Thoughts on weight reduction

One of the many cars I've owned in the past is a 1993 Honda Civic coupe. It weighed ~2400 pounds.

Unfortunately, something like 65% of that weight was over the front wheels, which made the car extremely unstable in certain conditions, and not as enjoyable to toss around in corners as a car that light should be.

I was listening to the most recent podcast (#74 (http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=499822)), where they mentioned weight reduction, and in particular, taking some weight out of the rear end.

I'd just like to voice my opinion that I'd rather have a 3400lb 5th gen with 50/50 weight distribution than a 3000lb 5th gen with 57/43 weight distribution (which is what you'd get if you took 400 pounds off the rear of the aforementioned 50/50 car).

For reference, my mostly-stock '02 Z28 weighs 3546 (with driver), and 1995lbs (56%) of that weight is on the front wheels.

There is a fine balance point here. I think the 4th gen was right on the edge -- any more front-heavy and it wouldn't be much fun to drive in anything but a straight line.

I'm sure the engineers have thought of this... I just wanted to share my thoughts.

as close to 3500lbs 50/50 as they can get.

I was listening to the most recent podcast (#74 (http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=499822)), where they mentioned weight reduction, and in particular, taking some weight out of the rear end.

I think this goes back to the IRS setup. Engineers may be looking to lighten the rear end of the car by using some more aluminum pieces, etc. Even still, the IRS will no doubt be heavier than the live axle the 4th Gens had, so I wouldn't worry as much about weight distribution.

If the goal is to come in below 3600 pounds, they're going to have to look everywhere for a pound or two.

If the goal is to come in below 3600 pounds, they're going to have to look everywhere for a pound or two.and they should.

Listen to yourselves. When has a Camaro or any other ponycar for that matter had "near" 50/50 weight distribution?

If that's what you want, then you don't want a Camaro. :irk:

Listen to yourselves. When has a Camaro or any other ponycar for that matter had "near" 50/50 weight distribution?

I agree, but I don't think that gives Chevrolet carte blanch to not try to give us the best balanced, lightest Camaro possible. I'm not nearly as concerned about weight distribution as total weight period, because the IRS is heavier. I don't think 55/45 is too far out of whack.

To me, 3800 pounds for a pony car would be disturbing.

Listen to yourselves. When has a Camaro or any other ponycar for that matter had "near" 50/50 weight distribution?

If that's what you want, then you don't want a Camaro. :irk:

Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't happen later. I can't see a arguement for NOT having 50/50 if they could do it. Since when does a ponycar have to have less than ideal handling?

If that's what you want, then you don't want a Camaro. :irk:

If a BMW 3-series can have be near 50/50, why can't a Camaro?

I'm not looking for perfect balance. I just don't want them to forget about balance when they're thinking about weight reduction. Furthermore, the lighter a car is, the more important that it be well balanced.

Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't happen later. I can't see a arguement for NOT having 50/50 if they could do it. Since when does a ponycar have to have less than ideal handling?
No one said it should be less than ideal. It should be ideal for a ponycar. What you guys are talking about (50/50) is typically only found on highend sports cars and race cars, not ponycars.
If a BMW 3-series can have be near 50/50, why can't a Camaro?
A 3-series isn't a pony car. Granted our M3 does handle like its on rails, but then I'd suspect a IRS Camaro would be almost as sweet. :p

No one said it should be less than ideal. It should be ideal for a ponycar. What you guys are talking about (50/50) is typically only found on highend sports cars and race cars, not ponycars.

Give me one reason is SHOULDN'T be found on a pony car? I see zero reason to not have it if it's designed that way. It can be a pony car and still handle like a sports car ;).

i dont think a 50/50 balance can be acheived on the camaro without investing a lot of engineering hours, which will drive up the cost. look at the c6 z06.. its got 50/50 distribution, but its got a magnesium engine cradle, carbon fiber body panels, and a balsa wood floor and cost is ~ mid 70k range.if GM could find a way to achieve a perfect 50/50 distribution without driving up the cost then im all for it

Get a 2009 Camaro ANYWHERE NEAR 3000 lbs of empty weight, and not only would I not care one bit if it had 57/43 weight distribution, but I'd go put a deposit down on one tomorrow!

We all know the possibility of both of those happening....oh well. :D

Listen to yourselves. When has a Camaro or any other ponycar for that matter had "near" 50/50 weight distribution?

If that's what you want, then you don't want a Camaro. :irk:

Excuse me thats EXACTLY what I want! M6 on a budget performance wise with Muscle car power. Or did you forget that a Z28 is a car that is actually supposed to handle???? Im so sick of hearing how everything is about the most power for the buck and that this car cant be refined or be a corner carver!:mad: I dont expect perfection but I would like them to try!

One of the many cars I've owned in the past is a 1993 Honda Civic coupe. It weighed ~2400 pounds.

Unfortunately, something like 65% of that weight was over the front wheels, which made the car extremely unstable in certain conditions, and not as enjoyable to toss around in corners as a car that light should be.

I was listening to the most recent podcast (#74 (http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=499822)), where they mentioned weight reduction, and in particular, taking some weight out of the rear end.

I'd just like to voice my opinion that I'd rather have a 3400lb 5th gen with 50/50 weight distribution than a 3000lb 5th gen with 57/43 weight distribution (which is what you'd get if you took 400 pounds off the rear of the aforementioned 50/50 car).

For reference, my mostly-stock '02 Z28 weighs 3546 (with driver), and 1995lbs (56%) of that weight is on the front wheels.

There is a fine balance point here. I think the 4th gen was right on the edge -- any more front-heavy and it wouldn't be much fun to drive in anything but a straight line.

I'm sure the engineers have thought of this... I just wanted to share my thoughts.

Im sure the IRS will be heavier than a live axle as mentioned. The battery could also be put in the trunk. Im sure theres a dozen tricks they could come up with.

A 3-series isn't a pony car. Granted our M3 does handle like its on rails, but then I'd suspect a IRS Camaro would be almost as sweet. :p
I didn't say that a 3-series is a pony car. I'm pointing out that a relatively mainstream coupe that is neither exotic nor a "sports car" by most people's definitions can be 50/50, and asking why the same shouldn't be true of Camaro?

Nowhere in anyone's definition of "pony car" does it say "must be front-heavy". :rolleyes:

No one said it should be less than ideal. It should be ideal for a ponycar. What you guys are talking about (50/50) is typically only found on highend sports cars and race cars, not ponycars.

A 3-series isn't a pony car. Granted our M3 does handle like its on rails, but then I'd suspect a IRS Camaro would be almost as sweet. :p

Uhhh. A 7 series has 50/50 or close to it if I recal correctly. Now race car or not it is a "cost is no object" BMW, so your point still stands.

I think this is useless arguement though, they know they need to keep weight down and they know it needs to handle well.. The simplest way to accomplish the latter is to keep the distribution as even as possible. :dunno:


((Damnit why cant I type tonight :mad: ))

Now race car or not it is a "cost is no object" BMW, so your point still stands.


Why does it still stand? noone said to make the car out of titanium and gold, but balance the weight that is there as close to 50/50.

I think the overall theme here is balance. Not necessarily 50/50 weight balance, but balancing all the variables involved. Cost, overall weight, unsprung weight (an SRA detriment), etc.

And, personally suspension settings can overcome nose-heavy distribution a whole lot easier a higher total weight. I say, the lighter the better.

Heck, look at the Evos. They have something like 60/40 distribution at ~3200#, and I don't hear anyone complaining about they handle. Yet a Z has 52/48 distribution and they understeer like mad from the factory.

For me overall weight is more important than distribution for the Camaro.

Why does it still stand? noone said to make the car out of titanium and gold, but balance the weight that is there as close to 50/50.

Putting things in orthodox places cost money, using lightweight materials cost money, BMW had to do both of those to get that kind of balance for the car.

Putting things in orthodox places cost money, using lightweight materials cost money, BMW had to do both of those to get that kind of balance for the car.Thank you!!!

Look... I want a great handling Camaro just as much as the next guy. All I am saying is I want the lightest-best-handling car for the price. What some people are suggesting sounds good on paper, but try engineering a sub $30k, 50/50, 3200-lb ponycar. I just don't see it being practical.

try engineering a sub $30k, 50/50, 3200-lb ponycar. I just don't see it being practical.

Okay, but you've misinterpreted me. Aim for perfection, so that when you're close, you end up with something good. Would a 53/47, 3400-lb pony car be impractical? I'd be more than happy with that.

All I am saying is I want the lightest-best-handling car for the price.

I can't speak for everyone else, but that is what I am saying as well. I just don't like the attitude of "Pony Cars aren't supposed to be even close to 50/50 balance and if you're looking for that you don't want a Camaro." All I want is for the Camaro to have best in class handling, and a number of factors play into that....weight, balance, and steering feel.

I can't speak for everyone else, but that is what I am saying as well. I just don't like the attitude of "Pony Cars aren't supposed to be even close to 50/50 balance and if you're looking for that you don't want a Camaro." All I want is for the Camaro to have best in class handling, and a number of factors play into that....weight, balance, and steering feel.I agree with you in principle; however I don't like the idea of people throwing out generalisms without thinking of the logistical impacts they may create. Let's say GM comes up with the following cases:

(a) 3200-lb coupe; 55/45 weight distribution; $45,000 MSRP
(b) 3600-lb coupe; 60/40 weight distribution; $30,000 MSRP
(c) 3900-lb coupe; 50/50 weight distribution; $38,000 MSRP

These of course are hypothetical scenarios, but for sake of arqument, let's say each of these theoretical "Camaros" has class leading performance and handling. Which would you prefer? Personally, I feel case (b) is the closest to the "winning formula" Camaro will need to be successful.

The question is do you compromise cost; weight; or performance? That is the task GM engineers are being asked to tackle. Personally, I think its a little late in the game to be going back to the drawing board. At this point the Camaro is what it is. To start over at this point, would delay its arrival by several years.

Personally, I feel case (b) is the closest to the "winning formula" Camaro will need to be successful.

I don't disagree with you.

Again, because the IRS will undoubtedly be heavier than the rear end of the previous car I don't think balance will be a concern. Overall weight still is, but I doubt we'll have an overly nose-heavy car with the IRS out back.

Thank you!!!

Look... I want a great handling Camaro just as much as the next guy. All I am saying is I want the lightest-best-handling car for the price. What some people are suggesting sounds good on paper, but try engineering a sub $30k, 50/50, 3200-lb ponycar. I just don't see it being practical.

I dont think anyone was asking for a 3200 pound car. I dont know where you came up with that, nor a perfect 50/50 but to make an attempt to get close as reasonably possible to a 50/50 3600-3700 pounds especially with the IRS weight offsetting the engine and transmission.

I dont think anyone was asking for a 3200 pound car. I dont know where you came up with that.A few people have said they want it as close to 3000 lb as possible.

A few people have said they want it as close to 3000 lb as possible.

Well there I agree with you then. Thats rediculous to expect even for a vette.

(a) 3200-lb coupe; 55/45 weight distribution; $45,000 MSRP
(b) 3600-lb coupe; 60/40 weight distribution; $30,000 MSRP
(c) 3900-lb coupe; 50/50 weight distribution; $38,000 MSRP

Did you just pull those out of thin air, without even thinking about them? The conditions don't even improve with price.

I didn't start this thread to talk about price, I just wanted to put an idea in people's heads, and that is that overall weight shouldn't be taken so low as to prevent decent balance. IMO, 55/45 weight distribution is the worst that GM should let out the doors as the 5th gen Camaro. The 4th gen is 56/44, and it's front-heaviness causes it to understeer when pushed in turns. I'm just asking for some improvement in that department. :)

But, since you brought up price, I'd take the $45,000 car. That said, you've pretty much described a C6 with those numbers, except that the Vette's balance is a little better than 55/45. GM probably wouldn't sell too many Camaros like that, but that's more an issue of poor market positioning than it is of vehicle handling compromises.

I'm thinking that 53/47, 3400lb is doable with a pricing scheme competitive with the Mustang. Do you disagree?

The question is do you compromise cost; weight; or performance? That is the task GM engineers are being asked to tackle. Personally, I think its a little late in the game to be going back to the drawing board. At this point the Camaro is what it is. To start over at this point, would delay its arrival by several years.

When your designing from scratch (like i assume was done with the camaro) then you can work in fairly what ever you want for cheaper than it is to try to go back and fix it later. So lets hope they aimed for 50/50 3k form the start so that when they end they will be close and the price will be low vs having to go back and "fix" it.

ok... a 3000lb Camaro, when the C6 Z06 is what? ~3100 lbs.

:confused:

You can have a 3000 lb Camaro. It just wont have an engine.

:lol:

It will weigh what it weighs. Rest assured, weight is everyone's enemy, so GM will do what it can to reduce weight, within the bounds of the business plan.

GM will do what it can to reduce weight, within the bounds of the business plan.

AND come up with a decent weight distribution? I hope!

I'm thinking that 53/47, 3400lb is doable with a pricing scheme competitive with the Mustang. Do you disagree?

I think the 3400lbs maybe a about 200 lbs off. I would say 53/47 isn't too bad at 3600lbs.

One of the many cars I've owned in the past is a 1993 Honda Civic coupe. It weighed ~2400 pounds.

Unfortunately, something like 65% of that weight was over the front wheels, which made the car extremely unstable in certain conditions, and not as enjoyable to toss around in corners as a car that light should be.

I was listening to the most recent podcast (#74 (http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=499822)), where they mentioned weight reduction, and in particular, taking some weight out of the rear end.

I'd just like to voice my opinion that I'd rather have a 3400lb 5th gen with 50/50 weight distribution than a 3000lb 5th gen with 57/43 weight distribution (which is what you'd get if you took 400 pounds off the rear of the aforementioned 50/50 car).

For reference, my mostly-stock '02 Z28 weighs 3546 (with driver), and 1995lbs (56%) of that weight is on the front wheels.

There is a fine balance point here. I think the 4th gen was right on the edge -- any more front-heavy and it wouldn't be much fun to drive in anything but a straight line.

I'm sure the engineers have thought of this... I just wanted to share my thoughts.

In the VE and WM, the Zeta's engine sits back aways in the chassis, the front has next to no overhang, while the rear has quite a bit. The result is roughly a 50/50 distribution. Almost unheard of on a traditional sedan.

I suspect that even though the 5th gen has far less rear overhang, even taking weight out of the rear IRS is still not likely to send the weight balence to where the 4th gen was, let alone beyond it.

I'm not worried. :)

Did you just pull those out of thin air, without even thinking about them? The conditions don't even improve with price.They were meant to be an exaggeration. The point being, lighter weight materials and additional engineering to achieve better front to rear balance would have to be accounted for somewhere, namely in the price of the vehicle.

I didn't start this thread to talk about price, I just wanted to put an idea in people's heads, and that is that overall weight shouldn't be taken so low as to prevent decent balance. IMO, 55/45 weight distribution is the worst that GM should let out the doors as the 5th gen Camaro. The 4th gen is 56/44, and it's front-heaviness causes it to understeer when pushed in turns. I'm just asking for some improvement in that department. :)I won't disagree with you, but hasn't understeer been an issue on all previous generations? Isn't it something that makes a Camaro a Camaro and not a Corvette?

But, since you brought up price, I'd take the $45,000 car. That said, you've pretty much described a C6 with those numbers, except that the Vette's balance is a little better than 55/45. GM probably wouldn't sell too many Camaros like that, but that's more an issue of poor market positioning than it is of vehicle handling compromises.

I'm thinking that 53/47, 3400lb is doable with a pricing scheme competitive with the Mustang. Do you disagree?
Perhaps the heavier IRS will tip the scales to better f/r numbers. Personally I don't think 3400-lbs is doable without a sacrifice somewhere. I think 3500-3700 is more realistic.

When your designing from scratch (like i assume was done with the camaro) then you can work in fairly what ever you want for cheaper than it is to try to go back and fix it later. So lets hope they aimed for 50/50 3k form the start so that when they end they will be close and the price will be low vs having to go back and "fix" it.
But they didn't start from scratch. They started with Zeta and modified it. :D

In the VE and WM, the Zeta's engine sits back aways in the chassis, the front has next to no overhang, while the rear has quite a bit. The result is roughly a 50/50 distribution. Almost unheard of on a traditional sedan.

I suspect that even though the 5th gen has far less rear overhang, even taking weight out of the rear IRS is still not likely to send the weight balence to where the 4th gen was, let alone beyond it.

I'm not worried. :)Well that's good news. I hope you're right. ;)

In the VE and WM, the Zeta's engine sits back aways in the chassis, the front has next to no overhang, while the rear has quite a bit. The result is roughly a 50/50 distribution. Almost unheard of on a traditional sedan.
On top of that, they moved the front wheels forward on Camaro to accomodate larger wheels. Does this mean that Camaro might inadvertently being a front mid-engine car? :D

Unlikely, I know, but your comment just got me thinking. :)

I won't disagree with you, but hasn't understeer been an issue on all previous generations? Isn't it something that makes a Camaro a Camaro and not a Corvette?
That's some interesting logic. Do you really think that we should let tradition impede progress? I don't hear you bitching about IRS, even though all previous Camaros have had live rear axles.

"But we've always done it this way," is one of the worst arguments one can make.

That's some interesting logic. Do you really think that we should let tradition impede progress? I don't hear you bitching about IRS, even though all previous Camaros have had live rear axles.

"But we've always done it this way," is one of the worst arguments one can make.
Actually I'm pro-IRS. If near 50/50 can be achieved, then I'm all for it. However I'm less concerned if that comes in as a 3600lb Camaro. In fact, I'd be happy with anything under 3900lbs. ;)

I won't disagree with you, but hasn't understeer been an issue on all previous generations? Isn't it something that makes a Camaro a Camaro and not a Corvette?


Understeer is tuned in for safety. You can suspension tune for neutral or oversteer quite easily.

Actually I'm pro-IRS. If near 50/50 can be achieved, then I'm all for it. However I'm less concerned if that comes in as a 3600lb Camaro. In fact, I'd be happy with anything under 3900lbs. ;)

Agreed!

In the VE and WM, the Zeta's engine sits back aways in the chassis, the front has next to no overhang, while the rear has quite a bit. The result is roughly a 50/50 distribution. Almost unheard of on a traditional sedan.

I suspect that even though the 5th gen has far less rear overhang, even taking weight out of the rear IRS is still not likely to send the weight balence to where the 4th gen was, let alone beyond it.

I'm not worried. :)

Sounds promising!


I won't disagree with you, but hasn't understeer been an issue on all previous generations? Isn't it something that makes a Camaro a Camaro and not a Corvette?

Absoloutely not! Difference is Camaro has two back seats and a lower price tag. To not shoot for 50/50 and other handling capabilities is to miss huge potential. GTO distro is 55/45. Import crowds are car guys too, only they are willing to give up American power for import handleing. That is unless they are willing to shell out money for a BMW. If the 5th gen can get the handleing down and put out small block power, the gas milege of a performance 4cyl(which is only in the low 20s mostly), at the quality they are putting out now, there is no compromise. Ill repeat it a millon times. Z28 should be a M6 at a fraction of the cost, the way a Z06 is a Ferrari at a fraction of the cost. The car has soo much more potential than what it was...

Ill repeat it a millon times. Z28 should be a M6 at a fraction of the cost, the way a Z06 is a Ferrari at a fraction of the cost. The car has soo much more potential than what it was...

Difference is, they don't need to sell 100k M6's to be profitable. Camaro does. With that volume, come sacrifices in unique and lighter materials. I'm with you though, I totally want it as light as possible and as close to 50/50 as they can, but you have to realize that they're planning on moving ALOT of these cars, so it needs to be priced right. To do that, it might have to give a SMALL portion of weight savings up, or take the cost out of something else.

Originally Posted by jg95z28

"I won't disagree with you, but hasn't understeer been an issue on all previous generations? Isn't it something that makes a Camaro a Camaro and not a Corvette?"


Sorry, But the First Gens had Oversteer not understeer!!! :)

Sorry, But the First Gens had Oversteer not understeer!!! :)Not my first gen. ;)

When your designing from scratch (like i assume was done with the camaro) then you can work in fairly what ever you want for cheaper than it is to try to go back and fix it later.

The Camaro is based on the Zeta platform. It will share some platform components and foundations with other vehicles, some of which are 4 door sedans. It isn't designed from scratch, and much like the 350Z suffers from weight issues because it shares componentah with some Infiniti and Japanese home market sedans, the Camaro might have to take one for the team.

Z28 should be a M6 at a fraction of the cost, the way a Z06 is a Ferrari at a fraction of the cost.
Why M6? M6 is fast, but it's very heavy and the suspension is tuned fairly soft, to meet the expectations of people buying $100,000 BMWs. Car and Driver was disappointed with the handling, and they're usually total BMW nuthuggers, so good luck calling bias on that one.

I don't know about you, but that's not at all what I want in a Camaro.

Difference is, they don't need to sell 100k M6's to be profitable. Camaro does. With that volume, come sacrifices in unique and lighter materials. I'm with you though, I totally want it as light as possible and as close to 50/50 as they can, but you have to realize that they're planning on moving ALOT of these cars, so it needs to be priced right. To do that, it might have to give a SMALL portion of weight savings up, or take the cost out of something else.

agreed 100%

Why M6? M6 is fast, but it's very heavy and the suspension is tuned fairly soft, to meet the expectations of people buying $100,000 BMWs. Car and Driver was disappointed with the handling, and they're usually total BMW nuthuggers, so good luck calling bias on that one.

I don't know about you, but that's not at all what I want in a Camaro.

Well I was thinking M3 as a road handleing monster, but the proportions were closer to the M6. You get the idea though.

Well I was thinking M3 as a road handleing monster, but the proportions were closer to the M6. You get the idea though.
From what I've read, the M3 has a harsh, unpleasant ride. The handling is awesome, but BMW gave up too much to get it that good.

I think that Camaro should shoot for Maserati. That's the poor man's Ferrari, and Camaro is the poor man's Corvette.

From what I've read, the M3 has a harsh, unpleasant ride. The handling is awesome, but BMW gave up too much to get it that good.I can concurr on that one! :p

My son fell in love with the image of having a M3 and now after just a few months he's considering getting rid of it. It's a cool little car, too small to be a "Camaro", and a little pricey IMHO for what it is.

My buddy has one on 19's, it's not that harsh. Well, not to me anyway.

My buddy has one on 19's, it's not that harsh. Well, not to me anyway.

Yeah- I drove quite a few of them and I thought they were okay. Although I will admit to liking the ride of the '95-'99 cars better than the '01-'04 cars. I think they handle better too, but that's a different issue.

I don't know about the M3s or M6s, but my buddy has a 2005 3-series BMW and if they can get the Camaro to handle at all like that, regardles of weight distribution, then I will certainly be more than happy. However, I do not intend to take my 5th get out on any road courses either.

Get a Camaro to handle like a BMW?

HERETIC!

Just get the new Camaro to handle like a Camaro, thank you.

:)

Getting a Camaro to handle like an M3 is great, as long as it does not cost as much as an M3 at the dealers lots.

Getting a Camaro to handle like an M3 is great, as long as it does not cost as much as an M3 at the dealers lots.
Yeah, but that's exactly what we're discussing. Corvette is the low-cost alternative to Ferrari (pick your model; I have the F430 in mind). For what more expensive car should the Camaro seek to be the low-cost alternative?

I said it in another thread, although in a different context. I think that using the M3 as a benchmark isn't a bad idea. The next gen M3 will be a fairly light car that seats 4 and has a 400hp OHC V8. However, it's gonna cost between $45k to $60k.

So... if we get a Camaro that has 90% of the performance and 75% of the amenities at 60% of the price, I think we win. Particularly since our car will come with a motor that just begs for modification.

I seriously doubt that heads/cam/exhaust will even be possible on the next M3, much less in a combo that nets 500hp.