[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, now for the dinger.

It's 200 pounds lighter because it's a SMALLER car with a smaller fuel tank. And don't claim it's within an inch here and there. Every inch of steel and plastic weighs something.

GM also announced the new 2016 Malibu is BIGGER and weighs 300 pounds less. The current Epsilon platform is porky as well as Zeta.

So does GM get the max grade for the weight loss knowing that?

Just for discussion.

Well it is complicated. The weight loss of 294 lbs on the V6 is even more impressive than the loss on the V8, and the turbo 4 comes in at 3339 lbs, which you have to admit is surprisingly low. Now the SS does come with a cast iron rear end, the 5th gen SS was aluminum. I am sure there are other examples of where they chose durability and performance for the SS over weight savings, so overall I say they did a great job keeping the weight as low as they did.

[Blackdevil77]

Originally Posted by rayhawk

Well it is complicated. The weight loss of 294 lbs on the V6 is even more impressive than the loss on the V8, and the turbo 4 comes in at 3339 lbs, which you have to admit is surprisingly low. Now the SS does come with a cast iron rear end, the 5th gen SS was aluminum. I am sure there are other examples of where they chose durability and performance for the SS over weight savings, so overall I say they did a great job keeping the weight as low as they did.

That's interesting. I wonder why they felt the need to have a cast iron rear end when the 5th gen SS had an aluminum rear end. The aluminum rear end would of had to be a good bit lighter and would of made the weight savings even better.

With that said, at least the weight is in the right spot. Down low and in the back.

[RLHMARINES]

Originally Posted by Blackdevil77

That's interesting. I wonder why they felt the need to have a cast iron rear end when the 5th gen SS had an aluminum rear end. The aluminum rear end would of had to be a good bit lighter and would of made the weight savings even better.

With that said, at least the weight is in the right spot. Down low and in the back.

Noise.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, now for the dinger.

It's 200 pounds lighter because it's a SMALLER car with a smaller fuel tank. And don't claim it's within an inch here and there. Every inch of steel and plastic weighs something.

GM also announced the new 2016 Malibu is BIGGER and weighs 300 pounds less. The current Epsilon platform is porky as well as Zeta.

So does GM get the max grade for the weight loss knowing that?

Just for discussion.

True, but how many people are talking about how much the performance of the Malibu is improved? I look at it as GM had more goals for the Camaro than the other vehicles. That resulted in smaller size, lower weight, better FE and most importantly PERFORMANCE.

[Memphis43]

Originally Posted by RLHMARINES

Noise.

That's probably more for durability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

+1

You beat me to it this time. Summed up nicely in 3 sentences lol.



As far as the scat pack. Close race but the SS has its number.

It's becoming a continual subject, we are just taking turns putting the facts out there lol.

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, now for the dinger.

It's 200 pounds lighter because it's a SMALLER car with a smaller fuel tank. And don't claim it's within an inch here and there. Every inch of steel and plastic weighs something.

GM also announced the new 2016 Malibu is BIGGER and weighs 300 pounds less. The current Epsilon platform is porky as well as Zeta.

So does GM get the max grade for the weight loss knowing that?

Just for discussion.

A. This is the first time in as long as I can remember the Camaro did not gain weight in any trim, that is a win for sure.
B. It's much harder to cut weight but add in better track capability.

So with that said I still give them an A grade. If there were other ways to shave some weight, might end up seeing them in a Z car hopefully.

[kain279]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

It's becoming a continual subject, we are just taking turns putting the facts out there lol.



A. This is the first time in as long as I can remember the Camaro did not gain weight in any trim, that is a win for sure.
B. It's much harder to cut weight but add in better track capability.

So with that said I still give them an A grade. If there were other ways to shave some weight, might end up seeing them in a Z car hopefully.

The puzzling thing now is how did they mess up the Corvette so bad with everything else shedding weight like there is no tomorrow?

Traditionally their best engineered car, always low on weight, and now is the "porker".

[newb]

Originally Posted by kain279

The puzzling thing now is how did they mess up the Corvette so bad with everything else shedding weight like there is no tomorrow?

Traditionally their best engineered car, always low on weight, and now is the "porker".

I think in previous years some concessions had been made just to keep off weight. This would explain the snap oversteer complaints, flimsy body panels, and crap interior. This time they decided to give it the rigid chassis it needed and the quality interior that a car of it's caliber deserved. had the changes been more incremental, the current weight wouldn't be an issue. but by neglecting those things so long then fixing it at once, the change was drastic. But lets keep in mind its still a light car. Just not as light as previous versions.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by newb

I think in previous years some concessions had been made just to keep off weight. This would explain the snap oversteer complaints, flimsy body panels, and crap interior. This time they decided to give it the rigid chassis it needed and the quality interior that a car of it's caliber deserved. had the changes been more incremental, the current weight wouldn't be an issue. but by neglecting those things so long then fixing it at once, the change was drastic. But lets keep in mind its still a light car. Just not as light as previous versions.

Yep and is a much better car in every respect while be significantly faster in all trims. Definitely a feat there.

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by dontlift19

Exactly, the mustang guys only argument right now is that there is a $4000 price gap between the base gt and 1ss. What they're not realizing is that the 1ss is going to spank the gt pp too and there is only around a $1500 price gap between those 2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I heard they have better brakes and brighter turn signals.

What kind of piss poor bs engineering is GM doing with their dim turn signals? I'd never even consider one, it's old GM still. The best cars have the brightest turn signals and GM is still bottom shelf.

[obzidian]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

The 6.4L is SAE rated. It makes what is advertised. Driveline loss is not as high as in the past and chassis dynos aren't accurate like doing an engine dyno.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Sonis the 6.2l hellcat engine and its output is closer to 750hp than 707hp.

Trust me in this.. i sell these cars for a living. They're underrated.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by obzidian

Sonis the 6.2l hellcat engine and its output is closer to 750hp than 707hp.

Trust me in this.. i sell these cars for a living. They're underrated.

Trust me, they aren't.

https://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by obzidian

Sonis the 6.2l hellcat engine and its output is closer to 750hp than 707hp.

Trust me in this.. i sell these cars for a living. They're underrated.

Most car dealers don't have a clue. Trust me.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by newb

I think in previous years some concessions had been made just to keep off weight. This would explain the snap oversteer complaints, flimsy body panels, and crap interior. This time they decided to give it the rigid chassis it needed and the quality interior that a car of it's caliber deserved. had the changes been more incremental, the current weight wouldn't be an issue. but by neglecting those things so long then fixing it at once, the change was drastic. But lets keep in mind its still a light car. Just not as light as previous versions.

IIRC didn't the corvette lose weight structurally but gain it back when it put all the new content and safety BS back in?