Repair-It

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-che ... D0D2C3097A

I was looking for a full test of the 2.0T. I guess we have to wait. For about $27k, you can go 0-60 in 5.4 seconds according to GM. I would predict a 14.0 @ 100 or so (LT1 f-body performance). Considering the chassis dynamics, that is a decent buy. Each Camaro is justifiable and significant on its own, and this is something that the Mustang lacks all the way through the range (until GT350).

This is the base model and is faster than the EcoBoost Mustang.

Oh, I don't know about "deserves the same treatment". "Spreading the bandwidth" makes sense for sales - arguably, while the V8 SS chases the GT's and M4's of the world, I'd bet this turbo 4 would compete well against the Hyundai Genesis coupes and Subaru BR-Z's on the low end.

I would like to see the same fish-out-of-water comparisons for the low end as we've seen for the SS. Genesis, BR-Z, and whatever else. Maybe in V6 land, the G37 or Q50 or whatever the hell they are calling it now. Who knew a Camaro with 3 engine options could be such a diverse lineup.

I am just saying in like 2007 the MazdaSpeed3 was 0-60 in 5.7 and was 25K so this isn't that impressive of a feat almost 10 years later.

True though this may be a tad cheaper per inflation. And the rest of the performance on the Camaro should be notably superior. I think the Camaro is more car for the money.

Also the Camaro may crack a 13 second ET. I doubt the MS3 did.

I think there is more to this Camaro that its 0-60 time. I would hazard a guess it is faster around a track than the MS3. Maybe we will find out at the next Lightning Lap.

I wasn't far off:

we finally scorched a 5.8-second 0-to-60 time and a 14.4-second quarter-mile at 99

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/200 ... -road-test

I agree the Camaro is more of the whole package. No question about it. Mazda screwed up by making the MazdaSpeed3 FWD.
More stats:

We also did more than the usual stops from 70 mph, getting 167 feet, and circled a dusty, less-than-perfect skidpad to produce a brag-worthy 0.87 g.

The Mazdaspeed 3 is a true "hooligan-mobile";

I didn't buy it after reading this???

Since you brought up the MS3 trying to make the Camaro look not impressive, now I can make the MS3 look unimpressive:

2008 Cobalt SS, base price $23k (same base price as the MS3 apparently):
Zero to 60 mph: 5.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 24.6 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.2 sec @ 102 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 146 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 162 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.92 g

MS3:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec (see why 0-60 tells you NOTHING?)
Zero to 100 mph: 14.8 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 sec (this is probably more relevant the way people drive - flat foot it at 5 mph and see what happens)
Standing ¼-mile: 14.4 sec @ 99 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 167 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g

The performance is better in every measurable way. Including the track (3 seconds faster around VIR than the 2007 MS3): http://www.caranddriver.com/features/li ... -ss-page-2

3 seconds is a lot. The following cars are faster than the 2007 MS3 and slower than the Cobalt SS's time (based on all Lightning Laps):

2008 Chevrolet Cobalt SS
3:13.0

2012 BMW 335i Sport Line
3:13.2

2010 Ford Mustang GT
3:13.3

2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR
3:13.3

2014 Lexus IS350 F Sport
3:13.4

2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR
3:13.5

2008 BMW 135i
3:13.7

2012 BMW 335is
3:13.8

2011 Subaru Impreza WRX STI sedan
3:13.8

2011 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 R-spec
3:13.8

2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 R-spec
3:13.9

2012 Volkswagen Golf R
3:14.0

2008 Lexus IS F
3:14.0

2015 Volkswagen GTI
3:14.6

2008 Audi S5
3:14.6

2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8
3:14.8

2008 Honda S2000 CR
3:15.0

2015 Mini John Cooper Works Hardtop
3:15.4

2015 Subaru WRX
3:15.5

2015 Ford Mustang EcoBoost
3:15.6

2007 Pontiac Solstice GXP (same engine as the Cobalt SS turbo, 100 lbs lighter and RWD)
3:15.7

2007 Mazdaspeed 3
3:16.0

2010 Mazdaspeed 3
3:16.2

Also it is almost 200 lbs heavier than the Cobalt and gets worse MPG according to C/D.

The point is, you could get better performance than the MS3 for the same money. Notice we are not talking about styling or interior here.

Side note: cars like the 2001 Corvette Z06, 2004 CTS-V, 2005 GTO, the 2008 Cobalt SS, the 2009 CTS-V, the 2006 C6 Z06, and the 2009 ZR1 are why I kind of shudder when you hold up the 2010 Camaro SS (which wasn't even that good) as the first signs of life in GM performance in decades. They were working on it the whole time - you just didn't notice.

Since you brought up the MS3 trying to make the Camaro look not impressive, now I can make the MS3 look unimpressive:

Making this version of the Camaro even less impressive.

They were working on it the whole time - you just didn't notice.

That is because it hurt to look at it.

billgiacheri wrote: Making this version of the Camaro even less impressive.

But it will be impressive, because it will be an outstanding overall performer for its power/weight (unlike the Solstice GXP).