A guy who has 451hp. 
A guy who has 451hp.
Knurled wrote:mazdeuce wrote: All of you "it should weight less than 3k lbs!" people are aware that this car seats 4 and is engineered (almost certainly) to handle the 650hp motor out of the Corvette/CTS-V, right? It comes with 455hp. It takes fairly substantial architecture to handle that. Find me a substantially lighter four seater with 450hp. I can't think of one off hand.What if one doesn't want 450hp? Should a half-ton truck have the same frame, suspension, and drivetrain as a one-ton?
No of course not, that's why they have Standard and HD trucks.
But Deuce is right. The car is built for HP. The smaller engines are for people who want a Camaro and don't want to pay the premium for a V8. It's a 4-seat car, not a 2-seat roadster.
Somebody just said it, but GM built a 2-seater roadster and nobody bought them.
No one bought them because:
Five. Looked like a penis
(could not label that as 5)
The coupe was really cool, but was gone in 3 seconds.
Gearheadotaku wrote: No one bought them because: 1. No trunk 2. Poor visibilty 3. The top design sucked 4. too heavy for the powertrain (until the GXP)
I won't disagree with that, but GM took a chance producing it. When a car company takes a chance they are either going to fail or succeed.
What a lot of people from this forum is asking GM to make, they already tried, regardless of it's flaws. It was not a sales success and they stopped producing it, so they are going to produce what they already know, which is the Camaro.
Another thing people are asking it to be is a sports car, which it is not. It's a muscle car, pony car, whatever you want to call it, but sports car it is not no matter how much carbon fiber and suspension you throw at it. That's what the Corvette is for. Same goes for the Challenger and the Mustang. The Viper and the GT (mainly because Ford doesn't currently have a sports car) are the Sports/Supercar.
If you don't like the new Camaro, that's cool, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but Chevy did what they should have done 6 years ago and base it off of a compact RWD platform like they did with the new one. They have 3 new engines (for now) for every type of person who would consider a Camaro and you can still get a manual trans, which I think is a good thing.
mazdeuce wrote: All of you "it should weight less than 3k lbs!" people are aware that this car seats 4 and is engineered (almost certainly) to handle the 650hp motor out of the Corvette/CTS-V, right? It comes with 455hp. It takes fairly substantial architecture to handle that. Find me a substantially lighter four seater with 450hp. I can't think of one off hand.
Define four seater. Both the Frisbe twins and the Porsche 911 are also called four seaters. Perhaps four people could sit in the back of a pony car or a 911, provided they were para-plegics and with no legs. As the owner of a Mercury Cougar, I can attest even a 100#, 5' tall, 85 years old mother in law can't fit into a pony car. Even she has legs!
alfadriver wrote:Flight Service wrote: Your argument would be just as valid, by your own statement, if you asked "what happens if the Camry outsells the Miata." And just for full disclosure, I was in serious thoughts about buying the previous model because my kids are so smitten with Bumble Bee that I thought they would get a kick out of it,(and yes, it would have been the yellow one with black sticker kit.) I just couldn't get around the visibility, lack of useable trunk opening, and weight. Instead I bought the X3, then I only complained about the weight, but got AWD, I could see, huge trunk, and rode very nice.Uh, I was using the cars you listed as examples that they are not nearly as popular as Pony cars are. It wasn't my list of cars. As for the "previous" car- you mean the current one, don't you? We are talking about the future one.
I was looking at a 1 year old Bumble Bee edition and decided on the X3 3.0i 6-speed non-sport. I have since sold all of my cars and am now down to a CR-V. Comfy but underwhelming in the acceleration department, but living around DC, you don't need much. Although in about a year, I might have to start seriously looking at some other alternatives to expand the stable. I referenced this as I was a possible current gen owner that these deficiencies turned me off. The new one does little to remedy any of these issues.
The weight is from cost decisions more than from capability. There are dozens of vehicles out there with much more power and 60% of the weight, but they also have 4xs the cost.
GM is a manufacturing power house. If they choose to make less weight at a price point a priority it will happen. The same as Ford and Toyota, or any of the big boys. The point is they are fine with building 4000 lb cars because the general population doesn't give a damn about weight. It looks cool to them, does what they need, sounds like Dale Jr.s car, and can lay down rubber they have a winner.
But GRM is not the general populace. We are what Mazda shoots for. That explains alot.
chiodos wrote: Yall like to bitch a lot, its going in a good direction compared to 10 years ago when camaros were no longer being built. They have a long way to go but are on the right track. And like someone said, gm produced a smaller, lighter, rwd turbo car years ago but no one bought enough soltice/skys that they made off like dodos
Yeah, but the problem with the Opel GT was that it had no useable trunk. The German roadsters that tried to take on the Miata also failed until they redesigned them with a trunk big enough to hold a set of golf clubs,(that was identified as the one hold up). These are still expected to be cars and do car things. The GM roadster was a blast to drive, just needed a trunk so the old guys could put the clubs and a duffle bag in them for trips to the club. I still love the Saturn Sky.
You need freaking t-rex arms to roll the window down in the Sky/Solstice. And the seat cannot be moved to a comfortable position if you're 5'10"+. The top is idiotic.
And they feel so much heavier than they really are. I hate the Skystice cars with a passion. And everyone else is right to do so as well.
Edit: but this new Camaro seems to be a step in the right direction. Still won't see anything out of the windows but it'll be a hell of a ride into a wall or tree or something!
In reply to Flight Service:
And yet Mazda doesn't make a single thing that interests me.
Nick_Comstock wrote: In reply to Flight Service: And yet Mazda doesn't make a single thing that interests me.
You're weird. Or maybe, the general public? LOL 
Flight Service wrote:Nick_Comstock wrote: In reply to Flight Service: And yet Mazda doesn't make a single thing that interests me.You're weird. Or maybe, the general public? LOL
I don't know if it's weird to want a semi affordable V8 RWD coupe with a manual but that's what interests me. Mazda doesn't make one. GM, Ford and Dodge do. Out of those three I'd take the Dodge though.
flatlander937 wrote: You need freaking t-rex arms to roll the window down in the Sky/Solstice. And the seat cannot be moved to a comfortable position if you're 5'10"+. The top is idiotic. And they feel so much heavier than they really are. I hate the Skystice cars with a passion. And everyone else is right to do so as well. Edit: but this new Camaro seems to be a step in the right direction. Still won't see anything out of the windows but it'll be a hell of a ride into a wall or tree or something!
6'2" plus here and fit in our solstice fine. We had the 07 Gxp vert then traded that in for the gxp targa coupe. The coupe feels roomier, has more room for storage, and more headroom. Never noticed a weight issue and I have a bunch of other sports cars for comparison.
Cotton wrote:flatlander937 wrote: You need freaking t-rex arms to roll the window down in the Sky/Solstice. And the seat cannot be moved to a comfortable position if you're 5'10"+. The top is idiotic. And they feel so much heavier than they really are. I hate the Skystice cars with a passion. And everyone else is right to do so as well. Edit: but this new Camaro seems to be a step in the right direction. Still won't see anything out of the windows but it'll be a hell of a ride into a wall or tree or something!6'2" plus here and fit in our solstice fine. We had the 07 Gxp vert then traded that in for the gxp targa coupe. The coupe feels roomier, has more room for storage, and more headroom. Never noticed a weight issue and I have a bunch of other sports cars for comparison.
Eh I dunno. I can't tilt the seat back far enough to get close to comfortable, and legs have no room to feel right if moved forward. I don't gangster lean or anything either. I just dread getting in and out of those cars at work.
Nick_Comstock wrote:Flight Service wrote:I don't know if it's weird to want a semi affordable V8 RWD coupe with a manual but that's what interests me. Mazda doesn't make one. GM, Ford and Dodge do. Out of those three I'd take the Dodge though.Nick_Comstock wrote: In reply to Flight Service: And yet Mazda doesn't make a single thing that interests me.You're weird. Or maybe, the general public? LOL
Yeah, mucho want for a Dodge Charger Hellcat. I like the 4 doors. (sedan guy here, I like the coupe, but when the weight is this high I want my cake and pie too.) Completely mental and stupid car.
I need more stupidity in my life
Keith Tanner wrote:Nick_Comstock wrote:...something about that picture is pushing the Mustang button for me...I like this angle the best.
mazdeuce wrote: All of you "it should weight less than 3k lbs!" people are aware that this car seats 4 and is engineered (almost certainly) to handle the 650hp motor out of the Corvette/CTS-V, right? It comes with 455hp. It takes fairly substantial architecture to handle that. Find me a substantially lighter four seater with 450hp. I can't think of one off hand.
Exactly. What exactly is the competitor's weight for a 500hp V8 musclecar? How about the typical V6 midsize sedan? Why must it be a featherweight 4 cyl sports car? There are already some of those and it took Mazda a TON of engineering to keep the 4 cyl NON TURBO Miata down under 3000 lbs. Why should a larger, V8, 4 seater musclecar weigh the same as a goddamn Miata? The vast majority of Camaro, Mustang, Challenger buyers don't care if the car weights 3400 lbs or 3800 lbs. They just care about looks, price,... if they can fit comfortable and if it "handles well" and accelerates strong.
Now we have pony cars with (3) powertrains and a variant with 0-60 "close to 5sec" and 30mpg highway. These are great times for performance enthusiasts.
You want a list of some cars with their modern weights?
Jaguar F Type: 3,477 to 3,671 lbs Porsche 911: 3,042 to 3,693 lbs Lambo Murcielago: 3,450 to 3,726 lbs Lambo Gallardo: 2,954 to 3,417 lbs Ferrari 458: 3,384 lbs Ferrari Cali: 3825 lbs Mustang: 3,526 to 3,705 lbs Nissan 370Z: 3,278 to 3,510 lbs Corvette: 3,298 to 3,582 lbs Audi S5: 3,858 to 4,310 lbs! Audi R8: 3,362 lb Toyota FRS: 2,758 to 2,806 lbs Ford Focus: 2,935 to 3,055 lbs Subaru WRX: 3,267 to 3,450 lbs Viper: 3,354 to 3,431 lbs Honda Accord: 3,186 to 3,559 lbs Mazda 6: 3,183 to 3,232 lbs
I love the looks of the 6th gen car. And those gunslit windows aren't as bad when you're IN the car.
It's smaller in every dimension from the preceeding Camaro, even though it looks larger.
Knurled wrote:mazdeuce wrote: The 2016 Camaro was unvieled at Belle Isle today. 200 lbs lighter. More power. 2.0 turbo as the base car. Any thoughts?GM playing follow-the-leader again?
Not really, I'm still baffled at why its a small chassis car yet still weighs that much....hell, their base model weighs the same as the current mustang GT Premium 
peter wrote: I wonder if the V6 will fit in a Miata.
Yes. There's already a kit on the market.
http://www.v8roadsters.com/lfx-mounting-kit/
bravenrace wrote:Keith Tanner wrote:Nick_Comstock wrote:...something about that picture is pushing the Mustang button for me...
Actually, the Camaro has been outselling the Mustang since the 5th gen came out. So your image post is fallacious at best.
I posted the picture, I didn't write the text. I haven't checked lately, but last I heard the Mustang was outselling the Camaro every month this year.
Found this in my 20 second google search, because that's all the time I want to put into it.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/04/u-s-ford-mustang-sales-boom-march-2015-mustang-outsells-lincoln-outsells-camaro-challenger-combined/
In reply to Chris_V:
The past 12 calender months the Mustang has been leading. The new car is killing the Camaro and Challenger combined. So there is some truth to his statement given a limited timeline.
If you compare during the Transformers movie release you are absolutely correct. The Camaro killed the Mustang in sales.
Edit: Damn you Braverance, beat me to it;
yamaha wrote:Knurled wrote:Not really, I'm still baffled at why its a small chassis car yet still weighs that much....hell, their base model weighs the same as the current mustang GTmazdeuce wrote: The 2016 Camaro was unvieled at Belle Isle today. 200 lbs lighter. More power. 2.0 turbo as the base car. Any thoughts?GM playing follow-the-leader again?
It's the CTS chassis, not the ATS chassis, so it's not exactly a small car platform. They wanted to share the platform with the CTSV and it's Corvette engine with all the chassis stiffening and hard points that the ATS doesn't have.
The new Camaro is still bigger than a Mustang but now it's weight it about the same or slightly less. With the mag-ride suspension it should also be quicker in most situations. Mass savings is done with grams... across the board. From chassis to powertrain to interior.
The leather or vinyl-wrapping on a dash is laid over a hard polymer substrate. The more luxurious dashes have a cushioning layer in between. Then there's the adhesive layer that fastens them all together. A basic dash just uses the substrate as the superficial surface. It just adds the texturing. The difference between the two is not small when we're trying to save in grams. And often times when you start adding things like leather to seats, you're also adding power seats. And mirrors. Electric motors and associated motion axes aren't free of mass. Then there's the gadgets. A 2 dimensional gauge cluster with bezels and fancy needles and electroluminescent fonts aren't equal in mass to some basic set up in a Spark either. it reflects the mentality of many consumers to under appreciate the effort required to save mass. Nothing should be free of scrutiny. The goal is a mass savings strategy that finds balance between every system in the car.... and still please the demographic, which always assumed a price target.
And the last is important. You want a price target for the V8 version that also allows a respectable price (and profit margin) for the base version, which is really what pays for the top versions. And at this proice point, to get a stiff chassis that handles the V8, allows great suspension tuning, etc, and meets current safety regs, you're going to be a little bit heavier than a dedicated 2 seat sports car that is priced higher and can thus afford a lighter chassis.
You'll need to log in to post.
