recommended is not the same as required. and Im on the message board for the G8's too. the average G8 is usually trapping 102's. I too think the SS should be a good 4-5mph faster.

 

Wow, there are a lot more people upset at the new Camaro than I thought there would be.

The weight is pretty rediculus. I just don't see why anyone would buy this car over a used Corvette, unless they absolutely had to have a back seat.

 

Is that with 87, 91, or 93 octane (unfortunately not available to us in CA)?

I know that 87 is okay and is not supposed to damage the engine, but the open question is whether the 361hp rating is with 87 or 91. Or for that matter whether the L99's 400 rating will be with 91. From that I've seen, I think both are at 91, but I welcome any info, whether rumor or speculation or hard fact.

 

Agreed. The car looks great, but from a $$$ for performance stand point.. Oh my... I do not see this car selling any where near what they need it to after the novelty wears off.

Can someone explain to me why cars in the 80's weighed hundreds less with heavier less exotic parts? How is this acceptable? It gets crap mileage cause its heavy, going to break parts easier when raced cause its heavy, going to need regular maintenance sooner and on a more regular basis cause its heavy. This is NOT a practical car for this day and age even for the non performance oriented customer...

 

Nah the weight is not important, performance cars are supposed to be heavy.

 

Because weight is not that big of a deal to the huge majority of folks. Remember, this board represents a very small portion of the buying public and the vast majority up here are not going letting weight affect their decision to
buy the car. Believe it or not, it's not about racing.

 

Is this a serious question? Its been discussed and illuminated upon ad-nausem.

Although welcome to the F-body version of the great Mustang IRS vs. SRA debate, now 4 years in the (edit)running(edit).

Laughably the great Camaro light vs. heavy debate is a guarantied way to derail any thread for the rest of eternity, no matter the thread content.

 

The vast majority of people that will buy the car only care about how it looks, what gadgets it has, and what it costs. The vast majority on this board that will be buying it are pretty much the same way - so long as it says "Camaro" on its side.

Ooooo Raahhh for those that feel that way - I'm happy for ya.

Bob

 

Given racers aren't usually hindered by cost to achieve their time slip objectives, what's to stop them from spending the coin to go faster, as you do... NOTHING!

We all know once you go racing then claiming the car set that time in 'stock trim' is really unproven and taken at face value. For others who want to go faster... usually do! You pay to play.

 

I think the big rotors will fit in the 18's if not in the 17's well enough. Too much rubber to look right is definitely correct, however....There's a huge handling difference between a 2" reinforced sidewall and a 5" sidewall on a touring tire.

I changed my stock 16's on my Monte last year with 18's (nothing overkill) and went from 225/60/16 to 245/45/18.
Night and day. Of course too much in a street car and it rides like a tank, which is why I wouldn't go for the optional 21".

 

It's been gone over. Short version:

Flimsy construction due to easier crash test standards, lack of market expectation of stiff bodies, much less powerful engines, etc. Generally less equipment. Economy cars have had the largest percentage gain. My 1986 Honda Civic Si had a brochure weight of 2053 pounds. Of course, that was with no A/C, no radio, crank windows, manual locks, no airbags, etc.

The 2008 Civic Si is a bit over 2900. It's a larger car, it has power windows, locks, A/C, ABS, airbags, stiffer unit body, double the horsepower, etc., to account for the 40% weight gain. If the Camaro had gained as much weight percentage-wise, it'd weigh about 4600 pounds.

 

Speaking for myself and not for others, I care about more than what it says on the side or how it looks or what gadgets it has or what the list price is.

 

After reading countless posts and searching several threads about weight and Camaro weight speculation, from the past 6 months I have noticed the same people who are hurt about the Camaros weight said things a few months ago about the GT 500 and challangers weight like "500 hp and 12.5 is the best ford can do" or "4200 lbs and 425hp and only low 13's, LOL the camaro is going to kill em" most beleived that the camaro was going to have 430hp, weight 3300 lbs run 12.2 in the 1/4 stock and cost the same as a Mustang GT.. and fought tooth an nail that this was fact. They even posted quotes from Lutz, saying "the camaro is going on Jenny Craig" as there proof. (now feel they have been kicked in the gut because they were wrong)

My question is when was the last time the base v8 Camaro had a IRS and road suspension, Brembo brakes and a slew of modern options?? never... I think these nay sayers do not know how much the IRS weights, or what it takes to make a car handle great and perform well and still be affordable for the average joe. So you guys say this is not the car for you!! Great, I will get mine alot sooner then... Thanks...

 

The Camaro did not have KD tires -- it had Eagle F-1s - the idea was to take stock cars -- -both Corvette with Z51 and Camaro SS/1LE --

Sorry if you don't believe me -- but I was there on more than one occasion........

 

........and what makes you think that we wouldn't do something like this on a Z28?

Remember -- there's a long delta in price between a Corvette Coupe and a
Z06.......the fact remains that the base Camaro has to be affordable......