[FarmerFran]

Personally i would get a LT1 but if you are set on 4 or 6, in the Camaro the 6.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Msquared

Guys, the V6 manual runs 1/4-mile times of about 13.8 at 103mph, and the 2.0T runs it at 14.0 at 100mph. The acceleration performance between the two is very close. And again, with the 2.0T you're a tune away from going much faster than the V6. This whole line of reasoning that the 2.0T is "anemic" is ridiculous.

The 2.0T did trap 100 mph in one test for C&D, but in two other separate tests for C&D and MT, the turbo 4 trapped ~97 mph. For the V6, I found 3 tests, one was 101 mph, but two were 103 mph. So, if you avg. them out:

Turbo 4 cyl.: 97.9 mph
V6: 102.3 mph

~4.4 mph faster in the 1/4 is about expected for the power difference and would be noticeable.

From a roll the V6 is noticeably quicker than the 4 cyl. as well:

60-130 mph times (both manuals):
4 cyl: 24.9 sec
V6: 19.4 sec

While the 4 cyl isn't necessarily "anemic" compared to normal cars, the V6 accelerates 28% quicker from a roll. That's pretty significant.

Also, the V6 is only about 50-80 lbs heavier than the 4 cyl., depending on how it's optioned.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by PostalLDMC

The question I have with more 2022 Camaro convertible's hitting my area. What they have lots of 4 turbo's and GM have's a problem with 6 cyl. not getting made. Yes the 8 is great but I want more of a long distance tourer. I enjoy running back roads, seeing small towns and nature. So you see I don't need a 8, I did have a big turbo 4 in our Equinox, with over 200,000 miles, no problems. I also had a 2017 Colorado, 6 cyl. with over 165,000 with no problems before selling them both. But never owning a new Camaro. Would I be happy with a turbo 4 or wait till my 6 cyl. get built??? Also up here it's cold and snow time for 4 months, so I don't need a vert. right now..

For me if the V8 was out of the equation, it would be no question: V6 all the way. Consider:
Car and Driver V6 vs 4 cyl Camaro

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by koolkat68

I own a LT1, and when cruising down the road at 70, I get 30 mpg on the instant mpg checker.

Originally Posted by Msquared

I guarantee you that you aren't getting that mileage for real. The mileage displayed in on my M6 SS is 2-3mpg more optimistic than the real life consumption measured with the odometer and gas pump meters.

#facts #matt_miller_is_the_man

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

The 2.0T did trap 100 mph in one test for C&D, but in two other separate tests for C&D and MT, the turbo 4 trapped ~97 mph. For the V6, I found 3 tests, one was 101 mph, but two were 103 mph. So, if you avg. them out:

Turbo 4 cyl.: 97.9 mph
V6: 102.3 mph

~4.4 mph faster in the 1/4 is about expected for the power difference and would be noticeable.

Different magazines get markedly different quarter-mile results and on different days. But M/T's first test of the 2.0T Camaro also gave a result of 13.9s at 101mph. We're splitting hairs: the performance of the 2.0T and V6 Camaros are much more similar than they are different. Besides, you continue to ignore the fact that it's cheap and easy to make the 2.0T go faster than the V6, if that's actually important. In fact, it would cost much less than the difference in MSRP between the two engine packages.

It's a silly argument to be having, though: if your main criterion for spec'ing a Camaro is acceleration, then why would you fool with either of these drive trains?! The LT1 is not that much more expensive ($33k), and it runs a 12.2 at 115mph in the quarter. I'll leave out the ZL1 because it's in a different price league. But really, you're arguing a couple mph and a couple tenths, while the LT1 is in a whole different league for just a little more money.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

0-60 in the mid 5s range is not 'anemic' even by modern standards. Again, you guys have no basis in reality. The turbo 4 Camaro is one of the fastest cars in its price range. You could get one in the low 20K range pre-covid. The price per performance shits on most other cars.

The V6 Camry and Accord Sport, cars with similar 0 to 60 times, start at least 6K more MSRP. But realistically the price difference was even larger pre-covid.

And it's stupid to compare a Turbo 4 Camaro to a V8 Camaro. Why? Just because they both have the Camaro name? You're comparing cars with a huge price difference and completely different engines.

The V8 pony cars are exceptions in their price range. You're paying for big engines (and performance) with Fisher Price interiors. You're so caught up in that you don't know wtf is going on with other cars outside of your bubble.

This is what I dont get - 5.5 second 0-60 times isnt bad at all. The 2.0 turbo cars appear to be quite fun and enjoyable to drive. Isnt THAT part of this equation? The 2.0 Camaro is a great deal and easily worth the asking price.

Yes - the V8 Camaro is faster but you are right to point out that the price difference is quite tangible and believe it or not: Not everyone wants a V8 nor needs one to enjoy the car. Europe and Japan have been getting along quite nicely with smaller performance engines for decades now. GM does it and people get anrgry.

Fisher-Price Interiors = spit out my afternoon tea.

Look, the "Its not a V8" thing is always an issue here and elsewhere. Dont let it bother you. The overall performance of the car, economy, fun to drive ratio, initial cost, etc all come into play.

[FarmerFran]

Didnt Randy buy the Turbo4?

[serper3]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

Didnt Randy buy the Turbo4?

Yes. a 1le.

I think if it wasn't for the covid prices right now being crazy, i would be searching for a turbo 4 1le to daily. a few bolt ons/flex fuel, tune would be a blast. I can do ~20k for around 50k miles but when I have looked in the last few months the asking prices around me have been in the high 20s and of course they are few and far between.

On the power - its all relative and comes down to whether you prefer higher hp cars or no. i think as people get older there is usually less emphasis on hp, but maybe that is just my anecdotal observation.

personally for me, if i am in a camaro, i would not want to get left at a light by a minivan or like an f150 ecoboost but i realize some people dont care, all good

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Silent_H_

I can confirm this is true.



I think for reliability and personal preference on power delivery/sound the V6 wins. But I'm pretty sure the 4 has more torque.

As far as my understanding goes, the LTG (2.0T) in the Camaro is more tuned like a family car turbo engine and less like a sports car/hot hatch turbo engine. What this means is that the 2.0T doesn't really like to rev. If you are aiming for the best acceleration times in a stick, you actually need to shift way before the redline. I believe a review did some testing and found 6000~6200 RPM to be the optimal WOT shift points, which is well short of the 6800 RPM redline. Automatics will likely shift at around 6000 RPM in D, I would imagine.

Compare that to the Civic Type R engine. I have driven a friend's Civic Type R. While it is a turbocharged 2.0 engine, the characteristics are actually a bit reminiscent of the NA Honda engines outside of the turbo lag. Gotta rev it to get the power, which is part of the fun for a sports car/hot hatch.

So if I were to pick between the 2.0T and V6, I would also lean towards the V6, for the same reason you listed. The 2.0T is better for those who like to tune, though.

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Yes - the V8 Camaro is faster but you are right to point out that the price difference is quite tangible and believe it or not: Not everyone wants a V8 nor needs one to enjoy the car. Europe and Japan have been getting along quite nicely with smaller performance engines for decades now. GM does it and people get anrgry.

Fisher-Price Interiors = spit out my afternoon tea.

Look, the "Its not a V8" thing is always an issue here and elsewhere. Dont let it bother you. The overall performance of the car, economy, fun to drive ratio, initial cost, etc all come into play.

On the flip side, though, SS and ZL1 tend to retain their values better than their non-V8 counterparts, so that's also something to consider unless you plan to drive the car into the ground.

Also, I have heard two anecdotal accounts that tell me V6 uses about as much gas as V8, so the gas savings will be mostly from the cost difference between regular and premium gas. This has been repeated a lot here: the V8 has enough torque that it barely has to rev to get the car going, while the V6 has to rev higher to get the car moving. On the highway, the V8 can be pretty efficient for a 450+ BHP car, especially with the auto trans and cylinder deactivation (I know the V6 has it as well).

As for the gas mileage of 2.0T, well, with most turbocharged gasoline engines, you have to be aware of the Eco/Boost effect. If you want to get good gas mileage, you have to stay off the boost, which isn't fun. If you use the boost, the engine will have to inject extra fuel to prevent knocking, and your gas mileage goes out of the window. I know a guy with an EcoBoost Mustang that gets like 17 MPG around town while another guy with a Mustang GT gets 14.7 MPG around the same area. I also went to a track day where a BMW M2C was drinking about as much gas, if not more, than my Camaro SS 1LE.

The only manufacturer I am aware of that actually combats the Eco/Boost effect is Mazda, which has an EGR cooling system so your engine doesn't have to run rich with boost. That system costs extra and won't make the EPA rating look better, however. That's why most manufacturers don't bother.

[m6-lt1]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

This is what I dont get - 5.5 second 0-60 times isnt bad at all. The 2.0 turbo cars appear to be quite fun and enjoyable to drive. Isnt THAT part of this equation? The 2.0 Camaro is a great deal and easily worth the asking price.

When buying a sports car I'd personally like it to be above average horsepower/acceleration. The average econobox also runs 5.5 seconds 0-60 these days.Yes it won't turn as well as the turbo 4 Camaro but it will keep up on the highway. If I were the op I'd def opt for the V6.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

When buying a sports car I'd personally like it to be above average horsepower/acceleration. The average econobox also runs 5.5 seconds 0-60 these days.Yes it won't turn as well as the turbo 4 Camaro but it will keep up on the highway. If I were the op I'd def opt for the V6.

I know 2.0T Accord and V6 Camry can pull off that time, but I don't exactly consider those average, either. Only 5~15% of their buyers opt for the high-power engines, and mid-size sedan market is dying in general due to compact SUVs.

An average econobox is probably in the 7-second range, maybe high-6.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

When buying a sports car I'd personally like it to be above average horsepower/acceleration. The average econobox also runs 5.5 seconds 0-60 these days.Yes it won't turn as well as the turbo 4 Camaro but it will keep up on the highway. If I were the op I'd def opt for the V6.

The average econobox most definitely does not run a 5.5 0-60 time. That's ridiculous. But if you are looking for a Camaro that is faster than a V6 Accord or, say, a Golf GTI or Veloster N...the V6 Camaro isn't it.

[Silent_H_]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

Also, I have heard two anecdotal accounts that tell me V6 uses about as much gas as V8, so the gas savings will be mostly from the cost difference between regular and premium gas. This has been repeated a lot here: the V8 has enough torque that it barely has to rev to get the car going, while the V6 has to rev higher to get the car moving. On the highway, the V8 can be pretty efficient for a 450+ BHP car, especially with the auto trans and cylinder deactivation (I know the V6 has it as well).

I think you're right here. On the highway I get an indicated ~26 mpg in the V6. I'm pretty sure the V8s get very similar if not even better, but they do have the premium gas to deal with.

From my research, I don't think manual transmission V6s get the cylinder deactivation, so perhaps ones with that would do better than mine?

[M0dnar]

No, but if you're going to be driving around a Camaro, it should at least be more than insignificantly faster than a Mazda Miata. The minimum acceptable Camaro trim is the LT1. Save another year and save yourself the pain.

And Grand Tourer's are meant to be overpowered and smooth. Not a T4 whining at the limits or a garbage sounding V6. If anything, you want a LT1 with the NPP exhaust so you can set it to stealth mode. Lots of power throughout the powerband for lazy acceleration while remaining quiet and comfortable (somewhat true for a Camaro).