10% Smaller Camaro

[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

[xl1200r]

I have yet yo see one in person, but I am a little worried about it's physical size...

We shall see...

[Hylton]

Okay that's it - somone please make a weight smiley!

[Mr_Draco]

Originally Posted by 1_2Many

When you look at the overall size of the Camaro it's obvious it is so heavy because of it's size.

Compared to the dimensions of my '97 the 5th gen is actually smaller.

[RealQuickCamaro]

I don;t think its big or heavy at all,. i drive a honda accord coupe right now and look at its spec


Wheelbase (in/mm): 107.9
Overall length (in/mm): 190.9
Overall Width: 72.8
Overall height: 56.4

Curb weight (lb/kg): 3459-3585 -v6 model


Weight balance: 62/38

and it gets 25 mpg on the highway, my v6
auto gets around 28 mpg.

[headpunter]

im sorry but i think that is moot point considering how heavy the M3 and similar euro's are and how well they handle. also considering that Motortrend compared thier drive in the v6 camaro to driving a G37 handling wise...

and sure this is car may well be larger then the 1st gen. SO WHAT....its the 5th gen...the 1st gen came out 40 years ago...very different in in concept and design and the environment they are being released into....

[70 COPO]

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

[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!

[1_2Many]

Originally Posted by headpunter

im sorry but i think that is moot point considering how heavy the M3 and similar euro's are and how well they handle. also considering that Motortrend compared thier drive in the v6 camaro to driving a G37 handling wise...

and sure this is car may well be larger then the 1st gen. SO WHAT....its the 5th gen...the 1st gen came out 40 years ago...very different in in concept and design and the environment they are being released into....

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.

[xl1200r]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

Compared to the dimensions of my '97 the 5th gen is actually smaller.

The 5th gen is wider, taller and heavier than your 97.

[Mr. Wyndham]

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!

Don't ask me...

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?

It has nothing to do with the manufacturers, and everything to do with regulations. When building a performance car (or any car), weight is the enemy...but getting anything other than a 5-star crash-test rating is a bigger enemy. Having 6 airbags standard, and a bullet-proof suspension/drivetrain...and having a structure so rigid you'd find it easier to flex a high-rise (exageration, but you see the point?) sort of outweighs the weight issue. It becomes a necessary evil.

[BowtieGuy]

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.

An advance in materials used equals an advance in price. Would you like to pay base Corvette price for a 3400lb Camaro? I bet most people wouldn't. Can I get an LS9 Camaro with a 6 speed, 700hp, magnetic suspension with AWD, seating for six and a built in ass scratcher, and make it weigh the same as my Cobalt and come in for $25k? That would be great, thanks GM.

Jesus guys, quit beating this topic. I assure you that everything about this vehicle was designed and built for a reason. We're still coming in less than the Challenger, and once the Mustang adheres to modern safety standards they will be right there with us. There aren't very many competitors who can match our power, weight, and price.

[playhard67]

not again!

[Txturbo]

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

But a 69 only had a padded dash, seat belts and safety glass for safety features. It also didn't have 6 air bags, traction control, ABS, crumple zones, impact absorbing bumpers, side impact beams in the doors, Onstar, leather seats, IRS....and the list goes on.