Find Reviews by Make:
The next Chevrolet Camaro is set to lose 200 lbs thanks to a variety of light weighting techniques.
While a Chevrolet press release provided a number of granular details (ooh, a new dashboard support beam saves 9 lbs!!), the real savings likely come from a move to the newer, smaller and lighter Alpha platform shared with the Cadillac ATS, rather than the Zeta platform meant for full-sized Holdens.
Based on current curb weights, the newest, lightest Camaro probably checks in at around 3,500 lbs. We’ll know the full story on may 16th when the new Camaro makes its debut.
47 Comments on “Next Chevrolet Camaro Loses 200 Lbs In Time For Summer...”
Read all comments
I just don’t understand who these people are who complain about weight all the time when the buyers of these cars are putting 100 pounds worth of Audio equipment in (minimum) and adding superchargers…
For 99.99999999% of the people out there its a sales gimmick. They know its better for some reason but wont ever use the car hard enough for the lighter weight to make a difference.
Then again gearing, and aero in combination with weight and power are lost on most people as well.
Not to mention the buyers putting on 22’s and even 24″ rims.
The people complaining about weight are not the same people who buy 22’s.
…it’s not just a track thing: lighter weight can dramatically affect nimbleness in evasive maneuvers…
That depends on where it is. If it’s near the front of the car, certainly.
I’m one of those who can easily see that lighter weight, better aero, more power and a good tranny can be beneficial BEYOND performance driving. Almost 20 years ago I was easily achieving 32mpg with one, though admittedly the ’96 Camaro had a notably slipperier body.
Eh, not really
The 1996 Camaro had a drag coef. of .338
The 2014 Camaro has a drag coef. of .35
Not really much of a difference, could easily be just the difference in the width of the base tires.
Remember, that DC is a multiplier against the frontal area of the car. To work that out, maybe you should also find the exact frontal area of the two models as well, hmmm?
Note: The new Camaro has a lot more relatively flat fascia area than the old one did. On the other hand, the old one did have a bit of an overheating problem in stop-and-go traffic as a result.
People are just angry about the up-sizing trend in general, and I think it applies more to pedestrian cars than to hot rods, because, up to a point, just throw some power at it:
A 1999 Olds 88 weighed 3443 lbs. A 1999 Chevy Malibu weighed 3045 lbs. A 1999 Chevy Cavalier weighed 2625 lbs.
A 2006 Chevy Impala weighed 3586 lbs. A 2006 Chevy Malibu weighed 3300 lbs. A 2006 Chevy Cobalt weighed 2728 lbs.
A 2012 Chevy Impala weighed 3655 lbs. A 2012 Chevy Malibu weighed 3420 lbs. A 2012 Chevy Cruze weighed 3101 lbs.
The problem with this up-sizing of weight is that there’s a sense that you give up the improvements in the engine and transmission – all that to stay with about the same driving experience of responsiveness and fuel economy. Having driven a range of those vehicles, the 88, which seemed like a boat when I drove it a decade ago, when I drove another one recently (yes, a 99, yes, all original, yes, 200k+ miles on it) after having tried W-Body Impalas, seemed downright spry.
With your commuter car, you probably have some reason to gripe that you are giving up on potential F/E savings for weight if you find you’re putting 10-20,000 miles a year on it and the vehicle is grossing up 5-10% in weight every model refresh. With something sporting, for now, put some more horses on it.
The Camaro is not as bad as the Ford Taurus, which has pretense of being a sport sedan, and where, no matter how much EcoBoost they try, it is going to feel big, the 500/Montego was not small to start with, and it went up over 10% in the model refresh on the non-performance model.
(The Japanese manufacturers, of course, have this as a strategy, whereby, you are a Civic driver, and the model grows up with you – they just invent a Fit under it.)
Edit: My only theory on the sporting cars would be it’s only valid if people are convinced we’ll hit a wall on engine performance making a bigger, faster engine less of an option.
The people who don’t care about how much these cars weigh are buying Challengers, since it’s the porkiest for the money, the BBW of pony cars. But since most people aren’t those people, that probably explains why the Camaro and Mustang dominate this class and the Challenger is in a very distant third place.
They need to cut the weight so the car rides the same even with some baby boomer’s 300lb wife riding shot gun. Sunday night car shows at the fast food restaurant contributes to “bloat”
#1 There is a perception that “heavier cars” offer higher crash survivability – whether it’s true or not.
#2 Considering people who want top trims demand a V8 – they expect a car with a “better” engine to be “heavier”
i.e. HELLCAT.
#2…I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “that thing has a V8…it must be really heavy”…
The Hellcat is just a porker because, well, that is all Mopar has to put it in at the moment. I think a Camaro with the Z06 engine will give the Challenger Hellcat a run for its money if it is made, and it will actually, you know, go around corners too. ;)
“#2 Considering people who want top trims demand a V8 – they expect a car with a “better” engine to be “heavier””
I agree ponchoIndian. Never heard anyone talk about the added weight of a V8 as some advantage. I’m also not sure I hear a lot of people “demanding” a V8, unless they dream about muscle cars and their over 50.
Marone
I’m way under 50 and would love a V8 in everything I own. I’m only up to 3 so far, and the daily driver is barely a 4cyl (more like a couple of mice all cracked out on a giant wheel).
I’m under 30, and I prefer to have a V8. I like engine quietness, and low revs at speed.
So far the most refined V8 I have experienced is the Audi 4.2, followed closely by the Toyota 4.3. I would very much like to drive an LS460, to see what the next iteration had to offer.
I’m way under 50 and I’m not demanding a V8. I like the idea of less mass and possibly better weight distribution. I’m currently running a NA 6 with 400 hp and sub-4 0-60. I’m fine. Why add extra weight?
ok, you’ve got me
What the heck are you running energetik9?
I would pay a lot of money to be able to trim 200 pounds off my current car without removing the seats or making anything look crappy.
And, if the car is 200 lbs lighter, you can add that stereo gear and still be better off than the previous car with said stereo.
Weight is the bane of performance, at least in my eyes.
Even with the camo, it appears that visibility doesn’t come standard, just as is currently.
Sheet metal >>> lighter & cheaper per square inch than glass.
But the camera equipment required to see out of a car with no windows has gotta negate the weight savings.
Has more to do with aesthetics – less window-glass makes it look more aggressive.
I think it makes it look like it was styled by committee.
A committee of idiots. No one likes the limited sight lines of modern cars especially the Camaro it being probably the biggest complaint about the car, but yet they just keep reducing the amount of glass and increase the number of cameras
Saturday, doing some yard work with my dad. A new Camaro goes by with a loud exhaust, sounding ridiculous. My father’s first car was a late 60’s Camaro (blue with white racing stripe).
Me: The Camaro is too cartoony now, it just looks like a toy.
Dad: Yeah, I like the Challenger way better.
I agree with you guys. That extra weight must have come out of the greenhouse/windshield area. Anytime I think I would have trouble seeing out of the Challenger, I find one of these and sit in it. Makes the Challenger seem like a convertible.
It’s self-driving
I like how this looks pretty much exactly the same as the 2014 redesign.
How hard is it to make the Camaro look different, GM? The 2015 Mustang doesn’t look exactly the same as the 2014!
It actually is different when compared to the current model
http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201410/2016-chevrolet-camaro-2_600x0w.jpg
Okay, that does look a lot more different, but if that’s what we’re getting, GM definitely didn’t care about trying to fix the Camaro’s design flaws. The fake vents in front of the back wheels weren’t one of those flaws.
These are just styled so femininely, the convertible is a perfect example, it’s the ultimate college chick car. Also, why are they going to go down two platform sizes and keep the same exact proportions, it’s a RWD car, make it look like one.
Convertible Miata > Convertible Camaro
Losing weight in a car is pretty much a win across the board. As pointed out above, where that weight is as important as how much. The amount of unsprung weight of these stupidly large rims is one area that greatly impacts the quality of the ride and handling. Less weight saves gas, improves handling, and makes a car feel much more sporting. You can mitigate the effects of weight (see the explosion of weight in the BMW M cars – heck the M should stand for MASS) but that mitigation can only go so far. And all of those tricks can also be applied to the lighter car as well. So, whatever may be driving the diet, I’m all in favor of seeing cars lose 20% of the bloat they have gained over the years. If that means a bit smaller, that’s ok. Good design can trim size and weight without impacting the interior dimensions. Bad design get you a new Taurus interior.
1995 M3 weight 3180 lbs
2001 M3 weight 3580 lbs
2008 M3 weight 3650 lbs
2013 M3 weight 3613 lbs
Source Car and Driver – they actually weigh their test cars.
I see no “explosion” in weight, except from the 1995 to 2001.
They’ve been the same weight for 15 years, so don’t know what you’re on about to be truthful.
1995 M3 weight 3180 lbs
2001 M3 weight 3580 lbs
2008 M3 weight 3650 lbs
2013 M3 weight 3613 lbs
2015 M3 weight 3540 lbs
“I see no “explosion” in weight, except from the 1995 to 2001.” I don’t see the weight gain either. I added the 2015 numbers.
golden2husky: “see the explosion of weight in the BMW M cars ” Not sure where you’re seeing this. If you consider the huge increases in performance levels, added safety, and overall weight loss, I think BMW has done better than most.
Part of the problem is attributable to the horsepower wars. More horsepower means heavier transmission, driveshaft, differential, which requires bigger brakes which means more unsprung mass which requires heavier rigid and active suspension components – it’s a positive feedback loop.
All of the enthusiasts basking in the “golden age of factory horsepower” are implicitly worshipping at the altar of curb weight bloat.
If you’re building a warrantied car that must operate in daily driving/commuting conditions you can go high power and heavy or low power and light.
When I see that a cruze weighs 500 ponds more than a civic, I assume it’s a combination of bad engineering and cheap, heavy materials. Either way, I’m much more unlikely to view the cruze favorably.
How do you figure? A 2015 Cruze LT is 3118 lbs and a Civic EX is 2868 lbs. If you’re going to slag GM at least do so on merit.
You know, people apparently say the Cruze is a nice drive, but I really don’t think a car that’s like 3250 lbs once I get in it and only has 140 horsepower could possibly feel swift or enjoyable.
The Cruze is nice to drive maybe not the best handling but a great solid quiet highway car. In it’s class only the dart and the cruze seem like cars you could take on an 8 hour road trip and be happy about your choice at the end. I haven’t driven the newest focus but I would say the civic handles a little better on the curves then either car but these two do better than say the elantra and corolla in the curves so I don’t think the weight is much of an issue and maybe be better for the majority of buyers (as some of the weight is sound dedending and other comfort improvements.
You’d be surprised how lively a 100hp engine can feel in a 2800# car–with the right gearing.
You’re comparing the Cruze LT to a fully loaded Civic EX. If you’re going to half-assed attempt to defend GM, at least look up the weight of the LTZ. Spoiler Alert: The Cruze is only 400 lbs heavier.
Sound deadening is part of it. Engineering and materials choice are probably factors, but at least you get a quiet, comfortable ride in the bargain. The Cruze really is impressive in that area.
Still can’t see out of it. No deal.
It’s Only losing 200 pounds?? I was led to believe we’d see a significant weight savings. That means nothing.
Don’t the V-8 versions of these weigh around 4,000 pounds? Still about 500 pounds to go IMHO.
I believe the ZL1 is the heaviest Camaro. 4118 lbs. That’s 6.4L Challenger territory.