10% Smaller Camaro

[SS4EVER]

I'm wishing the Camaro was a little lighter too actually. I'm not saying that it should weigh like under 3,000 lbs or anything but it could at least weigh a few hundred lbs less. At least weigh no more than a 04-06 GTO, or a current gen Mustang GT...

[GTAHVIT]

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by SS4EVER

I'm wishing the Camaro was a little lighter too actually. I'm not saying that it should weigh like under 3,000 lbs or anything but it could at least weigh a few hundred lbs less. At least weigh no more than a 04-06 GTO, or a current gen Mustang GT...

No manufacturer can produce a car for the masses and still give them all that they want. If you want it lighter, push some aftermarket companies to produce light body panels, carbon fiber components, and do some weight reduction on your own.

[FirstLSK]

Just to clarify -- a lighter car -- of course. I don't think anyone would complain if GM announced that they miscalculated the weight and it actually weighs 3200 lbs. I am not going to complain about it either way. What I was about to go ballistic over is when people started suggesting that we compromise our modern muscle car design to shave some weight. For those people, please refer to my previous post about the monster miata.

[lalometalik]

[littlecammi]

Originally Posted by FirstLSK

The 3rd and 4th gen Camaros look like Euro-wedge cars and the only thing that appealed to me was the powerplant that GM put in them.

I had always owned GM vehicles, but I disliked the gen3 Camaros and hated the styling (inside and out) of the gen4 Camaros. The lousy gen4 Camaro styling actually caused me to buy a Mustang SVT Cobra in 1996. The 2010 gen5 Camaro is terrific just as it is. And there is already a post here on Camaro5 where Fbodfather noted that the weight is a result of many things like government mandated equipment that can't be changed.

[rmyers]

This should satisfy the weight issues.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 1_2Many

If there was one thing I could say I'm not happy about with the new Camaro it would be it's weight. When you look at the overall size of the Camaro it's obvious it is so heavy because of it's size. Also, it is obvious this new Camaro is much larger than it's '69 counterpart. I am just wondering why they couldn't have designed the car to be about 10% smaller in every way, but keep current drivetrain? If the vehicle shrunk about 10% I don't think anyone would really notice and in fact it would likely still be larger than the 1st gen Camaro, but a 10% reduction in weight would put it at about 3500 lbs which seems much better. Just for reference I put the current specs down below:

Wheelbase (in/mm): 112.3 / 2852
Overall length (in/mm): 190.4 / 4836
Overall Width: 75.5 / 1918
Overall height: 54.2 / 1377
Track (front) (in/mm): 63.7 / 1618
Track (rear) (in/mm): 64.1 / 1628 (LS, LT)
63.7 / 1618 (SS)
Curb weight (lb/kg): 3750 / 1705 - LT automatic
3741 / 1700 - LT manual
3769 / 1713 - LS automatic
3780 / 1718 - LS manual
3913 / 1779 - SS automatic
3860 / 1755 - SS manual
Weight balance: 52% front / 48% rear

Will respond in detail below

Originally Posted by 70 COPO

I will bet weight is tied to regulation and government safety standards.

Yes it is. Consult my sig for further information.

Originally Posted by Hylton

If a car get's better gas mileage, better handling, better safety and better performance than it's predecessor, who cares if it weighs 10,000 pounds!

People who get narrow minded when doing bench comparisons

Originally Posted by 1_2Many

I'm just not too keen on the auto manufactures inflating their cars...why do cars have to keep getting larger? You would think with the advances in materials and with CAD design we could make modern cars safer, lighter, more efficient and faster all for less cost.

And yes, the 5th gen might technically be shorter than the 4th gen, but i do believe overall package is larger.

You advances in materials and use of CAD have helped a lot. To get the Camaro to look the same and have the same rigidity as it is now but with methods from 25 years ago it would probably weigh at least 4500 lbs.

The Camaro weighs ~3850 lbs. That isn't light by any stretch of the imagination. But lets say that we shrunk the Camaro by 10% in every dimension, it should drop in weight by 10% too. Well no it won't. Shrinking dimensions won't change the weight of the engine, tranny, or suspension which combine to over 1000 lbs (est). After that there might be another few hundred pounds of items that will weigh the same regardless of external dimensions: seats, stereo, etc. After that, things break down to being more or less a function of area. Shrinking it down won't save more than 100 lbs. I'd guess maybe 50. I copied half of that from another post, relating to making the C7 Corvette lighter, but the principle applies to the Camaro.

I took this from another post that I made in January: As far as cars getting heavier, the new honda civic weighs slightly less than the accord did 15 years ago. since then the accord has put on about 500 lbs. By adding safety and comfort features, cars will get heavier. Power this, that, and the other thing get heavy. things like side impact beams add weight, and so do good stereo systems. I'm sure that a bunch of airbags will add a few pounds too, not much but still its there.

All of this adds up to a few hundred pounds and its nearly impossible to make a volume car without most of these items.

Lastly (in case anyone missed it the first time), check my sig

[MB2010CC]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

^^^This smiley says it all.

[SS4EVER]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

No manufacturer can produce a car for the masses and still give them all that they want. If you want it lighter, push some aftermarket companies to produce light body panels, carbon fiber components, and do some weight reduction on your own.

Well then I guess you boys must like your cars like you like your women... ... only kidding....

I just don't get why the Camaro, and the Challenger have to weigh nearly 4000 lbs?

I've driven an 05 Pontiac GTO, and it's a pretty quick car. BUT it didn't feel "quick" to me at the same time, again I'm not saying that it isn't quick but you can almost feel the weight, and even with it weighing in around 3,725 lbs just a little less and obviously about 22hp less vs the Camaro SS. If that's how the Camaro SS feels then I won't be too impressed. I don't plan on buying a Camaro any time soon now anyways, but personally I'm thinking it's going to be too heavy for my tastes anyways. But hey it's a 2+2 seater, not like it's a 2 seater like a Corvette or something so I do understand that....

[stovt001]

Originally Posted by FirstLSK

I have to say that I disagree with everyone wanting it smaller in size.

I have always thought that American automobile manufacturers lost touch with what an American car should look like from the 80's until recently with the retro-muscle cars. In fact, I would only buy pickup trucks because it was the only vehicle that still looked American. No offense to any owners, but the 3rd and 4th gen look like Euro-wedge cars and the only thing that appealed to me was the powerplant that GM put in them.

Now we finally have some broad stance, agressive AMERICAN LOOKING cars and it kills me to hear that people want to turn them into a Geo Metro for weight reduction. Welcome back the American muscle car -- please don't try to crush it.

BTW -- for all of the weenies that want a super light car with a powerful motor, why don't you just buy a LS7 or LS9 crate motor and drop it into a Monster Miata or something like that.

I think it is a sign of a really week argument to go into such hyperbole. No one is asking for Geo Metro size. No one is asking for the styling to be changed. Just a proportional nip and tuck here and there. Think 350Z vs 370Z. The 370 kept the same basic shape and styling, same seating, layout, and purpose. The proportions were tightened up, the size and weight reduced, but otherwise it is recognizable as a Z car. That's kinda what we're going for here.

[SS4EVER]

^

Exactly.

[FirstLSK]

Now we are backpedaling to “nip tuck”. Still I say leave it alone – it is awesome the way that it is. Pull out the passenger seats and go on a diet if you want to shed some weight.

Beyond that – and as the title of this thread mentions – there are people suggesting to shave 10% off the dimensions just to shed weight. Makes me sick to think about it. Taking 10% from the length and the width dimensions, that leaves you with:

Width = 67.95 in.
Length = 171 in.

Compare that to the mousestang:

Width = 67.95
Length = 187.6

Ref. the squished Vette pic above.

Regardless, and as others have already said, it isn’t going to happen for the 2010. Thank God because the idea of trimming down our new muscle car makes me sick.

[stovt001]

Well I guess there's no point in discussing the matter with people have an insecurity about anything being smaller and believe bigger can only mean better and better can only mean bigger.

Also, who is back-peddling? I've said all along that a nip-and-tuck could do for the future. And no where did the OP ask for 10% in each direction, just 10% overall. Imagine a scale model. It has the exact same proportions, stance, everything, but it is smaller overall. Now just imagine the same thing at 9/10ths (though I will admit 10% is a bit much).