http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/14/2...-nhtsa-safety/

 

That is a great selling point. Good job GM.

 

For what it weighs, it ought to be and indestructible on top of that!

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk

 

I guess all that weight is good for something. Good job GM.

 

Anyone else notice the irony that the only car to ace all US federal car crash tests was engineered in Australia... on essentially a shoestring budget... in record short time... off of a chassis that cost just shy of $1 billion US dollars in a day and age where a new car typically costs 2+ billion to create.... from a car company (Holden... it was essentially operating independently of GM when the Zeta was being developed) that most people here in the US never heard of?

 

Plus be able to transform into a autobot transformer, and attract Megan Fox.

 

As gets poked at here and elsewhere quite frequently, this would be all well and good if it wasn't so massive. It's not to say that a lot wasn't done with such short comings but it goes both ways. Is it great that it performs as well as it does with such heft or is it a no-brainer that it takes a hit well?

That's not to put down Holden, I'm sure if they set out to make a pony car they may have done a very good job of it.

 

It's not the weight that gives Camaro it's high rating. If that were the case there's plenty of heavier cars that should do even better.

The Zeta's 4 quasi-frame rails (instead of traditional stamped pieces) that stick forward that adsorbs frontal impact and the door openings especially at the B-pillar, plus apparently the high beltline of door metal instead of glass (and therefore direct contact with whatever is T-boning you) also helps.

To ace a head on, the vehicle has to adsorb the impact instead of you. the way it crushes is what makes it safe.

Finally, as far as Camaro being "big", it's an illusion. Camaro actually doesn't take up more real estate than a Mustang.

It's the extremely high beltline & the massive wheels that make it look huge.

 

It looks like a tank.

 

Tank is indeed the word I'd use. I like something flowing...strong...curvy, with a hint even of elegance in the design.

The 5th gen is angular, blocky, chunky. Cool design, but I feel the chunkiness takes away from it.

 

I distinctly remember one very prominent person inside GM posting here once the curb weight of the production car was released that the weight "was a good thing, for safety reasons" or something to that effect. I remember that it induced a bit of a gag reflex.

I'm sure Camaro's structure as far as its design is very stout.

 

Minus the chunky part, did you pretty much describe the 3rd gen Camaro?

4th Gen Firebird / T/A was rather curvy...

 

While it's true that mass alone is not a saving grace, to dismiss it is utterly, wholly, entirely, and absolutely ridiculous. Sure with a little effort you could design a bigass car with terrible crash ratings but a massive car with good ratings is no feat. A low-mass vehicle with excellent ratings is what I'd call impressive engineering.

It's not that I'm putting it down I just don't see the surprise or the need to pat the engineers on the back because it really isn't much of an accomplishment given the mass of the vehicle. In fact, if it were anything less, the engineers should've been burned at the stake

I'm not sure if you're trying to sound more informed than the typical gear-head here or like an engineer but either way you're failing terribly. What you're saying is all the components and design features that makes the 5th gen massive also makes it safer. This is what I was trying to state and if I failed than I apologize.

I think most people know this by now. I assure you I'm intimately familiar with the subject.

I said massive, not big. In truth it's both. Only fools in Camaro circles argue that, and luckily most have finally accepted it... I think.

 

I'll give you that.

 

The crash rating isn't simply slaming a vehicle into a solid wall and measuring what's left. It's still engineering and even air bag placements.

Let's not forget, the first 5th gens Camaros out didn't do as well in federal crash tests. GM certainly didn't reengineer the structure, or add lead ballasts.

I disagree. Getting straight 5 stars is most certainly something that not only gets a pat on the back, but should warrant breaking out champaign. As for weight, name another rear drive, regular production car that holds at least 4 people, has a chassis capable of handling 500+ horsepower, and has a price range of $10,000 of the Camaro that is any lighter that isn't the size of a Cruze (ie: the M3).

This may come as a surprise to you, but compared to just about every other V8, RWD, IRS effort out there, Camaro is actually on the lower side weightwise.

It's actually hard to explain without attaching a picture (will post later), but if you strip away a Zeta's sheetmetal and engine and front suspension, the chassis up front looks a lot like a BOF car with 2 box frames that the suspension and engine cradle attach to. Up top, where the upper strut towers attach isn't the normal sheet metal stamping, but a smaller pair of box frames that for the most part parallel the bottoms. This setup adsorbs impact far better than conventional sheetmetal stamping that are welded together the way most all unibody front end structures are made.

You may be right that I'm doing a bad job explaining it, but it's actually a pretty ingenious way of making a front end safer in a head on crash.


Camaro really does look massive. It has massive rims, massive tires, high beltline, and tiny windows that make it look even bigger. Yet, when yo pull out the yardsticks, it's not much bigger than the Mustang. In 2010, Ford reinforced the Mustang's floorpan, firewall, and other components with thicker guage stampings and sturdier components ahead of the more powerful 5.0 engine. Today, the difference in weight between the Mustang and Camaro can be traced almost entirely to Camaro's IRS (+/- 100 pounds).

Sure, it's heavy compared to a 4th gen and gargantuan next to a pre-2005 Mustang. But are we willing to downgrade styling and shrink the rims to make it "look" smaller, loose the IRS or settle for weaker engines so we can lose weight, and are we willing to trade off NVH in the process?