mkent

i know the Vette's are very close to having 50/50 weight displacement ratio but how do we stand in this subject? also, i wonder how we 4thgens compare to 1stgens in this?
i did a search and didn't find anything. I guess i just find this interesting, so if nobody knows, it isn't going to kill me but it would satisfy my wondering mind.

treyZ28

stock

58-42

mkent

what exactly does the 50/50 displacement do? my understanding is that it helps with traction/handling.
i don't know for a fact, but i'm guessing the 69 camaro was closer to 50/50 than our 4th gens...and since the 69 camaro weighs 400-500# less than our cars wouldn't that make it a better overall performance car?
maybe i'm just restating a majority opinion that i'm a little slow at figuring out, but i guess i never realized how great the 69 camaro is.

Larnach

A 69 Camaro does not weight 2900lbs, not even an inline 6 without an interior... more like 3300lbs.

OldSStroker

Some thoughts:

No, '67-'69 Camaros were not 400-500 lb. lighter than 4th gen. Their front-reat weight distribution was no better and perhaps worst than 4th gen. Remember they had iron heads and most often iron intakes on that front mounted engine.

For acceleration, more weight on the drive wheels provides more push. If you can pull the fronts at launch, 100% is on the rears. The amount of weight transferred from front to rear during acceleration depends on g's of acceleration, the height of the center of gravity (CG) and the wheelbase. Higher CG is better for a rear wheel drive car, and worse for a front driver.

As far as handling is concerned, since all four tires are helping generate side (or lateral) loads, equal loading (50-50 distribution) generally increases that cornering power. Again weight transfer from the inside tires to the outside tires in cornering depends upon (lateral) acceleration g's, the height of the CG and track width. With 56-58% statically on the front, more is transferred to the outside front tire and it quickly becomes overloaded limiting cornering ability. Lower CG is better for cornering.

1st gen F-cars didn't have all that good front suspension geometry, especially when using today's wide, sticky tires. Where a stock SS or WS6 generates about .90+ lateral g's, a '69 on stock 7.50/14 2-ply, narrow bias ply tires was lucky to get .68 to .70 g's, about where a SUV is today.

Many younger folks haven't driven 1st gen F-cars hard in their stock form, or perhaps even a mildly modified form. Us old farts who were around when they were new did and really appreciate the considerably better perfomance of 4th gens.

Maybe this applies to Camaros also: "The older I get, the better I was."

My $.02

Injuneer

Just to get the terminology correct, you are not talking about "50/50 weight transfer", not about "50/50 weight displacement"..... you are talking about weight distribution. From the road test data I have seen, the LT1 4th Gen's appear to be in the range of 55%front/45% rear to the number Trey cited.

bachehbad

so when our cars are just sitting still thet have a 55/45 front/rear weight distribution? if this is true that is amazing.

Larnach

4th Gen Camaro
Front weight distribution 56%
Rear weight distribution 46%
Drag coeffecient 0.340
Frontal Area 22.0sq. ft.
Height 51.3" (52" for Firebird)
Width 74.1" (74.5" for Firebird)
Ground Clearance 4.4"

C5 (Hardtop not Coupe)
Front weight distribution 52%
Rear weight distribution 48%
Drag coeffecient 0.310 (0.290 for Coupe)
Frontal Area 22.0sq. ft.
Height 47.7"
Width 73.6"
Ground Clearance 3.7"

An optimal weight distribution for handling, and for drag launches would be around 45% front and 55% rear.

Soma07

For drag racing probably, but for turning corners I dont see it. Wouldn't a rear weight bias make the car to want to oversteer in steady state corner no? I'm thinking like in a Porsche 911...

That said I think the whole "50/50 weight distribution" thing is overblown. The setup of the car and the suspension geometry plays a far greater role IMO. Again think Porsche 911, terrible weight distribution yet still considered a great handling car.

EddieP

3300lbs?!?! My '67 Camaro, full interior, iron headed SBC with factory A/C, steel hood, ect. weighed 3078 pounds... With aluminum heads, water pump, and a glass hood it would easily be in the 29xx range.

6 cylinder 1st gen w/o an interior weighing 3300 lbs?! LOL!

EddieP

Almost forgot, the above weight was with a saginaw cast iron tranny! I later put a aluminum 4 speed Muncie M-21 that was considerably lighter.

Est96Z28

50/50 weight distribution is good just for getting high lateral acceleration g nrs.

For actual road racing 40/60 is the best, but such cars (mid or rear engined) are more trickier to drive than front engined cars.

Few examples what are the those figures for different cars:

Honda NSX 42/58
Toyota mr2 44/56
Lamborghini Diablo 41/59
Ferrari F355 43/57
Mazda rx8 50/50
Audi TT 64/36
Audi urQuattro 60/40
Porsche 928 50/50
Porsche 924 52/48
Porsche 944 50/50
Porsche 996 (911) 41/59
Honda S2000 50/50
Civic 61/39
Integra Type-R 62/38
MB SLK 53/47
MB E55 AMG 52/48
VW golf IV 1,8 gti 61/39
VW Corrado 62/38
BMW Z3 52/48
E-46 BMW 51/49
E-36 M3 50/50
BMW Z8 50/50

Larnach

Holy crap your right, the specs for the 1st gens are so varied around the net it's hard to come up with any real concrete numbers.

Some of our guys over @ Pro-Touring.com have aluminium blocks, full interiors, aftermarket subframes, fiberglass, carbon fiber this and that and they weigh in between 3200-3600lbs!

As far as weight distribution, a rear bias helps a lot with turn in, not as much front end push. A majority of the rear bias cars are Mid engine, with large rear tires to cope with the rear end being "thrown" around in the back.

EDIT:
If your Camaro has all of that, your scale is way off, I'm looking over GM specs and it says 3,378lbs for a stock stripped 350 car.

I was at a drag racer site, fiberglass fenders, hood, no interior, aluminium heads, intake, water pump, TH400, weighed in at 2960 without fuel. That's roughly 200lbs coming off of a stock car.

12sec97Z28

Doesn't that make 102% weight distribution? LOL.

Larnach

44% rear