I understand his post-"Deminishing returns". My point was maybe the 50 HP isn't that much faster once you add the 450 lbs to the HP. However, perhaps more HP goes to the ground due to the AWD and less tire spin????

 

I think you're overthinking the point.

Try another example.

The 2003 Ford Mustang Cobra versus the 2007 Shelby GT500 Mustang.

Both had a modular V8 topped off with a supercharger and enough reinforced parts to handle their respective power output.

The Cobra had something like 420 horsepower (forget that fantasy 390 hp "official" rating). It also had over 400 lbs/ft of torque (also over the "official" 390 rating). The Cobra weighed 3665 according to their website. The Cobra ran in the upper 4 second range to 60 mph and the quarter around 13 at around 110.

The new GT500 is putting out over 500 horsepower and just under 500 lbs/ft torque (500 & 480 advertized) and weighs 3920 (a gain of roughly 100 horsepower, about 90 lbs/ft of torque, and 255 pounds in weight over the Cobra).

As a solid 4.5 second to 60 and upper 12s at just over 112 mph, it gains only a sliver over the Cobra. However, because of a 25% gain in power, everything from the drivetrain to the body structure has to be at least 25% stronger to keep the same safety and durability margins. That means far straonger (and heavier) engine block & internals, clutch & transmission, driveshaft, rear end, and body structure.

That also dictates heavier brakes and rotors just to keep the same braking ability and dependability (let alone what's needed to improve it over the Cobra). The cooling system needs to be increased because with more horsepower comes more heat. That means a bigger radiator holding more fluid and a bigger water pump... all adding weight over the Cobra.

In the end, you've just added 100 horsepower, but you've also needed to add another 250 pounds just to deal with it, and in the end you've just shaved off a mere couple of tenths off of acceleration numbers.


Now to really throw things off.

The 2003 Mustang Mach 1 had just 305 advertized horsepower and 320 lbs/ft of torque. It also weighed just 3465.

Yet the car ran as fas as a 400 horse Cobra and within .5 seconds of the 500 horse GT500 to 60 mph. It typically runs the quarter just over 13 seconds which puts it on par with the Cobra and essentially on the GT500's tail in the quarter.... despite a 40% horsepower disadvantage! This is what I mean about this horsepower race. There really is no additional need for it.

More horsepower was fine in the days when we were driving underpowered cars. I also know that to a true gearhead, there is no such thing as too much horsepower. But we're at a point where more horsepower means more weight. Also, horsepower numbers are so astronomical today that we're soon going to need increases of 150 to 200 horsepower before we actually notice any difference in speed.

People base quick acceration by how a vehicle feels. Plant someone in a 305 horse Mach 1 and a 500 horse GT500 and they aren't going to notice the difference in acceleration, even if they have a stopwatch. Between the Mach 1 and the Cobra, they might even feel the Mach 1 is quicker because of tuning of the rear IRS of the Cobra.

Less horsepower most certainly doesn't automatically mean less performance.

Unless we're talking Corvettes, Vipers, or other purpose built 2 passenger sports cars, because of what's needed to handle the additional power, additional horsepower over say 400-450hp simply doesn't make much sense anymore.

 

I know I'm nitpicking here, but the Mach 1 isn't as fast as same year Cobra. There is ~5 tenths and ~5-7 mph difference in 1/4 mile ET/Speed. Certainly the Mach is easier to get down the dragstrip.

 

As Bob stated, the Mach 1 was at least a potential half second slower than same year Cobra. People have run the Terminators in the mid 12s, absolutely stock. I have never heard of a stock Mach 1 break the 12 second barrier.


The GT500 needs the beefier materials not only because it makes more power, but because it is a heavier structure to begin with. Almost everything on the car has to work harder on it because of it's heft. A 500hp bolt on 03 Cobra is going to handle and brake just as well as the stock version. It doesn't need the GT500's big brakes and radiator, because it doesn't have to carry around as much weight. Super sized brakes/tires/etc find their way onto high performance variants of cars because people that don't know any better are automatically pulled to the gimmick, regardless of how much better they may actually make the car perform (or not).

 

Power seats
Heated seats
Leather seats
Navigation Stuff
Adjustable pedals/steering column (tilt is nice)
Side airbags
Power moonroof/sunroof
IRS
18"+ wheels (though I dislike them period, not just for the weight)
Boom Boom Stereo (the Ford Mach Series is HEAVY!)
Probably some other stuff that I can't think of at the moment.

A few things that I *would* keep....

Power windows/locks
T-tops, if available (my weakness)

 

The ONLY reason the MaCh would "feel faster" is because the Cobra's torque graph is completly flat vs. the MaCh's builds up some as the rpms rise.

 

Does leather really add any weight?

I like power seats and leather and the simple tilt steering in my 2002, but I'd give up the rest of it in a minute, especially the Onstar. I believe that 16" wheels are plenty large for any car.

Electric motors are pretty small these days, so I don't think a power driver's seat really adds much weight (maybe 5 pounds?). Of course, if it's an option....

 

You be the judge.

My brother's '99 Anniversary WS6 weighs almost exactly the same as my car despite having an engine at least 70 lbs lighter. The cars were weighed on the same scale at Englishtown within a minute of each other.

He has full power accessories. I don't. He has leather. I don't. I had big *** Global West SFCs and heavier than stock parts such as a Spohn floor mount torque arm and GW LCAs. He didn't. Both cars are manuals. Both cars had about the same fuel load. We even have the same cat back on the cars. I'm pretty sure his T-tops and rear wing don't weigh 70 lbs.

Given the fact my car was actually heavier than stock, I think it's safe to say that my car was lighter than his as delivered from the factory.

 

T-tops are a lot heavier than you think... at least compared to a solid steel panel. I'll bet they account for at least 40-lbs of difference.

 

No flippin way T-tops add 40 lbs. Yes, a pair of glass tops (my '91 had plastic tops) obviously weigh more than the plastic roof panel on my hardtop but T-top cars don't have the steel side structure mine does.

T-tops probably / maybe add a bit of weight but it's not much. Take a look...

 

You said he had a '99 TA. I was assuming they were glass tops like mine are on my '95 Z28, which weigh almost 20-lbs a piece. (No, I haven't weighed them, I'm simply guessing.) Sorry for the confusion.

 

I can't believe I basically vanished from this site for six months, I come back and we're still freaking out about weight?

I made this point 6 mos ago, but it is even more valid now that mules have been spotted on the roads down under:

Weight is set in stone at this point, as all the engineering is complete enough that you can't go back and change anything of significance.

Therefore, why worry about it now? It is going to weight what it weighs, and that will either be acceptable or not to each potential buyer. If it is too heavy for you, then go buy a C6 or Solstice, because there's not going to be another Pony Car offering that is lighter.

I understand your perspective Charlie, but the ship has sailed and the opportunity to change minds at GM is over. The hand-wringing over weight at this point is ONLY affecting potential buyers, it cannot by default have any effect on GM now that they can't really do anything about it unless you want them to scrap the whole program and start over.

Specifically to address your original question...What would I give up to save weight? I can't really answer that since I don't know what my choices to give up are yet.

I can tell you what I don't think needs to be standard...Satellite Radio, Onstar, active handling, navigation, power seats. Other than that, I don't think there's anything you can ditch w/o ruining the car from the perspective of the market appeal.

Charlie, do you intend to ever race your 5th gen? If not, then why are you so concerned with weight? If memory serves, you are more of the type that likes to occassionally push the limits of his car on the public streets. That means you're worried the car will "feel" heavy when you're wanting to enjoy it, right? You probably don't need reminding that the Germans seem to be able to make their over-engineered pigs pretty nimble feeling.

I am certainly not willing to pay one red cent more for any extraordinary weight reduction, because the Coupe niche doesn't have that much room for error. $4 gal gas could kill this car, or more likely could render it neutered. Coupes are just starting to come back, and if you price yourself out then its going to kill sales.

I have confidence Camaro will be lighter than Mustang or Challenger. I have a hard time believing anyone on this site can legitimately ask for more?

I continue to wonder why so many think weight reduction is some sort of free ride. Every lb off the car adds money to the car. Ultimately there are no significant areas in which to save w/o fundamentally altering the nature of the car, or drastically increasing the price.

You're already going to get an all aluminum motor, likely some aluminum A-arms and things of that nature, etc.

When you start from a position of considering the government mandates for safety equipment (front airbags, side airbags, bumper requirements, belts, etc), then issues for ergonomics and competitive option groups (p/w, p/l are simply not optional anymore), interior space sufficient to court buyers who actually have a need to use the back seat, etc., I just don't see where there's much room to wiggle on the weight.

I'm just going to say it like this: The Camaro I want from GM is the Camaro they are willing to build, period.

In the final analysis, those obsessed with curb weight to the point they will not buy the car because if it represent a fraction of a percent of potential buyers. To the majority of the rest of potential buyers, the things the weight-freaks would be willing to sacrifice would actually serve to turn buyers off.

We all realize this car has to sell in volume to succeed. We enthusiasts need to be able to put aside our absolutist positions on the particulars in order to be sure that all of us (enthusiasts & non-enthusiasts) get a car that stick around for a while.

We're going to get a NEW CAMARO folks, one that looks killer, has great features and options, handles and performs as well as cars costing much more, and stirs our passions. Why is that not good enough?

I am confident that the weight will be too high for certain folks no matter what it weighs, and it will be ugly to some no matter what it looks like, and some won't buy it no matter what the end product is.

 

Amen.

 

Yup, he has a '99.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that the tops do weigh 20 lbs each (40 lbs total). What do the hardtop side structures weigh? 10 - 20 lbs each (20 - 40 lbs total)?

 

I know you didn't say it, but Mach 1s do not feel as fast as Cobras. Period.

Anyone who has been in the cars being compared will tell you that with no room for debate.