Rented 2015 Challenger Scat Pack RT

[MattIdaho]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

The nice thing about a rental is that, you can always give it back. You may also run across a car that you would consider buying one day!

thats how I ended you buying mine.. I had a Camaro SS as a rental on maui, and started looking for one to buy when I got home.

sound one in SLC

[thunderkyss]

To stay on topic, nice Challenger.

[Dizzy82]

Holy Batman! The V8 pride is obsurd.

[KR4545]

I don't know, whenever I hear "dodge RWD cars" I think of Al Bundy's dodge.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

I see that instead of looking at things from a logical perspective, you decided to find solidarity and take the emotional response. My post wasn't meant to be inflammatory, but rather simply explain why people react the way they react. And you reacted like someone who feels picked on would react instead of actually reading things purely for information purposes.

I love how you reduced my response to "emotional" while your response is clearly well sorted out, and backed only by "logic". Right. But I guess that's what us V6 owners do right? We are just emotional. /sarcasm

This is clearly an emotional response by the way nothing in it was thought out.

The V6 exists for two reasons:

1.) To lower the entry level pricing of the model, thereby yielding more buyers.

2.) To increase average fleet fuel economy.

The V6 model exists for those reasons, and several more. The Camaro is supposed to be a working man's sports car, and i4/V6 models give us buyers more options as lower cost, but yet sporty options. Again...as I said before...more options is what the buyers want. This V6 is going to be used across multiple models throughout the entire GM line....its not like its a useless specialty V6 that was designed solely for the Camaro. This makes us (the customers) happier.

You compare the V6 to the V8 because that's what people do when they purchase cars. When you bought your car, you chose a V6 over a V8. You did a comparison in your head. That's the entire point of options in vehicles - you choose what you want at added cost.

Right....so what's your point? I'm considering both the V6 and the V8 for my next go round. I can afford the V8.....easily. But I may not get one. I like that the V6 is available. (again, more options, as I said above and in my original post = win for the customer)

The I4 "compares" to the V8 because they are competing engines within the same model, and customers will "compare" the motors against one another before they purchase it. The I4 and V8 have clearly defined differences, as does the I4 vs V6 and V6 vs V8. The V6 largely makes the least logical sense.

The V8 is in a class of its own. It is the "top dog" and the traditional motor of a muscle car. It has the most potential from a performance standpoint, it will have the largest aftermarket by far and it is the only way to get that "traditional muscle car sound" that is so crucial to the Camaro's brand image. It does not need defining because it is what the Camaro is built around. The I4 and V6 options only exist due to pricing power, government regulations and fuel efficiency.

The I4 and V6 exist to keep Camaro in existence. Without them, you can kiss Camaro goodbye. Beyond that, we should be damn glad that the 5th gen, and especially the 6th gen I4 and V6 versions are going to be so good. The 4th gen V8 models sold well enough, but the base car didn't. Chevrolet needs to keep the car great on ALL levels.

You cannot compare an aftermarket boosted V6 logically versus a stock I4. The V6 is nearly "maxed out" from the factory in terms of potential. The I4 already makes more torque than the V6 stock, is cheaper in terms of sticker price and with very light modifications will exceed the V6 in terms of horsepower while sacrificing none of the reliability of the vehicle, and being more fuel efficient. You will be able to maintain your warranty on the I4 model, exceed the performance of the V6, exceed the fuel efficiency of the V6 and save money simultaneously.

The bolded statement above is VERY questionable. TQ is one thing, but pushing the stock 2.0 past the 350 - 360 HP the n/a V6 could make fairly easily is going to take a tune pushing big boost, along with bolt ons. I know plenty about boosted turbo 4s, and I've seen what tunes can do. TQ will skyrocket, but HP doesn't ....not like the torque. That would be adding around 80 HP which doesn't just happen with a tune and a few bolt ons, unless you are seriously boosting. Achieving 80 - 100 TQ isn't as difficult.

But on to your reliability statement...sacrifice NONE of the reliability? Are you sure about that statement? So tuning, bolting a turbo 4 is as safe as stock? Yeah....I doubt that. If you can say that, then I can say a full bolt on and tuned n/a V6 making 360+ HP is also as safe as stock.

Yes, you can "boost" the V6 through the aftermarket. Now, you just voided every single warranty on the vehicle, you have less fuel efficiency than the V8 if you went the supercharger route, vastly less reliability since the V6's driveline is a fraction of the V8's strength and you'll be at roughly bolt-on V8 performance levels. The I4 will have more potential than the V6 unless you spend so much money the I4 maxes out, which in that case you could've spent a fraction on the V8 for even more performance. The end result has the V6 being the most expensive motor to mod, and the least logical motor to mod. It requires too much of an investment.

Again...more on reliability. In the 6th gen, it has already been stated that the V6 and I4 will be basically the same car (aside from final drive ratio). The I4 drivetrain is not going to be beefed up over the V6, and essentially, they will weigh close to each other (the LGX V6 lost weight compared to the current LFX). So you can't sit there and bark about the reliability of a V6 with forced induction, yet in your above paragraph say that the I4 will lose NO reliability when boosted. These V6s are not prone to popping when boosted to around 500HP and less. The crank is forged. Nobody except one V6 owner has popped a transmission either, and that TTV6 was making 700HP.....anyways...getting into the weeds a bit.

By the way, there are just now successfully cammed n/a V6s popping up, making 320+rwhp. So don't think for a second you can't get nice power out of an n/a V6.

Ford had the better plan, here. The V6 should've been the base model.

Ford had the better plan? Laughable at best. They neutered the V6 by not offering options that the I4 gets. They could have sold the V6 with more options, therefore making more money on the sale, and also making their customers happy. The 2011 V6 with PP option ran just as fast as the stock 2015 Ecoboost runs, but for the 2015 model you can't add that to the V6. Better plan you say? More like a knife to the V6 throat. Its only the better plan in your opinion, but from a business plan, and from a customer perspective, its a bad plan in my book. If they were going to neuter the V6, they should have just not had it at all, and instead offered a bare bones I4 in its place, since you can't get the I4 without extra options.

That's your opinion. Most on this site will say 335 HP is not nearly enough.

...and that's your opinion. HP/weight ratio on a stock 2015 SS auto is 9.7. Add only 15 - 20 HP to that 335HP V6 in a 3,450 car and the HP to weight ratio is EXACTLY the same.


My V8 gets 25 mpg on the highway. I just drove from PA to NC and back. It is quite efficient. That extra 5mpg, assuming a 200 mile weekly commute, yields an extra 1.33 gallons of gas used. We are talking less than a $5/week difference.

This discussion is about why the V6 is relevant, versus it not being relevant....why bring up information about MPG in your V8? The V6 and I4 are going to beat it hands down in efficiency when driven exactly the same. So lets talk about those two. We all know the I4 will drink the gas as much or more so than an n/a V6 when pushed. Go light on the go pedal, and then you can do a bit better in an I4. Your statement here only seems to argue that MPG for both the I4 and V6 is not much better. The 5th gen is a heavy car....an I4 in the 5th gen wouldn't have been much if any better than the V6 b/c of the boost it would need to get into to get the car moving.

Yes. Because the V6 drives up the cost of the vehicle for everyone. Having more chassis options means additional costs that GM must pass onto the consumer. Because the V6 in the 6th gen does such a terrible job at bridging the gap between the I4 and V8, it is just forcing GM to have an entirely different driveline setup to accommodate. That raises the prices for everyone. And I understand why GM is doing it. A forced induction I4 is unprecedented on a "muscle car," so GM is clearly going to see how it does. But since the I4 is already better than the V6 option in terms of performance potential, fuel economy and initial cost, if it sells well, it would make great economical sense to phase out the V6 in its entirety.

As I said above, the V6 and I4 will be pretty much the same car. Al O said so himself. Extra cost....not that much. He said the two cars weigh nearly exactly the same. So if they are that close...what do you think is the only difference? Engines.

You're choosing to get upset because of some loyalty you have to your current vehicle. If you actually sit back and crunch the numbers, you'll realize that as long as the I4 sells well, the V6 serves no good purpose. All it does is drag up the cost for everyone.

There you go, saying my response is purely emotional, when it clearly is not. Do I have some attachment to my current car? You damn straight, but I'm not blind, and I certainly don't think the V6 is superior to the I4 in every way, but I see good merit for it. I see how it can help the Camaro as a brand. You obviously feel quite the opposite.

Because the Camaro is historically powered by a V8. Removing the V8 damages the brand. Removing the V6 does nothing to the brand's reputation.

Why don't we come back to this discussion again in the future when the V8 becomes less and less of an attainable option and forced induction is more the norm shall we?

But in the meantime...answer me this. Why has the Ford Ecoboost F150 sold so damn well, in a segment where power and torque are so important? Years ago, we would have all said that putting a turbo V6 in a truck instead of a V8 is just crazy talk.

Yet Ford did exactly what you feel is wrong (in this segment) and placed the boosted V6 OVER the V8 option.

Don't sit there and tell me you know it would irreversibly damage the Camaro brand if they put a badass turbo V6 in the car. You simply can't say that, and if so, I would argue that today's youth tends to look at boost as king, as opposed to displacement. A turbo V6 SS would do just fine in a generation 7 or 8 Camaro and you know it.

I want to see a grumbling V8 in the Camaro for as long as I live, but I know as long as the car stands for attainable high performance for the working man, the car will live on.



No, you're being emotional and not looking at things from a logical perspective. You're choosing to get offended on the internet.

OK bud....so there....how's that response for "logical".

I'm out. Have a good day.

[shrinkdoc]

Originally Posted by RJT Impala

Unplanned--but rented a 2015 Scat Pack RT this past week. Somewhat hesitant because we were driving from Salt Lake to Seattle and back and I was concerned about drivability and fuel costs; wife said--"Do it!" and we did. Turned out to be a great decision--turned the road trip into a fantastic run. Unfortunately, had to keep the speed in check: car was bright red and a magnet for attention; still had paper tags, no permanent license plate. Great road car, although the Camaro seems to have the edge; the Challenger seems to have more weight in the front, although I never pushed it anywhere close to the limits. The 6.4/392 hemi has a great sound, and tremendous power. Six-speed manual and clutch were extremely easy to work; used some of the time to teach my youngest daughter to drive a manual--she's 24 and vowed she never would; she picked it up immediately after 15 minutes in a parking lot. My wife said when we get ready to replace our 2014 Malibu 2.0 Turbo, the Challenger Scat Pack is a great candidate--much better sound and pizzazz and the highway mileage is almost equal to the Malibu; we averaged 25.9 mpg for the 2000 miles we put on the car, and 1700 or so was at 70-80 mph. Don't get me wrong--I wouldn't trade my Camaro V6 automatic for the Scat Pack, but I certainly enjoyed the experience.

How does your car stack up to this performance wise?

[shrinkdoc]

Hmmm...Caddy will get over 460hp and 440lbs tq. out of there 2016 3.6 v6 TT. Looks like the V6 has a lot more potential than an I4.
http://www.cadillac.com/future-vehicles.html

[Sandman1969]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

OK bud....so there....how's that response for "logical".

I'm out. Have a good day.

Great points!

I don't think they are trying to weed out the V6 at all. They are trying to bring in a different demographic and grow the brand. Smart business. I see all three of the engines fitting in nicely to fit many different needs. Some more so than other, but there I think there is room for 3.

Little skeptical on the 4 myself, as I am a little old school, but I know there are some badass turbo 4s out there and this will probably be no different.

[KaBoom1701]

The LFX engine is bad ass!

There...that's my logic.

[Bizaro]

I dont care about gas mileage or the planet!, also why did the previous generations get to enjoy all the nice gas guzzlers while we are being forced into these small shitty engines with FI? Doesn't seem right we have to pay for their wastefulness , GM needs to make a v10 already. Take my money.

[rudySS]

glad that you finally got to drive a real car v8 power!!

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Bizaro

I dont care about gas mileage or the planet!, also why did the previous generations get to enjoy all the nice gas guzzlers while we are being forced into these small shitty engines with FI? Doesn't seem right we have to pay for their wastefulness , GM needs to make a v10 already. Take my money.

I don't think that is the case. Even back then, they sold more six cylinder & small V8 versions of the Camaro than they did the performance oriented SSes & Z28s.

It's just that no one talked about them.

No one talked about them because they're wasn't much of an aftermarket for them. Today, entry level isn't just about getting into the Camaro, but also into racing & performance modification.

Back then, even into the 90s, if you wanted to step up in performance, you did an engine swap. Now... it's more cost effective to slap on a couple of turbos, or a super charger.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by KaBoom1701

V8 power in any form is awesome!

So is being able to rent anything with a manual transmission . . .


Norm

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

The nice thing about forced induction is that simple intake modifications tend to increase the boost. Also, you can bet there will be boost controllers available to up the boost without a tune. There will be ways to increase boost without tuning.

And the bad thing is that when you're off boost, you're (still) driving a heavy car with a small-displacement engine. Think responsiveness here, not ultimate power or peak torque. Sure, it'll pick up quite nicely, but you're still going to have to wait for it.

FWIW, the fuel mileage improvements claimed for smallish turbo motors tends to be almost virtual (i.e. imaginary). They get EPA mileage number by driving according to the EPA drive cycles, and can be programmed to stay out of boost most of that time. In the real world, most people don't drive that way, and there have been frequent complaints against Ford's Ecoboost V6 truck mpg's. In a performance car, don't you think that similar complaints are going to surface?

IMO, turbo-fours in 3500+ lb cars aren't much more than EPA mpg rule-beaters. And I kind of like 4's, at least when they're put in light enough cars (probably much lighter than what you're thinking of) where they don't need forced induction for sparkling performance.


Norm