I weighed my IROC once and it was just over 3350lbs with about 1/8 tank of gas. It's fairly loaded with all power, AC, Power drivers seat, 350/automatic, 16" alloy wheels etc.

 

my friends 99 T/A T-top 6spd with subframe connectors, strut tower brace and WS6 hood weighed in at 3600 with a full tank of gas.

 

My 99 Z28 auto fully loaded (except for CD changer) weighed 3450 at the track with a 1/4 tank of gas.

 

Thanks, that is what I thought it was but for some reason wanted to make sure.

 

My T/A weighed 3676 at the track with full interior and loaded options with a full tank of gas.

As far as hp numbers, the majority of the cars will be V6s or base model V8s. i don't like the pissing contest that people have about the numbers, like I think that Gm will make the Camaro 1,000 hp to decimate the Mustang, and then it has to weigh less than a go cart, blah, blah, blah. Gm people will always be GM people, and Ford people will always be Ford people. If you want to buy something else then do it, but you'll be jealous when that 5th gen passes your @ss and all you can do is drool!

 

I LOVE it!!
Can I borrow that for my sig?

 

sure!

 

Thanks a TON.

 

I agree. I looked at a 1991 Mustang LX, 5.0 on ebay, they had the original sticker and the MSRP was under 12k, for a nicely equiped 5.0 Mustang. Sure hp on that car was only 220, but it had almost 300 ft lbs of torque and good gearing, thgerefore it is still a quick car by todays standards. Today a V8 Mustang is 25k with just a V8. In my opinion, I think the Camaro Base V6 car should be a real bargain, not a lot of equipment, and light as possible. It'd be even better if I can get a Camaro slightly under 2700 lbs with a single option of the 3.6L VVT with 300 hp and a 5 speed, for $19,995. I'm sayin maybe 1k for the vvt engine as a stand alone option. Hell if I could get one stripped down as a base Aveo, I would be more eager to buy. I don't give a damn if it has power windows, I just want it to have a tight solid chassis, awesome handling, and tunable engine, like twin turbos on that DI V6..........

When I lower it to get rid of the wheel fender offset gap (and improve handling) put free flow dual exhaust and a twin turbo system with small turbos and peak boost of 6-7 lbs, if tuned correctly, it will be able to pound out over 400 hp. Plenty for me as someone who has had 300, 450 and 550 hp cars in the past.

 

wow, with a driver and a passenger that is two tons of fun. Todays cars are pigs. The government is pressuring the OEMs to both make the cars safer (therefore heavier) and get better mileage, the two don't get along AT ALL. As I stated before, the OEMS need to lobby the government as heavily as insurance companies and Tobacco companies do. Not necesarily to get rid of 35 mpg standards, but to have the government pay for research into making cars safer AND lighter. If you put the 306 hp STS V6 into a 2000 lb aerodynamic car, with good gearing, you can probably double the mpg to 70.

Maybe they need to push into other areas for safety, such as 4 point restraints, etc, but just adding more and more safety equipment only does two things, it improves the car (not the driver) and adds weight. In addition to lobbying for help researching lightweight materials (to make them more affordable, easier to manufacture) they should lobby the government to step up drivers' license requirments, makeing drivers better as well, since about 99.9 % of all accidents are due to driver error, not lack of air bags. If accidents fell by 50%, and fatalities as well, the government would be much less likely to come down on OEMs so hard to make cars safer and therefore heavier.

 

its not just the pressure from the gov't to make safer cars, most of the pressure comes from the public. when i worked at a dealership, people REALLY want a 5 star crash rating. and if they push for tougher licensing, they might be making potential customers ineligable to purchase a car.

 

I never said they should make cars less safe. I do agree that cars can never be too safe. However we are always acting like cars are the problem. You can have the most dangerous car in the world or the safest, but if you never get in an accident it doesn't matter, is that because the car is good, or the driver?

Not really, I don't see people just giving up because it's more difficult to get a license, I see it as making more training necesary. I'm not talking boot camp or anything, but real life accident avoidance, and handling properties, bad weather driving, defensive driving, etc.

Basically we set down some basic laws and teach them to people that see the laws more as GUIDELINES and hand them a fresh license and that's it. What's worse is we hand them a fresh license and then they can get into a 2-3 ton pile of metal rubber and plastic and aim it around at 60-70-80 mph.

More rigorous testing and training would simply cut down on accidents. People should have to pay for the training as it is a privilage, but it should also be taught in high schools instead of just "Rules of the Road". When more people are alive each year due to less fatalities, there are more buyers right there.

Finally, have you EVER met someone who has failed to get a license through the current system? Have you ever seen them drive? I have, and it is still a bad memory after 15 years.

 

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...t-camaro-6.htm

3306 but I think that was the V6 curb weight.

My 93 with an aftermarket K-member, A-arms, headers, true dual exhaust, and a 1200 watt stereo weighed in at 34XX lbs with a full tank of gas.

 

Curb weight would be with a full tank, which would make it around 3525 (add about 12 gallons at 6 pounds per gallon).

 

i really dont want this car to have a million different kinds of v8s... whats the fun in that... the good ones are all going to be rediculously expensive, the v8s theyre going to use should all be based off of the same block at least