2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia All 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 Camaro news, photos, and videos

Edmunds Feature - GM's LS7 427 Chevrolet Camaro SS (2009 Camaro SS Preview)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-08-2007 | 11:52 AM
  #46  
STOCK1SC's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,049
From: Confederate States of America
Originally Posted by Doug Harden
All well and true, Kemosabe, but don't forget the cardinal rule of horsepower... "There's no replacement for displacement".

From your 'naturally aspirated' friend from the south.....
"Forced Induction, the replacement for displacement".
Old 06-08-2007 | 11:53 AM
  #47  
squiresz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 32
From: Hebron KY
<------Slightly disappointed But understandable.

Originally Posted by Fbodfather
Cool car -- but with the piece cost of the LS7 -- coupled with some incredible 'future' powerplants -- forget the LS7 in the Camaro as a production option.

Last edited by squiresz; 06-08-2007 at 11:57 AM.
Old 06-08-2007 | 01:11 PM
  #48  
Z28Wilson's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Considering that the high-revving rotary engine tachs to 4000 rpm at 80 mph in 6th gear
Talk about a torqueless wonder! 4000 RPMs in 6th gear at just 80 MPH?
Old 06-08-2007 | 01:44 PM
  #49  
jg95z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,710
From: Oakland, California
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
Cool car -- but with the piece cost of the LS7 -- coupled with some incredible 'future' powerplants -- forget the LS7 in the Camaro as a production option.
So there's still hope for the supercharged 6.2L?
Old 06-11-2007 | 09:18 PM
  #50  
Dwarf Killer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 321
You have to give this Meyers guy a break you know? He's trying to sell some crate engines. So he exaggerated a little. The LS7 is a great powerplant and in a 4th gen it is clearly brutal. It's well known that newer powerplants are in the works though, and not a second too soon either. The competition is readying some serious attackers. Even Toyota seems set to jump into the super musclecar market.
Old 06-17-2007 | 04:04 AM
  #51  
JeffInDFW's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 31
From: Dallas
"THE" reason I have not purchased a GT500 to drive while waiting for the Camaro to come out is, I have absolutely NOOOOO interest in buying and driving a 3,940 pound muscle car. I understand 4,000 pounds for a SUV, but a pony car? Rediculous. Let the Caddy CTS-V be the 4,000 pound fun car.....That is understandable because it is a luxury car. If the Camaro hits near that weight, I will not be buying one. I wait and hope for the best....
Old 06-17-2007 | 11:11 AM
  #52  
Dwarf Killer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by JeffInDFW
"THE" reason I have not purchased a GT500 to drive while waiting for the Camaro to come out is, I have absolutely NOOOOO interest in buying and driving a 3,940 pound muscle car. I understand 4,000 pounds for a SUV, but a pony car? Rediculous. Let the Caddy CTS-V be the 4,000 pound fun car.....That is understandable because it is a luxury car. If the Camaro hits near that weight, I will not be buying one. I wait and hope for the best....
I absolutely agree. There is no excuse for Camaro to be more than 3500lbs. The Mustang is bigger and heavier than it ever needed to be. I'm concerned that GM put an emphasis on a large car Impala-style chassis when the large vehicle market is about to go bust. The best way to make a vehicle lighter is to make it smaller. Cadillac is the only brand where a large car is viable.

There are too many options out there for anyone to buy a 3900lb muscle car. However, I have seen the new Challenger at the factory and I believe it will be lighter than anyone is letting on. I hope the 5th gen Camaro will be a decent weight.
Old 06-17-2007 | 11:46 AM
  #53  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,179
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally Posted by Dwarf Killer
There are too many options out there for anyone to buy a 3900lb muscle car. However, I have seen the new Challenger at the factory and I believe it will be lighter than anyone is letting on.
What's your best guess on weight? I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that it could be as low as 3,800 lbs.

Last edited by Z284ever; 06-17-2007 at 01:25 PM.
Old 06-17-2007 | 12:14 PM
  #54  
Dwarf Killer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by Z284ever
What's your best guess on weight? I've heard unsubstantiated rumors that it could be as low as 3,800 lbs.

I'm guessing 3500-3600 for the coupe. If it's more I won't buy. I could see 3800lb for the convertible. GM has had plenty of warning about getting off the big car heroine. I'm already appalled at the 110 inch wheelbase. All I need to hear is the thing is 3800lbs.
Old 06-17-2007 | 01:24 PM
  #55  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,179
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally Posted by Dwarf Killer
I'm guessing 3500-3600 for the coupe. If it's more I won't buy. I could see 3800lb for the convertible. GM has had plenty of warning about getting off the big car heroine. I'm already appalled at the 110 inch wheelbase. All I need to hear is the thing is 3800lbs.

No, I was referring to the Challenger.

BTW, expect the Camaro's wheelbase to grow compard to the concept.
Old 06-17-2007 | 01:34 PM
  #56  
FS3800's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Originally Posted by Dwarf Killer
I'm guessing 3500-3600 for the coupe. If it's more I won't buy. I could see 3800lb for the convertible. GM has had plenty of warning about getting off the big car heroine. I'm already appalled at the 110 inch wheelbase. All I need to hear is the thing is 3800lbs.
who cares about the wheelbase.. the car itself is actually smaller than a 4th gen
Old 06-17-2007 | 02:33 PM
  #57  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,179
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally Posted by FS3800
who cares about the wheelbase.. the car itself is actually smaller than a 4th gen
When you say actually FS, that's not much of an accomplishment. The 4th gen is longer than most SUV's, including the H1
Old 06-17-2007 | 09:16 PM
  #58  
Dwarf Killer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 321
Originally Posted by FS3800
who cares about the wheelbase.. the car itself is actually smaller than a 4th gen
It's actually only 4" shorter than the Trans Am, and 7" narrower. That is not much of a difference, so we're talking about another full size car here, not a compact, which the original Camaro started out as.

Relative to the current market the same complaints may apply to the new Camaro as the 4th gen - it's nicely styled, but too big to buy.

Last edited by Dwarf Killer; 06-18-2007 at 09:52 PM.
Old 06-17-2007 | 11:14 PM
  #59  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,179
From: Chicagoland IL
Originally Posted by Dwarf Killer
Relative to the current market the same complaints may apply to the new Camaro as the 4th gen - it's nicely styled, but too big to buy.

Regarding the Camaro, that's my concern as well. All of this rigamarole and hiatus business - and in the end - after all of these years, we're going to end up with a car which is more of an intermediate rather than ponycar in size.
Old 06-18-2007 | 01:15 AM
  #60  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by FS3800
who cares about the wheelbase.. the car itself is actually smaller than a 4th gen
What you have to remember is that a lot of the front overhang on the 4th gen was lightweight plastic. It only had a 101" wheelbase. The longer the wheelbase, the more a body and/or frame will flex, so the more strength you have to add to maintain stiffness.

Given that the modern standards for stiffness are much higher than the 4th gen and the wheelbase is much longer .......



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM.