The 4th gen was classified as a "subcompact"; the 5th gen is classified as a compact. This is an EPA classification based on interior volume.

 

The 20" requirement drove some of the platform changes between Zeta1 and Zeta2. Moving the front axle forward for the right look was another change. Both presumably added a few pounds. At one point several months ago, I looked up weights of 18" versus 20" wheels and tires. You can probably save over 20 pounds with smaller wheels and tires, though it also depends on the width, of course.

 

Don't forget, the 20" wheels allow bigger brake rotors. I'd rather have additional weight due to bigger brakes than have a heavy-ish car with smaller wheels and under-specced brakes.

It has as much to do about engineering as it has to do with design. HSVs use big wheels because they need exceptional braking power given the mass and performance of their vehicles!

To save a few kilograms by opting on smaller wheels seems like illogical idea. Weight savings should not compromise solid engineering.

 

i'm sure it is too but a camaro doesn't come with those.

 

talking in circles are we?

1) i stated i don't buy the "luxury stuff doesn't add much weight" argument. which btw you brought up.

2) i gave an example that is a heavy item. a power seat is heavier then a manual seat. how much depends on the seats themselves.

 

You stated you didn't buy it, but not why. You didn't even mention "power seat" until this post. You just wrote "the seats". So between your vagueness and the fact that weight of luxury equipment was really just an aside in my original, there's not any takeaway from your post.

Most of the Camaros you see on lots will have power seats anyway, and the original post from sixer-bird specified a top-of-the line model anyway. Between a base M3 and a top-of-the-line Camaro, there'd be little difference in equipment levels.

So whether or not you supported your objection (you didn't), it doesn't matter, whether or not "the seats" (amended to "power seats" in your most recent) add a lot of weight, though if it did, we'd have to decide whether "a lot" meant 2 pounds or 50 pounds, and then you'd have to find out how much it weighs to see if it was indeed "a lot" or less than "a lot".

 

A lighter car could still perform well with "normal" sized rotors. Vipers had 17in wheels up until the current generation. C4 and C5's made due with 17's and/or 18's. Cars braked well before 20's, I think you can still get some nice brakes on 18s or 17's.

 

The 304 horse V6 is plenty of horses if the Camaro dropped down to around 3400-3500 pounds.

Remember:

high horsepower=weight.

Less wight="what are you willing to give up to get it"

There is far more additional weight in Camaro related to the chassis' high horsepower and torque capacity, high speed solidity, and IRS than there is for anything else.

If we're willing to lose horsepower the only thing we'll miss is top speed but we'll have a lighter car. Is anyone willing to return to a high performance live axle (the keys to the equally-as-large Mustang's 300 pound weight advantage)?


You are 100% correct in one aspect.

If yopu are a fan of a lighter, smaller, and even better handling Camaro, the new CAFE standards (along with the tremdous market success of the new Camaro) is the best thing to ever happen to the Camaro and it's future.

 

What I'd like to see is a component-by-component study of where exactly the weight in current cars comes from vs. performance cars of the past that tipped the scales at lower weights.

I want to see the demons all lined-up with their weights.

I want to know what airbags cost in weight penalty, same for power seats and so on.

 

Yes, it would make these discussions so much easier. I have a list of option weights for my 1971 Cutlass, but it's not very relevant to today's cars, as things like electric motors and A/C compressors are a lot lighter and cheaper.

I have read in the past that it's cheaper and easier to just make power windows standard these days, and that when Hyundai or Kia (don't remember which) made them optional in their base car, it was more for appearances than cost savings. That was definitely not the case 40 years ago.

 

i did state why. i used an example. sorry if you couldn't figure out a "luxury" seat was a power seat.

i could careless what most camaros have. my point is luxury items add weight. i have no idea why you bring his posts into this.


i think me using seats as an example supports my objection. doesn't matter if its 2lbs (highly unlikely) or 50lbs they still add weight. seems you just want to talk in circles and split hairs.

 

This message board does. I remember riding in my 160 and 200 hp Firebird and Camaro and being snubbed here because of that, since V6s
"bring down the name of the F-body"

I always get such a kick of out weight, especially from automotive journalists. They review a car, ANY car, and always have something to say: "This subcompact car is great, it's so light....but it doesn't have an in-dash GPS nav screen and heated and cooled seats?

"We really love all the amenities, features, and luxury of this car, but it is just so heavy."

****ing pick one and stick with it, Motor Trend/Car & Driver/Road & Track/Automobile (leaving Top Gear out of this because they are smarter than that)

 

I'll tell you something....

Yesterday I sold the most fun to drive car I've ever owned, my '98 SVT Contour. It was only a 15 second car but it was an absolute blast to drive - always.

There's more to the joys of driving than simply going 1320 feet quickly.

 

Yes but we're driving cars some +450 lb heavier today than the cars you quoted. That's the difference.

The Viper's brakes were not exactly great for circuit work or even a few hard braking applications.

Anyway, I've never read or heard anybody say the brakes on these cars are too strong! Good brakes are a necessity, not an option.

 

Adding Heat elements to a seat adds ~2lb to the seat and then another 2-3lb in wiring, fuses, switches and the like. Cooling seats is more than double that. Motors and such for the adjustments can add as much as 20lb to 30lb depending on the way they work and number of motors. Airbags (from memory) add about 5-6lb to the seat, as the seat has to be stronger and have more material.

Seats also gain weight due to increasing crash standards.

I've heard in the 600+ range as well. Most people don't realize if you design a car for 550hp and stick a 550hp motor in there, you're going to break a lot of stuff under warranty. I've heard the 4th gen was meant to go to ~375hp. The 5th gen was meant for ~550hp. Increase torque by 46% and think that caused some weight gain?

They can put crazy powerful brakes under 18" wheels. I would respond that anyone who thinks you need 20" wheels to fit decent brakes on a car is compromising solid engineering with an inferior (cheap) brake design. The 20" situation was, as said, more of a design thing.

If you fully multiplexed the electronics of a 6th gen, I bet you'd pull ~100lb out of the car compared to non-multiplexed, get a massive increase in diagnostic ability, and only increase the cost of the car (upfront) by a max of $300. Too bad your warranty costs would go through the roof and the engineers doing the failure analysis would go bald from ripping their hair out.

Where does one draw the line? Where do you accept increased upfront and warranty costs to reduce weight? How much do people really care?

Hey now! I think their act is more together than ever!