All I know is my 4th Gen weighed almost exactly 500 pounds less than a M6 5th Gen.

That is with 285 tires on 17" 35th Anniversary wheels. Spare tire and jack in the trunk. Stock stereo, AC, heat, etc. and 3/4 tank of gas. The only thing I did have out of the car was the back seat which is approximately 40 pounds I think, so call it 460 pounds.

Now it certainly doesn't have the features of a 5th Gen, but I am happy about that. I don't need all that stuff on a play car.

Dropped the spare and jack, which was another 39 pounds, the other day.

Result, my lid and catback 4th Gen is every bit as fast as a 5th Gen in a straightline and faster on the track. For me, I'm happy. Doesn't mean the 5th Gen isnt a great car though.

 

My 1996 Z28 SS with T-Tops and fat lard *** sitting in it and with a half a tank of gas was 3735 lbs.

My SS sits 50 1/2 inches to the top bar of the T-Top.

 

So how much torque does it take? So far 700 isn't the magic number. Past that HP # you posted too.

 

So who's got torsional stiffness numbers for the 4th Gen Camaro chassis and the 5th Gen Camaro chassis?

I just found that a 1999 Corvette Hardtop was a very good 24 Hertz.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=1002

 

So how come all of us like myself who have been modifying the LS1 for the past 12 years make more HP then a 5thgen without the weight?


I took out the tiny light radiator and added a big heavy metal dual core one.
Lets see what mine weighs.

Again how many t56's run in the 10's? Does my t56 suddenly weigh more because my car goes faster? no, and yet it holds up to the power. Weird.

ls1's had dual piston calipers in front too.
What are the braking feet for the 4thgen vs 5thgen? less weight means less brakes needed to do the same work.
car wasn't twisted in half last time I checked. Plenty of 12 sec ls1's out there. Post pics of the ones twisted in half?

No not really. I was not one of those people that insisted it had to have one either because no one would buy an 'outdated' solid axle(mustang)
I do have a 9". It won't break and it's heavy as hell so I took a big weight penalty so I think weight wise it's fair to compare it to the IRS.

yep more weight you add, more you have to beef up the suspension, it's an endless cycle. A lighter car could be fine with a lighter suspension.

hey one I can agree with you on. what's it have 2 more speakers? that is some weight no doubt.

Both mine are power lumbar. and I don't think the 5thgen even has a power passenger seats.

again I agree, and they are quiet inside.

amazing my car has this just discovered new technology of power windows, locks, even mirrors too

17/18 c5 wheels here with 275's. no 15-16's here.
My wheels are big and yet look proportional because the car isn't huge.
Not my fault 20's still look small on a 5thgen.


As far as i can tell I have given up NOTHING.
I guess I did give up quietness, but a nice dual exhaust with longtubes sounds good to me.

what features does it have that mine doesn't? I still have to hang the GPS on the windshield!


Oh yeah my car weighs 3480lbs with all the above mentioned stuff and I still am not clear what I gave up, but whatever it supposedly was I don't seem to miss it.

 

Sorry but the two more speaker comment had me rolling

 

I have to admit, posts like these make me struggle to understand where the weight is coming from.

In this case, I attribute most of it to the chassis, size, and independent rear suspension. This makes sense because if you look at the smaller, stick axle, Mustang it doesn't weight much if any more than a late 4th Gen SS with similar equipment.

I'm personally really looking forward to the 2011 Mustang GT with Brembo brakes and some real power for a change!

 

I'm going to be the first and only person to put down actual numbers for the IRS penalty.
A stock 10 bolt weights 135lbs.
My 9" weighs 190lbs. Already I added 55lbs over stock.
The 5thgen camaro IRS weighs 390lbs.
That's everything. Let's put that in a pic so you can understand.

All the stuff shown here weighs exactly 200lbs more then my axle.
BUT wait. We haven't been so generous to include all the mounting hardware with my axle. So to be fair we need to include it
12 lbs - Edelbrock torque arm
8 lbs - Rear sway bar with end links
2 lbs - Rear spring perches
20 lbs -S&W lower control arms
10lbs bmr trac bar, panhard bar/relocation kit
10lbs panhard bar
total=62lbs+190=252lbs vs 390lbs

So you do take a 138lb weight penalty for the IRS.
Is it worth it? can you feel the difference? will it wheel hop? is it as strong as a 9"? will the IRS break on a hard launch?
Are the benefits worth the 138lbs? Is 138lbs less of a difference then you expected after reading all the threads on here?

 

A modified car is a different story. It's not even worth comparing. Manufacturers hold themselves to a different standard when building cars than enthusiasts do when modifying those cars. Unless you're willing to hold your mods up to the same yardstick that GM does (and, for the most part, has to by law), your argument is irrelevant.

It actually has three more speakers.

Correct.

Independent rear suspension
20" wheels and tires
4-piston Brembo brakes (not 2-piston like was stated earlier)
OnStar w/ navigation
HID headlights
True dual exhaust
Better crash protection
Stiffer chassis
6-speed automatic w/ tapshift
TR6060 (which is stronger than and shifts more smoothly than a T56)
USB and Bluetooth connectivity
Stereo head-unit that is worlds more sophisticated than the Monsoon head unit -- supporting CD-RW playback including MP3 discs and XM radio, displaying the song titles, albums, and artist names, etc.
Oil temp and trans temp gauge
Digital readout in the gauge cluster (which can report things like the current cruise control setting, current oil life remaining, individual tire pressures, outside temperature, compass heading, etc)
Remote start
Universal Home Remote transmitter
Telescoping steering column
Stability control
Tire pressure monitor
Seats with better bolstering and thigh support
Auto-dimming rearview mirror

And you get all of that for a price that, when adjusted for inflation, is lower than the price of a 4th gen SS in 2002.

As you can see, there are lots of features that the 4th gen doesn't have, and if you add them all up, 500 pounds doesn't seem so unreasonable. Whether you want them or not is a different story.

 

probably the truest thing said. Does joe average even know what half that stuff is? If not how can he want it?

already talked about this 138lbs. has pro's and cons.

have to stick with my 18's look much more proportional then those 'small' looking 20's. Make the body smaller and they could have gotten by with 18's looking just as good.

I see 60-0 tests of 107-117ft range for the 5thgen
I see 125ft for the 4thgen from edmunds
Now take those same brakes and put them on a 150lb lighter car.
But In reality I have slotted and cross drilled fronts.
A similar test here put upgraded brakes at 118ft in a still heavier car
60-0 mph braking was 132ft with stock brakes; it was 118ft with the Tri-Power calipers, a 10% - or about 1 car length - improvement.
http://www.ssbrakes.com/ssbc-literat...el-performance

And there is no way you can say my brakes are less reliable are some sillyness.
Therefore I can't give the 5thgen any credit for better braking. I simply can say the 4thgen engineers decided not to get the maximum out of the 4thgen probably due to some bean counter.

GPS on my windshield with a screen
ebay conversion avaliable. A technology issue but not a weight issue.

I already have ture duals

yep probably, although all the cars were 4 and 5 star. Mainly side bar in the door. Again not something that was a deal killer. Maybe if it was like 2 vs 5 star but it's not. And the only people that are die hard crash saftey already have it engrained in their heads volvo is the best.

my bronco has a stiffer frame too
actually my car has full tubular suspension, poly bushings, alston sub-frame connectors, and jamex strut tower brace. So ALL this was included in my initial weight. Basically I'm saying I brought my car up to better standards yet managed not to incur the weight penalty million dollar engineers did.
cool gear box, I have a t56 so I'll keep my comparisons to the manual
Ironcially they recalled a batch because they snapped due to defects.
Either way a t56 will live 100,000 miles behind a 426hp and everyone knows it.
There's nothing that needs to be added weight wise to the t56. things like using carbon blocker rings instead of paper make it shift smoother but aren't weight addative.

it should have this, along with a nav screen that can also display tons more info. This is like 1lb of equipment and lots of coding.

my aftermarket headunit can take an SD card and ipod input and a USB input.
But that doesn't make it weigh anymore.

Good to have this and more should be info avaliable on a nav screen that doesn't exist.
more lines of code on the nav screen. doesn't add weight.
4oz box
4oz box

more lines of code

4-1oz sensors and nav screen coding.
I have side lumbar and adjustable thigh support
been and option for 2 decades,
you listed a bunch of great featues, but the question was more what do I give up to save weight.
These things you listed don't add 20lbs.
So thanks for the answer it was well thought out but not the topic we were discussing.

what you listed doesn't add 500lbs. It's almost all coding that can be displayed on a non existent nav screen.

 

It's almost all in the wheels, tires, and stiffer chassis, plus the fact that the car itself is larger.

One thing you neglected is that all of those additional sensors and boxes need wiring. Wire weight adds up in a hurry!

Also, the gears in the TR6060 are thicker (I think it's just 1st and 2nd gear, where it really counts), which allows the gears to mesh over more surface area, which lets it tolerate higher shock loads and higher peak power. That adds some weight too, but I'm not sure how much.

 

Thats actually more than I expected. If you look at the weight difference from a stock 10 bolt and stock mounting hardware (you included some beefier aftermarket stuff) then the difference is almost 200 pounds. That is a LOT.

Basically, that one change alone would put the Camaro at 3,700# or lighter. When you consider that the 2011 Mustang GT will likely weight over 3,600# in a smaller car with a much lighter chassis, smaller wheels, smaller engine, etc. that makes the Camaro not seam to heavy actually.

 

Found it. My college professor had an issue of Automotive Engineering International sitting on his desk with a Camaro on the cover. Sure enough, it had the 5th Gen's numbers.

Chassis stiffness for the 2010 Camaro is 25 Hertz.

Can anyone find it for the 4th Gen?

 

I am just so happy that the ford comes in with it's new 5L engine 413HP and 500lbs less than the maro... So the Z28 will compete with a base mustang!!!!!!! I love it....

Same way I love the viper.... Thanks to the viper the Z06 is what it is. Hopefully... Thanks to the mustang, the camaro will be what it should have been. If not... we'll have to wait till the 6th generation.

 

Wait, what? Have you hit your head? The stock 1SS is 426HP, stock, out of 6.2 liters. The Mustang is 413HP, out of 5.0 liters. Which one do you think will have more torque? As for the 500 pounds less, I'll believe that when I see it. You can't add 100HP to a car without making a lot of the components stronger, which equals more weight.

As it stands right now, the six cylinder Camaro is fair competition for the GT, if you go strictly on HP numbers.

Also, how can you judge a car you have not driven? I've driven a loaded 2SS auto. In comparison to my lower-mileage (82k), full bolt on 4th gen LT1/auto/4.10 gear car, it felt just as quick, but about 10x more solid. The Camaro is a damn good car, and once my truck payment is gone there will be one in my garage. Preferably a 1SS, Cyber gray with the RS package with the 6 speed.