If the Camaro is such poop at the track....
Admin Emeritus
Joined: Dec 1997
Posts: 11,157
From: Nashville, TN area
I think this was talked about before, but I cannot remember where...
Why so much? I am using a Magnacharger for reference. My Magnacharger is around 100 - 125 lbs. with everything. The SC unit/fuel rails/injectors/intercooler/intake manifold by itself is 72.5 lbs when I weighed it on a shipping scale. What else is doubling its weight?
Why so much? I am using a Magnacharger for reference. My Magnacharger is around 100 - 125 lbs. with everything. The SC unit/fuel rails/injectors/intercooler/intake manifold by itself is 72.5 lbs when I weighed it on a shipping scale. What else is doubling its weight?
Last edited by JasonD; Jan 5, 2010 at 03:25 PM. Reason: Forgot to add "intercooler"
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
I think this was talked about before, but I cannot remember where...
Why so much? I am using a Magnacharger for reference. My Magnacharger is around 100 - 125 lbs. with everything. The SC unit/fuel rails/injector/intake manifold by itseld is 72.5 lbs when I weighed it on a shipping scale. What else is doubling its weight?
Why so much? I am using a Magnacharger for reference. My Magnacharger is around 100 - 125 lbs. with everything. The SC unit/fuel rails/injector/intake manifold by itseld is 72.5 lbs when I weighed it on a shipping scale. What else is doubling its weight?
Intercooler and plumbing maybe? I'm only guessing on the breakdown. The package itself probably has added mass in addition to the motor I'd think.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Couldn't resist this:
About once per month
From 120? A few times per year (especially when the detector goes off).
From 55-60? That's childs play from anyone who drives on a California Freeway.
Sounds a lot like the Pacific Coast Highway south of Monterey, or even the short run between San Fran and Santa Cruz.
40-140? Never.
25-65? Which day?
I'll admit, I'm probably far more into handling than most here. I'd even trade off some horses if nother car had hands down handling.
Point is that different people want and demand different things in their cars... even enthusiasts.
It's completely unrealistic to expect ANY car to do everything exceptionally well at an affordable price.
Camaro is all about going going fast and looking good. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and GM shouldn't kill a winning formula simply because of my (or anyone else here's) whims.
Mustangs are about performance balence. They can do everything surprisingly well, but they are (forgive the pun) "workhorses". They are easy to drive daily, they attract attention but they aren't "rock stars". They have nice interiors and comfortable seats. They're also game if you want to carve up a track, do an impromptu Freeway Grand Prix, or simply want a Whopper at the local BK.
Challenger is an old style muscle car. The type of car you load up with a few friends, and cruise around Santa Monica at night with the windows down, the stereo up, and the attention of just about everyone you pass. It has enough power to light up the tires and to perform exactly how it looks like it will by handing most everything that seats 5 their heads, and quite a few 4 seaters as well.
Before this golden age of automobiles, we had to rely on a single car to do it all. Today, like the late 1960s, there's a car for every purpose.
Who'd have thought!
Doug brings up very good points.
We gotta be honest about Camaro. Not just the points we like and love, but the points where Camaro DOES need improvement.
Camaro DOES needs better front tires.
Camaro's interior materials DOES rank up there with 90s era Hyundais.
Camaro DOES need a better steering system with that's more precise and gives better feedback.
No one, and I mean NOBODY is criticizing Camaro's looks and power. And our newby is correct in saying that few people use their cars on a track. However, it's all about getting the best car for the money. If a Mustang can carve up a track at a certain price, a Camaro costing more should carve up a track as well.
Again, Camaro isn't a slob on a track. Personally, save the miniscule rear seat space, I think the Camaro is more new GTO than pony car. But it's in that market where people who do buy an SS often do read magazine and newspaper opinions on these cars.
My New Years resolution. 
How many times must you brake from 120 + on the street?
From 55 - 65?
From 55 - 65?
From 55-60? That's childs play from anyone who drives on a California Freeway.
Autocross values transitional ability, you know, like when a dog runs out in front of you or when someone darts out of a side street or suddenly changes lanes with no warning.
How many times do you have significant time to set up for these occurrences as you would on a road course?
How many times do you have significant time to set up for these occurrences as you would on a road course?
How many times per day do you accelerate from ~40 mph to 140 when exiting a corner?
25 mph to 65 mph?
25 mph to 65 mph?
25-65? Which day?
I could go on but you get the idea.
Point is that different people want and demand different things in their cars... even enthusiasts.
It's completely unrealistic to expect ANY car to do everything exceptionally well at an affordable price.
Camaro is all about going going fast and looking good. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and GM shouldn't kill a winning formula simply because of my (or anyone else here's) whims.
Mustangs are about performance balence. They can do everything surprisingly well, but they are (forgive the pun) "workhorses". They are easy to drive daily, they attract attention but they aren't "rock stars". They have nice interiors and comfortable seats. They're also game if you want to carve up a track, do an impromptu Freeway Grand Prix, or simply want a Whopper at the local BK.
Challenger is an old style muscle car. The type of car you load up with a few friends, and cruise around Santa Monica at night with the windows down, the stereo up, and the attention of just about everyone you pass. It has enough power to light up the tires and to perform exactly how it looks like it will by handing most everything that seats 5 their heads, and quite a few 4 seaters as well.
Before this golden age of automobiles, we had to rely on a single car to do it all. Today, like the late 1960s, there's a car for every purpose.
Who'd have thought!
I guess I don't understand the cheerleaders....would you be upset if GM 'fixed' the Camaros 'handling?!?!
Do you honestly think it's as good as it can be?? Is 'good enough' really OK with you?? Is a cross between a Camaro and a Monte Carlo really what we wanted??
We don't "hate" the Camaro, just the opposite, we want it to be the BEST in it's segment...don't you?
Do you honestly think it's as good as it can be?? Is 'good enough' really OK with you?? Is a cross between a Camaro and a Monte Carlo really what we wanted??
We don't "hate" the Camaro, just the opposite, we want it to be the BEST in it's segment...don't you?
We gotta be honest about Camaro. Not just the points we like and love, but the points where Camaro DOES need improvement.
Camaro DOES needs better front tires.
Camaro's interior materials DOES rank up there with 90s era Hyundais.
Camaro DOES need a better steering system with that's more precise and gives better feedback.
No one, and I mean NOBODY is criticizing Camaro's looks and power. And our newby is correct in saying that few people use their cars on a track. However, it's all about getting the best car for the money. If a Mustang can carve up a track at a certain price, a Camaro costing more should carve up a track as well.
Again, Camaro isn't a slob on a track. Personally, save the miniscule rear seat space, I think the Camaro is more new GTO than pony car. But it's in that market where people who do buy an SS often do read magazine and newspaper opinions on these cars.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
I think this was talked about before, but I cannot remember where...
Why so much? I am using a Magnacharger for reference. My Magnacharger is around 100 - 125 lbs. with everything. The SC unit/fuel rails/injector/intake manifold by itseld is 72.5 lbs when I weighed it on a shipping scale. What else is doubling its weight?
Why so much? I am using a Magnacharger for reference. My Magnacharger is around 100 - 125 lbs. with everything. The SC unit/fuel rails/injector/intake manifold by itseld is 72.5 lbs when I weighed it on a shipping scale. What else is doubling its weight?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Grossly embellished. I too, have read many articles on this car and haven't read anywhere that the Camaro handles poorly. Maybe it doesn't handle quite as well as the track pack optioned Mustang (which seems to be the only car in its class that does outhandle it) but it is no slouch by any stretch of the imagination. This whole idea that the car handles like a school bus because its not designed for parking lot racing is completely absurd. Of course its not. Neither is a 4th gen., a S197 Mustang, or any high horsepower V8 car for that matter. In that case its the person's flawed thinking that is the problem not the car's. Trying to use anything designed outside of its intended purpose is giving oneself a disadvantage from the start. The Camaro was designed for bigger tracks like VIR and the Nurburgring. Miatas and the like are for racing aroung parking lot cones.
**EDIT** Just reread some of the thread in the link supplied by the OP and the consensus is that the Mustang in said article is a track pack car. So the Camaro put 4 seconds per lap on the only car that you can actually compare it to and there are people who are still complaining about its handling? Surely you can't be comparing it to cars that cost tens of thousands more can you?
**EDIT** Just reread some of the thread in the link supplied by the OP and the consensus is that the Mustang in said article is a track pack car. So the Camaro put 4 seconds per lap on the only car that you can actually compare it to and there are people who are still complaining about its handling? Surely you can't be comparing it to cars that cost tens of thousands more can you?
).1. Track Pack Mustangs handle better than stock Mustangs. Camaro does very well next to these standard Mustangs (as it should... it costs over $4,000 more!).
2. Car and Driver discovered in the latest Lightning Lap how important the Pirelli P-Zeros are to the package. The test car arrived with the wrong tires. While they were waiting, they threw the Mustang GT around the track with the tires it came with. Night and day difference when they finally got the right tires on. 2 seconds off the track, no more float or wobble. The tires seem to make the car.
Again, the notion that Camaro handles like trash, poop, or anything else that bad is pure nonsense. It does well. Very well.
That said... it's very clear that bigger front tires and a new steering system would likely change the Camaro SS into a far better competitor.
If you want to talk about handling, lets talk about the Challenger.
The Dodge Challenger R/T has gotten alot of handling flack due to it's electronics and (like Camaro) it's tires. While GM at least sprang for Pirellis, Chrysler went for cheap, skinny, and slippery (slippery on dry pavement... good grip on wet roads and snow!) Goodyear RS-As. Find a way to disable the Stability control and put on a decent set of tires, and the R/T does far better. But seriously, you aren't buying a Challenger to Autocross any more than you'd buy CTSv... but that doesn't make it a bad car. Not by a long shot.
Same goes for a Camaro.
The relatively tiny blower unit on my SC probally weighed 30 pounds alone. Water filled intercooler probally weighs that much. Then top top it off, the blower on the LSa (like the Cobra) is much bigger than the one in my SC was.
100 pound increase just from the system alone is likley in the ballpark. Maybe even a shave optimistic.
(BTW: the IC sits below the SC unit.
).
Last edited by guionM; Jan 5, 2010 at 02:01 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 694
From: Brighton, IL
The biggest flaw, though, is persistent understeer. "It wants to push just about everywhere," Donohue says. "I even tried pitching it on the way into the corners to wag the rear end out, but that just caused the front end to wash out worse--and earlier. So it's not nimble. .......
Next, the drivers swap cars. When this session is over, Donohue is the guy wearing the big smile. "Just driving down pit lane, the Mustang seemed much lighter," he says. "The low-speed grip is so much better, and you can toss it into the corner sideways." Jones, on the other hand, looks worn out by the Camaro. "It's a pig," he says bluntly. "The brakes are much better, but it just won't turn. The Mustang is a lot more fun to drive."
Next, the drivers swap cars. When this session is over, Donohue is the guy wearing the big smile. "Just driving down pit lane, the Mustang seemed much lighter," he says. "The low-speed grip is so much better, and you can toss it into the corner sideways." Jones, on the other hand, looks worn out by the Camaro. "It's a pig," he says bluntly. "The brakes are much better, but it just won't turn. The Mustang is a lot more fun to drive."
It's only the car's first year. It took the Mustang 5 to come up with theirs.
So in the real world, we are left to use it's HP advantage to mask it's sub-par handling?
Bottom line is this....I don't understand why, with knowing how they tested it and WHO tested it, the car arrived with a severe push...something slight adjustments might have cured....tell me why they built-in or left-in so much understeer?
Bottom line is this....I don't understand why, with knowing how they tested it and WHO tested it, the car arrived with a severe push...something slight adjustments might have cured....tell me why they built-in or left-in so much understeer?
Source for your info. My personal experience with twin screw superchargers states otherwise. A whole system (blower, intercooler, heat exchanger, pump, etc.) adds barely over 100 lbs to the system. 250 lbs is a gross exaggeration.
Admin Emeritus
Joined: Dec 1997
Posts: 11,157
From: Nashville, TN area
Again, I am going by my Magancharger...and that 72.5lbs weight I mentioned also included the intercooler, which is right under the blower and top of the intake manifold. I forgot to mention intercooler in my previous post, which I now edited. There really isn't any piping...just some hoses and such which I included in the 125lb. number.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 859
From: AR (PA born and fled)
Here is another professional driver's (multi time champion Randy Pobst) opinion....
2009 Motor Trend Best Driver's Car
"It's a beautiful car to look at but to drive it? Understeer -- frustrating understeer," declares Pobst. "It's almost like before stability control when they'd make cars understeer a lot just so they'd be safe. As a driver, I find that frustrating. When I got done with my hot laps, I didn't want to drive it anymore." This can't be good news for the Camaro, but according to Pobst, there is hope. "Potential is what I see here. I just think they've been too conservative at Chevrolet with the handling setup. It's capable of being a better-balanced car and still being very safe and easy to drive." Any other thoughts? "It's also the only car where I found myself really moving around in the driver's seat. I could tell immediately the bolsters were really soft; they didn't hold me in place at all."
"It's not well balanced the way the Mustang is. In the Mustang, I wanted to keep going, just clicking off the laps because it was such an enjoyable and rewarding car to drive -- a driver's car. The Camaro isn't yet. I think it could be with probably some pretty easy tuning."
"It's not well balanced the way the Mustang is. In the Mustang, I wanted to keep going, just clicking off the laps because it was such an enjoyable and rewarding car to drive -- a driver's car. The Camaro isn't yet. I think it could be with probably some pretty easy tuning."
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Well, to clarify...
Again, I am going by my Magancharger...and that 72.5lbs weight I mentioned also included the intercooler, which is right under the blower and top of the intake manifold. I forgot to mention intercooler in my previous post, which I now edited. There really isn't any piping...just some hoses and such which I included in the 125lb. number.
Again, I am going by my Magancharger...and that 72.5lbs weight I mentioned also included the intercooler, which is right under the blower and top of the intake manifold. I forgot to mention intercooler in my previous post, which I now edited. There really isn't any piping...just some hoses and such which I included in the 125lb. number.
This whole "speculation" of the LSA being 250 lbs more than the LS3 doesn't fly. I'm not saying that's not what Charlie was told; I'm saying I don't buy it and will believe it when I see it.
The relatively tiny blower unit on my SC probally weighed 30 pounds alone. Water filled intercooler probally weighs that much. Then top top it off, the blower on the LSa (like the Cobra) is much bigger than the one in my SC was.
100 pound increase just from the system alone is likley in the ballpark. Maybe even a shave optimistic.
(BTW: the IC sits below the SC unit. ).
100 pound increase just from the system alone is likley in the ballpark. Maybe even a shave optimistic.
(BTW: the IC sits below the SC unit.
).)I forgot the IC was below the SC on the Magnacharger. I was thinking of the reverse on a similar system.
Last edited by jg95z28; Jan 5, 2010 at 03:39 PM.
Prominent Member
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
Just checked the CTS website...
3.6L DI V6 Performance AWD CTS Sedan weighs 3,861# (didn't realize all V6's were AWD)
6.2L SC V8 RWD CTS-V Sedan weighs 4,222#
A 361# difference even w/o the AWD stuff and with all the stuff they add onto the V series...which I'd guess a good lot will get added to the Z/28 too...
3.6L DI V6 Performance AWD CTS Sedan weighs 3,861# (didn't realize all V6's were AWD)
6.2L SC V8 RWD CTS-V Sedan weighs 4,222#
A 361# difference even w/o the AWD stuff and with all the stuff they add onto the V series...which I'd guess a good lot will get added to the Z/28 too...
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Just checked the CTS website...
3.6L DI V6 Performance AWD CTS Sedan weighs 3,861# (didn't realize all V6's were AWD)
6.2L SC V8 RWD CTS-V Sedan weighs 4,222#
A 361# difference even w/o the AWD stuff and with all the stuff they add onto the V series...which I'd guess a good lot will get added to the Z/28 too...
3.6L DI V6 Performance AWD CTS Sedan weighs 3,861# (didn't realize all V6's were AWD)
6.2L SC V8 RWD CTS-V Sedan weighs 4,222#
A 361# difference even w/o the AWD stuff and with all the stuff they add onto the V series...which I'd guess a good lot will get added to the Z/28 too...
However comparing apples with apples, the weight difference between Camaro LT and Camaro SS is a hair under 125 lbs. Add Jason's weight difference for the Magnacharger and the difference between a V6 Camaro LT and a supercharged V8 Camaro SS is roughly 250 lbs.
Perhaps the person Charlie heard it from misheard it or misspoke and the LSA Camaro is 250 lbs more than the V6 Camaro... that I'd believe... although I would hope GM will try to lighten it some more if and when they put it in production.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Well, to clarify...
Again, I am going by my Magancharger...and that 72.5lbs weight I mentioned also included the intercooler, which is right under the blower and top of the intake manifold. I forgot to mention intercooler in my previous post, which I now edited. There really isn't any piping...just some hoses and such which I included in the 125lb. number.
Again, I am going by my Magancharger...and that 72.5lbs weight I mentioned also included the intercooler, which is right under the blower and top of the intake manifold. I forgot to mention intercooler in my previous post, which I now edited. There really isn't any piping...just some hoses and such which I included in the 125lb. number.
I'm gonna drop another bombshell on you guys - don't expect an "LSA Z/28" to handle much better than an SS.
I hope I'm wrong on that.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Just checked the CTS website...
3.6L DI V6 Performance AWD CTS Sedan weighs 3,861# (didn't realize all V6's were AWD)
6.2L SC V8 RWD CTS-V Sedan weighs 4,222#
A 361# difference even w/o the AWD stuff and with all the stuff they add onto the V series...which I'd guess a good lot will get added to the Z/28 too...
3.6L DI V6 Performance AWD CTS Sedan weighs 3,861# (didn't realize all V6's were AWD)
6.2L SC V8 RWD CTS-V Sedan weighs 4,222#
A 361# difference even w/o the AWD stuff and with all the stuff they add onto the V series...which I'd guess a good lot will get added to the Z/28 too...
The Jaguar XKR (500hp 5.0 S/C) weighs 4080 pounds, and it uses an aluminum unit body. The Camaro is actually doing pretty well if it comes in around the same weight in the Z/28 version.
