Oh, I'm sure that's the case, if the Camaro had a proprietary chassis with weight as one of its goals, it would undoubtedly be lighter. As we've seen with the BRZ/FRS (and supposedly will see with the coming Miata), new, more extensive use of lighter materials like aluminum and CFRP can keep weight from increasing (or supposedly in the case of the new Miata, decrease it), but these are small, low option cars with keeping weight down as a specific goal.

I have an old BMW (E30) with an iron-block I6 engine. It's slightly larger than a FRS, and from picking around an FRS in person, uses heavier/more substantial sheet metal than the Toyobaru. To me, from the surface, it feels like the FRS should weigh 2400 lbs. but it doesn't. It practically weighs as much as my BMW (2800 lbs.). There's some underlying reason for that.

My point was that for a given size and materials used, a modern platform for these three-quarter-to-full-sized cars is likely to be heavier than one from 10 or 20 years ago. As far as I know, cars like the 2/3/4 series and the Camaro aren't using a huge amount of lighter materials (aluminum/CFRP/etc.), so there weight shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

 

^This. One thing I don't think many have pointed out is that the 320hp is only 20 more than the 135/335/435. Not sure what the big deal is. The price point is nice... But wolf has it right, the overly assisted steering in the current generation is a downgrade w/r/to the E9x models.

 

Did we all miss it gets 32mpg?

I don't recall many cars in the 90's getting better then 25. 320hp, cool. 3500, hard to find lighter. BMW, less cool.

Look at what others are making. If you want to stay Honda/Toyota the options are bleak right now. It's a real shit show for what I want to replace my sedan with.

 

Crash ratings folks. That's what is driving the weight here. Cars from the 90's compared to now, huge improvements in crash results.

 

Yep I agree with both your posts completely, I was just adding a bit of info!

Good news for Camaro is that the 6th generation will be built on Alpha, so it should be closer to ATS weight.

 

My est 255HP at crank E36 M3 doesn't get over 22mpg mixed now that I have Dinan intake, tune, cat back, lower therostat temp to 80C from 88C and a huge radiator about 24mpg mixed before the cooling mods. I'm pretty sure it wont get over 27mpg on the highway if babied around the 65mpg without AC on(245/40/17 RE11A square though). It's a flying brick, but it's quick enough for this cat.

 

i like it. Might make it my next daily once their cheap after depreciation takes a hit in another 1-2 years.

Most cars are heavier these days. Most cars are also much safer, have much less wind noise, are more compliant over crappy roads, are more comfortable, & oh yeah FASTER. The M235i was faster/almost as fast as a e92 m3 & 1M. Thats amazing progress for a "regular" BMW. IMO it sounds like a freakn great Daily. All while getting 32 mpg? Sign me up.

 

Yeah I agree. If weight was the end all, people would be tripping over themselves to buy an elise. Light weight comes with a cost, and engineers today do a great job.

 

I don't think anyone is saying it's not an outstanding car. The hardcore BMW "enthusiast" guys over on BFC like to rail against the dilution of the "M" label and the fact that their cars are not as raw as they used to be.

Really, almost as fast as an E92 M3? I thought the E46 M3 would be a more apt comparison. But I could be wrong - could you please post a link?

 

Yeah I don't buy that. It's about the same speed as a 435i, which is by no means as fast, or faster than an E92 M3. Not even close.

If it were me I'd buy a pre-owned 335is instead. Same engine, better steering/handling and better exterior (IMO). I don't go for the blunt nose and high hood line look.

But thankfully I'm not in the market for an overweight coupe