onebadponcho

The irony of that is the C6 is about 400lbs lighter than the C3.

formula79

Wikipedia lists the C3 as being 3,520 and C6 is 3,217. I am willing to bet a lot of the weight savings comes from the aluminum motor and hyroformed frame rails design vs the old school way of doing things.

teal98

But add in the safety and other modern features, and that makes it more of an accomplishment.


Today's Golf and Mazda 3 are 3000 pounds. 10 years ago, those cars were more like 2700. 20 years ago ... 2400. 30 years ago .. 2100.

Nearly everything has gotten bigger and heavier. Corvette got lighter. It's one of the very few.

The Camaro has gained less weight than many. A balanced viewpoint would hold that weight gain is endemic to 2010-era cars and lay off the Camaro just a bit.

The new one does have a high beltline, and the pictures show that. Apparently, one of the big reasons for not buying a 4th gen was that the seating was too low. The new one tries to fix that. I doubt that will change with Alpha, as all modern sedans have higher beltlines than they did back in the 80s and 90s. I think it unlikely that GM would be able to drop the beltline of a 6th gen Camaro significantly from an ATS sedan. Just look at a 370z to see what I mean.

formula79

With the Corvette however, there also is weight savings in going from a normal car with trunk like the C3..vs. a hatch like later cars. Also aren't Corvettes now a form of plastic vs. Fiberglass?

teal98

Yes, a closed car can be lighter than a hatch. I thought the body was still fibreglass, but I don't know for sure....

Z28x

3rd gens are slower than a V6 Malibu, They might be smaller and lighter but they are also much much slower and don't handle nearly as well.

Z284ever

Which 3rd gen vs which V6 Malibu?


Don't handle as well? I gotta hear this.

jg95z28

Fiberglass is technically the reinforcing material. It is encased in a polymer resin or plastic making what in layman's terms is referred to as "fiberglass". So it has always been some form of plastic.

Jason E

Yeah, uh, me too...

The crappiest handling third gen I've driven was my '89 RS V6. With 96k mile front struts, it still handled better than any Malibu I've ever driven As for speed, I have to give him that one...my RS is mid 7s 0-60 stock I'd like to think I'm better than that now...who knows...

90 Z28SS

And on the flip side a LB9 or BL2 with G92 package ran very low 14's@97-99 . My slowest 5.7 3 gen , a 91 GTA went 14.4@98....slow by today's standards but still faster than alot of today's stuff.

centric

How many third gens have you owned? New?

Slower? Maybe in some cases, but the G92 cars weren't too terrible. I'd put them up against a new Malibu V6, and bet on the Camaro.

Don't handle nearly as well . . . now, that's some funny stuff.

Z28x

I test drove a bunch, and have driven my college room mates. I ended up buying a 1994 Z28. New Malibus are good for mid 14's. I never did get a chance to drive a 91-92 Z28 though. Those were the best of the 3rd gen IMO.

Z284ever

Well, first off, I don't know the value of comparing the performance of two cars built 28 years apart. Beyond that, my 1989, 11,000 mile, G92, M5, LB9, N10, IROC-Z will blow away any Malibu ever built. The 2010 one. The 1989 one. The 1964 one. And any one built into the foreseeable future.

Forget about any silly arguments about a 3 decades newer Malibu outhandling a 3rd gen - I just wish the 5th gen could outhandle a 3rd gen.......

Z28x

It has been awhile, but I don't remember any of the mid 80's Trans Ams (non turbo V6) or IROC-Z being to great at anything. Sure compared to cars of their time they were awesome, but I think a 2010 Malibu LTZ would take one in a strait line and around the curves. My 94 Z28 walked all over every 3rd gen that I've ever raced.





(I know a little 3rd trash talk would get me some attention ;p)

super83Z

The 3rdgen was a better handler, its just that the 4th gen did everything else better.