It'llrun

I'd think 3650 at a minimum and I'd be HAPPY to see that. I expect more like 3850, just looking at the CTS, which is the chassis I expect GM will use.

I think you covered the Mustang weight in the last quote here... but Chevy .com claims the base curb weight of the 2SS is 3935... which just looks bad on paper.

Which one is out of the garage more?

Cheap? Okay... I just don't like the aspect of the outward view... it stopped me from buying, cold.

True and true!

That's what I said! The weight won't be so low and those HIDEOUS lights won't see... the "LIGHT" of day on a production car!

With those lights? If so, you're just wrapped.

The 2 weights were probably an identically prepared car, one having more fuel. That's where I would expect to see them though, and they're not light... that's all to it. I don't know why GM stuck with those large wheels... they could've offered 18's and 19's or at least 19's to save weight.

Johnnystock

iTrader: (6)

You are right 'itll run', anything in the 36xx range would be awesome. This number can be achieve IMO, but we will see soon. That would be soo fukin awesome to have a 35xx LT1 Camaro..just WOW!!!

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Nope
My buddy's 1 SS weighed 3760 with 3/4 tank of gas.

Irunelevens

Pay attention Doug, I said "curb weight." As in, what the manufacturer says they weigh. Until car owners take their low-option cars and weigh them, we won't know what the true weight difference is.

It'llrun

It would! At that weight, the Hellcat would be shattered by a ZL1. I don't care one bit about the competition from any brand though... that would be OUTSTANDING!

Here's my triple option view of the upcoming 6th gen chassis: If they actually go with the ATS, that low weight will be a given... granted, the ATS has no V8 option and doesn't need extra strengthened parts to stay together under the added abuses, but it is very light and so... the Camaro could be as well. The problem(in my outlook) is... they won't use that chassis in the end. I really do expect(at this point) they'll be taking 1 of 2 routes... straight up CTS chassis, or a slightly shortened CTS chassis. They have little incentive to use the ATS because... they do look at the competition and that competition isn't so light. More importantly, the CTS will have more room to work with and has a strong possibility of another V8 as well as already being able to handle more power.

I don't know why, after all these years... anyone bothers.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Nope

Irunelevens

Please point out one part of my statement that was incorrect. I dare you.

94LTZ

iTrader: (5)

The new re - design for 14 ruined the car and this doesn't look any better, it makes me think my next purchase might be a newer 5.0 stang since the camaro is just to fugly.

Guitar

iTrader: (9)

The new 5.0 is ugly too. Both are. I'll stick with a 2013 or so 5.0 whenever I upgrade to a newer pony car.

SSCamaro99_3

iTrader: (1)

My apologies, I have been brain dead for several weeks. Currently both ATS and CTS ride on GM's Alpha structure. CTS is just a long wheelbase version, and concurrently a bigger body. There may be an opportunity to come in closer to ATS or somewhere in the middle.

It'llrun

That's what I was saying... they could make a "middle" version, but I don't think they will because it doesn't really make monetary sense.

Ultimately, I just think the CTS version will get(or has gotten) the nod. The ATS size is lovely, but ... just don't see it because the car has to be more than small. Even if that's the choice, it will tip the scales heavier than ATS in SS form because that will require upgraded(heavier) parts, specifically to hold the power the ATS doesn't have. The CTS already has that in mind and in the build, so it seems that would be the less expensive option.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Nope
I like the 14 redesign. Car looks much better imo

Irunelevens

Gotcha. So...you're just wrong, everywhere except your own head.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Nope

Irunelevens

Tell me Doug, what's the manufacturer's curb weight for a 1SS 6spd?

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Nope

BTW.....I already told you actual weight. Actual weight > curb weight.

Irunelevens

Right. Hence why I said, "Until car owners take their low-option cars and weigh them, we won't know what the true weight difference is." Do you not understand something that simple?

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

Do you think they could take the stronger components from the CTS and install them on the shorter wheelbase ATS to handle the bigger power? It just doesn't make sense to me to build a long wheel base bigger Camaro. IMO, people aren't buying Camaros for practicality at all, why not make it a bit smaller and as light as possible to give it as much edge as you can against the competition? Would seem to me that a 600HP 3600lb Camaro should have no trouble with a 700HP 4500lb Fatcat? Not that I think the next big power Camaro should have numbers that low. Sent from my iPhone using IB AutoGroup

Irunelevens

Agreed, but on that same note people who are buying the Camaro also aren't buying it for ultimate performance. I'd love it to be smaller/lighter, but I don't know what (if any) impact it would have on sales.

It'llrun

I think they could, but doubt they will. I expect the CTS to outsell the ATS(though it may not) and with that, the chassis gets less expensive. The longer chassis also helps more than just adding leg room... it absorbs some of the abuse by giving it a larger area to spread over. That also tends to help handling characteristics when the power level is high.

Making it lighter, say 3500 lb... makes it compete more closely with the Corvette. GM has shown us that it has no interest in that ever again.

Overall, it just seems more practical to use the longer chassis based on the little info we have and the fact it's been said many times now, the new Camaro will have a 2" longer chassis. Like everything else though, we'll see if that's true.

Btw, I actually think GM could use the ATS and still, with the SS(any V8 really), we'd see at least a 3650 lb car.