This is supposed to be a muscle car. That is why people say "why didn't you get the V8". It isn't an arbitrary question like other upgrades or engine upgrades in a car where mpg's for a commuter are more of a factor. It is like saying you want a 4 cylinder in a Ferrari for fuel economy and the Ferrari is still relatively quick compared to other 4 cylinders.
Same question would be for a luxury car "why didn't you get leather?" Because that is a luxury thing, for a luxury car.
The gen 5 V6 Camaro was a good car. Sure, not as good as this one, but still a good car. Not to standards of a muscle car though which is what it is compared to.
M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
I think you need to go review articles about that car. In a world where the 5th gen SS didn't even handle properly until the ZL1 and 1LE there is no way the V6 was a good car.billgiacheri wrote: The gen 5 V6 Camaro was a good car. Sure, not as good as this one, but still a good car. Not to standards of a muscle car though which is what it is compared to.
Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
In my unprofessional opinion, only the Challenger is a muscle car of the big 3. The Mustang and Camaro have higher aspirations.billgiacheri wrote:This is supposed to be a muscle car.
Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
I don't need to read articles, I drove 2. It was better than a Cruze, Malibu, Chrysler 300, Camry, Elantra. So, a really good car. More performance than non performance cars, not enough for performance cars, but 23K. What do you want? If it wasn't called a Camaro, and held to the standards of a Muscle car, it would be pretty damn good. What was the last non performance car you drove that had 310 HP (Besides a Truck or SUV) for 23K?
Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
I think the rest of the car was lacking, despite any HP/$ advantages. Most of the world has moved on from this single aspiration.
And by the way, when I pull all the articles to prove how lame the V6 Camaro was, I will also prove that despite the power, it wasn't really any faster than common family cars with the optional V6. Because it was a pig. The new one is like 300 lbs lighter. Sadly, this is the same state of affairs cars like the 4th gen F-body found itself involved in. Yes, those V6 cars (in the 90s and in the 2010's) were typically more expensive than the V6 pony car. But you also got a lot more car for your money (as opposed to merely "looking like the good one"). Those family sedans with V6s were also LIGHTER than the V6 F-body, and V6 gen 5.
The gen 6 V6 fixes all of these sins.
And by the way, when I pull all the articles to prove how lame the V6 Camaro was, I will also prove that despite the power, it wasn't really any faster than common family cars with the optional V6. Because it was a pig. The new one is like 300 lbs lighter. Sadly, this is the same state of affairs cars like the 4th gen F-body found itself involved in. Yes, those V6 cars (in the 90s and in the 2010's) were typically more expensive than the V6 pony car. But you also got a lot more car for your money (as opposed to merely "looking like the good one"). Those family sedans with V6s were also LIGHTER than the V6 F-body, and V6 gen 5.
The gen 6 V6 fixes all of these sins.
Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
The internet says the 4th gen F-body weighs just over 3300lbs or just under 3400 lbs. That may be even lighter than an 80's G-Body, or slightly heavier depending on who you ask. Or 1.74 Tercels for those of you who prefer that as a unit of measure.kevm14 wrote:Those family sedans with V6s were also LIGHTER than the V6 F-body, and V6 gen 5.
For reference, a Duratec-equipped 2000-2007 Ford Taurus weighs about the same as the 4th gen F-body, 3300-3400 lbs. And made about the same power as the V6 GM, at 205 hp.
Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
A Camry V6 or Maxima was lighter and had about the same power. You need to compare to the 96-99 Taurus w/ Duratec. Probably a little lighter.
Which is the same situation the 5th gen found itself in, at least with power to weight.
Which is the same situation the 5th gen found itself in, at least with power to weight.
Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
The 99 Taurus was less impressive. Approximately the same weight, but only 185hp with the Duratec. Also, it looked terrible.
Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
The Gen 5 was right up there with the Maxima... Sorry, you are still wrong:
V6 Camaro: $23K base model can hit 60 in 5.9 seconds and cover the quarter-mile in 14.5 at 99 mph. - http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2010-c ... s-car-news
skidpad: 0.87 g - http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... -road-test
V6 Maxima: Maxima’s 0-to-60-mph acceleration time to 5.8 seconds from 6.1; and the sedan now clocks 14.5 seconds at 98 mph in the quarter-mile. The sporty mind-set means a stiff suspension for the Maxima, one that allowed it to achieve 0.85 g - http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/200 ... -road-test
Best part: ESTIMATED PRICE AS TESTED: $37,000 (estimated base price: $31,000)
V6 Camaro: $23K base model can hit 60 in 5.9 seconds and cover the quarter-mile in 14.5 at 99 mph. - http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2010-c ... s-car-news
skidpad: 0.87 g - http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... -road-test
V6 Maxima: Maxima’s 0-to-60-mph acceleration time to 5.8 seconds from 6.1; and the sedan now clocks 14.5 seconds at 98 mph in the quarter-mile. The sporty mind-set means a stiff suspension for the Maxima, one that allowed it to achieve 0.85 g - http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/200 ... -road-test
Best part: ESTIMATED PRICE AS TESTED: $37,000 (estimated base price: $31,000)
Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6
The 99 Camary V6 was 3175 lbs with 194 hp.