The camaro's weight not a big deal.
10-14-2008, 07:42 PM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: akron ohio
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The camaro's weight not a big deal. I know this along with the z28 ( which will be back) has been one of the big gripes from people. People seem to think that car will be a 
because of the weight. This is simply not true, My 05 gto is also about the same weight runs very good with a PB of 12.96 @ 108.9 and a average time of 13.1x @ 107.x and my car is just dyno tuned with a K&N. Thats it. I realiaze this is just bench racing and probobly has been done before, but Iam going to go out a Limb based off my car and my friends Ls3 vette which go's 12.30's @ 117.7 mph bone stock
an m6 vette I might add and say that the 2010 camaro will do 12.80's @ 112 ish. Thats pretty good guess but unfortunatly we all will have to wait till the spring/summer to see.
because of the weight. This is simply not true, My 05 gto is also about the same weight runs very good with a PB of 12.96 @ 108.9 and a average time of 13.1x @ 107.x and my car is just dyno tuned with a K&N. Thats it. I realiaze this is just bench racing and probobly has been done before, but Iam going to go out a Limb based off my car and my friends Ls3 vette which go's 12.30's @ 117.7 mph bone stock an m6 vette I might add and say that the 2010 camaro will do 12.80's @ 112 ish. Thats pretty good guess but unfortunatly we all will have to wait till the spring/summer to see. 
10-14-2008, 07:49 PM
#3
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: akron ohio
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mines an auto so I dont get as good as the m6 guys, I do get pretty decent mpg though, about 18 city and 24 highway. I know someone who has the m6 and he says he does about 28mp highway.
10-14-2008, 09:26 PM
#5
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: akron ohio
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now someone corect me if iam wrong but the I do believe the Ls2 was 10:9:1 and the Ls3 is 10:7:1 , Not enough to make a difference. The new camaro will deffintly pull a ls2 gto, it will probobly have 40 to 50 hp more at the wheels.
10-15-2008, 07:02 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
10-15-2008, 11:18 AM
#11
The world has a few turns in the roads and requires a stop or two, that is where weight is a serious problem. Yes a heavy car can handle well but a light car will handle great. GM just added too much weight and worthless fluff to the car is my complaint. I don't see the Camaro as a pile of crap, just a good car where as if it were 3600 for the SS it would be an awesome car.
10-15-2008, 03:49 PM
#13
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand how come GM haven't made it more lightweight. They are by the hour loosing the car market around the world alongside chrysler and ford.
If they had cut down on weight and size but still kept the ls3 engine they would have something to set it apart from the other musclecars and line it up with the corvette. Americas only true production sportscar.
The challenger is big and heavy, so are the charger, mustang and so on.
I own a corvette from 71 that weighs 3000 and the car is a rocket, handles much better, gets a nice mpg taking the engine in consideration. My friend has a 70charger with a super pumped engine. bad idle, bad mpg, bad drive ability and not as fast as my vette. All because of his enormuos weight.(and the fact it is mopar and therefore no good)
If they had cut down on weight and size but still kept the ls3 engine they would have something to set it apart from the other musclecars and line it up with the corvette. Americas only true production sportscar.
The challenger is big and heavy, so are the charger, mustang and so on.
I own a corvette from 71 that weighs 3000 and the car is a rocket, handles much better, gets a nice mpg taking the engine in consideration. My friend has a 70charger with a super pumped engine. bad idle, bad mpg, bad drive ability and not as fast as my vette. All because of his enormuos weight.(and the fact it is mopar and therefore no good)
10-15-2008, 04:19 PM
#14
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Alamogordo, NM
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weight is the suck for every performance category. I would gladly pay $500 more for every 100lbs they could have taken out. I still think it will perform well in every category compared to competitors.
10-16-2008, 12:36 PM
#18
On The Tree
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hubert, NC
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What some people are forgetting here is that the 2003/2004 cobra mustang was a 390hp/390tq car and weighed in similar to the new V8 SS camaro. In the hands of skilled drivers, those 03/04 cobras have been 12.7's on street tires. They also had IRS as does the new Camaro. I think that with the 422hp version and it's current weight of 380xx lbs, track times should see mid 12's easily, now with some good DR's or slicks, who knows what is possible. And we all know that GM has underrated it performance cars power output for a long time now, hell....my car was advertised at 310hp, but after only 1000 miles I hit the dyno bone stock and laid down 303rwhp......so, the new camaro and its advertised 422hp, might be closer to 445-450hp IMO.
