View Poll Results: Which weight/power combo would you prefer on Camaro?
Voters: 156. You may not vote on this poll
Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
08-24-2006, 11:45 PM
#76
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
Originally Posted by BigDarknFast
Ehh... not quite. More like "Technology marches on. Stronger, more reliable, and MORE FEATURES..." according to NHTSA curb weight trends since 1978. Look at Table II-4 in http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE...000/index.html . It shows curb weights for US passenger cars being remarkably static since then, albeit slightly increasing since 1981. So where's the beef on all this wunnerful transparent aluminum and such?
The beef...erm, the proof is in the pudding.
08-24-2006, 11:48 PM
#77
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
Originally Posted by jg95z28
So are you suggesting its now cheaper to manufacture panels and forms out of aluminum, titanium and magnesium than it is to stamp steel? Seriously?
.
.
08-25-2006, 02:11 AM
#78
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 41
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
How about 3300-3400 lbs and 450 horsepower. A new Camaro is gonna be more fun if it's quick and nimble and not a pig like the new GT500 has turned out to be. But we'll see. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised but that doesn't appear to be the message I'm getting from people in the know.
08-25-2006, 03:46 AM
#79
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
I voted for less weight and horsepower. Somehow, I bet that it's a lot easier for GM to add 50hp than take off 300 pounds.
The power to weight of the two options is very close with only a slight advantage to the 500hp option.
The power to weight of the two options is very close with only a slight advantage to the 500hp option.
08-25-2006, 03:51 AM
#80
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
Originally Posted by km9v
3500 lbs/450 hp= 7.6 lbs/HP 3800 lbs/500 hp=7.7 lbs/HP
08-25-2006, 03:59 AM
#81
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
Originally Posted by Z284ever
I think that you're actually helping to make my point. The chart you show indicates that the average car has lost 200 pounds from 1978 to 2000. All while incorporating airbags, more structural rigidity, stricter crash standards, engine management, ABS, 4 wheel disc brakes, greater horsepower, stability control, traction control, standard AC, standard PW, standard PDL, standard AM/FM/casette/CD stereo system, etc.,etc.
The beef...erm, the proof is in the pudding.
The beef...erm, the proof is in the pudding.
One of the lightest cars available today (discounting the Lotus) is the Toyota Yaris, which weighs nearly 2400 pounds. Back in 1978, there were a number of econoboxes available that weighed less than 2000 pounds.
In 1978, there were still a number of cars left over from the early 70s, which brought the average up. If you compare 1986 with 2006, you'll find that the equivalent 2006 model is about 20% heavier. Partly because it's a little bigger, a lot more powerful, and with more stuff. Then you save some because of lighter materials, but not enough to make up the difference.
08-25-2006, 07:55 AM
#82
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Commerce, mi, USA
Posts: 2,139
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
Originally Posted by teal98
If you compare a 1978 Honda Accord with a 2006 Honda Civic, however, you'll find that the 2006 Civic is about 500 pounds heavier.
One of the lightest cars available today (discounting the Lotus) is the Toyota Yaris, which weighs nearly 2400 pounds. Back in 1978, there were a number of econoboxes available that weighed less than 2000 pounds.
In 1978, there were still a number of cars left over from the early 70s, which brought the average up. If you compare 1986 with 2006, you'll find that the equivalent 2006 model is about 20% heavier. Partly because it's a little bigger, a lot more powerful, and with more stuff. Then you save some because of lighter materials, but not enough to make up the difference.
One of the lightest cars available today (discounting the Lotus) is the Toyota Yaris, which weighs nearly 2400 pounds. Back in 1978, there were a number of econoboxes available that weighed less than 2000 pounds.
In 1978, there were still a number of cars left over from the early 70s, which brought the average up. If you compare 1986 with 2006, you'll find that the equivalent 2006 model is about 20% heavier. Partly because it's a little bigger, a lot more powerful, and with more stuff. Then you save some because of lighter materials, but not enough to make up the difference.
08-25-2006, 08:52 AM
#83
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton, IL
Posts: 694
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
Originally Posted by 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
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
If you want a 2+2 RWD sedan or coupe with luxuries such as the afformentioned items then you should buy the goat. For the person who is on a budget and wants a RWD 2+2 or the performance junky such as myself then the Camaro should be for us.
BTW, to follow up what Bob Cosby asked, how do you get around in your current F-body with no NAV or HUD?
08-25-2006, 09:05 AM
#84
Disciple
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
Originally Posted by 95firehawk
BTW, to follow up what Bob Cosby asked, how do you get around in your current F-body with no NAV or HUD?
I put it on a trailer behind the Trailblazer that has Nav.
Now that's funny!
08-25-2006, 11:40 AM
#86
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton, IL
Posts: 694
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
Originally Posted by dream '94 Z28
Didn't someone else make a similar point to this on page 2?
08-29-2006, 12:09 AM
#90
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: Camaro horsepower/weight poll.
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
no offense guys, but this poll is like
Who would you rather have a date with? (insert two hot actresses here)
Who would you rather have a date with? (insert two hot actresses here)
Last edited by Z284ever; 08-29-2006 at 12:13 AM.