Team Camaro Tech banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,113 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
All the "what does a camaro weigh" posts made me decide to post this. Yesterday I spent a couple hours messing around with the scales and my Camaro, because I was curious and also I'm going to be getting new springs and wanted a baseline to work with.
I weighed it with and without me, with and without preload on my cal tracs and tried different settings to see what I could do with them from a scale perspective.
The car: 1968 rs, 100% of the rs equipment intact, power steering, power brakes, full interior. The car itself I have made no attempt to lighten, the only aftermarket lightweight piece is my bolt on 2" fiberglass cowl hood. It has sub connectors and caltracs. The motor is a 400, aluminum heads, intake, waterpump, and a mini starter,thats it, similar to a lot of Camaros out there I think.
These are the wieghts I found:

W/o me in it and no preload in bars-

LF- 917 RF- 908
LR- 675 RR- 649
total- 3149

cross- 1583- 50.2%
left- 1733- 50.5%
rear- 1324- 42%
total- 3149

Then I messed around with my bars at different settings for my records, and to see where I sat from the last trip to the track.
After that, I decided to try one test out of curiousity, move the battery from the stock location to the trunk (battery only for info purposes).

New weights:

LF- 883 RF- 885
LR- 704 RR- 674
total-3149

cross- 1589- 50.5%
left- 1587- 50.4%
rear- 1378- 43.8%

I was kind of surprised by the changes from moving the battery, I though it would be more of a % change front to rear, basically I gained less than 2% improvement in my front/ rear distribution, certainly a lot if you are looking for every ounce of distribution equality, but now I'm thinking I doubt the real world gain in a street strip car. I think I'll leave my battery as is for now.
Anyway, thought I'd share. I love scaling a car, it really makes you appreciate what a change in one corner does to the other. Scaling my car was just kind of for fun, but on our drag car it made all the difference in the world, scales are a must with coil overs and especially a 4 link.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,758 Posts
Interesting weights. Its not the weight of the battery, but the transfer of momentum it creates upon acceleration.

Moving the battery closer/further away from the rear axle assists in traction depending upon the track surface.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,113 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I know Everett, no doubt there is something to be had by moving the battery, but with a car that dead hooks as is, and is more street than strip, I kind of doubt the advantages are worth the trouble. I think I'll leave mine be untill traction becomes an issue.
2% is a fair amount in reality, but not worth the effort I'm thinking, for now.
The scales kind of show the old springs are worn out too, I think.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,758 Posts
Agreed, moving won't improve anything, for the moment, er, time being.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,246 Posts
What were the weights with you in the car? It seems to me that this would be the defining setup, as I suspect you are in there most every time it runs.
I would say that the 1.8% change in f/r bias is quite a change. How much does your battery weigh?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,341 Posts
I always figured my early '67SS/RS, 4-speed car would weight about 3050 to 3075 pounds or so but I've NEVER scaled it to see.

I do know that it was funny the night my Buddy got to see my car w/ him owning a Miata and he said that he had forgotten just how small a first Gen. car really is..

pdq67
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,113 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
What were the weights with you in the car? It seems to me that this would be the defining setup, as I suspect you are in there most every time it runs.
I would say that the 1.8% change in f/r bias is quite a change. How much does your battery weigh?
Well I didn't figure anyone would care about weight with me in it, because my weight is probably different from the next guy, plus it's not like a revolutionary set up or something, just informational on a basically stock chassis 38 year old car.
Heres the weights I ended up leaving it at after messing with it a bit, about the same as what it was when I raced last, but a slight bit more preload on both sides.

LF-974 RF-940

LR-759 RR-660

Tot-3330

cross- 1696- 50.9%
left- 1735- 52%
rear- 1418- 42.5%

This was zero preload, me in the car;

LF-989 RF-924

LR-747 RR-670

Tot-3330

cross- 1571- 50.1%
left- 1733- 52%
rear- 1417- 42.5%

I would like to be able to adjust it more, but it's not as if it was a 4 link/ coil over chassis. I adjusted the bars a bit to see how the attitude changed, and ended up putting a scoche more on my RR.
The change with me and the batt moved reflected about the same % change, give or take a .1 .
Yes, I agree 1.8% is substantial, in something that will realize the gain. My car dead hooks everytime, and it's not a road course car, so I doubt I would (at the present time) see any real change. It's not as though I'm removing mass, just relocating it.
I didn't weigh the battery (this was purely a "Hmmm, I wonder" test), but I would guess 40-50 pounds, maybe less, by looking at the corner weights.
This test also shows to me the need for new springs, the weights are kind of off and responded funny somewhat, definately not like setting up the drag car with coil overs and a 4 link.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,113 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I always figured my early '67SS/RS, 4-speed car would weight about 3050 to 3075 pounds or so but I've NEVER scaled it to see.

I do know that it was funny the night my Buddy got to see my car w/ him owning a Miata and he said that he had forgotten just how small a first Gen. car really is..

pdq67
I could maybe see your car being lighter if it had less power options, and I think mine being an automatic adds some weight, but not much. It was probably heavier than you thought.
The 1st gens are small, but my 89 mustang is actually quite a bit smaller than my Camaro (but about 200lbs heavier, it's a ragtop) but it's funny how you don't notice stuff like that untill you have something to compare it to.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,341 Posts
Yes, those late '80's to mid '90's 5.0, LX- Pony-car jobber's are LIGHT!!!!

The CHEAP one's.................. I want to say 2700 to 2800 pounds!

I got to ride in an early, cheap/small, hopped up 5.0 one time w/ a 250hp NOS on it and you talk about a hoot from 3500 rpm on up!!

pdq67
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,113 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Actually I think the notchbacks (like the 5.0 police cars and such) are about 2900, which is still real light. Unfortunately mine weighs about 3350 because it's a GT ragtop with all the extras, still not terribly heavy though.
Those notchbacks (probably like the one you describe) were fast little cars, I saw quite a few back in the day running well into the 12's with just tuning, no motor work at all. I knew a guy locally that went 11's with a stock one and a mild vortech supercharger, thats 100% stock internals. People don't realize these cars were ahead of all others at the time, factory roller cams in '85, and forged pistons in I believe '87 to '93 (or so), when they went to hypereutectic. You could REALLY lean on them without fear of hurting the motor.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top