[Number 3]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

why? isnt it just a bigger alpha variant?

Originally Posted by newb

The Camaro is on a bigger Alpha. The Omega is a full sized platform. Completely different than the Alpha

Omega is a completely new and different architecture. Has zero in common with alpha. Zero.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I want a 3700 pound Omega based Camaro. That is all.

Do you want to pay $90k+ for said Omega Camaro?

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Omega is a completely new and different architecture. Has zero in common with alpha. Zero.

ok, but it is a platform for large luxury cars...no?

IDK, but i'm good with Alpha sized camaro.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Do you want to pay $90k+ for said Omega Camaro?

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

ok, but it is a platform for large luxury cars...no?

IDK, but i'm good with Alpha sized camaro.

One, no one said the CT6 was $90,000. Two, it's simply a great architecture. Just because a CTS V-Sport is $72,000 doesn't mean IT can't go on a Camaro.

But to be clear I'd pay $50,000 for a 3700 pound Camaro 2SS that wasn't a sub compact.

[WHAMMO]

Thats the best news ever!!! But I'll believe when I say it. I still suspect the V6 is going to be 200lbs less than the heavier 2SS. Remember when they said Z28 shaved 300lbs off..compared to the ZL1 we were told later!!

Originally Posted by Camaro_Corvette

This is exactly why there is a 1SS and a 2SS. You 1SS guys can have your crappy interior with no features. I'll stick with the 2SS.

Crappy interior, you're funny. Its not that much prettier with that ricer orange color front and back, I could say. Keep your heavier and slower car that cost more. To each his own.

I was looking for the lightest optionned car. 3780lbs with 1/4 tank stock.

I totally agree with the guy saying its more about performance than freaking luxury. Options are there fore those folks. Let me choose if I want to pay for this crap or not. 1SS is great

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by Number 3

One, no one said the CT6 was $90,000. Two, it's simply a great architecture. Just because a CTS V-Sport is $72,000 doesn't mean IT can't go on a Camaro.

But to be clear I'd pay $50,000 for a 3700 pound Camaro 2SS that wasn't a sub compact.

ok, I obviously don't know it is great, but I believe you.

BUT...are you saying the Alpha Camaro is a sub-compact?

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

ok, I obviously don't know it is great, but I believe you.

BUT...are you saying the Alpha Camaro is a sub-compact?

The ATS is a small car. May be a compact. Cruze size. But I feel cramped in our ATS compared to our SS.

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The ATS is a small car. May be a compact. Cruze size. But I feel cramped in our ATS compared to our SS.

got it, the designation is based on interior volume yes? But I think the Camaro will be larger than ATS...right?

I drove the 5th Gen and felt pretty roomy in the drivers seat, but I have been in vehicles that don't feel roomy, like a 2005 CRV and I think that would be at least compact if not bigger - I think it really depends on design and utilization of space.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

ATS coupe with 6 cylinder weighs about 110 pounds or so more than the 4 cylinder. So, let's say the 2016 Camaro 4 cylinder is 200 pounds lighter than the 2015 v6. That would put the 4 cylinder at about 3,500 pounds so a 6 would probably be around 3,610 judging by the ATS 4 cylinder to 6 cylinder weight difference..

I don't think the above scenario is the case. I also think that it lost 200 pounds from trim to trim..

The actual difference is 88lbs according to the Cadillac site. That is between the 2.0T and the 3.6L ATS.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

The actual difference is 88lbs according to the Cadillac site. That is between the 2.0T and the 3.6L ATS.

Were you looking at the sedan by any chance? I was pretty sure that 4 cylinder coupe is 3,418 and v6 is 3,530.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Were you looking at the sedan by any chance? I was pretty sure that 4 cylinder coupe is 3,418 and v6 is 3,530.

Sedan and both luxury trim lines. Wonder why a bigger difference in the coupe? Surely not engine specific then.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

Sedan and both luxury trim lines. Wonder why a bigger difference in the coupe? Surely not engine specific then.

Coupes are traditionally heavier and the coupe ATS also has more brakes, tires, and probably other things over the base sedan.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Coupes are traditionally heavier and the coupe ATS also has more brakes, tires, and probably other things over the base sedan.

So still safe to say there would be an 88lb or less difference in the weight of the 2.0T and 3.6 engines in the same car.

[68fbjjz109]

Originally Posted by wakespeak

How much lighter for the GT350? I could find that the GT350R is 130lbs lighter than the regular GT350 (if you delete the AC). I could not find the weight difference for the GT350 vs GT.

It it is any GT350R is rumored to have a power to weight ratio very close to that of a Porsche GT3.

That coupled with comments from Dave Pericak, Jim Owens, bore, stroke and RPM suggest the over 500hp 5.2 will be well into 500. For example 540+. So you are looking at around a 3550+ to 3650+ lb car. Putting the GT350 close to GT weight, as the 130lbs difference is the only weight number associated to either of the cars.

If you look what GM has done with some of the CT6, Selective replacement of Steel with Aluminum will net results. And this will be likely course of action for the Mustang, as GM it doing that currently.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/15/c...-saves-weight/

That isn't always the cases. At times steel will give you the strength and weight needed for the component and come in lighter than cast aluminum components.

This being said, the change from F150's body structure from steel to aluminum wasn't done in a vacuum, and no OEM except BMW has committed to light-weighting on the capital investment side as Ford has done with their largest volume vehicle.

Ford is pretty good a product lifecycle, you can except known GT350 light weighted components such as Aluminum bumpers, Carbon Fiber reinforced Polymer front end module and such could trickle down, coupled with selective use of aluminum body structure with how invested Ford is into aluminum.

I am pretty excited for the possibility of a 3700lb base Camaro, that puts it right there with base Mustang GT's, and where the Camaro will be making power should make for a very quick car.