That was taken from the nhra scale at HRP... they run a tight ship, and I would guess that their scale is not off by a significant amount.

 

Straight from Michael Antonick's White Book:

"Chevrolet listed curb weights for the 1967 Camaro as 2,910 pounds for the 6-cylinder coupe, 3,070 pounds for the 8-cylinder coupe, 3,165 pounds for the 6-cylinder convertible, and 3,325 for the 8-cylinder convertible. "

Options (TH auto trannies, power windows, big block, ect.) would add to those numbers, of course.

 

I have a hard time believing a first gen camaro was lighter than a fourth gen, But I guess I could be wrong.
I find it strange that my Z would be heavier when the only thing on it that is metal is the rear qtr panels.
Hood fiberglass, front bumper plastic, front fenders plastic, doors plastic, qtr's metal, hatch looks like it's fiberglass but could be metal, rear bumper plastic.
jsut doesnt seem to add up, But I could be wrong

 

No 5 mph crash bumper inserts, no ABS, no air bags, no catalytic converters, less glass (comparatively speaking, the 4th gen. Camaro's windshield and hatch glass are huge), rarely power windows or door locks, no side impact bracing in the doors (at least there wasn't in my '67, IIRC), no power seats, cruise control, computers, amplifiers, a lot less wiring, and I'm sure I'm missing several more things.

 

That's a common misconception about those 60's era sports cars... You've got a LOT more metal in a 4th gen (among other things), whether you realize it or not! The 'skin' might be plastic in places, but there is plenty of steel structures underneath the roof, under the front fenders, side impact beams inside the doors, and so on that you don't see. Stuff like the rocker panels have at least double the steel in them compared to a 1st gen - safety is much more of a concern in late model cars. If you've ever seen the uni-body of a 1st gen up close, you know that there is really not a lot to them...

 

no one has mentioned the weight distribution for the 1st gen camaros?...is this something that is unknown?
i read somewhere that the guy winning the SCCA autocross events drives a 69 Camaro. granted, he's probably did alot of work to his suspension but i'm sure everyone there has done alot of work to their suspension. i can't remember where i read that, maybe someone can make my point a little more clear, but if there is a 69camaro winning autocross, and we've all seen 1st gen camaros owning the "street" class at the drag strip for the past 3 or 4 decades, doesn't this make the 1st gen the almighty muscle car?
obviously, if it wasn't for all the safety regulatiosn and emmissions equiptment our 4th gens would not only weigh less, but they would still have big block options and we'd all be pushing around 600hp from the factory...
...but time has changed how we build cars and it seems as if the 1st gen withstood time and still leads fbodies in being the baddest "muscle" car built.
don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to take ANYTHING away from 4th gen's, i'm 20 years old and absolutely love them. but if a person was to sit down and say, "i want to take a fbody and build a mean street machine, which year should i use as a base model?" i think the 1st gen camaro would be on top the list because 1. The light weight. 2. The desirable style and value. and 3. The possibilities--you can do so much stuff to 1st gen cars to make them better. Change the geometry of the suspension a little bit and you've got a car that will handle as good as 4th gens. Put money in the engine and it runs quicker than 4th gens with the same amount of money. Or take it another option and "modernize" the first gen camaro--again, change the suspension, put on some 17" or 18" wheels, drop a LT1 or Ls1 with a t56 tranny in it and you've got one bad street car that is most likely one of a kind. ...by the way, that last option is what i'd like to do with one of our 69 camaros.
i guess when it comes down to it, it's all in your individual taste for cars. I like the "luxury" of my 97Z (leather, monsoon, .9G on the skidpad, 14s 1/4mile all factory), but the "masculinity" of the 69 (raw power of a 396ci motor with retro styling). maybe one day i can afford to own both, but for now it is luxury.

 

But why? No one has even attempted to answer that...

 

1st gens are neat, but you've got a long way to go to catch up to a 4th gen... they cost a lot (even in stock form), and by the time you add a modern power train, brakes, and suspension peices to make it perform on par with a 4th gen, you've spent a big chunk of money... that being said, I love the pro-touring treatment on a 1st gen!

 

I answered it before, front end weight = push... therefore with a lighter front end it makes it easier to turn in when not only under braking, but at a static state as well. Most 40/60ish cars are mid engine, with large rear tires to compensate for the rear end being able to whip around, this equates to a faster time through any given turn = higher speeds down the straights = faster lap times.

 

Can I interest you in 170mph flip overs without extensive modificatins? I was planning to build a 68 Camaro pro-touring car, but after all the aerodynamic aids I would need to have a stable car at high speeds on some of the tracks I'll be racing at, it would be a ricer-camaro, like... potatoe or something I dunno... that's why the 4th gen is a better platform in my book. If you wanted to make a road racer, the 4th gen shines again, VFN has fiberglass just about everything for it, easily shed 300+lbs off the body with lexan, hood, rear deck, doors, etc. Strip the interior, and you can easily have a car weighing in at around 2600lbs with a cast iron block.

 

Yes, that is about right. Why do you think that is amazing?

 

i wasn't actually considering driving 170mph but now that you mention it that does sound fun! i'm not a big fan of stripping the interior. i like a stock looking cockpit. yeah if i wanted to build a race car i would definately strip everything like that but i want a car that will terrorize the streets and carve curves with a stylish stock form...is that asking too much?
i guess that's probably everyone's dream car, a 12.0 second car that holds a lateral-G on the skid pad. i think the "coolest" car to do that in would be a 69 camaro, but the easist to do that too would be an 84 Vette--they're dogs from the factory but if you put a good heads/cam package in it, or stroke it, with a little suspension modification you can have a great car. my friend is in the process of doing this, we'll see how it does in a couple weeks.

 

50/50 makes the car easily predictable, my 240Z is almost impossible to drive poorly. Look up info on "corner weighting" a car and you will find more info on weight distro and what it helps with.

40/60 is "better" but that is for F1 cars, and that is so beyond street car that there is not much reason chasing it. Many older, lighter cars can easily hit 47/53 FWIW. V8 240Z cars are sometimes 49/51, but setup can vary greatly.

 

Keep in mind that they are small cars, 4th gen are semi-large.

Also keep in mind, take all the AC, stereo and crap out of a 4th gen and you about hit 3000 pounds.

 

Thats just grip, you can have a poorly overal handling car that still gets decent skid pad numbers, even though it would not be terribly likely, its just not a way to really accurately measure "handling."

I like the first gen as well, but yes it would require more horsepower to make it go fast due to aero, and the 4th would probably have much better "lift" numbers at speed, like a bug which has very high lift numbers even at only 60 MPH. First gens can go fast though, plenty of them doing over 200 MPH and onward to 220 at Silver State, depending on the year that you observe who ran there and so on.