Turbo Mustang vs Turbo Camaro

[ytown87]

Originally Posted by jcampos

Technically, quiet a few people may agree with what I fixed whether they post or not. Also, quiet a few people may agree with what you put. Either way there are obviously quiet a few Camaro enthusiasts whom will never agree with GM's opinion and I foresee the new turbo-4 Camaros being a crash and burn much like their predecessors in the 70's - 80's. But who knows I may be wrong, a lot more people these days are relying on the fuel economy of small displacement engines...

So, yes, I will suck it up buttercup because I do not have a say in their final production nor do I car too. However, I do have an opinion and IMO I fixed the previous post for you, a turbo-4 Camaro should not be in that lineup. No need to thank me. I believe in what you are doing though, standing up for the turbo-4, it is cool and all...

100% on your side with this bud but theres no point to continue fighting with the type of person that calls people v6 haters that opted out for buying the bigger engine car as if that was the mistake we all feel we did. I avg 13mpg and not once in my entire time of owning my car have I wished I had my car with a smaller variant engine NEVER. Theres days I dislike having to drive my car as a daily bc of it but at max the most I've ever said was I wish I had a second car. My car is terrible in an economic sense and I love it. Even if I complain on my mpg's to other people who don't have something like this, they all always say "but its sure all worth it" and they are completely correct. I'm sure those words will never be said with the new 4 banger. Will just be another future full of threads where people doubt their decision.

"Is my 4cyl still a Camaro?"
"The 4cyl Camaro is still a muscle/pony car"
"Should I upgrade to a v6?"
"People make me feel small for not buying the bigger engine"
"My 4cyl is cool right?"
"Anyone who doesn't have 4cyl Camaro is a hater"

Butt hurt is going to be at an all time high soon.

[RAMTechRob]

Originally Posted by lkurek

And believe me, when I have had discussions with guys who own V6 cars about it, they flip it. Kind of a like a little man, or a guy not quite up to snuff with the ladies

.

Im picturing you with a mullet and a Budweiser hanging out at a park waiting for the high school to let out.
Lookit my Camaro, it's got a V8.

[JantzenOKC]

If you hate 4cyl and V6 Camaros then don't buy them. It really is that easy.

I love my V6. I'm ok with it not being called a muscle car. I've even been thinking about buying a 2016 2.0T Camaro to add to the pack.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by ytown87

100% on your side with this bud but theres no point to continue fighting with the type of person that calls people v6 haters that opted out for buying the bigger engine car as if that was the mistake we all feel we did. I avg 13mpg and not once in my entire time of owning my car have I wished I had my car with a smaller variant engine NEVER. Theres days I dislike having to drive my car as a daily bc of it but at max the most I've ever said was I wish I had a second car. My car is terrible in an economic sense and I love it. Even if I complain on my mpg's to other people who don't have something like this, they all always say "but its sure all worth it" and they are completely correct. I'm sure those words will never be said with the new 4 banger. Will just be another future full of threads where people doubt their decision.

"Is my 4cyl still a Camaro?"
"The 4cyl Camaro is still a muscle/pony car"
"Should I upgrade to a v6?"
"People make me feel small for not buying the bigger engine"
"My 4cyl is cool right?"
"Anyone who doesn't have 4cyl Camaro is a hater"

Butt hurt is going to be at an all time high soon.

I hope you feel better now...

[GretchenGotGrowl]

I'd own a turbo 4 Camaro or TTV6 Vette. Please just don't call either a muscle car just because it has a V8. , That cheapens the name of the true muscle cars of the 60s and early 70s.

Old guy outta here.

[djcolopi]

FCA is retiring the hemi v8's; so don't be surprised to see the srt models with twin turbo v6's under the hood.

I wonder what everyone will be saying then I also wonder what comes out the mouth of a person who believes a 10 second built v6 camaro is a watered down version.

Sorry but you can replace displacement with hybrid technology and forced induction.

Ford GT - 3.5L twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V6 - 600+hp
GT-R Nismo - 3.8L twin-turbocharge V6 - 600hp
Porsche 911 Turbo S - 3.8L twin-turbocharged flat 6 - 580hp
McLaren 675LT - 3.8L twin-turbocharged v8 - 666hp
McLaren P1 - 3.8L v8 727hp 177hp electric motor - 903hp

Idk but I think every single one of those engines have less cylinders or less displacement and they make more power than the big bad v8 camaro

[redcoats1976]

there were a ton of v-8 cars made,some even musclecars,that couldnt keep up with a new camaro in a straight line.ferinstance the original GTO.nice car in its time,drool worthy at car shows today,but ran high 14s in the quarter stock.sure,you could upgrade the goat with different tires,sway bars,and disc brakes,headers,etc. but you could also strap a turbo on a v-6 and be plenty fast too.as an old guy who has driven/owned a few musclecars in his time i think we should let the performance of the newer cars speak for themselves,and the performance is pretty good.sure,i miss my old pontiac when im sitting at a stoplight and the cars not shaking and burbling through the headers and duals but i bet my camaro would give it a good race.

[GossipSquirrelJelena]

Originally Posted by i2disturbedSS

I did not know the base Camaro was that much quicker then the ecoboost. 13.9 @ 101mph vs 14.5 @ 98mph. Is that a valid time for both?

I see no one answered your question. To busy defending their V6 or V8. Like that topic never gets old. But that is a horrible time for the EB mustang just comparing to other magazine times! The EB loses quite a bit of power. If they are not run on 93 octane. Motor Trend has been testing the EB with 87.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

To join the silly argument I missed two months ago...

The first Camaro ever produced was... wait for it... a 6 cylinder. A sporty little secretary's car. That was not fast. At all.

So those of you who are defending the Camaro's "muscle car heritage" are defending something that does not exist.

LOL.

And even the Camaros into which GM stuffed a big engine were not muscle cars. They were pony cars into which GM stuffed a big engine.

Oh... and every single actual muscle car from the 60's and 70's also came in a 6 cylinder version.

So there is that.

[Kenny Camaro]

Originally Posted by ytown87

. Whats next??? Putting the turbo v6 from the ATS-V into a Vette??

No, that's going into the gen7 SS Camaro.

[Kenny Camaro]

Originally Posted by redcoats1976

there were a ton of v-8 cars made,some even musclecars,that couldnt keep up with a new camaro in a straight line.ferinstance the original GTO.nice car in its time,drool worthy at car shows today,but ran high 14s in the quarter stock.

I think the 1965, 389 tri power ,with the higher rear end, I think it was the 4:10, I might be wrong, all stock options ran around 13.6. That's a difficult statement about 1/4 mile times, because of the multiple rearend options offered. Like the 69 GTO, the standered rear end was the 3:31,but you could get the 4:33, wich is over a full second faster in all the trim levels of GTO, standerd,Ram Air III, and Ram AirIV. So I've read different stock 69 GTO's 1/4 mile times, from 14.4 to 12.9. Are the accurate? I wasn't there when the made the pass, but I read it on he Internet, sooo.......

[mb13]

I just think drive what you like. I've seen nice lookin v6s and then I've seen dumb shit where v6ers put ss badges on there. Foolish stuff, with the badges. Drive what you like and enjoy it though, just don't be fake. I wouldn't mind having the turbo 2l Camaro as a daily driver over my Cruze.

[redcoats1976]

Originally Posted by Kenny Camaro

I think the 1965, 389 tri power ,with the higher rear end, I think it was the 4:10, I might be wrong, all stock options ran around 13.6. That's a difficult statement about 1/4 mile times, because of the multiple rearend options offered. Like the 69 GTO, the standered rear end was the 3:31,but you could get the 4:33, wich is over a full second faster in all the trim levels of GTO, standerd,Ram Air III, and Ram AirIV. So I've read different stock 69 GTO's 1/4 mile times, from 14.4 to 12.9. Are the accurate? I wasn't there when the made the pass, but I read it on he Internet, sooo.......

very true about rearend ratios making a difference.a friend has a nice 71 judge RAIII convertible.he could put 3-4 cars on me with my hopped up 66 tempest running a 400-4v,turbo 400 and 3:o8s(he was running 3:91s.he sure didnt want to start that race when pulling unto the interstate though.at 110 mph,he was done and i had another 20 -25 mph left.we were both running modern,fat radial tires so the judge wasnt handicapped in that respect.also remember you are talking about the top dog GTO,not the base 389-4v with 331s.i think the 6 cyl. cars would give the base GTO a good run.its only a theory,at 58 im more interested in staying out of jail than street racing.

[Kenny Camaro]

Originally Posted by redcoats1976

very true about rearend ratios making a difference.a friend has a nice 71 judge RAIII convertible.he could put 3-4 cars on me with my hopped up 66 tempest running a 400-4v,turbo 400 and 3:o8s(he was running 3:91s.he sure didnt want to start that race when pulling unto the interstate though.at 110 mph,he was done and i had another 20 -25 mph left.we were both running modern,fat radial tires so the judge wasnt handicapped in that respect.also remember you are talking about the top dog GTO,not the base 389-4v with 331s.i think the 6 cyl. cars would give the base GTO a good run.its only a theory,at 58 im more interested in staying out of jail than street racing.

I agree that v-6 would give not only the GTO, but most of old school muscle a'good run'. My first car was a 72 GTO, 400 four barrel, four speed, 4:11 gears, a set of 69 10:25 to 1 heads. The goat ran the 1/4 slightly faster, left much harder. Top speed was no contest, Pontiac was 120 or so, Camaro limited to 155. I was just driving at that a blanket statement about old cars and 1/4 mile times isn't black and white ,with many different options available , particularly the rearend gear ratios ,your GTO had 3:08's, mine had 4:11, even as high as 4:56. So 1/4 times greatly varied on he same model