This thread is starting to look an awful lot like this one:

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=440743

So what most of you who think there's nothing GM can do to make Camaro a lighter, better handling car are saying.....is if I want a "true driver's car" in the tradition of a Camaro, I need to buy a 3rd gen and stuff an LS-whatever in it, right?

If some of you would actually follow the history of the Camaro, you'd remember what happened with the 2nd gen cars ('70-'81). Those cars got heavier and heavier as the years went on due to, you guessed it, INCREASED GOVERNMENT SAFETY STANDARDS. What happened after that you say? GM managed to make a Camaro that not only passed those increased safety standards, but LOST 200+ pounds along the way.

Again, the trend for Camaro seems to be going towards heavier, poorer handling cars. I really hope for GM and Camaro's sake it doesn't continue with the 5th gen. 3800lbs? If I want something that heavy, I'd buy an SUV.

 

Maybe someone can - but not me. I'm not crying for Vette horsepower, Vette weight, or Vette performance.

It is easy to stereotype everyone one that is complaining about potential weigth issues and lump them all together, but it is also inaccurate.

You are likely correct.

If you are referring to me, I am certainly a straight-line type of person, and make no apologies for it. I can *wish* GM would build a car for me (Ford tried with the Mach 1), but I have no illusions/delusions about them doing so.

I think you're quite right. I would add that while there are cries from some enthusiasts, there also seems to be lot of excuses from some nutswingers.

My opinion, of course.
Bob

 

Any real SUV is going to be a lot more than 3,800 lbs...the Acadia, which isn't even a truck-based SUV tips the scales at 4,700lbs for the FWD model/over 4,900 for the AWD.

I haven't heard anyone say that GM can't make a lighter, better handling Camaro...what is being said is that it can't be done at the price point that Camaro needs to be in to have a real shot at success; especially when the manufacturer is hard-pressed to come up with development dollars and must also meet all the various mandates the car will have to meet.

"Wanting" is fine but how about you let GM get the car on the street and maybe have a model year under its belt (which will allow some time and money for improvements) before everybody gets into such a snit about what the car's curb weight might be.

 

YES! My feelings exactly. You've just stated probably 49% of the reason why I just can't see myself in a Corvette. (The other 51% would be the aforementioned styling thing)

As you say, not all Corvette drivers are this way (the Corvette guys that actually compete with their cars are usually the exception) but certainly the majority.

However....if the new car comes in at a weight that I find disagreeable, I will most likely find my way into a Corvette. Talk about mixed feelings.

 

I assume, that you are suggesting that the fourth-gen was the equal, performance wise, to the C4s/C5s of the same model years? If so, I think you are mistaken. While they were not worlds apart in performance, under identical circumstances and equally skilled drivers, a stock ‘Vette would win in most any category measured over a stock fourth-gen.


There is a galaxy of difference between an individual taking an existing car and stuffing a high horsepower engine in it and not (so claimed) having any problems and a major auto manufacturer building a car for the public that must meet more requirements than I’ll wager you have any idea exists.


No one want’s to be but we’re all paying for stuff that we, personally, may not want and not always able to get things we do.

I hate “On-Star” but if I buy a new GM vehicle it’s going to be there so I can either buy it and live with it or not buy a GM vehicle – I doubt GM really cares if I like On-Star or not.

A manufacturer can’t afford to let customers decided on an item by item basis what is going to be in a single vehicle unless you want to pay a WHOLE lot more $$$ for it. That’s something the foreign nameplates learned a long time ago and the domestics have taken to heart (and for good reason).

 

I'm sure they have, because insurance costs can kill a car like the Camaro dead.

It's gotta be easy to fix and therefore cheap(er) to insure. (ie no BMW-type situations where the car gets totaled because the frame bends when kissing a bumper)

 

Exactly.....and there are a lot more people who love OnStar than us that don't, so do you think GM would have it in their cars if more people hated it enough for people to buy something else? Think about it. What the "lemmings" who love OnStar don't know is that technology can do a lot more than save your @$$ if you lock your keys out of your car. I'd rather pay $30 for a locksmith any day and twice on Sunday.....knowwhatimeanvern?
OnStar, along with A LOT of other bull$h!t they put on cars, is a whole lot of DEAD WEIGHT, and don't belong on a driver's car like Camaro. If people want all that crap, it should be optional, not standard equipment.

 

And that's exactly the problem - the yelling occurs 12 months before production, when the suppliers' designs are already validated (and tooling might have been kicked off), and the customer is offering up a paltry $0.25 for each pound of weight saved. Yea, like that's an attractive proposition

 

Some of us have been "yelling" for quite some time.

 

Hasnt it already been officially stated that GM "called Jenny Craig" for weight concerns?
Why is it still a point of conversation?
Even if the 5th gen weighs 3700-3800 lbs who cares honestly? GM has said that the backseat will have more room than the previous generation, and there are many aftermarket companies on board waiting to flood the market with parts. Its been hinted at before that the live axle swap will be pheasible and will save weight for all those ppl...including myself who want something simple and strong.
Give it a rest ppl...if you have no new topics to argue about go back to the "Z28 vs. SS as top dog" threads. At least wait for the production Challenger to appear next Feb. to see what kind of weight we could possibly be looking at. The only real platforms we have to look for weight are the ones down under..and they dont count because they dont have the same standards and regulations.

 

From your statement, you seem to imply that if it were in fact the size of a 15/16 version of the concept Camaro, 1/16th would be shed weight.

Let's extrapolate your theory then.... 1/16th of a 1600 kg (3500 lb) car is 100kg (220 lbs). Let me just say that considering Camaro contains many Zeta components, there is no way you will shed another 1/16th (or 220 plus lb) of the car's assumed weight as most of the parts are commonized.

Tyres, wheels, suspension components? Nope, no weight saving to be had there as those items are pretty standard. Keep looking.

Seats, plastics, interior trim, door skins? Not likely as the driver passenger seats will be pretty much identical.

Shell, roof, front, rear quarter panels? Maybe some weight can be lost there but I doubt it will amount to as much as 16th of the assumed weight of those components.

When you dissect the information in proper detail, you begin to wonder about the pains GM would be going through to reduce the car's weight to appease the mandates of the enthusiasts.

 

This really isn't hard to understand and in fact has been discussed by FBodFarther himself; a manufacturer can't afford to just offer a laundry list of options for individuals to choose from; the added expense that causes is huge.

If people are going to try to force GM and others back into that way of doing things you can kiss the Camaro goodby because there won't be a GM to build it.

The overwhelming majority of buyers want all that "crap" so that's how they will be built because it would be momumentally stupid for GM to do otherwiese.

For every person who wants a bare-bones, no-frills at all Camaro because all they care about it raw performance; there are 50,000 others who would never buy such a car and would move quickly to other vehicles; who do you think GM should try to cater to???

 

Hmmmm.....who cares? I'd say quite a few considering there's 8 pages of posts in this thread, and if you read it all, I posted a link to a very similar thread.
Also, judging from what you're saying, basically the Camaro will be another GTO with different styling, since 3800lbs is about what GTO weighs.
However, I thought the whole reason for having a Camaro and not a Firebird was to not have 2 GM cars competing for the same small market segment. I'd say the Camaro better be lighter than the GTO to distinguish it from that model. That way, GM will have 3 great RWD/V8 performance cars to choose from, and in 3 DISTINCT trim levels.

 

LOL. Uh, ya. You're right. Nobody.

Keep the Faith!
Bob

 

Damn, it's funny how I agree with you again....

If a person wants all-out performance in a RWD/V8/2-seater, buy a Corvette. If a person likes a luxury performance car with good backseat room, get a GTO. Don't you think it would be wise for GM to split the difference with the Camaro? Because what you're saying is they will make it heavy, more roomy, and with more luxuries - damn sure sounds like a GTO to me. If they plan on making the Camaro like the GTO, they might as well not build it at all.