Weight
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
LOL...Guy...you just got on to Charlie for...
But then you "appreciate" the guy that said...
Seems its ok for the guy that agrees with your point of view to be "arrogant", but not the guy that holds a different point of view? There's a Kettle that is colored Black in there somewhere shipmate. Guess it depends on which side of the fence you wish to come down on. 
Bob
"Basically you're saying "If you don't agree with me, then you have no intention of buying one".
With all respect due to a fellow Camaro enthuisiast, this seems to be dangerously skirting the definition of arrogance to me.
With all respect due to a fellow Camaro enthuisiast, this seems to be dangerously skirting the definition of arrogance to me.
I’m sorry but I do not hold anyone’s opinion as valid if they fall into the “GM should build a 3-series-like Camaro” Camp. If that is your preference, then buy a BMW and let the rest of us have something more worthy of the Camaro name…
Bob
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
I don’t have every rule book form every year in front of me but I’m fairly certain that at least for the late ‘90’s through the 2005 seasons, the SS Camaro was in B-Stock then later (2004 I think) moved to A-Stock; all C5s were in Super Stock; the C4s in A-Stock.
[SNIP]
All that said, to the best of my knowledge, the SS Camaro and a C5 were never in the same Solo2 class at the same time although they may well have occupied the same class during different seasons.
[SNIP]
All that said, to the best of my knowledge, the SS Camaro and a C5 were never in the same Solo2 class at the same time although they may well have occupied the same class during different seasons.
Indeed, the SLP F-bodies used to be in SS (at least up until '01; there's a couple-year gap in my SoloII memory when my car spent its summers on jackstands, so I don't know when the SS and WS6 got knocked back down to A-Stock). I recall this well, as one of my fellow MTU alumni had a Camaro SS and got fed to the wolves in SS, where as another former classmate was running his '99 Mustang Cobra in F-Stock and was laying waste to the competition. It was a couple examples of gross misclassification that made one go
(the reason, if I'm not mistaken, has less to do with performance and more to do with the difference in documentation quality between the outsourced SLP work and the in-house SVT production). [/off-topic]Some food for thought - how did the Corvette drop so much weight between the fourth and fifth generations, and how has it keep the weight off without dramatic increases in sticker price while damn near every other car on the market is bulking-up? And what portions of that magic could be brought down to an even more affordable price point via economies of scale?
Last edited by Eric Bryant; Jul 29, 2007 at 08:16 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
Seems its ok for the guy that agrees with your point of view to be "arrogant", but not the guy that holds a different point of view? There's a Kettle that is colored Black in there somewhere shipmate. Guess it depends on which side of the fence you wish to come down on.
[continued off-topic excursion]
Indeed, the SLP F-bodies used to be in SS (at least up until '01; there's a couple-year gap in my SoloII memory when my car spent its summers on jackstands, so I don't know when the SS and WS6 got knocked back down to A-Stock). I recall this well, as one of my fellow MTU alumni had a Camaro SS and got fed to the wolves in SS, where as another former classmate was running his '99 Mustang Cobra in F-Stock and was laying waste to the competition. It was a couple examples of gross misclassification that made one go (the reason, if I'm not mistaken, has less to do with performance and more to do with the difference in documentation quality between the outsourced SLP work and the in-house SVT production). [/off-topic]
Indeed, the SLP F-bodies used to be in SS (at least up until '01; there's a couple-year gap in my SoloII memory when my car spent its summers on jackstands, so I don't know when the SS and WS6 got knocked back down to A-Stock). I recall this well, as one of my fellow MTU alumni had a Camaro SS and got fed to the wolves in SS, where as another former classmate was running his '99 Mustang Cobra in F-Stock and was laying waste to the competition. It was a couple examples of gross misclassification that made one go
(the reason, if I'm not mistaken, has less to do with performance and more to do with the difference in documentation quality between the outsourced SLP work and the in-house SVT production). [/off-topic]As a comment on what was said previously about the Fbodies as related to the Vette; They did have many serious disadvantages to the Corvette on a roadcourse, chief among them were the woefully inappropriate shocks. If you got a car with SLP Bilsteins or a 1LE with Konis it should have made the car much better. But even then you still have more weight and poorer distribution than on the Corvette. The rear axle could be positive/neutral on a very smooth track but a disadvantage on a rougher surface. You could get better tires than the runflats on the Corvette as has been stated. All in all it isn't inconceivable that a properly optioned SS could outlap a Corvette on a certain track but I think a lot of that was in the tires. I think a lot of the extra driveline loss that the Corvette is reported as having may be the result of skewed numbers and uncertainty inherent in dynos and less to do with a real disadvantage. I think the Corvette by and large had the performance advantage in every category but as such in the real world there wasn't enough disparity to prevent it from being a driver's race in many situations.
Some food for thought - how did the Corvette drop so much weight between the fourth and fifth generations, and how has it keep the weight off without dramatic increases in sticker price while damn near every other car on the market is bulking-up? And what portions of that magic could be brought down to an even more affordable price point via economies of scale?
I would hope that the Camaro won't come in way over 3500 pounds at least one models that aren't loaded with options. We'll see what happens. I do not plan on buying one because it is the wrong Fbody for me. If we were talking about a 5th Gen Firebird instead of Camaro I do not think that weight would be an absolute deal breaker for me unless it was absurd for a pony car (near 4000lbs). However since every single performance measure is tied to weight, it would have to meet my expectations and outperform my Formula while having superior build quality and refinement. Not that it is impossible to make a heavy car perform well, but if the car weighs less to begin with it will perform better with the same development effort.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Some food for thought - how did the Corvette drop so much weight between the fourth and fifth generations, and how has it keep the weight off without dramatic increases in sticker price while damn near every other car on the market is bulking-up? And what portions of that magic could be brought down to an even more affordable price point via economies of scale?
The LSX engine alone would have shed something like 100 lbs...
Aluminium chassis components...
The floor/firewall is comprised of cheap, lightweight balso wood material which is sandwiched between metal layers to dampen the noise harmonics...
Oh wait, here's a good link which explains extensive use of aluminum (hydroform chassis), multiplex wiring replacing the old, heavy harness from the C4...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...rticleId=44095
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
Hmmm....yes....and a base 1996 LT1 Corvette had an MSRP of $37,225 with a curb weight of 3298 lbs, whilst a base 1997 LS1 Corvette had an MSRP of $37,495 with a curb weight of 3218 lbs.
Hmmm.
If we then compare C5 to C6 transition years, the base 2004 LS1 Corvette had an MSRP of $43,735 with a curb weight of 3214 lbs, whilst a base 2005 LS2 Corvette had an MSRP of $43,445 with a curb weight of 3179 lbs.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
And finally, a 2008 LS3 Corvette has an MSRP of $45,170 with a curb weight of 3217 lbs (it went up ~40 lbs, OMG!).
But - that's a Corvette, and it just doesn't count.
Guess I need to buy another thread....or a BMW (hurl).
Bob
Hmmm.
If we then compare C5 to C6 transition years, the base 2004 LS1 Corvette had an MSRP of $43,735 with a curb weight of 3214 lbs, whilst a base 2005 LS2 Corvette had an MSRP of $43,445 with a curb weight of 3179 lbs.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
And finally, a 2008 LS3 Corvette has an MSRP of $45,170 with a curb weight of 3217 lbs (it went up ~40 lbs, OMG!).
But - that's a Corvette, and it just doesn't count.
Guess I need to buy another thread....or a BMW (hurl).
Bob
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Hmmm....yes....and a base 1996 LT1 Corvette had an MSRP of $37,225 with a curb weight of 3298 lbs, whilst a base 1997 LS1 Corvette had an MSRP of $37,495 with a curb weight of 3218 lbs.
Hmmm.
If we then compare C5 to C6 transition years, the base 2004 LS1 Corvette had an MSRP of $43,735 with a curb weight of 3214 lbs, whilst a base 2005 LS2 Corvette had an MSRP of $43,445 with a curb weight of 3179 lbs.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
And finally, a 2008 LS3 Corvette has an MSRP of $45,170 with a curb weight of 3217 lbs (it went up ~40 lbs, OMG!).
But - that's a Corvette, and it just doesn't count.
Guess I need to buy another thread....or a BMW (hurl).
Bob
Hmmm.
If we then compare C5 to C6 transition years, the base 2004 LS1 Corvette had an MSRP of $43,735 with a curb weight of 3214 lbs, whilst a base 2005 LS2 Corvette had an MSRP of $43,445 with a curb weight of 3179 lbs.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
And finally, a 2008 LS3 Corvette has an MSRP of $45,170 with a curb weight of 3217 lbs (it went up ~40 lbs, OMG!).
But - that's a Corvette, and it just doesn't count.
Guess I need to buy another thread....or a BMW (hurl).
Bob
Did you not read how GM managed to lighten Corvette's weight from C4 to C5? GM used a lot of aluminium, especially in the body, suspension and engine.
So how would you suggest GM lighten the car again? Use Titanium in the body, suspension and engine? Gee, titanium costs an arm and a leg, if I'm not mistaken.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 666
From: Stockton, Ca. USA
My first autox I ran in SS with my SS. I got stomped. With the experience I have now and some r compound tires I think I could have done well in SS back then. SS is so fast now the Camaro SS wont stand a chance. SS now has Z06's, Vipers, Lotus's and Porshe's. I have seen these guys run TTD all the time.
Anyhow the SS was in SS, then Bstock, then to Astock, and now it looks like they will finally end up in Fstock. Hell I run ESP so it doesnt matter much to me anyway, but if the 09 Camaro meets to my liking, I will be it in Fstock.
Anyhow the SS was in SS, then Bstock, then to Astock, and now it looks like they will finally end up in Fstock. Hell I run ESP so it doesnt matter much to me anyway, but if the 09 Camaro meets to my liking, I will be it in Fstock.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
Earth to Mars... hello.
Did you not read how GM managed to lighten Corvette's weight from C4 to C5? GM used a lot of aluminium, especially in the body, suspension and engine.
So how would you suggest GM lighten the car again? Use Titanium in the body, suspension and engine? Gee, titanium costs an arm and a leg, if I'm not mistaken.
Did you not read how GM managed to lighten Corvette's weight from C4 to C5? GM used a lot of aluminium, especially in the body, suspension and engine.
So how would you suggest GM lighten the car again? Use Titanium in the body, suspension and engine? Gee, titanium costs an arm and a leg, if I'm not mistaken.
Mars to Earth....howdy. Can you see me up here on Mars? Ya - flying way up over your head.....right beside my point.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
I think I know you better than that. I honestly believe that you want the best Camaro possible, and I know you're extremely passionate about it, but lets be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Fair enough. 
OK, here where I stand on all this.
My idea of a new and near perfect Camaro would probally be very close to Charlie's. A car that resets the pony car for a new age. Small, lightweight, rear drive. I like the BMW 3 series size (+/- 180") and personally have no burning need to to have the most horsepower on the planet, and prefer handling and the "Wow Factor" when it comes to performance. I don't need a car that produces enough horsepower to power a small city like the GT500, and unlike some here, I won't go into a mental meltdown and want to go out and buy a "pump" to reassert my manliness if Chevrolet decides not to match Ford or Chrysler horsepower to horsepower on the Camaro.
But at the same time, the public isn't actually buying Mitsubishi Eclipse sized coupes, and BMW 3 series are selling not as perfect sized cars, but as entry level Bimmers. I KNOW that GM is doing the best they can do under the constraints they have to work with to produce a car that Camaro enthusiasts will love. But at the same time, the car has to sell in the real market and to real people, not just to the weightwatchers and the microsecond crowd.
I'm honest enough to say that my ideal Camaro won't sell, and will probally anger most of the Camaro enthusiasts at this website. I have no barrier against a Z28 that is the size of a G35, weighs 3300 pounds, and had a 3.6 Direct Injection V6 instead of the latest 500 horsepower V8. I'm not against superchargers (as you may notice in my sig), so the idea of a blown V6 instead of a NA V8 in no means ruins my day. But to the public and enthusiast at large, I know I'm speaking the unspeakable. But at the same time, we'd have a lightweight car and something definately tossable.
On the surface I know it seems I'm taking both sides of this, but my only objective in all of this is to see Camaro succeed in the marketplace. If that means that my opinion of a smaller Camaro is at odds with the marketplace, I'm freely setting that aside. If that means that the public prefers a usable back seat to my "occasional use as a package shelf more than a seat", then I'm open enough to say Im wrong.
Again, my objective is getting butts into the seats of Camaros, and getting them made at a profit margin at GM that guaranties the cars will live for a very, very long time.
LOL...Guy...you just got on to Charlie for...
But then you "appreciate" the guy that said...
Seems its ok for the guy that agrees with your point of view to be "arrogant", but not the guy that holds a different point of view? There's a Kettle that is colored Black in there somewhere shipmate. Guess it depends on which side of the fence you wish to come down on.
Bob
But then you "appreciate" the guy that said...
Seems its ok for the guy that agrees with your point of view to be "arrogant", but not the guy that holds a different point of view? There's a Kettle that is colored Black in there somewhere shipmate. Guess it depends on which side of the fence you wish to come down on.
Bob
OK, here where I stand on all this.
My idea of a new and near perfect Camaro would probally be very close to Charlie's. A car that resets the pony car for a new age. Small, lightweight, rear drive. I like the BMW 3 series size (+/- 180") and personally have no burning need to to have the most horsepower on the planet, and prefer handling and the "Wow Factor" when it comes to performance. I don't need a car that produces enough horsepower to power a small city like the GT500, and unlike some here, I won't go into a mental meltdown and want to go out and buy a "pump" to reassert my manliness if Chevrolet decides not to match Ford or Chrysler horsepower to horsepower on the Camaro.
But at the same time, the public isn't actually buying Mitsubishi Eclipse sized coupes, and BMW 3 series are selling not as perfect sized cars, but as entry level Bimmers. I KNOW that GM is doing the best they can do under the constraints they have to work with to produce a car that Camaro enthusiasts will love. But at the same time, the car has to sell in the real market and to real people, not just to the weightwatchers and the microsecond crowd.
I'm honest enough to say that my ideal Camaro won't sell, and will probally anger most of the Camaro enthusiasts at this website. I have no barrier against a Z28 that is the size of a G35, weighs 3300 pounds, and had a 3.6 Direct Injection V6 instead of the latest 500 horsepower V8. I'm not against superchargers (as you may notice in my sig), so the idea of a blown V6 instead of a NA V8 in no means ruins my day. But to the public and enthusiast at large, I know I'm speaking the unspeakable. But at the same time, we'd have a lightweight car and something definately tossable.
On the surface I know it seems I'm taking both sides of this, but my only objective in all of this is to see Camaro succeed in the marketplace. If that means that my opinion of a smaller Camaro is at odds with the marketplace, I'm freely setting that aside. If that means that the public prefers a usable back seat to my "occasional use as a package shelf more than a seat", then I'm open enough to say Im wrong.
Again, my objective is getting butts into the seats of Camaros, and getting them made at a profit margin at GM that guaranties the cars will live for a very, very long time.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Let’s face it. There are certain folks around here that will not be content until GM offers us a Camaro that is BMW 3-series in size and performance. Unfortunately such a car would come with a 3-series MSRP as well. The 3-series is a great car, but it is not a Camaro by any form or fashion. I am fortunate to own a 4th gen Camaro, a couple 1st gen Camaros and a 2001 M3 at this time. The M3 looks like a freaking Aveo next to my Camaros, that includes my 1st gens, which many of you would have to agree are almost compact in proportions next to a 4th gen.
I’m sorry but I do not hold anyone’s opinion as valid if they fall into the “GM should build a 3-series-like Camaro” Camp. If that is your preference, then buy a BMW and let the rest of us have something more worthy of the Camaro name… even if it does end up weighing in just shy of two tons when all is said and done.
I’m sorry but I do not hold anyone’s opinion as valid if they fall into the “GM should build a 3-series-like Camaro” Camp. If that is your preference, then buy a BMW and let the rest of us have something more worthy of the Camaro name… even if it does end up weighing in just shy of two tons when all is said and done.
But it's your post's last sentence which I find disturbing.
..."let the rest of us have something more worthy of the Camaro name… even if it does end up weighing in just shy of two tons when all is said and done".
Wow. Talk about one man's opinion......
I think that's the point where we close the books on the Camaro, and just call this turkey an Impala coupe.