teal98

How light do people think a 500hp/500tq, four seat, reasonably priced car should be? Now add in modern expectations for quiet, stiff bodies, safety equipment, emissions equipment, IRS, etc.

Given that the design will have to handle 500hp, where would you make changes (inexpensively) to get the 300hp version in at a lighter weight?

I look around at other cars on the market, the car the Camaro is being derived from, and the price targets, and I don't see how people arrive at 3500 pounds. Hell, the new G37 coupe, which is optimized for a 330hp V6, and is targeted at a somewhat higher price point, allowing more use of aluminum, is over 3500 pounds. And it's smaller.

99SilverSS

Actually that's a huge difference. Although your figures are not quite accurate the concept is actually wider buy 5.5in and just under 7in shorter than the 4th gen Camaro. Your also a bit false as to how the origional Camaro started out. As you can see from the figures below the 1st gen was very similar to the 5th Gen Camaro concept. So far....


2002 Camaro Z28
Wheelbase: 101.1in
Height: 51.8in
Length: 193.5in
Width: 74.1in
Weight: 3574lbs est.

Camaro Concept
Wheelbase: 110.5in
Height:53in
Length: 186.2in
Width: 79.6in
Weight: ????

1967 Camaro
Wheelbase: 108.1in
Height: 50.5in
Length: 184.6in
Width: 72.3in
Weight: 3384lbs est.

FS3800

the 1st gen may have been a compact by 60s standards, but by today's it'd be far from such a classification.. the 5th gen concept is barely larger than a 1st gen

jg95z28

Correct, it was actually considered a "compact" back in 1967. (I posted a reference a long time ago.)

The 4th gen is about the same length as a Tahoe. However its far closer to the ground. Even my lowered 2001 LT (which I finally sold this weekend... yeah! ) still has a higher center of gravity than my 4th gen. So I'm really not concerned with the weight? Why? Because this Camaro will be designed around that and handle well. While my lowered Tahoe handled better than my stock height Tahoe, it still was no where near that of a Camaro in the twisties.

Therefore, I don't pay much attention to the "Chicken Littles" around here that say... "the new Camaro will be as long as.... as heavy as an SUV."

Z284ever

I'll already know that the production car will be larger than I had hoped.

As far as weight goes - we'll see...

Bob Cosby

I remember back when the 2000 Cobra R came out. Biggest performance complaint was weight. The Mustang nutswingers said the R handled great despite the weight. The anti-Mustang nutswingers said it didn't handle great because of its weight. I bet some of those discussions were on this Forum.

Curb weight? 3590 lbs.

Interesting.

holeshot

Was the Concept Version larger than you had hoped?

fredl11

it for this thread!!! Got the juices flowing again!!

I am enjoying the read everyone is providing!

iwantmy09z28

what is this guy talking about they stoped making camaro's in 2002 where does he get 2004 from

Z284ever

I'd say that for me, the concept was at what I would consider to be the max acceptable size for a Camaro. Slightly smaller, (like an SN95 Mustang), would have been better.

But of course, the production version will be going in the opposite direction.

wildpaws

I don't know what reference you may have posted, but I'll share my "real world" experience with you from that era. Compact is what my Corvair was that I traded in on my new 67 Camaro RS. Compact was a Volkswagen "Beetle", a Renault Dauphine, etc., if you get my drift. And MGBs, Austin-Healy Sprites, Sunbeam Alpines were all far smaller than the 1st gen Camaros, I don't think anyone considered them "compacts" but thought of them as sports cars (which they were). I certainly never thought of my 67 or 69 Camaros as "compacts" and I don't think many other people did either back then, in spite of how anyone may have classified them. That's just my outlook from having lived and owned Camaros in the 60s, other's opinions may be completely different than mine.
Clyde

Dwarf Killer

I was insinuating, as others have pointed out, that the original car was considered a compact back in 1967. You have to remember that was in an age of 20' Chrysler Newports, Lincolns and Cadillacs. Large cars (and I mean LARGE) were the biggest sellers. The bigger the car the further up the social ladder you were. So, you can see how a 15' Camaro would have been seen as a compact. I can't believe they're going to sell a 15 1/2' Camaro in 2008 and think it will sell anywhere near 150,000. As I have pointed out, GM management didn't listen to the market. They put their stock in with another large car platform because they wanted an Impala, and I'm afraid anything over 14' will be a sales disaster.

Z28Wilson

Really? The complaints I heard about the 2000 Cobra R were along the lines of

-Can't be bought at any price (only 300 copies made).
-This expensive and I don't even get a radio?

Weight was never an issue AFAIK.

Bob Cosby

Yes - there were a lot of "internet" complaints, especially given that the car was already stripped from the factory.

As you said though, there were only 300 of them, and given the price they paid, I doubt the owners cared much (nor did they care about not having a radio).

Bob

jg95z28

It was a reference from a book on the early development of the Camaro. (If I can find it I'll post it again.) The point is, GM considered it a compact. In a sense the Camaro replaced the Corvair after "Unsafe at any Speed" made consumers fear the Corvair. Its a shame too, because it was way ahead of its time, and the later models corrected the suspension issues that made them unsafe. FWIW, the 66-67 Corvairs and 67-68 Camaros shared the same bucket seat frames.

Times have changed though. Place a modern Impala next to its late 60s counterpart and you'll see a huge difference in girth. However both are considered full-size sedans in their day. Meanwhile an early Camaro is much smaller than a late 60's Impala, yet a 4th gen Camaro seems bigger than the current Impala.

It's all realtive.