While you're there, ask them why they didn't put the 3.6 in it. Putting an engine with the characteristics of the 3.0 into a CUV doesn't make sense to me. I'd like to hear an explanation other than "the 3.0 is sufficient". All the competition have a 3.5 or larger, except for BMW, which has a turbo and does not have an NA 6 larger than 3.0.

 

Absolutely.

 

I think I now understand what you are saying, Plague.

The concern I have is that Corolla is approaching Commodore weight of only 12 years ago. Let's put this into perspective, Corolla is a compact, Commodore is a large car. That's two levels above in twelve years.

It seems that chassis engineers are undoing a lot of the good gains made by powertrain engineers.

Although I'm mostly at odds with Z284ever on a lot of topics, I can see his point... it's just that my extremes aren't as strict as his. Hypothetically, a 6/7th gen Camaro weighing in at Taurus SHO levels certainly would turn me off muscle cars completely, yet that's the direction we're heading in.

We should be revising our standards, maybe relaxing them a little and finding innovative ways to achieve overall objectives.

Reverting to Corolla sized vehicles just doesn't do it for me.

 

Food for thought for those who think people that say the new f-body doesn't have a w****t problem.....and that "we" are part of a "scant minority"......

I've been trying to read every review written so far about the car, and what I've seen is that every - I mean EVERY article mentions it's mass, and not just to list it as part of it's overall specifications either. EVERY one of them lists "it" as a significant detractor from the overall driving experience - regardless of the numbers the car puts down on the track.

No, I haven't driven "the car".....I plan on renting one just to see how it really drives.

All I know is this.....If I'm ever going to get a newer "non-appliance" vehicle, they sure as hell better find a way to make them lighter or they can forget about me buying one. Worst case scenario, I guess I'll just stick with my old "clunker" Firebird.

 

I think everybody here would love it if the Camaro could get down to the weight of any previous generation Taurus SHO

Not all cars are getting bigger. The size of a "fullsize" car seems to be getting smaller and smaller.

 

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the new fullsize 4,3XXlb Ecoboost Awd SHO, not the midsize fwd N/A v6 ones from the past.

 

I believe most of Europe tax vehicles based on engine displacement (or at least they did; it's been a while since I was over there); that doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me.

 

A bad idea imo since it'd also punish light-weight vehicles like the corvette. American's like their bigger displacement engines. The powertrains are fine and pretty efficient (camaro manages to match or best the mustang in fuel economy despite its larger engine and mass); it's the platforms, sheer size, and modern conveniences that have driven weight up. I don't think throwing a dinky little engine into an already bloated car will solve anything since that's pretty much what a tax on displacement would accomplish.

 

I've been reading the same reviews, and I don't read that it's as significant detractor as that. But never mind that.

My point (I'm the same as teal98 -- just using a different computer; can you tell that I bought two F4.5s? and what years and colors?) has never been that it's really a lightweight, but that it's competitive. Build a car to take 426/420 (not to mention the LSA) at a low 30K price point, and it's not going to be a flyweight. In hindsight, I think GM should have built a variant optimized for the 3.6, saving weight wherever possible to get down to around 3500 like the Genesis coupe.

For what it's worth, magazines have complained about the Camaro's weight for the last 25 years, at least. I remember back in the mid 90s reading articles complaining about the Camaro's weight while lavishing praise on and not mentioning weight in Supra (which actually weighed more) reviews .... whatever. What about the C63, Aston Martins, 360hp 3800+ pound 650i, etc., etc.

For what it's worth two, if you take the lightweight posterchild (M3) and toughen it up to handle 420lb ft and dragstrip launches, I'd be surprised if even the base manual shift, no luxury options model didn't come to within 150 pounds of the Camaro.

 

I have read reviews where the weight of the car is mentioned in negative light, and rightfully so. The car does weigh a lot. But the writers are in the minority of people who are concerned about the weight. The automag review argument just doesn't mean much when you think about it that way. And if you want the light weight fun car, get a Vette.

 

I make no bones about weight being a huge issue for me. However, I am also fully aware that I am part of a very small (if also very vocal) minority of the potential Camaro-buying public, and that for the vast majority of those buyers, it is looks, features, overall feel, and cost that matters the most.

Oh well. Sucks to be me.