T-hawk

iTrader: (9)

All this debating over engine design is a waste. The numbers don't lie. The new Stang is quicker on the same day on the same track with the same driver as the current SS. It proves that torque and horsepower are only one part of the equation. A performance car is a total system. If you focus on only one part of it, then you are out of it. GM put all the effort in the horsepower numbers from what I can see.

At the end of the day, heavy cars kill performance. Sticking larger, more powerful engines in them is only going to help one thing... acceleration. Which is great until you come to the first corner or have to stop it in a big hurry. The laws of physics are not so easy to overcome. Sure, you can stick massive wheels/tires on it to corner better and then toss on some huge brakes... then the extra cornering and braking power are somewhat offset by the extra dynamic mass you've hung on the car. That extra mass will need to be accelerated, so you add some more power. All that extra power is going to require stronger driveline components, etc... which adds more weight. Oh, and then in order to make it through crash safety standards with a heavier car, guess what... they have to use even thicker steel in the areas of the car effected in a crash... which of course adds more weight. That's before you even mention totally worthless things like "45 way" power seats, "92 speaker" sound systems, etc. Its a viscious cycle, and once it starts... well you end up with a 3900 lb "performance" coupe.

The proof is the current Camaro. Does anyone see a dramatic difference in performance between the 4th gen SS and the 5th gen? With over 100 more horsepower, an independent rear, and larger brakes, I'd honestly be shocked if it was much quicker around a road course or autocross. I honestely expected a lot more from the 5th gen then what we have gotten. Why... 500 extra pounds. For what? Seems like most of it is for crap that doesn't make it any faster or handle better... which is kind of the point of an SS Camaro don't ya think?

I do understand that lightening a car costs money... but here's one approach that is cost effective AND efficient at reducing weight. MAKE THE CAR SMALLER.

IF the 5th gen weighed what a 4th gen did with the LS3... the game would be over in the pony car wars. I'm not trying to compare the playschool plastic interior in my 4th gen to the interior in the 5th gen (or my G8 for that matter). I'm not even saying the 5th gen isn't still a better car than a 4th gen (it is), but for all the extra time to engineer it, and all the extra cost to buy the car. I think we got kinda screwed. The Mustang has added some mass too... but its a significanly better car than anything Ford built 10 years ago in EVERY single way. I don't know if the same can be said for the Camaro.

I'm a big fan of the KISS principle of engineering (Keep It Simple Stupid), which is why I think the LS engines are so good. But I think that has become a little bit of a crutch for the new Camaro. A great engine won't save a car with a poorly tuned chassis and 2 tons of curb weight.

oddwraith

iTrader: (1)

^ That makes sense to me, however, it was a lot harder for the gen 5 to be that much better than the gen 4 Camaro due to the fact that the fourth gens were actually way ahead of their time given their competition at that time. The new Mustang did not have to do much to be WAY better than before, as far as the GT goes anyways. Ten years ago the 2001 GT was nothing like the 2001 Ls1 cars. Just my opinion.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

NO argument...weight is the problem, plain and simple. However all this stuff that has been mentioned - power seats, big stereos, leather trim, multi-zone heated and cooled everything, 5000 airbags, crash zones and other protection - is not going anywhere. Removing it is not an option for the automaker. If they want to meet government regulations, and be competitive in selling the car, all that stuff needs to be there. It seems the only solution is materials tech...finding ways to lighten the materials they use to construct the vehicle.

Also, downsizing physical dimensions will go a long way to lighten a car without increasing the cost.

got-a-ls1

iTrader: (12)

thanks for bringing that up... because most "hi tech" small displacement engines have peaky powerbands and are slow as **** if not in their sweet spot. Ill take a 7 liter pushrod motor that is so huge its as big as most 3 liter doch v6's.

Irunelevens

I was talking more about the 5.0+ engines in the Lexus IS-F and the various BMWs/Benzes that use 7/8s transmissions.

Pesticide

iTrader: (8)

250 lbs different = 2 tenths, 3:42 to a 3:73 has some impact too. The Camaro needs to lose a little and up the gear ratio. I am impressed with the Mustang and think this is great for the consumer, and us gear heads. Just think both the Camaro and Mustang are trapping at over 110 mph. That is impressive!

T-hawk

iTrader: (9)

I mostly agree with this statement... some of it could "go" in a car like a Camaro, however, it is unlikely to go.

I look at what was done to go from the C5 to the C6... they added content, improved the interior, kept up with government regulations for safety etc, and the car basically didn't gain any weight OR a significant price increase. It DID get a little smaller.

Obviously the 4th gen to 5th gen is not the same as it was a major departure from the previous car (c5 to c6 was far more of an evolution than a redesign)... but the point is they managed to improve the car in every way AND meet any and all regulations without a major cost penalty... without adding 500 lbs to the car.

I agree the 4th gen was ahead of its time... in performance. So why did it need 500 lbs more to bring it into modern times? I don't have an easy answer. I'm just pointing out that they dropped the ball a little bit by letting it get SO fat. And now they are watching the Mustang GT beat them in a head to head for the first time in nearly 2 decades.

If a company like Mallet can shoehorn an LS7 into a Solstice... and it weighs about 3000 lbs... By the time you added wheelbase to stick in the back seat, etc. you would have added at least another 300 lbs... so a 3300 lb car w/ a V8 rather than a 3900 lb car. Why couldn't GM just start with that platform rather than a huge sedan like the Sigma? Something tells me it would have been an impressive car. Worried about "challenging" the Vette... simple, just do like they used to and detune the engine 30 -50 hp. That was the formula for decades... and it worked.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

JD_AMG

When GM made the C6 they had the C5 platform to work off of and improve on. The problem with the 5th gen Camaro was they didn't have the money to built a single unique platform like they did with the 4th gen camaro, and they certainly couldn't build off the 4th gen platform for it would need too much work to pass crash safety etc. So their only financially logical choice was to use a current RWD platform, hence the "2 door G8 Camaro" we get today. Im not defending GM on this, I'll be the first to agree that the weight sucks, but its how we can have a Camaro at this current time. Luckily GM will be using a smaller RWD chassis for the 6th gen camaro (cadillac ATS chassis supposedly) so we should be seeing lower weight.

Im no engineer but I don't think that chassis could take the extra weight and stress of being stretched and loaded with 4 people + luggage. It would take quite a bit of engineering and modifying($$$) to get it to work. The cheaper and easier route would be to slightly shrink the sigma chassis and go from there.

offroadfury6

iTrader: (8)

isan't this why hey stopped making the buick grand national? because it was out performing the vette?

T-hawk

iTrader: (9)

That's where the extra weight would come from using the Solstice chassis... making it strong enough to do the job. Given that it was designed to be a roadster (i.e. topless), it had to be built a lot stronger than if it was just going to be a small coupe. IF you were willing to turn it into a coupe only car, then then with a full roof AND some strengthening of the base chassis, I think it could work. At the worst, it couldn't be any less stiff than the 4th gen chassis in terms of torsional bending and twist. I personally wouldn't have had a problem with there never being a ragtop version of the 5th gen. GM did originally do some concepts on that platform that had it being used as more than just a 2 seat roadster (the Nomad wagon comes to mind). I don't know whether or not the final version had some of that flexibility designed in or not... but given GM's history of trying to stretch their resources to a broader range... I wouldn't put it past them there was an intent to use the Solstice platform for more than just the Solstice and the Sky. Not that we will likely ever find out.

Given how much they changed from the sigma platform (G8) to get to a Camaro, I couldn't see it being any harder starting from a smaller platform to come up with a 7/8th's version of the current car.

For what its worth, I am an engineer... not that it makes me any kind of an expert on the chassis strength of a car I don't own

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Well, while it might've been a very small factor, that wasn't exactly the reason.
While the 1986/1987 Regal turbos were quicker in a straight line than the Corvette of the same era, the Vette was still the faster (top speed) better handling/stopping all around car.
The RWD Regal (and Monte Carlo/Cutlass/Grand Prix) were terminated because they simply ran their course, the line was being revamped and new regulations/standards would've meant costly re-engineering/re-tooling to keep them alive. Shame too as they were (still are) awesome performance cars that were also practical (rear seats, trunk space etc.)

Sax1031

11 years?

I guess you forgot that Evan Smith drove a 2003 Cobra to 12.4s in stock form.

Gaunt

iTrader: (11)

Yes, because an 03 cobra was exactly like a Mustang GT.

FMX05

iTrader: (3)

That is correct sir. They did the best they could with what they had. All of the people in this thread bagging on the weight of the 5th gen need to realize this. GM knows that weight SUCKS. I remember reading a thread back when the 5th gen hadn't quite reached production yet and someone from pretty high up at GM said that they completely scrapped the camaro design and started over 2 or 3 times to drop as much weight as possible. It's just like GPU design. The marketing department hands the engineering department a giant list with all the features they want the card to have. The engineers come back with a counter-offer. Then the high level execs find a middle ground. Whatever they decide upon the engineers have to find a way to make it all fit while being as small, light, and efficient as possible. It's not like the guys at GM woke up one day and designed the 5th gen before lunch. Give these guys some credit. They surely didn't *want*it to be a pig of a car. I really don't think it is a pig when you compare it to other cars of today. Honda's and Toyota's are starting to trip 3300lbs with their smaller 4 door cars. It wasn't long ago that they were 2700lbs. Model Bloat. Google it.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

That's true but in all fairness he did specify Mustang GT (a more base model car that was somewhat price competitive with the 4th gen Z28), not the more upscale/upmarket Cobra.





I agree, the average car has gained some weight in recent years, even the Subaru WRX STi and Mitsubishi Evo have gotten a little plump as of late as well.

Sax1031

Ok so now we have to put conditions on it. Gotcha. my bad.

oddwraith

iTrader: (1)

I agree 100% here! I edited my post and will just leave it at that so as not to hurt anyone's feelings

Gaunt

iTrader: (11)

By your logic, I can compare a Mustang GT to a Dick Harrell camaro and laugh that they haven't been able to catch up to those ever.

Sax1031

Lets just keep it to mustangs and camaros that were offered with factory warranties on the cars.

The fact of the matter is the 2003 Mustang Cobra is still the best performing mass produced affordable pony car that has come out. I would have said GT500 but that thing comes with a hefty price tag.