Lets get real about the weight of the Camaro
#61
Probably not. Toyota and maybe Subaru will be the first to introduce a small, cheap, RWD coupe. Rumor has it the car will have a 200hp or so flat 4. Supposedly no turbo, but it seems so obvious to have one that we'll just have to wait and see.
What do you think of the new Hyundai coupe? I think it'll be in the 35-3600 pound range with the V6.
What do you think of the new Hyundai coupe? I think it'll be in the 35-3600 pound range with the V6.
wasnt the 1st gen a sport compact/small car compared to others when it was released? i feel like the entire auto industry started making smaller cars while the camaro stayed the same size.
#62
Hmm, I guess I must be out of touch. I like the size of the Camaro, I have no desire for a Cobalt sized car. The Solstice coupe is a neat looking car, but not one I would have bought. But then again, I am not buying a $35K+ car to make into a track/strip car.
#63
I firmly believe that the vehicle is as light as they could possibly make it given what they were working with, and that it will be a fun car.
With that said, I hope next time they work with a compact chassis, not a full size sedan one.
With that said, I hope next time they work with a compact chassis, not a full size sedan one.
#64
I started this discussion and I am finished with it. Lots of complaining and not much grasp on the engineering challanges faced by the manufactuers. My data shows that the Camaro is about what other cars weigh. I am looking forward to owning one and will enjoy it. In fact I may add some lead just to **** some of the guys on here off:-)
As stated here several times the proof is in the final product. The folks at GM are convinced that the Camaro will out perform all competitors and I assume they would not say this unless they can back it up. What more can you ask for?
As stated here several times the proof is in the final product. The folks at GM are convinced that the Camaro will out perform all competitors and I assume they would not say this unless they can back it up. What more can you ask for?
Last edited by Pruettfan; 08-07-2008 at 12:04 AM.
#66
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fairfax Station, VA. Formally Long Island :(
Posts: 1,398
Exactly. I like the Mustang and surely have nothing against it but the days of the solid axle are over in my opinion (unless you drag race it often). I want a comfortable, yet stiff ride. I don't want the whole car to feel every bump that the rear tires hit because of the live axle. My F-body is a blast to drive but having the *** wobble like that is not fun. My GTO is so much more enjoyable to daily drive because of the IRS and smooth ride.
So just the fact that the new Camaro has an IRS setup is going to add some weight but I think it is worth it for the improved ride and handling and make it a more comfortable daily driver and a very capable drag racer.
So just the fact that the new Camaro has an IRS setup is going to add some weight but I think it is worth it for the improved ride and handling and make it a more comfortable daily driver and a very capable drag racer.
#67
I'm not saying "this change or that change" would have saved weight. I'm specifically saying that the decisions to 1) rush Solstice/Sky to market with a non-reconfigurable platform and then 2) to use use a hulking 4100 lb. sedan platform were not good decisions for the Camaro.
I bet my insight and foresight were better than GM's in this case, but we shall see...
I bet my insight and foresight were better than GM's in this case, but we shall see...
So this part is like armchair quarterbacking. Which is fine. But it's not the same as being inside the huddle.
#68
Hypothetical question to you and Dan.
If GM had spent the billion or three for a platform that was an inch or two narrower and 10 inches shorter (i.e. roughly C-G35 sized), and had built a Camaro on it that was 3750 instead of 3860 pounds, would you still be complaining?
'Cause I look at the C63, which has a monster 450/450 engine, is exactly the size you're asking for, and tests out at around 3900 pounds. I look at the G37 with its 330/270 and most of them test out at 3700+ (R&T's was 3750).
You and Dan seem to be awfully confident that there's an easy 300-400 to lose by anteing up for an Alpha. Under interrogation though, it seems pretty clear that it's pretty much just guessing or hopeful optimism.
I could easily see GM spending another billion five and you two are still complaining.
If GM had spent the billion or three for a platform that was an inch or two narrower and 10 inches shorter (i.e. roughly C-G35 sized), and had built a Camaro on it that was 3750 instead of 3860 pounds, would you still be complaining?
'Cause I look at the C63, which has a monster 450/450 engine, is exactly the size you're asking for, and tests out at around 3900 pounds. I look at the G37 with its 330/270 and most of them test out at 3700+ (R&T's was 3750).
You and Dan seem to be awfully confident that there's an easy 300-400 to lose by anteing up for an Alpha. Under interrogation though, it seems pretty clear that it's pretty much just guessing or hopeful optimism.
I could easily see GM spending another billion five and you two are still complaining.
#69
Yes. But less.
#71
For a while I had both a 4th gen Z28 and a 1st-gen 240SX. My ideal Camaro would basically be a wider (but NO taller and little if any longer!) 240SX with an LS engine, and Camaro styling.
#72
My data shows that the Camaro is about what other cars weigh.
As stated here several times the proof is in the final product. The folks at GM are convinced that the Camaro will out perform all competitors and I assume they would not say this unless they can back it up. What more can you ask for?
#73
But even if you were saying this 5 years ago
the other issue is that none of us really have the insight to debate whether the Solstice/Sky decision to use a backbone frame instead of a unibody was good. I mean, we can look at the Miata and say the unibody is lighter, but we don't have good data on how much cost or time it would have taken to do the Solstice/Sky as a unibody.
#74
As for length and width, I'm more concerned about HEIGHT! Length in particular doesn't really tell the story of SIZE. You could just about park a 4th gen under the outside envelope of an '05+ Mustang. The Mustang is a BIGGER car, but it is shorter lengthwise.
'Cause I look at the C63, which has a monster 450/450 engine, is exactly the size you're asking for, and tests out at around 3900 pounds. I look at the G37 with its 330/270 and most of them test out at 3700+ (R&T's was 3750).
You and Dan seem to be awfully confident that there's an easy 300-400 to lose by anteing up for an Alpha. Under interrogation though, it seems pretty clear that it's pretty much just guessing or hopeful optimism.
I could easily see GM spending another billion five and you two are still complaining.
Last edited by Dan Baldwin; 08-07-2008 at 06:35 AM.
#75
I'm not saying "this change or that change" would have saved weight. I'm specifically saying that the decisions to 1) rush Solstice/Sky to market with a non-reconfigurable platform and then 2) to use use a hulking 4100 lb. sedan platform were not good decisions for the Camaro.
I bet my insight and foresight were better than GM's in this case, but we shall see... I don't wish the car to do poorly in the market, indeed I'd like to be able to look forward to a smaller and lighter-weight 6th-gen. But I believe the 5th-gen will do poorly The opportunity was there to do something DIFFERENT from Ford or Chrysler and to be READY for higher gas prices and increasing CAFE. Camaro *could* have been on the GOOD side of these trends. Opportunity lost...
I bet my insight and foresight were better than GM's in this case, but we shall see... I don't wish the car to do poorly in the market, indeed I'd like to be able to look forward to a smaller and lighter-weight 6th-gen. But I believe the 5th-gen will do poorly The opportunity was there to do something DIFFERENT from Ford or Chrysler and to be READY for higher gas prices and increasing CAFE. Camaro *could* have been on the GOOD side of these trends. Opportunity lost...
This is purely a statement of personal opinion. I think that all of this arguing isn't solely about the weight of the car. To me its seems more like a few egos were hurt because GM didn't build the car that they personally wanted. The fact is the car you guys describe isn't and has never been the Camaro.
Last edited by 95firehawk; 08-07-2008 at 07:30 AM.