GM reportedly mentions Z28 and Camaro changes
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
High strength and ultra high strength steel will cause it to weigh more as they are denser. They won't lighten the structure necessarily although they will make it stronger. The Z06 saves weight over the base C6 by using more aluminum and magnesium. Yes it comes with a price (cost); but what I'm suggesting is GM do the same with Camaro Z28, just a little less extreme as to not put the price out of the ballpark.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Yes, a C5 / C6 is plastic and weighs about 200lbs less than a 4th gen (~3250 vs ~3450).
I'd like to point out that this is with the Corvette's extensive use of weight savers such as a balsa composite floor, aluminum / magnesium componentry, etc. versus the 4th gen's weight savings tech of... ummmm....
Furthermore, the Corvette is not a unibody car like the Camaro. Remember, it has a frame that provides much of the stiffness. A unibody or monocoque car (Camaro) depends on the body structure for its stiffness. Therefore the Corvette does not need as much support structure under its plastic skin like Camaro would.
Lastly, yes the 4th gen was somewhat larger but most of that is in the overhangs. Yes, I'm sure there were more stringent crash test regs (requiring airbags, etc.). However, one big difference between the two gens that will also account for a chunk of weight is again found in the actual construction of the two. Take a look under a 3rd gen. Look at the rocker panel area. Now do the same with a 4th gen. The 4th gen's are massive in comparison and consist mostly of folded steel. There's a good bit of weight in there.
I'd like to point out that this is with the Corvette's extensive use of weight savers such as a balsa composite floor, aluminum / magnesium componentry, etc. versus the 4th gen's weight savings tech of... ummmm....
Furthermore, the Corvette is not a unibody car like the Camaro. Remember, it has a frame that provides much of the stiffness. A unibody or monocoque car (Camaro) depends on the body structure for its stiffness. Therefore the Corvette does not need as much support structure under its plastic skin like Camaro would.
Lastly, yes the 4th gen was somewhat larger but most of that is in the overhangs. Yes, I'm sure there were more stringent crash test regs (requiring airbags, etc.). However, one big difference between the two gens that will also account for a chunk of weight is again found in the actual construction of the two. Take a look under a 3rd gen. Look at the rocker panel area. Now do the same with a 4th gen. The 4th gen's are massive in comparison and consist mostly of folded steel. There's a good bit of weight in there.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,154
From: All around
GM did a really good job with the 3rd gen, and to many it is still one of the best looking gens out there.
Originally Posted by thirdgen.org
The 1982 Chevrolet Camaro was Motor Trends Car of the Year. It was 500 lbs. lighter, all dimensions were reduced, and had a shorter wheel base than the previous Gen
Originally Posted by Z284ever
HSS and UHSS allow the use of thinner parts for the same strength as conventional steel, thereby reducing mass.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Go back and re-apply that theory with the 1st and 2nd gen in the mix, and things get muddled. For what it's worth, the 3rd gen did see some light-weight design practices that helped drop the curb weight from the heavy 2nd gen. GM did a really good job with the 3rd gen, and to many it is still one of the best looking gens out there.
The 6th gen could always surprise with reduced weight (though it was more like 400lb reduction from 81 z28 to 82 z28) over the 5th gen! They were fighting to improve handling, acceleration, braking, safety, mpg and frankly everything else that they deal with today.
And volume! Smaller A and B pillars means better visibility and more headroom going through the door aperture with a thinner roof. We want a car with more internal volume, yes?
GM did a really good job with the 3rd gen, and to many it is still one of the best looking gens out there.The 6th gen could always surprise with reduced weight (though it was more like 400lb reduction from 81 z28 to 82 z28) over the 5th gen! They were fighting to improve handling, acceleration, braking, safety, mpg and frankly everything else that they deal with today.
And volume! Smaller A and B pillars means better visibility and more headroom going through the door aperture with a thinner roof. We want a car with more internal volume, yes?
Things like foam filled UHSS can give us strong, safe, stylish A and B pillars that we can actually see out of.
I think the 6th gen's improvements in smaller size, reduced mass, improved chassis dynamics and steering will be just as dramatic as the 3rd gen's were from it's predecessor.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Lastly, yes the 4th gen was somewhat larger but most of that is in the overhangs *EDIT* I mean in length as well as width. For example, the rear fenders overhang the wheels a lot more in the 4th gen. This obviously makes the car wider but doesn't add a lot of weight** Yes, I'm sure there were more stringent crash test regs (requiring airbags, etc.). However, one big difference between the two gens that will also account for a chunk of weight is again found in the actual construction of the two. Take a look under a 3rd gen. Look at the rocker panel area. Now do the same with a 4th gen. The 4th gen's are massive in comparison and consist mostly of folded steel. There's a good bit of weight in there.
I know the 4th was heavier, but it seemed minimal to me. Comparing a '92 with the 350 to a '93, I thought the difference was less than 100 pounds.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 859
From: AR (PA born and fled)
Yes. In comparison to the 3rd gen, it stiffens the car in almost the same way that a set of SFCs would (fore to aft).
Ever own a 3rd gen? That chassis was quite flexible. Even with a new, later model car (more glue / goop), you could physically feel various bits (floor versus the door versus the A pillar for example) moving in different directions on a bumpy road. Sometimes you could even see it (the dash).
Ever own a 3rd gen? That chassis was quite flexible. Even with a new, later model car (more glue / goop), you could physically feel various bits (floor versus the door versus the A pillar for example) moving in different directions on a bumpy road. Sometimes you could even see it (the dash).
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,214
From: City of Champions, MA, USA
I think most of you forget that the thirdgens were piles of crap. Sure they were lighter than its predecessors but the build quality and design was disappointing to say the least. They may have looked great, but it stops there. The 4th gen was leaps and bounds beyond the thirdgen in terms of quality and feel.
I still cringe every time I close the doors to my 83. Just sounds like a big steel hollow mess and thats with new door hinges(the engineer who signed off on the top one should be shot in the streets). The cars were light because they were poorly built. A car with 16" x 8" rim is known for tearing out the part of the frame that the steering box mounts to? I'll take a "heavy" 4th gen or 5th gen any day over that stuff.
I still cringe every time I close the doors to my 83. Just sounds like a big steel hollow mess and thats with new door hinges(the engineer who signed off on the top one should be shot in the streets). The cars were light because they were poorly built. A car with 16" x 8" rim is known for tearing out the part of the frame that the steering box mounts to? I'll take a "heavy" 4th gen or 5th gen any day over that stuff.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
I think most of you forget that the thirdgens were piles of crap. Sure they were lighter than its predecessors but the build quality and design was disappointing to say the least. They may have looked great, but it stops there. The 4th gen was leaps and bounds beyond the thirdgen in terms of quality and feel.
I still cringe every time I close the doors to my 83. Just sounds like a big steel hollow mess and thats with new door hinges(the engineer who signed off on the top one should be shot in the streets). The cars were light because they were poorly built. A car with 16" x 8" rim is known for tearing out the part of the frame that the steering box mounts to? I'll take a "heavy" 4th gen or 5th gen any day over that stuff.
I still cringe every time I close the doors to my 83. Just sounds like a big steel hollow mess and thats with new door hinges(the engineer who signed off on the top one should be shot in the streets). The cars were light because they were poorly built. A car with 16" x 8" rim is known for tearing out the part of the frame that the steering box mounts to? I'll take a "heavy" 4th gen or 5th gen any day over that stuff.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Yes. In comparison to the 3rd gen, it stiffens the car in almost the same way that a set of SFCs would (fore to aft).
Ever own a 3rd gen? That chassis was quite flexible. Even with a new, later model car (more glue / goop), you could physically feel various bits (floor versus the door versus the A pillar for example) moving in different directions on a bumpy road. Sometimes you could even see it (the dash).
Ever own a 3rd gen? That chassis was quite flexible. Even with a new, later model car (more glue / goop), you could physically feel various bits (floor versus the door versus the A pillar for example) moving in different directions on a bumpy road. Sometimes you could even see it (the dash).
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 859
From: AR (PA born and fled)
Me too. I distinctly remember driving my bought-new '91 to the dealer when my '96 arrived (ordered it). I got out of the old car, signed the various papers, got into the new one, and drove off.
I probably wasn't 1/4 mile down the road when I thought...
1) Wow, compared to my old car this thing feels like a tank.
2) Wow, this thing has none of those squeaks / rattles / jiggles.
3) Wow, this thing makes me feel like an F-16 pilot.
Yes, I ordered and bought a new 4th gen without ever having test driven one. *shrug* What can I say... I was 24.
I probably wasn't 1/4 mile down the road when I thought...
1) Wow, compared to my old car this thing feels like a tank.
2) Wow, this thing has none of those squeaks / rattles / jiggles.
3) Wow, this thing makes me feel like an F-16 pilot.
Yes, I ordered and bought a new 4th gen without ever having test driven one. *shrug* What can I say... I was 24.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 214
From: Toronto,Canada
My 94 Z28 was a beauty. Tight , rattle free and virtually no problems in the old LT1. composite panels in door and fender were neat too. My 3rd gen (85 Z28) was also a good car but felt poorly built. The jump from 4th to fifth even though the weight weenies keep screaming is akin to jumping 3rd to 4th gen and more. The biggest move is chassis engineering. The car just feels planted. These will be long lasting tight cars ..there is no doubt...they will be sweet used cars for some folks down the road.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
How many miles did you put on it? Did it see many rough roads?
Every 4th gen starts out rattle free, but the only ones that stay that way for long are the ones that don't get driven or that have aftermarket stiffening modifications (namely, subframe connectors).
Every 4th gen starts out rattle free, but the only ones that stay that way for long are the ones that don't get driven or that have aftermarket stiffening modifications (namely, subframe connectors).
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Yep, the 3rd gens rattled - even when new. And sometimes they were assembled in ways which would even make the most hamfisted UAW'er blush (which car wasn't back then?). But holy smokes, did people love them!
They looked fantastic, handled like no American car ever did before them, were a blast to drive, easy to live with and sold like a ****. Not bad, if you ask me.
The improvements from the '81's to the '82's could not have been more dramatic. And everyone knew it - whether you were a high school cheerleader or the Editor-in-Chief of a car magazine.
I expect the same level of improvements going from 5th gen to 6th gen.
Last edited by Z284ever; Jun 21, 2010 at 05:34 PM.