren't even up to 1967 safety standards, much less modern ones. The insurance companies hated those cars.As for the bumpers, it's true that the older bumpers were more designed to protect the car than to protect the occupant. Which kinda sucks when you kiss a bumper and do thousands of dollars of damage, but it's better in the higher-speed situations.
03-02-2007, 11:33 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,123
Did you read his post at all? He was saying that steel bumper of the 60's and early 70's was heavier. Second, he said that in a "bump" not a wreck, the steel bumper is going to kick the **** out of the 5mph bumper on the late model. I don't think we said he want to be in a wreck.
I have formed a bad habbit of just scaning the threads in the 5ht gen forum and not reading them in detial....
My mistake.....
03-03-2007, 02:24 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oshawa - Home of the 5th-gen
Posts: 5,308
Hey, no worries .
Do I want to be in a wreck in an old F-body vs. a newer one?
No, I'm smarter than that . BUT, I "did" have the misfortune of rear-ending a woman who cut me off last summer, and made contact at about ~5 mph. Well, luckily her car and mine were both "ok", but the plastic nose on my car now has tons of little "spider web" cracks throughout it (which looks like crap) where I know that a steel bumper probably would have busted the rear of her car, but would have come out without merely a scratch .
In the simple comparison of "weight", I know there's a lot of give and take, and Guy has a valid point ... today's cars would be "tanks" to be as "tough" as they were (on one hand, with steel bumpers, etc.) and yet to be as well "engineered" (safety wise) as they are today.
But to say that the bumper structures are stronger made me laugh.
.Do I want to be in a wreck in an old F-body vs. a newer one?
No, I'm smarter than that . BUT, I "did" have the misfortune of rear-ending a woman who cut me off last summer, and made contact at about ~5 mph. Well, luckily her car and mine were both "ok", but the plastic nose on my car now has tons of little "spider web" cracks throughout it (which looks like crap) where I know that a steel bumper probably would have busted the rear of her car, but would have come out without merely a scratch .In the simple comparison of "weight", I know there's a lot of give and take, and Guy has a valid point ... today's cars would be "tanks" to be as "tough" as they were (on one hand, with steel bumpers, etc.) and yet to be as well "engineered" (safety wise) as they are today.
But to say that the bumper structures are stronger made me laugh
.
03-03-2007, 02:18 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 336
[QUOTE=SSRich;4452139]
First off, I really have to say something, and I am not saying it to be a ***** or anything, but can you please use a spell check, or copy and paste your posts into MS Word first and then back into the forums to check for grammar and spelling or something? It is just a pet peeve of mine, and will help to give your opinions much more credibility and respect.
As for the comment in bold, to my knowledge most of the bodies today are made out of steel and plastic, not fiberglass. I don't know of many cars that are made out of fiberglass besides the vette and other high end sportscars/exotics.
Theres components. 40 years ago, cars had a lifespan of about 50,000 miles. Today it's about 200,000. That means stronger components and better materials and engineering.
Yea maybe but how many sensors do you have to replace that is one reason i dont like new vehichles because all of these sensors, yes they have their good points but also have worse points. The reason i said the new camaro is fiberglass because what are mostly all new vehicles made of?? fiber glass
Yea maybe but how many sensors do you have to replace that is one reason i dont like new vehichles because all of these sensors, yes they have their good points but also have worse points. The reason i said the new camaro is fiberglass because what are mostly all new vehicles made of?? fiber glass
As for the comment in bold, to my knowledge most of the bodies today are made out of steel and plastic, not fiberglass. I don't know of many cars that are made out of fiberglass besides the vette and other high end sportscars/exotics.
03-03-2007, 03:03 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
