Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
HURST
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-20-2008, 10:07 AM   #1
Gatecrasher
User
 
Drives: 1994 Stealth R/T Turbo
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: KCMO
Posts: 139
V6 vs V8, and the 50/50 weight balance

I decided to engage some of my impressive Google-fu, and see if I could shed a little light on the expected mass for the Camaro.

As quoted by Maximum Bob...

Quote:
Lutz said that with the V6, the Camaro achieves a nearly perfect 50-50 weight distribution: “With the V6, it is not a heavy car. The Camaro will be a very lively and engaging car,” he said.
We've all been concerned about the mass of this car. Well, most of us anyway. Lower mass equals better fuel economy and more effective application of available power. Some folks were concerned that the V8 will mean the car is a lot heavier or will spoil this "nearly perfect 50-50 weight distribution"

Not so. Assuming we get an LS3 or similar engine, it's not much heavier than the confirmed DOHC LLT V6. Here's some numbers for comparison.

LLT V6 - 380 lbs
LS3 V8 - 415 lbs
LS4 V8 - 419 lbs
LS7 V8 - 454 lbs (not sure why this is 40 lbs heavier than the LS3...)
LSA V8 - 467 lbs (marine variant. Only one I could get a number for, car engine is likely to be a bit heavier)

So in short, we're only looking at ~35-40 lbs weight difference based on the engines alone. The weight will be shifted forward in the chassis due to the length difference between the V6 and V8, but as a bonus, it'll be lower down in the chassis due to not being an OHC motor like the LLT.

I think we'll be just fine
__________________
Gatecrasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2008, 10:21 AM   #2
TheMadHatter99
Kept the Faith
 
TheMadHatter99's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 Camaro 2SS/RS CGM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 721
On a similar subject, anyone else seriously intrigued w/ the 50/50 weight distribution idea? I high-performing V6, with nearly perfect distribution (and thus amazing handling), with pretty good gas mileage?

Is that sounding fairly good to anyone else?
__________________
TheMadHatter99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2008, 10:50 AM   #3
radz28
Petro-sexual
 
radz28's Avatar
 
Drives: Ultra-Grin
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Crapramento, Crapifornia
Posts: 13,057
Well, I think weight can be offset to the rear with heavier-duty suspension and drivetrain components (i.e. differential, half shafts, suspension craddle, etc.) I'm very curious as to the weight, because as most of us understand, it's all about the power-to-weight-ratio. I can be happy with 450 S/Cd' horses if the car weighs 3500 lbs., but I don't think this car is going to get that low. I understand it was supposed to go to Jenny Craig or Atkins but to go from around the G8's weight to 3500 doesn't seem to realistic. I'd rather give up a hundred-or-so pounds in favor of metal panels, unlike the plastic ones on the 4th. Gens. It just seems cheap to me, even though the dent-resistance is nice to have.
__________________
05 Hummer H2 SUV on OEM Air Ride
Forged 11.1:1 408 LQ4 (K1 crank & rods; Mahle pistons)/CPP LS3 CNC heads/BTR Stage IV LS3 cam and valvetrain/home ported L92 intake manifold/ported 90mm TB/custom Volant CAI/mid-length headers/AFE dual 3" CB/Corvette Servo/el cheapo lift/Cognito UCAs/e'fan conversion/aluminum radiator/Moroso catchcan/HPTuners by me/LED exterior lighting/Pioneer AVH-5600BHS/Pioneer GM-9601/2-Pioneer TS-W310D4/Obcon Labyrinth dual-12 box/lots of other stuff
radz28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2008, 11:20 AM   #4
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 23,437
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
The G8 GT has 50-50 with driver and passenger.

As for the overall weight, I'll highball things and say the engine alone will weight 50 lbs more. There will be some comfort features added, along with probably some upgraded suspension parts, and other items that at 5 lbs here, 20 lbs there, and so on. I think that other stuff may add an extra 100 lbs. Most of it will be pretty evenly distributed in the car. So we are looking at an extra 100 lbs on the front and 50 on the rear. For guestimation purposes, lets say the V6 Camaro comes in at 3500 lbs. The V8 would then have 50.7/49.3 weight distribution. Thats still pretty damm good. Also, who decided that 50:50 was the perfect distribution? I imagine that a car with more nose weight would be better at braking while having a heavy rear would be good for acceleration and make for a car that is quite twitchy, which would make for having good handling potential if it could be controled.

Regardless, ~50:50 is pretty good.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
Originally Posted by FbodFather
My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors......
........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!
__________________

Camaro Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2008, 06:33 PM   #5
Grape Ape
 
Drives: 96 Bronco w/ a 5 speed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PNW
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3 View Post
The G8 GT has 50-50 with driver and passenger.

As for the overall weight, I'll highball things and say the engine alone will weight 50 lbs more. There will be some comfort features added, along with probably some upgraded suspension parts, and other items that at 5 lbs here, 20 lbs there, and so on. I think that other stuff may add an extra 100 lbs. Most of it will be pretty evenly distributed in the car. So we are looking at an extra 100 lbs on the front and 50 on the rear. For guestimation purposes, lets say the V6 Camaro comes in at 3500 lbs. The V8 would then have 50.7/49.3 weight distribution. Thats still pretty damm good. Also, who decided that 50:50 was the perfect distribution? I imagine that a car with more nose weight would be better at braking while having a heavy rear would be good for acceleration and make for a car that is quite twitchy, which would make for having good handling potential if it could be controled.

Regardless, ~50:50 is pretty good.
A slightly tail heavy car actually has an advantage in braking because the weight shifts forward evening the weight distribution out. This is one more reason why FWD sucks.

The more weight you can keep over the rear tires, the more they can contribute to stopping the car. Itís same thing you are doing when you put wider tires on the rear, spreading the load over a wider contract patch.
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2008, 07:36 PM   #6
JustinZS
 
Drives: waitin on 2010 !!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 126
just curious, how the weight distribution on previous gen camaros??
JustinZS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2008, 11:15 PM   #7
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 23,437
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape View Post
A slightly tail heavy car actually has an advantage in braking because the weight shifts forward evening the weight distribution out. This is one more reason why FWD sucks.

The more weight you can keep over the rear tires, the more they can contribute to stopping the car. Itís same thing you are doing when you put wider tires on the rear, spreading the load over a wider contract patch.
Thank you, that makes at least as much sense as what I was thinking. But this then goes back to why 50/50 is considered so great when it appears that cars would perform better with more weight at the rear.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
Originally Posted by FbodFather
My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors......
........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!
__________________

Camaro Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2008, 12:32 AM   #8
WillInThe04Ranger
 
WillInThe04Ranger's Avatar
 
Drives: 04 Ranger, 95 Camaro
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rocky Mount, North Carolina
Posts: 684
Send a message via AIM to WillInThe04Ranger
I think the new camaro engines and with the 6 being the way it will, the 6 will be a monster :P
__________________
America's Manififest Destiny, Rollin On Radials
WillInThe04Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2008, 10:48 AM   #9
Grape Ape
 
Drives: 96 Bronco w/ a 5 speed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PNW
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3 View Post
Thank you, that makes at least as much sense as what I was thinking. But this then goes back to why 50/50 is considered so great when it appears that cars would perform better with more weight at the rear.
With a front engine, 50:50 is hard enough to achieve without adding unnecessary weight to the back bumper and nobody outside the luxo-barge segment likes a fat car. The people who really want 50:50 are generally the ones (like me and most car magazine writers) who really like corners, because that is where even weight distribution really shines.

If you are still having trouble wrapping your head around the braking, imagine that you are designing an AWD dragster. You have to use the same tires on all four corners but you can distribute the weight however you like. Hard braking is a lot like a drag race with AWD and almost infinite torque.
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2008, 06:50 PM   #10
jhitson
 
jhitson's Avatar
 
Drives: 88 Camaro, 01 S-10, 06 G6 GTP
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 78
I have a '88 with a 2.8 v6 (not running, go figure). A friend of mine had a '89 with the 5.0l v8. Both cars had the same wheels, tires, shocks, and both were automatics. The v6 held much better in the curves. The V8 suffered from a bit of under-steer. The only difference that could account for this is Overall wieght, wieght distribution, or suspension differences from '88-'89.
jhitson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 12:32 AM   #11
Dark Eric
 
Dark Eric's Avatar
 
Drives: 1998 Pontiac Firebird
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Newark, NJ
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatecrasher View Post
I decided to engage some of my impressive Google-fu, and see if I could shed a little light on the expected mass for the Camaro.

As quoted by Maximum Bob...



We've all been concerned about the mass of this car. Well, most of us anyway. Lower mass equals better fuel economy and more effective application of available power. Some folks were concerned that the V8 will mean the car is a lot heavier or will spoil this "nearly perfect 50-50 weight distribution"

Not so. Assuming we get an LS3 or similar engine, it's not much heavier than the confirmed DOHC LLT V6. Here's some numbers for comparison.

LLT V6 - 380 lbs
LS3 V8 - 415 lbs
LS4 V8 - 419 lbs
LS7 V8 - 454 lbs (not sure why this is 40 lbs heavier than the LS3...)
LSA V8 - 467 lbs (marine variant. Only one I could get a number for, car engine is likely to be a bit heavier)

So in short, we're only looking at ~35-40 lbs weight difference based on the engines alone. The weight will be shifted forward in the chassis due to the length difference between the V6 and V8, but as a bonus, it'll be lower down in the chassis due to not being an OHC motor like the LLT.

I think we'll be just fine
Not that much of a deal after you've added large subs and a powerlift jack to the trunk of the car.
__________________
Dark Eric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 01:11 AM   #12
Good53X
 
Drives: 1988Nissan Pulsar (meh,beater)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 83
50/50 weight distribution should (technically) remove understeer/oversteer.

Understeer is caused by the front end tracking wide, causing the car to turn wide of the projected path.

Oversteer is caused by the rear end tracking wide, causing the car to turn inside of the projected path.

Understeer is generally corrected by letting up on the throttle or 'powering over" and steering against the direction the vehicle is travelling, which is hard on CVs (in FWD). In RWD understeer is less common but more devastating because you have no control over the direction your car takes - braking is the only option. This is one reason why RWD vehicles are so difficult to control in snow.

Oversteer is generally corrected by countersteering, and this is used in drifting to the great pleasure of many. However in race terms it's ineffective use of momentum and causes a loss of overall velocity - you're better off entering the turn at a lower speed and powering through it, exiting at a higher speed unless the corner is outrageously sharp. In FWD oversteer is doubly rare because you don't have power to the rear and thus seldom maintain loss of traction at the rear wheels for long.

With 50/50 the front and rear of the vehicle will share equal inertia going into a turn causing the vehicle to (actually) drift sideways evenly tangent to the projected path, maintaining direction, velocity and control over the vehicle.
Good53X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 01:38 AM   #13
Mindz
E.B.A.H.
 
Mindz's Avatar
 
Drives: you wild...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the happy padded room wearing a jacket that makes me hug myself...
Posts: 18,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good53X View Post
50/50 weight distribution should (technically) remove understeer/oversteer.

Understeer is caused by the front end tracking wide, causing the car to turn wide of the projected path.

Oversteer is caused by the rear end tracking wide, causing the car to turn inside of the projected path.

Understeer is generally corrected by letting up on the throttle or 'powering over" and steering against the direction the vehicle is travelling, which is hard on CVs (in FWD). In RWD understeer is less common but more devastating because you have no control over the direction your car takes - braking is the only option. This is one reason why RWD vehicles are so difficult to control in snow.

Oversteer is generally corrected by countersteering, and this is used in drifting to the great pleasure of many. However in race terms it's ineffective use of momentum and causes a loss of overall velocity - you're better off entering the turn at a lower speed and powering through it, exiting at a higher speed unless the corner is outrageously sharp. In FWD oversteer is doubly rare because you don't have power to the rear and thus seldom maintain loss of traction at the rear wheels for long.

With 50/50 the front and rear of the vehicle will share equal inertia going into a turn causing the vehicle to (actually) drift sideways evenly tangent to the projected path, maintaining direction, velocity and control over the vehicle.

Which is why the Silvia/240sx is one of the most common cars used in drifting events. It's either 49/51 or 50/50 balanced.
__________________
Blue Rush, 2010 SS [Car of the Week 3/22/2010] Traded in on...ZLZBUBB, 2013 ZL1
Mindz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2008, 01:48 AM   #14
LS9CamaroSS
 
LS9CamaroSS's Avatar
 
Drives: Cavalier RS
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Jordan, NY
Posts: 569
I don't care!!! i want that V6!!! it is an amazing looking engine, but it won't be much better than the V8 on gas... at least the CTS compared to the G8 GT (i looked at both of them on the lot today...) is 1mpg on the high way and 2mpg in the city... so... idk anymore...maybe the V8 will be mine...
LS9CamaroSS 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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 AM.


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