# 2016 4Cylinder Camaro to "replace" the Cruze?



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Ford in Australia put the 2.0L Ecoboost engine in the Falcon and it was a little down on the 4.0L inline six in performance and not much better on fuel usage, so I really don't see the point of it.


http://www.motoring.com.au/reviews/2015/large-passenger/ford/ford-falcon-ecoboost-2015-review-48666


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Aussie said:


> Ford in Australia put the 2.0L Ecoboost engine in the Falcon and it was a little down on the 4.0L inline six in performance and not much better on fuel usage, so I really don't see the point of it.
> 
> 
> Ford Falcon EcoBoost 2015 Review - motoring.com.au



Maybe the reason the V6 is the base model stang here. Was this engine similar to the 2.3 Mazda was using in Speed 3 and 6? 

2015 Ford Mustang | Mustang Models | Ford.com


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I rather like instant throttle response and the noises that engines with more than 4 cylinders produce when they're singing along at higher revs.

A turbo-4 makes sense in some cars, but that's just one I'd go for the V6 in I think.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Cruze still gets us there, just as fast as anyone else, and with summer gas, better than 40 mpg. GM also makes stuff with a lots more HP and just about in the same body with the same room, but lucky to get 27 mpg.

Dodge makes a car that will do 207 mph, why don't you buy one of these.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> I rather like instant throttle response and the noises that engines with more than 4 cylinders produce when they're singing along at higher revs.
> 
> A turbo-4 makes sense in some cars, but that's just one I'd go for the V6 in I think.


Yeah the sound of that engine in the ATS is horrible. I like the 1.4 sound way better. 

The 4 will respond better to mods than the 6 will. 



NickD said:


> Cruze still gets us there, just as fast as anyone else, and with summer gas, better than 40 mpg. GM also makes stuff with a lots more HP and just about in the same body with the same room, but lucky to get 27 mpg.
> 
> Dodge makes a car that will do 207 mph, why don't you buy one of these.


If I could afford a hellcat, there's plenty of other things I could buy and modify to my liking and have spare change for gas and tires. V10 M5 comes to mind.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Merc6 said:


> The 4 will respond better to mods than the 6 will.


Oh I'm sure. But beyond 300 hp, I feel that it's more than enough power for me.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

Merc6 said:


> Maybe the reason the V6 is the base model stang here. Was this engine similar to the 2.3 Mazda was using in Speed 3 and 6?
> 
> 2015 Ford Mustang | Mustang Models | Ford.com


The engine is a 2 litre turbo 4, the six is a 4 litre straight twin cam six, which is also available turbocharged and has 362hp. The top model XR8 has a supercharged V8 from the Mustang.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

The Camaro will probably have higher insurance, worse in the snow than the cruze, and worse fuel mileage. Plus it will always be the wannabe Camaro because you cheaper out and got the 4 cyl. Pony cars deserve a v8.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Aussie said:


> The engine is a 2 litre turbo 4, the six is a 4 litre straight twin cam six, which is also available turbocharged and has 362hp. The top model XR8 has a supercharged V8 from the Mustang.


We never got a 4 liter straight 6 here - I wish we did. Ford's 4.0 they used in the Mustang was the piece of crap 210 HP 4.0 V6 truck motor they used in the Explorer, and was extremely thrashy and gruff when revved, yet made almost the same power as their Duratec 3.0L V6 engines. At least it was better than the old 3.8/3.9 that was a totally useless engine.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> Dodge makes a car that will do 207 mph, why don't you buy one of these.


for that kind of cash i can buy a used grand sport or zo6 vett and make it 202 mph fast with cash left over, and the car can handle a turn vs the hellcat.


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

jblackburn said:


> We never got a 4 liter straight 6 here - I wish we did. Ford's 4.0 they used in the Mustang was the piece of crap 210 HP 4.0 V6 truck motor they used in the Explorer, and was extremely thrashy and gruff when revved, yet made almost the same power as their Duratec 3.0L V6 engines. At least it was better than the old 3.8/3.9 that was a totally useless engine.


2015 Ford Falcon XR6T review | Wheels


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Aussie said:


> 2015 Ford Falcon XR6T review | Wheels


They really need to sell something like that here to compete with the likes of the Dodge Charger/Chevy SS. Ford's performance division is lacking in bigger cars, but they've recently done a lot with hot hatchbacks and there are rumors there will be a Escape (Kuga) ST and Fusion (Mondeo) ST, possibly with the 2.3 Ecoboost.


----------



## OldBrazy (Mar 30, 2014)

Don't get me wrong, I love my 12 Cruze. This Turbo 4 Camaro is interesting


----------



## CruzeTech (Mar 23, 2012)

I've never been a fan of the new Camaros. It just feels like you're driving around in a phone booth with wheels. The doors have a super high belt line making the windows really small. To me, it's just not a comfortable car. Now the ATS, now we're talking. That car I'm a fan of. The engine choices are a little fu fu. But the 274 hp 4, is a nice touch. I'll take one in a coupe, please.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> I rather like instant throttle response and the noises that engines with more than 4 cylinders produce when they're singing along at higher revs.
> 
> A turbo-4 makes sense in some cars, but that's just one I'd go for the V6 in I think.


 As much as I like my 2 litre turbo in my 320i, it does not compare to the instant torque and throttle response of my LS1 GTO. Just took it out last night after a couple of weeks not driving it.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Nothing compares to v8


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

money_man said:


> Nothing compares to v8


Right but it adds over $10,000 to the sticker price starting and gets at least 10mpg less, not really good for a daily driver. 275HP from the 2.0T is impressive and awesome GM is making this engine standard, Ford charges a $1500 premium to get their ecoboost engine in the mustang. 

If you have not driven one, its amazing how nimble the new ecoboost mustang is, something to be said for removing all that extra V8 weight from the front end of these cars. Both have almost perfect 50/50 weight balance with the 4 cylinder engines.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Right but it adds over $10,000 to the sticker price starting and gets at least 10mpg less, not really good for a daily driver. 275HP from the 2.0T is impressive and awesome GM is making this engine standard, Ford charges a $1500 premium to get their ecoboost engine in the mustang.
> 
> If you have not driven one, its amazing how nimble the new ecoboost mustang is, something to be said for removing all that extra V8 weight from the front end of these cars. Both have almost perfect 50/50 weight balance with the 4 cylinder engines.


Ford's is also (slightly) more powerful than their V6.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Ford's is also (slightly) more powerful than their V6.


But are they really? Ford claims 310HP on 93 octane, but only 275hp on regular gas. Since GM has failed to disclose this information for any of their boosted engines, one can assume it will make 275hp on regular gas the same as the mustang and probably more on premium. 

0-60mph is 5.5 seconds for the mustang ecoboost and it gets 31mpg hwy, GM has claimed just over 5 second 0-60mph and over 30mpg hwy, seems these two are pretty evenly matched even with the so claimed power advantage of the 2.3L ecoboost.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I should also add the Camaro should see slightly better MPG than the mustang ecoboost as well, it uses a 0.3L smaller engine and has a 8 speed automatic vs the mustangs 6 speed.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> I should also add the Camaro should see slightly better MPG than the mustang ecoboost as well, it uses a 0.3L smaller engine and has a 8 speed automatic vs the mustangs 6 speed.


 And the Camaro will weigh less than the Ford.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> If you have not driven one, its amazing how nimble the new ecoboost mustang is, something to be said for removing all that extra V8 weight from the front end of these cars. Both have almost perfect 50/50 weight balance with the 4 cylinder engines.


 This is a real plus for the handling. I have not drive the 4cyl Mustang, but my 320i is 50/50 F/R and a hoot to drive.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Any die hard fan of the car will get the v8. When you buy a Mustang or Camaro you should be worried about performance, not whether you not it'll cost an extra $20/week to drive it. If you're worried about fuel that's when you realize you can't actually afford the car you're looking at and you go for the 4 cyl model or v6


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I'm a die hard fan though so it's v8 or nothing. However if it came to a cruze or a Camaro for the same price is take the cruze with the better fuel mileage.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Not everyone needs a V8 for a daily, especially when turbo-4/V6 engines are making the same or more power V8's did 10 years ago.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I don't hate people or anything like that if they buy the 4 cyl model. I just think it ruins the reputation of the car.


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> I don't hate people or anything like that if they buy the 4 cyl model. I just think it ruins the reputation of the car.


 This is driven by CAFE requirements. I thought I saw 2016 is the final year for the FCA Hemi. V-8s will be rare.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

They better come up with an adequate replacement then. 400whp reliable 4 cyl turbos better become everyday things and they need to make power in the low rpm's and pull all the way through. 

The ecoboost 3.5 is a pos in the F150 so I hope that's not what they're hoping to replace the ford v8's with.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> I'm a die hard fan though so it's v8 or nothing. However if it came to a cruze or a Camaro for the same price is take the cruze with the better fuel mileage.


a vast majority of people who can buy a 5.0 stang or a ss camaro or a Chevy ss and so on don't even care about fuel cost. the v6 and 4 turbo are to help with cafe emissions and with overall fleet emissions. thats why now Mercedes, BMW, vw, Audi all have hybrids even though there diesels are way more efficient... the hybrids and small turbo 4 allow more wiggle room in fleet emissions 



> I don't hate people or anything like that if they buy the 4 cyl model. I just think it ruins the reputation of the car.


yes it kind of takes away from the camaro name but in sales the mid and entry level help move way more inventory and gets future camaro v8 or ss owners in the door... got to start somewhere right?



> Not everyone needs a V8 for a daily, especially when turbo-4/V6 engines are making the same or more power V8's did 10 years ago.


its amazing how far we have come since the days of the ol 454 at 400 hp burning monstrous amounts of fuel to now the ford eco boost 2.4 turbo is at the same hp with some tuning and the v6s of today at 3 to 4 liters are already at the 400 hp mark


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

pandrad61 said:


> its amazing how far we have come since the days of the ol 454 at 400 hp burning monstrous amounts of fuel to now the ford eco boost 2.4 turbo is at the same hp with some tuning and the v6s of today at 3 to 4 liters are already at the 400 hp mark


The new Camaro with a 2.0T will have the same 0-60mph times as that 454Ci in a 1970 chevelle, not sure how this gives the camaro a bad name, shows more why the V8 will be overkill for most drivers. 



money_man said:


> When you buy a Mustang or Camaro you should be worried about performance, not whether you not it'll cost an extra $20/week to drive it.


Why not have the best of both worlds, I would save over 500 gallons fuel cost a year with the turbo engine and still have a fast car(especially compared to my SLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOW cruze).


----------



## dirt dauber (Dec 24, 2014)

OldBrazy said:


> I know the Cruze and Camaro brands are in two different classes
> but the new 2016 Camaro is opening its hood to a 2.0 turbo-four at 275HP.
> 
> The V6 Camaro is just 60HP more. It's bold, but amazing move on Chevy's part.
> ...


here in the united states the next generation emissions testing is going to be more stringent than todays,and a lot of our engines currently in production will fail the newer test.
ford is yanking the 5.0 v8 for the 2017 model year,favoring the ecoboost v6 motors,and there will not be a v8 engine available for any model year.
even the raptor svt 4x4 will have ecoboost power


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> The new Camaro with a 2.0T will have the same 0-60mph times as that 454Ci in a 1970 chevelle, not sure how this gives the camaro a bad name, shows more why the V8 will be overkill for most drivers.


just goes to show how far we have come


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

spacedout said:


> But are they really? Ford claims 310HP on 93 octane, but only 275hp on regular gas. Since GM has failed to disclose this information for any of their boosted engines, one can assume it will make 275hp on regular gas the same as the mustang and probably more on premium.
> 
> 0-60mph is 5.5 seconds for the mustang ecoboost and it gets 31mpg hwy, GM has claimed just over 5 second 0-60mph and over 30mpg hwy, seems these two are pretty evenly matched even with the so claimed power advantage of the 2.3L ecoboost.


2.0T were premium fuel door stickerd cars. The 1.4T(n/a volt was marked it) is the only one not marked premium recommended "on paper" outside of the RPO code KRD hidden in a series of numbers and letters in the glovebox.



money_man said:


> They better come up with an adequate replacement then. 400whp reliable 4 cyl turbos better become everyday things and they need to make power in the low rpm's and pull all the way through.
> 
> The ecoboost 3.5 is a pos in the F150 so I hope that's not what they're hoping to replace the ford v8's with.


Navigator and Expedition already took that turn for the worse.



pandrad61 said:


> its amazing how far we have come since the days of the ol 454 at 400 hp burning monstrous amounts of fuel to now the ford eco boost 2.4 turbo is at the same hp with some tuning and the v6s of today at 3 to 4 liters are already at the 400 hp mark


There's people out there with tuned 1.4T putting out 90's V6 numbers.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> Navigator and Expedition already took that turn for the worse.


The 2.7 EB is really a powerhouse of fun. I haven't driven the 3.5 in anything besides the Taurus SHO, and that was a blast.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> The 2.7 EB is really a powerhouse of fun. I haven't driven the 3.5 in anything besides the Taurus SHO, and that was a blast.


I'll have to drive one eventually, I miss the V8 as everyone would put an exhaust on em.


----------



## 170-3tree (Nov 4, 2014)

Not sure about Ford, but I know that the HEMI will be discontinued for the 2019 model year and they are currently developing the next gen turbo six and four powerplants for the switch. So hopefully five years is enough to get it right. Its going to be a sad sad day when the V8 goes extinct but we all knew it would happen eventually.. At least they're giving us the power still. just not the possible exhaust notes.... that willl be the real shame... watching a mustang fly by that sounds like a mazdaspeed car... or a camaro that sounds like a cobalt ss... kinda brings a tear to my eye thinking about it...


----------



## neile300c (Jul 8, 2014)

170-3tree said:


> Not sure about Ford, but I know that the HEMI will be discontinued for the 2019 model year and they are currently developing the next gen turbo six and four powerplants for the switch. So hopefully five years is enough to get it right. Its going to be a sad sad day when the V8 goes extinct but we all knew it would happen eventually.. At least they're giving us the power still. just not the possible exhaust notes.... that willl be the real shame... watching a mustang fly by that sounds like a mazdaspeed car... or a camaro that sounds like a cobalt ss... kinda brings a tear to my eye thinking about it...


If that's the case, I may have to start saving for a 2018 Challenger SRT8 ......


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

that would be a great investment opportunity. buy the last year of a powerful hemi v8 with all the options, in a more rare color and keep it garaged... 40 years later massive return on investment


----------



## neile300c (Jul 8, 2014)

pandrad61 said:


> that would be a great investment opportunity. buy the last year of a powerful hemi v8 with all the options, in a more rare color and keep it garaged... 40 years later massive return on investment


Yes, but I wouldn't garage it, I'd have to drive it.....


----------



## Jukebox Juliet (Apr 4, 2014)

Idk, I'd test drive it, but for the money I think I'd want the V6

The SS is pretty sweet too, but I'm not paying that kind of $ for a Camaro.


If you have $120,000 you can get the new Tesla p90d 0-60 in 2.8 

0 gas used. 


Sent with iLove 6.0


----------



## BU54 (Nov 24, 2014)

Even though the HP is impressive a 4cyl in a car as iconic as the Camaro should be against the law.
Can you say V8 only?


----------



## blk88verde (Apr 30, 2011)

> They better come up with an adequate replacement then. 400whp reliable 4 cyl turbos better become everyday things and they need to make power in the low rpm's and pull all the way through.


 I recall seeing Volvo and VW have close to production 400 hp 4cylinders. The AMG 4cyl available now is not to far from 400 hp (355 hp actually)


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> The 2.7 EB is really a powerhouse of fun. I haven't driven the 3.5 in anything besides the Taurus SHO, and that was a blast.


The problem is these engines for actual truck use make little sense. Fords own towing test with the 2.7EB showed it out preformed the 5.3L chevy in the first runs but with the 80F+ temps outside it was heat soaked and was beat by the chevy in all subsequent pulls. 

Another example of how these aren't that efficient, you can get a 1500 Silverado with a 6.2L and 8 speed auto and on a bad day only average 1-2 real world MPG worse than the 3.5EB engine. Car and Driver testing got 16mpg with both engines. Compare Side-by-Side

Not only does the 3.5L ecoboost get virtually the same MPG as the 6.2L ecotec3 chevy engine, but the 6.2L makes 420HP/460lb-ft of torque vs the 3.5EB makes 365HP/420lb-ft of torque.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

There are bigger FMIC that do bolt up to these turboed engines and with a tune there is little to no heat soak when properly run ..

To let you's guys know these new little torquie engines do perform and the Mods are Endless to the point of your pocket book ..
I know I had to close mine and seal it before I ran out of money .


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

I love fords advertisment. " we use turbo technology to help with power and efficiency. fuel is expensive but air is free" 90% of America wont know you need to add more fuel to make the power


----------



## 170-3tree (Nov 4, 2014)

The sad fact is that cafe is creeping up hella fast. Avg 35mpg across all vehicles is going to take some doing. It's why Ford unveiled the new ranger. Again. And Ford has the highest hurtles to get over because of their high sales in the truck category.


----------



## Jukebox Juliet (Apr 4, 2014)

*2016 4Cylinder Camaro to &quot;replace&quot; the Cruze?*

I was just reading the article that was in New Roads. Idk if it was this latest issue or the one before. 

I still totally want that V6 - so much HP. The 8 speed paddle shift honestly sounds fun too. Plus it sounds like it comes with "driving modes" did the '15s have that? The V8 comes with track mode. Isn't that basically a tune? I wonder if you can still tune on top of that. 




Sent with iLove 6.0


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

You can see some of the pricing now since chevy has the 2016 camaro build part of their website up, the V6 is only a $1500 option so I see no reason to get the turbo 4. Its also $1300 option for the upgraded brakes and cooling system which is available on all models. They also offer 4 and 6 piston front brembo brakes as an option, but those are $2200-3200. They want a $10,000 premium for the SS/v8 car, which makes its stating price $37,000+.


----------



## iKermit (Dec 13, 2010)

I would still get the V8. Go big or go home. But let me leave this thread before I trade in my car...again..


----------



## Jukebox Juliet (Apr 4, 2014)

iKermit said:


> I would still get the V8. Go big or go home. But let me leave this thread before I trade in my car...again..


I don't disagree, but I also don't have a spare $50,000 for a 2SS 


Sent with iLove 6.0


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

170-3tree said:


> The sad fact is that cafe is creeping up hella fast. Avg 35mpg across all vehicles is going to take some doing. It's why Ford unveiled the new ranger. Again. And Ford has the highest hurtles to get over because of their high sales in the truck category.


Are trucks still not subject to fuel economy? If they were included it would help with across the board average figures.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Aussie said:


> Are trucks still not subject to fuel economy? If they were included it would help with across the board average figures.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but trucks bring down the average fleet MPG. In the USA light duty trucks 99% have gas engines and only average about 17mpg.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

spacedout said:


> Not only does the 3.5L ecoboost get virtually the same MPG as the 6.2L ecotec3 chevy engine, but the 6.2L makes 420HP/460lb-ft of torque vs the 3.5EB makes 365HP/420lb-ft of torque.


In most tests, the 3.5L EB struggled to even obtain the _city_ fuel economy rating - in mixed driving. The 2.7L EB barely beat the city rating in mixed driving, and I'm not sure if they were even able to get the highway rating, while driving in such a manner that infuriated everyone in the vehicle and behind them on the road (read: beyond grandma). They seem to have it tuned for the EPA test, and that's about it - real world is far worse. And god forbid you _tow something_ with it...


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but trucks bring down the average fleet MPG. In the USA light duty trucks 99% have gas engines and only average about 17mpg.


My point is if trucks were included they would have to bring down the average MPG. That would make the car companies improve the truck MPG and make it a bit easier on cars to meet the target average. Leaving trucks out is stupid if the aim is to have better fuel economy.

Sorry used pollution by mistake, fixed now.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Aussie said:


> My point is if trucks were included they would have to bring down the average MPG. That would make the car companies improve the truck MPG and make it a bit easier on cars to meet the target average. Leaving trucks out is stupid if the aim is to have better fuel economy.
> 
> Sorry used pollution by mistake, fixed now.


CAFE standards does included light trucks. Every truck has improved their MPG a little every year recently, we are finally even seeing some light duty trucks with diesel engines. If you look closely though these new light duty diesel trucks make little economical sense. 

Example, GM's 4.3L ecotec3 V6 in their truck gets 24mpg highway compared to a Ram ecodiesel 29mpg, however It cost $10,000 more to buy the RAM with the diesel engine. Tow rating is 7600lbs with the chevy and 7950lb for the ram, so they are pretty comparable. You can drive over 100,000 miles with the 4.3L ecotec on the cost savings alone.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

spacedout said:


> CAFE standards does included light trucks. Every truck has improved their MPG a little every year recently, we are finally even seeing some light duty trucks with diesel engines. If you look closely though these new light duty diesel trucks make little economical sense.
> 
> Example, GM's 4.3L ecotec3 V6 in their truck gets 24mpg highway compared to a Ram ecodiesel 29mpg, however It cost $10,000 more to buy the RAM with the diesel engine. Tow rating is 7600lbs with the chevy and 7950lb for the ram, so they are pretty comparable. You can drive over 100,000 miles with the 4.3L ecotec on the cost savings alone.


The 31 mpg rating of the Colorado/Canyon with the 2.8L will certainly help matters there.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Light duty trucks are under different fuel economy and safety standards in the US. This is because in the 1970s when these standards were first passed by Congress you didn't see light duty trucks as daily drivers for soccer moms. Trucks were almost completely relegated to rural areas where they were used to haul stuff around on the farm.

It's long past time for our laws to be changed to base the standards (safety and efficiency) on who the vehicle is advertised to. Advertise to suburbanites - meet the same standards. Advertise to the farmer - meet a lower standard. Better yet, we just need to get rid of the dual standard system.


----------



## _MerF_ (Mar 24, 2015)

From a tuner perspective, does the V6 in the Camaro have a lot of bolt-on performance upgrades? I know it's a DI engine using a very high CR to get the power it does, so I can't imagine there's a lot of upgrades that can be done to it.

As we know, simply tweaking the boost controller and timing curves gets a big jump from stock and is relatively cheap and very easy. I gotta think the 4-cyl will be more fun, and not as expensive, to tune than the current V6 option.

As a prior owner of two Z28s, but also a few turbo cars, I can say that the rumble is fun...but it's hard to beat the tunability of a turbo'd car.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

_MerF_ said:


> From a tuner perspective, does the V6 in the Camaro have a lot of bolt-on performance upgrades? I know it's a DI engine using a very high CR to get the power it does, so I can't imagine there's a lot of upgrades that can be done to it.
> 
> As we know, simply tweaking the boost controller and timing curves gets a big jump from stock and is relatively cheap and very easy. I gotta think the 4-cyl will be more fun, and not as expensive, to tune than the current V6 option.
> 
> As a prior owner of two Z28s, but also a few turbo cars, I can say that the rumble is fun...but it's hard to beat the tunability of a turbo'd car.


Mainly bolt-ons, probably some tune work here and there - or you go with boost. As far as bolt ons go, there aren't too many - the engine has integrated exhaust manifolds (into the heads) so that is one typical bolt-on that you can't do right there.

That said, even the older V6s were pretty potent - my buddy put down 270 HP at the wheels in his '12 V6 (LFX) Camaro. I think he had a cold air intake on it, and that was it.

The 2.0L is incredibly tunable, so it'll be fun to see what they're able to do with minor work.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

I really do not understand that guy Merf .. ahh Ok ...and another ahh ..

It's called whom can sell the most junk for the new junk to filler up the trunk and confuse ya when ya guessed wrong because there is no new manuals for the cash heavy Goofie trooping Newbie that has to guess that his her new Camaro 2.0 is gonna compete on the street with a V8 stocker .. Yeah I know your still confused ..Good spend that Money we don't care ..

Cheaper to go to a Library ...
Cheaper than the Aftermarket Store .........


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I'd take the v8 because a 4 cyl doesn't belong on an American pony car. If I had to I would take the v6 because it's not as buzzy and dumb as a 4 cyl pony car


----------



## roadrunnerA12 (Jan 21, 2015)

To the original poster - you are going to see more and more of this. The reason is CAFE, as we all know but sometimes forget. CAFE increases were gradual until a couple of years ago. CAFE increases are now on a steep upward slope, with 54.5 mpg the target for 2025. Next year is a big jump also from today's 27.5. For every 23 mpg car like my wife's AWD Taurus that Ford sells, they have to sell a bunch of like crap cans like the Focus and the Fiesta. Likewise Chevy has to sell a bunch of Sparks and Sonics to make up for every rompin', stompin' V8 Camaro they sell. Look at your local Ford dealer ads - they NEVER show a Taurus. V8 cars will be around for awhile, but they will be very expensive, to discourage being purchased.


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

What about the Global Market where these imposed cafe rules do not apply ?


----------



## brian v (Dec 25, 2011)

money_man said:


> I'd take the v8 because a 4 cyl doesn't belong on an American pony car. If I had to I would take the v6 because it's not as buzzy and dumb as a 4 cyl pony car


Yeah I know , But I get great gas mileage on the highway and around town . The stang just looks good as IT sits and Ford did this turbo set up right with lots of room for improvements if and when I decide to scratch that itch ...besides I really did not care for a Camaro and another GM product that the techs hate to work on because thay just do not earn enough doing warranty work upon ...

Don't get me wrong . I just wanted a Sports Car and ahh Me first Car was a 1964 Green Mustang with a 3 Speed Manual and I missed that car ..........
Shoot I could have ordered a GT 350 if I really wanted . They are only $58.000.00 plus AMD or work an Order for about $60 K ....

I got what I wanted !


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

brian v said:


> Yeah I know , But I get great gas mileage on the highway and around town . The stang just looks good as IT sits and Ford did this turbo set up right with lots of room for improvements if and when I decide to scratch that itch.


The problem is your now paying sports car insurance rates but still have an economy car with a 4 cylinder. 

No way I would buy the new V8 camaro for $37K starting price, can buy a 2wd short bed Silverado with a 5.3L v8 for $10,000 less(window sticker, can get them even cheaper most days). Sure the 5.3L only has 355HP or 380HP on E85, but they do make a twin turbo kit that bumps that to 1200HP. Sure the truck is never gonna handle as good or be quite as fast as a camaro, but you have no sports car insurance and its a true sleeper! The look on peoples faces when you unleash your 1200HP beast would be legendary! 

The video on this link is pure awesome!
2015 Chevrolet Silverado Twin Turbo: Buckle Up! – Autoomobile

Turbo Kit
https://goturbo.net/online-store/mu...verado-twin-turbo-kit-500hp.html#.Vla3QiCrTVM


----------



## Aussie (Sep 16, 2012)

brian v said:


> What about the Global Market where these imposed cafe rules do not apply ?


We don't have the same regulations as the USA, but fuel tax does encourage buying more economical cars. Saying that the SUV market is booming here. My son has a 2015 Nissan X-Trail SUV with a 2 litre petrol engine and a 6M transmission and it rivals my diesel on a trip for economy. It has the room he needs with two little ones.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

money_man said:


> I'd take the v8 because a 4 cyl doesn't belong on an American pony car. If I had to I would take the v6 because it's not as buzzy and dumb as a 4 cyl pony car


The new V6 sounds decent compared to before. I remember I had a V6 Maro rental and it sounded like a RX-8 with a Racing Beat axle back. Such a turn off.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

brian v said:


> What about the Global Market where these imposed cafe rules do not apply ?


I don't know about Asia, but Europe charges an annual tax on any engine with 2.00 Liters or more displacement. If you check the actual engine size in the 2.0 L engines in the US you'll see they are actually all 1.99 L, which rounds to 2.0 L. CAFE regulations in the US or increasingly higher taxes elsewhere as engine size increases - take your pick.


----------



## _MerF_ (Mar 24, 2015)

brian v said:


> I really do not understand that guy Merf .. ahh Ok ...and another ahh .. .........


Huh?


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

_MerF_ said:


> Huh?


Brian - 'nuff said.


----------



## _MerF_ (Mar 24, 2015)

obermd said:


> Brian - 'nuff said.


:dry:


----------

