It was entertaining nonetheless.
Chevrolet Camaro, Why Have You Forsaken Thee???
- Thread starter TheOne2HotScott
- Start date
No, no that author said 1,500 lbs lighter than a GEN5 Camaro, not 1600 lbs lighter. That would make it closer to a 2400 lb Camaro. Has GM recently put the SS on a 100ish lb diet? :shrug:
Negatory...:beer: It's still a big-bitch!
the only reason the camaro was made was for the transformers movies.
Entertaining, yes.
The guy sounded like a guy who is a new writer and huge fan of ball sports and has just switched over to writing about cars.
He got the enthusiasm right, but unfortunately he just does not know much about cars and has absolutely no problem being fast and loose with the facts.
With that said I have never even sat in a Camaro, other than a 1968 327 Coupe back in 1969.
So I am not going to be able to tell you how I think any of them are to drive...
....except that 68.
That handled remarkably well and definitely had the quickness.
The guy sounded like a guy who is a new writer and huge fan of ball sports and has just switched over to writing about cars.
He got the enthusiasm right, but unfortunately he just does not know much about cars and has absolutely no problem being fast and loose with the facts.
With that said I have never even sat in a Camaro, other than a 1968 327 Coupe back in 1969.
So I am not going to be able to tell you how I think any of them are to drive...
....except that 68.
That handled remarkably well and definitely had the quickness.
Really? The guy made a ridiculous claim of a ~2300lb 68 Camaro with a 305, and you want to argue over 100lbs?
Do you plan on replying in every thread about the old pushrod 5.0s or new Coyote V8s stating that they're not really 5.0L engines, but rather 4.9L?
Last edited:
He was being sarcastic, champ...
Read my post, post #23 to be exact, for clarification...
I seemed to pick up on it, but you didn't...:shrug:
Last edited:
No, he wasn't, chimp... :smmon:
Edit: I see that 4.9L comment ruffled your feathers :lol:
Last edited:
This and I'm far from being a 5th gen fanboy.
Ummm...Jroc, the second member that you quoted in this thread, nimrod, is who I am referring too. I quoted the only post he made in this thread, so I'm not sure what the Hell you're talking about, but Jroc never made a comment about anything being 4.9L, so...:shrug:
Again, Jroc's commentary was meant to be sarcastic...
You just didn't get the memo, so to speak...
Last edited:
I could see where an automatic SS wouldn't be that exciting also I think this person is not much of a car guy but more so just a writer . What European car makes 600 out of a 4.0 ?? Is it Porsche , Ferrari ? I'm pretty sure it's over 100k if that's the case I really get annoyed when people compare euro douche cars to American muscle cars that are no where near the price range
Last edited:
This...
Jroc was NOT being sarcastic. Either you don't understand the meaning the of sarcasm or you're not aware of the conversations I've had with Jroc in the past, and that he needs to pick on unimportant details to prove something over me.
REPCobra10 :loser:
Well I was being serious, but being funny with it.
Here's the authors pharagraph:
"At the Classic Car Club, we had a ’68 SS and I loved that thing. It didn’t understeer or oversteer. It would just spin up and launch. Driving it was very visceral. When you were idling, the whole car shook back in forth because it had such a loping 305 motor- probably because that ’68 Camaro is 1,500 lbs. lighter than the modern incarnation. Weight on a car is like weight on a guy; it just ruins your whole game. You can live with any other problem if you get three things right: Power-to-weight ratio, suspension and the gearbox. But this doesn’t do any of them well. It’s one thing to have a 420 HP car but it’s another thing to be able to utilize it."
1500 + 2300 = 3800.
Realistically the new SS in OEM trim is no more a 3800 lb car than a new Mustang GT is a 3,500 lb car, or a Terminator a 3,550 lb car, or a C6Z a 3000 lb car, etc. I don't see anywhere in the article where the author calls the older Fbody a 2,300 lb car. Still even at 2,400 lbs I just don't know. Even the small 64.5-66 Mustangs where in the 2,800+ lb range and I'm pretty sure the Camaro has always been a bigger car than the first Mustangs.
Actually a new Coyote is a true 5.0L motor when rounded, and yes a old SBF was a 4.9L motor, but I don't really care. Sometime manufactures change numbers a little bit to suit them. Kind of like GM did calling the LS7 a 427 ci motor when it's actually a 428 ci motor because they thought that 427 ci's sounded sexier than 428 ci's.
mrlrd1 I was just busting your balls because I can see this threads got you panties wadded.(for example I now GM didn't put the Gen 5 Camaro on a diet) Still it's cool to see you remember me. I don't remember any specific conversation with you, but maybe so. I do recognize you as the biggest GM nut swinger on here who's only purpose for joining is to troll and defend your brand if that means anything to you. Still you are full of crap claiming a new SS is a 3,800 lb car.
Here's the authors pharagraph:
"At the Classic Car Club, we had a ’68 SS and I loved that thing. It didn’t understeer or oversteer. It would just spin up and launch. Driving it was very visceral. When you were idling, the whole car shook back in forth because it had such a loping 305 motor- probably because that ’68 Camaro is 1,500 lbs. lighter than the modern incarnation. Weight on a car is like weight on a guy; it just ruins your whole game. You can live with any other problem if you get three things right: Power-to-weight ratio, suspension and the gearbox. But this doesn’t do any of them well. It’s one thing to have a 420 HP car but it’s another thing to be able to utilize it."
1500 + 2300 = 3800.
Realistically the new SS in OEM trim is no more a 3800 lb car than a new Mustang GT is a 3,500 lb car, or a Terminator a 3,550 lb car, or a C6Z a 3000 lb car, etc. I don't see anywhere in the article where the author calls the older Fbody a 2,300 lb car. Still even at 2,400 lbs I just don't know. Even the small 64.5-66 Mustangs where in the 2,800+ lb range and I'm pretty sure the Camaro has always been a bigger car than the first Mustangs.
Actually a new Coyote is a true 5.0L motor when rounded, and yes a old SBF was a 4.9L motor, but I don't really care. Sometime manufactures change numbers a little bit to suit them. Kind of like GM did calling the LS7 a 427 ci motor when it's actually a 428 ci motor because they thought that 427 ci's sounded sexier than 428 ci's.
mrlrd1 I was just busting your balls because I can see this threads got you panties wadded.(for example I now GM didn't put the Gen 5 Camaro on a diet) Still it's cool to see you remember me. I don't remember any specific conversation with you, but maybe so. I do recognize you as the biggest GM nut swinger on here who's only purpose for joining is to troll and defend your brand if that means anything to you. Still you are full of crap claiming a new SS is a 3,800 lb car.
Last edited:
This is the issue...:beer:
I didn't know of your past encounters with him...
How could I? I don't monitor the website continually looking for such interwebz encounters...Perhaps, you and Jroc should finish your unfinished business with one-another, because he makes it seem like you two have some unfinished business! I want nothing to do with it, but I seem to have put myself smack-dab in the middle of it...unknowingly!
Have at it, boys!
op:
Last edited:
I've seen a 1SS M6 car on the same 4 corner my car was on. It was 3840 without the driver. I could care less whether or not a 5th gen weighs 3800lbs or 3900lbs, either way they're too heavy and I don't care for them.
And the new 5.0 still isn't a 5.0L engine - it's 4946cc.
I didn't join to troll. I joined looking for some info and parts for my neighbors 97 Cobra.
:dw:
It depends on if you calculating in standard or metric.
Ford claims Coyotes/Roadrunners are 4951 cc motors which rounds to 5.0L and if you use the 92.2mm bore, and 92.7mm stroke #'s then that is correct.
Ford Modular engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
92.2 divide by 25.4 = 3.62992126
92.7 divide by 25.4 = 3.649606299
If you work using the standard inch #'s(which is what I usually work with BTW) of 3.629 bore/3.649 stroke then yes you get the 4946 cc you claim.
Still if Ford wants to claim that it's a true 5 liter motor then I hope they are using the mm #'s, but if they were why not just round them to the nearest thousands being 3.630/3.650?
Regardless who really cares though.
Users who are viewing this thread
