So the new Camaro is lighter than the Mustang.

"SonorousSpeedJoe" (SonorousSpeedJoe)
09/14/2015 at 16:00 • Filed to: Chevrolet Camaro, Ford Mustang

According to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , they shaved off over 200 lbs to get the manual SS down to 3,685 lbs (in base 1SS trim, I’d imagine). A 6-speed Mustang GT weighs 3,705 lbs in base trim, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

Sure, a loaded 2SS with MagneRide and such could be heavier than a loaded GT Premium, and Ford could probably drop some weight later on with different wheels, new aluminum body panels and such (I mean, it’s only a 20-lb difference).

There’s a much larger gap between the V6 and turbo-4 offerings, though - the V6 Mustang is almost 100 lbs heavier than the V6 Camaro, while the EcoBoost Mustang is almost 200 lbs heavier than the 2.0T Camaro.

Weight isn’t everything, but I think it’s cool how much the Camaro has improved in that regard.

DISCUSSION (64)

qbeezy > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:04

Ami wrong to think that is still a little chunky?

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:05

That is interesting I’ve liked the Mustang over the Camaro, and Challenger because it has been the smaller, lighter option. I’d still choose the mustang based on looks tho.

LongbowMkII > qbeezy
09/14/2015 at 16:05

youre not wrong. 3600lbs isn’t light.

citizennick > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:05

MRC doesn’t add much weight. My plan is a 1SS with just the MRC and 6-piston Brembos up front. I’ve learned from my current car that I don’t need things like climate control, navigation, mood lighting, etc.

Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:08

The V6 weighs as much as my ‘02 Trans Am, the V8 weighs 250lbs more.

Party-vi > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:09

Being a Johnny-come-lately usually means you can make your product look better on paper.

SonorousSpeedJoe > qbeezy
09/14/2015 at 16:09

It’s not a Miata, sure, but that’s a significant improvement compared to before. FWIW, the 2.0T Camaro weighs less than 3,400 lbs.

duurtlang > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:15

Still at least 400-600 lbs too much.

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:17

The ecoboost mustang also has more power than the 2lT in the camaro though

SonorousSpeedJoe > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero
09/14/2015 at 16:20

True, that’s why I said weight isn’t everything. The 2.0T Camaro seems to edge out the EB slightly in 0-60 and 1/4-mile times, though, so they’re pretty close.

Justin Hughes > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:24

The V8 trims are apples to apples, but Ford and Chevy position their turbo-4 and V6 models differently. The V6 Mustang is the bargain basement rental car special, and the EcoBoost is the mid-grade model. The Camaro sticks with the traditional thinking that more cylinders are better, so their turbo-4 is in the lowest model, with the V6 as the upgrade.

It’s probably more accurate to compare trim levels than engines, because it’s one brand’s base model vs. the other brand’s mid-grade if you do it by engine type.

BahamaTodd > Party-vi
09/14/2015 at 16:25

Yet Ford wasn’t able to take advantage of this. They also knew what was coming based on the ATS.

wiffleballtony > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:30

I know the new S550 has IRS but damn if it’s not heavy, I’ve been working on getting more weight out of my S197.

SonorousSpeedJoe > Justin Hughes
09/14/2015 at 16:32

I’m aware of the 6-4-8 and 4-6-8 hierarchies. Going by said heirarchies, the 2.0T vs. Mustang V6 and EcoBoost vs. V6 Camaro match-ups do seem pretty close in terms of 0-60 and 1/4-mile times, according to GM’s numbers and what Car and Driver got out of the EB and V6 Mustangs. I’m looking forward to seeing what reviewers get out of the Camaro.

Justin Hughes > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 16:38

What gets me is how everyone’s like “OMGWTFBBQ INDEPENDENT REAR SUSPENSION MUSTANG!!!!” when the Camaro’s had it for years, and there was no big buzz about it when Chevy switched.

spanfucker retire bitch > duurtlang
09/14/2015 at 16:40

Based on what?

PanchoVilleneuve ST > Justin Hughes
09/14/2015 at 16:43

Because the outgoing Camaro weighed roughly the same as your average office building.

citizennick > Justin Hughes
09/14/2015 at 16:45

I think a lot of it had to do with the Camaro being out of production some 7-8 years. So it came back with a lot of general hype, not one thing in particular.

citizennick > qbeezy
09/14/2015 at 16:47

But according to GM it gets .97g on the skid pad, so thats a good thing. Excited to see how it performs on the track.

Justin Hughes > citizennick
09/14/2015 at 16:48

True. They were expected to reinvent the Camaro, while the Mustang has always been here. Like the Vorlons.

duurtlang > spanfucker retire bitch
09/14/2015 at 16:48

My very subjective opinion.

citizennick > duurtlang
09/14/2015 at 16:49

The Camaro doesn't need to be the size of a GT86.

citizennick > Justin Hughes
09/14/2015 at 16:53

And if there’s one thing we’ve learned from the Mustangs from 2002-2009 it’s that competition is a good thing. Those Mustangs were horrible, never got better. I’m sure in a year or two the Mustang will look better on paper. Typically how it goes. And then when that happens Chevy will then introduce the 1LE/ZL1/Z/28.

BahamaTodd > Justin Hughes
09/14/2015 at 17:06

Except the Camaro doesn’t have a bargain basement rental car special. Both the 4cly and 6cyl are available with almost all the same options.

Justin Hughes > BahamaTodd
09/14/2015 at 17:11

True - Ford is pushing the EcoBoost and GT models, and basically ignoring the V6, like they know that nobody really wants it anyway.

uofime-2 > SonorousSpeedJoe
09/14/2015 at 17:40

True, but a WRX with 2 more doors and 2 more driven wheels weighs the same/less at 3300 and change

ly2v8-Brian > duurtlang
09/14/2015 at 17:48

Dude I get it, you have an irrational hatred of American cars, but do some research. Both of these muscle cars weigh about the same as their European counterparts.

Jayhawk Jake > Justin Hughes
09/14/2015 at 18:32

Perhaps, but the numbers are fairly comparable between the turbo engines and the Camaro weighs quite a bit less.

Generally though the ATS-V has been widely heralded for how great its chassis is, and since the Camaro has similar underpinnings it’s set up to really outshine the mustang at all trim levels.

Jayhawk Jake > qbeezy
09/14/2015 at 18:34

Yeah. It’s the lightest pony car. The turbo is only 3400 pounds. It’s not a Miata, it's a V8 brute that weighs less than its closest competition. What more do you want?

Jayhawk Jake > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero
09/14/2015 at 18:37

But by my count the 2.0T Camaro weighs like 200lbs less than the EB mustang, and the published numbers show it as faster. Power isn't everything

Jayhawk Jake > Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch
09/14/2015 at 18:38

And it has what, 200 more horsepower? Gets twice the MPGs? Has a significantly higher level of safety?

Jayhawk Jake > citizennick
09/14/2015 at 18:39

If the 1SS comes with car play you can heave navigation for free

Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch > Jayhawk Jake
09/14/2015 at 19:05

Exactly, and a nice interior and IRS. I’m more poking fun at everyones constant criticism of weight gain. (Although it’s ~100hp, and 5mpg)

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > Jayhawk Jake
09/14/2015 at 19:05

You’re right. And I’d still choose the mustang.

Jayhawk Jake > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero
09/14/2015 at 19:06

I won’t stop you from choosing the inferior product.

Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero > Jayhawk Jake
09/14/2015 at 19:09

And I won’t stop you from sleeping with your cousins, after all, love is love

duurtlang > ly2v8-Brian
09/14/2015 at 19:22

I don’t hate American cars. Sporty coupes in general shouldn’t be this heavy, imho. It doesn’t matter where they’re from.

Jayhawk Jake > Sampsonite24-Earth's Least Likeliest Hero
09/14/2015 at 19:30

I like the Camaro, not the Mustang.

Actually I’d just get a Corvette

samssun > qbeezy
09/14/2015 at 19:33

Agreed, it's a two seat coupe. If the most fully loaded option hits 3500, it's fat.

Jayhawk Jake > citizennick
09/14/2015 at 19:34

And that’s on run flats!

After seeing how the ATS-V performed for Car and Driver’s lightning lap I'm really excited to see the evaluations of this car. Put it on truly good tires and it could dominate.

Jayhawk Jake > uofime-2
09/14/2015 at 19:37

A WRX has less power, worse mileage, and weighs about the same as the 2.0T Camaro. The Camaro is physically bigger and undoubtedly has a better chassis. I don't understand the weight complaints

Jayhawk Jake > duurtlang
09/14/2015 at 19:40

How do you feel about the M4? C63 AMG? 370Z? Mustang?

citizennick > Jayhawk Jake
09/14/2015 at 19:55

oh that is very true... I’ll have to look at the order guide again to make sure.

citizennick > Jayhawk Jake
09/14/2015 at 19:56

right? I wish there were options that involved a better tire.

ly2v8-Brian > Jayhawk Jake
09/14/2015 at 20:04

All too heavy apparently, even though they thrash the cars that preceded them

Jayhawk Jake > citizennick
09/14/2015 at 22:31

There are. Tirerack.com. As a bonus you get to keep the shitty tires it comes with for use when the good ones go bald!

Jayhawk Jake > ly2v8-Brian
09/14/2015 at 22:32

It's one thing to criticize a car for being significantly heavier than the competition but the Camaro slots right in with the rest, if not better than most

Jayhawk Jake > LongbowMkII
09/14/2015 at 22:34

It's lighter than its competitors...

Jayhawk Jake > samssun
09/14/2015 at 22:35

Show me a new 2+2 coupe that can do 0-60 in 4 seconds that weighs less than 3500 pounds.

citizennick > Jayhawk Jake
09/14/2015 at 22:45

good lord, I meant from the factory/dealer lol.

duurtlang > Jayhawk Jake
09/15/2015 at 02:38

The same way. I don’t doubt their capabilities, I just prefer agility. If they lose a bit of acceleration prowess that way I’d be fine with it. Less weight > more power. But like I mentioned, this is a purely personal preference.

samssun > Jayhawk Jake
09/15/2015 at 06:53

First off, RS3, except it has four honest seats. Secondly, the fact that it's hard to find doesn't make it ok, all cars are fat these days.

samssun > Jayhawk Jake
09/15/2015 at 06:58

I want every car that’s moved up a class in size and two classes in weight to give back 400 pounds. Coupes and “compacts” like the Mustang, Camaro, S4, M3, and ATS should be firmly in the 3200-3300 range.

Jayhawk Jake > samssun
09/15/2015 at 07:13

The turbo Camaro is under 3400lbs. Take out the spare and put some lighter wheels on and you're there.

Jayhawk Jake > samssun
09/15/2015 at 07:16

The fact that it's hard to find means it's an absurd request. The RS3 isn't a coupe, nor does it do 0-60 in 4 seconds (it's 4.3). Plus it weighs like 3,350 lbs, which is about the same as a turbo Camaro

Jayhawk Jake > duurtlang
09/15/2015 at 07:18

Have you driven a modern sports car? They’re plenty agile. It’s actually quite impressive what car makers can do these days.

uofime-2 > Jayhawk Jake
09/15/2015 at 09:44

More power by 2HP (oh wow)

If it has a better chassis why are its skid pad results so much worse .85g vs .96g?

Im sure if you buy the V8 its fine by the seriously hobbled the 4 (because ‘Murica I assume) and they should feel bad. Ole General skimped on tires for their performance car.

Jayhawk Jake > uofime-2
09/15/2015 at 10:25

Tires explains the skidpad difference. Which is an easy fix, just buy good tires.

uofime-2 > Jayhawk Jake
09/15/2015 at 10:36

Why did they not do that from the factory, it’s not like the car’s going to be cheap?

It is ostensibly a smaller car that weighs more. Furthermore they have the gall to tout how the chassis is modular and can be adjusted for different configurations to optimize weight and rigidity. B.S.

Jayhawk Jake > uofime-2
09/15/2015 at 10:42

It’s not smaller though, is it? The Camaro is still a big car even if it shaved a bunch of weight.

I don’t know why manufacturers pick the tires they do. I don’t really care, if I’m buying a sports car I’m buying better tires regardless.

Why is a modular chassis BS? It’s smart engineering. How dare Chevrolet design a good cost efficient chassis!

I guess we’ll have to wait and see how track times compare between the Camaro and the WRX.

uofime-2 > Jayhawk Jake
09/15/2015 at 10:58

It better be smaller, 2 less doors, 2 less driven wheels, this generation WRX is not a small car.

After buying a new 30k+ car the first thing I want to do is spend 2k+ on new wheels and tires too.

It’s BS because the comparable 4cyl camaro weighs more than the WRX, which means it’s carrying around 5-600hp V8 supporting chassis weight

If you kept them both on their stock tires the WRX will tear the 4 cyl Camaro a new one on most tracks at least till they both overheat. A couple HP will not overcome crappy tires

samssun > Jayhawk Jake
09/15/2015 at 19:09

How is it an absurd request when just a few years ago this was achievable? RS3 was my example because it’s a 5 door and has AWD. C6 Corvette was right at 3200 pounds, and it’s not small dimensionally. E36 M3 was 3150.

A performance-oriented two seater doesn’t need to weigh 36-3800 pounds, even with a decent engine, they just have to prioritize performance over building AC compressors into the steering wheel.

Jayhawk Jake > samssun
09/15/2015 at 21:08

A Corvette is a smaller car than a Camaro. Safety regulations have a lot to do with it.

I just don't see the issue. Cars today perform better than ever before. They weigh more too, but it's part of the package. It'd be one thing if they drove like shit, but they dont

qbeezy > Jayhawk Jake
09/16/2015 at 13:46

I want them to keep making improvements. Not to just be within “such and such rival”. Make such a huge noticeable difference Ford has to respond, drastically. I know engineering limitations and all that. I just always want more.