Quote: Originally Posted by tsfso59 In the process of a 1982 Z-28 race car only. I contacted a reputable chassis builder about weight in a 3rd. Gen and this is what he had to say, and I quote: The lightest Camaro we ever built for SS/GT was a small block car. It weighed 2625 wet and ready to run. Most are in the 2650/2675 range. It takes a lot of work to get them that light. NHRA Super Stock class is basically a back half only type of class. All the stock interior and street equipment still has to be in the car. The motor and transmission has to be stock type and equipped for the year of manufacturer. No fiberglass or lexan, unless origionally equipped. With a motor change and clear title, these cars can be driven on the street again..I've seen it Yeah getting old SS cars back onto the street because they aren't as competitive or because the owner wanted to move up to the next new body style seems to be part of the roots of what prostreet is all about.

tubular A-Arms would shave a decent amount of weight off

Our street stock (1984 SC) scaled at a trim 2650# wet with no driver.

http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/fa...ro-street.html (3rd Gen Camaro Street Stock Build)

I didnt see anyone mention the fact that if you use a early 3 speed auto (th200c)
in your car you can save alot of weight. The th200c only weighs 1 lb less than an aluminum powerglide (96lbs) , also lower rotating mass than a th350/700r4 (700r4 weighs in a 140lbs)

check this thread out...

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/tra...ag-racing.html

I weighed my doors last night and those tanks weigh 96 pounds a piece...that is a ton of weight. I now the street guys need to have all the protection they can get, but I'm not one of them. My 82' is a race only car. Not wanting to spend $620 on a set of fiberglass doors, I am in the process of trimming as much weight as I can off these tanks...one door is almost done and I bet they will be 50 pounds lighter...each door....

"I'de say the doors weigh 90 pounds each, they're ridiculously heavy!"
this was a direct quote I made a while back, I was told they weigh "65 pounds" I'm glad my weight lifting judgement hasn't failed me over time LOL.

i know this tread is old, but good weight reduction on the front end could come out of a tubular k member, tubular control arms. tube torque arm as well, and even a crossmember.

a-arms are not that heavy stock, and tubular ones aren't meant to be lighter.
just cleaner.
unless you switch to a coil-over setup you wont save much weight with arms alone
if you do arms with no spring perches, k-member with no spring perches, and get coil-overs you could save a good amount of weight

This is very true, I put a full tubular front end under my car and didn't shed much weight. Most of the weight to be saved form this setup is in a coilover/rack setup and you give up ALOT with the swap.

what did you give up?

Ride, turning radius, I now need to reinforce the strut towers, had to spend a fortune getting a newly designed setup put in because my old setup blew a strut mount into the hood, it's more hassle than it's worth trust me. I kept all my factory parts and have considered putting it back stock more than once. The worst part was when I picked up the factory K member and A arms with one hand and thought "wow that weighs about the same as the tubular stuff". The heaviest part was the steering box, I could've just threw a manual box in and called it a day. Hopefully if I keep the tubular stuff it'll pay off if I do a turbo setup.

Can you post a pic of your setup? I can't imagine how the ride and turning radius would be affected.

youre in a weight reduction thread, so im going to assume you did these mods for drag racing.

i run a spohn strut mount with my coilovers and my car actually rides better now that i have coilovers on the front. stock strut mounts are a big NO as they are rubber with hardly any reinforcement.
turning radius will suffer with a rack and pinion setup unless you use an aftermarket spindle or modify the factory one. i modified my factory spindle to work with a rack setup and it turns better than the s10 box ever did.

a tubular k member will save you a good bit of weight over the stocker. i dont remember exact weights, but i want to say all of the stock k member setup was close to 50 pounds and my PA unit was only 19. thats a ton of savings to me.

its post like the above that will turn people away from lightening a car.
there are downsides to everything, but if you are looking to remove weight and gain space, i dont see how you can go wrong.

My car is at "PA Racing" or what that used to be right now getting a Mustang rear end fabbed under it, I'll get pics of it when I get it back. I was offered the option of having my spindles lengthened to gain some turning radius but he was leary about doing it on a street driven car. Go ahead and lighten your car in this way if you want, if it's a drag car you'll love it, I don't mind it but I'm not going to kid you and tell you that this is a good general weight reduction mod, it is for the hardcore only.

I have read similiar stories regarding the coil overs. That is why I did not go that route. I went with the tubular K-member and a-arms to get clearance for my modified exhaust system. I'm sticking with the factory steering box and springs. If I lose 20 pounds or so in the process so much the better.

hardcore guy here, but its for sure streetable.
you want to cut the spindles, or buy a set of racecraft fabbed units.
lengthening them will make the issue worse.

I've been wanting to do one of these for awhile. There are a few more areas that you could use to lessen weight, but they are extreme and permanent modifications.

You could remove unnecessary bracketry up front, as well as 'windowing' the steel around the strut towers. This would require reinforcing the strut tower and a great deal of engineering and welding knowhow. I would NOT recommend this to someone who didn't know what they were doing and why, it's pretty extreme and can shave some weight, and can also junk a car and driver if you do a hackjob. Might be best to stick with less essential areas.

All plexi/Lexan. Expensive? Yes. But that hatch weighs a ton! So does the windshield.

LS engine or aluminum block.

Unnecessary steel in the back. You know, the piece in the wheelwell that just hangs behind the tire/wheel...would require a bead of weld put in it's place over the seam and some seamsealer and underbody coating to keep from rusting though. Bracing on the inside of the car not necessary for structural integrity (steel around speaker mounts, etc)

Remove the passenger door, cut off the skin and weld a brace/crashbar to the inside of the doorjamb. Then weld the skin in place. Extreme, but would save a ton of weight. You could do the driver's side too if you didn't mind being called Ricky Bobby.

What weight are you at now?

Props to you for your quest. Over the years, I personally given up on the thirdgen due to heavy weight and jumped ship to the Corvette family. I really enjoy seeing you guys with determination and vision with cool projects like this! Good luck!

I was talking with my fabricator after getting a 95 Mustang rear end fabbed under my car and he said one of the funniest things I've ever heard about Camaro's. He said "I wish I could put a Mustang floor pan in one of these" I asked "why what would the point be" he pointed to the floor pan and the angles and such and said "because these look like they were designed by space aliens".

On that note, my car is probably heavier than last year now due to the differential, but man was it worth it! It's so nice to not have to worry about breaking something at the track. If I get a chance to weigh it this spring I'll post up what I ended up with.

u got pics of the installed rear? howd u fab up the tq arm mount? i swapped in a ford 8.8 about 5 months ago outa a 95 crown vic. 28spline axles, rebuilt carbon fiber clutch pack posi, disk brakes, ARP cap studs, ford 3.55 gears, and a moser support girdle.

just wanna see how u pulled it off. the ford 8.8 is alittle heavier than the 10/9bolt. but not much. 8.8 weighs as much as a 12bolt i believe but less than a DANA and less than a 9".

I see you already found my other post My fabricator says these rears break about as often as the 9 bolts (meaning that beefed up they're just about as strong), they run quieter, they're lighter, and it was WAY easier to fab off of for a third gen. There was quite a bit of difference with the 9 bolt that came out of my car, I really should have taken pics side by side.

yes i did

your saying the ford 8.8 breaks as much as the 9bolt?

I think he meant 9"...

the 8.8 is standard equipment on an exploder, which weighs a ton more than a camaro, and is capable of off roading with big tires, so it will be a lot stronger than a 9 bolt, which is only slightly stronger than a 10 bolt.
a 9" on the other hand, is a different matter

Breaks about as much as the Ford 9, which isn't very often. He is a professional drag racer and fabricator, he goes through a lot of stuff.

I remember seeing someone was cast iron welding torque arm mounts to 8.8 Ford rears.

5.0 mustang guys all the way through late model mustangs, really like a rear suspensions kit made by Griggs racing. It basically adds a torque arm to a 8.8 and converts a mustang to a suspension like ours for handling and performance.

Here is a picture of one installed:


it comes from this article on the 2006 Vortech Mustang
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/fea..._gt/index.html

I always thought that people with some welding experience could build a torque arm for our cars that uses the locating like the Griggs at one end on an 8.8, and then mounts the other end to a trans cross member like some of the cooler racing torque arm made for our cars already.

You could finish it up by cutting the mustang brackets off of the tubes and welding ones like ours from a donor.

The benefit of doing this would be weight improvement over a 9". The weight of the torque arm is going to be there no matter the rear you choose. The parts for 8.8 Ford rears are prolific and cheap. An 8.8 is basically a copy of the GM 12 bolt, using some of the same bearing part numbers even.

As to its strength, I have seen 9 second mustangs on completely stock 8.8 rears, and low 8 second cars on 8.8's with spool/axle upgrades. There are 7 second cars in the NMRA still running 8.8's.

When I pulled my Currie 9" off of its pallet in 2001 we had to make space for in in our shop. We had to move several 8.8 rears that were for mustang projects we were already working on. The weight difference was incredible.

So people mentioned that the LT1 starter will work on a standard 305... is this true? No changing of the flywheel or anything? Wiring isnt an issue if thats all that is required. I also heard some v6 S10s had some factory mini starter that was stock. Anyone know anything about this?

Was the alumium water pump factory and any cars/trucks with a SBC? And whats this short or long water pump from the aftermarket? Which one do we need to work with the factory serpintine setup?

Ask for the starter from a 1998 S10 2wd 4.3, should be a mini starter (it's what I run on my car). A chevy full size with a 454 from the late 90's was also a mini starter according to one of my dirt track friends. We have the reverse rotation long shaft water pump stock on the serpentine cars. I've heard you can make the short style (like on the corvettes) work by using a pretty basic spacer, one of the members on here has that setup. The Vette pumps are pretty cheap and aluminum, I have one in the garage but have yet to swap it on for need of the spacer.

duplicate

Having internet trouble?

I didn't know 'vettes ever came with alum. pumps. A long time ago when I was searching for a cheap aluminum pump, I went to Napa and asked what the replacement 'vette pumps were made of (hoping it would be my cheap route to an aluminum pump), and I was assured they were iron.

speedwaymotors.com sells the spacers you need: http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Water-...ee-V6,607.html

I looked those spacers up on summits website but Id rather not spend another 35 dollars plus the cost of the pump if i can help it. im gonna try to make my own and compair the 2 side by side to get the distance required. Which I found out is almost exactly an 1inch. maybe a little less for the use of an extra gasket but not worried about that.

The water outlet hole is a bit smaller than the factory pump too but thats not a big deal.

The s10 starter is the offset bolt pattern not for my 305. The Lt1 starter looks like it will bolt right up but the drive gear is larger and has more teeth 11 vs 9 for the standard 305 starter. Anyone have any insight on this?

I'm rather certain the LT1 starter will work fine, may need shimmed to make it work right. If it doesn't, then check out the big block mid 90's chevy starter and see if it's the same as the LT1.

I have a stock Federal Mogul corvette water pump, and I promise it's aluminum. I was told it was the stock replacement and it says right on it reverse rotation but I don't know what year it's from.

The big block starter looked like a HUGE diesel truck starter. Im gonna try the lt1 starter once i get into the engine work