Are we being lied to about the 6th gen? - Page 4

Netslave · 04-06-2016, 10:55 PM

In before some demands a replacement car.

The_Driver · 04-06-2016, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laynlo15

Hum, just noticed you didn't post after all the responses. Now I know why. Buy one and you'll really know why.

I don't like to intrude on a thread because I like to keep the flow going so to speak. I was mainly referring to the overall dimensions, especially the overall stock height, but the progression into the weight reduction is good too. When you see the "up to 397 lbs lighter", you go wow! However, the average weight difference is less than that, all things being equal.

To my eyes, the 6th gen looks higher in the back than the 5th gen at the bottom of the rear rocker to the ground. Then, I found out that the stock tires are 1" lower in height than the stock 5th gen tires. That would account for the 1" reduction in overall height. I think GM did this clever trick to make the all important dimension numbers smaller all around. Still, if you get this car and place it near a 3rd gen F-body or 1st gen, it looks huge.

i2disturbedSS · 04-06-2016, 11:02 PM

ChefBorOzzy · 04-06-2016, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Driver

I don't like to intrude on a thread because I like to keep the flow going so to speak. I was mainly referring to the overall dimensions, especially the overall stock height, but the progression into the weight reduction is good too. When you see the "up to 397 lbs lighter", you go wow! However, the average weight difference is less than that, all things being equal.

To my eyes, the 6th gen looks higher in the back than the 5th gen at the bottom of the rear rocker to the ground. Then, I found out that the stock tires are 1" lower in height than the stock 5th gen tires. That would account for the 1" reduction in overall height. I think GM did this clever trick to make the all important dimension numbers smaller all around. Still, if you get this car and place it near a 3rd gen F-body or 1st gen, it looks huge.

It's obvious that average weight difference is less when they say "up to 397" or whatever the number is.. Good freaking lord.

They've claimed over and over that v8 equipped Camaro has lost over 200 pounds and that held true.

z28deuce · 04-07-2016, 12:27 AM

It's a small point, but just because it keeps being brought up... Assuming it's true that the tires are 1" smaller in diameter, this would only make the car 1/2" shorter in overall height. Only the part below the axle centerline, or the tire's radius, would effect the vehicle's height.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

camaro-dreamer · 04-07-2016, 06:55 AM

I really do not understand the premise of this thread. GM said the camaro was both getting smaller and weighing less. They achieved this. Ford made the claim that the mustang was going to lose about 200 lbs. The mustang gained weight. Bravo GM for doing what you said you would do!

Thor142 · 04-07-2016, 07:32 AM

The Driver (pill)

Karma81 · 04-07-2016, 08:36 AM

I went from a 2010 1SS/RS to a 2016 2SS. It doesnt feel like 150-200 lbs. It feels more like 500-600!!!! Dont care much about the weight and size, but the performance #'s speak volumes on what GM accomplished with the design of this car!

Karma81 · 04-07-2016, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Driver

I don't like to intrude on a thread because I like to keep the flow going so to speak. I was mainly referring to the overall dimensions, especially the overall stock height, but the progression into the weight reduction is good too. When you see the "up to 397 lbs lighter", you go wow! However, the average weight difference is less than that, all things being equal.

To my eyes, the 6th gen looks higher in the back than the 5th gen at the bottom of the rear rocker to the ground. Then, I found out that the stock tires are 1" lower in height than the stock 5th gen tires. That would account for the 1" reduction in overall height. I think GM did this clever trick to make the all important dimension numbers smaller all around. Still, if you get this car and place it near a 3rd gen F-body or 1st gen, it looks huge.

The stock tires on my 2010SS are 245/45/20 on front and 275/45/20 rear. isnt that the same on the 2016 SS?

*Mr. Wyndham* · 04-07-2016, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karma81

The stock tires on my 2010SS are 245/45/20 on front and 275/45/20 rear. isnt that the same on the 2016 SS?

No, they use 40 and 35 profile tires on the 6th gen, this does result in about a 1 inch difference in overall tire/wheel height vs last generation. Which is great!

jdasnt3 · 04-07-2016, 09:07 AM

My 16 fits in our garage much better than our 15 did. And why would it be that much faster in the 1/4 with only a measly 29HP and torque increase? This car is light years better than my 15. I still love the fifth gens, but I am very happy with the trade for a 16.

brutusvk · 04-07-2016, 11:16 AM

This thread is based on a fake premise by a troll. Make him go away by ignoring him. The thing I truly don't understand is why he puts forth the effort for a car he doesn't like. It is getting freudian.

Bazooka · 04-07-2016, 11:32 AM

1" shorter tire would only account for .5" of reduced ride height.

*Camaro_Corvette* · 04-07-2016, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

2015 SS: 3908
2016 SS: 3685
Difference: 223 lbs

2015 LT: 3729
2016 LT (V6): 3435
Difference: 294 lbs

2015 ZL1: 4120 lbs
2017 ZL1: ???
Difference: At least 200 lbs lighter (per Chevy)

I don't know where these "150-200 avg" quotes are coming from...

This.

04-06-2016, 10:55 PM	#43
Netslave GM paint evaluation dept Drives: Too many to list Join Date: Feb 2016 Location: South East US Posts: 345	In before some demands a replacement car. __________________ Co-owner of Tony the Tiger - A GM factory custom orange and mosaic black striped 2016 SS 2SS - U̶n̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ Officially the worst Mosaic Black paint on a 2016 Camaro SS 2SS See him here - https://drive.google.com/folderview?...3M&usp=sharing

04-06-2016, 11:02 PM	#45
i2disturbedSS Drives: 2010 SS L99 IOM Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: CA Posts: 1,924	Attached Images __________________ 369rwhp/392rwtq "Spending money I don't have, to buy parts I don't need, to impress people I don't know!" -Jenkins

04-07-2016, 12:27 AM	#47
z28deuce Drives: 2021 Camaro ZL1 Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 341	It's a small point, but just because it keeps being brought up... Assuming it's true that the tires are 1" smaller in diameter, this would only make the car 1/2" shorter in overall height. Only the part below the axle centerline, or the tire's radius, would effect the vehicle's height. Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk __________________ ZL1 Coupe, Wild Cherry Tintcoat, Black Metallic Center Stripe, A10, Red Knee Pads, Red Seatbelts, Nav. Ordered 12/12/2020, Built 1/14/2021, Arrived at Dealership 2/23/2021, Took Delivery 2/27/2021.

04-07-2016, 09:07 AM	#53
jdasnt3 Drives: 18 Silverado 1500 Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Bradenton, FL Posts: 1,721	My 16 fits in our garage much better than our 15 did. And why would it be that much faster in the 1/4 with only a measly 29HP and torque increase? This car is light years better than my 15. I still love the fifth gens, but I am very happy with the trade for a 16. __________________ 16 Red Hot 2SS A8: NPP, CAI Cold air, Ported TB, Fasterproms Ported intake, E85 flex, Formatto tuned. 11.80@118 with 1.92 60' (600-700 DA) on stock run flats.

04-07-2016, 11:32 AM	#55
Bazooka Drives: Future Gen 6 owner Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Fresno, Ca Posts: 51	1" shorter tire would only account for .5" of reduced ride height. __________________ Saving for a 6th gen SS/1LE

04-07-2016, 06:55 AM	#48
camaro-dreamer Drives: 2013 Porsche 981S Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: TN Posts: 329	I really do not understand the premise of this thread. GM said the camaro was both getting smaller and weighing less. They achieved this. Ford made the claim that the mustang was going to lose about 200 lbs. The mustang gained weight. Bravo GM for doing what you said you would do!

04-07-2016, 07:32 AM	#49
Thor142 Drives: 2014 2LS (traded in) 2015 1SS 1LE Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: New York Posts: 2,132	The Driver (pill)

04-07-2016, 08:36 AM	#50
Karma81 Drives: 2016 Camaro 2SS Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: CT Posts: 262	I went from a 2010 1SS/RS to a 2016 2SS. It doesnt feel like 150-200 lbs. It feels more like 500-600!!!! Dont care much about the weight and size, but the performance #'s speak volumes on what GM accomplished with the design of this car!

04-07-2016, 11:16 AM	#54
brutusvk Drives: future 2016 SS Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Glendale, AZ Posts: 847	This thread is based on a fake premise by a troll. Make him go away by ignoring him. The thing I truly don't understand is why he puts forth the effort for a car he doesn't like. It is getting freudian.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password