2010 camaro v6 a loser ?

[Cubanaso]

fastball, you are reading the wrong number. It's curb weight not groos or max load weight.

[o2camaross]

yea my 02 camaro's GVWR (or something like that) was 4250lb and i know the car actually wieghed around 3600

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Sadly, GM does not have any more hard plastic. Their mystery source for the stuff has run dry, they used it all in their interiors, on Saturn bodies, and Pontiac cladding. They've had to go to softer plastic on interiors and have made Saturns out of sheet metal like nearly every other car out there.

heheheheh

I love old Saturns with hail damage. Most of the bodywork is unblemished but the few panels that are actually made of metal look like a golf ball.

GM is trying as hard as they can to kill Saturn.

They were supposed to be "Japanese Style" cars built by the good folks in Tennessee.

Now they are rebadged German cars built on an unfavorable Dollar to Euro exchange.

It's $19,000 for a hatchback. Did the fact that the Cobalt and Focus are approximately 2/3rds that price escape Saturn? Or that you can

They sat on that S-series design forever. It got one restyle and the coupe got an extra door while Civic and Corolla redesigned 2 or 3 times.

[marticus24]

Originally Posted by o2camaross

i think he means the fastest production front-wheel drive car around the ring.

ah. probably right, given this thread's contents. Thanks.

[Caliman93230]

Originally Posted by fbodfather

You would like to see the 2011 Camaro weight at 3,000 pounds.......





........OK -- .........let me ask you something -- have you looked at what a Corvette weighs?



Please !!--

---do tell!!!


- how do you propose doing this? (keeping the price at an affordable level while keeping the car at a level that will appeal to a wide audience.....)



(forgive me for sounding a bit 'snarky.....but I guess I'm just about out of patience with 'experts'...)

I do believe that I'm not the only one that thinks the camaro is overweight. as I had said the the camaro should be '"CLOSE TO"" 3,000 lbs not ''At'' 3,000 lbs.

I understand that the corvette Curb weight, lbs. 3,217 as a V8, and has ha a fuel economy of six-speed manual transmission 16/26 Six-Speed Paddle Shift with Automatic Modes 15/25 MPG

I'm sorry for having high expectations and wanting the camaro V6 to have a reduction in weight, but I plan on using my camaro on a daily basis and not just as weekend getaway. I think the camaro should have a better mpg at least 30 for my sake, and it should weigh considerably less than the mustang.

Considering the fact that oil prices will continue to rise, I really don't Know if I could afford to have SS camaro not in the long run any way. My rational is gas prices, and well lets face it, in the next 10-20 years who knows how high prices will be, but it wont be $5.00 a gallon thats for sure. and NO! I really don't want to spend more money buying another car that gets me better gas millage, thats why I was planing to get a v6 camaro.

I love the fact that GM gave V6 camaro a 300 hp motor, My rational was to put to shame the mustang 300hp v8, thus the v6 would kill a mustang on race period. but with that kind of weight , dam I was really hoping that the camaro would have a better weight than the mustangs for sure. :(

I know it seams impossible for some you, and that maybe GM those not have the technology or that it is to expensive to make the camaro have weight reduction, and be more fuel efficient, but I disagree. GM has cars that have have fuel cell, and electric powered engines, that is not noting less than NASA tech.

therefore I would not mind paying more for a car that has good mpg and its light weight, giving me performance and fuel economy

why?

simple pay now or pay latter with gas.

OK I know that its all wishfully thinking and that I should just be glad that GM brought the camaro back right.

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by Caliman93230

I do believe that I'm not the only one that thinks the camaro is overweight. as I had said the the camaro should be '"CLOSE TO"" 3,000 lbs not ''At'' 3,000 lbs.

I understand that the corvette Curb weight, lbs. 3,217 as a V8, and has ha a fuel economy of six-speed manual transmission 16/26 Six-Speed Paddle Shift with Automatic Modes 15/25 MPG

Without chassis modification, the Camaro will probably withstand drivetrain abuse of around 450 foot pounds of torque all day long. Probably alot higher. For an example of what torque does to a light car, put a 400 hp V8 in a car designed for a 4-banger, weighing around 3,000 pounds. It won't take long before your door won't open or close because the torque has twisted the frame. Your windshield will crack (or pop out of the frame) for no apparent reason, and the car will rattle like a babys toy. There's ways around this, but considering the price of exotic metals and composites it gets very expensive very fast. You want a surgeons scalpel? or a hammer? I'll take the hammer.
There are articles on what GM engineers did to reduce weight on the Corvette, very good reading. Also, we did these in the 70's, decent read. http://www.geocities.com/g_wellwood/...ve/v8vega.html

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Caliman93230

I do believe that I'm not the only one that thinks the camaro is overweight. as I had said the the camaro should be '"CLOSE TO"" 3,000 lbs not ''At'' 3,000 lbs.

I understand that the corvette Curb weight, lbs. 3,217 as a V8, and has ha a fuel economy of six-speed manual transmission 16/26 Six-Speed Paddle Shift with Automatic Modes 15/25 MPG

I'm sorry for having high expectations and wanting the camaro V6 to have a reduction in weight, but I plan on using my camaro on a daily basis and not just as weekend getaway. I think the camaro should have a better mpg at least 30 for my sake, and it should weigh considerably less than the mustang.

Considering the fact that oil prices will continue to rise, I really don't Know if I could afford to have SS camaro not in the long run any way. My rational is gas prices, and well lets face it, in the next 10-20 years who knows how high prices will be, but it wont be $5.00 a gallon thats for sure. and NO! I really don't want to spend more money buying another car that gets me better gas millage, thats why I was planing to get a v6 camaro.

I love the fact that GM gave V6 camaro a 300 hp motor, My rational was to put to shame the mustang 300hp v8, thus the v6 would kill a mustang on race period. but with that kind of weight , dam I was really hoping that the camaro would have a better weight than the mustangs for sure. :(

I know it seams impossible for some you, and that maybe GM those not have the technology or that it is to expensive to make the camaro have weight reduction, and be more fuel efficient, but I disagree. GM has cars that have have fuel cell, and electric powered engines, that is not noting less than NASA tech.

therefore I would not mind paying more for a car that has good mpg and its light weight, giving me performance and fuel economy

why?

simple pay now or pay latter with gas.

OK I know that its all wishfully thinking and that I should just be glad that GM brought the camaro back right.

We would all prefer that it weighs less, regardless of what the weight is. To get the Camaro V6 to weigh significantly less than the Mustang GT it would basically need to be run the kappa chasis, which was designed to probably handle no more than 400 hp, which is insufficient for a Camaro. But its only a 2 seater and it still weighs ~2900 lbs with a 4 cylinder. Add reinforcing the chasis to have a bit of a power safety factor, a roof, stretch it to add back seats, beef up the drive train, and now the V6 might weigh as much as a V6 mustang. But it still won't be able to handle the power. And by the way, the Kappas with 260 hp don't get 30 mpg as is.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Caliman93230

I understand that the corvette Curb weight, lbs. 3,217 as a V8, and has ha a fuel economy of six-speed manual transmission 16/26 Six-Speed Paddle Shift with Automatic Modes 15/25 MPG.

Then you surely understand the Corvette sits on an entirely different chassis; is an entirely different (SMALLER) vehicle, utilizes a decent amount of weight-saving techniques; all while MSRPing for 45+ thousand dollars?

I think that was the point Fbodfather wished to make with his statement about the Corvette. What you ask for, really is impossible.

Originally Posted by Caliman93230

I'm sorry for having high expectations and wanting the camaro V6 to have a reduction in weight, but I plan on using my camaro on a daily basis and not just as weekend getaway. I think the camaro should have a better mpg at least 30 for my sake, and it should weigh considerably less than the mustang.

It's certainly okay to have high expectations; and this car WILL deliver; but there's "high", and there's stratospheric! :(

Being that you plan to use your V6 Camaro for a daily driver, and not for weekend cruising and racing; I would expect weight to play a significantly smaller role in your choice...see the end of this post as to why..

Also, the Mustang does not sport an Independant Rear Suspension (which adds weight, but increases handling). The mustang is also an older vehicle design that won't meet the impending crash and saftey standards like the Camaro does (which will add weight)...so I think you might see it's weight rise sharply over the next couple of years...but beyond that, what's a couple hundred pounds?

Originally Posted by Caliman93230

I know it seams impossible for some you, and that maybe GM those not have the technology or that it is to expensive to make the camaro have weight reduction, and be more fuel efficient, but I disagree. GM has cars that have have fuel cell, and electric powered engines, that is not noting less than NASA tech.

That's not a fair comparison. Because different powertrain technologies is a totally different game than weight savings. An even simpler argument against this thinking is: do you realize how much those vehicles cost?!?! 2, 3, 4x the cost of a normal vehicle...You can disagree; but you're quite wrong as far as cost goes. The techniques, materials, and technology probably does exist to get a 3000 lbs Camaro...but you'll have a box to sit on, a body/frame that won't meet crash standards, and an engine. And all that probably set you back $50 grand.

Originally Posted by Caliman93230

therefore I would not mind paying more for a car that has good mpg and its light weight, giving me performance and fuel economy

why?

simple pay now or pay latter with gas.

I think you're grossly overplaying the advantage 30mpg has over 27mpg, and grossly downplaying how much it would cost to do what you want...For your reading pleasure; please check out the difference between 27mpg, and 30mpg over a ten-year period.

At a steady $5.00 a gallon.....lets face it; gas can never get up to an outlandish $7, or $10...our entire country would absolutely crumble before our eyes. And if that happens, gas prices will be the least of your worries. But I digress......say you drive 10,000 miles a year. At 27mpg, and a 19 gallon tank; you would spend approxomately $95 to fill up, and $1850 a year to fuel the vehicle.

Now, lets say you have a 30mpg vehicle under the same conditions: 30mpg, a 19 gallon tank merits a $95 fill up, and $1660 per year.

By using that 30mpg car, do you realize that you'll only save a pitiful $1900 dollars over ten years?! I can 100% guarantee you that any costs associated with weight savings down to around 3000lbs will cost in excess of $20 grand. So which would you rather pay?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Now, to stir the pot even more!!
I said to see the last part of the post, here it is:

I don't understand why, for a daily-driver, weight plays such a huge role in your decision. Weight has virtually NO effect on highway the fuel economy numbers that you're quoting "30mpg" for. It has everything to do with aerodnamics, power output, and gearing. Now consider that Camaro isn't exceptionally slippery, and consider that it puts out 300hp, which would have been an insane amount of power in the past years of performance cars. 27mpg is quite impressive...and it will only get better as the years go by.

[Krieger]

Originally Posted by Caliman93230

Car and Driver has stated Chevrolet’s latest Cobalt SS direct-injection turbocharged 2.0-liter four-banger, Zero to 60 mph happens in just 5.7 seconds. The quarter-mile blows by in 14.2.The quarter-mile blows by in 14.2. The 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4 in 0-60 in 5.8 and and quarter-mile in 14.4. Mazda’s 2.3-liter turbo four makes 263 horsepower and a class-leading 280 pound-feet of torque The Mazda hits 60 in 5.4 seconds, The Mazda makes history of the quarter in less time, too.

Wow what a loser those cars must be if a PT Cruiser Turbo 2.4l with a boost controller can keep up.
Understand the purpose and you'll understand the outcome.
What does a base Cobalt run? Who does it appeal to?

The base V6 Camaro stands out in its class. 300hp rear wheel drive is far more appealing to many than a compact car with a taste for PREMIUM fuel. It's a winner for those that are looking for this kind of car!

PS Weight concerns? It's something like 10hp/tenth lost for every 100lbs in this weight range. The first place to lose weight is the driver, so skip the beer and pizza next time and you'll be that much faster.

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by Krieger

PS Weight concerns? It's something like 10hp/tenth lost for every 100lbs in this weight range. The first place to lose weight is the driver, so skip the beer and pizza next time and you'll be that much faster.

Sad, but so so true. Glad I'm light.
- Xanthos

[drivingincamaro]

i don't care if some 350 hp challenger can beat me. this car will most likely be a cruising car for me and my buddies, all the horsepower I need is 300 hp

In my mind the v6 wins it is a great engine and it has 50 or more horsepower then the v6 mustang the v6 charger the v6 challenger.

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by drivingincamaro

...In my mind the v6 wins it is a great engine and it has 50 or more horsepower than the v6 mustang.

WAAYYY more than 50 over the Mustang V6

210 hp and 240 lb-ft torque,

Let's compare that to the HHR SS automatic or the PT Cruiser GT
235 horsepower and 223 lb-ft; HHR SS automatic
230 horsepower and 245 lb.-ft;PT Cruiser GT.
Mustang V6es better be careful about picking fights with boosted grocery getters.

160 more than the Essex V6 powered Mustang.

[BowtieGuy]

Thats like having your cake, eating it, and then demanding the exact same cake without waiting for it to be made again.

[Mr Twisty]

Check out the technology and process used to eliminate only a few hundred pounds, and with titanium running well over $60+ per pound, AND with the techiniques used to weld Ti, in my world that's better looking than any picture hanging on a wall! Before you belittle balsa in a ZR1, that's NASA technology in the floor. Sandwich composite panels, the wave of the lightweight future. http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/14/d...assis-display/