| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:27 pm Post subject: Weight |
|
|
I hope i dont get flamed for this, but is there any weight to save by cutting out the stock frame anywhere? I read posts where people drop a couple hundred by tubbing the rear but what about other areas? I was mainly thinking the front. Im sure it would violate some rules somewhere but i dont plan on doing anything but drift autocross or drag. I was hoping to tube the entire front and tie it in with framing to the rear subframe.
Or am i just thinking too big and should get a lighter car? _________________ E30
86 RS - 7.4L V8 SOLD
89 RS - 3.25L V6 REMOVED
89 RS - 5.7L LT1 SOLD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Drag guys run tube chassis cars all day.
If you're worried about getting weight off the front I hate to break it to you but I know of a big 700lb savings to be had.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know. Iron block heads and intake come in at 650 lbs dry. So mine weights 625. Lol. If i go with a small block im only saving 200 pounds unless i get something with aluminum heads. With my v6 and bare minimum interior it still was 2950. I was hoping to mainly cut chassis weight before i think about another engine swap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
QwkTrip 11sec Club

Joined: 17 Feb 2004 Posts: 3942 Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just make more HP. It's so easy with your engine.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
IROCDave Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2010 Posts: 957 Location: Snohomish WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I cant help it. I wouldnt touch anything on the sub frames with a BBC sitting between the tires. Alluminum heads, intake, water pump, smaller raidator, relocate battery etc would all be better options.
What Aaron was leading youn into is the weight difference between an all cast iron BBC and a late model LS2+. You would save about 300+ pounds and have the same power potential with the latter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I know, this is the last engine i play with before going to lsx. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IROCDave wrote: | | What Aaron was leading youn into is the weight difference between an all cast iron BBC and a late model LS2+. |
That wasn't specifically where I was going with that, but you are correct, Dave.
Bottom line is that we are dealing with a frame and suspension that was robbed from a fullsize car with no consideration given to weight.
If you wanted to go fast around corners you would be building a full tube-framed car, or an MX5 or E30. But where's the fun (and cost savings ) in that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5476
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fullsize? It's malibu/s10 stuff. The chevelle/malibu are mid-size cars.
And the 1st/2nd gens were nova, which was the "small" car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is the nova the best small vehicle with a V8 RWD? I kick myself for not picking up the Nova my friend had for sale. I love the camaro, don't like the weight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You want to autocross the Nova?
*Edit: So I take it back
| chevymad wrote: | | Fullsize? It's malibu/s10 stuff. |
All the GM front suspension stuff was based off of the B-body... from 1959. Except for the MacPherson and the fact that it's bolted up underneath the rails.
I understand why they never changed it. It's cheap and strong and it works. It's not light, it's not small, and so it's not an optimal setup for going fast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5476
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The full size cars impala's and such all had their steering behind the crossmember. not in front like the chevelle/malibu/nova.
Here's a pic of a 68.. notice the arm for the tie rod end behind the rotor. Also the front end uses radius arms forward of the lower control arm. By this time the chevelle was allready using the suspension we are used to.
And a pic of the lower control arm itself.
I just happen to have owned a 68 impala and chevelle.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blue89 Member

Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 3482 Location: Bellingham/Eugene
1986 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The malibu front looks way more enticing than the camaro. Sigh. Maybe the best i could do is a tubular k member and just accept the weight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jchaussee Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2010 Posts: 1318 Location: renton
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I guy on TGO redid his whole front end. I don't know how much wieght he loss though |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alright alright B, beat me up on the technicalities.
I stand by my basic argument though. They recycled antiquated technology into an alleged "sports" car to save money.
| blue89 wrote: | | tubular k member and just accept the weight. |
That's my basic plan! Except I'm not even running a tubular since this thing will be street-driven and I drive through Tacoma (pothole hell) frequently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alphius Peanut

Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 2429 Location: Grand Mound
1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Solution to too much weight: higher intake pressure.  _________________ 84 Camaro Z28 - LS1/T56
85 Silverado - Low and Slow |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5476
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Or a 502 boss hog. Not much more weight savings can go on there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those are truly the stupidest things ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Schultzy89GTA M.R.A. (11sec Club)

Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 4417 Location: Gresham, OR
1989 Pontiac GTA
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about an LS3 with ~500hp?
Dude riding it was about 6'5" and in his 60's.... loving life!
-Schultzy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For when a lifted diesel crewcab isn't enough to express your inadequacies?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Schultzy89GTA M.R.A. (11sec Club)

Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 4417 Location: Gresham, OR
1989 Pontiac GTA
|
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL... that is one small winkie there
-Schultzy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|