ya, and before that I thought 4th gens were pretty hefty.

 

Understood. My only problem with your reasoning is that Camaro has never been about a light weight, tossable car. From 1982 to 2002, it put on only a small mount of weight, even though horsepower doubled, and cars elsewhere in the industry packed on the pounds (compare specs on the 1990 and 2008 Miatas). Look at a 1975 Camaro. As I recall, it weighed somewhere around 3700 pounds.

So while I understand you want light weight, I don't think 4000 pounds makes it 'not a Camaro'. Just one that doesn't appeal to you.

Since we're going on about this, I can't resist. If the Camaro platform engineer told you that IRS added 100 pounds to the Camaro, would you still want it? One of my bases for not wanting it was that's what I estimated it would add. I know you really wanted IRS, but you also thought it would add only a negligible amount of weight. I'm wondering where you'd fall if you believed it would add 100 pounds.

Of course, working from the Zeta platform, live axle is not an option....

A completely separate issue.

 

Hmm....I suppose that's actually an accurate description of my position (can't speak for Charlie, of course).

 

I have to admit that a 4000 pound coupe doesn't appeal to me either. The 500hp Mustang doesn't appeal to me as much as the Bullitt does.


Now, I know that the Camaro with the LS3 is going to have to have a beefy transmission and drive train to deal with 400+ lb ft of torque.

I wonder how many people would buy a short stroke 4.8l LS engine, where the point of the 4.8 is to put out less torque, so that you can have a lighter drive train. The short stroke helps it rev higher, so that you can gain back some hp on the top end. Purely guessing, but 350hp/tq seems like a possible target. I wonder how much weight would be saved from a drive train designed for 430hp/tq? The engine itself would weigh about the same.

I'm guessing you save about 100 pounds at best?

 

Sounds reasonable, but I honestly don't know.

 

Well we partly agree then. One cannot make a fun car ('fun' as most people interpret it) simply with teeny curb weight. Anemic, underpowered econocars are simply not fun to drive, to the vast majority of the buying public. POWER (and TQ) are needed too.

BTW I added some power ratings to your list....

-Honda S2000: 237 hp
-Solstice/Sky: 260 hp
-Mazda Miata: 155 hp
-Toyota MR2: huh?
-Mazda RX8: 232 hp
-(older, lighter) BMW 3-series: 333 hp (2003)
-Subaru WRX: 305 hp
-Even older Honda Civics and Accords: only metrosexuals enjoy these. Not applicable.

 

Actually, it's not too bad. Sure, its 3920 lb curb weight is more hefty than it should be (really, who needs all those cams?). But it can give a 13.1 according to http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...500/index.html . Those are still very impressive numbers. And it's wrapped in some stunning bodywork. 3920 lb never looked so good

 

The above argument suffers from a severe lack of... reality. There is no way the next Camaro will be 4300 lb. Even 4000 is bordering on ridiculous speculation. So - let's suppose the real range of possibilities is 3600 to 3900. How many here truly think the choice of weights within that range is really going to make a rat's a** bit of difference, in real performance? Especially with over 400 HP on tap?
It's interesting to note the survey results as of this point. Fully two thirds of the respondents currently accept the notion of a 4000 lb Camaro (assuming their other expectations of power, torque, features and price are met)... even without currently knowing for sure about those other attributes. I don't read that as 'some' - I read that as a strong majority willing to accept the heavier car, as long as the other advantages are in place. It warms my heart - to see this testament to faith in the new Camaro

 

What's the problem? MR2 was one of the only mid-engine affordable cars, ever. Maybe the only; I'm not sure. Certainly the only one in the last decade or more. There was even a turbocharged version that was respectably fast. I don't know the horsepower numbers off the top of my head.

I don't think the 2003 M3 was what he had in mind when he said "older, lighter". I'm thinking more like the ~1996 version, which AFAIK was 260hp and under 3000 pounds.

That's the STI. The regular WRX has 230 lb-ft.

The horsepower from those cars is lamentable at best, but they're so light (I had a '93 Civic; it was 2600 lbs) that they can actually be relatively fun to drive, as long as you're not just going in a straight line. There's something to be said for a 7500 rpm redline, too!

One car that wasn't mentioned here was the 1997-2001 Honda Prelude (200hp and 2800lbs, manual trans available). One of the more attractive cars to come out of Japan IMO, and quite fun to drive.

It would be silly of us not to mention the Lotus Exige in this conversation. 180hp (or more in the Exige S), 2015lbs, and quarter mile timeslips that start with 12.

 

Actually, 13.1 is flat out EMBARRASING for a (legitimate) 500 HP pony/sports/muscle car. Granted - there are plenty of examples that have gone far quicker, but even so....it is embarrasing that the major car rags run, at best, high 12s with a 500 HP Mustang.

Its a bloated pig, and not nearly the perfomance value that the 03/04 Cobra was (which I also considered overweight at the time....and now looks rather svelte in comparison).

 

As was mentioned, you are quoting the top-line models in terms of horsepower. For the current Kappas I was even thinking about the base 177 HP models. The MR2 Spyder was probably Toyota's last real engaging model to drive. The BMW 3-series has been recognized for decades now as a great sedan to drive -- and not just the 'M', which you quoted the power of.

Not so. There you go "disrespecting" cars again. As daily drivers, they are infinitely more engaging to drive than their direct competition. They were widely available with sticks too (try that with a GM/Ford/Toyota midsize family car).

 

The turbo MR2s had 200 HP and 200 lb.-ft. of torque from a 2.0L 3S-GTE 4-cyl. The cars were prone to snap oversteer in the hands of inexperienced drivers due to it's MR drivetrain layout.

The more recent models were incredibly weak, with only 138 HP.

 

I agree. There have been guys that have snapped off 13.1 quarters in stock or very nearly stock LS1 F-bodies. Oh, the difference a few hundred pounds can make eh?

 

Eh, I said 'huh' due to the rank obscurity of the car. Skorpian has posted they had 200 hp, which is enough to help the car be 'fun'. Again - significant hp = fun potential.
260 hp is nothing to sneeze at. hp = fun potential.
I quoted the higher hp variants of those cars since the most zealous enthusiast typically choose those. Those are the buyers most interested in 'having fun'. Often the folks buying the weak base versions, are buying more for bragging rights or max MPG than for 'having fun'.
Eh, maybe I shouldn't have used that 'metrosexual' line . I hope I didn't offend you. I imagine you have a point about the Prelude - although once again, it did have 200 hp.
If ever-more-light is better, why aren't we all riding sport bikes? Fact is, people have a multitude of needs. Feather-light weight often gets trampled in the stampede.

 

Ahh, but that wasn't the point now was it? An enthusiast doesn't have to buy one specific trim level to make it fun....should a $35,000 Z28 be the only fun Camaro to drive? There are plenty of "enthusiasts" that bought/still buy the base WRX. For one, the price difference between the base car and the STI is pretty significant.

I'll give you another fun little car to drive....the VW GTI.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you that having horsepower helps things....but there is also a point of diminishing returns. And go-carts can be a lot of fun when driven spiritedly. Why do you think the amusement parks charge you to drive 'em?