[Frankie18SS]

Originally Posted by tthobe

Getting quite tired of the constant dig against the turbo vs V6. I specifically chose the turbo as a better DD, with more responsive low end for in-town driving. Also I quite like the turbo sounds (my preference). I'm not planning to track my car, and making use of the 5600-7000 rpm range regularly would put me into above legal speeds too easily. Rather have better low end grunt to deal with urban traffic.

I agree! When I bought my CTS, I opted for the I4 over the V6 for everything you listed. They are both great at what they do but the turbo 4 was a better fit for me.

[joe944]

I was really impressed with the 4 banger 1LE. Really held its own considering the deficit on power and the price for what you get.

[mlee]

...and the ZR1 too.

https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...tning-lap-2018

[ddanj]

I'm surprised the Turbo is just 1 second slower than the v6. Maybe difference in drivers, or conditions. Or maybe the performance gap is really that close

Good stuff either way. Great to have 3 engine and price point choices. The value in the Camaro is really good IMO.

[Nsxmatt]

Originally Posted by tthobe

Getting quite tired of the constant dig against the turbo vs V6. I specifically chose the turbo as a better DD, with more responsive low end for in-town driving. Also I quite like the turbo sounds (my preference). I'm not planning to track my car, and making use of the 5600-7000 rpm range regularly would put me into above legal speeds too easily. Rather have better low end grunt to deal with urban traffic.

Woah, it's not a dig against the 4. They simply preferred the V6 in the tests of the car in the situations they drove it in. If you like the car and what the 4 does for you then more power to you. I rented a turbo 4 for the week before I bought the V6. It's a great motor with excellent aftermarket support and it was a hard choice, but in the end I too picked the V6.

[Snrub]

If you look at past years results (take comparison with grain of salt), there is plenty of impressive machinery which is slower.

I'm surprised the discussion isn't more around the Mustang GT PP2 putting in a faster time than the SS 1LE. Motor Trend's "best driver's car" results at Laguna Seca were the opposite.

[Ace01]

Hell, it's not much slower than the SS 1LE, Does the turbo come with the short throw shifter and rev match?

[Ace01]

Originally Posted by samurai

According to the configurator the base prices are:
1LT (Turbo) 1LE - $30,995
3LT (V6) 1LE - $36,495

That is a hell of a deal! It's only a few secs slower than the SS 1LE? serious?

[Number 3]

All I see is that both the Honda Civic Type R and Subaru WRX STI beat the Turbo 1LE. Granted 1 class up in price, but these are the cars the Camaro should not be losing to. Also shows how good those 2 cars really are and why they have there own strong following.

[samurai]

Originally Posted by Number 3

All I see is that both the Honda Civic Type R and Subaru WRX STI beat the Turbo 1LE. Granted 1 class up in price, but these are the cars the Camaro should not be losing to. Also shows how good those 2 cars really are and why they have there own strong following.

Turbo 1LE $31k - 275hp
Civic Type R $35k - 306hp
WRX STI $37k - 310 hp

I think it's fair enough that the more expensive cars with more power can be a bit faster.


When you are searching for a performance hatchback they are great cars. I think it's pretty cool that Chevy now has something in the lineup for that audience too.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by samurai

Turbo 1LE $31k - 275hp
Civic Type R $35k - 306hp
WRX STI $37k - 310 hp

I think it's fair enough that the more expensive cars with more power can be a bit faster.


When you are searching for a performance hatchback they are great cars. I think it's pretty cool that Chevy now has something in the lineup for that audience too.

I don't disagree with you at all. Throw in the fact that the WRX is AWD.

But these two are the current benchmarks for the "hot hatch" segment. GM even stated that they were targeting those customers with the 1LE turbo. I'm honestly not sure GM can ever attract those customers with the Camaro, but not beating a FWD Honda is a bit of a let down.

[yankee]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I don't disagree with you at all. Throw in the fact that the WRX is AWD.

But these two are the current benchmarks for the "hot hatch" segment. GM even stated that they were targeting those customers with the 1LE turbo. I'm honestly not sure GM can ever attract those customers with the Camaro, but not beating a FWD Honda is a bit of a let down.

Because a 2.0, even with turbo, is yet too small. How much power can you really get? Chevy should’ve opted for at least a 2.3T for this refresh, instead of the ugly face. Then, a V6 would be obsolete (better only for sound).

Yes, I know the other two have a 2.0 too.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by samurai

Turbo 1LE $31k - 275hp
Civic Type R $35k - 306hp
WRX STI $37k - 310 hp

I think it's fair enough that the more expensive cars with more power can be a bit faster.


When you are searching for a performance hatchback they are great cars. I think it's pretty cool that Chevy now has something in the lineup for that audience too.

The benchmark scale could have just as easily been 30 - 40k and the Camaro still loses to both of those.

What is impressive is the ZR1 at the bottom of the scale taking out competitors almost twice the price.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by mlee

The benchmark scale could have just as easily been 30 - 40k and the Camaro still loses to both of those.

What is impressive is the ZR1 at the bottom of the scale taking out competitors almost twice the price.

THAT was impressive too. And very nearly an LL3 car. Base price is $121,000 so they went for the as tested price with the $3,000 track package.

Just makes me more interested in the Mid Engine car and it's capability. Hopefully on a whole new level. It smoked the GT by 5 seconds.