[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

Like the trunk, back seat, console, cup holders...if you ask me they made it more of a 1 trick pony, and less of a reason to sell "lesser" levels

Ahhhh - if you mean its not as practical as a daily driver then I can concede that point. However, this being an enthusiast forum would have me think that all of those "fluff" items are of little concern. At least thats my opinion. My toy and/or weekend cars were always missing some feature or had quirkiness when it came to creature comforts. But thats not what I bought them for.

I get what you're saying, I do. I still say the wider range of engines and other configs were a great call by Chevy.

[redcoats1976]

yep.a lot of people dont need to feed the V8.and the people i know that have them are not claiming huge mileage i normal use...

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

However wasn't everything a dog back then? I feel like the V6 was always being compared to the V8, and not other performance cars in its own price range. Is that a fair assessment? I dunno, and I'm not bothered to research it.

In the Gen1, the base engine was an inline 6 (not V6), and it was pretty awful and also probably just as heavy as a SBC. The top-dog models actually came with big blocks and there was a much wider gap between the slowest and fastest Camaros. That inline 6 carried over into the Gen2 and got equally worse as the top engines during the awful 70s. We're talking about quarter mile times that were more than 20 seconds - I'm not being funny, this is a literal fact. Then the Gen3 cars had an "Iron Duke" 4-cylinder for some time, which was also pretty bad. The 60-degree V6 that came along sometime in there wasn't that bad. And by then the gap to the best V8 (L98) had closed somewhat: that V6 was really small and light and it had a good torque curve. My girlfriend at the time had one, and it was not a bad driver at all. But before that, the base cars had godawful powertrains and that is no doubt where some of this attitude comes from.

Anyone who describes the 2.0T (in this thread) or the 3.6 V6 as "anemic" simply has no idea what they're talking about. My first car was a 75 Trans Am with a 400 and lots of mods. It ran 13.9 @ 100mph with the headers open, and that was a damn good time for the mid-80s. A new stock Mustang GT in those days ran low 14s at around 96mph, and a 350 IROC in 87 (automatic only, btw) would flirt with the 13s at maybe 100mph on a really good day. Those were the best pony cars on offer. Now the slowest, base pony cars are that fast. An LT1-engined Camaro today is way, way faster than a Ferrari Testarossa, for pete's sake, and it's not even the fastest Camaro in the lineup! People need to get a little perspective.

[FarmerFran]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I get what you're saying, I do. I still say the wider range of engines and other configs were a great call by Chevy.

I think it was also. I am not against 4t or 6v at all. I just wish GM would have done it like Ford and did the line up v6, 4t, v8. And gave the 4t some upgrade options. The Ford with a Ford performance intakr and tune the 4t is at 350hp/400tq on the motor. If you have it Ford installed, about $750 complete you kept the wattanty. 4t 1LE with 350/400 would be a blast.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Msquared

Anyone who describes the 2.0T (in this thread) or the 3.6 V6 as "anemic" simply has no idea what they're talking about. My first car was a 75 Trans Am with a 400 and lots of mods. It ran 13.9 @ 100mph with the headers open, and that was a damn good time for the mid-80s. A new stock Mustang GT in those days ran low 14s at around 96mph, and a 350 IROC in 87 (automatic only, btw) would flirt with the 13s at maybe 100mph on a really good day. Those were the best pony cars on offer. Now the slowest, base pony cars are that fast. An LT1-engined Camaro today is way, way faster than a Ferrari Testarossa, for pete's sake, and it's not even the fastest Camaro in the lineup! People need to get a little perspective.

Agreed. Its as if some folks are missing the time lapse and how tech changes. Our RAV4 will keep up with many "muscle cars" of the 60's, LOL. So what? Its invalid and doesnt matter. Totally out of context.

Perspective is sorely missing here. I still think the disdain/hate is based on a classic cro-magnon "mines bigger than yours" thing. I'd think we'd moved past that in 2021 but perhaps not.

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

I think it was also. I am not against 4t or 6v at all. I just wish GM would have done it like Ford and did the line up v6, 4t, v8. And gave the 4t some upgrade options. The Ford with a Ford performance intakr and tune the 4t is at 350hp/400tq on the motor. If you have it Ford installed, about $750 complete you kept the wattanty. 4t 1LE with 350/400 would be a blast.

Yes -no question Ford got it right with the eco-boost and factory tuning. Smart move. It adds to the desirability of their 4-pot engine for sure.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Agreed. Its as if some folks are missing the time lapse and how tech changes. Our RAV4 will keep up with many "muscle cars" of the 60's, LOL. So what? Its invalid and doesnt matter. Totally out of context.



Perspective is sorely missing here. I still think the disdain/hate is based on a classic cro-magnon "mines bigger than yours" thing. I'd think we'd moved past that in 2021 but perhaps not.



Yes -no question Ford got it right with the eco-boost and factory tuning. Smart move. It adds to the desirability of their 4-pot engine for sure.

Actually, 60's V8 are pretty powerful. Some of them can do 300~400 BHP at that point(even if you consider the measurement method). You are thinking of the Malaise Era V8 that has barely 200 BHP.

I have read that GM wants to make it more straightforward for the customers to understand the engine tiers. 4<6<8. Ford really wants to push their Ecoboost nowadays so that's why they made it a tier higher than the V6.

[M0dnar]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

How do people say 'the Camaro should only have a V8!!!!!' when it's always had a non-V8 option since the beginning. Alternative engines are just as much the car's heritage as the V8.

If you're gonna compare a Miata or V6 Camary to a Turbo 4 Camaro, and say the Turbo 4 is insignificantly faster, then you can also say the same about the V8 Camaro versus Dodge Charger Scat Pack. Why buy a cramped, impractical, V8 Camaro when it's marginally faster than a Charger Scat Pack?

You're comparing 1960s/1970s vs today. We build platforms nowadays for specific use cases. You want a bowtie v6? Get a Malibu. That's not the modern day purpose of the Camaro. I've owned a gen 5 V6. Spent $25k on performance mods so I can beat a SS around a road course. Complete waste of money and I could've bought a ZL1 for what I ended up spending.

As for Camaro vs Charger (any trim), once again these cars are built for completely different purposes. Even a non-1LE car is a good road coarse car. The Charger/Challengers go in a straight line fast. The minute you ask them to turn, you better also hope the track provides good runoff.

If you just want to buy a Camaro to look cool... well you're no different than the lifted truck crowd that uses their bed to haul 30 lbs of groceries 1x a month.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by M0dnar

You want a bowtie v6? Get a Malibu. That's not the modern day purpose of the Camaro.

It's not YOUR modern purpose of the Camaro. There are plenty of people that are happy to have a Camaro because it's a Camaro, regardless of trim or engine / performance.

There's a reason there are more xLT trims on dealer lots compared to LT1/SS/ZL1 - it's because they sell more of those trims, with the smaller engines.

[M0dnar]

There's also a reason the Ford F-150 is the most sold truck in America when only 0.005% of them see actual use as a truck so... posers gonna pose and I'm gonna be a judgmental asshole when I come across them.

More importantly, OP asked about using the Camaro as a GT car. The T4/V6 is objectively a trash platform to use as a GT car.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

Actually, 60's V8 are pretty powerful. Some of them can do 300~400 BHP at that point(even if you consider the measurement method). You are thinking of the Malaise Era V8 that has barely 200 BHP.

Not really. Pony cars were available in the late 60s and through about 1971 with powerful, big block engines. Almost none were bought that way. The vast, vast majority were equipped with small blocks and were at best no faster than the base Camaros today. For example, even a 1969 Z28 onl ran a 14.8 at roughly 95mph and it had a top speed of 135mph...and it was faster than the regular 350 Camaros. Even the 396 big-block Camaro only ran mid 14s at 98mph. IOW, today's 2.0T was faster than all but the super-exclusive 427 Camaros, of which very few were sold (about 100 total). But the base 69 Camaro with the L6 engine was a complete dog, so the performance gap was still a lot wider back then.

Originally Posted by MOdnar

You want a bowtie v6? Get a Malibu...The T4/V6 is objectively a trash platform to use as a GT car.

You're an exceptionally thoughtful and well-spoken individual and your input here is highly valued. Please continue demonstrating your wisdom.

[JKSully]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Its no longer just a V8 thumper for knuckle-draggers with a lot of back hair. .

Hey now...I love my new V8 thumper, but I have no back hair, and since I worked on my posture my knuckles hardly ever scrape the ground!

[Aquarius]

Wow, still triggering people with my anemic comment. 2 things: first, my anemic comment was comparing the 4 cyl. turbo to the other 2 engine options (3 if you wanna include the ZL1). I did not specify that, but assumed people would infer that seeing as the original question was asking about the 4 cyl. or the V6.

Second, seeing how people want to take the comment and apply it more broadly: you can often tell how sporty a car is based on horsepower to weight ratios. The 275 horsepower the 4cyl. turbo offers is better than average, but the Camaro is not a compact car, so its 3340lbs. is not very light. Many sporty cars that have 275 horsepower are much lighter, and can do more with that horsepower.

Is the Camaro a Corolla or Sentra? Defiantly not. but its 12 pounds of weight per horsepower does not do it justice. It's priced to be an entry level vehicle and its $27,700 (1LS model) price tag puts it in a group of other entry level vehicles that perform similarly. I go back to my original comment: the 4 cyl. turbo's horsepower is anemic for a current Camaro.

[Malbjey]

Originally Posted by M0dnar

You want a bowtie v6? Get a Malibu.

As for Camaro vs Charger (any trim), once again these cars are built for completely different purposes.

How can someone contradict themselves so quickly.



That's the reason I brought up the V8 Camaro versus Charger Scat Pack. The V8 Camaro is the better road course car between the two, just like a V6 Camaro is a better road course car versus a V6 Malibu.



So if you're gonna tell prospective Camaro V6 buyer to buy a Malibu, then why didn't you buy a Charger?



A lot of people on this site will say the V6 Camaro is marginally faster than a V6 sedan, so just buy the sedan and don't be a 'poser.' As if straight line speed is literally the only thing that matters. Never mind if someone wants an affordable RWD car that's more practical than a Miata/BRZ. Or wants something that will be more fun on back roads or autocross versus a Camry.

[Aquarius]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

A lot of people on this site will say the V6 Camaro is marginally faster than a V6 sedan, so just buy the sedan and don't be a 'poser.' As if straight line speed is literally the only thing that matters. Never mind if someone wants an affordable RWD car that's more practical than a Miata/BRZ. Or wants something that will be more fun on back roads or autocross versus a Camry.

Basically, no one gets a Camaro as an economical choice of transportation, and that is a given, especially if you are getting it with options available on other models. So, people who want the Camaro for such specific things usually don't come onto an internet forum and ask such general questions. Those kinds of people have done their research and know what they want and the advantages/disadvantages that come with what they want.