M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Car/truck/automotive news and discussion
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by bill25 »

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.
kevm14
Posts: 15690
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by kevm14 »

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.
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.
kevm14
Posts: 15690
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by kevm14 »

billgiacheri wrote:This is supposed to be a muscle car.
In my unprofessional opinion, only the Challenger is a muscle car of the big 3. The Mustang and Camaro have higher aspirations.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by bill25 »

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?
kevm14
Posts: 15690
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by kevm14 »

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.
Adam
Posts: 2267
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by Adam »

kevm14 wrote:Those family sedans with V6s were also LIGHTER than the V6 F-body, and V6 gen 5.
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.

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.
kevm14
Posts: 15690
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by kevm14 »

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.
Adam
Posts: 2267
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by Adam »

The 99 Taurus was less impressive. Approximately the same weight, but only 185hp with the Duratec. Also, it looked terrible.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by bill25 »

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)
Adam
Posts: 2267
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: M/T drives 2016 Camaro RS V6

Post by Adam »

The 99 Camary V6 was 3175 lbs with 194 hp.
Post Reply