05-14-2014, 11:56 PM | #15 | |
Iron fist, lead foot
Drives: 2003 Mustang Cobra Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,228
|
Quote:
The "luxury" components lost may or may not significantly effect weight. But stronger components and overall bolstering of the car to allow it to handle Camaros higher outputs will.
__________________
'03 SVT Cobra-SC4.6L V8 || modded with mods'n'stuff
|
|
05-15-2014, 12:16 PM | #16 |
Drives: 2008 Mustang GT Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Memphis
Posts: 378
|
Smaller platform and isn't the C7 engine lighter? I say 200-250lbs lighter in the 6th gen Camaro. The extra power will make up for any potential weight loss the new Mustang has.
|
05-15-2014, 09:10 PM | #17 |
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,989
|
The thing you are missing Number 3 is that the Cadillac and Impala don't perform the same as the Camaro. Well, the Cadillacs that do are far more expensive than a similar performing Camaro.
The base ATS coupe is $38,990. Do you want to pay high $40s for a base V8 Camaro? I sure as hell don't. I would rather the comfort dollars be spent developing a better performing Camaro. Whether or not you buy the options, they have to be engineered into the car. That drives up the costs for everyone. |
05-19-2014, 07:20 PM | #18 |
Also new government safety standards will add a lot of weight. Will be very difficult keeping weight on any vehicle. Even backup cameras are going to be government mandated on all cars from now on.
|
|
05-21-2014, 08:10 AM | #19 |
Drives: 2012 Charger Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SC
Posts: 64
|
I could be wrong but I think the LT1 is actually slightly heavier because of the direct injection but again i could be mistaken!
|
05-23-2014, 01:30 PM | #20 |
Track > 1/4 Mile
|
Yes it is most definitely heavier than the outgoing LS3.
__________________
|
05-23-2014, 02:48 PM | #21 |
Under a Peterbilt
Drives: Rogue, Durango and Camaro Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Modesto
Posts: 1,121
|
That is 4th gen weight. A 6th gen won't ever be that weight sadly :( I did love my 2000 SS because of that feature, full tank of gas it weighed 3550lbs . . . wish I put a LS3 in it and kept it.
__________________
Sold-2006 Pontiac GTO
M6 1 of 475 353rwhp 353rwtq Sold-2000 Camaro SS A4 Hardtop #867 of 8913 1 of 103 Bright Rally Red Hardtop SS A4 in 2000 2011 Camaro 2SS/RS M6 By Berger #11BC21 |
05-24-2014, 10:45 PM | #22 |
I'm an Engineer
|
The 2014 CTS Vsport and 2014 Chevy SS weight nearly exactly the same...despite all the miracle magic that Alpha is supposed to provide.
__________________
|
05-25-2014, 11:20 PM | #23 | |
Drives: 2013 A6 GT 5.0 Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 2,909
|
Quote:
The ATS with V6 is 3461lbs. There is no reason in the world that GM can't make a SS on the same chassis to be 3650. The chassis is already built. The r and d and mfg money has already been spent. It should not cost them much to use it on the 6th gen. If the c7 had got the weight savings technology with no other changes it would have lost 150lbs or been in the 3000lb area. The problem is that it gained something like 70lbs in interior/comfort/tech standard upgrades. The rest was mechanical upgrades. So long as they don't force those fancy upgrades on the 6th gen it will be fine price wise and weight wise. It will be cool to have those kinds of options but ONLY if you specifically order it with them and want them.
__________________
BLK/BLK 1SS/RS Ordered 11-01-2009 Took delivery 12-22-2009. Heads/cam/converter/bolt ons. SOLD Feb 2015 to fund 6th gen LT1 SS with 8L90E.
|
|
05-26-2014, 06:30 AM | #24 |
Drives: too many Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: oh va pa ma tx
Posts: 3,046
|
great discussion, I'm starting to wonder with the gm announcement of evolutionary not revolutionary and all the points here, is a weight loss possible. if not a weight loss can performance overcome the stagnation of weight? I get the idea of a universal platform for cost...
|
05-26-2014, 03:24 PM | #25 |
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert. Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
|
I thought that the 6th Gen Camaro is going to be based off of the upcoming Caddy ATS, not the CTS(which is currently the same weight, almost similar to the current 5th Gen) ??? correct or no ??
|
05-26-2014, 03:30 PM | #26 |
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert. Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
|
I would still love to see the "base" 2.0L Turbo(if they make it available) around 3,300-3,400lbs.
|
05-26-2014, 05:01 PM | #27 |
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6 Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 280
|
The ATS and CTS use the same platform (Alpha). It remains to be seen whether the new Camaro will be closer in size to the ATS or the CTS. Only a select few inside GM and its suppliers would really know at this point. Obviously, those hoping for lower weight would prefer something closer to the ATS.
|
05-27-2014, 03:47 PM | #28 |
Drives: 2002 Z/28,1968 Chevelle convert. Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Phila.,PA
Posts: 1,141
|
If the 6th Gen is very similar in weight to what I have now in my 5th Gen then I'm not going to be interested ..... I would really hope that the 6th Gen is more in-line with what the 2015 ATS is going to be like, in which on Caddy's website claims "lightest in class" .... I am hoping the 6th Gen does come in around 3,500 for the V-8(just a hopeful wish) ....
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
|