Weight benchmark
 

I just read that the weight of the '58 was 3,050. Anyone know of a lighter model? I believe they will make the 2014 the lightest EVER.

Where did you get that from? I have read a rumor that it will be the lightest MODERN Corvette, however, not the lightest EVER.

The '58 weight is listed as 3,050 at every site I find. here is just one:
http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au...ifications.htm

Oh sorry, no I didn't mean about the weight of the 58. I meant where did you get the idea that the C7 will be the lightest ever.

It might as well be...supposedly coming in at 3k llbs.

Name one lighter than the '58. That is where I got the idea.

The 53 has a curb weight of 2850 pounds and my 56 Vette has a curb weight of 2875 pounds.

LOL You're misunderstanding my question. Nevermind. :cheers:

Yeah, I just saw your other post also:

So if the weight comes in at 3,000 lbs, that puts the lowest combined weight of the car and driver within grasp and control of the driver and his/her personal weight. Maybe that is what they mean with the "we're changing it so it can change you" line. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Who the hell wants a car that weighs under 2,900k lbs and takes 11 secs to get to 60 mph and does the 1/4 in 18 secs. I guess for bragging rights...

2999

^^^ I think you very well may be right and, with their emphasis on every gram earning the right to be there, I think they very well might make it. What a screamer that will be with 450+ hp and a 7 or 8 speed transmission :rock: :rock: :rock:

Yeah, well, every dollar has to earn the right to be there too, so I wouldn't go counting my grams before they've hatched.

You lost me on this reply. Are you trying to say that the curb weight of a car is the same as the GVWR?

Nope. Meant exactly what I said or I wouldn't have said it :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That 450+ hp has got to move the car and everything in/on it. That would include the nut behind the steering wheel :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Not trying to be technical at all with that comment :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

2900k lbs??? sounds like a locomotive... :rofl:

Seriously, though, what does this post have to do with anything? Point is, very early Vettes actually were lighter than the '58, albeit way slower. Oh, and the collectors out there will pay MUCH more for a nice example of a '53 than they'll pay for a 2013 ZR-1. So, I guess that's who wants them.

I say 3,075

Gotta remember that it was in 1958 that GM hung about a million pounds of chrome on each car they built. Before that, not much chrome used. The bumpers on the 53-57's are nothing compared to the bumpers on the 58-62's.

Give me a break. If you actually weigh an 84-87, they are not much more than 3000, WITH 60 POUNDS WORTH OF JACKS, SPARE TIRES and extra crap, which the new ones don't have.

I would bet a small block 65-7 is probably actually under 3000 in some trim as well.

My 70 was under 3000, and that was with 300 extra pounds worth of iron calipers, wheels, and engine parts.

I'd bet ALL of the 50's vettes come in close to or under 3000.

3000 is HEAVY. Not light.

A g machine c1-4, with modern wheels, calipers, coilovers or fiberglass springs, and a modern motor will be in the 26-2800 range, in FULL street trim.

all that is with NO carbon fiber, etc.

you can thank the government for a lot of that BS weight, and then thank fat butts and out of control electrical engineers for the rest.

This car should be sub - 2800, and actually it should be about 7/8 scale and be sub 2600.

Joe, I've had my 61 on a scale and even with all that chrome and a full steel frame it weighed in at 3042 lbs. I stuffed a 383 stroker in it with about 450 horses. I guess I'm in C7 territory except for the Fred Flinstone handling :eek:

The early 6 cylinder cars were slugs but some of the later solid axle cars, especially the fuelies with 4:11's, would run 13's and accelerate to 60 in under 6 seconds. Not bad for that era. The old cars will hold their value alot better than the new ones.

:iagree: I just don't think it's possible in this day and age of airbags, door beams and crumple zones along with the 'industry standard' A/C, infotainment systems and sound deadening to get the car much lighter than that.

I'm guessing it could be as low as 3040 and as high as 3130.

Technology is amazing. The cars are dramatically safer, faster, emissions, and packed full of goodies and the fact that they can even sniff the weight of a 50 year old car is a blessing.

Agree completely, Same power and around 2700 lbs. would be awesome.

Boy a lot of you guys are dreaming. The McLaren F1 was about 2,500 lbs and is about the size of a miata. It used the absolute lightest materials known to man, with a carbon monocoque.

How do you honestly think a 2014 corvette with all of the emissions regulations and safety standards is going to weigh under 3,100?

I'd be shocked if the new car is sub 3,100 REALLY. Trust me i hope it's great, but lets be realistic here.

Oops! yeah, you know what I meant. The point is that everyone is so caught up on how this new C7 is goin or not going to be lighter or the lightest vette ever. This I guess is a good topic of conversation, only for bragging rights, IMHO, because the technology and performance far more outweighs (pun intended) the older model.

You, of course, are wrong on every point. Reminds me of the guy who proclaimed that SCCA would let anyone compete with an automatic transmission. The internet is not perfect but can be a GREAT resource at times.

'84- 3239 lbs
'65- 3230
'70- 3425
'59- 3080

McLaren F1 the size of a Miata? Not even close (except weight):

Wheelbase: McLaren 107", Miata 91.7"
Length: McLaren 168.8", Miata 157.3"
Width: McLaren 71.7", Miata 67.7"
Curb Weight: McLaren 2509, Miata 2480

I think that the 3,000 weigh is achievable. All carbon fiber body panels, carbon fiber floor, aluminum frame (all these reported by Car and Driver). The aluminum frame saves well over 100 pounds over the steel frame alone. Anyhow, we'll find out next week.

Jimmy

I am not sure of the accuracy but here you go.

1955

Curb weight 2750

http://www.vettefacts.com/C1/1955.aspx

:cheers:

1950 Crosely Hot Shot(my uncle had one) two seater sports car had a curb weight of 1175 pounds. Just think how it would move with a LS7. Great until you slamed the wall at Taledaga at 162 MPH.

I had a 1946 Crosely sedan while in college. 1151 pounds curb weight.

They had real engineers back then, instead of these today that only know how to use a computer that results in 3200 pound lead sled sports cars. :D

:iagree:

Ramey is delusional with his weights, especially his 87.

3,000 pounds was heavy 40 years ago, not any more. Safety standards have eliminated the flyweight car (except the Lotus Elise which no normal American male can get in). A 2013 Honda Civic EX weighs 2,855 pounds, for pete's sake.

Jimmy

I really shouldn't say this, but anything starting with a 3xxx curb weight will leave me let down. I need to convince myself to be happy with a 30xx weight so I'm either not that let down or estatic when its 29xx

Come hell or high water I am convinced (especially after the remark in today's video) that the C7 will weigh 29xx in some form.

If they can go lighter than a C5Z @ 3115lbs I will be happy and amazed.

So far, since 01 the C5Z has been the lightest vette by far. :yesnod:

My 03 Subaru WRX weighs a 150lbs more than my C5Z.

Yep -- and as I understand it, they were thinking about fins!!!

That look would have held up well over the years :D

I think R&T would refer to those days' Detroit styling as "wretched excess"

That would be outstanding.....since they did make quite a reference to weight conservation in the video.

I just can't see it being that light. :confused2:





:iagree: I would be ecstatic with any base curb weight under 3100 (30xx range).
Anything under 3050 :eek: might even have me placing an order ASAP.

getting your hopes up wayyy to much. It's GM. They will have to leave room for the next c8 corvette. They can't give us what we all want not. It will be a tad lighter......and a bit faster. that's all.

Ok, mr. Magazine queen of the internet age. My weights are from certified race scales. You are pickin up internet fantasies.

An 84-87 in particular has a LOT fewer parts than the later cars. I bought my 90 vette because of reading magazines and being duped. It weighed 3390 with a full tank. 1990-91 was actually the heaviest c4, but the net won't tell you that. I have had several stock 86-87's on scales and all were 200+ pounds lighter than that. If you look in the parts books you can find the weight, too.

My c2 and c3 numbers are correct as well.

I've owned 7 corvettes, of all different years. All were bone stock when i bought them. All were on scales several times.

If you want to criticize other posters, you should go spend some time in the real world with cars first, rather than reading the internet.

Miatas and mr2's were under 2200 pounds with all the government crap, even with mostly all iron and steel components.

I dont like them, but they are an example of better weight control than gm has used on the vette.

I wish the government would butt out, the powertrain and suspension engineers would win out over the nvh and electrical teams, and we'd get a slightly smaller, much lighter car.

Again, if you put modern suspension and drivetrains under a c1-4, even with all the chrome, steel frame, heavy interior components, etc., you have a 2600-2800 lb car. If those cars had aluminum frames, magnesium subframes, cf bodies and interior parts, a fully streetable, comfortable car would weigh in the 2600 or less range. I would love such a car.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...rolet-corvette

Now you provide something to back up your claim of the early C4's weighing 3000 pounds.

you seriously posted a road and track article? really?

i just bought a fully loaded 87 with z51 (lots of extra frame parts)

with a spare, jack, and everything in it, stock exhaust, everything, even old french fries under the seats, and crap in the console, it weighs 3121 with a full tank. That's over 17 gallons of gas (over 100 pounds). The stock 16x9.5 wheels weigh 26 pounds each... c5z wheels weigh 19 and 21 respectively.

i plan on running scca stock with it, if you want to put your magazines down and come race, it'll be available for you to come see it on the scales. there will be scales on site. with base seats, no jack & spare, glass top, modern wheels, and cat back exhaust (all within 'stock' rules, it will weigh in at just over 2900 and that's even if I don't bother with the radio delete option, which would be another 20 pounds.

step back from your screen, put down your magazines, and experience some cars please.

the point of this thread is not to argue, the point is there is so much government garbage, electrical garbage, extra unnecessary insulation, and so much extra sheer track and wheelbase, that these cars are still boat anchors despite using lightweight materials all over. It sucks. Build a c2 sized, simple, sportscar with no BS and a high quality, comfortable but simple interior, and make the best car ever; i want a button for the lights. a knob for the ac, a knob for the stereo, a key for the ignition, and a button for the freaking windows. forget all the other crap that rather than helping is actually an annoyance and failure point.

instead we get built in tv screens, active handling, body control modules, automatic everything, and all manner of ridiculous crap that there is no reason for.

if that 2900 pound c4 had an LT1, it would weigh under 2800. If it had an aluminum frame, 2650 or less. CF body, probably better than 2450. modern, lighterweight interior parts, 2400. titanium exhaust like a c5z, probably 2380. There's room in the transmission as well, the 4+3 is no paper weight, but it is lighter than that anvil they used for the later 6 speeds. A stock LT1 would be an incredible supercar at that weight, and get incredible mileage. C4 sized frontal area would help mileage tremendously as well. My C6Z06 was a PRESSFIT between my trailer fenders, literally. My c4 rolls in what seems like MILES to spare, and you can open the door and get out.

You write more than most magazine article writers. I can't come race with you cause I want to wax my car, detail the tires and wheels and sit on my lawn chair and look at it. Plus, I've only had it about 17 months so I am only about 1/2 way through the recommended break-in miles. But thanks for asking :rock: :rock: :rock:

I am going to go ahead and apologize to everyone for my tone. I'm doing taxes and i am furious about it.

I also have a long frustration with government and car makers, even one i love, like gm.

Bottom line, i realize all the 'sources' say 3200+ for all c4's. but personal experience says they are wrong. Some are lighter. Some years are much heavier.

You want my perfect vette?

69 body in cf (bumpers n all- still chrome finish though - and either modern fixed headlights or at least electric popups)

C6z aluminum frame concepts.

C5z06 abs and suspension tuning, and gearing

C7 lt1

Interior? I'd go for one like the last factory 'race package' ferrari 360 i drove. Cf seats and dash with good stitched leather. Simple. Dock station for apple or similar gear but no electronics of its own.

:yesnod:Get out your frustrations ramey, that is what we are here for.

That reason is why, for comparisons, we use the published data that the magazines get from the manufacturers. The magazines don't scale the cars.

You can find the GM specs at Corvette Action Center - they list your 87 C4 at 3325. http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/...l#.UPHmjEKQ2ao

I appreciate a light weight tossable car and I am a car enthusiast, have been for as long as I remember. However, I can be all of that and still not hate on the regulations. What's wrong with the cleaner air we breathe for a loss of 1% power? Or for that matter that I can give my car to my gf, or dad and know it's safe to drive for the 100lb penalty of support beams? I can think of a few laws that are silly but for the most part they are for your own good and everyone else's.

I can enjoy a car ~3200lbs just fine. I enjoy that I can drive it to work and A/C the cabin so that I don't smell in my clothes around people. I like the infotainment systems that I use in bumper to bumper traffic or to stay informed by linking it with the world wide web. I even like the sound deadening so I keep my hearing many years from now on.

We have it so good. :cheers:

Another weight reduction element is the elimination of that huge dome of back glass.

You kept complaining about how wrong anything is on the Interenet so I linked you to a R&T article. If you want I can take a photo of a R&T magazine, that is now in my lap, from 1987. It contains complete test of the 1987 Corvette and says the curb weight is 3280 pounds and the test weight(with driver) is 3440 pounds.

Are you sure you want to challege me? Here is a photo I just took of my 1972 Corvette placed next to my C6 Z06. My 1972 Corvette is the lightest Corvette and here it is on the scales to prove it.

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/...pseac5ade6.jpg

A shot of my 56 and you can see the bumper of my 64. Both are lighter then a C4.

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/...dvettes002.jpg





Oh, and if you think I'm just a waxer, here is a couple of photos of me on the track with my Z06.

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/...ttalladega.jpg

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/...5/IMG_2974.jpg

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/...psced0bc5e.jpg


ALL of my current Corvettes weigh less then your C4 and my Z06 is definitely faster..

And in case you don't believe the Internet here is a photo I just took in my (cold) garage of my 1987 issue of R&T Corvette. Sorry for the bad photo but I was shriving and I don't want to take the effort to re shoot the cover.

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/...psb0e76556.jpg

By the way, anyone can gut their car to reduce it's weight, but that does not make it as it came from the factory. I could gut my Z06 and would still be lighter then your gutted pig.

:iagree:

The only possible way to compare various cars of various years from various manufacturers is to use the manufacturers' stated weights.

Curb weight is fueled. It is not to be confused with "dry weight" or track weights where guys are running low fuel.

The curb weight(full to the brim with all fluids) on a 2013 Z06 is 3199 pounds and the dry weight is 3041 pounds, but you don't want to run it at the track like that as dry weight is without any fluids. Coolant, engine oil, gas, brake fluid, power steering fluid, transmission fluid, differential fluid etc.

I say we will know hopefully tomorrow. If I had to guess I would say around 3,105lbs

Corvette From the Inside by Dave McLellan, chief engineer of the fourth-generation Corvette, page 119 --

"When we finished with the 1983 Corvette we had the curb weight (with a full tank of gas but without the driver) down to 3,192 lb, compared to the 3,342 lb of the 1982 car. That was as close as we would get to, and within 7 percent of our goal of, 3,000 lb."

Not 2700-something, not 2800-something, but 8 lbs shy of 3200.

.Jinx

And after a few thanksgiving and Christmas dinners, the curb weight had inched up from 3192 to 3325 for the 87 coupe.

Those numbers are not remotely accurate. They are not required to be. The curb weight on an 84 and a 90 are almost the same. But the 90 has radically different and heavier parts, and more of them.

Furrher, curb weight on a c4 includes a jack. A spare tire. A spare tire cover. An old 48 lb battery. A lot of very heavy accessories that have no eauivalent on a c6 or 7. My point was not to debate c4 weight, though i'm the only one so far with true information: my point was that early c4's are just as light as this c7 is likely to be, despite being dinosaurs.

They also have a steel frame. An iron block and engine that weighs 115 lbs more than an ls7. Seats that weigh 45 lbs instead of 30 for a later car. An 85lb hood. Big heavy early cats and heavy exhaust. Headlight motors. A 4+3 that probably weighs as much as a t6060. Yet that car is as light as an aluminum framed, aluminim engine, cf body c6z. Which tells me the later cars are too big and have too much crap all over them.

I'm done discussing c4's on this thread. But if you think an early car weighs 3200+ then you may as well think the world is flat.

I guess no one appreciates my apology earlier, for being a little snappy earlier, but joe, come on down and bring your c6z. I'll prove my point on the scales. Then i'll pour you a good scotch.

I'm not sure about this, but i recall reading that my c6z 'curb' weight included 3 gallons of gas and all other fluids.

That sounds more like the gross vehicle shipping weight. They transport them with only a few gallons of gas in the tank, if I'm not mistaken.

Newer cars also have more body rigidity, wider thread, larger brakes, better aero, more power and therefore larger supporting parts like diff, axles, transmissions, clutch and so on. Lastly, they don't break down as much and offer more amenities.

I don't see how you can call the difference in weight "crap". Actually point to the things that you feel are crap and add significant body weight.

C6 includes 400hp. Six gears. A stiff and safe structure. Better brakes. More grip. A lot of performance that has no equivalent on a C4.

Your criticism of modern Corvettes as needlessly overweight remains unsupported by evidence.

Curb weight, it's only a few pounds under that. Or are you calling its chief engineer a liar?

.Jinx

They are absolutely required and required to be accurate. Every car sold in the US has a federally mandated Tire and Vehicle Loading plate (now a sticker) on the door edge.

The weight is used for tire certification, for EPA classifications and in some states for tax and licensing purposes.

I appreciate the power as much as anyone... But the powerplant is much lighter than the old small block. The new trans and diff are not any heavier either. I appreciate more tread. But the newer wheels are lighter despite their size. Starting to see my point? None of the improvements add weight. They reduce it. Yet the car is not getting lighter.

The crap includes bumpers standards, air bags all over, the bcm and everything associated with it. Which is roughly 200 pages of the shop manual. With tons of crap like Automatic mirrors, memory seats, sensing lights and climate, ahs, etc., Even Power seats. Does a sports car really need that? I realize some people sort of like that but option it.

That might not be entirely true, but maybe.

Incomplete answer. Go look at what they require and get back to me. Or just go put an 84 on a scale. Its really that simple. Dont kill the messenger. I dont know why people just fight the facts. The c7 is lighter than a c6. Ok. Lighter is better. But its still 15% over what it should be IMO, and the simple fact is if its close to 3000 then its not lighter than a lot of pre 1988 vettes, so its hardly something to bragg about. Its just a fact people.

Gotta remember - if you get hit in an accident, the extra weight helps.

Mark

Ya got me there!

Regardless, the bench mark for weight for me has been the C5Z. From 2001-2013 the C5Z has been the lightest corvette bar none from GM. If the new C7 comes any where close to that or lighter with todays standards it will be a good thing. :cool:

I have no idea what the new tranny weighs...i was thinking of c5-6 drivetrain v c4. Those are pretty similar.

Agreed. C5z is the best vette made yet. But the looks and interior were not my favorite. And you need a lift to really work on one. Hopefully the c7 will handle as well. Ls7 was a beautiful motor. Lt1 should be great too. We'll see.

I believe the sketch we saw with the front brake ducts showed how serious GM is on producing a light weight c7.

Dealer installed brake ducts?

GM didn't want the weight on the track pak car from the factory to advertise 2999 lb curb weight.....(under 3000 lbs)

True. :yesnod: The various 6 speed manuals are all pretty close in weight, the 6 speed automatic does weigh a bit more than the 4 speed autos in the C4s/C5s/2005 C6s though.
And then of course there were those early C4 4+3 manual transmissions.

safety is more than weight

does not help if you are in a 5000 pounds car vs. a 3200 pound car, its all in the design how it absorb the impact :thumbs:

So i take a proper designet 2900 pound Corvette over my 3175 C6Z any day:cheers:


regards
Rune

If GM lied about the curb weight on the 1984 when they said it was 3192# when it was really under 3000# according to Ramey(LOL), then GM must also be lying about the curb weight on a C6 Z06 and it really weighs 2800#(LOL). That just defies all reasonable thinking as GM wants to be able to say it's high performance sports car is light, so why would they lie and say it's heavier then it really is?

In fact, my 56 is so light, that I have the neighbor's ten year daughter, lift it up so I can change a tire(LOL). GM was lying about it weighing 2875#(LOL). And the only lightweight aluminum pieces in my 56 are the eight pistons and the two tapered shims located between the front cross member and the frame rails to increase caster.

I know that GM was lying when they said my 98 C coupe weighed 3245#. That's only 5# lighter then Mercedes says my 99 Mercedes 4-door sedan weighs. Is Mercedes also lying? Let's see, GM also lied about the 87 C4 coupe weighing 3325. That's heavier then a Mercedes. No way.

Point is, cars do weigh different amounts and the manufacturers do not lie about the curb weights. While my C6 Z06 has bunch of stuff, most mandated by law, that has increased weight over the years, it is still lighter then a C4(and faster).

Ok joe. I owned a c3. 4 c4's. a c5z. A c6z. All were on multiple sets of race scales at scca national events, and subject to scrutiny by real competitors. But you know better because you read a magainze that did not weigh the car and on the internet from sources that did not weigh the car, including an estimated model curb weight rating for *government*!?!?

Now that's a hilarious display of wisdom worth a hearty LOL.

Today has been interesting. I actually like the c7 if i were in the market for a luxo cruiser. But people are talking 3300 pounds and almost 107 inch wheelbase, with a 74 inch wide body. That is almost the size of a 4 door malibu a while back. I think it may still come in lighter than that, but lol, this hi tech beast is still dragging anchors.

Another funny thing to conclude this thread - my corvette spec book shows the curb weight of the 84 - with almost 130 pounds of gas,
A jack, a spare tire, and a completely cast iron motor with a fiberglass body a quarter inch thick and 26lb wheels, as 3152. Now that's funny. I guess the books arent that far off after all if you know where to look. Its got a smog pump. An egr system. Mechanical cruise control. A 35 pound old starter. Of course steel frame and heavy seats. Pop up lights.

Put a modern battery and wheels, take out the spare and jack, and with a few gallons of gas, that car is 2940 apples to apples. Put an lt1 in it and its 2800! What the hell is gm packing into the c7 to find 500 pounds of useless aluminum and cf? I just dont get it.

.

I just don't get how you can not get it. Drive over diagonal railroad tracks some time. Look at a 30mph crash some time. Or a rollover. Maybe actually read a book. Until then there is no helping you.

How about the extra mass for added downforce, cooling ducts, better oil delivery under high lateral forces, wider tires, stiffer chassis?

I would also be down for a "light weight" base model where they would get rid of power seats and things. Unfortunately, that's not how GM's business model works. I think they try to provide the most car for $50k. They will add some of these amenities simply because they are low cost and high return or other competitors offer them as base.

jinx. you are having real trouble. the point of this thread is that the c6z and c7 have a much LIGHTER body and frame, wheels and engine, which components are superior in every way to a c4's equivalent. the body, frame, wheels and engine in the c7 together weigh *at least* 400 pounds LESS than those components of a c4. probably 500. Yet the CAR is so large, and so packed so full of other useless garbage that the c7 not only does not weigh 400 pounds less than a c4, but it actually looks like it is going to weigh 200 pounds MORE!

That is the problem.

PS, I've seen all manner of c4's rolled and wrecked. they actually hold up extremely well. i don't know why, they are barely held together to start with. maybe its' that whole 'flexible baby' thing.

again, the body and aero, wheels, and frame are all LIGHTER than the inferior c4 stuff, but the new car is still way heavier. that's the issue.

cooling ducts and oiling system i bet don't aggregate to 20 pounds, total. the starter in the c7 alone is more than 20 pounds lighter than the c4.

Why are you fixated on C4s? What's that all about?

All that started with all the drivel about the car weighing close to 3000 and being the lightest vette ever. I pointed out that all the old cast iron and glass sleds were that light and that gm should be embarrassed that the c6 and c7 were so heavy. Lots of uneducated discussion which is now even funnier since it appears the c7 isnt even near 3000. Gm forgot it already has a cadillac division.

Hard to argue with you -- but also hard to argue with the guys who have posted the published curb weights of the C4's C5's and C6's. No reason at all for GM not to have accurately reported those. Can you post slips from the scales to support your observations? And, can you list specifically what was removed (spare, jack, other unnecessary "stuff") before the weigh-ins? Also, like sometimes happens with dynos, is there any chance the scales were off? (not being a wiseguy, just asking an obvious question).

I hate arguments where both parties are probably correct but operating under different assumptions.

Also, I agree about disappointment on weight -- if over 3100 lbs. Seems "marketing" (to whom?) and regs require a lot of "stuff" to offset the 150 lbs they cut out (at pretty high cost). Too bad if indeed true....

i'm happy to email pics of my car on the scales, but i dont host any upload sites from which to post. scales are all a bit different buy mine are calibrated. and the results are from experience with SCCA's scales at nationals over a number of cars and year models, so i am sure of them.

but it really is moot now, not only did i find that the vettespecs book shows 3152 curb weight for an automatic c4 (all fluids, ready to drive, with 20 (!) gallons of gas), that means a manual car with 16 gallons equivalent to a modern vette, and without the jack and spare, which the new cars don't have would have a 3052 curb weight, which is pretty close (within 35 lbs) to what mine shows on the scales.

also, the new info seems to indicate that the c7 is heavier than a c6 anyways, rendering the whole discussion moot except the main point, that the c6 is more of a jag or CTSV coupe competitor and not really a sports car.

You're the one with the comprehension problem.

You keep banging the same stupid drum, labeling everything that's not in a C4 as crap, when numerous people have pointed out all of the functional advantages and legal requirements that actually weigh stuff.

You are a one-note troll, and now you are ignored.

.Jinx

Ummmmm......This Video has the weight listed as 3350? Go to 1:12. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm as confused as anyone.

Best I can recall, the factory assembly instruction manual for a stock 68 Corvette Convertible lists it's weight as 3050 lbs for a SB. I toted up all the weight improvements for my 68,...aluminum replacements...and I think the weight is now about 2800 lbs. That's with a 395 hp ZZ4 hot cam engine. Aluminum cylinder heads, aluminum intake manifold, aluminum water pump, mini-starter, aluminum radiator, aluminum brakes, composite rear spring, aluminum wheels, headers to replace the cast iron manifolds, factory sidepipes to replace the heavy rear mufflers, spare tire and spare tire container delete. Maybe up 10 pounds or so to replace the Muncie with a Tremac TKO600 5 speed.

The supercharger put about 60-70 pounds on my C6 08 coupe.

As to point 1, I had a '93 and did a Pocono HPDE once for fun (whole other story) and that was a pretty heavy car compared to the earlier C4's. But, MUCH easier to live with the other 364 days of the year vs. the earlier C4's. So, the modest weight penalty in that case was a good trade-off given the engineering and manufacturing capabilities of the time.

As to point 2, my C5Z, and C6's I have driven, are plenty civilized enough for daily use. So, you cut out 150 lbs, and then add 250 pounds (estimated) more "stuff"?? I mean, tires aren't fatter, brakes are marginally bigger, safety regs barely changed (I think), interior niceties (after allowing for magnesium seat frames) cannot be THAT heavy, additional sound-deadeners should not be too heavy AND are unnecessary anyway, digital stuff should add the weight of a laptop max, etc, etc. Heck, a Boss 302 weighs ~3,600 lbs -- just seems like a trim 2-seater should be more than 300 lbs lighter, especially with an OHV engine, aluminum frame, CF hood and Targa panel, etc.

Man do I hope we are somehow misinterpreting or Juechter was misquoted and has decided not to respond...

My thirteen year old, $16K (used) Z, @ >200 lbs. lighter and nearly 400 HP, sure seems like the performance bargain of the century at this point!!!!!

you can't educate a potato, because though it lives, it is too stupid to read and comprehend. the jinx potato misses my only point, which was that many early corvettes, including c4's, for all their faults and cast iron parts, are significantly lighter than it appears the c7 is, despite the fact that all of said 'functional advantages' and even most of the 'legal requirements' underlying the C7 are LIGHTER than the equivalent parts on the older cars.


examples: c7 engine - probably 110 pounds lighter (ls3 is 125 lbs)
c7 v. c4 c7 emissions system - at LEAST 10 pounds lighter
c7 frame - at least 150 pounds lighter
c7 body - probably significantly lighter despite size
c7 headlights - at least 20 pounds lighter
c7 magnesium seats - almost certainly lighter
c7 wheels - probably lighter, those old 16's are over 26lbs
c7 drivetrain - maybe 20-50 lbs heavier, 4+3 is no feather
c7 brakes - probably 20 pounds heavier, not more than 30
c7 suspension - that's a wash, within 10 pounds
c7 air conditioning - at least 10 pounds lighter
c7 stereo - willing to bet its lighter

so from a 3030 pound c4 as an example, every component that a car person cares about in the c7, from suspension, tires and wheels, engine to differential, seats, air conditioning, frame and body, combined weighs somewhere between 190 and 300 pounds LESS. So why is the c7 looking like 300 pounds MORE car? it is apparently all sound deadening, wiring, and modules, and just sheer size (4" wider, 2" longer, taller). the airbags combined on a c6 don't weigh 25 pounds, I'm sure the c7 is the same.


the c7 is heavy because they keep making the cars larger, which i disagree with, and because it carries over 900 pounds of purely comfort weight, which I view as excessive for a sports car.

I dont get it
C7 is aprox the same size as C6
Frame is 95 pounds lighter
Tire/wheel is smaller/lighter
Seats has magnesium frame vs steel, should be lighter (C6 is heavy)
CF hood = lighter
CF roof = lighter
smaller rear hatch window, alot lighter
A-arm are hollow and lighter
Cradles are hollow and lighter/stronger

So, it adds up to at least 150 pounds LESS than the C6

Why on earth is it 150 heavier, something does not add up here :toetap:

There is no way you can add insulation and wiring/computers worth 300 pounds:crazy:

well we found out soon enough :thumbs:

Rune

We aren't truthfully going to know anything about the car until it actually comes out, about it's TRUE weight, TRUE power, MPG and handling are going to be until magazine tests are done testing it Imho. Until then everything is just speculation and estimates.

It's exactly as YOU said in a post before, blame gov safety & environmental regs. Plus the luxury demands of modern buyers for the added weight.

Auto companies keep on inventing lighter materials, but then Big Gov cancels their savings out with higher mpg standards & tougher safety tests.

By the way, can you imagine what a 1958 Vette would weigh now - if it had been built with an aluminum engine, aluminum frame, plus the countless other lighter parts from today? Probably around 2500lbs.

Jinx,

You just don't get it. The 1984 Corvette was the best engineered Vette ever and they have been going downhill ever since then. In fact, the C6 ZR1 takes over an hour to get around the Ring whereas Ramey can do it in under a minute(and that includes stopping for a potty break) in his 87. The only reason Ramey is driving a bloated 87 is that 84's are drawing over a hundred grand at Barrett-Jackson. That's the reason I'm driving a horrible handling C6 Z06..I can't afford a C4.

All other high-performance cars today are lighter than they were in 1984...

Interesting analysis. Why 2 guys keep insulting and misunderstanding you is beyond understanding. I think the problem is, you are being interpreted as saying the C4 is BETTER than the C7 (which in no way will it be) while you are in fact, to anyone with better than 1st grade reading comprehension skills, lamenting that for all the obviously much lighter components, the C7 is still as heavy or heavier. I share your lament even if the reasons were hard for GM to overcome.

I cannot accept being happy about all the extra weight on other "stuff", even if some of it really does add to the driving/ownership experience. What would be informative would be for the GM engineers or the automotive press to actually break all this out for us -- what's down (which we got in great detail) and what's up (which is conspicuous by its absense in the intro). Then this thread would sound more like a valid debate and less like a schooyard argument.

Now Torch Z is infected with selective vision. It's disingenuous to pretend to be naive and label every pound added since C4 as junk / fat / filler / luxury. Anyone who truly believes it's all junk / fat / filler / luxury is stunningly ignorant.

Rocket science this isn't. One more time: performance improvement, which is desirable, plus safety improvement, which is federally mandated so whether you think it's desirable is moot. Size is part of those performance and safety improvements. That's where the mass is. C4 could not legally be sold today. Stop using C4 as a baseline and only subtracting weight for aluminum engine block & lighter starter etc and acting like that's a realistic expectation for C7. It's not and either you damn well know it or you're clueless. You don't like how fat sports cars have gotten? Write your Congressman and tell them to rein in NHTSA. Ask them to slap the EPA around while you're at it.

.Jinx

i will go in one more time with this: air bags have never been more than 25 lbs total on any other car i have taken them out of. usually under 16. the frame and body, which contain almost ALL OTHER crashworthiness standards and protections, are LIGHTER on the new car than the old. there are some interior requirements for dash protection, which have never in any other car been more than 20 pounds. the emissions systems in a new car are LIGHTER. no egr. no air pump. no triple cats. no extra injector. etc. etc. etc.

modern 5 mph bumpers are LIGHTER than the chrome ones on the c1-3, and probably the same as the c4 (i don't even think that standard has changed).

there appears to be very little required or functional weight in the bs you are talking about.

the simple reality appears to be that an early car has less than 400 pound of wiring and comfort weight, while the c7 appears to have more than 900.

the question of most people around here is, why is that appropriate for a sports car? that is why there are at least 5 threads with people bitching about the weight.

hell, even the wiring is a questionmark. the c6 started to have mutliple circuits using the same wires! this is absolutely godawful for a long term reliable, modifiable, or repairable car, but is supposed to save weight.... i assume the c7 is even worse than the c6 in this regard.

this car should not weigh 3000, much less 3300.

And the main safety item, THE FRAME, is lighter. So I would like to know where all the rest is coming from.

:iagree: 100% right on. C7 was designed by the government. EPA and the NHTSA regs dictated that the engine be designed with DI and AFM, resulting in a heavier engine and torque tube. The 7th gear added to the transmission was because of the EPA, and also added additional weight.

DI can't be more than 10 pounds... i think i even saw a quote on that, and that number is baked into my example before. AFM is software, as i understand it. variable cam timing is less than 5. if the torque tube is now steel and was not before, that could be as much as 15 or 20.

we are looking for the other 865 lbs.