Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
FLOWMASTER
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > Camaro Z/28 Forum - Z/28 Specific Topics


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-04-2011, 04:09 PM   #29
Gramps69Z
Still waiting on the Z
 
Gramps69Z's Avatar
 
Drives: 69 Z/28, 06 Denali, 09 CTS
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Destin FL
Posts: 1,649
Send a message via AIM to Gramps69Z Send a message via Yahoo to Gramps69Z
Quote:
Originally Posted by WYKOFF69Z View Post
The things that come to mind off the top of my head are air conditioning, auto transmission, and those heavy ass bowties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Keep in mind, at least with my limited knowledge, air conditioning was an option on all Camaros..................including the Z28. And not allowing an automatic is not the same as light weighting. that's just limiting options. Like saying you can't get the heaviest possible car by not allowing a sunroof to be ordered because it adds weight.

So preventing the addition of weight is not the same thing as taking weight off.

AC and AT, two options you could not order on a 1st gen. Z

Just start with a need this and don't need this pile.
__________________
October 31, 2015 at 0700 - officially retired
1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
2006 Denali
2009 Cadillac CTS


The Six Old Guys
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
The last thing we want is to ship something that isn't right.

Last edited by Gramps69Z; 05-04-2011 at 08:25 PM.
Gramps69Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 05:50 PM   #30
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by WYKOFF69Z View Post
AC and AT, two options you could not order on a 1st gen. Z

Just start with a need this and don't need this pile.
Sorry, I may be mistaken on the A/C. A friend has a 69 Z28 and I could swear he told me A/C was an option.

REGARDLESS, preventing option selection is weight prevention, not weigh reduction. My point in many threads is the Z28 was never light weighted. And everyone on Camaro5 (seems like everyone) believes that lightweighting the Gen5 is in the spirit of the Z28 and my contention is that it was not.

And an automatic was available in the 70 1/2 Z28 was it not?
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 06:00 PM   #31
Gramps69Z
Still waiting on the Z
 
Gramps69Z's Avatar
 
Drives: 69 Z/28, 06 Denali, 09 CTS
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Destin FL
Posts: 1,649
Send a message via AIM to Gramps69Z Send a message via Yahoo to Gramps69Z
You are correct on the automatic for the 2nd gen Z's. Only Muncie 4-speeds for the 1st gen Z's.
__________________
October 31, 2015 at 0700 - officially retired
1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
2006 Denali
2009 Cadillac CTS


The Six Old Guys
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
The last thing we want is to ship something that isn't right.

Last edited by Gramps69Z; 05-04-2011 at 08:26 PM.
Gramps69Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 07:07 PM   #32
wildpaws

 
wildpaws's Avatar
 
Drives: 1999 Blazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Sorry, I may be mistaken on the A/C. A friend has a 69 Z28 and I could swear he told me A/C was an option.

REGARDLESS, preventing option selection is weight prevention, not weigh reduction. My point in many threads is the Z28 was never light weighted. And everyone on Camaro5 (seems like everyone) believes that lightweighting the Gen5 is in the spirit of the Z28 and my contention is that it was not.

And an automatic was available in the 70 1/2 Z28 was it not?
I'll have to disagree, whether it's weight prevention or weight reduction, the end result is less overall weight. And we all know that less overall weight should present a greater possibility of better handling. You were incorrect on the AC, first gen. Z/28s could not be ordered with AC, auto tranny or as a vert.
Clyde
wildpaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 08:01 PM   #33
Mikes SS

 
Mikes SS's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 CGM 2SS/RS 6M
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 1,028
So you are saying no weight reduction right?
Mikes SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 08:03 PM   #34
camaro5


 
camaro5's Avatar
 
Drives: Off Into The Sunset
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cape Coral, Florida
Posts: 3,836
Look to the Boss 302 for Z28 content.

Don't look for major weight reduction until the Zeta platform ends. IMHO
camaro5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2011, 08:26 PM   #35
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildpaws View Post
I'll have to disagree, whether it's weight prevention or weight reduction, the end result is less overall weight. And we all know that less overall weight should present a greater possibility of better handling. You were incorrect on the AC, first gen. Z/28s could not be ordered with AC, auto tranny or as a vert.
Clyde
So then you would be happy with a 1SS and limiting options such as sun roof and call it a Z28? Manual only. No spare tire. Just limit the options and NOTHING more?

I'm ok with that. My beef is everyone thinking that "light weight" is part of the Zquation. It never has been. So I can only wonder why everyone seems to think the Camaro needs to lose weight. Hmmmmmmmmmmm??? Simply that the Mustang is a smaller and hence lighter car. So people are "fabricating" this light weight Z28. It never was. It may have been a "restricted" weight but that's all.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 06:29 AM   #36
wildpaws

 
wildpaws's Avatar
 
Drives: 1999 Blazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
So then you would be happy with a 1SS and limiting options such as sun roof and call it a Z28? Manual only. No spare tire. Just limit the options and NOTHING more?

I'm ok with that. My beef is everyone thinking that "light weight" is part of the Zquation. It never has been. So I can only wonder why everyone seems to think the Camaro needs to lose weight. Hmmmmmmmmmmm??? Simply that the Mustang is a smaller and hence lighter car. So people are "fabricating" this light weight Z28. It never was. It may have been a "restricted" weight but that's all.
Well you've certainly done a bang up job of twisting what I've said into something totally different. Point one: The current 5th gen. Camaro is an inherently heavy car, I'm quite sure it would be easier to make it better handling if it weighed less. Point two: While some weight reduction is possible with the 5th gen Camaro, that weight reduction will be somewhat limited without going to extremely expensive methods of weight conservation. Point three: I've never said that ANY Z/28 was a lighter weight version of any generation Camaro, my Z/28 purchased in '69 weighed 3385 and I had to keep the dealer from installing undercoat during new car delivery prep to help keep the weight down. Most '69 SS 350 Camaros were close to that weight unless they had AC and auto tranny. I'm well aware of what Z/28s were and were not over the years. Point four: Simply a reiteration of point one, yes the current Camaro needs to lose weight regardless of what the Mustang or any other vehicle weighs, at just under two tons the 5th gen Camaro is overweight, extra weight requires more horsepower to get the same job done and generally puts more strain on every suspension component and tires. I have stated in several threads that I don't expect to see much weight loss at reasonable cost in the 5th gen Camaro, the opportunity will be much greater in the 6th gen Camaro.
Clyde

Last edited by wildpaws; 05-05-2011 at 06:31 AM. Reason: text correction
wildpaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 07:24 AM   #37
thePill
Account Suspended
 
Drives: '11 Mustang GT Premium
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kaiserslauthern, Germany
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
So then you would be happy with a 1SS and limiting options such as sun roof and call it a Z28? Manual only. No spare tire. Just limit the options and NOTHING more?

I'm ok with that. My beef is everyone thinking that "light weight" is part of the Zquation. It never has been. So I can only wonder why everyone seems to think the Camaro needs to lose weight. Hmmmmmmmmmmm??? Simply that the Mustang is a smaller and hence lighter car. So people are "fabricating" this light weight Z28. It never was. It may have been a "restricted" weight but that's all.
Is it possible to share with us the weight of the Camaro SSX? Can you at least tell us what techniques were used or what was taken off the Camaro to reduce weight. Or did the SSX even undergo a weight loss program? I found it odd that the car was built and there was nothing really released about the SSX. I thought that maybe some specifications would have accompanied the SSX to create a little buzz about the upgrades that would be available via GMPP. I know it is incredibly difficult to reduce the weight of the Camaro in SCCA, FIA and NASA without going to a tubular frame but I was curious on how far you guys got with the SSX. Stevenson's Camaro had a race weight of 3400lbs and that was 200lbs more than the minimum... I kinda wish they could have shaved the extra weight off the car so they could at least compete in the GS class.

Do you guys communicate with the Camaro teams in the GS class or the GT class Camaro's?
thePill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 08:25 PM   #38
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '16 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildpaws View Post
Well you've certainly done a bang up job of twisting what I've said into something totally different. Point one: The current 5th gen. Camaro is an inherently heavy car, I'm quite sure it would be easier to make it better handling if it weighed less. I agree, but it can't weigh less without a ton of $$$. Point two: While some weight reduction is possible with the 5th gen Camaro, that weight reduction will be somewhat limited without going to extremely expensive methods of weight conservation. You are making my point here too. Point three: I've never said that ANY Z/28 was a lighter weight version of any generation Camaro, my Z/28 purchased in '69 weighed 3385 and I had to keep the dealer from installing undercoat during new car delivery prep to help keep the weight down. Most '69 SS 350 Camaros were close to that weight unless they had AC and auto tranny. I'm well aware of what Z/28s were and were not over the years. Then you and are, in fact, on the same page here. Point four: Simply a reiteration of point one, yes the current Camaro needs to lose weight regardless of what the Mustang or any other vehicle weighs, No, no it doesn't. It is a very efficient design for what it does and is capable of. Everyone just wants it to weigh less. at just under two tons the 5th gen Camaro is overweight, No, it isn't, it's just big. extra weight requires more horsepower to get the same job done and generally puts more strain on every suspension component and tires. I have stated in several threads that I don't expect to see much weight loss at reasonable cost in the 5th gen Camaro, the opportunity will be much greater in the 6th gen Camaro. What 6th Gen?Clyde
I'm sorry if you think I'm twisting your posts. My point is simply that the Z28 in any generation was not light weighted and you seem to agree with me. But many, many on here include some mystical 200 pound weight reduction when they list what a Z28 should be. But I'm sorry, I deal with a lot of programs and mass is critical. Limiting options does not make a car lighter. Read up on what GM did to make the Cruze Eco. That was light weighting. It has different content than the base car. It wasn't done by limiting options the customer could order.

I think you and I are in violent agreement except on the point of not adding mass actually makes the car lighter. It simply make the car not as heavy as it could be. But maybe that's just ta-may-toe and toe-mah-toe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thePill View Post
Is it possible to share with us the weight of the Camaro SSX? Can you at least tell us what techniques were used or what was taken off the Camaro to reduce weight. Or did the SSX even undergo a weight loss program? I found it odd that the car was built and there was nothing really released about the SSX. I thought that maybe some specifications would have accompanied the SSX to create a little buzz about the upgrades that would be available via GMPP. I know it is incredibly difficult to reduce the weight of the Camaro in SCCA, FIA and NASA without going to a tubular frame but I was curious on how far you guys got with the SSX. Stevenson's Camaro had a race weight of 3400lbs and that was 200lbs more than the minimum... I kinda wish they could have shaved the extra weight off the car so they could at least compete in the GS class.

Do you guys communicate with the Camaro teams in the GS class or the GT class Camaro's?
I haven't seen any number on mass for the SSX, Pill. But plain and simple, it's just a big car.
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 09:45 PM   #39
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 1LE...Drove: 2012 ZL1
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 27,862
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
I haven't had the pleasure of being in this game for the past 30+ years like some....and so I wonder...

Was the "fix-all" weight perception as strong then as it is today?
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Twice Before You Post.
...Anxiously waiting to order a silver "Z"...

Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 12:07 PM   #40
Q-ship
 
Drives: 1968 Chevelle, 1971 Monte
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Peoples Socialist Republic of California
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
I'm sorry if you think I'm twisting your posts. My point is simply that the Z28 in any generation was not light weighted and you seem to agree with me. But many, many on here include some mystical 200 pound weight reduction when they list what a Z28 should be. But I'm sorry, I deal with a lot of programs and mass is critical. Limiting options does not make a car lighter. Read up on what GM did to make the Cruze Eco. That was light weighting. It has different content than the base car. It wasn't done by limiting options the customer could order.

I think you and I are in violent agreement except on the point of not adding mass actually makes the car lighter. It simply make the car not as heavy as it could be. But maybe that's just ta-may-toe and toe-mah-toe.
I have weight in on this in other threads. I have to disagree with you Number 3, this Generation can lose near 200 pounds. Lighter non-bling wheels would be a huge area, 18" lighter rims and tires makes the brakes and suspension work better without touching anything else. It removes the need bigger brakes, extra bracing, heavier springs and swaybars. This would keep the weight in check, now pull some sound deadening and put in better lighter seats. I would not limit options for the Z/28 in anyway, if you want to add up a bunch of needless junk to your porky Z28 go right ahead, just don't make me have to buy a Z/28 with 70# 21 inch useless wheels along with power seats and nav. I firmly believe a 3750 lbs Z/28 in base trim is doable.

To respond to earlier decussion about the early year of the Z/28. Automatics and A/C were not an option on the Z/28 until 1973, before that the engine had an RPM range just not compatable with those options.
Q-ship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 12:40 PM   #41
Gramps69Z
Still waiting on the Z
 
Gramps69Z's Avatar
 
Drives: 69 Z/28, 06 Denali, 09 CTS
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Destin FL
Posts: 1,649
Send a message via AIM to Gramps69Z Send a message via Yahoo to Gramps69Z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q-ship View Post
I have weight in on this in other threads. I have to disagree with you Number 3, this Generation can lose near 200 pounds. Lighter non-bling wheels would be a huge area, 18" lighter rims and tires makes the brakes and suspension work better without touching anything else. It removes the need bigger brakes, extra bracing, heavier springs and swaybars. This would keep the weight in check, now pull some sound deadening and put in better lighter seats. I would not limit options for the Z/28 in anyway, if you want to add up a bunch of needless junk to your porky Z28 go right ahead, just don't make me have to buy a Z/28 with 70# 21 inch useless wheels along with power seats and nav. I firmly believe a 3750 lbs Z/28 in base trim is doable.

To respond to earlier decussion about the early year of the Z/28. Automatics and A/C were not an option on the Z/28 until 1973, before that the engine had an RPM range just not compatable with those options.
TH400 transmissions in 1970 and yes no AC until 1973 when the lifter change took place. (Mech. to Hyd.)
__________________
October 31, 2015 at 0700 - officially retired
1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
2006 Denali
2009 Cadillac CTS


The Six Old Guys
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
The last thing we want is to ship something that isn't right.
Gramps69Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 11:33 PM   #42
2cnd chance
Too Many Great Choices
 
2cnd chance's Avatar
 
Drives: Z06, GS or ZL1?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Road
Posts: 6,825
The Boss is almost 3,700 lbs yet it puts up some supercar numbers. Skidpad, slalom, and braking are unbelievable. Look at the lastest comparisons in June's Road and Track magazine.

I'm ready (for a Z28) are you GM!

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the wheels bigger on the Boss LS?!

Last edited by 2cnd chance; 05-07-2011 at 03:38 PM.
2cnd chance is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
News Article Link for the Up-coming Z28 From Durham Region (Oshawa, ON) Ajax Inferno Camaro ZL1 Forum - ZL1 Specific Topics 10 01-04-2011 11:05 PM
Why do you think the Z28 is the higher tier? The_Blur Camaro ZL1 Forum - ZL1 Specific Topics 181 10-14-2009 08:08 PM
weight loss CamaroSpike23 Off-topic Discussions 8 09-17-2009 07:16 PM
Does any one know if there is truth behind this on the Z28? 13F20 Camaro ZL1 Forum - ZL1 Specific Topics 8 10-26-2008 03:11 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.