Thoughts on weight reduction
02-05-2007 | 07:05 PM
#31
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
02-05-2007 | 07:06 PM
#32
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,711
From: The Golden State
One of the many cars I've owned in the past is a 1993 Honda Civic coupe. It weighed ~2400 pounds.
Unfortunately, something like 65% of that weight was over the front wheels, which made the car extremely unstable in certain conditions, and not as enjoyable to toss around in corners as a car that light should be.
I was listening to the most recent podcast (#74), where they mentioned weight reduction, and in particular, taking some weight out of the rear end.
I'd just like to voice my opinion that I'd rather have a 3400lb 5th gen with 50/50 weight distribution than a 3000lb 5th gen with 57/43 weight distribution (which is what you'd get if you took 400 pounds off the rear of the aforementioned 50/50 car).
For reference, my mostly-stock '02 Z28 weighs 3546 (with driver), and 1995lbs (56%) of that weight is on the front wheels.
There is a fine balance point here. I think the 4th gen was right on the edge -- any more front-heavy and it wouldn't be much fun to drive in anything but a straight line.
I'm sure the engineers have thought of this... I just wanted to share my thoughts.
Unfortunately, something like 65% of that weight was over the front wheels, which made the car extremely unstable in certain conditions, and not as enjoyable to toss around in corners as a car that light should be.
I was listening to the most recent podcast (#74), where they mentioned weight reduction, and in particular, taking some weight out of the rear end.
I'd just like to voice my opinion that I'd rather have a 3400lb 5th gen with 50/50 weight distribution than a 3000lb 5th gen with 57/43 weight distribution (which is what you'd get if you took 400 pounds off the rear of the aforementioned 50/50 car).
For reference, my mostly-stock '02 Z28 weighs 3546 (with driver), and 1995lbs (56%) of that weight is on the front wheels.
There is a fine balance point here. I think the 4th gen was right on the edge -- any more front-heavy and it wouldn't be much fun to drive in anything but a straight line.
I'm sure the engineers have thought of this... I just wanted to share my thoughts.
I suspect that even though the 5th gen has far less rear overhang, even taking weight out of the rear IRS is still not likely to send the weight balence to where the 4th gen was, let alone beyond it.
I'm not worried.
Last edited by guionM; 02-05-2007 at 07:08 PM.
02-05-2007 | 07:15 PM
#33
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,710
From: Oakland, California
I didn't start this thread to talk about price, I just wanted to put an idea in people's heads, and that is that overall weight shouldn't be taken so low as to prevent decent balance. IMO, 55/45 weight distribution is the worst that GM should let out the doors as the 5th gen Camaro. The 4th gen is 56/44, and it's front-heaviness causes it to understeer when pushed in turns. I'm just asking for some improvement in that department.
But, since you brought up price, I'd take the $45,000 car. That said, you've pretty much described a C6 with those numbers, except that the Vette's balance is a little better than 55/45. GM probably wouldn't sell too many Camaros like that, but that's more an issue of poor market positioning than it is of vehicle handling compromises.
I'm thinking that 53/47, 3400lb is doable with a pricing scheme competitive with the Mustang. Do you disagree?
I'm thinking that 53/47, 3400lb is doable with a pricing scheme competitive with the Mustang. Do you disagree?
When your designing from scratch (like i assume was done with the camaro) then you can work in fairly what ever you want for cheaper than it is to try to go back and fix it later. So lets hope they aimed for 50/50 3k form the start so that when they end they will be close and the price will be low vs having to go back and "fix" it.
02-05-2007 | 07:16 PM
#34
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,710
From: Oakland, California
In the VE and WM, the Zeta's engine sits back aways in the chassis, the front has next to no overhang, while the rear has quite a bit. The result is roughly a 50/50 distribution. Almost unheard of on a traditional sedan.
I suspect that even though the 5th gen has far less rear overhang, even taking weight out of the rear IRS is still not likely to send the weight balence to where the 4th gen was, let alone beyond it.
I'm not worried.
I suspect that even though the 5th gen has far less rear overhang, even taking weight out of the rear IRS is still not likely to send the weight balence to where the 4th gen was, let alone beyond it.
I'm not worried.
02-05-2007 | 07:28 PM
#35
Thread Starter
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,497
From: Okemos, MI
Unlikely, I know, but your comment just got me thinking.
"But we've always done it this way," is one of the worst arguments one can make.
02-05-2007 | 07:31 PM
#36
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,710
From: Oakland, California
That's some interesting logic. Do you really think that we should let tradition impede progress? I don't hear you bitching about IRS, even though all previous Camaros have had live rear axles.
"But we've always done it this way," is one of the worst arguments one can make.
"But we've always done it this way," is one of the worst arguments one can make.
02-05-2007 | 07:55 PM
#37
Disciple
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,479
02-06-2007 | 01:11 AM
#38
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
In the VE and WM, the Zeta's engine sits back aways in the chassis, the front has next to no overhang, while the rear has quite a bit. The result is roughly a 50/50 distribution. Almost unheard of on a traditional sedan.
I suspect that even though the 5th gen has far less rear overhang, even taking weight out of the rear IRS is still not likely to send the weight balence to where the 4th gen was, let alone beyond it.
I'm not worried.
I suspect that even though the 5th gen has far less rear overhang, even taking weight out of the rear IRS is still not likely to send the weight balence to where the 4th gen was, let alone beyond it.
I'm not worried.
Absoloutely not! Difference is Camaro has two back seats and a lower price tag. To not shoot for 50/50 and other handling capabilities is to miss huge potential. GTO distro is 55/45. Import crowds are car guys too, only they are willing to give up American power for import handleing. That is unless they are willing to shell out money for a BMW. If the 5th gen can get the handleing down and put out small block power, the gas milege of a performance 4cyl(which is only in the low 20s mostly), at the quality they are putting out now, there is no compromise. Ill repeat it a millon times. Z28 should be a M6 at a fraction of the cost, the way a Z06 is a Ferrari at a fraction of the cost. The car has soo much more potential than what it was...
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; 02-06-2007 at 01:16 AM.
02-06-2007 | 02:27 AM
#39
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 561
From: Ventura County, CA
Difference is, they don't need to sell 100k M6's to be profitable. Camaro does. With that volume, come sacrifices in unique and lighter materials. I'm with you though, I totally want it as light as possible and as close to 50/50 as they can, but you have to realize that they're planning on moving ALOT of these cars, so it needs to be priced right. To do that, it might have to give a SMALL portion of weight savings up, or take the cost out of something else.
02-06-2007 | 07:13 AM
#40
Registered User
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 189
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Originally Posted by jg95z28
"I won't disagree with you, but hasn't understeer been an issue on all previous generations? Isn't it something that makes a Camaro a Camaro and not a Corvette?"
Sorry, But the First Gens had Oversteer not understeer!!!
"I won't disagree with you, but hasn't understeer been an issue on all previous generations? Isn't it something that makes a Camaro a Camaro and not a Corvette?"
Sorry, But the First Gens had Oversteer not understeer!!!
02-06-2007 | 11:33 AM
#42
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 150
The Camaro is based on the Zeta platform. It will share some platform components and foundations with other vehicles, some of which are 4 door sedans. It isn't designed from scratch, and much like the 350Z suffers from weight issues because it shares componentah with some Infiniti and Japanese home market sedans, the Camaro might have to take one for the team.
02-06-2007 | 11:52 AM
#43
Thread Starter
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,497
From: Okemos, MI
I don't know about you, but that's not at all what I want in a Camaro.
02-06-2007 | 12:25 PM
#44
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
Difference is, they don't need to sell 100k M6's to be profitable. Camaro does. With that volume, come sacrifices in unique and lighter materials. I'm with you though, I totally want it as light as possible and as close to 50/50 as they can, but you have to realize that they're planning on moving ALOT of these cars, so it needs to be priced right. To do that, it might have to give a SMALL portion of weight savings up, or take the cost out of something else.
Why M6? M6 is fast, but it's very heavy and the suspension is tuned fairly soft, to meet the expectations of people buying $100,000 BMWs. Car and Driver was disappointed with the handling, and they're usually total BMW nuthuggers, so good luck calling bias on that one.
I don't know about you, but that's not at all what I want in a Camaro.
I don't know about you, but that's not at all what I want in a Camaro.
02-06-2007 | 12:41 PM
#45
Thread Starter
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,497
From: Okemos, MI
I think that Camaro should shoot for Maserati. That's the poor man's Ferrari, and Camaro is the poor man's Corvette.