That certainly would be an unintended consequence.

For so long, GM Powertrain had it act so together, you could always count on them to cover your performance and FE goals, even if your product's mass was out of control. Hopefully those days are over.

I think it's safe to say, the next Camaro will be light enough where a 200-ish hp 4 cylinder could make a marketable base car.

 

I dunno about 200. That's a 1/3 reduction in horsepower from current...there's no way they'll cut 1/3 the weight. I could see the next iteration of the 260HP LNF work though.

 

Welp, who says the base Camaro needs to run mid 14's?

 

I think a 3200lbs. 35mpg rated 200HP 2.4L Camaro would be ok for the base car. It would also be cheaper than the 3.6L. Maybe even a Turbo 1.8L could be used depending on cost. I'd rather have that to commute with than a Civic or Corola.

200HP 2.4L base,
330HP 3.6L RS
420HP 5.3L SS

 

It'll be interesting to see what the ultimate powertrain line up will be.


I am VERY interested to see what next year's racing Corvette's Gen V, 5.5L smallblock has.


Anyway, I can see a 2.4L I4 as a base engine. A turbo Ecotec, or 3.0L V6 as a midlevel, and who knows what as a top performance offering. Is it that much of a stretch to imagine a racing inspired, 5.5L smallblock as a Z/28 motor?

 

I'm sorry but as enticing as it sounds from a performance perspective the days of a sub-3500 lb Camaro are long gone, unless they decide to make it into a compact.

I do think inroads can be made to downsize the current car, so 3500-3700 lbs may be achieveable, at a price. 3800 lbs to me is more realistic, as I'd like to see the Camaro SS stay as close as practical to a $30k MSRP.

As for the idea of the 5.5L Gen V smallblock being offered in this gen Camaro in a Z/28? Sign me up!!!

 

Based on what, do you think it's realistic?

I ask, because 3500 pounds with a V8 would be lighter than any other 4-seater currently available, including cars that did have very strict mass reduction targets.

Are you assuming a V6 or small, high rev V8?

 

3500 is just an arbitrary number that I'd personally like to see. I know that it would take a lot of work to get down to that number. I think most on here would probably be happy with the weight at 3600-3700.

I know weight has been discussed here to death, but if Alpha is a true "midsize" platform, a 3500 Camaro may be possible. It certainly isn't going to happen on Zeta.

 

Tell me the truth. If GM develops a smaller, lighter architecture for Camaro, and the end result is no mass difference from the 5th gen, wouldn't you call that a failed waste of time, money and resources? I mean as in a "total, heads will roll/mass firings, FAILURE"?

 

No mass difference would be a failure. On the other hand, the question presupposes the answer, and really isn't the right question.

How much smaller and lighter can they make the car while still allowing for a V8, small back seat, and trunk? Maybe a few inches shorter couple of inches narrower? And how much of the weight in today's Camaro is from those few and couple inches, and how much is from body structure to meet crash requirements and handle torque from the V8?

There is certainly the opportunity for lightweight materials, such as aluminum suspension components, and it seems reasonable that a few hundred hours of work up front removing a few grams here and there from various components could add up to some pounds (too expensive to do that all now, I think).

But removing an inch or two of leg room and a few cubic feet of trunk space is not going to provide dramatic weight reduction.

I don't know how much weight is added to the current SS, due to the car having been engineered to take a fully warranteed 550hp/tq monster of an LSA. But you could save weight up front if you said you'd never go above a 430/430 LS3. I don't know how much.

Taking 350 pounds out of today's car without compromising anything seems like an impossible order. After all, BMW did go to quite a lot of effort to build the M3 as light as possible, and only managed the high 3500s on the lightest models. And they only had to manage about 300 lb ft of torque.

So if an Alpha Camaro SS (with a 6.2 N/A V8) comes out at 3860, I think everyone will be disappointed. But if it comes out at 3660, I'd say "well done".

 

Completely echos my sentiments. I don't want to hear "if BMW can do it, why can't GM?" The answer is: Because the M3 is priced like a BMW and an Alpha Camaro SS needs to be priced like a Chevrolet.

While I wouldn't mind seeing the current Camaro slightly downsized; its not a deal breaker for me. I definitely don't want it to be Cobalt/Cruze sized, and I definitely want to see a V8 option available, even if a 300hp V6 is more than enough.

 

A 4 cylinder Camaro was done..and failed. At minimum..it would have to be a turbo. While lighter is nice..I think it all has to be done in reason. A car like Camaro already has area's like interior that are cheaped out on to bring it in at a value price. I don't want weight to become such a cost hog it takes away from the rest of the car.

 

Bear in mind, too, that GM powertrains are among the lightest in the industry for the power they make. That should give you some relativity into how much lighter weight material is used in keeping down mass in vehicles like BMWs... and why they cost so much more than your GM-mobile.

 

Putting aside any weight saving materials, (which the 5th gen is actually pretty intensive in), I can imagine the 6th gen being maybe a half foot shorter, a couple inches narrower, not designed to take 600+ ft/lbs of torque, and not based on a hefty, fullsized sedan, designed for the Holden home market.

Lots of mass saving opportunities there.

 

As long as a 4 delivered a pleasant, even fun to drive package, I'd have no problem with it as a base car.

Maybe you should consider high mass itself a cost hog, instead of the other way around. High mass escalates the cost of everything. Components, powertrain choices, roof crush, EPA certification costs, you name it.
Any idea why the lowly Camaro gets as standard equipment the motor you need to pay EXTRA for in the CTS and LaCrosse? Any idea why a $30K Camaro comes with fairly exotic Brembos?