Quote:
Originally Posted by NoFatCars
Deal breaker for me. Very excited to read the specs until I got this one. I always look at weight when considering a car that is performance oriented.
This is what happens in the auto industry when the "soon to be layed off SUV engineers" get transferred to the performance car division. Just poor engineering. Does it have AWD? In this great day of "lighter cars lighter materials" I just don't get it (and it has an Aluminum block?!). Perhaps its the new uranium wheels? Was this a dry weight or was the 410lb typical American driver included? Now I understand the requirement for 14" rotors!
The good new is that its lighter that the challenger or charger (OMG 4000+!). If you don't think weight makes a difference then thats great; your beyond help (crack open a physics book or check the specs on a vette or better yet drive one).
Cant weight (wait) for the big three to go tits up. Maybe then they will start competing instead of selling to an eroding, captive customer base.
The engineering decisions on this car just thoroughly depress me.
(reference - a 67 SS weighed in at ~3240 - cast iron block and heads included)
|
Write your congressmen, it's their nanny laws that are making cars heavy. In 1967 they didn't have bumper standards, side impact standards, mandatory air bags, mandatory ABS, mandatory stability control, mandaroty catalytic converters, mandatory filters on the fuel venting, etc. etc.
You know-it-all wannabes are a joke to those of us who do know it all.
Sure, there are ways the car can weigh less, but those involve exotic materials and you geniuses would sh!+ a brick if the new Camaro was $0.50 more than a Musting in MSRP, so think that one over a while!
Camaro Design Mantra:
a. Good Looking
b. Low Price
c. Lightweight
d. Quality Construction
(Pick any 3)