Modern Camaro Forums banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Styling, performance, handling, light weight, and low cost were Chevrolet's goals for the 1967 Camaro. The 1967 V8 Camaro weighed approximately 2900-3000 pounds. The new 2010 Camaro is estimated to weigh between 3800 to 3900 pounds.

Chevrolet has met the original styling goal with the 2010 Camaro, but misses the original mark of performance, handling, light weight, and a low cost alternative to the Corvette. Other than styling, which has been exceptional, all of these goals can be quickly obtained by Chevrolet for the new Camaro.

Chevrolet looked at installing an independent rear suspension (IRS) on the 1967 and later Camaros, but chose to stay with a performance solid axle (PSA) for reduced weight and cost. The 2010 Camaro uses an IRS, which increases weight and cost. The 2008 Mustang has a PSA and weighs between 3300 to 3400 pounds, a 400 to 500 weight and a performance/cost advantage over the 2010 Camaro. Fuel economy is also affected.

The original purpose of the Camaro was for Chevrolet to have a low cost alternative to the Corvette and beat the Mustangs in SCCA Trans Am Road Racing.

500 Z28's were initially produced in 1966 and 1967. Roger Penske/Mark Donohue were the Trans Am Champions in 1968 and 1969, and narrowly missed the top spot in the 1967 season. Camaro went on to win many more Trans Am championships.

In 1968, the Penske/Donohue Camaro beat all of the Corvettes, Ford GT40s, Shelby’s, and Mustangs in the 12 Hours of Sebring Road Race.

A Z28 Option is currently not offered on the 2010 Camaro.

I have been extremely interested in purchasing the new 2010 Camaro Z28. I have owned 6 Camaro Z28's in my lifetime. I am looking forward to my 7th Camaro, by purchasing a 5th Generation Z28!

GO CAMARO!

1970 Camaro Z28 RS
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,873 Posts
so are you bashing the camaro or happy with it?

you said..."misses the original mark of performance, handling, light weight, and a low cost alternative to the Corvette"...kind of hard to say it misses the mark with performance and handling (I don't see any cars in it's class that will out perform and out handle it), yes it's heavy, but all cars these days are (and look up the weight of a '69 Z28...it's not THAT much lighter), and there's been no official prices announced yet.

And for the Z28...it's not dead yet, but you'll have to wait a year or 2 for it. BUT, if your worried about weight, go for the SS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
The 1967 V8 Camaro weighed approximately 2900-3000 pounds.
False

Chevrolet published curb weights for the 1967 Camaro as 2,910 lbs for the 6-cylinder coupe, 3,070 lbs for the 8-cylinder coupe, 3,165 lbs for the 6-cylinder convertible, and 3,325 lbs for the 8-cylinder convertible. Add 21 lbs for power windows, 20 lbs for the folding rear seat option, 86 lbs for air conditioning, 9 lbs for power brakes, 33 lbs for front disc brakes, 10 lbs for the 250ci 6-cylinder engine, 39 lbs for the 327ci V8 engine, 72 lbs for the 350ci V8 engine, 258 lbs for the 396ci V8 engine, 7 lbs for the four-speed manual transmission, 14 lbs for the Powerglide automatic, 56 lbs for the Turbo Hydra-Matic, 38 lbs for dual exhausts, 29 lbs for power steering, 15 lbs for heavy-duty battery, 8 lbs for an AM radio, 9 lbs for an AM-FM radio, and 17 lbs for the Rally Sport option.
source: Camarosource.ca

so.. 3070 for the base 8 cyl.. but add power windows, air conditioning, power bakes, front discs, dual exhausts, power steering, am-fm radio.. that's 3300lbs.. want to bump up the engine? with the 396ci V8 you are looking at over 3500lbs, you could clearly option the car to be over 3600lbs if you got the turbo hydra-matic..

so, the base car may have been barely over 3000lbs.. but it had NOTHING standard..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
I'll start by saying 'Welcome', but then I'm not too sure where to go from there.:confused:

You need to take a few things into consideration when making a comparison between a 1st gen Camaro and the 5th gen Camaro. The government has stepped in over the years in order to increase the safety of today's vehicles through mandated improvements and standards. Pro: safer vehicles for everybody, and Con: extra weight. Even with the extra weight, the fuel economy has greatly increased over previous years with the advent of computer controlled fuel managemnet. There are no previous Camaros that can approach the performance capabilities of the 5th gen.

All things considered, I think the 2010 Camaro is right on target and will dominate the streets for some time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,774 Posts
umm..I guess..hi?



But I will have to say with all the stuff that has to go into cars today compared to thier toaster cousins of the 60's. The Camaro has gone above and beyond its share of making this car what you say it is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Well, with new crash test laws since 1967, the Camaro HAS to be heavier. In order to be 2900 pounds, the Camaro needs to basically have no engine and no seats.

Styling is perfect, 22K (estimate) sounds about right for a base price Camaro, The G8 drives perfectly, so no doubt the Camaro will have most of the G8's handling traits, and a standard 300 HP V6? That's wonderful since it rivals the V8 Mustang GT.

Chevrolet has met the original styling goal with the 2010 Camaro, but misses the original mark of performance, handling, light weight, and a low cost alternative to the Corvette.
So was the Mustang supposed to be a low cost alternative to the GT40? The Challenger to the Viper? I think not. Who said the Camaro was supposed to be a Corvette alternative? Those two cars hold their own in two very competitive segments, and by the looks of the Corvette's reviews, and the Pontiac G8's ratings, they are doing just fine. (Camaro and G8 are on the same platform). The Camaro hits the mark so hard that it goes through it. I couldn't have asked for a more well-rounded car.



Oh...........................Welcome..............




@Jonz5Gen: great picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
i'm not bashing or pumping up the 2010 camaro, but some things need to be understood: the new camaro is in no way a throw-back to the original...that's the job of the mustang. instead, gm chose to make a modern, uptodate coupe that based on what we know so far, misses the mark in one area and that's weight...it should be 3-400 lbs lighter to be everything to everyone (especially with gas going for 4.00/gallon).

if you look at the content of the camaro and you see that they put the latest version of their premier v6 in the base car, along with 6 speed transmissions, irs, stability control, vented discs at each corner, extra gauge cluster. these things cost money.

gm chose to compete against the euro and asian sport coupes and not the mustang...if they chose the latter you sure wouldn't see the di v6 and the six speed trannys, since these items will put the cost of the camaro above the mustang, thank god!! i don't want another mustang, i want a car that handles well and has a cutting edge v6 that delivers both great fuel economy (well it could be better if it weren't for the extra weight) and decent performance. i have the port injected version of this engine in my sts which is 400 lbs heavier than the camaro and i'm getting 20 mpg in around town driving, that's not shabby in my book.

as long as the camaro dellivers on a quality product, especically the interior components, they have my vote.


jackg
06 sts6
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
i'm not bashing or pumping up the 2010 camaro, but some things need to be understood: the new camaro is in no way a throw-back to the original...that's the job of the mustang.
I don't think anybody referred to the 2010 Camaro as a 'throw back' to the original.:confused: What we're seeing is society's taste for retro.....and right now, retro is very popular.

instead, gm chose to make a modern, uptodate coupe that based on what we know so far, misses the mark in one area and that's weight...it should be 3-400 lbs lighter to be everything to everyone (especially with gas going for 4.00/gallon).
Do you know why today's cars weigh as much as they do? It would certainly be in the best interest of the automobile manufacturers to make today's cars as light as possible, but there are minimum crash standards that must be adhered to. Fuel economy and cost are very important to consumers, but so is safety. There has to be some give and take in order to take part in the competitive market of automobile manufacturing.

if you look at the content of the camaro and you see that they put the latest version of their premier v6 in the base car, along with 6 speed transmissions, irs, stability control, vented discs at each corner, extra gauge cluster. these things cost money.
The cost would be higher if GM was starting from scratch, but the're not. Everybody benefits from the use of global technology. GM has the ability to offer an existing powertrain (in this case, the DI 3.6L V6) on a shared platform (Zeta I and Zeta II). Technological advances like IRS, 6spd transmissions, stability control and better 4 wheeel vent. disc brakes are all components that make a safer, quicker, more responsive and overall better vehicle. Cost is under control in regards to the 2010 Camaro, IMO.

i want a car that handles well and has a cutting edge v6 that delivers both great fuel economy (well it could be better if it weren't for the extra weight) and decent performance. i have the port injected version of this engine in my sts which is 400 lbs heavier than the camaro and i'm getting 20 mpg in around town driving, that's not shabby in my book.
I don't understand.....in one statement, you feel that your STS gets a "not shabby" 20MPG in around town driving being 400lbs heavier than the Camaro, yet you want a car that handles well/ has a cutting edge V6/ delivers great fuel economy. As I said before, there has to be some give and take. The Camaro's official mileage figures aren't even finalized, so why don't you just wait for the release of this data?

as long as the camaro dellivers on a quality product, especically the interior components, they have my vote.
Not to say there would be justification for GM to skimp on the interior, but It's a Camaro, not a Cadillac. I find you perpetually making references/comparisons about your STS with the Camaro.....two different markets, two very different cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
^^^Good responses Jonz5gen, I'm still not sure where these other comments are coming from, they are way off mark and lack any kind of foundation. They are making there own assumptions then arguing against their own assumptions, its like they are having a an internal conflict, split personality maybe :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 54inches

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Love all of the amateur engineers who say they Camaro should be 400-500 pounds lighter. I would love to hear how that would happen if they take into consideration cost, safety requirements and reality. The fact is the car is about the weight of all of its competitors or less. Every manufactuer has struggled to bring weight down, heck BMW spent a fortune trying to bring the weight down on the M3 and still ended up at over 3700 pounds and that is for a 60k car.
Also I would love to see where anyone from GM ever said their goal was to make a light car, they did not say this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
Bottom line.....'light' is expensive, 'light and strong' is very expensive. If GM made the Camaro with a carbon fiber shell fitted over an aluminum tube chassis, it would be out of most people's range, financially.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,873 Posts
the fact is that the SS will be only 400lbs heavier than the '69 Z28...considering what they are cramming into the car in comparison, what your getting in terms of performance, safety, handling, braking, comfort bells and whistles...I'm surprised it's not heavier. Big deal, it's only 400lbs...it's like having 2 friends in the car (or 1 big friend:eek:). I bet the mustang will get heavier as well when they re-design it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,867 Posts
light
safe
cheap

pick any 2 of the above. :D

Besides all of the safety equipment (airbags, traction control, abs, etc..) there are also added materials to make cars quieter (thicker materials, sound deadening, etc...) and that make them handle better (thicker control arms, sway bars, etc..)

In other words, you can't compare today's cars with 30-40 year old cars. Apples and Oranges. And I'm glad the Camaro has the IRS, it's one of the reasons I like it, because IRS handles corners better than Solid Axle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Styling, performance, handling, light weight, and low cost were Chevrolet's goals for the 1967 Camaro. The 1967 V8 Camaro weighed approximately 2900-3000 pounds. The new 2010 Camaro is estimated to weigh between 3800 to 3900 pounds.

Chevrolet has met the original styling goal with the 2010 Camaro, but misses the original mark of performance, handling, light weight, and a low cost alternative to the Corvette. Other than styling, which has been exceptional, all of these goals can be quickly obtained by Chevrolet for the new Camaro.

Chevrolet looked at installing an independent rear suspension (IRS) on the 1967 and later Camaros, but chose to stay with a performance solid axle (PSA) for reduced weight and cost. The 2010 Camaro uses an IRS, which increases weight and cost. The 2008 Mustang has a PSA and weighs between 3300 to 3400 pounds, a 400 to 500 weight and a performance/cost advantage over the 2010 Camaro. Fuel economy is also affected.

The original purpose of the Camaro was for Chevrolet to have a low cost alternative to the Corvette and beat the Mustangs in SCCA Trans Am Road Racing.

500 Z28's were initially produced in 1966 and 1967. Roger Penske/Mark Donohue were the Trans Am Champions in 1968 and 1969, and narrowly missed the top spot in the 1967 season. Camaro went on to win many more Trans Am championships.

In 1968, the Penske/Donohue Camaro beat all of the Corvettes, Ford GT40s, Shelby’s, and Mustangs in the 12 Hours of Sebring Road Race.

A Z28 Option is currently not offered on the 2010 Camaro.

I have been extremely interested in purchasing the new 2010 Camaro Z28. I have owned 6 Camaro Z28's in my lifetime. I am looking forward to my 7th Camaro, by purchasing a 5th Generation Z28!

GO CAMARO!

1970 Camaro Z28 RS
Let me reply to a few of your suppositions. My Z/28 I bought in '69 weighed 3,385 lbs, I suppose they must have added lead weights to mine. Camaro production for the '67 model year (of which a handfull were produced in '66, read my further comments to see how few that could have been) was 602 units, not 500. As for your contention that one of the original "purposes" of the Camaro was to have a car to beat the Mustang in the Trans Am Sedan Races, follow this time line and see where in the process the Z/28 was decided on. April 1964 Chevy tests a new Mustang (a pre-release version) at the GM Milford Proving Grounds, Aug. 1964 Chevy gives the go ahead for Chevy F body developement. Vince Piggins decided that a Trans Am vehicle was needed AFTER seeing the Mustang/Cougar sucess in the 1966 race season. A Z/28 prototype was shown to Chevy General Manager Pete Estes in Oct. '66 ('67 Camaros were released for sale in Sept. '66), the Z/28 was released to the press in Nov. '66, production of the Z/28 began on Dec. 29, 1966, so all '67 Z/28's that were built in '66 were built on Dec. 29, 30, 31 1966. So the Z/28 and a car to compete in the Trans Am races was hardly an original intent of the Camaros design process. In closing, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, I think your suppositions were way off the mark regarding the 2010 Camaro. And obviously many of your premises on the first gen. Camaros were way off the mark. When you state something as fact, please do enough research to reasonably ensure that it is fact, opinions, suppositions, and hearsay are not fact.
Clyde
Clyde
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
Honestly Whats the Big Deal you like it or you dont,Only a HandFull of ppl Will Track Race it or Club Race.And the Normal Everyday PPl who are Just owning them for Crusing,DD,Weekend Fun car really arent Gonna Give a Rats A$$ how much it weighs opposed to a 67Cam! We are Buying because we like How the Look How they Drive,The Retro Feel The power of the Motor All that good Stuff Why so Nit Picky? Not like Its a Super Exotic.

Oh and For the IRS Adding weight Thats fine with me The IRS is gonna make these Puppies Handle Far superior to Mustangs Rears.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top