Well good info either way if true. And if such video we're to pop up on Youtube or something don't hesitate to pop in a thread and tell us to do a search for it. I'd love to see it even after all the beans have been spilled on the car later this summer.

 

C&D has recently tested both. Two different G8s in May (or was it April) and June and the Bullitt in July. Performance is pretty close. I don't have the articles at the moment, but there was not a lot of difference. They were both mid 7s on the 0-100 minus 0-60 time -- a decent measure of power at the wheels.

They're both neat cars.

 

But informed speculation. You can see what other manufacturers build. The M3 V8 weighs 3600 pounds. The Mustang is about 3550. Both have around 300 lb ft of torque. Mustang has a solid axle. M3 has a lot of aluminum. These are the lightest four seat V8s out there.

I have a hard time seeing how GM produces a 400 lb ft torque four seat coupe even for the low 30s, equipped the way the average such car is equipped, without it weighing more than both of them. Yes, I'm not a designer, but I can see what several different designers have come up with and suggest that 3700 seems like a reasonable minimum number if you could design a platform completely optimized for what you want.

And do you think your expectations for the car were realistic?

Nope. The new U.S. Mazda 6 is heavier than the old one, by a couple of hundred pounds. The listed weight for the new V6 model is over 3500 pounds. But it has 50 more horsepower, and lots more room inside. And I think this proves my point.

I think people get little tidbits of (mis)information that then lead to unrealistic expectations. Many new cars I've read about that were supposed to be lighter actually turned out not to be lighter when the production models were actually put on the scales.

Another prime example is the Jaguar XK, which is another four seat V8 coupe that was supposed to be so much lighter with its new aluminum body. Problem is, the cars that the journalists have actually tested and weighed turn out to be quite a bit heavier. The supercharged model (which is the one that compares most closely to the LS3 Camaro) is close to as heavy as the reported Camaro numbers. With an aluminum body and chassis.

 

If this thing really ends up being this heavy, I'm just going to get a Corvette... It's just like the Challenger: I love the way it looks, but I'm not going to drive a pig around just because it looks nice.

 

Sorry, I don't get your logic. You mention the 3550-3600 pound Mustang GT and M3 as a reason for me to accept a 4100 pound Camaro (which BTW will go for a HELLUVA LOT more than low $30's). Then you say I shouldn't consider the 4100 pound version because it's supercharged and I should be happy with the 3900 pound version, eventhough you say that 3700 pounds is a reasonable limit. When I say that I'm not in the market for a 2 ton Camaro and mention that I hope you'll buy one, you tell me you'd rather have the equally heavy G8 sedan instead.

Really, you should just let it be. Under no circumstances would I consider a 2 ton Camaro. Under no circumstances would I accept one.

 

I'm afraid you did too much distillation in your summary.

The reference to the Mustang and M3 was in relation to what the lightest 400hp V8 Camaro could be on your Alpha V8. I'm speculating 3700 pounds.

You're going on about a 4100 pound Camaro. That's for a 550+ hp supercharged version. You've previously stated you'd like a lighter weight 400hp car. So focus on that one. It's 3900 pounds. It might be a little heavier than it could be -- at most 200 pounds. But at least you're getting something for that, in a more useable backseat and more space.

What I would buy is really a separate topic.

And there will be plenty of Camaros available under 2 tons, even with more than 400hp, so why go on about 2+ ton versions.

The car you've asked for in other threads is an Alpha based Camaro -- some time in 2013 or so. You want a V8. You should not expect it to be much lighter that the new one (200 pounds at most), unless you give up the V8.

So where a 3900 pound LS3 is completely unacceptable, hopefully a 3700 pound Alpha LS-whatever would be the cat's meow for you. If not, then you're dreaming (back to a much earlier post). Of course, then I have to ask why one would get so worked up over 200 pounds, but that's another topic.

 

That sounds like Green Eggs and Ham. Here or there? On a boat? On a train?

You mean, that even if you go test-drive it (which I assume you'll at least do that, right?) and it puts a big-a$$ smile on your face, you couldn't find a way to just swallow that pet peeve of yours?

 

The Camaro I'd want to buy is the Z/28.

Are you a car salesman by chance? The reason I ask, is that this conversation reminds me of an encounter I had with Cadillac salesman. I said I'd have to order my CTS because it wouldn't be something he could locate, since I wanted a black on black, M6, 3.6 with the Y87 18" wheel performance package. He said, lets go look at this gold with casmere interior, automatic, with luxury pkg - because it sounded to him that this was EXACTLY what I was looking for.

 

Pet peeve? Hardly. Pet peeve is not liking the trim on the door handle or thinking that the "torque gauge" is stupid, (which it is). Your ponycar coming in a quarter of a ton too heavy is more like the wheels-came-off-the-bus-catastrophic-failure.

Do you think that I won't 'feel' that excess pork? I sure felt it on the G8 GT I drove. That was a nice car, but nothing anywhere near what I'd want a Camaro to drive like. Don't get me wrong, it was a pleasant, nicely balanced car - sort of in the vein of a 21st century '94-'96 Impy SS. But I could feel every last pound of it. My CTS felt like a race car when I left.

 

Poor choice of words. My bad.
Are you at least open to the slim possibility that this car impresses you?

 

I don't see why the debate over 3900lbs or 4000lbs. They are practically even and both are just a bit too heavy. 400hp or 430hp or 550hp doesn't change that. It just means the brakes need to be that much larger and more powerful to have the capablity to slow down almost 2 tons of mass from a greater speed.

I'm sure this car will impress and I still can't wait to see it but at these weights it's not going to be a slam dunk purchase.

 

I'll check it out, but my expectations aren't very high. I'm sure it'll be a very nice car - but not necessarily for me.

 

This is gonna sound strange I think...because it's typed....(you've been forwarned! )
That sucks for you, then. (see what I meant?) But, like it's been said all along...they weren't going to win everybody with this car -- it just sucks for the few people who couldn't be won.

 

Because of the name Z/28 or because of what it has?
I.e., If the SS or RS or whatever model were lighter and more in line with what you want, would that be acceptable, or do want Z/28 badge?
At least that would explain why you're focusing on the S/C version. I wouldn't want that one either.

No. Engineer. Hint: look up Santa Clara on the map

I don't care about Z/28 versus SS versus LT or XR or whatever, so I didn't think about the issue with the name, though I suppose the name Z284ever should have been a hint.

 

Jeezus, will the people constantly bitching about weight please make another thread and get out of this one? It's becoming almost comical the amount of whining going on. When you get T-boned in an intersection you'll be glad you had all the weight you are constantly bitching about. If you want a 3200lb V8 get a Vette! There is a member on here telling us their is the possibility that in testing an SS ran a 12.7 and the Z28 ran a 11.9 and instead of talking about that I have to go thru page after page of crying. I want to know more about the engines in the title of the thread, I want to know more about the pulley and exhaust test mule laying down an 11.2 quarter mile. This is almost as bad as hot girl threads that end up fighting over if the girl is fat or not.