RussStang

How exactly did you interpret this out of what he posted?? He simply said it cost less to make things out of those specific materials then it did years ago, making them more viable in a production vehicle. Where did he once mention that it was cheaper to make something out of aluminum then steel?

I think you are reading into people's posts in entirely the wrong way. Many objects ARE lighter and cheaper than they were in the past. Look at computers for example. When inflation has been factored in, today's PCs cost less than the ones of yesterday, can do much more and are much lighter. It is called technological advancement.

Question. Do you want a heavy Camaro?

BigDarknFast

That's not quite what I noted. I noted there has been an increase as well. My 'remarkably static' characterization was more of a response, actually, to the thread starter's notion that cars are being made lighter and cheaper by tech advances. Fact is, according to the NHTSA data, curb wt has INCREASED by some 250 lb from 1980 to 2000. That's about 125 lb per decade. I do partially agree with you, that some lightening (eg, headlights) has enabled offsetting some mass impacts of new features... but it is a fact, curb weights are increasing anyway.

Gads, people are still not understanding the point I made on this. We Do Not Yet Know the curb wt, options, materials, performance, nor the actual dimensions of the production 5gen - how on Earth can anyone make exact conclusions about mass relative to the 4gen? Even size alone for that matter. Yes, the CONCEPT is a few inches shorter than a 4gen. But it's also several inches WIDER and in a cross-section, I'll take six inches less width, rather than six inches less length, anyday, when managing overall mass.

95firehawk

If you're okay with a heavy car then buy a GTO. All this talk of "dealing" with a heavy car sounds like we're just settling for mediocrity. There is no reason for this car to weigh 3800 lbs unless you start adding in all this crap that doesn't belong in the car in the first place. NAV, HUD, subwoofers, amps, etc. defeats the purpose of this car to begin with. This car has always been and should always remain an affordable performance car. It's the poor man's vette. If you want all the luxury extras then buy a GTO. Just be prepared to spend a lot of money on fixing what you break with that extra porkiness.

A Camaro with all of the modern day safety standards shouldn't weigh more than a 4th gen.

Also with the lighter car I could launch the car harder, maintain faster speeds thru a corner, and stop faster than the heavier car. Even with a 50 hp deficit. It's not just the lbs/hp figure, you have to think of how much extra that car weighs at speed (inertia? it's been a long time since I have been in school. Where's some physics students at?). A heavy car is not gonna cut it and if it ends up weighing 3800 lbs then that'll be a deal breaker for me .

RussStang

Well said.

Capn Pete

Hey, I think you're on to something!!

How is it that a Honda Civic, with a smaller, less powerful engine, smaller brakes, and smaller, skinnier tires, can post the same or better lap times on a road course than I can with my '02 Z28, with ~350 HP, ~12" rotors, ~10" wide tires??? Oh yeah, CAUSE THEY ONLY WEIGH ~2000 LBS!!!

Ok, I KNOW that EVERYBODY KNOWS that, but at what point do we stop justifying more and more weight with more and more power??

I don't care if 3800 lbs / 500 HP has a better weight/HP ratio than 3500 lbs / 450 HP ..... it's as bunk an argument as Honda guys and their HP/litre . The amount of power to overcome weight and air resitance forces isn't linear. Why does a ~600 HP car not go twice as fast as a ~300 HP car??

Z28Wilson

I know we don't--but you have to admit, we're really getting a lot of "be prepared" statements from people more familiar with what's going on. Quite frankly, Scott's vote in this poll (3800/500) doesn't exactly instill me with a lot of confidence either.

It's cool, I will wait ( ) and see what happens. Maybe they can pleasantly surprise us. It'd be nice.

dream '94 Z28

Didn't someone else make a similar point to this on page 2?

CamaroBoy96Z28

So far I've gathered from this thread that 3800lbs is the cutoff weight range until the 100 enthusiasts that regularly post or have chimed in may or may not drop out of buying a 5th gen. I'm not so sure the other 100k+ people like me who will buy this car regardless are going to throw the world's biggest fit over it. To be honest I think the car shouldnt weigh anymore than 3400 more ideally 3300lbs. It wont happen. I'm expecting it to come in around 3600lbs which is probably less or about the same as your average LT1/LS1 4th gen. The car will have power, it will be practical, it will be "affordable", it will look like it should, it will (read BETTER) be world class. But then again most people here wont be using it as a daily driver. I want HUD, I want NAV and whatever cool things I can order and the car will weigh quite a bit for a "pony car" but I want to drive a brand new Camaro everywhere, EVERYDAY.

I find it comical that some of you scoff and say "well that doesnt belong in this type of car!" Give me a GOOD reason why modern technological gadgets dont belong in a 2009 Camaro? If you want to complain about those gadgets increasing weight dont bother, thats not a good reason. Go scream about it to your cat. When this car debuts it will be 2009, call me crazy but some people prefer to live in the year 2009 by ordering and driving cars with those options. If you dont want it, dont get it. Go ahead and throw a fit while we drive around in our badass 5th gen Camaros. Besides I'm sure there'll be many plenty happy to dust off 95% of the cars on the road without having to look down at the gauge cluster and deal with being lost on the way to their destination regardless if it weighs 200lbs more than the last 2002 to roll off the line.

By the way I voted 450/3500

DvBoard

yes, because some people can accually think about things while others just like to hear 500hp no matter the car it's in. **** put 500hp in a cobalt and call it a camaro and these guys would buy it.

number77

Well we can all see what Fbodfather voted.
It would really suck if, after all the time we spent making fun of the the gt500 and challenger for being pigs, the Camaro came out in the same range of weight.

BigDarknFast

Amen 100%

GRNcamaro

[QUOTE=CamaroBoy96Z28
I find it comical that some of you scoff and say "well that doesnt belong in this type of car!" Give me a GOOD reason why modern technological gadgets dont belong in a 2009 Camaro? If you want to complain about those gadgets increasing weight dont bother, thats not a good reason. Go scream about it to your cat. When this car debuts it will be 2009, call me crazy but some people prefer to live in the year 2009 by ordering and driving cars with those options. If you dont want it, dont get it. Go ahead and throw a fit while we drive around in our badass 5th gen Camaros. Besides I'm sure there'll be many plenty happy to dust off 95% of the cars on the road without having to look down at the gauge cluster and deal with being lost on the way to their destination regardless if it weighs 200lbs more than the last 2002 to roll off the line.

By the way I voted 450/3500[/QUOTE]

Yes but the problem is that this is supposed to be a performance orientate car not just another im going to drive it every where do every thing car. if that’s what you want, buy a car appropriate for that use like an impala or a mote Carlo. nothing annoys me more then when people buy a car built for a purpose and then complain about what it does have and doesn’t have. for instance a cobalt is an economy car. why would you complain about how slow it is or how cheep the interior is. the point of the car is good gas millage and low cost for commuting to work. if you want a luxury car with lot of fancy options then you should buy a car built for that. Don’t try and turn the camaro into something its not. sorry im not trying to offend u just convey my opinion i find the camaro to be a performance car for middle class Americas and that’s how it should remain.

CamaroBoy96Z28

And there it is. no offense taken though by the way but i was in fact waiting for this response. What you just said is "If I want those options I cant buy an affordable performance car but I can get a luxury car, thats acceptable." However I just dont buy that excuse. Camaro is a performance car for middle class America and the car I've been in love with since I was 3 which would be 18 years now so I'm quite aware. I'm still waiting on the ***GOOD*** reason why I or anyone else shouldnt be able to order HUD/NAV/bells and whistles and be forced to buy a cheaper/equal/or more expensive Monte or Impala. Monte Carlo is too large for me and Impala is a sedan. I dont want a sedan and I dont want an MC. Also both are currently FWD to possibly be RWD but that's irrelevant. Like I said *YOU* dont have to order said options, I want to regardless of weight penalty. The availability of these options corresponds to weight as this thread has intended to discuss and most importantly adds to GM's profit on the vehicle which is the SOLE intent of ANY car. In America we are free to do as we please, why is it so bad that I want my performance vehicle which will take me from A to B every single day of my life after purchase to be the way *I* want it to be? The same goes for you and anyone else who wishes to turn the key on their very own Camaro. Once again its going to be year 2009 not 1979. 40 years ago you could order a Camaro to each person's liking and it was within financial reach, thats not changing but tech surely is. I agree with most of what you said but in this day and age, performance doesnt mean lacking refinement, customization, tech, and the pleasure of owning a machine living up to its legendary nameplate. They all will coexist and will have to if we want Camaro to even exist at all, let alone another 40 years. Nice try but I'm still waiting on that reason.

PS - Thats the logic that doomed the 4th gen and sealed the F-body's fate the first time.

GRNcamaro

im not apposed to not having H.U.D. or nav though im apposed at it costing the car what its fundamental purpose is a low cost muscle car for a family guy. personally i feel that the camaro should be designated like this a v6 rs and an ss v8 with the idea of options gear toward the luxury end of thing while having a z/28 geared toward performance and give both ss and z/28 two engine options but i don’t see this happening. we don’t even know if there will be more then 2 models. im not gona sit here and speculate on these things nor will i worrie. ill wait till the camaro is on the show room floor to worry about these things.

Bob Cosby

Personally, I think very few will make their buying decision hinge on the weight of the car. Even those that are vocal about it.

Probably not. Some are more pure performance seekers than others. That's fine.

Don't know about LT1s, but that is ~100 lbs more than your average fully loaded LS1. Example: My 99 T/A was 3660 with me and a small amount of gas. I'm ~185 lbs.

We each have our own preferences. I drove my very mild 99 T/A every day. I drove my 4.56-geared 99 Cobra every day. I drove my 550 RWHP 04 every day. If I weret to buy a 5th Gen Camaro, you can bet I'd drive it every day too.

But I don't care about HUD, NAV, iPODs, etc. Maybe most do.

It's personal opinion, and ones personal opinion is no better than someone elses. I don't like to have all that stuff either. My good reason? Adds complexity, cost, and weight. That's worth it to some (most?). Not to me.

Not a good reason to you doesn't mean not a good reason to someone else.

That's actually helpful. The cat doesn't scream back.

True that.

Good advice.

Ya.

How did we EVER get by the last 100 years without HUD and GPS?

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm.

I didn't vote.