A/W: Camaro 2.0T

[Bob]

I still want to drive the 2.0T Camaro. I am sure GM people would laugh if they know I started up 3 different Camaros on the rental lot at LAX to try to find a 2.0T. In the end, I "settled" for the V6. I have to say the V6 is probably well worth the small cost to upgrade, especially when you consider there's no real world fuel economy penalty. I think the case for the Ecoboost Mustang over the V6 is a little shakier. When's the last time you heard someone say, "I thoroughly enjoyed my rental V6 Camaro and would choose it over many more expensive and more luxurious models on the lot." Well, I just did.

[kevm14]

The other point is that in the ATS, and as a used car buy, the 2.0T is fully in the running imo. At the end of the day, it is probably better to go with the V6 if only for power/fuel economy/no turbos to break. And even if that V6 isn't as good as the LGX. Wiki considers the LGX to be the start of the 4th gen of the V6 so it is a major revision.

Starting with 2016 Cadillac Models a new generation of High Feature V6s were developed. These new engines have redesigned block architectures with bore centers increased from 103 mm (4.055 in) on prior HFV6 engines to 106 mm (4.173 in) and a redesigned cooling system to target the hottest areas while also facilitating faster warm-up. They also incorporate engine start-stop technology, cylinder-deactivation, 2-stage oil pumps, and updated variable valve timing featuring intermediate park technology for late-intake valve closure. Both engines will debut in the 2016 Cadillac CT6.[19]

So maybe the LGX is SO much better than the old LFX (2012-2015) that the 2.0T is more of a contender. Driving all of them will reveal your preferences obviously.

[Bob]

I did feel like the LGX was more willing to rev than the old V6. As you said, the 2.0T becomes more of a contender when compared to an older, more sluggish V6.

[kevm14]

updated variable valve timing featuring intermediate park technology for late-intake valve closure.

I did not catch this before and it needs further research. But, "late intake valve closure" is speak for the Atkinson-cycle (Prius, Mazda Skyactiv, and many other hybrid ICEs).

[bill25]

I finally found a link for the article:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... est-review


Summary Quote:

Seeing out of the Camaro remains difficult, and the design is a love-it-or-leave-it affair. Camaros aren’t for everyone, but a Camaro with a 2.0-liter turbo is, shall we say, for no one.

I agree.

You guys should read why. Pretty interesting.

[kevm14]

Car and Driver makes a good case against this car. Finally reality is setting in.

Article is not online yet, but it is in the new issue of C&D. Link to come...

Article now online: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... est-review

I guess Bill didn't see this...

[bill25]

I did miss it. I thought the article I read was for the V6 Camaro, but it was actually for the 2.0T, which threw me off. Anyway, it is interesting to see the comments now talking about how the 2.0T is in the Cadillac ATS and CTS, and I thought I heard maybe CT6. Most of the commenters are saying if the powertrain isn't good enough in the Camaro, why is it in a Cadillac. I said this same concept. At some point, you need to raise the standards of the base model. I don't care that much about it being in the Camaro, because nobody will ever really take it seriously, and I don't think the majority of Camaro purchases will have this engine configuration, but Cadillac, on the other hand may have a lot of this engine configuration sold, which I think will devalue the brand.

Also, as this article mentioned, why would you ever buy this contraption with all the extra stuff to fail, for zero benefit? I don't get it.