i just realized... 2016 turbo 4cyl CAMARO vs FRS/BRZ

[strat61caster]

Holy shit, kudos to GM it's lighter.

And that drifting vid has it remarkably more composed than expected, wonder if that's how they will be stock...

[SUB-FT86]

The Camaro will really shit on the new Mustang thanks to the weight loss. But funny thing is the current gen Camaro was more liked over the new gen Stang in a test not too long ago so this should probably be a easy win for the new gen. I'm impressed with the 2.0T turbo weight. It's only 30 lbs heavier than a 370Z.

[Fishbed77]

6 Speed Manual:

• 0-60 MPH: 5.4 seconds

• Quarter-Mile: 14.0 seconds at 100 MPH

Those numbers are quite impressive - almost identical to the figures the 1994 Z28 (with 5.7 liter LT1) I once owned could muster (5.6 sec. 0-60 and 14 sec quarter mile).


.

[ZionsWrath]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Price was indeed a factor when I bought mine as well but not for the same reason as many. I was cross shopping with cars up to the $80K range and could easily have afforded one. As I have said before with the mileage I drive I chew cars up pretty fast and only keep them 4 or 5 years at best. I didn't want to rack up mega miles on an expensive Porsche or such so went with the FRS as an inexpensive, throwaway alternative (1/2 this forum just had a stroke at that I am sure).
Two seaters were right out of my list as I still wanted the availability of rear seats and the "muscle cars" all seemed to be way bigger and thirsty for gas then I wanted. The hot hatches held some appeal but my last 3 cars were all in that class and I wanted something a bit different. This left we with a very limited choice in new, "inexpensive" coupes. Unlike many I had seen the release of the FRS but never gave it much thought at the time and pretty much forgotten it existed. When I stumbled across it again at the dealers the price point got me in the seat for a test drive and the rest is history. If it had been much more I would have been in a 370Z or Genesis coupe for the simple fact they were tried and true already.

That was a huge selling point to me as well. I don't want to be that guy Sunday driving his 800hp supercar spray detailing every dust particle.

As far as the turbo camaro, I wouldn't go for it. Rather spend the money tuning it on getting the v8. You ever look at a civic board? People spending money on base engine, just buy the Si in the first place.

I entertained the idea of a v6 mustang for a short while but I knew I would regret not getting the GT.

In the end the cheap running cost of the brz won me. Plus I like the looks better than the competition.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by ZionsWrath

That was a huge selling point to me as well. I don't want to be that guy Sunday driving his 800hp supercar spray detailing every dust particle.

As far as the turbo camaro, I wouldn't go for it. Rather spend the money tuning it on getting the v8. You ever look at a civic board? People spending money on base engine, just buy the Si in the first place.

I entertained the idea of a v6 mustang for a short while but I knew I would regret not getting the GT.

In the end the cheap running cost of the brz won me. Plus I like the looks better than the competition.

But why would you want the 300+ lb front heavy V8 if handling is a priority? The turbo might be the more tune-able engine for power/dollar. A base civic has a weak N/A engine so that's totally irrelevant.

[Fishbed77]

As far as the turbo camaro, I wouldn't go for it. Rather spend the money tuning it on getting the v8

Indeed. As nice as this 2.0 liter turbocharged engine may be, a Camaro just isn't a Camaro without a V8. It's still just a "secretary's car" to me (to use the old term for non-V8 muscle cars).

But why would you want the 300+ lb front heavy V8 if handling is a priority? The turbo might be the more tune-able engine for power/dollar.

The 6.2 litre LT1 is fairly lightweight for what it is. Assuming GM hasn't already designed the suspension with its weight in mind, tuning the suspension is typically much less expensive than a proper engine modification.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by Fishbed77

Indeed. As nice as this 2.0 liter turbocharged engine may be, a Camaro just isn't a Camaro without a V8. It's still just a "secretary's car" to me (to use the old term for non-V8 muscle cars).

The 6.2 litre LT1 is fairly lightweight for what it is. Assuming GM hasn't already designed the suspension with its weight in mind, tuning the suspension is typically much less expensive than a proper engine modification.

Have you seen the weight difference between the 2.0T and V8?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

Have you seen the weight difference between the 2.0T and V8?

This should do. The 4 is 346lbs lighter but this spec includes an AT on the 4 so I'm guessing the gap is bigger if equally configured except engine difference. Of course, that's a big if. It would be hard to get an equally configured 2.0L and the V8 except engine difference given the other performance spec differences.

Stats below came from this GM article:

http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/...14-camaro.html

[ZionsWrath]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

But why would you want the 300+ lb front heavy V8 if handling is a priority? The turbo might be the more tune-able engine for power/dollar. A base civic has a weak N/A engine so that's totally irrelevant.

I didn't see the point. If buying a mustang its already overweight. Didn't see the point in tuning a v6 when a v8 will always be faster, especially going to be equal cost or cheaper to buy the v8 from the start.

You say that is irrelevant but there are many vehicles that offer different powertrains. Not sure I seen one yet where just buying the most powerful option from the start isn't the better option vs. trying to tune the lower powertrain.

[Lynxis]

I think the new Camaro 2t will be the interesting one to watch in the long run due to the cost proposition. Give it a few years when good tuning solutions are available and I imagine 300+hp will be a cheap and easy reflash. Even 400hp should be perfectly possible with a bigger turbo and some fuel work. Sell the old parts to help finance the upgrades and it won't even be all that expensive. And unlike running 400hp on a twin, you don't need to worry about blowing drive-line parts. Even if they do use lower spec parts in the 2t, just get the V8 parts and you're good to go. Thinking of dedicated track duty, I'm sure a 150lbs diet will be easy. 3200lbs, 400hp RWD coupe for less than the cost of the V8? That would be something to be reckoned with.

[Chad11491]

The ls3 is 20 lbs heavier than a fa20. The GM v8's are incredibly compact and lightweight. I would take one over a boxer any day if it was offered in this car. I love the boxer rumble with the uel's but an American v8 is the best sounding engine on the planet to me.

EDIT:
LS3 is 415 lb
LT1 is 465 lb
FA20 is 397 lb

68 lb difference.

[Phantobe]

Turbo 4s are the future, if this does good (which it will) I'm sure the V6 will eventually get phased out..

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Phantobe

Turbo 4s are the future, if this does good (which it will) I'm sure the V6 will eventually get phased out..

That's pretty much how I see it. With both the Camaro and the Mustang, It would be V8>T4>V6 for me. If/when we replace MomHawk's Mustang it will be with a convertible T4 and I will continue to refuse to drive it on general principle.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

That's pretty much how I see it. With both the Camaro and the Mustang, It would be V8>T4>V6 for me. If/when we replace MomHawk's Mustang it will be with a convertible T4 and I will continue to refuse to drive it on general principle.

Maybe being a young buck, I don't have the hatred towards a new gen muscle car with a turbo 4 power plant. But anyone who wants to talk down on it, needs to look at what MAPerformance is doing with the Mustangs turbo 4