2016 Camaro

Keith Tanner wrote:

Chris_V wrote: Without a lot of costly composite construction we're not going to see modern passenger cars that weigh like a '85 CRX ever again.

This jumped out at me because I have an '85 CRX. 1961 lbs on my scales. 2015 Smart ForTwo: 1808 lbs 2015 Mitsubishi Mirage: 1972 lbs

Chris_V wrote: Smart is physically way smaller than the CRX, so that makes sense (and it's pretty sophisticated structurally), but not much of a 4 place V8 musclecar. ;) The Mitsu is probably the last of a very old style of manufacturing and is widely known to be a cheap POS, so very much in line with being a brand new '70s Japanese car. How does it crash test these days, though?

The CRX wasn't much of a four-place V8 musclecar either. Hey, we were just talking weight, modern passenger cars and non-exotic materials. I thought it would be interesting to see if the statement (and just the statement, with no other qualifiers) was true. It's not. But if you want to throw other qualifiers in there for it to be true, go for it.

The packaging differences between the CRX and the ForTwo are quite interesting to look at, but this is a different discussion.

turboswede wrote: Hey guys, what's everyone's thoughts on the new Camaro? Oh.

It would be awesome if it was a 1800lb 1.3l turbodiesel that made 800ft-lb at 30rpm and 500hp at 10,000rpm, had a 7 speed manual that also had flappy paddles, seated seven, could tow 10,000lb, had only two doors, could fit a golf club in the trunk (like, a club of golfers) and got 400mpg.

Also it needs to be a plug-in hybrid, and has to be able to fit 315 width tires in the fenders on the stock rims so it will be a good Stock class autocrosser. And it has to have both IRS for handling and a solid axle for strength, at the same time.

But the manufacturers just won't listen!

Keith Tanner wrote:

Chris_V wrote: Without a lot of costly composite construction we're not going to see modern passenger cars that weigh like a '85 CRX ever again.

This jumped out at me because I have an '85 CRX. 1961 lbs on my scales. 2015 Smart ForTwo: 1808 lbs 2015 Mitsubishi Mirage: 1972 lbs

That isn't entirely fair. I've driven CRXs and ForTwos. The ForTwo is a much better driving vehicle and has a lot more interior room too.

Knurled wrote:

turboswede wrote: Hey guys, what's everyone's thoughts on the new Camaro? Oh.

It would be awesome if it was a 1800lb 1.3l turbodiesel that made 800ft-lb at 30rpm and 500hp at 10,000rpm, had a 7 speed manual that also had flappy paddles, seated seven, could tow 10,000lb, had only two doors, could fit a golf club in the trunk (like, a club of golfers) and got 400mpg. Also it needs to be a plug-in hybrid, and has to be able to fit 315 width tires in the fenders on the stock rims so it will be a good Stock class autocrosser. And it has to have both IRS for handling and a solid axle for strength, at the same time. But the manufacturers just won't listen!

I still wouldn't buy one, because I don't play golf...

But all seriousness aside, I just cannot force myself to like it.

Yeah, most cars are heavy now, I get that. For what new cars weigh, the performance blows most old-school muscle cars out ot the water. And now they can actually handle quite well... I still have no interest.

I'm not sure why.

The sad thing is, they weigh more than most of those old school muscle cars.

A new Jetta weighs more than a '68 Cutlass, for cryin' out loud. And the Cutlass had a drivetrain that was all iron, all the time. They probably would have cast the carburetors out of iron if they could figure out how to do it finely enough.

I've been comparing dimensions and weights of three cars I currently own. A 1991 VW GTI 16V, a 2003 MINI Cooper S, and a 2006 Scion xB. The weights are all closer than I would have assumed (I used Edmunds for the data). The xB has the most interior room and is the lightest, followed by the VW, and the MINI is the heaviest and has the least room. It's also the fastest, best handling, best stopper and best touring car. A lot of the whole issue with modern cars is the perception that they have gotten fatter. While that may be true for a given nameplate ,it isn't necessarily a fair judgement when you consider the design brief the engineers worked to.My cars illustrate that. All similarly sized on footprint, but built to differing design criteria.
Most models grow with each iteration for marketing reasons as much as increased safety ,or other regulatory reasons. I accept that the current crop of pony cars are large,heavy touring cars. I still don't like the looks of any of them and I wish some company, or several would start making smaller ,rear wheel drive sporty type cars. Do I expect to see a sub-3K pound Camaro ,or Mustang? Nope, not when my MINI weighs close to 2700, but then my old GTI is almost 2500. So the 200 pounds difference is readily apparent in more comfort, more power, and much more safety. I say that's a pretty good compromise over a 12 years of progress. Could a company build a 3000 pound, RWD, 250 HP coupe? They all can, but will they? I doubt it, but I'll keep hoping.

In reply to Knurled:
It would be interesting to compare the dimensions, interior and exterior to see if the Jetta is about the same size as the Cutlass. If it is, then you have a much better vehicle at the cost of some weight. How much is a reasonable compromise for all the extra features the Jetta has over the Cutlass ?

DeadSkunk wrote: Could a company build a 3000 pound, RWD, 250 HP coupe? They all can, but will they? I doubt it, but I'll keep hoping.

Can we supercharge a FRS/BRZ? Yes! Can we turbocharge a NC Miata? Yes! Can we buy a Cayman? Yes! For you guys looking for a specific weight for a performance car, test drive what's available, because some companies won't be able to make your favorite car with your ideal weight parameter. There are many other performance cars that weigh in at 3200 lbs, but that's waaaaaaaay too much.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to 4cylndrfury: X-frames suck! Your picture proves it!

X-frames may suck, but Torque doesn't!

Chris_V wrote: Less mass... I guess you guys don't know a goddamn thing about how to build modern cars with stiffer structures for better crash ratings and better handling, and in these car's cases, the need to carry the stresses of high power V8s and high G suspension loadings, and brakes to slow you down from elevated speeds safely, repeatedly, that require larger wheels and tires, etc. Everything adds up. No one wants an old flexi flyer 3rd gen Camaro or the literally crap build quality of a '60s car. That's why even ECONOMY CARS weigh around 3000 lbs and why it's SO hard for companies like Mazda to keep grams off of cars like the Miata. 400hp, inexpensive V8 powered car with high G loadings and modern safety specs under 3500 lbs? Yeah, not gonna happen, not when a CIVIC weighs 3200lbs with a goddamn 4 cyl. High beltlines? Yeah, with crash regulations making them that way. High hoodlines to keep crush room above the engines as per pedestrian safety regs pushes the cowls up, which pushes the whole beltline up. You guys are supposed to be smart car guys. You should know this E36 M3 by now.

One word: GT-86

Look up the Vorshlag Project Alpha FR-S with LS engine and Tremec Magnum XL transmission in it, will weigh not that much more than stock FR-S...should come in at under 2900lbs completed. If reliability ends up being good, then there's the answer to a 2,900lb 400hp/400lbft LS V8 sportscar that will embarrass a Corvette at its own game with razor edge yet stable handling and superior power/weigh ratio.

ESSEX Racing AP Endurance brake system for the FR-S REDUCES mass 5 lbs a corner from stock while providing massive thermal capacity increase that can handle 600+hp while still retaining 17" diameter wheels...

There is no reason a V8 sports car has to weigh over 3k lbs even with keeping to modern regulations. That said, Camaros and Mustangs are not sports cars and never will be. US car companies are just not diligent enough nor want to take the risk because a stripped down content car would not sell well compared to one with "creature comforts"! The FR-S is a pure designed sports car for a focused group of enthusiasts and is as heavy as it is because it is designed around Subaru's roll cage structure, it could have been designed lighter. But as a result it's one of the stiffest yet safest sports car chassis's you can currently buy and has demonstrated this in numerous horrendous crashes already. It is also a more pleasant place to be and see out of compared to a present gen Camaro...

People are already pushing 1000+hp with the GT86 chassis under all sorts of power plants and it is doing quite well... it's an exceptional chassis for a 2,700lb base car. There's no reason a new Camaro design can't weigh less than the Gen 4 did... other than GM being lazy and un-innovative. All that they need to do is design cars that sell, and if a 3,700lb pigs sells well then there it no incentive to spend R&D money to further lighten it for unperceived benefits from the buying public.

OE manufacturers have dramatically, dramatically different attitudes about necessary strength than the aftermarket does. Just because an aftermarket shop shoehorns a V8 inside and nothing terrible happens doesn't mean that it's the same thing a manufacturer would do.

For example, Miatas don't break halfshafts, even when making 250 whp. But when Mazda built the massively overpowered 150 whp 2004 Mazdaspeed on the 115 whp base car, they went to a thicker halfshaft for improved reliability. Absolutely no reason for that according to the aftermarket, but Mazda felt it was.

And BTW, we haven't managed to build a V8-powered Miata that's as heavy as 2900 lbs yet

Can't understand the hate for the looks of the front end, I think it looks good. Turbo, RWD, manual trans, inexpensive; that's not what I'd call a failure.

Keith Tanner wrote: OE manufacturers have dramatically, dramatically different attitudes about necessary strength than the aftermarket does. Just because an aftermarket shop shoehorns a V8 inside and nothing terrible happens doesn't mean that it's the same thing a manufacturer would do.

So very much this. I built a 2720lb, almost 400 hp, daily driver, V8 RX7 that pulled over 1G laterally. But let's face it, it didn't meet ANY modern safety or durabilty requirements that the manufacturers have to meet. Were a manufacturer to make that identical car, it would have had extra bracing and structure in the car to handle 100k+ miles of use with stronger suspension, and of course, now it would have to have MUCH more strict crash safety guidlines (much higher hood line to give crush space down to the engine in the case of frontal collision, of course better side impact protection, small offset crash crumple zones, stronger frame and engine mount areas to deal with the added mass of the engine and added torque, etc). Even as a small 2 seat car, it would have been pushed to over 3200 lbs. Make it a true 4 seater and you would have seen 3300-3400 easily. Which is, not coincidentally, right about where a Mustang bases at.

So using what an aftermarket company does, without warranty, emissions, or crash standards to meet, at a price point, as a litmus test of what a manufacturer can do at a price point, is BS of the stinkiest kind and we should know better here on this forum.

Keith Tanner wrote: For example, Miatas don't break halfshafts, even when making 250 whp.

That is because Miatas can't get enough grip to break a halfshaft

I'll just leave this here because its relevant to the discussion and corrects some fairly insignificant misinformation given earlier.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/warning-graphic-content-50-years-of-camaro-vs-mustang-sales-numbers-in-living-color/

I wouldn't buy a pony car to be a balls-out performance machine. I'd buy one to be a fun daily driver that I can occasionally play at the autocross with. But while I'd welcome a new Mustang in my garage, the Camaro doesn't ring my bells solely because of the ridiculously high sill. Seriously, I've hated that design trend all along, and just when you think the tide may be turning, Chevy comes out with a stock car that looks like it received a four-inch chop. Seriously? I can't figure out if the drivers of that decision are clueless marketing wonks trying to appeal to the Mullet and Gangsta crowd or what? That decision makes Chevy take several steps downward in my estimation of them. Hell, maybe it's a step towards a windowless car. They're doing it in luxury jets. Now they can just project images of the world upon opaque interior panels. I'm sure that law enforcement likes having all that hidden acreage with which to hide your gun, weed, or other item of interest. If car design was basketball, this wouldn't be an airball. This'd be dribbling off of the side of your foot.

In reply to Kreb:

Part of the problem is European pedestrian-safety regulations which require cars to be taller and blunter in order to protect people who are too dumb to not walk in front of traffic.

It's the same reason why we can't have new cars with retractable headlights anymore.

In reply to Knurled:

That must be why the Corvette, R8, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's are all so tall and blunt nosed.

vette's Ferrari's and Lambos all have long noses are or mid-engine. The regulations are to protect the peds from hitting the engine through the crushable hood of the car

Fine on the middies, but regarding the Vette's 'long nose' allowing a lower and pointier profile, the new Miata and 370Z seem to do fine in the nose department too. Not to mention that the quintessential pony car styling is "long hood, short deck". The engines seems to sit substantially back from the front crossmember in the newest ones as well. I'm not saying it should necessarily have a sports-car nose either though. Just that the Euro pedestrian standards excuse seems like a bit of a red herring. If they wanted to, they could make it less tall/blunt.

The Miata designers are actually making a big deal about how low the nose is. And a big reason for why its so low is because the engine is rammed back behind the wheels - front mid engine. Just like the 370z, which has to be acknowledged as an old design by this point. Gives you the crush room needed to meet the regs.

But pony cars, as noted, are blunt instruments. Nothing wrong with making them look brutal.

Keith Tanner wrote: But pony cars, as noted, are blunt instruments. Nothing wrong with making them look brutal.

Nicely said. Agree totally. I love Miatas, and big trucks, and pony cars, and exotics and and and...I like vehicles that are good at doing what they are designed to do. Miatas are great sports cars. Big trucks tow heavy things and are damn comfy doing it. Exotics are sexy and go like hell. Pony cars are cool to look at, and go from 0-60 pretty darn quick. And the modern ones actually handle well. All three of them really, to varying degrees.

Again, if a vehicle is good at doing what it's supposed to do, I can appreciate them.

So, I guess that's a long way to say I like the new Camaro. Just like the current Camaro. And Mustang. And Challenger etc.

Knurled wrote: In reply to Kreb: Part of the problem is European pedestrian-safety regulations which require cars to be taller and blunter in order to protect people who are too dumb to not walk in front of traffic. It's the same reason why we can't have new cars with retractable headlights anymore.

Hogwash. An absurdly high beltline has nothing to do with that. The only design trend that I've liked less than the pillbox look is he droopy butt look

Arguments for and against that aside, high beltlines also reduce NVH because you can't have triple insulated and sound deadened glass. Well unless you have Mercedes-style double pane windows, anyway.

Also reduces the heat load on the A/C system dramatically. Which is a big deal nowadays since A/C systems are getting crappier. The new A/C paradigm isn't "make the car a freezer" but "cabin comfort" with the cooling target being 30 degrees cooler than ambient. No more 32 degree air out of the vents even when it's 105 outside.

I also really don't like high beltlines. But them's (some of!) the pros for them, from a manufacturing standpoint.