Well, that's my name.

First, an IRS won't add 100 pounds. We've had this convo afew times before. But I get my info on this from a very in depth conversation with a big three engineer whose job it is to package such things - so in that respect, there is nothing hypothetical about that point. I consider it fact. The weight difference between a well designed IRS and live axle suspension is 25-50 pounds.

And yes I would take as little as a 25 pound weight hit for the superior dynamics of a good IRS.

But I'm willing to give up lots of things to save weight.....

I'd give up ornamental console gauges in a heartbeat.
I'd give up heavy and complex power seat motors for well designed manual seat adjusters.
I'd give up lots of fluff which doesn't fall under the category "honest car" - especially for a Camaro.
I'd give up a supercharger/intercooler/peripherals for a hot, responsive, NA smallblock to save weight.
But especially, I'd give up having my ponycar based off of a fullsized sedan architecture.

 

I'd like to add that I'm willing to give up price for weight savings. (short of Corvette - like pricing)

I'm more than willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay more for a lighter car.

 

That's still just an opinion. To me they are functional and quite honestly don't add a significant amount of weight to the equation.
I have to agree with you here. Unless GM can produce a power seat motor that can withstand the use and abuse of a daily driver, I'd much prefer a manual seat, provided I can also get a vertical adjustment.
+1
Not I. I'd rather have a factory warranty on my supercharger.
Don't forget the original Camaro (a ponycar) was based off of the Chevy II sedan architecture. Granted it was considered a midsized sedan in its day, however in today's world it would be considered "fullsized".

 

The question is how much will weight savings cost as an afterthought? That is to say when you are taking weight out of a vehicle on a platform that has already been designed and is unlikely to change that much?

How much would they have to charge, and what could they do to shed and extra 50, 75, 100, or 200 lbs from a Camaro? Are those last two numbers even possible?

 

Correct. The 1st generation Camaro was based on the Chevy II/Nova.

However, it is incorrect to say that the Chevy II/Nova was considered "mid size" in GMs lineup of cars. I'd say it was considered "compact" compared to the Chevelle (mid size) and Impala (full size). The only thing smaller/lighter than a Chevy II/Nova was a Corvair. On top of that, the Camaro was very similar in weight to the Corvette.

 

Actually the Camaro was much lighter.

The 1967 Corvette weighed 3360lbs. The 1967 Camaro base V8 weighed 3070lbs. (The base L6 weighed less at 2910lbs.)

 

Oh, no way! You must be lying! How in the world did GM manage to make the Camaro lighter AND cheaper than the Corvette?!?! It just isn't possible.

 

I know you're kidding, but to answer the question for others that may be less informed... its simple engineering. The Corvette's fiberglass body sat on a full frame, while the Camaro was lighter because of unibody construction.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Corvette still sits on a full frame, but ironically is now much lighter than the Camaro.....hmmm

 

1. Can you convince the market to pay for a hydroformed steel frame in the Camaro?

2. Do you know how much the new Camaro is going to weigh?

 

If they'll do it for a pickup truck, uh-huh.

 

I just did a bit of reading and discovered that hydroforming is actually less expensive than traditional manufacturing methods.

 

Interesting, I didn't know that.....just figured the technology was being used on pickup trucks, which are high volume, so it would work on a Camaro.
Also, I don't know what a new Camaro is going to weigh; I'm just speculating like everyone else. I can say this: it will weigh between a Corvette (3200?) and a G8 (4000?), and my gut says it's going to weigh closer to a G8. I really hope I'm wrong, because it needs to weigh closer to a Corvette. The slogan back in the day used to be "Camaro. The closest thing to a 'Vette yet." If GM is going to bring this machine back, they need to do it right or not at all.

 

I'd be ecstatic if it were halfway between a Corvette and a G8.

 

Hmm. Was that 25-50 number based on a $30K 425hp RWD car? I'm thinking that low cost and high hp/tq both increase the weight differential for IRS.


But not 50?

Do power seat motors really add that much weight? I've read that power windows these days are lighter than the crank, because electric motors are so light these days.

Still, I agree that well designed manual adjusters would be fine (I want more than just fore and aft!).

As far as the architecture goes, did GM have another choice? At least for hitting the price point at this already-delayed date? I mean, I guess they could have greenlighted Alpha earlier, but that would have delayed at least a couple of years, and in the early days, Alpha was touted as I-4 only, though now the rumors are that there will be V6s too. I've still never heard about V8s for the Alpha.

I think something the size of a 135i (with an enlarged engine bay for a V8) would have been ideal -- say 177" length, 107" wheelbase. It still likely would have weighed 3500 pounds with all the goodies, and maybe 3350 (just guessing here) for the stripper lightweight model.

I guess that's what you're pushing for F6. Keep up the fight!