I would love to see a Z/28 @3,400lbs... When is the 6th Gen cars suppose to debut ???

I don't think that will happen, the Caddy ATS V6 is about 3,456 lb., then add V8 and driveline weight a 6th gen Z/28 should be at 3,516 lbs. or slightly more based on preliminary guesses from the 2013 ATS weights (the ATS and 6th gen Camaro will share the Alpha chassis). The 6th gen Camaro should be a 2016 model, so we should see them in 2015 (possibly late 2015 rather than early).
Clyde

I'm hoping they use a SC 3.6L for the ATS-V. That way the tech will roll down to us who dig the V6 Camaros. As for the Z28, It would be cool if they used a true 302 CI V8 motor for this car and it weighed in under 3500 lbs and can at least go toe to toe with an M3 on a road course if not beat it. Now that to me would be awesome and a car I'd love to own. I still would love to see an H.O. FI V6 option for the Camaro as well. Not sure what it could be called. RS-R for rice? JK

I've been following the ATS for a while now because I'm so excited at the potential for the Alpha platform. Now that specs are getting out people are going nuts over this car. This is the 4th or 5th seperate thread I've seen on this car now.

They are saying the turbo 4 will weigh a little over 3,300 lbs. I'd imagine the V6 can't weight much if at all over 3,400. Now Imagine the next Camaro V6 weighing about that much...my gosh that would be so fun. Stock it would be capable of mid 5 or so to 60 MPH, with a mid to mid-high 13 second quarter. Hell some decent bolt ons would put it damn close to today's SS.

Now imagine a DI V8 or TTV6 in there....*drool*

They should have called it the LR1. Keep the order going (90s LT, 00s, LS, 10s, LR, 20s, LQ).:)

Sorry, this is just how my brain works.:facepalm:

If theV6 ats weighs 3500 lbs. it will be quicker accelerating than the gen5 Camaro.

So lets have a little fun with numbers shall we: (won't be perfectly accurate I know, but close enough I guess)

2010 Camaro V6: 3750/312 = 12.02 lb/hp
2012 Camaro V6: 3750/323 = 11.61 lb/hp
2010 Camaro SS: 3850/426 = 9.04 lb/hp

2013 Cadillac ATS 2.0TT: 3350/270 = 12.4 lb/hp
2013 Cadillac ATS V6: 3450/318 = 10.85 lb/hp
2013 Cadillac ATS-V V6TT: 3550/400 = 8.88 lb/hp

2015 Camaro V6: 3450/323 = 10.68 lb/hp
2015 Camaro SS: 3550/420 = 8.45 lb/hp

For grins: 2011 Mustang 5.0: 3620/412 = 8.78 lb/hp


What about TQ figures??

2010 Camaro V6: 3750/278 = 13.49 lb/tq
2010 Camaro SS: 3850/420 = 9.12 lb/tq

2013 Cadillac ATS 2.0TT: 3350/260 = 12.89 lb/tq
2013 Cadillac ATS V6: 3450/278 = 12.4 lb/tq
2013 Cadillac ATS-V V6TT: 3550/400 = 8.88 lb/htq

2015 Camaro V6: 3450/278 = 12.4 lb/tq
2015 Camaro SS: 3550/400 = 8.87 lb/tq

2011 Mustang 5.0: 3620/390 = 9.2 lb/tq

Makes you think. Of course some of the numbers above are assumed, but anyone who follows the TT builds for the current 3.6 know that hitting 400 crank horsepower is nothing, so really this lb/hp number could be much less...and the TQ down low would be tremendous with the TT setup. Of couse, if they do fit a DIV8 in there, it would be just as exciting.

The 2015 SS could easily be made to hit that 'magical' 8lbs per hp number, and the V6 could also easily dip down into the 9s.

Wow, I think when the day comes we see the next gen Camaro, and if it is as exciting to look at as the 5th Gen, I may just have to make the switch! (never thought I'd say that). Hope it comes in a nice blue!

Re: ATS V6

ONE power-to-weight ratio has been divulged by GM: 10.8:1 (10.8 lb/hp)

THREE V6 hp figures have been given, variously: 315, 318, 320

Therefore the RANGE of Curb Weights would be 3402 to 3456, and you can be sure that 10.8 number is for the least-equipped varient (NOT that any ATS will be a "stripper"). And that varient may have smaller wheels and tires than a "performance" model would dictate. Etc. Think "pedestrian" rather than "performance". In fact, for the ATS to directly compete on PRICE with the Cs and the 3s and the A4s and the ISs, there may be a cloth or non-leather unheated trim version... So, if we compare the "magic" 10.8 version, it may compare to either a 1LT or 2LT current Camaro, equipment-wise.

V6 minus 50 lb = Turbo 4
Turbo 4 minus at least 50 lbs = 4 cylinder

No one is saying, yet, what the actual dressed weight of an LT1 V8 is likely to be. Lighter than an LS3 would be a guess, but were it the same:

V6 + 75 lb = V8 is "ballpark", especially considering increaded-capacity driveline required for 400+ hp and likely equal tq rating.

The EXISTING weight difference for 2012 V6 Camaro vs. Camaro SS is comparing a 1LS to a 1SS...which apparently is about 119 lb according to GM AutoBook.

I'm still saying 3,600+ lbs for a 6th Gen V8 Camaro. Clyde I've volleyed?

Go for it! I've quoted and added/subtracted the relevant numbers from GM as well as current 5th gen cars, obviously you and I have different opinions about the outcome and we likely see different things affecting the final outcome. And I'm not about to continue this part of the topic as a running argument, you have your opinion and I have mine, and GM likely has a different opinion than either of us. The 6th gen Camaro will weigh what it weighs and we won't really know all the facts until GM announces them.
Clyde

Amen my ZBrother! :drinking:

Ah, civilized discussion & respectful disagreement. Symptoms of a happy forum.

Ford produces the 302S right beside the 302. What is GM building alongside the camaro? A 4300 lb turd with a blower on it. i get that a turn key race car isn't on GM's radar... GM performance division is focused on the Vette I guess.... there's just not enough money in pursuing the Z28

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk

Speaking of respectful debate...

Uh what does turd mean? :facepalm:

Comes 'tween "2nd" and "fort"... ;)

I laughed out loud thanks!!!

http://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/gm...han-the-vette/

Interesting, not sure if this has been on the forum.

:bellyroll:
I wonder if they're talking about making the fabric faster, or molding it faster? Interesting read. :popcorn:

I think the story it was posted up a while ago, maybe not that particular article, but the GM partnership to make more carbon fibre was ... I think
I would assume molding. Thats what slows down mass production.

Yes I believe it was speeding up the actual "manufacturing" of the part, fender, door, roof, etc. I would think producing the fabric is like making any other textile.

LOL..............:sm0:,.....the timing of that other post after DG's was impeccabile..., WOW.......,

Are we here to amuse you?

Here are some excerpts for those that have not seen the GM press release about the mass reduction focus on the new 2013 Cadillac ATS:
"DETROIT – From the very outset of development, engineers focused on making the Cadillac ATS one of the lightest cars in the compact luxury segment. Its curb weight of less than 3,400 pounds (1,542 kg) is a key contributor to a world-class driving experience and helps make the new sport sedan more efficient.

An aluminum hood, magnesium engine mount brackets and even lightweight, natural-fiber door trim panels contribute to the ATS’s low overall mass – and reflect the systematic approach of evaluating every ounce that goes into the car.

“Low weight helps enable the ATS’s driving experience, making it feel more nimble and controllable,” said Dave Masch, ATS chief engineer. “Mass efficiency helps the car respond more immediately and precisely to driver input, and improves fuel efficiency.”

Discipline to mass efficiency was a driving force in the development of the ATS. The engineers and designers stayed true to the performance goals and desired driving character. The development team’s culture was also instrumental, as everyone from engineers to suppliers and leadership kept mass as a primary consideration.

“We thought about grams, not pounds, and looked at how even the smallest of changes could contribute to the overall mass goal,” said Masch.

Load and space management – what engineers and mathematicians call topology – was applied during the design of the car’s structure. That helped ensure mass efficiency was built into the very foundation of this all-new architecture. Advanced computational development helped determine the most efficient design, emphasizing strength and stiffness via the use of high-tech materials. High-strength steel (HSS) and ultra-high-strength steel (UHSS) are used most effectively to reduce mass and optimize crash protection.

The ATS features UHSS in areas such as cross-vehicle beams around the “safety cage” of the body structure.

Compared to conventional steel used in most body structures, the yield and tensile strength of HSS is about four times better, while UHSS – which can include boron steel – is up to four times stronger than high-strength steel. That allows these strategic parts to be made of thinner gauges for reduced weight, while still offering the same – or greater – strength of bulkier structures made of conventional steel.

ATS powertrain and suspension systems feature extensive use of aluminum, another material that offers an excellent blend of strength and low mass. Many of the links for the front suspension are aluminum, as well as the front suspension cradle on both rear-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive models. Also, the design of each component was carefully studied to optimize size and form.

“The design of each part was refined carefully, so excess material that didn’t contribute to function or strength was eliminated,” said Masch.

The aluminum-intensive powertrains not only helped minimize overall weight, they are instrumental in favorable power-to-weight ratios that contribute to the ATS’s willing feeling of performance. With the 3.6L V-6, for example:


The cylinder block and cylinder heads are cast in aluminum.
A composite intake manifold saves approximately 5.5 pounds (2.5 kg) over the weight of a comparable aluminum intake.
An integrated cylinder head/exhaust manifold design saves approximately 13 pounds (6 kg) per engine when compared with a comparable engine with separate head/manifold assemblies.
The connecting rods are made of powdered metal with a higher ratio of copper, which makes them stronger and helped reduce weight.
The pistons are made of lightweight cast aluminum, which means less reciprocating mass in the engine for less inertia and greater operating efficiency.


But for all their gram-shaving initiatives, engineers were careful to balance the ATS’s mass to ensure Cadillac’s signature refinement wasn’t sacrificed. Thinner door glass, for example, would have saved a few pounds, but at the expense of increased road noise. Weight was even put back into aluminum wheel castings during the development process to enhance strength and reduce road noise."

I think this mindset will spread throughout much of GM's automobile planning and developement, perhaps not as much in their trucks.
Clyde

Again, I believe you'll find the "less than 3,400 lb" figure is for the most Basic ATS...with a 4-cylinder non-Turbo and 6-speed manual. But, having said that, under-3,400 is a great place to start to build World Class Compacts...and a sporty corporate cousin...from. That's fully 200 lb LESS than a FWD Regal...and less than 100 more than the Verano...

Kudos to GM, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, Dr. Atkins, Richard Simmons, and all other contributors!

.