What concerns you more? Cost or weight?

There seem to be two main concerns regarding the '10 Camaro. Will it cost too much and will it weigh too much?

Where do you stand?

Cost, by a large margin.

As I plan to purchase a loaded supercharged Z/28, the cheaper it is the better, whereas 100-200 lbs either way doesn't concern me as much.

If the Camaro is priced competitively, I may even consider purchasing two, a red V6 convertible for the Mrs., and the aforementioned Z/28 (in hugger orange) for me.

:D

Cost, by a large margin.

As I plan to purchase a loaded supercharged Z/28, the cheaper it is the better, whereas 100-200 lbs either way doesn't concern me as much.

If the Camaro is priced competitively, I may even consider purchasing two, a red V6 convertible for the Mrs., and the aforementioned Z/28 (in hugger orange) for me.

:D

I had a similar plan. A black Z/28 for myself and a red V6 convertible for my wife. $1,000 -$2,000 either way is not a major concern for me.

But I really have little interest in a 4100 pound Z/28 and a V6 convertible which weighs nearly as much. Weight is the deal killer for me.

Cost and weight.

I've already determined I won't be buying one new (unless gas drops back to $2/gal :lol: ) The cost of ownership isn't justifiable to me anymore, so my fingers are crossed for a nice used on in a couple years. Cheaper price, insurance, and SC taxes (paid yearly based on vehicle's value) :mad:

More weight = less mpg (in all engine config.) which = bad.

Cost, like was said above, by a large margin. the weight is an unfortunate issue that I can live with.:yes:

On a personal scale, I'm more concerned about cost because if I cannot get a V8 for under or at 30k, I'm gonna be a little disapointed. I said I would be more than happy driving a V6 model -- and I will be. But not being able to get that big-honkin V8 will be a bit of a let-down.:(

On a grand scale, price gets priority because if GM doesn't price the Camaro within reach of Mustang, it's not going to sell. Which is bad.
Your average consumer doesn't care about weight. He/she sees the inital cost, saftey, comfort + ammenities, and fuel economy compared to other vehicles in its class....

Charlie, where's the option for BOTH???? :confused: :p

For ME?? I want the car to come out as light as possible. Power is cheaper and easier to add than weight is to remove.

But I also KNOW (and I'm sure you do too) that the COST is the real deal killer for ~99% of the buying population. A few of us here can jump up and down screaming all day about how heavy the car is, but unfortunately, there is a direct relation between the weight of the car, and the weight of money in GM's pockets ;).

I'll still place my vote under WEIGHT, because if/when the time comes, I'm rarely one to cringe at the price of the things I'm buying, as long as I'm satisfied with WHAT I'm buying :cool:.

Your average consumer doesn't care about weight. He/she sees the inital cost, saftey, comfort + ammenities, and fuel economy compared to other vehicles in its class....


...and Mustang sales were down almost 45% last month and down over 30% for the year... :eek:

Good poll, Charlie.

Folks...we ALL want to say that "both" is the answer, but if you have to pick one OR the other, which would you pick?

Not an easy one, I know. I had to think about it a bit.

I'll still place my vote under WEIGHT, because if/when the time comes, I'm rarely one to cringe at the price of the things I'm buying, as long as I'm satisfied with WHAT I'm buying :cool:.

I agree, very true

:lol: I'm a retard, I voted weight but wanted to vote for cost :lol: Stupid A D D.

Cost, I can change the weight, I can't change the price beyond GM supplier.

I picked weight. Especially since I no longer plan on buying one new (if at all, depending on things LIKE weight, interior, etc.).

It's a tough poll, I have no illusions of a $20,000 LS3 equipped model just like I have no illusions of a 3300 pound Camaro. I just hope there is a "happy medium" somewhere.

Cost, like was said above, by a large margin. the weight is an unfortunate issue that I can live with.:yes:

On a personal scale, I'm more concerned about cost because if I cannot get a V8 for under or at 30k, I'm gonna be a little disapointed. I said I would be more than happy driving a V6 model -- and I will be. But not being able to get that big-honkin V8 will be a bit of a let-down.:(

On a grand scale, price gets priority because if GM doesn't price the Camaro within reach of Mustang, it's not going to sell. Which is bad.
Your average consumer doesn't care about weight. He/she sees the inital cost, saftey, comfort + ammenities, and fuel economy compared to other vehicles in its class....

I will completely agree with this post with the exception of the v6... I'm not going to buy a v6 muscle car - period (I would probably purchase a 1-series)

HOWEVER.... I have complete confidence based on the Fbodfather & other comments that the base v8 (SS) will be priced in the same ballpark as its Mustang GT counterpart.

Cost, I can change the weight, I can't change the price beyond GM supplier.

And how would you do that substantially?

And how would you do that substantially?

Any number of ways(and ranging costs) depending on what I wanted out of the car and how its laid out. Currently I don't have one in front of me to engineer anything or give specifics.

Generically if you wanted nothing more than a strip/road course car and cared nothing for asthetics/ride comfort you can gut the entire interior panels/extra seats/electronics/sound deadning/carpet/airbags/dash, replace the drivers seat with a suspension racing seat, tear out the egr/ac/engine covers. Drop the rear trunk pan and install a fuel cell, replace the heavier panels with carbonfiber/fiberglass, replace glass with lexan, etc..

Again this is extreme and generic due to lack of details but I think you get my point that its easier to come up with weight saving ideas and spend as YOU see fit rather than raise the cost of the vehicle for something that the masses would rather save the money on.

It all depends on how much comfort/amenities your willing to give up and how much your willing to spend.

I feel that Camaro's success hinges more on price than weight. Outside of the enthusiast community, most people don't care how much it weighs. They will buy the car if they think it is a good deal.

However, I have faith that Chevy will deliver an affordable Camaro, so I'm not "concerned" about price.

Conversely, I'm 99% certain that Camaro will be heavier than I want it to be (though I still don't think it will be as heavy as you do, Charlie).

I am therefore more concerned about weight than price.

Any number of ways(and ranging costs) depending on what I wanted out of the car and how its laid out. Currently I don't have one in front of me to engineer anything or give specifics.

Generically if you wanted nothing more than a strip/road course car and cared nothing for asthetics/ride comfort you can gut the entire interior panels/extra seats/electronics/sound deadning/carpet/airbags/dash, replace the drivers seat with a suspension racing seat, tear out the egr/ac/engine covers. Drop the rear trunk pan and install a fuel cell, replace the heavier panels with carbonfiber/fiberglass, replace glass with lexan, etc..

Again this is extreme and generic due to lack of details but I think you get my point that its easier to come up with weight saving ideas and spend as YOU see fit rather than raise the cost of the vehicle for something that the masses would rather save the money on.

It all depends on how much comfort/amenities your willing to give up and how much your willing to spend.


So IOW, you can't. That is, unless you want to have a totally gutted, virtually unuseable car, which cost you some pretty serious bucks to get that way. And even then, you'll still have a pretty hefty Camaro - considering where you started from.

No thanks.

Conversely, I'm 99% certain that Camaro will be heavier than I want it to be (though I still don't think it will be as heavy as you do, Charlie).



I wish I were wrong. I mean that.

So IOW, you can't. That is, unless you want to have a totally gutted, virtually unuseable car, which cost you some pretty serious bucks to get that way. And even then, you'll still have a pretty hefty Camaro - considering where you started from.

No thanks.

Charlie, your question was and I quote " how can one substantially change weight" and I answered you. Whether the results of the weight loss is worth the is gain is entirely individual, as well what direction the weight loss is in (what components etc..).

Back at you, how can I substantially change price from a dealer (assuming I can get GM supplier because I can)?

Another question for you would be what would be your ideal rwd 4 seater v8 coupe. Give me weight, options, price. From there we can start looking for a car that you want (forgetting nameplate because I honestly think your stuck on that).

PS: If I where to do a complete tear down on a production car that started out at 4000lbs to a raceable spec, I can GAURANTEE it would be 500lbs lighter. Give me a car that you want that done to and I will bet you a weeks paycheck here and now that I can do it.

I've always wanted to see a graph of cost vs. drop in weigh (cause you know it isn't linear!).

The odds are that those of you saying "weight" are actually concerned about something else- fuel economy, acceleration, handling, etc.

Since it's the necessity to share a platform that creates this car's weight, and since we wouldn't have any Camaro to argue about without platform sharing, I'd like to ask that those of you whining about weight simply be quiet and wait until production versions hit the showroom.

Once you've sampled a production vehicle, then you can assess the actual statistic you're worried about. If your bugaboo is handling, and a test drive disappoints you, then you can feel free to carp about how heavy it is.

Most of the rest of us will simply be happy to have a Camaro, even if it doesn't meet whatever standards you hardcore fanboys are angsting about.

even if it doesn't meet whatever standards you hardcore fanboys are angsting about.

That was.....harsh.

In today’s economy I will have to say cost hands down. When I first seen the Camaro at the Detroit auto show, I was blown away, and the weight of the car was the last thing I was thinking of.

I feel that Camaro's success hinges more on price than weight.
Absolutely. 100% correct! A few of us may care deeply about the weight, but the fact remains, COST will help determine ACTUAL sales. Same goes for HP. The Mustang never suffered due to being under-powered :rolleyes:.

However, I have faith that Chevy will deliver an affordable Camaro, so I'm not "concerned" about price.
I agree. I think they KNOW the price has to be competitive, they've SAID it will, so I "have faith" regarding the price issue ;). This knowledge certainly factored into my vote ;).

PS: If I where to do a complete tear down on a production car that started out at 4000lbs to a raceable spec, I can GAURANTEE it would be 500lbs lighter.
Still too heavy!! :p My Camaro weighed in at 3475 lbs recently, on a set of corner scales at the racetrack. That was with a full tank of fuel, but no spare tire or jack. I have a ~22 lb lighter K-member, but I have the additional weight of SFC's and an aftermarket Tq arm (much heavier than stock). So I'd say the weight of those items pretty much balances out. So 3475 lbs for a "fully loaded" Z28 w/T-tops. And I think my car could stand to lose some weight! :lol:

Now, according to your belief, you can eliminate ~500 lbs from a car by doing a "race" make-over. 3000 lbs. I like the sounds of that!!! :D

The odds are that those of you saying "weight" are actually concerned about something else- fuel economy, acceleration, handling, etc.
No kidding :rolleyes:. If you want a car to PERFORM, it is WAY easier to do so with less physical car! And considering you're (obviously) in the "price" concerned group, why wouldn't you then be concerned over the fuel economy too? :shrug: ;)

I'd like to ask that those of you whining about weight simply be quiet and wait until production versions hit the showroom.
So instead of whining NOW (while the car is in the development phase, and there is a "slim" chance that GM could try to shave off a couple extra pounds) you'd rather us wait until the inevitable occurs, and they've produced an over-bloated car?? (I'm not saying I believe the Camaro is going to be ~4000+ lbs like its Dodge counter-part, but I still think the car may be heavier than what I would like).

Most of the rest of us will simply be happy to have a Camaro, even if it doesn't meet whatever standards you hardcore fanboys are angsting about.
Fanboy! I like it!! :lol:
...(although concerned enthusiast is probably more appropriate/accurate)

So instead of whining NOW (while the car is in the development phase, and there is a "slim" chance that GM could try to shave off a couple extra pounds) you'd rather us wait until the inevitable occurs, and they've produced an over-bloated car??
A few extra pounds? Sure. But the amount of weight that would make Charlie happy? No chance. :p

I voted for weight because the price is going to be competitive, but I don't think the pork will be. At least not compared to what will be coming out with a little shiny horse on the front soon after it.

As far as weight whiners, I guess I am in that camp and I suppose it is the cornering, braking, acceleration, and fuel economy that makes me lament an extra 500 lbs. I guess if you don't care if your performance car has performance than you will be fine with pushing 2 tons around as you cruise around town just to be seen in a nice looking car.

A few extra pounds? Sure. But the amount of weight that would make Charlie happy? No chance. :p
Gotta start somewhere ;). And every little bit helps, right?! :D

I'm still not convinced it's going to be "too" heavy, although I know what the weight of the G8 is, and I'm not blind to reality either. Although, the GTO came in at ~3700 lbs, and the Camaro is on a similar platform to that car :shrug:. AND, the Camaro is supposed to be a "clean sheet of paper" design, right? :confused:

Who knows, maybe they'll pull a rabbit out of a hat somehow!?!? :shrug: ;)

The odds are that those of you saying "weight" are actually concerned about something else- fuel economy, acceleration, handling, etc.

Things that make you go DUH. And guess what one of the primarily metrics is that will go a LONG ways towards determing fuel economy, acceleration, handling, and etc?

Need two guesses?

Since it's the necessity to share a platform that creates this car's weight, and since we wouldn't have any Camaro to argue about without platform sharing, I'd like to ask that those of you whining about weight simply be quiet and wait until production versions hit the showroom.

No.

Once you've sampled a production vehicle, then you can assess the actual statistic you're worried about. If your bugaboo is handling, and a test drive disappoints you, then you can feel free to carp about how heavy it is.

Unless JasonD or Chris Frez tell me not too, I'm going to feel free to "carp about how heavy it is" anyway.

Sorry.

Most of the rest of us will simply be happy to have a Camaro

Outstanding.

even if it doesn't meet whatever standards you hardcore fanboys are angsting about.

Wow. I've never been called a Camaro Fanboy (even by association). :D

Bob

PS....I'm in the minority - I'd pay extra for a decrease in heftiness. Don't know if I'd by more than "mid-high 30's" (quoting R&T) though.

I'm more concerned with weight for myself, but more concerned with cost for the future of the Camaro. Cost will be a much bigger factor in determining the success of the Camaro. And I want a 6th gen. Some of the non-weight nazis seem to think that if the car gets X mpg, Y 0-60 and turns Z gs on the skidpad or laps the nurburgring in 7:XX then the weight won't matter. That is true to an extent but the question will still be: how much better would those numbers be if they dropped 1 or 2 hundred pounds. Without knowing how much it would have cost to drop those 1 or 2 hundred pounds no one can really make an informed decision.

Also while it is true that you can gut a car and turn it into an all out race car and drop X number of pounds. This is not really a good argument either. The amount of weight you can drop is largly going to be the same between a 4100lb car and a 3700lb car. The weight nazi's probably want design changes that reduce wieght from the chassis (and its way too late for that), not carbon fiber body panels and titanium exhaust.

Once again the only way to give a difinitive answer is if the engineers got on here and said we can shave X pounds off the car but it would cost X dollars and you would have to give up IRS, 2 stars in the crash rating etc.

No kidding :rolleyes:. If you want a car to PERFORM, it is WAY easier to do so with less physical car! And considering you're (obviously) in the "price" concerned group, why wouldn't you then be concerned over the fuel economy too? :shrug: ;)
I am concerned about fuel economy.

However, I realize that weight is only one component of the number I'm concerned about so I don't spend hours agonizing over something no amount of internet chatter will change.

I'll wait and see what it's EPA rated and then complain. Or not.
So instead of whining NOW (while the car is in the development phase, and there is a "slim" chance that GM could try to shave off a couple extra pounds) you'd rather us wait until the inevitable occurs, and they've produced an over-bloated car??
There is no chance that talking about it now will change the weight.

As soon as the decision that made this car possible was made- the decision to modify an existing platform- and that decision was modified by selecting a target price point the Camaro's weight was "determined".

Maybe, if you'd kicked hard and screamed two years ago, GM might have decided to drop a couple of pounds from the base chassis. Unlikely, but it's possible. At this point, when focus groups are looking at near-production cars, GM isn't going to go back to the drawing boards and redesign the window regulators to save 5 pounds.

No matter how much you kick and scream about it, the base Camaro is never going to recieve a purpose built light-weight chassis and parts. That means that your time would be better spent discussing something that can change- gear ratios, options packages, drivetrain selections, etc.

No matter what you say on cz28.com GM is not going to spend millions of dollars to lighten the chassis of a mass produced product so you can get an extra .2 out of it at Lime Rock.
Things that make you go DUH. And guess what one of the primarily metrics is that will go a LONG ways towards determing fuel economy, acceleration, handling, and etc?
I know what dictates that.

I also know that GM is not going to price the Camaro out of its target market or spend capital to lighten a chassis to satisfy >10% of it's market.

As it sits the new Camaro will be extremely competitive with any coupe in it's price range.

Internet rantings demanding they spend millions of dollars modifying an existing platform so you can get a little extra speed or one more MPG are pointless.

Gotta start somewhere ;). And every little bit helps, right?! :D

I think that's the best possible attitude we (and GM) can take towards the weight issue. Every chance we get to shave an ounce off the car, take it. Before you know it, 100 pounds will be gone. :)

Of course, with 100 pounds off, my guess is it would still be heavier than a 4th gen, and what would really make me happy would be a bit lighter than a 4th gen.

Charlie, your question was and I quote " how can one substantially change weight" and I answered you. Whether the results of the weight loss is worth the is gain is entirely individual, as well what direction the weight loss is in (what components etc..).



What I'm trying to say - and you sort of proved my point - is that you can't take a grossly overweight vehicle and lighten it substantially, without cost or without altering it's useability. If the porkiness is 'baked in', as it is with Zeta, you are just plain stuck.

I suspect that even if you used all of the weight saving strategies which you outlined, even the most radical ones, you'd still be left with the heaviest Camaro in history - just a lighter one than the one you started with.

What I'm trying to say - and you sort of proved my point - is that you can't take a grossly overweight vehicle and lighten it substantially, without cost or without altering it's useability. If the porkiness is 'baked in', as it is with Zeta, you are just plain stuck.

I suspect that even if you used all of the weight saving strategies which you outlined, even the most radical ones, you'd still be left with the heaviest Camaro in history - just a lighter one than the one you started with.

I agree completely, the difference between you and me (I THINK, and I may be wrong here). Is that I want a sporty, reliable, consumer friendly, affordable coupe, while your side want an all out performance coupe monster that is refined into a streetable machine.

The problem is cost and as deltu pointed out, we don't know how much it would cost only that GM took the view that using a heavier starting base was more cost efficient than re-engineering an entire new platform.

I agree it would be better if they could lower the weight from more than a performance stand point. But I'm also intelligent enough to know that to do so would either raise the cost of the vehicle beyond the current price target, OR take entirely to long to develop and not be profitable enough.

PS: I still think your over exagerating by saying "Grossly overwieght". Look at its competition and don't use the mustang as an example it was built before SEVERAL safety standards and features where included and I PROMISE you that the 2011 refresh will be quite a bit heavier than it currently is unless it DRASTCALLY shrinks in size.

You can affect price quite a bit, by waiting a year and buying a low-mileage used model. Not so much to do about weight, unless you gut the interior which is not a viable option, at least for me.

I will certainly drive the car before making any decisions but if an LS3 model comes in at the rumored 3900 pounds then this is not the slam-dunk purchase I originally expected. At that weight I have a hard time believing it will have the type of crisp handling I am looking for but I could be proven wrong and certainly hope I am.

You can affect price quite a bit, by waiting a year and buying a low-mileage used model. Not so much to do about weight, unless you gut the interior which is not a viable option, at least for me.

If price mattered enough for me to go into a used car purchase id rather have a mustang gt at HALF the price of a new camaro. Upgrade the suspension/brakes/wheels&tires/all the other goodies, add a whipple 3.4L and STILL be less than a slightly used camaro(less weight to ;)).

But a used car purchase is not an option.

I agree completely, the difference between you and me (I THINK, and I may be wrong here). Is that I want a sporty, reliable, consumer friendly, affordable coupe, while your side want an all out performance coupe monster that is refined into a streetable machine.
I don't think your characterization of Charlie's "side" is accurate at all.

I think that what Charlie wants is a lightweight, tossable 2+2 with a V8 and rear wheel drive. He wants it to be powerful, efficient, and fun to drive. He doesn't want it to be a monster. In fact, he's come right out and said he'd prefer a naturally aspirated engine to a supercharged one in the Z28 (which is essentially sacrificing power for in favor of keeping weight down). I certainly can't argue with any of that.

I PROMISE you that the 2011 refresh will be quite a bit heavier than it currently is unless it DRASTCALLY shrinks in size.
IIRC, Ford has said that the next Mustang will be quite a bit lighter than the current one. I don't know if it's getting smaller in order to accomplish that, but I wouldn't go assuming that the 2011 Mustang is going to be a porker.

I will certainly drive the car before making any decisions but if an LS3 model comes in at the rumored 3900 pounds then this is not the slam-dunk purchase I originally expected. At that weight I have a hard time believing it will have the type of crisp handling I am looking for but I could be proven wrong and certainly hope I am.

FWIW... I drove a G8 V6 recently, and if the Camaro handles anything like that, I'll be pretty happy. :bow:

I don't think your characterization of Charlie's "side" is accurate at all.

I think that what Charlie wants is a lightweight, tossable 2+2 with a V8 and rear wheel drive. He wants it to be powerful, efficient, and fun to drive. He doesn't want it to be a monster. In fact, he's come right out and said he'd prefer a naturally aspirated engine to a supercharged one in the Z28 (which is essentially sacrificing power for in favor of keeping weight down). I certainly can't argue with any of that.

Ok then I guess I was wrong (like I sort of guessed). But there is a premium price tag associated with that type of car just due to the limited market it attracts and the materials needed. The camaro can't limit itself to that market(by price not by want) to be a success.

IIRC, Ford has said that the next Mustang will be quite a bit lighter than the current one. I don't know if it's getting smaller in order to accomplish that, but I wouldn't go assuming that the 2011 Mustang is going to be a porker.

GM called jenny craig too didn't they.. yet here we are cussing and discussing


Who knows maybe we will all be surprised and the V6 will blow our socks off with both power and weight :shrug:

I still stand that the camaro will be the best in its class regardless of its downfalls.

I'd hope the thing comes in around GTO weight. Weight is more of a concern unless the car starts pushing 45-50k to keep the weight down.

Cost, I can change the weight, I can't change the price beyond GM supplier.
I don't know how much weight you're really gonna get out of a modern car. I don't worry too much about price , i think i've got a fair idea where it is. and i doubt ill get any weight out of it.

Outrageous cost could kill it. But heavy curb weight would not kill it. Camaros are by definition, value-oriented 2+2 RWD coupes... the public understands that and also the long march automotive curb weights have been taking in recent decades.

Since it's the necessity to share a platform that creates this car's weight, and since we wouldn't have any Camaro to argue about without platform sharing, I'd like to ask that those of you whining about weight simply be quiet and wait until production versions hit the showroom.



The sad, sad, irony here, is that GM dictated that Camaro share an architecture with fullsized sedans in order to spread cost over several hundred thousand cars per year. But those sedans were cancelled, mainly because their heft would have adversly affected GM's CAFE numbers and consumer acceptance.

When all is said and done, Camaro essentially comes in, just as heavy as those cancelled sedans, with no other product to share costs with. Okay, maybe the DTS replacement might happen on Zeta, but that's it.

The result: Camaro is left holding about a quarter ton of excess baggage because it was yoked to a dead/dying large sedan architecture - a large sedan architecture, now with no sedans.

The money spent on Zeta, could have given Camaro it very own ponycar appropriate architecture. In fact, they might have even spun off a 'sensible for the times', fun-to-drive sedan or two from that. Hmmm. Something to think about.

I seriously doubt at this particular point in time, if a Zeta based Camaro is even all that economical to build for GM. Certainly, nowhere near the economies of scale projected for it. So, although GM no longer has the cost advantages of platform-sharing for Camaro, it does end up carrying the burden of all that weight as it's legacy.

A few extra pounds? Sure. But the amount of weight that would make Charlie happy? No chance. :p

Hey, forget about me jg. I'm just some schmoe on the internet who would have bought a Camaro or two. No big loss to GM on that front, (although I have sort of noticed that what I buy, seems to influence buying decisions of those around me, :think:).

The larger concern though, is how viable a 2+ ton, ...ermm.....'ponycar' is in our current environment? And don't think for a minute that GM isn't thinking/concerning/talking about it. They are.

The weight that would have made me happy, would have made lots of people happy. Lemme see...there's me, there's the Camaro Team, there's the GM Board of Directors, there's the enthusiast community at large, there's the workers at Oshawa, there's Bob Cosby, there's "Jenny the receptionist", ( and everyone like her, looking for a sporty fuel sipping car), hell, I betcha even you jg. ;)

The crappiest part about this whole deal is, that I really got the feeling that the 'Camaro Team' really wanted to bring out the best Camaro ever. It's too bad that Zeta couldn't lose the weight.

I am concerned about fuel economy.

However, I realize that weight is only one component of the number I'm concerned about so I don't spend hours agonizing over something no amount of internet chatter will change.
Neither do I. Nor do I believe anybody else does either. But that doesn't mean that when the topic comes out, I won't express my opinion. Even if you don't care for it.

I'll wait and see what it's EPA rated and then complain. Or not.

Good for you. I don't think your decision should be considered our decision though.

There is no chance that talking about it now will change the weight.
Absolutely positively correct. And in fact, I doubt it would have EVER had any chance of changing it, even though this came up a long, long time ago.

And? Shall we only talk about things we like, and ignore things we don't?

As soon as the decision that made this car possible was made- the decision to modify an existing platform- and that decision was modified by selecting a target price point the Camaro's weight was "determined".
Sounds like a reasonable summation of the likely events that will culminate with the Camaro becoming what it will become.

Maybe, if you'd kicked hard and screamed two years ago, GM might have decided to drop a couple of pounds from the base chassis. Unlikely, but it's possible.
Some did (do a search). Didn't matter.

At this point, when focus groups are looking at near-production cars, GM isn't going to go back to the drawing boards and redesign the window regulators to save 5 pounds.
Obvious.

No matter how much you kick and scream about it, the base Camaro is never going to recieve a purpose built light-weight chassis and parts. That means that your time would be better spent discussing something that can change- gear ratios, options packages, drivetrain selections, etc.
Why are you trying to tell me (us?) what we should and should not talk about? Can we change option packages? Can we change the drivetrain lineup? And again, should we ignore what we don't like (cause we can't change it) and only talk about what we do like (can't change that either....guess that's a good thing)?

What you ask for is your personal nirvanna.

No matter what you say on cz28.com GM is not going to spend millions of dollars to lighten the chassis of a mass produced product so you can get an extra .2 out of it at Lime Rock.
Correct.

I know what dictates that.

I also know that GM is not going to price the Camaro out of its target market or spend capital to lighten a chassis to satisfy >10% of it's market.
I think you mean't less than 10% (< vice >), but I agree. We're just out of luck on this one.

As it sits the new Camaro will be extremely competitive with any coupe in it's price range.
Curious.....what other coupes are in its price range? What will the price range be for a 2010 V8 Camaro?

Internet rantings demanding they spend millions of dollars modifying an existing platform so you can get a little extra speed or one more MPG are pointless.
So are internet ramblings whining about said ramblings, but I digress.

Outrageous cost could kill it. But heavy curb weight would not kill it. Camaros are by definition, value-oriented 2+2 RWD coupes... the public understands that and also the long march automotive curb weights have been taking in recent decades.

The "public" in general don't have a clue what it does or does not weigh. This may be Camaro's saving grace, and certainly to the average buyer (of which the majority here would be included), cost is far more an issue than the curb weight.

Bob

The sad, sad, irony here, is that GM dictated that Camaro share an architecture with fullsized sedans in order to spread cost over several hundred thousand cars per year. But those sedans were cancelled, mainly because their heft would have adversly affected GM's CAFE numbers and consumer acceptance.

When all is said and done, Camaro essentially comes in, just as heavy as those cancelled sedans, with no other product to share costs with. Okay, maybe the DTS replacement might happen on Zeta, but that's it.

The result: Camaro is left holding about a quarter ton of excess baggage because it was yoked to a dead/dying large sedan architecture - a large sedan architecture, now with no sedans.

The money spent on Zeta, could have given Camaro it very own ponycar appropriate architecture. In fact, they might have even spun off a 'sensible for the times', fun-to-drive sedan or two from that. Hmmm. Something to think about.

I seriously doubt at this particular point in time, if a Zeta based Camaro is even all that economical to build for GM. Certainly, nowhere near the economies of scale projected for it. So, although GM no longer has the cost advantages of platform-sharing for Camaro, it does end up carrying the burden of all that weight as it's legacy.

You act as if Camaro had its own dedicated platform it would be a strong buisness case. The amount of dedicated platforms are already out of hand. Y body Kappa and a dedicated F body would be 3. without those zeta sedans , Ute and GMC, I dont think camaro gets off the paper barring a sigma version. Then were back to square one. Were lucky zeta wasnt killed earlier

Things that make you go DUH. And guess what one of the primarily metrics is that will go a LONG ways towards determing fuel economy, acceleration, handling, and etc?

Need two guesses?

We don't need to guess about anything. The LS3 SS test mule has run 12.7 @113. Damned good enuff for any gearhead. MPG, handling... go buy a V6 or a Miata.


Half the people who picked weight have hedged by saying they believe Chevy will already deliver an affordable car. That is not what the poll is asking.

What the poll is really asking is whether you would take a 3600lb $35K V8 Camaro or a 3900lb $30K V8 Camaro. Make that poll and the results will 80-20 PRICE.

You act as if Camaro had its own dedicated platform it would be a strong buisness case.


That's not what I'm saying at all. Not even close.

To make the business case, Camaro needed to share an architecture. There was support for a smaller than Zeta architecture for Camaro, but internal politics killed products that would share the cost, (ie., Torana, RWD G6, small Caddy, etc.).

So, we find ourselves with a Camaro which in essence IS on it's own unique architecture. Except its not best suited for the Camaro or the current market and GM wil be scrambling to replace it soon.


Man alive, talk about penny wise and pound foolish. There are certain people near the top of the foodchain at GM, who deserve to get some heat on this, both from The Board and the shareholders. Of course, that'll never happen.

Man alive, talk about penny wise and pound foolish. There are certain people near the top of the foodchain at GM, who deserve to get some heat on this, both from The Board and the shareholders. Of course, that'll never happen.

Now that is ridiculous. I'm sure there are many savy companies out there that foresaw the sudden changes that have happened in the past few months. Toyota was pimpin the Tundra harder than any of their products. Honda with the Ridgeline. Yup. as usual, its only the US companies that screwed up.

Commodore/G8 is sharing the platform for now. GM will have to find something to build in Ohsawa too alongside Camaro... if they havent already. ;)

Now that is ridiculous.


Not really. Certain individuals within GM helped kill a smaller/lighter than Zeta RWD architecture - one that a 5th gen Camaro would have used - simply because of political expedience.

I'm not saying they should be fired, I'm saying that their motives and judgements deserve scrutiny.

GM would sure be in a sweeter position now, if the money spent on Zeta, would have gone towards a CAFE friendly RWD architecture, with a future.

Hey, forget about me jg. I'm just some schmoe on the internet who would have bought a Camaro or two. No big loss to GM on that front, (although I have sort of noticed that what I buy, seems to influence buying decisions of those around me, :think:).

The larger concern though, is how viable a 2+ ton, ...ermm.....'ponycar' is in our current environment? And don't think for a minute that GM isn't thinking/concerning/talking about it. They are.

The weight that would have made me happy, would have made lots of people happy. Lemme see...there's me, there's the Camaro Team, there's the GM Board of Directors, there's the enthusiast community at large, there's the workers at Oshawa, there's Bob Cosby, there's "Jenny the receptionist", ( and everyone like her, looking for a sporty fuel sipping car), hell, I betcha even you jg. ;)

The crappiest part about this whole deal is, that I really got the feeling that the 'Camaro Team' really wanted to bring out the best Camaro ever. It's too bad that Zeta couldn't lose the weight.I agree. You miss my point. (Yes, I wasn't very clear.) At this point in time (productionwise), sure they may be able to shave off a few pounds. However they cannot shave off enough weight to make it a featherweight or by your definition, more ponycar-like.

I don't disagree with your message Charlie. I'm just not as hung up about weight as others are. I like the looks of the new Camaro. If it performs well (at similar levels to equivalently equipped Mustangs), it'll be acceptable to me regardless of how much it weighs. Ergo, price is more important to me than weight.

GM would sure be in a sweeter position now, if the money spent on Zeta, would have gone towards a CAFE friendly RWD architecture, with a future.I'm not so sure. Meaning, I'm not convinced RWD has a long term future. Short term? Definitely. However as we move further down the road, I think AWD will become more common. Especially when we switch to electrically powered motors located at the wheels. The ICE will be dead within 50 years people. Deal with it. :D

And? Shall we only talk about things we like, and ignore things we don't?
No, you should talk about both of them.

Having said that, there's a big difference between discussing how weight will negatively affect the vehicle (talking) and complaining about it.
What you ask for is your personal nirvanna.

Yep.

Just like you want a certain weight.

Neither of us can control the outcome of somebody else's decisions, but we both get to ask for it.

The difference between us is I'm asking a human being to engage in self control. Complaints about weight are asking a corporation to throw away millions (if not billions) of development costs a few months before production begins.

One is more reasonable than another.
Curious.....what other coupes are in its price range? What will the price range be for a 2010 V8 Camaro?
If the rumours on this board are true, ~$21k - $28k for V6s and $28k - $38k for V8s.

That would make it's competitors the Mustang and most of the japanese sport coupes.

Curious.... what will be the weight of a 2010 V8 Camaro?

We're both guilty of making assumptions and statements based on rumour, and not observed fact.

My pricing could be wrong, your weight could be wrong.

At this point, pricing is subject to far more change than weight, and that means "we" still have some leverage where that's concerned.

I agree. You miss my point. (Yes, I wasn't very clear.) At this point in time (productionwise), sure they may be able to shave off a few pounds. However they cannot shave off enough weight to make it a featherweight or by your definition, more ponycar-like.

I don't disagree with your message Charlie. I'm just not as hung up about weight as others are. I like the looks of the new Camaro. If it performs well (at similar levels to equivalently equipped Mustangs), it'll be acceptable to me regardless of how much it weighs. Ergo, price is more important to me than weight.


No arguments there. What's done is done. We're getting what we're getting.

Curb weight is probably more important to enthusiasts as it's more crucial to the performance models. I've got no doubt GM will price the Camaro near the Mustang as the livelyhood of the car depends on it. Pricing can also change more easily than weight.

I'm much more worried about a 3900-4000lb Camaro V8 that what it will cost. That kind of weight is going to drag down performance and driving prowness. The only way to fix it is adding more power and then the car will need a stronger and probably heavier suspension and braking system to compensate further pushing up weight. It would seem to be an ugly game to play on a heavy platform.

GM would sure be in a sweeter position now, if the money spent on Zeta, would have gone towards a CAFE friendly RWD architecture, with a future.

no disagreement there... but again, it comes back to the point of where things were at in 2006.

Its also entirely possible if GM knew back then where things would be today, Camaro may not have happened at all.

no disagreement there... but again, it comes back to the point of where things were at in 2006.

Its also entirely possible if GM knew back then where things would be today, Camaro may not have happened at all.

That's possible.

But once the '05 Mustang's consumer reaction was gauged and the St. Therese situation was resolved - this car was gonna happen.

Cost for sure, why care about weight if I can't afford the car at all !

Weight concerned me the most until I saw what a G8 could do. Now I don't care if the Camaro weighs 3000lbs or 4000lbs. It will accelerate and handle better than my LS1 either way. I just hope GM doesn't make the LS3 a limited edition so the dealers can put sky high mark ups on them.

I'm far more concerned about cost. For my own personal vehicle, removal of unnecessary parts and lighter aftermarket body pieces will take care of the weight issue.

We don't need to guess about anything. The LS3 SS test mule has run 12.7 @113. Damned good enuff for any gearhead. MPG, handling... go buy a V6 or a Miata.


Half the people who picked weight have hedged by saying they believe Chevy will already deliver an affordable car. That is not what the poll is asking.

What the poll is really asking is whether you would take a 3600lb $35K V8 Camaro or a 3900lb $30K V8 Camaro. Make that poll and the results will 80-20 PRICE.

You bring up a good point. Weight wouldn't be as big of an issue if we were looking at a a car roughly the weight of the fourth gen. There would still be people who want a lighter car, and there always will be. All of the rumors we see point toward the 3900 lb $30K V8 camaro scenario you point out. In that scenario weight is the bigger concern for me. If the rumors pointed towards a 3600lb $35K car then price would be the bigger concern for me. Given the choice between the two I would take the 3600lb car. But thats just me.

Also if you had asked me 5 years ago I would have said cost because I was in a different financial situation.

Cost for sure, why care about weight if I can't afford the car at all !

What he said.:yes:

Guys (Charlie!), keep in mind that Scott said quite awhile back that they were VERY aware of our concerns over weight, and they "called Jenny Craig" ;).

They knew the car is/was getting heavy. Has much changed since then? :shrug: That, unfortunately, we've yet to find out. But I guess I'm trying to have a little faith, and try to remember that the GTO is about ~3700 lbs, so hopefully all things considered (including Scott's attempted reassurance) the Camaro does not end up being a bloated pig ;).

And just a comment to Mjolnir ... you seem pretty convinced that anything we whine and cry about here is all for not, but keep in mind, via Scott ("Fbodfather"), GM has reached out to our enthusiast community for our comments/questions/concerns :yes:. We've had the focus group have TWO meeting weekends with the Camaro design team. Several members from this site are a part of this group.

... and you don't think anything we say here matters?? ;)

I'm not expecting GM to seek our stamp of approval for every decision they make with the car. Nor do I expect them to spend millions on weight reduction alone either. But I DO KNOW that if we say NOTHING until the car comes out, the car may be 100% the opposite to what we would all like. If we all speak our minds NOW, at least there's a chance that the feedback can get back to GM, and they can hopefully at least consider some of our input :cool:.

But if you want to keep this to simple "so what color are you going to buy" threads, then have at it :rolleyes:.

Guys (Charlie!), keep in mind that Scott said quite awhile back that they were VERY aware of our concerns over weight, and they "called Jenny Craig" ;).



Actually, those comments by Doug Houlihan gave me hope. False hope.

Guys (Charlie!), keep in mind that Scott said quite awhile back that they were VERY aware of our concerns over weight, and they "called Jenny Craig" ;).

They knew the car is/was getting heavy. Has much changed since then? :shrug: That, unfortunately, we've yet to find out. But I guess I'm trying to have a little faith, and try to remember that the GTO is about ~3700 lbs, so hopefully all things considered (including Scott's attempted reassurance) the Camaro does not end up being a bloated pig ;)

I still have hopes that GM will surprise us but then I hear stuff like this:

Hmmm :think:.

V8 Man. - 3577
V8 Auto - 3614

Do I win the gold star? :D


Be realistic. Look at the G8 curb weight.

And I get worried. :(

Why worry about it now. Wait unitl you can drive one. Then you'll know how it handles and feels. Everything else is numbers on a piece of paper.

We don't need to guess about anything. The LS3 SS test mule has run 12.7 @113. Damned good enuff for any gearhead. MPG, handling... go buy a V6 or a Miata.
Why is it good enough - because you believe it is? Is that what the production cars will run? Maybe I'm just not enough of a gearhead.

And I absolutely do also care about MPG (more than handling), though I have no desire to get a V6 or Miata.

Sucks to be me, I guess. :D

BTW....for the highway...the 4th Gen F-body was EXCELLENT on gas.

Half the people who picked weight have hedged by saying they believe Chevy will already deliver an affordable car. That is not what the poll is asking.
Oh.

What the poll is really asking is whether you would take a 3600lb $35K V8 Camaro or a 3900lb $30K V8 Camaro. Make that poll and the results will 80-20 PRICE.
I dont' think that is what the poll was asking, but our opinions differ on a lot of things, so no big deal. As for 80-20....perhaps....but there's no way of knowing for sure unless you start your own poll asking exactly that question.

No, you should talk about both of them.

Having said that, there's a big difference between discussing how weight will negatively affect the vehicle (talking) and complaining about it.
What's the difference between "complaining" about the weight and "complaining" about my complaining about the weight?

Just like you want a certain weight.
Sort of. I don't have a specific weight in mind. I certianly wish is was significantly less than the 'rumors' seem to suggest.

Neither of us can control the outcome of somebody else's decisions, but we both get to ask for it.
Correct. Be it price, weight, looks, or whatever.

The difference between us is I'm asking a human being to engage in self control.
Basically, you don't like my complaining, so you're complaining about my complaining.

Self-control.

Complaints about weight are asking a corporation to throw away millions (if not billions) of development costs a few months before production begins.
Do you really think that I have any sway - at all - over what GM will do "a few months before production begins"?

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed (by far), but I might....just might...be slightly sharper than the dullest.

One is more reasonable than another.
So....GM is going to change the price if we complain about it enough, because it is more reasonable than complaining about weight?

Interesting line of reasoning.

If the rumours on this board are true, ~$21k - $28k for V6s and $28k - $38k for V8s.
The latest "rumour" (R&T) seems to $35k-38k for the V8.

That would make it's competitors the Mustang and most of the japanese sport coupes.

Ok. For me, there currently isn't a valid competitor for the Camaro other than the Mustang and perhaps the Challenger (even more bloated). But that's just me.

Curious.... what will be the weight of a 2010 V8 Camaro?
Assuming that I can use "rumours" such as you did above, its looking like ~3900 lbs.

We're both guilty of making assumptions and statements based on rumour, and not observed fact.
This I agree with. At this time, that's all we have. Thus we discuss/complain/whatever about what we think we know.

My pricing could be wrong, your weight could be wrong.
We agree again. Woohoo!

At this point, pricing is subject to far more change than weight, and that means "we" still have some leverage where that's concerned.
I seriously doubt it. As has been said many times here, exact pricing won't be released for quite some time. However, I have little doubt that GM is within a couple % of the exact figure they will ask for the car. No amount of complaining, talking, bitching, or whining about it will change that.

Much like doing the same with weight. We all know this.

Back to your Nirvanna. :D

Bob

Everything else is numbers on a piece of paper. Unless you have real world experience with what weight does to a car... like, you know... guys who actually compete with their cars. Then those figures become a little more than numbers.



I'll say this with regard to "wait until you drive it"....

I bought a new 3rd gen in 1991. I still remember how it felt behind the wheel.

I bought a new 4th gen in 1996. Ordered it January without so much as test driving or even being inside of any 4th gen. Dumb? Perhaps but I was barely 24 and I "knew" what I wanted. :)

The '96 felt like an absolute tank after driving my '91 for 5 years. I mean it felt huge and heavy but was only at most 300 lbs heavier. I can only cringe when I think what this new car will feel like at 500 - 600 lbs heavier than my '96.

FWIW the additional weight of my '96 didn't bother me at the time. I was happy because 285 hp was pretty heady stuff in the early '90s and my old car just wasn't fast enough anymore. Like I said, I was 24. ;) Today I'm no longer at ease with the bulk of my car even though it's a good bit lighter than new.

I'm a very different type of customer now that I've become experienced in the competition side of things. I want a responsive car that will allow me to do what I do behind the wheel. I don't necessarily need an insanely powerful one. I beat more powerful cars all the time and less powerful cars beat me. Why do you suppose that is?

Unless you have real world experience with what weight does to a car... like, you know... guys who actually compete with their cars. Then those figures become a little more than numbers.

not disputing that at all, but you have to accept the fact if GM were to build a car to your likings, it wouldn't sell in enough numbers to be produced for any significant duration.

I'm not saying everyone is going to agree with that, or be happy with that... but it is what it is. If performance was the only goal, we sure as heck wouldn't be getting this upright seating position either, let alone the concerns about weight.

Why worry about it now. Wait unitl you can drive one. Then you'll know how it handles and feels. Everything else is numbers on a piece of paper.

lol Thats what I am afraid of. :D

I say the weight if we are talking about $2k or less cost difference. I always owned GM sedans but want a 2-door car for a change. However, if the weight difference between a Camaro and a G8 (with a similar drivetrain) is less than 250 lbs, it makes no sense for me to buy a Camaro.

The sad, sad, irony here, is that GM dictated that Camaro share an architecture with fullsized sedans in order to spread cost over several hundred thousand cars per year. But those sedans were cancelled, mainly because their heft would have adversly affected GM's CAFE numbers and consumer acceptance.

When all is said and done, Camaro essentially comes in, just as heavy as those cancelled sedans, with no other product to share costs with. Okay, maybe the DTS replacement might happen on Zeta, but that's it.

The result: Camaro is left holding about a quarter ton of excess baggage because it was yoked to a dead/dying large sedan architecture - a large sedan architecture, now with no sedans.

The money spent on Zeta, could have given Camaro it very own ponycar appropriate architecture. In fact, they might have even spun off a 'sensible for the times', fun-to-drive sedan or two from that. Hmmm. Something to think about.

I seriously doubt at this particular point in time, if a Zeta based Camaro is even all that economical to build for GM. Certainly, nowhere near the economies of scale projected for it. So, although GM no longer has the cost advantages of platform-sharing for Camaro, it does end up carrying the burden of all that weight as it's legacy.
Good Grief, Mr. Doom :rolleyes:

I swear, there is just nothing that makes you happy, is there.

GM's gone out on a limb - and is set to deliver an all-new, V8, IRS, 2+2 Camaro, loaded to the gills with all manner of modern luxury, in just a few months. Yet - listen to the bleating and moaning about what "could have been"! I say, baloney to this line of thinking. Extrapolating off Zeta was the enabler that allowed the new Camaro to be developed. Thank God, it was, and another thanks for all the cool stuff it will come with. If you want a nice, lightweight car.... maybe the Smart ForTwo is for you?

Incidentally. As I expected it would, cost is killing weight as a priority in the minds of respondents here :yes:

not disputing that at all, but you have to accept the fact if GM were to build a car to your likings, it wouldn't sell in enough numbers to be produced for any significant duration. No argument there at all. I'm probably a one percenter.

However, what if the basis of what I want was baked into every car? What if the nucleus of all this was a smaller, lighter, more tossable car? I could get my no nonsense car and someone else could still get some loaded high end model if they desired. Everybody gets what they want in that situation and everybody benefits from having a more tidy package. Why wouldn't that scenario sell more cars? I've said before I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay more for the low production car I want. The problem is that the car I want probably isn't really possible from a four door sedan at any price.

I'm not saying everyone is going to agree with that, or be happy with that... but it is what it is. Agreed. This was set in motion long ago and can't be changed now.

If performance was the only goal, we sure as heck wouldn't be getting this upright seating position either Actually a more upright position is better for performance driving than the legs splayed out in front of you 3rd / 4th gen arrangement or the gangster drive by position.

Good Grief, Mr. Doom :rolleyes:

I swear, there is just nothing that makes you happy, is there.


Big, I challenge you to dispute even one syllable in my post on it's factual accuracy.

BTW, I've got a question for you in this thread. http://camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=592448&page=6

The 6th gen will certainly be smaller/lighter for all those that don't end up liking this one, and I suspect it's not 11 model years away like the last 2 generations were.

For the record, we're buying a new one. I don't care what it costs, I don't care what it weighs.

I'm not going to race, unless some riceburners piss me off on the street, but as long as get 300HP in my V6, and looks nice, i think that alone is intimidating :lol:

Why worry about it now. Wait unitl you can drive one. Then you'll know how it handles and feels. Everything else is numbers on a piece of paper.

Well if the rumors are ture that we've seen on this site recently then there is reason to worry. I have no doubt GM will make the car drive great. But the laws of physics just can't be broken. The weight is always there adding feet to stopping distances, slowing acceleration, draining power from the engine, pushing the car in the opposite direction on turns, and worse now decreasing MPG. If you lower one number on the piece of paper that we'll call a spec sheet, curb weight. All the other numbers on the page will get better.

Incidentally. As I expected it would, cost is killing weight as a priority in the minds of respondents here :yes:
Golly gee, that was a tough one to predict!! :p Although at the moment, it's about a 60/40 split ..... that's actually not a "killing" IMO? :shrug:

Actually a more upright position is better for performance driving than the legs splayed out in front of you 3rd / 4th gen arrangement.
Really?? :think: Better let Nascar and Formula 1 know ..... those cars certainly don't appear to offer a very "upright" position at all?! :confused: I'd say rally is probably the only type of racing with predominantly upright seating positions, but that's also part & parcel with the typical cars (Subarus) that are common in rally.

... But the laws of physics just can't be broken. The weight is always there adding feet to stopping distances, slowing acceleration, draining power from the engine, pushing the car in the opposite direction on turns, and worse now decreasing MPG. If you lower one number on the piece of paper that we'll call a spec sheet, curb weight. All the other numbers on the page will get better.
GM should talk to Nissan about breaking the laws of physics ;) ... apparently it can be done :lol: (GT-R). And otherwise, your common-sense approach clearly makes way too much sense ... nobody cares about a few extra pounds these days ;) ... and heavier cars just make for more spectacular crashes!! :D

All the other numbers on the page will get better.Except purchase price, and price generally drives sales.

The question GM has to answer is will weight reduction provide enough fuel savings that sales lost on price are regained based on economy.

I'm not an engineer, so I don't know the answer to that one. The guys working on this car seem pretty sharp, so I'm inclined to believe that the answer is no.

I have no doubt GM will make the car drive great. But the laws of physics just can't be broken.

How true.

After driving a G8 GT with the 19" wheel performance pkg, I can tell you that the laws of physics are alive and kicking on planet Earth. The G8 drives very nice. It's a very nice car. But there is no hiding it's mass. To me, it feels like a 21st century B-body Impala SS. And that's fine.

Fine for the G8, but I had FAR higher expectations for the Camaro.

Why is it good enough - because you believe it is? Is that what the production cars will run? Maybe I'm just not enough of a gearhead.

Could be because the last time I checked high 12s is a fast car. This car met my predictions for straight line performance. Feel free to put some numbers down that would be "good enough." If the production car isn't close, you can be assured I will be first in line laughing at the new Camaro.


And I absolutely do also care about MPG (more than handling), though I have no desire to get a V6 or Miata.

Sucks to be me, I guess. :D

BTW....for the highway...the 4th Gen F-body was EXCELLENT on gas.


Welp, sorry Bob. It does suck to be you. The inability to distill one's desires into attainable goals is the hallmark of an unhappy person.

BTW. Weight has next to nothing to do with highway mileage. So enjoy getting the same highway economy out of the 5th gen as you did with the 4th.:)


I dont' think that is what the poll was asking, but our opinions differ on a lot of things, so no big deal. As for 80-20....perhaps....but there's no way of knowing for sure unless you start your own poll asking exactly that question.


Interesting. Again feel free to tell me what you think the poll is asking.

Because I don't see the option for "weight is more important because I know the price is right" that so many posters have generously explained to us.

Except purchase price, and price generally drives sales.

The question GM has to answer is will weight reduction provide enough fuel savings that sales lost on price are regained based on economy.



Don't get the idea that GM chose this weight for Camaro. I can tell you as absolute fact, that the target weight for this program was several hundred pounds less that what we're gonna get.

What concern me the most is neither weight nor MSRP. My concern is value. Camaro, and Chevrolet for that matter, will stand or fall on value. IOW, will it be percieved as delivering the "goods" for the price.

Most of the concerns about the new Camaro are in the abstract at this point. Assumptions and presumptions.

The nice thing is that the car is coming. The nicer thing is that you don't have to buy it if it doesn't measure up to your personal value equations.

If you are a Camaro fan I suggest you make your decision not solely based on it's price or it's specs. Drive it when it's available to be driven. Look at the specs and the price and then determine if it's a good value.

On this very site, one of the long standing members shared his enthusiasm for a car that apparently delivered dynamic properties he admired. The referenced car was neither light in weight, nor low in price. < Don't read into this that I suggest the car under discussion will be either overweight nor expensive, just suggesting that cars are a "package" not merely pieces. >

Once again, it will be about value.

Really?? :think: Better let Nascar and Formula 1 know ..... those cars certainly don't appear to offer a very "upright" position at all?! :confused: I'd say rally is probably the only type of racing with predominantly upright seating positions, but that's also part & parcel with the typical cars (Subarus) that are common in rally. Are you kidding or serious? Wow....

Watch the next televised NASCAR race. Most drivers sit nearly bolt upright. As you've pointed out, so do the WRC drivers. I'll add most of the drivers in every tin top series I can think of at the moment.

Forget F1 and the other open wheel series. They want the driver as low as possible for aero and safety reasons. They also have the advantage of a poured in place "seat" that is unique to each driver.

http://images.stockcarracing.com/images/scrp_0402_02_z+2004_NASCAR_season+jason_lefler.jpg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nascar-seat.jpg

What concern me the most is neither weight nor MSRP. My concern is value. Camaro, and Chevrolet for that matter, will stand or fall on value. IOW, will it be percieved as delivering the "goods" for the price.

Most of the concerns about the new Camaro are in the abstract at this point. Assumptions and presumptions.

The nice thing is that the car is coming. The nicer thing is that you don't have to buy it if it doesn't measure up to your personal value equations.

If you are a Camaro fan I suggest you make your decision not solely based on it's price or it's specs. Drive it when it's available to be driven. Look at the specs and the price and then determine if it's a good value.

On this very site, one of the long standing members shared his enthusiasm for a car that apparently delivered dynamic properties he admired. The referenced car was neither light in weight, nor low in price. < Don't read into this that I suggest the car under discussion will be either overweight nor expensive, just suggesting that cars are a "package" not merely pieces. >

Once again, it will be about value.

1fd, I betcha..... that you might be referring to my impressions of the M3. Yes, it's pricey, ($56K+). But it's not much more than alot of people have payed for their GT500. And although the M3 not really a lightweight, it's literally a featherweight when used in the context of this particular discussion.

For me personally, the value equation is there for an M3. Even more so for the 135 - talk about bang for your buck! Then why don't I just go buy an M3? Well, I could. But when I look deep down inside, I am a Camaro guy. Maybe more specifically, a Z/28 guy.

Yes, you are correct, we have the freedom to not buy the 5th gen, if it won't meet our expectations. My problem is that I really, really, want a new Camaro. I've planned to buy one or more, for a long, long time and have even re-arranged my new car purchases to accommodate it (or them).

So, when I believe that one very critical component of this value equation, (weight), falls FAR short of my expectations, it disappoints me tremendously. It's a real bummer.

But I hope this new car meets many other people's expectations. I want it to sell well. Maybe that way, I'll get one more shot at a new Camaro which appeals to me.

Plus the maintenance on the M3 will kill you. :p Been there; done that; never again. As great as the M3 was, I'd rather drive a Chevy that's cheaper to drive, maintain and insure. :D

Could be because the last time I checked high 12s is a fast car.
A low 13 second car could be fast too. If I added enough power, I could make a 6000 lb car run high 12s, and thus call it "fast". The GT500 would likely be considered "fast" by most. But its still a bloated pig.

This car met my predictions for straight line performance.
Good for you!

Feel free to put some numbers down that would be "good enough."

I have no arbitrary performance numbers. For that matter, I have no arbitrarty weight number, either. However, I am still very disappointed in the 3900-ish number that is being tossed about, and in the context of this poll - for me - weight is a bigger concern than cost.

If the production car isn't close, you can be assured I will be first in line laughing at the new Camaro.
ROFLOL. I find that statement very, very humorous. Thanks for the laugh. :)

Welp, sorry Bob. It does suck to be you.
Darnit!

The inability to distill one's desires into attainable goals is the hallmark of an unhappy person.
Damn. Where's my gun?

BTW. Weight has next to nothing to do with highway mileage. So enjoy getting the same highway economy out of the 5th gen as you did with the 4th.:)

You are correct there - it will make some difference, but not much. But then again, I only mentioned this becaues you brought up MPG with your recommendation for buying a V6 or Miata. I simply stated that I was indeed worried about MPG. If you're not, great!

Interesting. Again feel free to tell me what you think the poll is asking.

Shew...this is a tough one! Let me see if I can get this right. Ok, I think the poll is asking if weight concerns me more than cost, or if cost concerns me more than weight.

Do I get a cookie?

Because I don't see the option for "weight is more important because I know the price is right" that so many posters have generously explained to us.
In other words, Charlie didn't put enough options in there for you, so we can't make a good choice (even though you obviously made yours)? But why don't you make your own poll asking EXACTLY what you think Charlie should have asked (or really meant to ask) and perhaps we'll indeed see that 80/20 split? Won't mean much, but it will add another weight thread. :D

Bob

What concern me the most is neither weight nor MSRP. My concern is value. Camaro, and Chevrolet for that matter, will stand or fall on value. IOW, will it be percieved as delivering the "goods" for the price.

Most of the concerns about the new Camaro are in the abstract at this point. Assumptions and presumptions.

The nice thing is that the car is coming. The nicer thing is that you don't have to buy it if it doesn't measure up to your personal value equations.

If you are a Camaro fan I suggest you make your decision not solely based on it's price or it's specs. Drive it when it's available to be driven. Look at the specs and the price and then determine if it's a good value.

On this very site, one of the long standing members shared his enthusiasm for a car that apparently delivered dynamic properties he admired. The referenced car was neither light in weight, nor low in price. < Don't read into this that I suggest the car under discussion will be either overweight nor expensive, just suggesting that cars are a "package" not merely pieces. >

Once again, it will be about value.

I agree with this. I would only suggest that value is defined differently by different people. I would also add that I am likely another person that is in that "1%" group, and thus have fairly specific biases and wants that might not mean much of anything to others.

For example...breaking trannies and rear-ends is easy at a two-ton raceweight. Personal experience. ;)

A low 13 second car could be fast too. If I added enough power, I could make a 6000 lb car run high 12s, and thus call it "fast". The GT500 would likely be considered "fast" by most. But its still a bloated pig.

I've seen some school buses that ran pretty good times on the drag strip but I wouldn't want to drive them. :D Fast isn't everything.

I've seen some school buses that ran pretty good times on the drag strip but I wouldn't want to drive them. :D Fast isn't everything.

I hear you.

My brother-in-law has a Ford F-250 Powerstroke, with the full Gale Banks treatment. It puts out nearly 1,000 ft/lbs of torque. It's very interesting to drive. In fact sometimes even thrilling.

But......

Charlie,
I really, really want you to buy one. Not because of me and any benefit I'll realize, but because you do have a passion for them. . . And not because it's a fanboy thing, but rather it's perceived by you as being a value and something you want.

It's coming, and you will decide. So will other folks, regardless of what their feelings are at this point. Until you are in the seat, seeing the Monroney, and digesting the final particulars? It's an abstract excercise.




1fd, I betcha..... that you might be referring to my impressions of the M3. Yes, it's pricey, ($56K+). But it's not much more than alot of people have payed for their GT500. And although the M3 not really a lightweight, it's literally a featherweight when used in the context of this particular discussion.

For me personally, the value equation is there for an M3. Even more so for the 135 - talk about bang for your buck! Then why don't I just go buy an M3? Well, I could. But when I look deep down inside, I am a Camaro guy. Maybe more specifically, a Z/28 guy.

Yes, you are correct, we have the freedom to not buy the 5th gen, if it won't meet our expectations. My problem is that I really, really, want a new Camaro. I've planned to buy one or more, for a long, long time and have even re-arranged my new car purchases to accommodate it (or them).

So, when I believe that one very critical component of this value equation, (weight), falls FAR short of my expectations, it disappoints me tremendously. It's a real bummer.

But I hope this new car meets many other people's expectations. I want it to sell well. Maybe that way, I'll get one more shot at a new Camaro which appeals to me.

Charlie,
I really, really want you to buy one. Not because of me and any benefit I'll realize, but because you do have a passion for them. . . And not because it's a fanboy thing, but rather it's perceived by you as being a value and something you want.

It's coming, and you will decide. So will other folks, regardless of what their feelings are at this point. Until you are in the seat, seeing the Monroney, and digesting the final particulars? It's an abstract excercise.

Meh, I dont care anymore. Charlie, buy it dont buy it.... This started out as a good thread then quickly degenerated. 3700 lbs to 4100 lbs Ill decide for myself when and if the time comes. Another this pig wont fly thread isnt going to decide for me. Was hoping yad go for it Charlie as your as passioinate as myself and others here but if not youve got some nice ones anyway. Nothing wrong with that. Im still hoping to work one out myself. I dont like the 3rd Gen cars much. The nose is too long, overhang too much, the cars are too square and to me they just look too cheap and bland. I say that then I see one like Charlies stunning beautiful black 3rd gen and I think WOW! Theres another 3rd Gen that a female racer who was a regular when I worked at MIR way back that was REALLY nice. It was an 11 sec car. Still not for me, but thats fine and I respect the cars and people who are passionate about them... The 5th gens even got some 3rd gen styling I wasnt happy about at frist but Im growing to really like. For instance the angle of the grille opening.

Had the car been pitched on Alpha and managed to make it through before the polititians struck, guess what. The possiblity wed be be looking at Camaro being the only car on a platform its supposed to share are also possible. Had Alpha been rolled out and camaro didnt make it before the stone wall came down its also possible it wouldnt make producition.

hmmmmm........

well.........

I'm not sure which has been debated more:

1. -- Weight
2. -- SS versus Z28 --whoops-- Z/28....(Sorry!)


See -- here's the problem.

One -- we have to be able to sell the car in volume -- so that we make at least a few dollars on it.

Now -- to sell it in volume, we have to look at the wants and needs of who's gonna buy the car.

There are those who want to be able to order the car without a radio and with crank windows. I'd guess that number to be quite small.......weight savings? Negligible -- cost to do so? Stupid money.

There are those who want to be able to insure the car. That means 5 star crash ratings -- and that also means a host of airbags -- and airbags mean extra weight. --

There are those who constantly complain about brakes and rear axles.......brakes and heavier axles cost weight -- and money.

There are those who want a quiet ride -- meaning more insulation and isolation mechanisms........

There are those who want a substantial feel to the sheet metal. (you don't want hood flutter at 70-80mph..........)

There are those who want to be able to carry an occasional two people in the back seat now and then.......

There are those who want enough driver and front passenger room to accomodate someone 6' 8'' or above........

There are those who want comfortable seats for long distance comfort......

There are those who want great tactile feel to instruments and controls.......

There are those who feel a 'live axle' is too primitive for a car of this caliber in the new century.......

The list goes on and on.

The team must wade thru all of these wants and needs and make decisions.

Dispite what some say, there was not a real choice in which architectures to use -- yes, many have been looked at -- but this particular Zeta -- and it's different than G8 Zeta -- serves a great purpose.

Yes, it's OK to question. I just can't understand why a few people have written off the car even before they've driven it.

It comes back to practicality and affordability.

....and -- if you ignore any of the above -- you compromise on how many people the car will appeal to......

-- the sad reality for a few of you is that a 3,300 pound Camaro isn't in their wants or needs. If it were doable at a reasonable price point, don't you think we'd do it? REALLY????? Just because someone wants a 3,300 pound Camaro doesn't mean they're wrong -- and unfortunately they may never like this Camaro. (I tend to think they're going to be pleasantly surprised...)

I do believe that the new Camaro --(and I'm not alone here -- ) will surprise and delight. Further, the car feels much lighter than it is.

OK to question -- but how 'bout we calm down -- and drive the car first?

And to the point of people having to answer to the Board of Directors -- Boy Howdy.......everyone does today........and that's what I mean about 'having a stake' in the process. Some of us do - some of us don't. Those who do know the cost of getting it wrong.

Thank you.

As long as the price is reasonable, the performance issues are negligible to me. There are trade-offs between performance and comfort / price / etc. I consider myself an enthusiast (my wife tells me I'm obsessed :cool: ), but I'm also a realist. If I wanted the weight and performance of a Corvette, I'd buy a Corvette.....but not at the price I can buy a Camaro for. A Camaro with the same properties would cost just as much.

We've seen the Brembo calipers, heard the car on the track in Germany, heard the positive feedback from the focus group, and seen some early aftermarket interest. Add this to the statements made about being competitive with the Mustang and, at this point, I'm still confident that GM will produce a fairly powerful, more than decent handling vehicle at a competitive price.

Until more details are released, that's all I can go by. We'll see in a few months.

There are those who feel a 'live axle' is too primitive for a car of this caliber in the new century.......
.

I think so

The team must wade thru all of these wants and needs and make decisions.



It's a tough job I'm sure, Scott. And I happen to know that alot of fine people have worked on it. I am also pretty positive that it'll be a great car. A great "RWD Chevy Coupe", which will make many buyers very happy.

As you know, I was hoping for something different.

See you at Indy.

Not to beat a dead horse because weight and price is not out yet. Like others have said it will be what it will be. After doing a little soul searching my dollar is going to the best bang for the buck I perceive. That will be either a Mustang or Camaro and Im holding out for the 5.0 to see what it offers. I think Ford may just trim some weight but only time will tell. If they do it would be a wonderful thing.

I can appreciate all of the compromises that have to be made. You can screw up a Taurus or Impala and its no big deal. Screw up a Camaro or Mustang and people will be screaming at the top of their lungs for years on end.

I picked costs, not much point in getting excited over a sub 3500 lbs Camaro that you'd need to finance for 7+ years or drool over as a golden watch for yourself when you retire.

Then again this might all be moot as inflation drives the cost of cars higher, at what point do you decide its no longer feasible to make a cheap V8 car and decide the car might be better positioned as a premium offering where you can have your cake and eat it too?

Golly gee, that was a tough one to predict!! :p Although at the moment, it's about a 60/40 split ..... that's actually not a "killing" IMO?
More like 64 to 35 now.. It would sure be a killing in any kind of election.

GM should talk to Nissan about breaking the laws of physics ;) ... apparently it can be done :lol: (GT-R).
Nissan's blowing smoke... and turning up the boost on all their cleverly PR'd track appearances of GT-R's. Not even almighty Nissan is above the laws of physics.

Had the car been pitched on Alpha and managed to make it through before the polititians struck, guess what. The possiblity wed be be looking at Camaro being the only car on a platform its supposed to share are also possible. Had Alpha been rolled out and camaro didnt make it before the stone wall came down its also possible it wouldnt make producition.

I don't think so. Alpha, once it's developed, will have a future. Zeta's future appears quite limited, if not completely dim.

To those who say that Zeta was an enabler for this Camaro, I don't disagree. It was the one available architecture which kept the corporate politicians and accountants at bay.

I still think that things would have gone down differently, had afew people at GM known that this car would ultimately come in this much over it's weight target.

I don't think so. Alpha, once it's developed, will have a future. Zeta's future appears quite limited, if not completely dim.

To those who say that Zeta was an enabler for this Camaro, I don't disagree. It was the one available architecture which kept the corporate politicians and accountants at bay.

I dont know. Alpha seems like just an idea at this stage where as Zeta is next generation of an existing platform like the last Commodore UTE or GTO were on. Maybe Im wrong but it seems. Zeta shortened the time to market. Alpha I dont think would be ready for a while and when it is, if swapping Platforms at that time seems like a good idea then great. Incedently the Alpha Torano seems like a better looking 1 series rather than a 3 series sized car. I really like the 3 series size and look.

I still think that things would have gone down differently, had afew people at GM known that this car would ultimately come in this much over it's weight target.

could be, but may have pushed back the release date and killed it alltogether.

Plus the maintenance on the M3 will kill you. :p Been there; done that; never again. As great as the M3 was, I'd rather drive a Chevy that's cheaper to drive, maintain and insure. :D

Yeah buddy of mine did a $1000 brake job on an M3...I nearly fell off my chair when he told me.

Cost...particularly CAD vs USD pricing...see my other rants.

Weight by and far. I already have a GT for a daily driver (which I have no plans on parting with). Currently I'm looking at a future car (either another stang or the camaro) to purchase with the sole purpose of making a just barely street legal autocross canyon carver (If I had the money to buy a truck and trailer I wouldn't hesitate to build a completely street illegal racer ala Ford Mustang Challenger series). So far Camaro wins on IRS, and the new Stang wins on weight (if the rumors pan out). I'm in no rush to buy anything though, I'll wait til 2011 one way or another and make my decision.

Personally however, I do hope the Camaro is the better of two options not so much from any fanboy love I harbor (I have non, never been a car guy until I got my GT and quite frankly I find the 4gens ugly as sin) or animosity geared towards Ford but simply because I already own a Mustang. Would like to deck out my driveway with something different.

Maybe Im wrong but it seems. Zeta shortened the time to market.


The Zeta Camaro/Chevy Coupe programs were initiated, IIRC, in 2004. And we're still 8 months out from a purchaseable car. Zeta also apparently cost $1.2 billion to develop according to crYnOid on a different post. I believe that's not even including the bill for the Camaro and Zeta2 re-do, which it seems Camaro will end up financing singlehandedly.

Lots of money and lots of time. And the words "shortened time to market", should only be used tongue in cheek here.

Cost...and the price of gas.

C'mon electric!

Big, I challenge you to dispute even one syllable in my post on it's factual accuracy.

Comically easy.

1. You have no proof the new Camaro will end up the same curb weight as the rumored Zeta sedans. Do you know the curb weight of ANY unreleased Zeta car? No? Didn't think so.

2. "A quarter ton?" Again, you have no clue about the weights, nor do you seem to have a realistic grasp of the large number of features and constraints that dictate the weights of roomy modern cars, some of which were listed herein by FBF.

1. You have no proof the new Camaro will end up the same curb weight as the rumored Zeta sedans. Do you know the curb weight of ANY unreleased Zeta car? No? Didn't think so.

One of the disciples said on this very site to "think G8 GT" when thinking about the Camaro's weight. Thinking G8 GT weight gives us a 3900 pound (plus?) V8 Camaro. Again, right from the horse's mouth.

2. "A quarter ton?" Again, you have no clue about the weights, nor do you seem to have a realistic grasp of the large number of features and constraints that dictate the weights of roomy modern cars, some of which were listed herein by FBF.

If the rumors are indeed true, Ford is going to release a 3500 pound Mustang GT in roughly 2 years which also happens to have LS3-comparable power. Seems they may have found a way to balance creature comfort demands with power and safety....

Comically easy.

1. You have no proof the new Camaro will end up the same curb weight as the rumored Zeta sedans. Do you know the curb weight of ANY unreleased Zeta car? No? Didn't think so.

2. "A quarter ton?" Again, you have no clue about the weights, nor do you seem to have a realistic grasp of the large number of features and constraints that dictate the weights of roomy modern cars, some of which were listed herein by FBF.


1) Yes.

2) Oh, I have much more than a clue.

I could be way off base here, but maybe when they said, "think G8 GT", they assumed the person they were talking to would figure out that the dimensions of a G8 GT and the Camaro are not the same, and hence the change in weight could be generally comensurate with the change in size...:think:

same general density and less volume = less mass?

06 Camaro Coupe Concept
? lbs
186.2"L x 79.6"W x 53"H = 454 CUFT

G8 GT 6.0 L76
3995 lbs
196.1"L x 74.8"W x 57.7"H = 489 CUFT

granted those aren't the actual volumes, but it can be used as a ratio to approximate the size difference.

you get:
454*3995/489=3709 lb camaro with a L76 size engine

I could live with 3700 considering an independent rear suspension. Is the 3500 lb Mustang going to have an independent rear suspension as well?:shrug:

3885 lb G8 base V6 with spare tire
3995 lb G8 L76 with tire inflation kit

knock the camaro down to a V6 and maybe you're talking 3600 lb +/-, with a spare tire...?

I could live with 3700 considering an independent rear suspension. Is the 3500 lb Mustang going to have an independent rear suspension as well?:shrug:

3885 lb G8 base V6 with spare tire
3995 lb G8 L76 with tire inflation kit

knock the camaro down to a V6 and maybe you're talking 3600 lb +/-, with a spare tire...?

Interesting take on this and I for one hope it's true. I thought I read someplace on this site that the Camaro V6 was rumored to be in the 3600 range. So maybe your math has some merit. :shrug:
I could live with the V8 Camaro in the 3700 range. It's just something about seing 4000lbs and thinking OMG the Camaro is 2 tons and outweighs Chevy's full size Impala SS V8 (3711) that causes me to :eek: Apples to oranges I know but when was the last time in the history of both cars that the Camaro weighed more? :think:
But when the car is available I'll give it much more than a kick on the tires and I'll probably buy one as only a very nice 4th Gen convert or a used LS3 powered Vette would sway me away.

-- but this particular Zeta -- and it's different than G8 Zeta --

Make me wonder "how" different. It "could" be a lighter platform in this version.

suspension. Is the 3500 lb Mustang going to have an independent rear suspension as well?

No, maybe a 3550-3600 pound Mustang or a 3650-3700 lbs Mustang might (the latter being a live axle M6 4v 5.0 car)

One of the disciples said on this very site to "think G8 GT" when thinking about the Camaro's weight. Thinking G8 GT weight gives us a 3900 pound (plus?) V8 Camaro. Again, right from the horse's mouth.
...
If the rumors are indeed true, Ford is going to release a 3500 pound Mustang GT in roughly 2 years which also happens to have LS3-comparable power. Seems they may have found a way to balance creature comfort demands with power and safety....
So... I'm right. You are lacking FACTUAL PROOF. Hearsay? From a "disciple here?" :no: Not facts. Rumoring about the next Mustang? :no: Again, not facts. Show me the public specs.

So... I'm right. You are lacking FACTUAL PROOF. Hearsay? From a "disciple here?" :no: Not facts.

So this is what you're holding onto. No public official figure has been released, of course. But we all know the disciples got the goods on the car at Milford a few weeks ago. Where have you been?

Rumoring about the next Mustang? :no: Again, not facts. Show me the public specs.

I can't, yet. Then again, I could have told you the same thing when all the rumors and "keep the faith" talk was flying around a few years ago regarding the Camaro. You sure can pick your spots when it comes to demanding proof.

Okay, dudes. I think we know where everyone stands on this, no need to beat each other up over it like we have in a lot of other threads. I think this was a pretty interesting thread/poll so I hope we can get back to that. Just don't want it to go south. Let's keep it cool.

So... I'm right. You are lacking FACTUAL PROOF. Hearsay? From a "disciple here?" :no: Not facts. Rumoring about the next Mustang? :no: Again, not facts. Show me the public specs.

Can I give you some advice, Big?

At this point, if you want a credible defensive strategy on this, just say that it doesn't matter to you how much it weighs.

Cost. I don't give a crap how much it weighs, as long as it gets 'good' gas mileage. I give a big crap about how much it would cost though; hence why I don't own a Lambo (or even an F-body :( )

Can I give you some advice, Big?

At this point, if you want a credible defensive strategy on this, just say that it doesn't matter to you how much it weighs.

I'm going to follow Jason's advice and chill out. I do appreciate your hosting this poll Charlie, and also am grateful you framed it in a neutral fashion (ie, no bias in the original question).

As for the notion of a defensive strategy? I have none, and need none. Because like Koz, I care not about the Camaro's weight. Cost though, that's another story.

I don't give a crap how much it weighs, as long as it gets 'good' gas mileage.


Hmmm. I see the dichotomy here. :think:

Hmmm. I see the dichotomy here. :think:

:lol:+1

Hmmm. I see the dichotomy here. :think:

LoL we using big words here I have to blow the dust of my dictionary to find out what "Dichotomy" means. :lol:

I'd like to see it weigh less because I'd end up buying performance parts for the heavier less expensive camaro trying to make it faster or I could just spend a little more in the beginning and have a warrantied camaro that I'm alot happier with. I don't want them to turn this into a challanger, 13.3's.....that sucks! Camaros were beating that ten years ago in 98 and getting double the milage doing it.

Hmmm...2/3 of our poster's say cost is more important.
Ofcourse we'd all love to have our cake and eat it too, but there are many more metrics involved here than just performance...that focus didn't sell many Camaro's in the past.
My thinking is; which one will be a determining sales point for Camaro, b/c that's what we must be about right now.
The more they sell, the more likelyhood of having a light 1LE type option in the future is...
If they don't sell, who cares if they weigh 2800lbs or 4500lbs??

On that note I voted cost.

Hmmm...2/3 of our poster's say cost is more important.
.

Yeah, I find that interesting. I wonder what a professional pollster might find if they followed up with internal polling data.

I mean for those who say that they couldn't care less about weight, is that simply an abstract statement? I mean, I'm sure that they would care about about how it drives, handles, steers, brakes, accelerates and how much gas it burns. All of those items are directly related to weight. So, I'm sure that at a certain point, they in fact do care about how much it weighs.

On the cost side, I'm sure that those not concerned about cost would walk away at a certain price point. And those who are concerned about cost might trade some cost for reduced weight, (and therefore better handling/steering/braking/acceleration/MPG), if the added cost wasn't too great.


My personal opinion? The Camaro's weight will be a bigger issue with consumers than cost. Not that they'll weigh it on a scale, but they'll see it in MPG, bulk and overall feel.

Chevy marketing I'm sure, will price this car right. So all of you guys that voted cost, had better go and buy one! All of those who voted weight - well, we're screwed.

I mean for those who say that they couldn't care less about weight, is that simply an abstract statement?

I don't remember if I said I didn't care, or if I said it wasn't AS important as....

But either way, I tend to look at the whole issue as making lemonade out of lemons (hows that for abstract?:p). Since they chose Zeta and the car was consequently 'cursed' with its wieght limitations, I think the engineers did their best with it. IOW, I'm confident that they will make the car handle/accelerate/brakes/etc better than the 4th gens. (how could they not?!) And that's all I'm asking of them.(like I matter...)


My personal opinion? The Camaro's weight will be a bigger issue with consumers than cost. Not that they'll weigh it on a scale, but they'll see it in MPG, bulk and overall feel.

If you're looking at it as though there's not going to be a cost issue (see your confidence in Chevy marketing comment) then it's a trap of a statement. Because everything relates to weight indirectly; like mpg/feel/handling. So if consumers aren't worried about cost, then besides asthetics and comfort they can ONLY worry about the things that are tied to weight.

Besides that...like I said above, just because it's heavy doesn't mean is HAS to handle like a truck. I think Chevy got all that right.

The results don't surprise me at all. There are simply far more folks that care about gadgets, emblems, B-pillars, bow tie colors, quarter windows, wheel sizes, sound systems, the sound of the exhaust, and various other things than there are those of us that put performance above all those things.

Tis life, and GM has to sell to the masses.

Bob

PS....one interesting question....did any of the "Disciples" vote for weight over cost?

PS....one interesting question....did any of the "Disciples" vote for weight over cost?

See for yourself. It's a public poll. ;)

But it looks to me, (I could be wrong), that no blood was splattered on the wall over weight at the Focus Group.

Chevy marketing I'm sure, will price this car right. So all of you guys that voted cost, had better go and buy one! All of those who voted weight - well, we're screwed.

Really, huh? And I guess if the car were 3300 lbs using more expensive, light weight materials and started pricing in the $35-40K for a V6 coupe, then all the "weight" voters better pony up? Because you'll surely save that extra $10K in fuel in what, one or two years? :rolleyes: $10K will buy you an econobox to go along with your "overweight" Camaro.

What's the mission of this car, again? What do other mass-produced coupes weigh? Is this the heaviest car in its class? Is price not a key component to its class?

I'm all for light weight. Who isn't? Even those that voted "price" are not downplaying weight. I'm sure GM isn't disregarding it--and we've had that explained to us.

Charlie, you have to be careful what conclusions you draw based on the results of this poll. Because you asked "what concerns you more" and not "what is more important to you", you've brought in an extra variable in addition to people's priorities.

Price is by far the more important factor to me, but I voted weight, because I am confident that GM is going to deliver Camaro at an appropriate price, whereas I am pretty sure it's going to be at least a couple hundred pounds more than I want it to be.

So all of you guys that voted cost, had better go and buy one! All of those who voted weight - well, we're screwed.
Charlie your holier than thou attitude is getting tired. Your poll asked the following:

What concerns YOU more on the Camaro?
How much it weighs.
How much it costs.

It did not ask "what is your only concern". I'm sure many of us that voted "cost" are also concerned by weight. However, we are more concerned about the price we pay. Being that this nation is in a recession at the moment and everyone is looking to cut costs, how can anyone be surprised by this type of result, even on an enthusiast website?

You think the new Camaro is going to be too heavy. We get it. Let it die now because nothing you, me or anyone else says at this point is going to make a difference if this Camaro is going to make production. They aren't starting over from scratch and they aren't going to delay the launch another 3-5 years just so a lighter platform can be developed. Its time to move on and drop the whole weight thing for now, wait until the Camaro comes out, drive it, own it, live with it and then determine whether or not its "excessive" weight harms its performance. If it does, then add it to the list of desires for the 6th generation Camaro.

I personally don't think it will be as big of an issue as price... at least for me it probably won't be. :D

Charlie your holier than thou attitude is getting tired.

jg, either you're not getting me or I'm not getting you. Or like you sometimes do - didn't even read my post.

How is telling people that if cost is a concern, that it probably shouldn't be, and that they should just go out and buy this car - a holier than thou attitude?





They aren't starting over from scratch and they aren't going to delay the launch another 3-5 years just so a lighter platform can be developed. Its time to move on and drop the whole weight thing for now, wait until the Camaro comes out, drive it, own it, live with it and then determine whether or not its "excessive" weight harms its performance. If it does, then add it to the list of desires for the 6th generation Camaro.



Thought provoking...

The 5th gen is a go.
Or who knows, it could be killed in a meeting tomorrow or next week. :shrug: I wouldn't bet on anything right now.

A new one would be built from scratch on a lighter platform.

And I wouldn't be surprised to see one 3 years from today.

And controlling mass will probably be at the top of the priority list on a possible 6th gen.

Charlie, you have to be careful what conclusions you draw based on the results of this poll. Because you asked "what concerns you more" and not "what is more important to you", you've brought in an extra variable in addition to people's priorities.

Price is by far the more important factor to me, but I voted weight, because I am confident that GM is going to deliver Camaro at an appropriate price, whereas I am pretty sure it's going to be at least a couple hundred pounds more than I want it to be.

I think you found the MAJOR FLAW in what people are inferring the reasons people voted what they did. Had I thought about it the way you did Jake, I would have voted weight. I have to be honest though. I cant aford much more than around 30k and I want the V8. For me because thats around my ceiling price point before it gets to a point of undoable, then I want the poor mans BMW lowest weight I can get at that price. Unfortunately that wasnt an option. I am forced to choose cost. Ive noticed a few here make alot more than I do and dont have that issue.

The results don't surprise me at all. There are simply far more folks that care about gadgets, emblems, B-pillars, bow tie colors, quarter windows, wheel sizes, sound systems, the sound of the exhaust, and various other things than there are those of us that put performance above all those things.

Tis life, and GM has to sell to the masses.

Bob

PS....one interesting question....did any of the "Disciples" vote for weight over cost?

I didnt want the B pillars. A drag car is the last thing on my list. I would have perfered the roll down windows I loved, but am happy saving that bit of weight with fixed windows.

Bob If remember correctly your vice was T-Tops that may have added weight and would have taken from the structrue. I dont think that means you dont care about weight... I just think for that ONE thing, you would perfer T Tops MORE than weight... and again to a point Im assuming.

...Bob If remember correctly your vice was T-Tops that may have added weight and would have taken from the structrue. I dont think that means you dont care about weight... I just think for that ONE thing, you would perfer T Tops MORE than weight... and again to a point Im assuming.

Its all relative, I suppose. I do LOVE T-tops, and would sacrifice some weight gain & cost to have them. Don't get me wrong....I'd take a 3500 lbs car without T-tops before I'd take a 3900 lbs car with them....but I'd live with some weight for them. :)

The car is what it is. I look forward to seeing it up close in Indy.

Bob

The results don't surprise me at all.

what's even more tell tale is the fact the poll audience here, being comprised more of enthuisats than the "mainstream buying public".... it's still nearly 2 to 1 cost.

what's even more tell tale is the fact the poll audience here, being comprised more of enthuisats than the "mainstream buying public".... it's still nearly 2 to 1 cost.

I find that interesting too. So what's your take on that Chris?

Well....Camaro enthusiasts for sure....hardcore performance enthusiasts? Not so much. :)

IMHO.

Bob

Camaro enthusiasts are typically the "affordable performance" crowd. If you are a Chvey guy and want all-out performance, then you look to Corvette.

"Affordable performance" will mean compromises on weight.

We all have our opinions. Seems I remember Scott bragging about how an LS1 Camaro SS could get around a road course as quick as (if not quicker) than a Corvette - at a substantially lower price. On the dragstrip, the average Vette could outrun the average Camaro Z28/SS, but not by much.

Camaro enthusiasts are typically the "affordable performance" crowd.

Try saying that to a first gen Camaro owner. :irk:

I find that interesting too. So what's your take on that Chris?

Well....Camaro enthusiasts for sure....hardcore performance enthusiasts? Not so much. :)

IMHO.

Bob

Bob got my thoughts on it.

Personally... I'm not worried about road course/auto crossing, so I went cost. I'm a father of two, and they'll be in the car with me alot, so safety is very important to me too... especially after seeing the number a truck did on my van two months ago. Fortunately, my wife was relatively ok, but the van was totalled.

There was a funny line from the VLE back in Michigan... owners will survive a crash, but the sound of the (insert number of) air bags deploying might scare them to death.

Seems I remember Scott bragging about how an LS1 Camaro SS could get around a road course as quick as (if not quicker) than a Corvette - at a substantially lower price. On the dragstrip, the average Vette could outrun the average Camaro Z28/SS, but not by much.

It was late 2000. SLP brought a 1LE optoined SS to GM for testing. Heinricey beat his lap times he did in a 99 Z51 optioned vette. They couldnt believe it. GM told SLP they couldnt discolse that.

It was late 2000. SLP brought a 1LE optoined SS to GM for testing. Heinricey beat his lap times he did in a 99 Z51 optioned vette. They couldnt believe it. GM told SLP they couldnt discolse that.
The SS had BFG KD tires. The Corvette had stock runflats. Big, big, big difference there.

I also seem to recall that this was a fairly smooth course where the Camaro's live axle would be much less of a handicap.

And finally, a Camaro was a helluva lot closer to a Corvette's weight in 2000 than it'll be in 2010.

...And finally, a Camaro was a helluva lot closer to a Corvette's weight in 2000 than it'll be in 2010.

Yup. :(

Well....Camaro enthusiasts for sure....hardcore performance enthusiasts? Not so much. :)

IMHO.

Bob

I've been hanging around Camaros/Firebirds and the people who own them my whole life. The community is varied.

Some general observations after 30+ years of hanging out:

One segment is very focused on the nuts and bolts of the Camaro. They are very cognizant of the Camaro's heritage and have a very strong opinion on what it should be and what it shouldn't be. As a side note, they usually have the coolest Camaros.

Another segment is GM loyal, but really without any preconceptions of what the Camaro is or should be. The only caveats are that it preferably have RWD, some sort of V8, be relatively cheap and have two doors. All else is negotiable. One thing about this particular group though, is that they have the potential to become very active in the "Camaro lifestyle".

Yet another group has no emotional attachment to the Camaro marque at all. They will buy it, if something about it attracts them to it, ie., performance, styling, image, etc. After that it's on to the next pretty face, be it a Mustang an import or an SUV.

It was late 2000. SLP brought a 1LE optoined SS to GM for testing. Heinricey beat his lap times he did in a 99 Z51 optioned vette. They couldnt believe it. GM told SLP they couldnt discolse that.

That'll never happen again. I don't care if the Camaro runs slicks and the Corvette runs snow tires.

I think a lot of people are looking at it this way...if they can't afford one, why would they care what it weighs? :shrug:

And if they can't sell'em, it won't be around to worry about its weight either...

But....If price is of no concern, then weight would be next on most people's list ;)
Or at least metrics associated with weight, as you listed...especially mpg.

I'm not too concerned about weight as long as it can destroy mustangs. Cost is most definately going to be up there, I figure mid 30s for the SS, lower/mid 40s for the Z28.

But really I'd rather GM make a really solid car and have a high price than have them make a not-so-great car and have a low price.

A nicely loaded G8 GT comes in at just under $32K here, I hope a N/A V8 LS? Camaro comes in under that.

Its all about bang for the buck for me. It seems fairly certain that we are going to get plenty of weight for our dollar. I am not happy at all about this. I dont care who says what but is there any excuse for being so heavy? Seems like a screw up from the get go to me. I know the engineers are doing the best they can with what they have to work with but a Camaro pushing 4000 lbs?:cry:
I can easily walk away unlike some because I have no brand loyalty.

Im a cheap skate and want the best value. I will hang tight until the next Mustang comes out. I really have no gripes with my 03 Mustang and it has been a good car overall and it was a bargain to boot. The bang for the buck was very very good.

Maybe its just me but Im not as exited as I once was. This project has drug out for what seems to be forever and the new has already wore off for me. I think GM released a lot of information because they were afraid they might screw this thing up. Just speculation on my part of course. I can appreciate the pressure that people are under but I feel like the car has already been out for a year. It will be a ho hum event for me when they really hit the streets.

If a book ever comes out on the development of the 5th gen, I hope that they devote a whole chapter on this weight thing. No spin, no revisionism, just the unvarnished truth.

Even the first time around with the GMX282/284/285 Zeta programs, these cars were going WAY over their target weights. Not by alittle, but by hundreds of pounds. Weight was simply way out of control on that architecture and EVERYONE knew it.

So what happened? What made people think that on the second go around, these Zeta cars would get weight under control? What made Doug Houlihan state that the enthusiasts shouldn't worry because they're sending the car to Jenny Craig? Certainly, at that point and in his position, he must have known, that Camaro's weight was going to be completely out of control.

I mean, were people afraid of what might happen to their carreers if they stood up and said: Wait a minute! This architecture is simply not suited to be a Camaro!

Anyone know the story of when politicians and bureaucrats decided in the late '60's, that the US Navy's new air superiority fighter should be the F-111? Here was an aircraft which was large, heavy, not very manueverable and not all that fast. The pilots working that program, knew that the F-111 was completely unsuited for the role which the politicians had envisioned for it. They knew that this program would be a colossal, expensive, failure and in the end, not have the ability to defend our carrier battle groups from current, let alone, future air threats. They knew it. And they told their superior officers just that. These officers went to congress, and knowingly risked, even ended, their own careers to tell the story. To tell the truth.
IIRC, the final comment by one of the naval officers was, " Congressman, there is nothing that you can do to this aircraft which will turn it into a fighter."


Was there no one at GM with that sort of courage?

4, I think you're just going to to have to accept the fact that when faced w/ a 3800 lb Camaro vs NO Camaro, MOST people are going to take the 3800 pounder. We all know your position on it, but it's done, time to let it lie bro.

BTW, I love the 'ROC. Beautiful. Makes me miss my 25th that much more.

We all know your position on it, but it's done, time to let it lie bro.

I agree. That's why I'm looking for a CTS-V for now, and hoping that there is a 6th gen.

BTW, I love the 'ROC. Beautiful. Makes me miss my 25th that much more.

Thanks.

That's why I'm looking for a CTS-V for now.


Those are sweet cars, wouldn't mind one myself.

I agree. That's why I'm looking for a CTS-V for now, and hoping that there is a 6th gen.



Thanks.


So you're ok with a 3850 lb or more CTS-V ???

The 2009 CTS-V will be 4200 lb / 4300 lb for the auto.

So you're ok with a 3850 lb or more CTS-V ???



The way I see it, the CTS-V is a 5 passenger, 4 door sedan. It is also extremely high in content. It's not pretending to be a ponycar.

With that said, it's still weighs less than a V8 Camaro will. MUCH less than a Z/28 will. That's with luxury everything, LS6/LS2, T-56, Nav, sunroof, Brembos, 4 doors and 5 seats.

Those are sweet cars, wouldn't mind one myself.

Oh yeah CLEAN, what do you think of your new Corvette? Must be a fun car.

Oh yeah CLEAN, what do you think of your new Corvette? Must be a fun car.

It's pretty good. Similar feel to my C5, but does everything a little better. LS3 is sweet of course, and the new TR6060 is a good tranny. It was kind of an adjustment getting used to the small cabin again, to be honest, the bigger cab of a 5th gen or CTS for that matter would be easier to live with day to day, but no complaints.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll259/MCoat2000/carwash001.jpg

The way I see it, the CTS-V is a 5 passenger, 4 door sedan. It is also extremely high in content. It's not pretending to be a ponycar.

Yes, it is more high in content than the Camaro will be...so there is extra weight in that extra content.

With that said, it's still weighs less than a V8 Camaro will. MUCH less than a Z/28 will. That's with luxury everything, LS6/LS2, T-56, Nav, sunroof, Brembos, 4 doors and 5 seats.

The closest thing structurally we have right now to the camaro is the G8 which weighs in at 3885 and 3995 lbs. The Camaro team (per what Scott and others at GM said) did try to watch the weight. The Camaro will also be slightly smaller in stature than the G8...so how is the V8 Camaro going to come in over that??? The Z28 could with all of the extras it is getting but the regular Camaro and the SS...there is no way they will be that much. Close, Maybe but not over like you are stating.

Maybe pessimism isn't my thing.

Yes, it is more high in content than the Camaro will be...so there is extra weight in that extra content.



The closest thing structurally we have right now to the camaro is the G8 which weighs in at 3885 and 3995 lbs. The Camaro team (per what Scott and others at GM said) did try to watch the weight. The Camaro will also be slightly smaller in stature than the G8...so how is the V8 Camaro going to come in over that??? The Z28 could with all of the extras it is getting but the regular Camaro and the SS...there is no way they will be that much. Close, Maybe but not over like you are stating.

Maybe pessimism isn't my thing.

Are you thinking that a Camaro SS will weigh a couple hundred pounds less than a G8 GT?

I know what Charlie is getting at. For him, if you're going to go out and buy a 2-ton sporty car, you might as well use that size and weight to seat 4 adults comfortably. I completely agree.

So do I.

I know what Charlie is getting at. For him, if you're going to go out and buy a 2-ton sporty car, you might as well use that size and weight to seat 4 adults comfortably. I completely agree.

I have learned that the proof is in the pudding. By that I suggest one needs to get in the seat before they draw FINAL conclusions. I. myself am an old schooler when it comes to cars. I do look hard at weight. Weight is an important factor.

However, I have been schooled and surprised by final executions which result in rematkable driving experiences.

I don't know the final weight numbers for any of the Camaros. I don't know if the mags are wrong or right in their assertions. I do know that I have driven cars that showed their portly construction as expected, AND I have driven cars that don't exhibit what might be expected from the raw numbers alone.

For all the bruhaha I hope that folks actually drive the new Camaro and then render judgement. That isn't possible at present, and thus we see the kind of conclusions being put forth. Dynamics are the key... and the dynamics and actual numbers are, as yet, speculative at best.

I'm far more interested in folks reactions to the new car after they drive than before they drive. :yes:

Are you thinking that a Camaro SS will weigh a couple hundred pounds less than a G8 GT?

Why are you thinking it will be a couple hundred pounds more?

No, I bet he thinks it will weigh a maximum of 100 pounds less with it most likely somewhere nearer to 50. But I really shouldn't be speaking for him.

Why are you thinking it will be a couple hundred pounds more?

Forget about why I think what I think...

Let me ask you this. If the SS comes in at or near the weight of a G8 GT and a Z/28 weighs in at a good bit more than that, how would you feel about that?

I'm far more interested in folks reactions to the new car after they drive than before they drive. :yes:

I promise you that I'll drive it. But I'll also say that I'm no longer planning my finances or altering my car purchases in order to accommodate buying one. In fact, for the first time in 10 years, I have no plans to buy a 5th gen. :(

But I will drive one. Who knows.

I'm not very hopeful it'll "feel" much better than the G8 GT which I recently drove though. Nice for a 2 ton family sedan, pathetic for a Camaro.

But CHARLIE, the "Z/28" is going to have ~550 HP!!!!!! :irk: Is that not enough to satisfy you??????? ;)

............ and its power-to-weight ratio still "looks good" (on paper) compared to an LS1 Camaro. Do the math ;).

(just for fun, I did some quick math ... a 550 HP / 4000 lb car is equivilant to a 480 HP / 3500 lb car ... hmmm :think: ).

But CHARLIE, the "Z/28" is going to have ~550 HP!!!!!! :irk: Is that not enough to satisfy you??????? ;)

............ and its power-to-weight ratio still "looks good" (on paper) compared to an LS1 Camaro. Do the math ;).

(just for fun, I did some quick math ... a 550 HP / 4000 lb car is equivilant to a 480 HP / 3500 lb car ... hmmm :think: ).

Well, for one thing Pete, I think the Z/28's weight will come in abit north of your number. For another, that 480 hp/3500 lbs version sounds sweet!! I'd but that one over the 550 hp version any day of the week. And I'd be willing to pay more for it to boot.

But don't you know that saying your car has 550HP is cooler than saying it has 480HP?


;)

But don't you know that saying your car has 550HP is cooler than saying it has 480HP?


;)

You know Matt, that's only if the 'cool' guys with the 480 hp cars aren't calling your 550 hp car morbidly obese and laughing behind your back. ;)

You know Matt, that's only if the 'cool' guys with the 480 hp cars aren't calling your 550 hp car morbidly obese and laughing behind your back. ;)
As long as they don't laugh AT him.
That's still 550hp ready to roll somebody over. And the 'extra' weight will only make it hurt more.:cool:

I really don't get as excited over HP numbers as I used to.
I look more at performance numbers, like acceleration, skidpad G's, stopping distances etc...and the G8 was a little surprising.
I haven't drove one yet or tossed one thru a slalam, but I wouldn't expect Porche performance from it, or Camaro...not at under $32K.

Well, for one thing Pete, I think the Z/28's weight will come in a bit north of your number. For another, that 480 hp/3500 lbs version sounds sweet!! I'd buy that one over the 550 hp version any day of the week. And I'd be willing to pay more for it to boot.
Ok, what power:weight ratio would you like to try? ;) 550/4100?? (0.134)

... take 0.134 x 3500 lbs = 469 HP

How's that for an equivilancy?? :D (~470 HP/3500 lbs = 550 HP/4100 lbs :shock: )

FWIW, let's "assume" the SS comes in at ~3900 lbs, with ~425 HP (sounds pretty reasonable, eh? ;)) ...

425 / 3900 = 0.109

Then take 0.109 x 3500 lbs = 381 HP

So, the new SS will at least have a (slightly) better power:weight ratio than the 4th-gen Z28/SS (350/3500=0.100), and should theoretically perform (in a straight line) like a ~380 HP LS1 :thumb:.

I guess until we find out *officially*, I'm going to hope, hope, hope that the car DOESN'T weigh this much, and REALLY HOPE that they spent enough time at Nurburgring to dial in the suspension of the car????? :shrug:

Pete, it may depend on which trans you'll choose on the SS. ;)


I'm not concerned about power to weight. GM Powertrain will do their part for this car. It'll be at least as fast as an LS1 4th gen. In a straight line anyway.

But it'll probably take the V6 version to match the old 4th gen's LS1 EPA mpg numbers.

^ I hear ya ;) ... you know which side of this argument I'm on :cool:.

Going on the presumption that the car is going to be heavy (but lightest, and most fuel efficient in V6 form) then we REALLY will be depending on the V6 Camaro selling a lot to keep the platform viable!!! :eek:

..... and it will really make the V8's (esp. Z28) the "rich man's" car, since it'll A) carry quite the price tag (likely) and B) NOT be cheap on gas at all, lugging around so much weight.

Go V6 Camaro, Go! :D (at least it's getting ~300 HP :shrug: )

..... and it will really make the V8's (esp. Z28) the "rich man's" car, since it'll A) carry quite the price tag (likely) and B) NOT be cheap on gas at all, lugging around so much weight.
Rich Man's car? I didn't know ~30k qualified that description.....

:think:And the fuel economy numbers will probably be the same as the 4thgens (taking into accound the EPA's new rating system)...so....

The 5th will have the advantage of the 6speed automatic which I bet will make the fuel economy of the SS better than the 4 speed LS1 4th gens. I am not so sure about the auto V6s though, partly because I do not know what the 3.8L 4ths were re-rated to. My 2000's window sticker has 19/29mpg, which was with the 3.42 optional axle ratio (standard was 3.08). I don't remember what the stick cars were rated either. In any case, that car did routinely get 27-28mpg at speeds of 70 and higher. It wasn't really driven regularly at 60mph so perhaps the economy would have been better down there. In any case, it had substantially greater range on the highway than the Formula does, which was rated at 25mpg hwy originally (now 23 with the new ratings), right?

Ok just went to fueleconomy.gov

2000 3.8L M5 is 17/28 (21) under the new ratings. 19/30 (23) originally.
2000 3.8L A4 is 17/26 (20) under the new ratings. 19/29 (22) originally.
2000 5.7L M6 is 16/25 (19) under the new ratings. 18/27 (21) originally.
2000 5.7L A4 is 15/23 (18) under the new ratings. 17/25 (20) originally.

As far as the numbers go, I never averaged below 21mpg in the 2000 3.8L even after the switch to crappy 10% ethanol gasoline. Likewise, although my Formula is more of a gas hog than the V6, it does see 25mpg at 70mph. City isn't very good, but I usually average something like 21 or 22 combined. Certainly not under 20 unless I am beating on it. It does list the 01's slightly higher in the new ratings, the 5.7L A4 at 16/23 (19) and it was rated at 18/26 (21) back on the sticker.

Anyway, I had thought the numbers for the V6 were already rumored to only be something like 25mpg hwy which would certainly fall short of the 4th Gen, although I don't see why it couldn't be better on the road with the extra gears unless the aero is not as good, or those giant wheels are hard to keep spinning.

Rich Man's car? I didn't know ~30k qualified that description.....

:think:And the fuel economy numbers will probably be the same as the 4thgens (taking into accound the EPA's new rating system)...so....

How do you figure that?

I'd guess the Z/28's city/hwy will be around 13/19.

How do you figure that?

I'd guess the Z/28's city/hwy will be around 13/19.

I should have clarified. That's my fault. Sorry.

He said "esp. Z28", but it sounded like he was still talking about all the V8 models. And my guess is that the SS will have a 16/25 rating. So by adding the arbitrary 2mpg to make up for the EPAs new system, it would have been rated 27mpg hwy: what the 4thgens were rated at.

..... and it will really make the V8's (esp. Z28) the "rich man's" car, since it'll A) carry quite the price tag (likely) and B) NOT be cheap on gas at all, lugging around so much weight.
Rich Man's car? I didn't know ~30k qualified that description.....

:think:And the fuel economy numbers will probably be the same as the 4thgens (taking into accound the EPA's new rating system)...so....
How do you figure that?

I'd guess the Z/28's city/hwy will be around 13/19.
I should have clarified. That's my fault. Sorry.

He said "esp. Z28", but it sounded like he was still talking about all the V8 models. And my guess is that the SS will have a 16/25 rating. So by adding the arbitrary 2mpg to make up for the EPAs new system, it would have been rated 27mpg hwy: what the 4thgens were rated at.
Sorry, my fault ;), maybe I shouldn't have made such a generic statement in the first place?! ;) I was truly referring more to the Z28, although given the power/weight of the new car, I'm sure it'll be "close" between an LS1 4th-gen and the LS3 5th-gen :shrug:. However, the ~550 HP Z28 (esp. if it weighs ~4000 lbs or more) is clearly NOT going to be "great" on gas, AND, it's not going to be the ~$30,000 car either :rolleyes:.

The current Mustang GT500 has an MSRP of $42,685, and I think that's the target for the Z28 :think:. So, that being said, it's certainly going to be the "rich man's car" compared to a lighter, more fuel efficient, and lower MSRP Camaro V6 or SS :cool:.

So, that being said, it's certainly going to be the "rich man's car" compared to a lighter, more fuel efficient, and lower MSRP Camaro V6 or SS :cool:.
+1:D

Misunderstandings suck.:lol:

The 5th will have the advantage of the 6speed automatic which I bet will make the fuel economy of the SS better than the 4 speed LS1 4th gens. I am not so sure about the auto V6s though, partly because I do not know what the 3.8L 4ths were re-rated to. My 2000's window sticker has 19/29mpg, which was with the 3.42 optional axle ratio (standard was 3.08). I don't remember what the stick cars were rated either. In any case, that car did routinely get 27-28mpg at speeds of 70 and higher. It wasn't really driven regularly at 60mph so perhaps the economy would have been better down there. In any case, it had substantially greater range on the highway than the Formula does, which was rated at 25mpg hwy originally (now 23 with the new ratings), right?

Ok just went to fueleconomy.gov

2000 3.8L M5 is 17/28 (21) under the new ratings. 19/30 (23) originally.
2000 3.8L A4 is 17/26 (20) under the new ratings. 19/29 (22) originally.
2000 5.7L M6 is 16/25 (19) under the new ratings. 18/27 (21) originally.
2000 5.7L A4 is 15/23 (18) under the new ratings. 17/25 (20) originally.

As far as the numbers go, I never averaged below 21mpg in the 2000 3.8L even after the switch to crappy 10% ethanol gasoline. Likewise, although my Formula is more of a gas hog than the V6, it does see 25mpg at 70mph. City isn't very good, but I usually average something like 21 or 22 combined. Certainly not under 20 unless I am beating on it. It does list the 01's slightly higher in the new ratings, the 5.7L A4 at 16/23 (19) and it was rated at 18/26 (21) back on the sticker.

Anyway, I had thought the numbers for the V6 were already rumored to only be something like 25mpg hwy which would certainly fall short of the 4th Gen, although I don't see why it couldn't be better on the road with the extra gears unless the aero is not as good, or those giant wheels are hard to keep spinning.

You need to do a bit more research before you post next time. :)

In 2000, Camaro rear end gears went as follows:

V6 automatic cars got 3.08 gears.
V6 manual cars got 3.23 gears.
V8 automatic cars got 2.73 gears, with an option to upgrade to 3.23.
V8 manual cars got 3.42 gears.

So, your statement that 3.42 was optional and 3.08 was standard doesn't fit with any of the powertrain configurations available. I believe that's true for all 10 model years of 4th gens (93-02). It's definitely true for 2000. Here's the specs from GM. (http://media.gm.com/ca/gm/en/products/chevrolet/archives/2000Camaro.html)

My 2002 Z28 was rated 19/28 using the old standard. EPA updates are 17/26.Here's the window sticker. (http://homepage.mac.com/jakerobb/camaro/windowsticker.jpg) 2001 and 2002 LS1 cars got a different cam and intake manifold, hence the difference between your 2000 and mine.

The cars we've seen so far using the new 6L80E six-speed automatic don't have a super-low 6th gear like the 4th gen T56 does, so it's flawed logic to assume that it will improve fuel economy over the 4L60E. For example, it's 0.667:1 in the C6 Corvette. That's only 5% better than the 4th gen's 0.70:1 top gear, and nowhere near the 0.50:1 in the 4th gen T56.

/threadjack

:)

The cars we've seen so far using the new 6L80E six-speed automatic don't have a super-low 6th gear like the 4th gen T56 does, so it's flawed logic to assume that it will improve fuel economy over the 4L60E. For example, it's 0.667:1 in the C6 Corvette. That's only 5% better than the 4th gen's 0.70:1 top gear, and nowhere near the 0.50:1 in the 4th gen T56.
But those same 6L80 Corvettes have a 2.56 rear. That's a total ratio of 1.68:1. So wouldn't that make it a 12% improvment from the 4thgen auto setup?

But those same 6L80 Corvettes have a 2.56 rear. That's a total ratio of 1.68:1. So wouldn't that make it a 12% improvment from the 4thgen auto setup?

It would, assuming that the 5th gen Camaro gets a similarly low rear gear. G8 GT gets a 2.92 rear gear (presumably because it weighs so much more than a C6) with the same 0.67:1 ratio in 6th, and I think that's a better indicator of the gears we'll get in the Camaro. :)

G8 GXP supposedly gets a 3.23 rear gear and a 0.57:1 6th gear (that's a TR6060 manual, not the 6L80E).

You need to do a bit more research before you post next time. :)

In 2000, Camaro rear end gears went as follows:

V6 automatic cars got 3.08 gears.
V6 manual cars got 3.23 gears.
V8 automatic cars got 2.73 gears, with an option to upgrade to 3.23.
V8 manual cars got 3.42 gears.

So, your statement that 3.42 was optional and 3.08 was standard doesn't fit with any of the powertrain configurations available. I believe that's true for all 10 model years of 4th gens (93-02). It's definitely true for 2000. Here's the specs from GM. (http://media.gm.com/ca/gm/en/products/chevrolet/archives/2000Camaro.html)

My 2002 Z28 was rated 19/28 using the old standard. EPA updates are 17/26.Here's the window sticker. (http://homepage.mac.com/jakerobb/camaro/windowsticker.jpg) 2001 and 2002 LS1 cars got a different cam and intake manifold, hence the difference between your 2000 and mine.

The cars we've seen so far using the new 6L80E six-speed automatic don't have a super-low 6th gear like the 4th gen T56 does, so it's flawed logic to assume that it will improve fuel economy over the 4L60E. For example, it's 0.667:1 in the C6 Corvette. That's only 5% better than the 4th gen's 0.70:1 top gear, and nowhere near the 0.50:1 in the 4th gen T56.

/threadjack

:)You are the one who needs to do more research. I owned that V6 for seven years and was / am active on the V6 boards.

To keep it simple... starting with the 3.8L which saw limited introduction in MY1995, the standard automatic rear end ratio in the V6s was 3.08 (RPO GU4) and standard rear end was 3.23 (GU5) in the M5s. They both were paired with an open diff. Option Y87 was introduced for MY1996, and on an automatic you received the Auburn LSD and 3.42s (which if you look at the RPOs listed on the vehicle are reflected as G80 and GU6). The gears were always 3.23s in the manuals. Additionally, you got 235 width tires, disk brakes all around, quicker steering ratio, and dual outlet exhaust.

For MY1998 all the cars were facelifted and the V6s had standard 4 wheel disks that were identical to the V8 cars, as well as revised spring rates that were identical to the V8s in the rear.

For MY1999 the LSD in Y87 was changed to the Torsen.

To make things more complicated, for MY2000 GM began producing V6 automatic cars optioned with 3.42 with and without LSD outside of the Y87 package. Mine was actually one of those cars and the window sticker reflected those as a NO CHARGE option, and so did the RPO stickers which clearly showed GU6 and G80.

No changes for MY2001 or MY2002.

If you don't want to believe me, here is a description of Y87 at the very least...

http://www.media.gm.com/division/chevrolet/products/archive_prod_info/98chevy/camaro/chassis.htm

You could also check out the faq at fullthrottlev6.com, except that since I wrote the bulk of it you might want to stick with the gm website or just google Y87.

Regarding the differences between the 01s and the 2000s, I am aware of the differences. My 2000 was a V6, the Formula is an 01 and was rated as yours was. I thought it most expedient to post the numbers from a single model year and picked 2000, which would be an easier target for the 5th anyway. It may have been slightly unclear when I just rambled about the fuel economy, but my Formula is listed in the sig as an 01. If you want to list all the differences, 01 LS1s had minor PCM OS differences, different injectors, No EGR (suppose that goes with revised intake manifold), and Z06 style clutch in the manuals. At any rate the rating difference between 2000 and 01 was fairly minor for all powertrains.

As far as the 6 speed auto goes, you are forgetting that the rear end ratios are drastically different than in the Fbody. In the Corvette, the standard ratio is 2.56 for the automatic. If you compare 2.56x.667=1.707,and the M6 Fbody numbers of 0.5x3.42=1.71, it is very similar. Overall wheel/tire diameter will modify that, but I would bet that the overally diameter will be larger on the 5th than on the 4th which will again reduce the RPM further at highway speed.

Let's face it. I can't imagine this car outdoing the mpg numbers of the 4th gen cars. In fact, at best it may match them.

Unfortunately, gas costs 3x as much now as it did in 2002 - most probably more than that by release time. Consumers are once again becoming very, very MPG literate and sensitive. Plus, the Feds will be breathing down everyone's neck with new CAFE standards.

Anyone see a problem here?

Weight will be this car's undoing way before cost ever is.

Weight will be this car's undoing way before cost ever is.
Are you basing all of this under the assumption that the car will already be priced at a good level? Because if you are, trying to decide the priority of the two at this point is unfair. If we "know" that it will be priced well, then the only other thing one could logically complain about is the weight. That makes the results of this poll even more impressive to me. I think if this poll were taken 2 years ago, there'd be a landslide win of Price > weight.

Since we're assuming things.;) I don't have any doubts about the cars handling. Nor do I think it will be lacking in performance. I whole-heartedly believe Scott and the others when they say "class-leading". So the only other thing that 'normal' buyers would care about and weight could impact is fuel economy.(I also think that's part of the class-leading thing, too...)

But a lot of the fuel economy concerns could come from aerodynamics. In fact, we all know that at highway speeds weight has almost no influence on fuel economy. But what do manufacturers(ALL of them) flaunt? And therefore, which numbers does the average consumer compare? So while singing the should-coulda-woulda's about weight, and Zeta, why not hum about the exterior? It can't be nearly as aerodynamic as the 4thgens; so why wasn't it designed like a butter knife to get that 27-30mpg out of the V8?:think:

Besides...who shops Camaro with the primary intent of finding a fuel-sipping econobox? Nobody I know of. But how many are comparing Camaro's fuel economy to that of its competitors? THAT'S where GM needs to win. Not fuel economy in the grand scheme of things, but fuel economy as compared to the Mustang and Challenger (maybe the Genesis). And I think they've done that...which is why I'm not worried about this weight thing as much as I could be.

I'm just having a real hard time seeing the importance of weight over cost like you do, Charlie...I think that cost will have more of an impact than weight EVER could. We all know that cost was one of the contributers to the 4thgen's demise. The Camaro was the better vehicle those years...at least 'better' by most of our standards here. But the Mustang was cheaper; and here we are...no Camaro for almost 7 years. Because of that history lesson, we all know that the Camaro MUST be priced within the very low thousands of a similar Mustang. If it's not, Camaro could weigh 3000lbs, get 35mpg and handle so well a BMW would blush; BUT it won't sell!! And that's the key. That's where the discussion of this poll is heading; which of the two impacts the car's sales the most?

. But the Mustang was cheaper; and here we are...no Camaro for almost 7 years. Because of that history lesson, we all know that the Camaro MUST be priced within the very low thousands of a similar Mustang. If it's not, Camaro could weigh 3000lbs, get 35mpg and handle so well a BMW would blush; BUT it won't sell!! And that's the key. That's where the discussion of this poll is heading; which of the two impacts the car's sales the most?


Here's something else worth discussing....

The Camaro must be priced competitively. GM is in the Camaro business to make money. How profitable can a competitively priced Camaro be, if it's built on an architecture which had it's business case based on 400,000 annual units. And now most of those units are simply gone....

Actually, it may be cost which will eventually undo it, not so much at the consumer level, but at the production level.


BTW, you'd have to be hitting the sauce pretty hard, if you think a 3,000 lbs, 35 mpg, incredible handling Camaro, wouldn't sell like crazy, even at a premium over Mustang. Are you kidding me?

EDIT: I think Camaro isn't as price sensitive as everyone else seems to think it is. Sure, it needs to be in the ballpark. But during some of Camaro's best sales years, it cost SUBSTANTIALLY more than an equivalent Mustang. Google 3rd gen Camaro/Firebird. ;)

I don't have any doubts about the cars handling. Nor do I think it will be lacking in performance. I whole-heartedly believe Scott and the others when they say "class-leading". I keep seeing this in threads and it makes me wince.

Right up front, I'll freely admit that the car will likely handle well enough for at least 90% of the buyers. Many of these people never take their cars to the limit; as long as the car can take a corner at the posted legal limit, it handles "good" enough for them. That's fine, I have no issue with that. However, some of us want more from their cars.

Now then, let's stop with this nonsense that the new car will automatically be a better handler than the 4th gen (or 3rd gen) just because it is new. I'm willing to wager it won't. I'm fairly certain that if it comes in at the rumored weight, it is going to get killed in the corners.

How could anyone think otherwise if they know anything about what it takes to make a car perform?

Let's see...

1) 4th gen front suspension actually has a fairly good camber curve. The 5th gen will have almost NO camber curve due to the strut front end.

Advantage 4th gen

2) The 5th gen has IRS.

Advantage 5th gen on bumpy surfaces.

3) The 4th gen weighs 3400 -3500 lbs and runs on 245 - 275 width tires. According to what we've seen and heard, the 5th gen will weigh 3900 - 4100 lbs on the same size 245 - 275 tires.

Huge advantage 4th gen


Mustang went through this a few years ago with the supercharged / IRS Cobra. Those cars get crushed by lesser Mustang GTs in the corners. NOBODY seriously autocrosses the Cobra. Why? Because even with it's huge power advantage, it just can't sling it's bulk around using roughly the same size tire.

Class leading? I doubt it. I really do. The new Shelby GTs (NOT the GT500s) are laying waste to the SCCA SOLO F-Stock class. This class was owned by 3rd and 4th gen F-bodies for years. How will the new car be class leading if it can't corner as well as those old cars or the Shelby?

I REALLY want to like this car. I REALLY want to buy one. I REALLY think they nailed the styling and we all know what GM Powertrain can bring to the table. Problem is, I also REALLY like my cars to handle and I just don't see this car handling better than the old one. It just isn't going to happen gentlemen, as much as you and I would like it to. The older cars are going to eat these things alive in the corners. How can I justify buying a new $40K Z28 when I'll need to park in it favor of my 12 year old (and counting) car when I want to have some fun?

While I have absolutely no doubt that the 5th gen will be a great car, it could just as easily carry the Chevelle name (awesome styling, stunning straightline speed, middling cornering prowess, not really tossable) with a quick reskin. In my mind, that just isn't a Camaro and that's the reason for Charlie's (and others) angst with regard to weight / mass / bulk / size.

Price isn't really an issue for us so long as it doesn't encroach upon Corvette territory. We'd HAPPILY pay a premium for the car we want.

BTW, you'd have to be hitting the sauce pretty hard, if you think a 3,000 lbs, 35 mpg, incredible handling Camaro, wouldn't sell like crazy, even at a premium over Mustang. Are you kidding me?

EDIT: I think Camaro isn't as price sensitive as everyone else seems to think it is. Sure, it needs to be in the ballpark. But during some of Camaro's best sales years, it cost SUBSTANTIALLY more than an equivalent Mustang. Google 3rd gen Camaro/Firebird. ;)
While I agree with your logic (seems "common sense", right? :yes: ) I don't agree that the buying public sees things the same way :think:.

Maybe Camaro had 1 or 2 "good years" (even while being priced higher than Mustang) but IMO (maybe somebody has hard figures to prove otherwise :shrug: ) the Camaro died, in part, due to being priced higher than the "budget" Mustang :rolleyes:. And I think it could kill it again :shrug:.

..... even though I would pay a little more for the (more powerful, better handling) Camaro :cool:.

Not that I believe the 5th gen will hit the 2-ton mark, cause I don't...but I've been reading about the G8GXP which will probably give clues to the Camaro's set up and performance, possibly...



http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0806_2009_pontiac_g8_gxp_first_look/index.html

..."Pontiac estimates the LS3 will scoot from standstill to 60 mph in 4.7 seconds, 0.6 second quicker than the G8 GT ..."

"...A 4.7-second 0-to-60-mph time would trump the Charger SRT8's 5.0 flat...."

"...this is the only G8 offered with a stick-comes with a 3.70:1 final drive...."

Predictably, the GXP's suspension will stiffens things up. It's race-ready with virtually no modifications, Shipman says. The MacPherson strut front and multilink coil-over rear carry forward with a direct-acting front anti-roll bar, decoupled rear stabilizer bar and lateral ball joints on the rear for more lateral stiffness. Caster, camber, and toe are adjustable in front, and camber and toe are adjustable in the rear. P245/40R19 summer tires are standard and limit the car's top speed to a near-autobahn-perfect 150 mph.

"We don't want it to be too stiff, where it's bouncing you out of the car, but it's also got to have some performance," Shipman says. "So I think it's going to be a nice blend."



This isn't 2002, and handling engineering has improved, so comparing a 4th gen to a 5th gen, to me, is apples to oranges.
I'm not gonna pass any more judgment until I see some solid testing and drive one.

BTW, you'd have to be hitting the sauce pretty hard, if you think a 3,000 lbs, 35 mpg, incredible handling Camaro, wouldn't sell like crazy, even at a premium over Mustang. Are you kidding me?
Capn' Pete answered for me. It's exactly what I would have said:

While I agree with your logic (seems "common sense", right? :yes: ) I don't agree that the buying public sees things the same way :think:........

.........the Camaro died, in part, due to being priced higher than the "budget" Mustang :rolleyes:. And I think it could kill it again :shrug:.
All the common consumer, the average V6 buyer (the one's who ultimately controls the fate of the car) is concerned with in the end, is the $$$. That 3000lbs Camaro isn't going to cost nearly as little as our 'portly' 5thgen. That's what I was trying to get at.
(I'm not convinced it's going to weigh 3900 lbs either, 90rocz...)

I REALLY want to like this car. I REALLY want to buy one. I REALLY think they nailed the styling and we all know what GM Powertrain can bring to the table. Problem is, I also REALLY like my cars to handle and I just don't see this car handling better than the old one. It just isn't going to happen gentlemen, as much as you and I would like it to. The older cars are going to eat these things alive in the corners.
Then I think you REALLY need to wait and test drive one first.:p

I understand what you're saying...and I read all your points against the new car when compared to the 4thgen...but I can't fathom GM regressing with performance of this car. I don't care what advantages the 4thgen has over it. If the current Mustang is giving the 4thgen a rough time as other threads have been so kind to point out, then how can it be class leading, and NOT be a superior vehicle? And yes, I've taken that whole "class-leading" thing to heart.:)
(call it denial if you wish.....)


I'm not gonna pass any more judgment until I see some solid testing and drive one.
:yes: :yes:

This isn't 2002, and handling engineering has improved, so comparing a 4th gen to a 5th gen, to me, is apples to oranges.


How has engineering improved? How can we now design a 1/4 ton heavier car to corner harder than a lighter one while using the same size tire? What has changed? Honestly. I'd like to know so that I could somehow fold this knowledge into my car and crush everyone at the races.

Yes, the IRS will not be affected by mid corner bumps the way the older live axle was.

However, 5th gen is not going to gain camber like the 4th gen when the suspension compresses. That's fact. That's what a strut front end does. Loss of camber means loss of grip. The car then pushes like a dump truck. The loss of camber on a strut car can be minimized by running a bunch of static camber, a big front bar and heavy springs. However this will come at the expensive of tire wear and the comfy ride most desire. There's no 21st century engineering that will change this.

BMW uses a double ball joint setup on their strut front ends. This effectively makes the lower control arm appear "longer" to the spring, allowing them to run heavier springs (it also changes the steering arc of the front wheels, somehow improving the feel.... the details escape me at the moment). BMW has historically done light years better with shock/strut valving when compared to GM. These are two details that have never been seen on GM cars and are what allow BMW cars to ride nicely and handle even better. Will we see this on the 5th gen?

Even if we do, the newer BMW cars aren't as tossable or as "lively" as the old ones. I wonder if the added weight has something to with this?

You're right on one point though. Comparing 4th and 5th gens could be seen as apples and oranges. One is a fairly large pony car and the other can't honestly be described as a pony car.

the Camaro died, in part, due to being priced higher than the "budget" Mustang :rolleyes:. And I think it could kill it again :shrug:.



I disagree Pete. You could buy 4th gens pretty cheap. But the cheap ones didn't sell. Any number of factors killed the Camaro. Price, IMO, wasn't even on the radar screen.

I keep seeing this in threads and it makes me wince.




Me too. The notion that somehow, someway, excess weight will have little or no effect on Camaro's performance, handling, MPG, really borders on the insane.

(call it denial if you wish.....)



Denial.

Originally Posted by Chewbacca:
However, 5th gen is not going to gain camber like the 4th gen when the suspension compresses. That's fact. That's what a strut front end does. Loss of camber means loss of grip. The car then pushes like a dump truck. The loss of camber on a strut car can be minimized by running a bunch of static camber, a big front bar and heavy springs. However this will come at the expensive of tire wear and the comfy ride most desire. There's no 21st century engineering that will change this.
I guess we'll see...
What is the specifics of the 5th gen setup??
Maybe I missed it?...Has that been released?

Even if we do, the newer BMW cars aren't as tossable or as "lively" as the old ones.
I hope they don't ride like "the old ones" either, buckboards...and having twice the power now, and speed, I'm sure plays alot into how "tossable" they are.

You're right on one point though. Comparing 4th and 5th gens could be seen as apples and oranges. One is a fairly large pony car and the other can't honestly be described as a pony car.Somehow I've never seen the 4th gen as a Large anything...except comapred to a CRX maybe?
I deliberately didn't buy one after test driving one. The seats were small waisted, the visibilty poor, seating position too laid back...except for the long, empty overhangs, I would never call it large.

I disagree Pete. You could buy 4th gens pretty cheap. But the cheap ones didn't sell. Any number of factors killed the Camaro. Price, IMO, wasn't even on the radar screen.
"Cheap" compared to themselves? :shrug: Or "cheap" compared to the Mustang? :think:

The Mustang has been the sales champion, right? (just like the F-150)

WHY do you figure the "cheap" Camaros didn't sell, but all of the Mustangs did (and still do)??? :confused:

I would guess it has to do with the fact that those who ACTUALLY bought Camaros (in particular, the "non-cheap" ones) are more enthusiasts, vs. the Mustang's target audience which is everybody else :rolleyes:.

But maybe I'm completely wrong?! :shrug:

You and I (and others) may agree wholeheartedly that the Camaro is/was the better performance "bang-for-the-buck", but somewhere within GM (I believe) is where the lack of sales problem started, and I think it came down to a couple key issues:
- price
- marketing (or lack thereof)

Up until 2002, when the F-bodies were still being produced, I found it pretty rare to actually see an F-body sitting on a GM lot. And if there was, that's what it would be ... "an" F-body, not a row of them like Mustangs at the Ford dealership.

Anyway, perhaps I'm getting off track. While we can debate all day on how much more performance/content/value you may be getting with the new Camaro vs. the Mustang, I do think GM has to price it right, or I think the Camaro could see the same fate it did before :shrug:.

(but this does not change my vote from the fact that weight concerns me more personally, as I am less concerned over a ~few bucks difference between Camaro/Mustang, as I would never consider buying a Mustang anyways ;))

...
http://www.media.gm.com/division/chevrolet/products/archive_prod_info/98chevy/camaro/chassis.htm
...
Interesting that your link from media.gm.com shows that you are correct, whereas my link from the same website shows that I am correct. I did my research, found the information I expected to find, confirmed that it was from a reputable source, and posted accordingly. I wonder what's going on there? :confused:

As far as the 6 speed auto goes, you are forgetting that the rear end ratios are drastically different than in the Fbody. In the Corvette, the standard ratio is 2.56 for the automatic. If you compare 2.56x.667=1.707,and the M6 Fbody numbers of 0.5x3.42=1.71, it is very similar. Overall wheel/tire diameter will modify that, but I would bet that the overally diameter will be larger on the 5th than on the 4th which will again reduce the RPM further at highway speed.
If you read the post right before yours, you'll see that I am not forgetting that. :)

Even if we do, the newer BMW cars aren't as tossable or as "lively" as the old ones. I wonder if the added weight has something to with this?



From what I have been told by a BMW engineer, the dial out of lively feel was concious. That is to say, as more folks were looking at BMW they were looking for more lux than sport in a car. Thus, the softening or rates for springs and dampers.

I had a Saturn Aura as my rental ride for the GM/Camaro Nats at Carlisle. It's a very nice handling car, especially if you consider I'm a Z06 road racing guy. I also spen some time with a Malibu LT and it's a ditto on nice choice and execution with the suspension. None of the ugly behaviors I associate with a front wheel car reared their heads, as I expected, and I was impressed.

I'm holding off on any prejudgement on how the 5th gen Camaro will handle until I drive it. I do believe that there has been an evolutionay process in customer taste and expectation for handling and tolerance for a bit more stiffness in ride. Also there have been strides made in isolation of NVH which allows higher durameter ratings for bushings and mounts.

Now this might or might not be a good example of unexpected gains where they wouldn't be the first place to look for them... The Corvette racing program picked up 3 seconds per lap at Sebring when they switched wheel brands some years back. Same size wheels, same size tires. The reason? More rigidity in the alloy and forging process. The original wheel maker followed suit and made the changes to meet the challenge. The original brand made it back on the car after a time.

Another area where we may see more and more handling improvement in the future is in differential design and control. Electronic control to be precise. Tightening and loosening the lock/unlock of the diff can make huge differences in under/oversteer and corner entry, mid corner, and corner exit behavior, particularly if you can adjust the amount of lock-unlock on the on/off throttle. Not to mention launch.

Weight is a factor. Particularly in expectations, less so when results are compared between two different cars.

Anecdotal as this next example may be, it is food for some mitigation in pre-conclusions. When the 2001 Z06 came out we can all agree it was a good handling car. In a magazine test though, it was bettered in lap time by the heavier Cobra-R which also didn't have double wishbones all around either. Nope,,,Strut front, IRS rear. Supposedly the HP @385 was the same. Z06 weight-3130 Cobra-R weight- 3589 ...

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/112_0008_2000_viper_cobra_r_and_corvette/features.html

The reasons? IMO, tires mostly, car setup, underestimated HP, the nature of the track. Is the Corvette the "better" car? Yep. My point is that theres more to it than weight when you put one car against the other...

BTW, the '02 Z06 was a better handler, and the '04 got the major damper improvement that held through the generation.

The reasons? IMO, tires mostly, car setup, underestimated HP, the nature of the track. Is the Corvette the "better" car? Yep. My point is that theres more to it than weight when you put one car against the other...


Of course.

Weight is a huge component however. From the sound of it, the Cobra R was a handful to drive. Even with those super-duper sticky BFG g-force KD's.


The thing is, I have already pre-judged, (or just plain judged) the Camaro. I have taken all my life experiences, combined with all that I've seen, heard and know or think I know about the car itself, gotten a good taste of the G8 GT with the 19" wheel performance pkg - and made a judgement. Is that fair? Don't know, but that's how judgements are made.

My thinking is that it'll be a nice car. But not one I'd want to buy. And that part disappoints me greatly.

Me too. The notion that somehow, someway, excess weight will have little or no effect on Camaro's performance, handling, MPG, really borders on the insane.
Nobody's saying that it won't have any effect on those things - but it will have a negative effect on the car compared to what? A 40k BMW, and a "what-if" Alpha car? You can say that it would be more fuel efficient and handle better if it was lighter. You could say that about every car.

I can't speak for everyone, so what I'M saying is that the car isn't likely to die again because of its weight; which is what you keep putting forward. Price has a more direct and immediate effect on buyers. There's only so much wiggle-room in terms of bang for your buck, before they step back and say, "damn; $4,000 more when I'm satisfied with this other car? Forget it."

All it has to do to survive is to be a better vehicle than it's competitors in performance, mpg, etc. But first and foremost it must have a reasonable price. If it doesn't have that, it won't go anywhere. You'll have the enthusiasts like us who buy it because we recognize what a great car it is (assuming for arguments sake that it's a lighter car), but everyone else, who doesn't care like we do, will be buying Mustangs, and Challengers -- even though they suck in comparison -- because they're cheaper.

What GM needs to do is make this car the best it can be, by PRICING it right, and let it outperform its competitors. THEN they can switch platforms or whatever they need to do to shave off a couple hundred.

But you can't keep comparing it to itself; "What it could have been"...there's always room for improvement, it never ends.

Anyways...this whole argument is moot, right? Because the question is what matters most to you and I, personally. Not what matters to the car's success. So it's a preference thing. My answer is: yeah, I'd love a nimble little car...but I want to be able to afford it to first.

Denial.
hmf. We'll see.:rolleyes:

Of course.

Weight is a huge component however. From the sound of it, the Cobra R was a handful to drive. Even with those super-duper sticky BFG g-force KD's.


The thing is, I have already pre-judged the Camaro. I have taken all my life experiences, combined with whatever I've seen, heard and know or think I know, about the car itself, gotten a good taste of the G8 GT with the 19" wheel performance pkg - and made a judgement. Is that fair? Don't know.

My thinking is that it'll be a nice car. But not one I'd want to buy. And that part disappoints me greatly.

According to the test article, the Viper was the unruly child of the bunch.

It isn't about "fair" in the final analysis, Charlie. That is, unless we are speaking about being "fair" to yourself. I believe you will drive the car when you can, preconcieved notions not withstanding. Then you decide. Sounds fair to me.:yes:

I wouldn't pull the trigger on something used at this point, were I you. It's really not a long wait, and there will be more used stuff at that point should you wait. I'll tell you this much, the 5th gen Camaro really looks good in person. I really like the interior as well. Just one fellow's opinion...

What GM needs to do is make this car the best it can be, by PRICING it right, and let it outperform its competitors. THEN they can switch platforms or whatever they need to do to shave off a couple hundred.

But you can't keep comparing it to itself; "What it could have been"...there's always room for improvement, it never ends.
Excellent post ... great points :yes: :thumb:.

That changes nothing about our "personal" wants/hopes for the car, but it is certainly the recipe for sales success :).

But comparing the 5th-gen to what "it could/should have been" is a lot more interesting!!! :p :lol:

I can't speak for everyone, so what I'M saying is that the car isn't likely to die again because of its weight; which is what you keep putting forward. Price has a more direct and immediate effect on buyers. There's only so much wiggle-room in terms of bang for your buck, before they step back and say, "damn; $4,000 more when I'm satisfied with this other car? Forget it."



I find certain elements of this concern regarding price interesting.

I've been hanging around Camaros and Camaro people for a loooong time, and have really never seen such a serious concern with it. Not that everyone had bundles of cash to burn, but because everyone always had the assumption that any new Camaro would be a good value.

I think that NOW though, we have a paradigm shift in what is considered a 'good value' by Camaro owners. I mean, it's been 7 MY's since a new one was sold and maybe 10-12 MY's since it sold well. So as a result, we've got a generation or two of Camaro owners who've spent 5 or 10 grand on their last or current Camaro. That there is their reference point.

See where I'm going with this?

I wouldn't pull the trigger on something used at this point, were I you. It's really not a long wait, and there will be more used stuff at that point should you wait. I'll tell you this much, the 5th gen Camaro really looks good in person. I really like the interior as well. Just one fellow's opinion...


Well, luckily (I guess), I'm extremely picky regarding the CTS-V's I've checked out. So it may be awhile before I find one I'd be will to trade my CTS for.

Also, in the early '80's, I vowed never to buy a Crossfire Z/28, since Chevy couldn't even manage to certify a stick with it. But what-do-you-know, 25 years later, there's one in my garage. With T-tops even. :)

I find certain elements of this concern regarding price interesting.

I've been hanging around Camaros and Camaro people for a loooong time, and have really never seen such a serious concern with it.
And if you hung around a bunch of Mustang enthusiasts, you'd probably find the same attitude (esp. the GT500 owners). When the company builds a product you like and want, it doesn't really matter what it costs.

Except enthusiasts aren't the people who are going to be buying the Camaro in droves, and at the end of the day, the almighty dollar will reign :cool:.

And heck, I know this was already mentioned earlier, but look at this enthusiasts' poll ... 2/3 are concerned with price!! We're hard-pressed to get enthusiasts to be concerned over weight! :rolleyes: Good luck expecting Joe Q Public to even CONSIDER the weight of the car!! :lol:

(and here's a fun tid-bit for you ... I strongly support the weight concerns NOW, but when I bought my '02 Z28 brand new 6 years ago (tomorrow! :eek: June 26th! :D) I didn't know what it weighed (although I figured it was probably ~3500 lbs) nor did I really care :shrug: )

Excellent post ... great points :yes: :thumb:.

But comparing the 5th-gen to what "it could/should have been" is a lot more interesting!!! :p :lol:
Thanks you. And it sure is! The 5thgen isn't out yet and more than a few people are already looking towards the 6th generation.:lol:



I've been hanging around Camaros and Camaro people for a loooong time, and have really never seen such a serious concern with it. Not that everyone had bundles of cash to burn, but because everyone always had the assumption that any new Camaro would be a good value.

I think that NOW though, we have a paradigm shift in what is considered a 'good value' by Camaro owners. I mean, it's been 7 MY's since a new one was sold and maybe 10-12 MY's since it sold well. So as a result, we've got a generation or two of Camaro owners who've spent 5 or 10 grand on their last or current Camaro. That there is their reference point.

See where I'm going with this?
Not really.

I think I do, but I don't want to stick my foot into my mouth.....:p

Well, luckily (I guess), I'm extremely picky regarding the CTS-V's I've checked out. So it may be awhile before I find one I'd be will to trade my CTS for.

Also, in the early '80's, I vowed never to buy a Crossfire Z/28, since Chevy couldn't even manage to certify a stick with it. But what-do-you-know, 25 years later, there's one in my garage. With T-tops even. :)

Well...perhaps that suggests that, beyond any protestations, you are a pragmatist. "Never" might be "maybe" in the final analysis. No shame in that.

I haven't given up on you.

Thanks you. And it sure is! The 5thgen isn't out yet and more than a few people are already looking towards the 6th generation.:lol:
That is funny ;).

But I'm really looking forward to the 7th-gen :thumb:. All electric, baby! :bow: It's gonna be mad fast, yo! 35,000 watts of pure electric performance!! :thumb: :D It'll be shocking!! :p :lol:

Not really.

I think I do, but I don't want to stick my foot into my mouth.....:p


That there is no longer a large pool of consumers who are in the habit of buying new Camaros.

The 5thgen isn't out yet and more than a few people are already looking towards the 6th generation.

Put it like this. I've been closely following the 5th gen's developements for MANY years now. I suspect a 6th gen (if it comes), will be here in relatively short order.

And yes, I am looking forward to it.

Well...perhaps that suggests that, beyond any protestations, you are a pragmatist. "Never" might be "maybe" in the final analysis. No shame in that.

I haven't given up on you.

Well you know Paul, I think you are a very persuasive guy. And who knows, something might click somewhere and I might have an epiphany. But at this point I'm totally turned off to be completely frank.

I could overlook alot of things. The bizzare interior, the gimmicky "torque gauge", the high sedan based cowl .... lots of things.

But if this sucker is coming in at the weight I believe it will, that's just plain a deal killer for me.

35,000 watts of pure electric performance!! :thumb: :D It'll be shocking!! :p :lol:
As in 35 Kilowatts...or 47 horsepower?:lol: :lol:
:p

That there is no longer a large pool of consumers who are in the habit of buying new Camaros.I see...

In light of the poll in this thread, this other poll is interesting: http://camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=615465

:think:

The COWmaro is back.... GAME OVER!

In light of the poll in this thread, this other poll is interesting: http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=615465

:think:Why is that? This is an enthusiast website. Most of us are going to select V8 regardless of the price. :p

Why is that? This is an enthusiast website. Most of us are going to select V8 regardless of the price. :p

Ummm...

The same enthusiasts who voted 2 to 1 that cost was a concern in this poll, also chose that they'd be willing to pay over $35K for a Camaro.

Nice observation...

I am also looking forward to getting a CTS-V. In fact, there is a brand new one 2005 near by.

Well you know Paul, I think you are a very persuasive guy. And who knows, something might click somewhere and I might have an epiphany. But at this point I'm totally turned off to be completely frank.

I could overlook alot of things. The bizzare interior, the gimmicky "torque gauge", the high sedan based cowl .... lots of things.

But if this sucker is coming in at the weight I believe it will, that's just plain a deal killer for me.

You say cost takes a back seat to weight by far. Ok Give the price points and weight you feel the following should come in at and the Mustang competition. Fill in the blanks for Cost and weight. Im curious.

Camaro COST WEIGHT

V6
SS
Z28


Mustang COST WEIGHT

V6
GT
GT500

You say cost takes a back seat to weight by far. Ok Give the price points and weight you feel the following should come in at and the Mustang competition. Fill in the blanks for Cost and weight. Im curious.

Camaro COST WEIGHT

V6
SS
Z28


Mustang COST WEIGHT

V6
GT
GT500

I'm not sure of exactly what you're asking. The Mustang's costs and weights we already know. The Camaro's should be afew bucks and 200-300 lbs more than the equivalent Mustang.


I think...and maybe I'm wrong....what you're trying to say is, that we need to accept excess weight in the Camaro because Zeta will somehow be so cheap.

I'm not sure of exactly what you're asking. The Mustang's costs and weights we already know. The Camaro's should be afew bucks and 200-300 lbs more than the equivalent Mustang.


I think...and maybe I'm wrong....what you're trying to say is, that we need to accept excess weight in the Camaro because Zeta will somehow be so cheap.

eh... not exactly what I was asking. I didnt know how to do it and that was my lame attempt at a txt version of an XL spreadsheet. What I wanted to know out of my own cuiosity was; If you were in charge what weight would you try to hit and also what cost. Then take those numbers and compare those cost and weight to the directly competing mustang models for comparison. I was just looking for reference points in terms of theoretical cost and theoretical weight realistically...

eh... not exactly what I was asking. I didnt know how to do it and that was my lame attempt at a txt version of an XL spreadsheet. What I wanted to know out of my own cuiosity was; If you were in charge what weight would you try to hit and also what cost. Then take those numbers and compare those cost and weight to the directly competing mustang models for comparison. I was just looking for reference points in terms of theoretical cost and theoretical weight realistically...

Holy smokes! :eek: Don't you think that's above my pay grade? :lol:

Lookit. Things are changing so fast now, you can barely keep up with developements on a day by day basis. GM is changing it's product line-up from top to bottom. Programs are being killed, cut, slashed, delayed minute by minute. Truck production has essentially stopped until further notice. Hummer is for sale and GM may drop another division or two in short order. GM stock is plummeting. GMNA is burning through $1 billion in cash per month. GM is scouring it's overseas divisions to incorporate every small engine and small car program possible into the North American market. All this because the consumer is now focused like a laser beam on fuel efficiency.

Could you think of a worse time to come along with a 6.2L, 4000 pound, Camaro?

Suffice it to say, that I think Camaro NEEDS to be lots smaller and lighter.

Holy smokes! :eek: Don't you think that's above my pay grade? :lol:

Lookit. Things are changing so fast now, you can barely keep up with developements on a day by day basis. GM is changing it's product line-up from top to bottom. Programs are being killed, cut, slashed, delayed minute by minute. Truck production has essentially stopped until further notice. Hummer is for sale and GM may drop another division or two in short order. GM stock is plummeting. GMNA is burning through $1 billion in cash per month. GM is scouring it's overseas divisions to incorporate every small engine and small car program possible into the North American market. All this because the consumer is now focused like a laser beam on fuel efficiency.

Could you think of a worse time to come along with a 6.2L, 4000 pound, Camaro?

Suffice it to say, that I think Camaro NEEDS to be lots smaller and lighter.

well I didnt know most of that and it comes as a shock. Good think I just started drinking. I still kinda feel like Im not being clear here though. Ill try one last time with my best shot. Saying you value weight over cost without what those values are is like saying money is no object. If money was no object you could go get a ZR1 which you mentioned was a great car but too much money. So if the ZR1 is too much cost than there is a threshold where money is of consequence.

Thus the question and Im asking for your quess. Assuming the current weight is actually 4k and its in the low $30's. Im sure you know closer numbers but thats my guess based on what youve said. SO a lighter car would be more money. How much lighter do you think engineers could get the car and at what price point before they price it out of what youre willing to pay?


For instance

Currently if you speculate the car is

$30k at 4k lbs

just for argument, suppose your ceiling is $35.

What is the $ amt that is your ceiling, and for that price if everyone agreed with you, how might lighter do you belive the car could be?

For instance

Currently if you speculate the car is

$30k at 4k lbs

just for argument, suppose your ceiling is $35.

What is the $ amt that is your ceiling, and for that price if everyone agreed with you, how might lighter do you belive the car could be?


I wish that I had an easy answer for you, but I don't. I believe if Zeta could have been made lighter economically, GM would have done it. It's an architecture with a weight problem, and that's that. Sure, you could throw a whole bunch of money at it with exotic materials - but so what. Where would that take you? From 4100 lbs to 3950? BFD. This car is what it is.

Is it such a concern to me if the V8 is priced at $28,400 versus $27,950? No, not at all.

Is it a concern to me that this will be, *by far* the heaviest Camaro ever produced, just at the precise moment in time, when the market is demanding just the opposite? Oh yes it is.

Ummm...

The same enthusiasts who voted 2 to 1 that cost was a concern in this poll, also chose that they'd be willing to pay over $35K for a Camaro.

And your point? :rolleyes:

Again, the Camaro will be a MY2010 vehicle. With the state of the current economy anyone who thinks they'll be able to purchase a V8 Camaro for under $30k in 2009 is being a little foolish. I plan to purchase a MY2011 Z/28 so I know going into it I'll be paying north of $35k for it, thus why I chose that option.

I voted "cost" as being my concern because if that fully loaded Z/28 is priced closer to $50k, I may have to reconsider my purchase plans. I probably will still buy a Camaro, but may decide I can settle for a cheaper SS instead of the full blown super Camaro because of my financial situation. Thus cost is still a concern for me.

So I just justified why cost is a concern yet I'm still willing to pay $35k+ for the Camaro I want.

Are you still confused Charlie? :D

With the state of the current economy anyone who thinks they'll be able to purchase a V8 Camaro for under $30k in 2009 is being a little foolish.

The problem with polls on websites like these is everyone says they're going to do 'x' but when it comes down to it, many don't.

I can tell you that there are a LOT of people here and elsewhere who are holding the idea that an LS3-powered Camaro will come in under $30,000. There are also those who say they will buy new in these polls, then they will see the sticker, decide it's too much and wait to buy used (no matter what the sticker actually turns out to be).

People are still in the 5th Gen honeymoon phase. Oh sure, everyone plans on buying one now, but when the car is at the dealership and it's time to .... or get off the crapper, what's going to happen? I'm not sure.

This is why I find it ironic that everyone is so concerned about cost as opposed to weight, yet most say they would spend over $30,000 for their next Camaro anyway. Which poll am I to believe?

And your point? :rolleyes:



My point was eloquently explained by Wilson........

This is why I find it ironic that everyone is so concerned about cost as opposed to weight, yet most say they would spend over $30,000 for their next Camaro anyway. Which poll am I to believe?

This is why I find it ironic that everyone is so concerned about cost as opposed to weight,

Well, I personally think that many here don't give a crap about weight. Most here are not going to race the car, or at least not more than an occasional
dragstrip night. As far as fuel mileage and weight, obviously a correlation,
but the MPG numbers that will come in will be at or better than what many
of us drive now. So then it comes down to can I afford this car. If it goes
above 30K then I think the answer is no for many here. As far as myself goes,
I will most definitely be buying one if the car is what I think it is going to be.
You can take that to the bank. :)

And on a similar note, I was impressed when Lutz asserted that a true focus group is what someone will put in their driveway, rather than what they think would be nice to have.

Cutting a check always separates the pretenders from the players.

Well, I personally think that many here don't give a crap about weight. Most here are not going to race the car, or at least not more than an occasional
dragstrip night. As far as fuel mileage and weight, obviously a correlation,
but the MPG numbers that will come in will be at or better than what many
of us drive now. So then it comes down to can I afford this car. If it goes
above 30K then I think the answer is no for many here. As far as myself goes,
I will most definitely be buying one if the car is what I think it is going to be.
You can take that to the bank. :)

Whoa. A whole lot of assumption there my friend.

And on a similar note, I was impressed when Lutz asserted that a true focus group is what someone will put in their driveway, rather than what they think would be nice to have.

Cutting a check always separates the pretenders from the players.


And that there is undeniably the bottom line.

well.. Here a 31k g8 is costing around 45k, so not many people are buying it...

I expected a Camaro to be a tad behind in interior quality than this car and thus saving a few dollars. Other than bluetooth I don't need many things on the car interior wise. If I were to buy one I would choose the cheapest v8, but also because it would be the lightest.

Given that the car will be too heavy I will wait it off and get either a CTS-V or a z06 vette (both used).

How aboutreviving this topic?

http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/showthread.php?t=588709

well.. Here a 31k g8 is costing around 45k, so not many people are buying it...



G8 sales seem to be slipping in general.

I wish that I had an easy answer for you, but I don't. I believe if Zeta could have been made lighter economically, GM would have done it..

I agree with that.


It's an architecture with a weight problem, and that's that. Sure, you could throw a whole bunch of money at it with exotic materials - but so what. Where would that take you? From 4100 lbs to 3950? BFD. This car is what it is.

Is it such a concern to me if the V8 is priced at $28,400 versus $27,950? No, not at all.

Is it a concern to me that this will be, *by far* the heaviest Camaro ever produced, just at the precise moment in time, when the market is demanding just the opposite? Oh yes it is.

Yeah thats true too. Exotic materials droping the weight just a little would be pointless. I was trying to get at what your idea of ideal would be out of my own curiousity. That is theoretically doable. I think Scott had mentioned something to the effect "We could make it light like a vette but it would be at vette prices."

So I imagine being the vette is light as possible and being that the Camaro being bigger would be slightly heavier and maybe more expensive with more material.

But a 2008 1LT comes in at $46,950 Supposing that were possible on a Camaro and could be done at the same weight. Would that be ok in theory?

Im at the point where Im considering a 1 year old SS realistically. I might snap on impulse and go new but I d love to have a new one, but Im not sure its economically feesible or responsible for me as I dont own a house yet. I have been noticing, especially lately, that some of people here make alot more than I do.

...Again, the Camaro will be a MY2010 vehicle. With the state of the current economy anyone who thinks they'll be able to purchase a V8 Camaro for under $30k in 2009 is being a little foolish.....

That is pretty disappointing too. The 2009 Mustang GT has a base price of under $27k. The 2010 GT will likely still be under $28k. Camaro needs to be CLOSE to that, IMHO.

Hopefully, it will be.
Bob

That is pretty disappointing too. The 2009 Mustang GT has a base price of under $27k. The 2010 GT will likely still be under $28k. Camaro needs to be CLOSE to that, IMHO.

Hopefully, it will be.
Bob

I have no certain knowledge, but my guess would be that a V8 Camaro will start under $30K. Maybe even quite abit under.

Like has been posted the V-8 Camaro must start at or under 30k The Challenger offers IRS and some very nice options for 30K. Yes it is heavy but a very nice looking car.

For me GM needs to get the cost in line with both Mustang and Challenger, it cant cost more. If it does cost more I feel people will just stick with the Mustang or give the Dodge a chance.

Weight is a big concern as well, the new Camaro is not at sleek as the 4th Gen. car and will struggle to get the same MPG numbers as the previous generation did. To me not meeting or exceeding the previous cars MPG numbers is a failure on GM's part and it sounds like the deck is stacked against it.

The camaro is just as heavy as the challenger...

The camaro is just as heavy as the challenger...


I hope you are wrong, but to post like that you must be in the know. Of course you are also saying that the Camaro is more heavy than a 4 door G8 with your statment.

A 4200lb V-8 Camaro has no place in this market. If you are correct and Camaro is that heavy, then the Challenger is twice the car. It can fit a family of 5 and has a HUGE trunk that will fit coolers and full size baby strollers if needed. If Camaro is more Mustang size with Challenger weight that is a shame.

G8 sales seem to be slipping in general.

True, but it is kind of hard to know how the G8 would have sold without our economy being borderline recession. The G8 was available only after oil prices went from 2.50 to 4.00 and after the US economy went to the toilet. That impacts a lot more types of vehicle sales than just the G8. e.g. Toyota slashing their projected unit sales this year.

In addition, don't all highly anticipated, newly released, vehicles sell well out of the gate, but then recede down to an average selling rate.

I don't think the base V8 Camaro will be as heavy as the Challenger. In fact, signs are (mostly gleaned from this site) that the SS will be ~3900 lbs, which is ~200 lbs lighter than Challenger.

Personally, I LOVE the look of the Challenger, but the weight nazi in me says no way to something that bloated.

Bob

Where do you stand?

I've been more concerned over the wait than the weight.

Bob

I don't think the base V8 Camaro will be as heavy as the Challenger. In fact, signs are (mostly gleaned from this site) that the SS will be ~3900 lbs, which is ~200 lbs lighter than Challenger.

Personally, I LOVE the look of the Challenger, but the weight nazi in me says no way to something that bloated.

Bob

The weights of the Challenger are as follows:

SE 3720 lbs

R/T 4041 lbs

SRT-8 4170 lbs


Comparable Camaro models will be in the same ballpark, perhaps slightly less for the V8 cars. Of course, the Challenger is larger and seats five.

If the challenger is larger and seats five and the camaro will weigh in the same ballpark I am wondering if the chassis is made of pure lead.

If the challenger is larger and seats five and the camaro will weigh in the same ballpark I am wondering if the chassis is made of pure lead.

No doubt Zeta is heavy but I also have no doubt that the Camaro V6 to SS or Z/28, will out-perform all of the Challenger models in every measurable performance category. Even MPG.
Although beating the Challenger seems like only a consolation prize.

No doubt Zeta is heavy but I also have no doubt that the Camaro V6 to SS or Z/28, will out-perform all of the Challenger models in every measurable performance category. Even MPG.
Although beating the Challenger seems like only a consolation prize.

Could be, courtesy of GM Powertrain.

But I know what you mean about the consolation prize.

Exactly.. thanks to the wonderful GM powertrain, the Camaro will be the fastest of them all... I wonder what it will lap in the ring.

Exactly.. thanks to the wonderful GM powertrain, the Camaro will be the fastest of them all... I wonder what it will lap in the ring.

I believe that the powertrains coming after this last set of Gen IV's, which will power the Camaro, will be VERY impressive. I just hope GM will still sell enough trucks and Corvettes to make the next smallblock viable in a future gen Camaro.

The weights of the Challenger are as follows:

SE 3720 lbs

R/T 4041 lbs

SRT-8 4170 lbs


Comparable Camaro models will be in the same ballpark, perhaps slightly less for the V8 cars. Of course, the Challenger is larger and seats five.

This is getting silly.

Quick check here. The Camaro SS, which will be the LS3 variant as I understand it, will be the closest in horsepower to the SRT-8 model, and it should come in about 250 pounds lighter, which will make it 150 pounds lighter than the R/T model, in spite of handily outpowering it. Measured weights I've read for the SRT-8 (2008 model) are 4140-4145. Maybe the 2009 model with a real limited slip diff will be 4170.

I know you wanted 3500, but what's with exaggerating the Zeta's weight?

Btw, the all-aluminum Jag XKR, which has 420hp, and thus is closest to the LS3 Camaro, weighs 3880 pounds. I know it's a luxury coupe filled with gadgets, but the body and chassis are all aluminum, and you know the Camaro will have better back seats. The steel Maserati that R&T compared it to weighs 4350 pounds.

Btw, the all-aluminum Jag XKR, which has 420hp, and thus is closest to the LS3 Camaro, weighs 3880 pounds. I know it's a luxury coupe filled with gadgets, but the body and chassis are all aluminum, and you know the Camaro will have better back seats. The steel Maserati that R&T compared it to weighs 4350 pounds.

Yeah, I'm not buying those either.

And those are 2009 weights, since the 2008 didn't have an SE or R/T.