You're still not getting it, are you? The only enthusiasts for which this is true are those who race BICYCLES. I've said already, sure weight matters. SO DOES POWER. Unlike bikes, cars have a wonderful component to counteract mass, (that would be the ENGINE). And for some of us, those who drive our cars for more than just track time, our cars must meet multiple needs. I've got two tykes to carry, and often also, the gal who gave them to me. She does NOT want to ride around in an econobox like the Mazda 3... optimum weight or not.
Of course I'm sure your Z-car is stock - what? It's not? Well if not then that's a good thing - you'll be needing mods soon to keep up with the Cobalt SS once owners start tuning those...
Now I'm starting to see your character. I've nothing against sport import enthusiasts... unless they resort to stereotyping those of us who love American V8 muscle. 'Yeehaw V8' noise? Well fine. Call it what you want. It's the sound I love. It's the sound that taught the rest of the automaking world how to get there faster. The sound that only now, makes like Nissan are starting to realize, their trucks MUST make to satisfy those who need real power AND torque at an affordable price. Nissan... yes, you are welcome for the multi-decade lesson in engineering and marketing. The professor in the mean streets of Detroit is proud to see you finally making some V8's like the rest of the world
Get ready for them. They're affordable and have great performance potential. They'll be on your radar alright... as they pass you at the track and leave you in their dust. Speaking of track dust... have you perchance encountered any heavy V8 Fbodies or Corvettes with your mighty Datsun?
In your haste you broadly missed my point. In fact it's not just you either. Many posting here on this site have a weird misconception of how much cars weigh nowadays. I swear it's like some of you are stuck in the early 1970's, before we had modern emissions equipment, bumper and safety constraints, and modern modules/controllers in every nook and cranny of a car. For you folks, some data:
2005 Mustang GT (an UNDENIABLE hit): 3450 lb, 187.6 in long
2002 Camaro Z28: 3439 lb, 193.5 in. long
(1982 Camaro Z28: also roughly 3400 lb)
2005 Nissan Z: 3239 lb, 169.6 in. long (no back seat)
2004 Infiniti G35 coupe: 3435 lb, 182.2 in. long (same small back seat as 05 Stang)
2006 Mitsu Eclipse GT: 3538 lb, 179.7 in. long (tiny back seat, less rear legroom than the G35).

THIS is why I made reference to the Cobalt. There is simply no way a new Camaro is going to be Cobalt-curb-weight. Just look at the other cars near it in the marketplace. Looks more like anywhere from 3400 to 3600 lb is the likely range. (I say 3600 lb due to the new regulations now and forever spewing forth from Washington DC). Does that concern me? Not a whit. Because I know, if the General brings back the Camaro, it will be equipped with an engine befitting its rich performance heritage. A heritage that has left countless sport import owners gritting their teeth as they watch another heavy hunk of American Iron smack them down.

BTW - here's a helpful page for all you Z-car owners, tips on fixing your rust

http://zhome.com/Classic/CommonZRust...ention240Z.htm

 

Hmmm, you *really* know a lot about automotive performance, eh?
Power is important, weight is equally or MORE important. Also, it's infinitely easier to gain power than it is to lose weight.
Dude, I'm shaking.
Did you read what I wrote? I LOVE that sound! I've been a fan of American V8 iron (and aluminum!) for much longer than any other types of cars. I am a fan of many kinds of cars, but I'd never consider a "sport compact" if fwd is considered part of that equation. The earlier ones are at least lightweight, and cheap, their only redeeming features. But rwd is the only way to go for me for track performance, and more importantly, FUN! Anyway, a 3000 lb. Cobalt SS, even tuned, is a NOTHING to me.
Do you know what a Porsche GT2 is? Here's a link for ya to study: http://www.autointell.com/sports_car...he-911-gt2.htm
I walked away from one at Watkins Glen just Thursday. Driven by an excellent driver who was called in to help with instruction dutys at the Zconvention track day. I don't see a Cobalt passing me any time soon.
Go here to see how well I (Street Prepared B) did against a 400rwhp TransAm (in Street Prepared A) at New Hampshire International Speedway: http://www.comscc.com/results/nhis0505.htm
Oh yeah, I beat Corvettes (Z06s included) regularly as well, have a look:
http://www.comscc.com/results/nhis1004_2.htm
Yup, they're all grossly overweight.
I'm well aware. I'm just saying it would be KICK *** if it did. To the point that I'd buy one. I'm not all that interested in another 3400 lb. one (actually, I guess my 'vert is closer to 3500 lb).
Yeah, it's a real shame. Actually, the General has done as well many and better than most at keeping weight in check. While imports and the Mustang gained weight in the 90s, the Fbodies didn't gain any. Same with the Corvette. Any car you could compare with it has gained HUNDREDS of pounds over the years, while the 'Vette has held the line. I am somewhat encouraged by this that perhaps the new Camaro will undercut the Mustang in weight. I just don't think it'll be enough *FOR ME*.
Wish I could point you to a page that shows how make an Fbody keep up with a slightly modded 240Z at road courses, but no such page exists
FWIW, rust isn't a problem on my car.

 

C'Mon.. let's be realistic for a second...

When a poll is worded something to the effect of:

"Should the new Camaro be heavier or lighter than the new Mustang?"

YES or NO

What do you really expect?

It's a pretty loaded question, and it's pretty clear that people would perfer a lighter car.

Of course, it's not that simple, and crash standard, pricing, and a ton of other stuff all come into play, and you simply can NOT strip it from the equation.

We get so many intentionally slanted polls here that they don't even begin to prove much of anything.

 

I've a general idea. Let me know when it becomes time for me to start caring about overpriced German sports cars ( *yawn* ).
The utter absurdity of your comparisons and results is now beginning to amuse and amaze me. I'm supposed to be impressed, that your decades-old thin-metal Datsun (with virtually no crashworthiness or modern safety equipment or for that matter modern luxuries) can beat some Z06 Vettes? Umm. Nope. Not impressed. And may I say... say hello to a new little friend the C6 Z06
Whoa, far out Dude! You really are stuck back in the 1970's. How do you like it there? The 240Z is... just right for you then! Good luck in a crash.... and BTW - how do the ladies like cruising around with you in your AC-free race car?
Somehow I don't think you would rush out and get one. Appears you are on the market for a 350Z (nothing wrong with that BTW if that's what meets your needs).
Of course if you get one I imagine you'll want to rip out the AC, stereo, insulation/trim/carpet, airbags, and passenger seat (you sure won't be needing that )

So your 240Z (150 hp? 180 maybe?) is 'slightly modded' and beating Z06 Corvettes? Umm... Ok. Even so it's an apples - oranges thing so who cares. Bottom line is - there will always be someone faster. And that takes POWER.

 

Obviously YOU don't care too much about performance (I mean, to you "who cares" what car is faster?). BTW, fast time of the day at the events I go to is set by a 140 or 160hp formula car. To go fast at road courses takes LIGHT WEIGHT more than it takes POWER. But I *never* said I had anything against power, I LOVE it. But weight is more important to me, because on-track PERFORMANCE is much more important to me than it is to you. Perhaps you should be looking at Buicks?

But clearly you're living in denial, because you specifically ASKED how well my 240Z would do against V8 'murrican iron:
"Speaking of track dust... have you perchance encountered any heavy V8 Fbodies or Corvettes with your mighty Datsun?"
your words, complete with deathskull!

My 240Z is faster, so all of a sudden to you it's "irrelevant", too funny!

 

[QUOTE=guionM]To be frank, this is the LAST site I'd go go to get guidence for the 5th gen. Between the "engine in the box" guys, the "Camaro quicker than Vette" guys, the guys that want another impractically packaged car, one group that wants a 1969 styled 5th gen and another group that wants a evolutonary design of the all but failed 4th gen. To top it all off, the market (which is going to actually BUY the car) dictates that the Mustang is the right size and package, instead of smaller coupes (complete with market research as well as sales figures to back it up), but yet we are still slamming the Mustang as too big, and slamming the size of a car we haven't even seen yet?

This site is 2nd to none as far as future vehicle information, but this isn't exactly a site (collectively) that GM should be getting Camaro direction from.







QUOTE]




Wise man, sometimes!!!

 

wait a minute......"GM should just give us what WE want"...........

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??????????

I couldn't get you all to agree that the sky is BLUE let alone what the next car should be...............

Please define "We".....and then see why I spend way too much time looking at this site and wanting to douse myself in gasoline and strike a match..........

 

OK....made the last two posts before reading thru the entire thread.......

and you know, this whole thread is flawed....it started out as a GTO thread.....it's been all over the map....and it almost appears that it has morphed itself to the flawed poll "should the new Camaro be larger or smaller than the new Mustang.........it's a loaded question and it's missing a third element.......that being "should be the same size".......

As to weight.........please, I'm BEGGING some of you.......please use your head for (as my mother used to say to me) something other than a hat rack.

Have any of you looked lately at the regulations that continue to be handed to manufacturers? Do you not think that adds weight to a vehicle?

Yes.....we can give you a very light weight Camaro........but unless we're agreeing to lose a TON of money on it, you need to get real......look at the premium on a Z06 based on the various weight savings components.

I agree with Guy......this thread has been hijacked so much that it's laughable.....and that's why I take what I read on this site with a grain of salt.....I'm much more inclined to take what I get 'one on one'....or info. on other sites as more reliable.

 

That's not my poll Darth.

 

As far as production cars go:

Lightweight..... Cheap...... Powerful

Choose any two.

It can be lightweight and cheap, but then there's no money for serious power.

It can be lightweight and powerful, but then it's gonna cost ya.

It can be cheap and powerful, but then it's gonna have to be heavy (cheaper materials).

Etc, etc......

 

True... I didn't mean to imply that, but re-reading my post, it may have read that way.

(I could plug in the "Should the new Camaro be bigger or smaller than the Mustang? YES or NO" poll though )

 

What does same size mean? Identical, in every single dimension? If Camaro comes out 3 inches longer and 175 lbs heavier is that about the same? Or if Camaro is 2 inches shorter and 35 lbs lighter is that about the same?

Flawed or not (and I agree it wasn't completely scientific) it gave unambiguous results. From this site! Where people can't even agree if the sky is BLUE.

 

Yes, but i think the point is that your own arguement can be used against you...

What does "smaller than" exactly mean? 1 inch shorter? Or a foot and a half shorter?

Same with "longer than"...

 

i'd rather have it 1 inch shorter than 1 inch longer even tho thats only a 2 inch difference.

 

"Same as" was purposely not a choice....because unless GM buys the Mustang tooling from Ford...it won't be "same as". It will be smaller or larger.