Like I've said pages back, camaros is the apples to apples comparison, not the corvette and just changing everything as it relates to the size differences.
In all fairness that is incorrect. GM set out to save weight on the Corvette while making it a point "NOT" to use materials that would drive the price up. This is something I learned when we took the tour in Bowling Green last month. The car is not laden with expensive weight saving materials. In fact the most unusual material on the car was the use of balsa wood in the floor panels which is hardly an expensive material. The frame is still made of steel and the engine is aluminum as I recall. You won't find extensive use of carbon fiber and that sort of thing. This is how GM achieved super car performance in a car that costs 51 grand.
Sorry I was thinking C6.
Did they drop the balsa wood? I was under the impression that was still being used.
I thought it was balsa compressed between two sheets of something, etc etc. Could be the C6. The point being, Corvette is not a car that is laden with all sorts of exotic materials. It's pretty common stuff and they have just done a variety of things to save weight where they can. European cars by and large don't have to contend with that big heavy V8 up front and that alone saves them a lot of weight but it also means smaller high revving engines that don't have a long shelf life.
True, but what does it weigh as compared to the flat six in the 911 for instance? Or the 1.8 in the Lotus?
That was pretty much my point. The Mustang isn't that much heavier than the Vette so complaints about it being heavy just don't make sense to me. Not everything needs to be Miata light. I wouldn't buy a Mustang that was small and light like a Miata, that defeats the point.
I'm not real critical of the Porsche flat six motors. You have to give props to a 3 . something liter that cranks out that kind of power. But I hear they are very maintenance intensive and if you don't pour a lot of maintenance into it the motor will pretty much kill itself. Again, just word of mouth stuff, who knows if that's true. On the other hand I have seen 4.6 Mustangs with 160K on the clock that still pull hard and have never had much done other than changing the oil and spark plugs etc etc. The old 4.0 Mustangs, although only 200 hp, it was a motor that would last forever with minimal maintenance. I haven't heard anything bad about the new 3.7 motor. As far as I know its reliable. I worry about this new ecoboost engine. Anytime you're getting that kind of power out of that small an engine I just worry about long term reliability.
