Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
#46
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
It goes without saying that the new Challenger will be a pig and a half. I'm not optimistic about future Mustangs either.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Id like to know what a 1st gen weight compares to an 02. Ive been under and around my 69 and its just sheetmetal other than the front frame. The 69 is probably lighter, but there is nothing there. The convertable first gens are known to bow over time. Ive seen a 3rd gen squashed almost flat in front of a high school.(D.A.R.E. program) Ill take a little weight if it means I might live through an accident...
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; 08-19-2006 at 12:08 AM.
#47
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
Do any of you actually think GM is saying right now, "hey, lets make this Camaro heavy so that its MPG sucks and we **** off a bunch of enthusiasts!"? Honestly, WTF, of course they are going to try to make this car as light as possible, but it all boils down to the all mighty dollar! If they were going to sell this car above 40k, then heck yeah, we would prolly have a nice svelte Camaro on our hands. However, that wouldnt fly with anyone on here prolly. We need a Camaro that bases out at around 22k or whatever the Mustang is at in 2009. For it to be around that price and for it to be even approved to be sold in the Unites States of America, theres no way its going to be around 3400lbs. Yeah, it sucks, but its the truth, aint no gettin around it. I understand there are hardcore guys out there that want a lightweight ready to go drag/track car and for them, weight is a huge issue, however, even for a majority of the ENTHUSIAST population, weight isnt THAT big a deal and we will deal with a heavy car because the government and money makes us. If the Camaro is too heavy for you when it comes out, chances are the Challenger will be way to heavy and the Mustang will be too heavy also, therefore you are limiting yourself to older used cars for the most part. No problem there, its just not a new car.
#48
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
Originally Posted by 5thgen69camaro
This is what I dont get. GM doesnt make the impact standards so what youre saying I think will be spot on. The car may not be competitive weight wise a few years ago, or maybe even today but when it is released wont the weight of Challenger, Mustang and Camaro be close to meet the same standards? I mean in two years times what is considered a pig will be different than a pig today...
Id like to know what a 1st gen weight compares to an 02. Ive been under and around my 69 and its just sheetmetal other than the front frame. The 69 is probably lighter, but there is nothing there. The convertable first gens are known to bow over time. Ive seen a 3rd gen squashed almost flat in front of a high school.(D.A.R.E. program) Ill take a little weight if it means I might live through an accident...
FYI for eagleknight97....
A 2006 Base Mustang has a curb weight of 3373 lbs
A 2006 Base Mustang GT has a curb weight of 3488 lbs
NOTE: Could not find listed weight of 2007. I don't *think* there would be any significant difference.
I have no idea if regulations/requirements will cause that to increase by MY09. Perhaps someone here "in the know" can chime in?
Bob
#49
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
Bottom line here is that the weight concience people around here are "singing to the choir" with their comments aimed at GM.......but just keep in mind there's only so much that can be done.
The car has to be the right size...built with the right quality.....and be priced at the right point.
These are sometimes divergent goals.
The car has to be the right size...built with the right quality.....and be priced at the right point.
These are sometimes divergent goals.
#50
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
FWIW, I was just looking at the upcoming GT500 and it's weight is listed as 3920 lbs! That's right, 3920 lbs (don't believe me, look on here: http://www.svt.ford.com).
As far as the weight of a 1st-gen, I can't think they'd be much more than ~3300 - 3400lbs. The weight of 2nd-gens are ~33xx lbs (check out www.nastyz28.com for specs on 2nd-gens) so I don't see a 1st-gen weighing any more? They could even be ~3200 - 3300 lbs?
I understand that safety standards will make the cars heavier, but I'd like to think that a couple hundred lbs should be more than enough to "beef up" the cars. ~3600 lbs is a "fair" number IMO. ~3900 lbs is way out of line. ~4200 lbs is laughable, and completely unreasonable.
The C5/C6/Z06 are all comparible in size and layout as a Camaro (obviously with the exception of a back seat) ..... they manage to weigh in around ~3200 lbs. I realize the Camaro CAN'T be that light, but ~3400 lbs should be the target, as it was before, and a little extra weight can be tolerated. Approaching ~4000? Somebody f-d up.
As far as the weight of a 1st-gen, I can't think they'd be much more than ~3300 - 3400lbs. The weight of 2nd-gens are ~33xx lbs (check out www.nastyz28.com for specs on 2nd-gens) so I don't see a 1st-gen weighing any more? They could even be ~3200 - 3300 lbs?
I understand that safety standards will make the cars heavier, but I'd like to think that a couple hundred lbs should be more than enough to "beef up" the cars. ~3600 lbs is a "fair" number IMO. ~3900 lbs is way out of line. ~4200 lbs is laughable, and completely unreasonable.
The C5/C6/Z06 are all comparible in size and layout as a Camaro (obviously with the exception of a back seat) ..... they manage to weigh in around ~3200 lbs. I realize the Camaro CAN'T be that light, but ~3400 lbs should be the target, as it was before, and a little extra weight can be tolerated. Approaching ~4000? Somebody f-d up.
#51
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
I went and did some searching, and you're right - the 1st Gen cars were significantly lighter than I thought.
Note to those that will inevitably get the wrong idea: I'm not trying to make any comparisons between the 1st Gen and 5th Gen. I'm simply correcting myself.
Until the Challenger comes out, the GT500 will probably hold the "Pig Award" as it pertains to pony/muscle cars. It is piggish enough (and pricey enough) that its not something that I (personally) would even consider. Plus, I had a factory-blown car. Just didn't pump my nads.
Bob
Note to those that will inevitably get the wrong idea: I'm not trying to make any comparisons between the 1st Gen and 5th Gen. I'm simply correcting myself.
Until the Challenger comes out, the GT500 will probably hold the "Pig Award" as it pertains to pony/muscle cars. It is piggish enough (and pricey enough) that its not something that I (personally) would even consider. Plus, I had a factory-blown car. Just didn't pump my nads.
Bob
#52
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
Originally Posted by Capn Pete
FWIW, I was just looking at the upcoming GT500 and it's weight is listed as 3920 lbs! That's right, 3920 lbs (don't believe me, look on here: http://www.svt.ford.com).
EDIT: MAN, they've jacked the price on that thing! Base price now on the COUPE is $43,000! Base Corvette...$45,000. Wow
It sux that the weights are climbing, but I at least we all agree that the gain is to meet regs, and not just a cop out by GM to make it as cheaply as possible. I agree w/ the others that they will do the best job they can w/ reards to weight as humanly possible given their budget and projected price point. I understand that it will probably be heavier than before, but thats just the way it is. I sympathize w/ the racers among us, but thats just the way it looks like it has to be. BTW, 2993/04 Z06 would look REAL fine to me!!
Last edited by CLEAN; 08-19-2006 at 08:28 AM.
#53
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
I understand that safety standards will make the cars heavier, but I'd like to think that a couple hundred lbs should be more than enough to "beef up" the cars. ~3600 lbs is a "fair" number IMO. ~3900 lbs is way out of line. ~4200 lbs is laughable, and completely unreasonable.
A couple more things about weight. I happen to like having some mass on my side, in case there's a crash. It makes a big difference in real-world crashes with other cars. Plus - one reason these modern muscle cars are hefty is that to preserve some attractive tumblehome angles in the greenhouse yet still package in some side airbags, they must make them pretty wide... and that makes them hefty.
#54
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
Sorry if it's already been covered...
GM are going to reduce the car's width (and weight) I feel. If anything needed a rework, it was the interior - I just hope they hit the target. 8)
'We ain't done yet!' I'd suspect the biggest change will be in the interior and perhaps the overall width of the car.
#55
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
One more thing... I know it's wild speculation on my part but recently Holden's MD, Denny Mooney, stated that Holden were keen to introduce the smaller Torana (BMW 3-series size) sedan locally, complete with 4 cyl and V6 ONLY engines... is there a possible link between the smaller, narrower Torana and 2009 Camaro chassis?
#56
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
"Forget about engine designators that we know of today"
#57
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
Originally Posted by eagleknight97
Yeah, no ****, this is ridiculous. Do any of you actually think GM is saying right now, "hey, lets make this Camaro heavy so that its MPG sucks and we **** off a bunch of enthusiasts!"?
Obviously GM could build a lighter "death trap" car, but the question is how many people could buy such a thing in this day in age. And didn't the insurance industry basically kill muscle cars in the early 70s?
#58
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
Originally Posted by BigDarknFast
A couple more things about weight. I happen to like having some mass on my side, in case there's a crash. It makes a big difference in real-world crashes with other cars. Plus - one reason these modern muscle cars are hefty is that to preserve some attractive tumblehome angles in the greenhouse yet still package in some side airbags, they must make them pretty wide... and that makes them hefty.
Congratulations.
Bob
#59
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
I guess if you have to find something good about something that makes a vehicle turn slower, recover slower, stop slower, accelerate slower, get out of somebody else's way slower - but use gas faster - then I suppose the above ideas are about as good as it gets.
OF COURSE there are tradeoffs with bigger cars. If you REALLY want a lightweight car, by all means go get your Focus, Aveo or Corolla. I like my muscle cars to be full-featured... safe... heavy on power and torque... and to look good. That's what drives the weight. Those who really want a welterweight car, can go get one and make the sacrifices that come with those buzzy econoboxes.
#60
Re: Post-announcement Q&A with Fbodfather...
Originally Posted by Buttercup
It isn't complaining, threatening, bitching, or griping. It is pleading, hoping, critically emphasizing an extremely important aspect of a performance car that we love.
what Scott said may not have been encouraging to you, but it was a statement of fact.. they feel as strongly as you do that the camaro should not be a "pig"