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...
A/W: Camaro 2.0T
Re: A/W: Camaro 2.0T
After having rented 2016 Camaros with the V6 on two consecutive rentals, I have to say it would probably be hard to make a case for the 2.0T, especially when you consider the small cost to upgrade to the V6 and the likelihood that the real world fuel economy is probably a wash. Driving the V6 Camaro really makes me want to seek out an ATS with the 3.6L. There is something to be said for a nice NA powerplant that sounds good naturally and responds very linearly.
Re: A/W: Camaro 2.0T
The case for the 2.0T is that it is the lightest at 3,3xx and that engine does have some headroom for a flash without blowing itself up.
Also keep in mind the V6 is new for 2016:
Also keep in mind the V6 is new for 2016:
The ATS engine was introduced mid-Gen 5 Camaro, MY2012.LGX
Along with the increased bore spacing, the new 3.6 L V6 has larger bores than before, growing from 94 mm (3.701 in) to 95 mm (3.740 in) with the same 85.8 mm (3.378 in) stroke as the 3.0L LGW, for a displacement of 3649 cc. Intake and exhaust valves are also increased in size along with other changes to the cylinder head.[20] Compression ratio is 11.5:1 and maximum engine speed is 7200 RPM.
LFX
The LFX is an enhanced version of the LLT engine. Introduced in the MY2012 Chevrolet Camaro LS, it is 20.5 pounds (9.3 kg) lighter than the LLT, due to a redesigned cylinder head and integrated exhaust manifold, and composite intake manifold. Other components like the fuel injectors, intake valves, and fuel pump have also been updated. Power and torque are up slightly from the LLT. The compression ratio is 11.5:1. The LFX also features E85 flex-fuel capability.
Re: A/W: Camaro 2.0T
hmm, I guess the new V6 is improved. I do feel like it is much more willing to rev than the previous generation.
Re: A/W: Camaro 2.0T
Right so you have a pretty good comparison - 2015 vs 2016. Granted the 2016 is lighter so you need to factor that in. The 2015 Camaro V6 is what the ATS uses (prior to 2016). I personally think the 2.0T is absolutely in the running for an ATS. I assume the ATS 2.0T is lighter than the V6. Maybe some reviews comparing them would help. Of course this is off topic from the thread.
I will have to look at the article Bill is talking about. Not sure what their argument will be, but I know that I could also make an argument that a 2.0T or V6 Camaro is actually more compelling than the SS and that's due to styling. I don't really believe that (the 2016 SS is such a brilliant car that anyone would be insane to dismiss it) but I could see someone saying the SS doesn't cut it because it doesn't have aggressive enough styling, therefore the 2.0T and V6 compare to other sporty cars in that power, size, weight and cost category.
I will have to look at the article Bill is talking about. Not sure what their argument will be, but I know that I could also make an argument that a 2.0T or V6 Camaro is actually more compelling than the SS and that's due to styling. I don't really believe that (the 2016 SS is such a brilliant car that anyone would be insane to dismiss it) but I could see someone saying the SS doesn't cut it because it doesn't have aggressive enough styling, therefore the 2.0T and V6 compare to other sporty cars in that power, size, weight and cost category.
Re: A/W: Camaro 2.0T
The 2015 Camaro V6 feels a lot less willing to perform than the 2016. Maybe it was the weight or the transmission. When I was driving the 2016 Camaro, I kept thinking to myself that this car with a real back seat and 4 doors would be perfect as a daily driver. Do I need to hold out for a 2016 ATS V6 in order to get this? I am happy that non-V Cadillacs seem to depreciate very quickly.
Re: A/W: Camaro 2.0T
Unless there were chassis tweaks for 2016 any ATS should fulfill that.
Re: A/W: Camaro 2.0T
I couldn't find any evidence of chassis tweaks for 2016. For some reason, I thought it may have been tweaked a bit, but it appears the updates were just powertrain and cosmetic. I like the 8 speed auto and the newer V6, but it's probably not 100% necessary.
Re: A/W: Camaro 2.0T
Article now online: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... est-reviewbillgiacheri wrote: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...
Re: A/W: Camaro 2.0T
I'll give you V6 over 2.0T, but that's exactly what Chevrolet was intending. With the Mustang, you could have the same article on why the Ecoboost is a better choice than the base V6. I can't say this should be a tremendous shock - that's how the vehicles are intended to be positioned in the lineup.
I'd also argue a lot (but not all) of the comments about the engine apply to the Ecoboost Mustang. Which is relevant if we agree this car also is important for Ford.
Anyway, if the point of the article is to say "if you can't afford the SS, spring for the V6 Camaro and skip the 2.0T" then I would say that I agree, and that I'm not shocked. On the other hand, let's see a comparison at price point to the performance-oriented competitors to the base Camaro and see if it's still not relevant.
I'd also argue a lot (but not all) of the comments about the engine apply to the Ecoboost Mustang. Which is relevant if we agree this car also is important for Ford.
Anyway, if the point of the article is to say "if you can't afford the SS, spring for the V6 Camaro and skip the 2.0T" then I would say that I agree, and that I'm not shocked. On the other hand, let's see a comparison at price point to the performance-oriented competitors to the base Camaro and see if it's still not relevant.