The 2016 Camaro is an absolute MONSTER

[cp-the-nerd]

Motor Trend - Base SS 6-speed Manual

 

0-60: 4.0 sec

1/4 mi: 12.4 @ 114.6 mph

Lat grip: 1.00g

Bass SS curb weight: 3670 lbs

 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-test-review/

 

C&D - Loaded SS 8-speed auto

 

0-60: 3.9 sec

1/4 mi: 12.3 @ 116 mph

Lat grip: .98g

Loaded curb weight: 3760 lbs

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-automatic-test-review

 

Autoblog - Loaded V6

 

+ V6 delivers good sound (!!) and unexpected performance

+ Crazy low weight 3450 lbs

+ Interior ergonomics

 

- Some poor interior fitment (pre-production?)

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/16/2016-chevrolet-camaro-first-drive-review-video/

Edited October 16, 2015 by cp-the-nerd

[G. David Felt]

That is very cool to see, would like to see that along with the numbers for Mustang and Challanger. Always good to compare the Pony race side by side.

 

Thanks for posting very cool indeed.

[ccap41]

Impressive, indeed.

 

Oh the comparisons will sure to follow..they always do!

[El Kabong]

Car and Driver got the eight speed SS to hit 60 in 3.9. Chevy's claiming 0.97g sustained, with better handling than the old 1LE.

It's completely insane.

Best part from a personal POV: seeing the weight for the SS come in only 20 pounds off what I guessed over at MT :D

Edited October 16, 2015 by El Kabong

[El Kabong]

Here's the link for Automobile's drive:

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1512-2016-chevrolet-camaro-review/

[ccap41]

Car and Driver got the eight speed SS to hit 60 in 3.9. Chevy's claiming 0.97g sustained, with better handling than the old 1LE.

It's completely insane.

Best part from a personal POV: seeing the weight for the SS come in only 20 pounds off what I guessed over at MT :D

All depends on your definition of "well equipped".

[El Kabong]

At 37 large, it comes standard with much of the stuff that used to be optional. Good enough for me. I believe my exact words were "it'll weigh 3,650 pounds in a trim nice enough to let the car mags test." Motor Trend came within a case of bottled water of proving me right.

Edited October 16, 2015 by El Kabong

[Suaviloquent]

It's a complete victory in performance over comparable Mustangs. Heck, I'd consider getting a Camaro over Vette as well. It's that good.

 

I think a fast-tracked refresh of the Mustang might just be in the works now. Ford has no excuse to not try to improve the Mustang now. And Camaro sales are going to swell pretty soon.

 

I wonder where the Challenger is getting lost in midst of this. 

 

I honestly think other sporty coupes might as well be dead as well. Who in the right mind would get a BR-Z or FR-S, knowing this car is based on Alpha and it gets so many more standard features and power for just a couple thousand dollars more as a base model.

 

Maybe now the Corvette will go even more bonkers, that Camaro covers the affordable performance car segment and ponycar segment nicely.  

[cp-the-nerd]

Camaro V6 tests are out, and frankly they're a bit underwhelming in a straight line, though reviewers seem to like them quite a bit. Problem is, the LGX V6 is supposed be a step beyond the outgoing LFX V6, it has big shoes to fill in the Cadillac lineup, but fails to stack up where it needs to be in terms of outright performance. Where it does seem to succeed is sound and refinement, but given that this is an entirely new engine from the ground up, it needed to be more IMO.

 

Motor Trend - RS V6 Automatic

 

0-60: 5.3 sec

1/4 mi: 13.8 @102.9

Lat grip: .92g

Curb weight: 3440 lbs

 

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/2016-chevrolet-camaro-rs-v-6-first-test-review/

 

Car & Driver - RS V6 Manual

 

0-60: 5.4 sec

1/4 mi: 14.1 @100

Lat grip: .91g

Curb weight: 3460 lbs

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-camaro-v-6-manual-test-review

[El Kabong]

It appears to have the edge over the EcoBoost Mustang, so I'm ok with those numbers. I mean, if you have a V6 that'll break 100mph in the quarter-mile you're doing something right.

[El Kabong]

Road & Track just weighed in: "While the Mustang has made the Camaro look and feel fat and sloppy for five years, the tables have officially turned. We couldn't be happier."

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a27066/2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss-first-drive/

Edited October 17, 2015 by El Kabong

[regfootball]

people need to temper their expectations on a NA v-6, those are fantastic numbers for something with less than 300 lb ft of torque (and most of it at high revs).

 

the uninimous verdict of the v-6 reviews is that it is a fantastic car.  Most dolts can't drive that fast anyways.

 

There is a v8 (still while you can) have available, get yer rocks off on that.

 

I can't wait to see how the 4 popper does in spring.

 

I'd love to have 1 of each, 4 cyl auto and stick, 6 auto and stick, and then an 8 cylinder.  Plus i want a new VOlt, new diesel cruze when its out, and I want a regular cruze in auto and stick too.  I'll take a malibu and malibu hybrid and a diesel colorado to go with my silverado 8 speed too.

 

glad the Camaro is redone, my test of a 15 stick v-6 I didn't care for.  The new Camaro is leaps and bounds updated.

 

We should be glad these cars are not legislated out of existence yet, although there are many parties that want to try.

Edited October 17, 2015 by regfootball

[cp-the-nerd]

Just understand the context of my disappointment with the V6.

 

Cadillac is using this engine as an upgrade to the 2.0T. GM spent a sh*t-ton of money developing this engine from scratch and it's basically a tenth faster than the outgoing LFX V6 and (presumably) 1-2 mpg more efficient. That's a problem. The 2.0T is still going to be right on its ass performance-wise, there needed to be a .5 second gap or more.

Edited October 17, 2015 by cp-the-nerd

[ccap41]

Just understand the context of my disappointment with the V6.

 

Cadillac is using this engine as an upgrade to the 2.0T. GM spent a sh*t-ton of money developing this engine from scratch and it's basically a tenth faster than the outgoing LFX V6 and (presumably) 1-2 mpg more efficient. That's a problem. The 2.0T is still going to be right on its ass performance-wise, there needed to be a .5 second gap or more.

Why do you think the 2.0 will be right on its ass? It's off by 60hp and most likely even has LRR tires on it as it is the fuel economy model. It seems like a 14.5 car. I know it makes more torque than the v6 but I can't see it running a 14.1-14.2 to the V6's 13.9-14.1.

[Suaviloquent]

Just understand the context of my disappointment with the V6.

 

Cadillac is using this engine as an upgrade to the 2.0T. GM spent a sh*t-ton of money developing this engine from scratch and it's basically a tenth faster than the outgoing LFX V6 and (presumably) 1-2 mpg more efficient. That's a problem. The 2.0T is still going to be right on its ass performance-wise, there needed to be a .5 second gap or more.

 

Yup, the V6 is really underwhelming for what it should be on paper. Maybe it gets great gas mileage. But then what's point of the 2.0T?

 

On an ATS with the 8L45 and 2.0T a 5.5 0-60 is totally possible. 

 

I think it's clear. The Camaro does not need a V6. There's no need at all. 

 

It's awkward. Ford blunts the V6. The EcoBoost underwhelms. GM sets it correct by putting the 4 Cyl. turbo as the base model. Yet the V6 looks to offer no advantages.

[El Kabong]

Let the marketplace decide. If folks consider the V6's refinement to not be worth the extra expense then they'll either gravitate to the turbo-four or the smallblock.

Speaking for myself, I understand why the numbers might be a bit of a letdown after the crazy ones generated by the SS. But it is a Cadillac engine first and foremost, and therefore NVH people carried the day. I'm not going to get too upset for that-after all, the chassis that underpins the whole works is a Cadillac as well.

[Suaviloquent]

Let the marketplace decide. If folks consider the V6's refinement to not be worth the extra expense then they'll either gravitate to the turbo-four or the smallblock.

Speaking for myself, I understand why the numbers might be a bit of a letdown after the crazy ones generated by the SS. But it is a Cadillac engine first and foremost, and therefore NVH people carried the day. I'm not going to get too upset for that-after all, the chassis that underpins the whole works is a Cadillac as well.

 

You know, aside from journalist opinion... the LTG and 2.3 EB are plenty refined for most lay persons about coupes and enthusiasts alike. The 3.5 will be a decent selling model. I guess since the engines are shared throughout GM brands anyways, there's no problem in picking one engine to exclusively gain the economy of scale on.

 

But I can't help but feel how the LGX really does make more sense for Buick as their mission is less outright performance. So for the Camaro, skip it. Give the V6 to Buick, and XT5. Everyone else gets the trickle down version of the CT6 mid-level engine.

 

Maybe there's something about having an engine that has to be flexible to package in transverse and longitudinal applications that does constrain GM in some ways. Same reason why the 2.3 EB Stang probably doesn't do as well as it could. Then again, the amount of space under the hoods of both vehicles; since they can accomodate V8s....

 

So the CT6 will have the LTG,LGX and the 3.0tt and an exclusive V8 and plug-in Voltec? Nice choices, though I'd skip the LGX as the mid-level; and make the plug-in Voltec in between the price of the 3.0tt and exlcusive V8. Oh well, more in a Cadillac specific thread...

 

Blah blah blah.... speculate speculate speculate...

[Frisky Dingo]

I still wish GM would use a smaller displacement V8 in the Camaro. The V6 model could have dropped altogether this generation with a 5.3 V8 that made 350 hp. It should have been relatively easy to make it hit MPG goals, and I can't imagine it being more expensive than the V6 they are putting in there. On top of that, it'd sound better, have better tunability, perform better, be more compact, and offer something the competition doesn't.

[El Kabong]

It would have been nice, definitely. But the initial results indicate that the V6 is a decent enough lump.

...on a possibly related note, it's good to see GM being so open with the testers on this car. I just read the latest R&T article on the GT350. They allowed the writer to drive it, but still no instrumented testing. Troubling.

[ccap41]

It would have been nice, definitely. But the initial results indicate that the V6 is a decent enough lump.

...on a possibly related note, it's good to see GM being so open with the testers on this car. I just read the latest R&T article on the GT350. They allowed the writer to drive it, but still no instrumented testing. Troubling.

Isn't that what every manufacturer does? MT has a "first drive review" and then a "first test review" on about every car they get minus the 200k exotics.  That's just "the way she goes".

Edited October 19, 2015 by ccap41

[El Kabong]

It would have been nice, definitely. But the initial results indicate that the V6 is a decent enough lump.

...on a possibly related note, it's good to see GM being so open with the testers on this car. I just read the latest R&T article on the GT350. They allowed the writer to drive it, but still no instrumented testing. Troubling.

Isn't that what every manufacturer does? MT has a "first drive review" and then a "first test review" on about every car they get minus the 200k exotics. That's just "the way she goes".

Maybe. But consider this (because the writer in the R&T article spelled it out there as well): from the GT350's public debut to its first (non-instrumented) test took roughly eight months (ten when you add in publishing lag times).

From the Camaro's debut this summer on Belle Island to first instrumented testing?... whole lot less.

To me, that's a definite red flag.

[El Kabong]

Now, lest anyone think that I'm just stirring the pot with such speculation, consider what MT just posted... looks like they're kinda getting tired of waiting for the rubber to hit the road, too:

http://m.motortrend.com/features/performance/dyno-battle-gt350-gt350r-and-camaro-z28.html

[ccap41]

 

 

It would have been nice, definitely. But the initial results indicate that the V6 is a decent enough lump.

...on a possibly related note, it's good to see GM being so open with the testers on this car. I just read the latest R&T article on the GT350. They allowed the writer to drive it, but still no instrumented testing. Troubling.

Isn't that what every manufacturer does? MT has a "first drive review" and then a "first test review" on about every car they get minus the 200k exotics. That's just "the way she goes".

Maybe. But consider this (because the writer in the R&T article spelled it out there as well): from the GT350's public debut to its first (non-instrumented) test took roughly eight months (ten when you add in publishing lag times).

From the Camaro's debut this summer on Belle Island to first instrumented testing?... whole lot less.

To me, that's a definite red flag.

 

Yeah and the NSX is going to take another 7 years to debut but that doesn't make the car itself any less magnificant(supposedly, as it isn't finished yet lol). Didn't it take the Challenger something like 2 years after showing? That didn't make it any less of a car.  So Chevy hid their car longer under a bed sheet longer than Ford did with their GT350. If you want to look at times(now I don't keep as close attention to all makes so that's why this is another Ford) but the GT showed recently and it will be racing this coming season at LeMans. If I recall, it was only about a month before the race last year so it's only about a 13 month show to race.

 

Point being, there is no reason to look any further into show time to testing date. Every manufacturer does their time tables differently.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

Just understand the context of my disappointment with the V6.

 

Cadillac is using this engine as an upgrade to the 2.0T. GM spent a sh*t-ton of money developing this engine from scratch and it's basically a tenth faster than the outgoing LFX V6 and (presumably) 1-2 mpg more efficient. That's a problem. The 2.0T is still going to be right on its ass performance-wise, there needed to be a .5 second gap or more.

Why do you think the 2.0 will be right on its ass? It's off by 60hp and most likely even has LRR tires on it as it is the fuel economy model. It seems like a 14.5 car. I know it makes more torque than the v6 but I can't see it running a 14.1-14.2 to the V6's 13.9-14.1.

 

Two reasons: first, the CTS and ATS already existed with the 2.0T and outgoing LFX V6 side by side, and the acceleration differences are minimal. Motor Trend even found the CTS with both engines to be right on top of each other. Second, the 2016 CTS 2.0T AWD 8-speed auto was already tested by Car & Driver, it ran a 5.8 sec 0-60 and a 14.5 1/4 mile while weighing a bit over 3900 lbs. Assuming logically the Camaro will be a few tenths faster than that (500 lbs advantage), the 2.0T and LGX V6 will be 3 tenths apart at best.

 

I still wish GM would use a smaller displacement V8 in the Camaro. The V6 model could have dropped altogether this generation with a 5.3 V8 that made 350 hp. It should have been relatively easy to make it hit MPG goals, and I can't imagine it being more expensive than the V6 they are putting in there. On top of that, it'd sound better, have better tunability, perform better, be more compact, and offer something the competition doesn't.

 

HAVE YOU BEEN READING MY DIARY!? I've been wishing and hoping for a Camaro 327 ever since rumors began swirling about the gen 6 Alpha Camaro over a year ago. It's the perfect blend of power for the street and livable fuel economy. The truck engine makes 355 hp/383 lb-ft, so a sporty intake manifold and free flowing exhaust would make around 380/380. Plus the heritage "327" marketing potential.

[El Kabong]

Funny story (but only in hindsight):

Back when I was gainfully employed at GM, they brought the Camaro Concept to Oshawa. We all gathered around and ooohed and aaahed, because, hey, it DID look awesome.

But it was also not too far removed from the bad days yet to come, and we all knew what the car REALLY was at that point: a morale-sustainer at best, a cruel reminder of past glories at worst.

Even when it became clear that the car was being built-at Oshawa no less!-the lead time was a source of joking even for us because once again, we all knew that GM was a mess behind the scenes, and the car was still a bit of a decoy.

I get the same vibe with the Shelby.

Ford now knows that the S550 platform is a knife in a gunfight. They've seen the numbers, they've read the reviews.

They know the Shelby's appeal will be largely on a subjective level, not an objective one. And the pricing will make it an uphill battle even then.

So... Butter up the journos. Bring out an original GT350. Stir up the nostalgia. And KEEP THE INSTRUMENTS AWAY.

It will have to deliver the goods eventually. But not, it appears, today.

[ccap41]

 

 

Just understand the context of my disappointment with the V6.

 

Cadillac is using this engine as an upgrade to the 2.0T. GM spent a sh*t-ton of money developing this engine from scratch and it's basically a tenth faster than the outgoing LFX V6 and (presumably) 1-2 mpg more efficient. That's a problem. The 2.0T is still going to be right on its ass performance-wise, there needed to be a .5 second gap or more.

Why do you think the 2.0 will be right on its ass? It's off by 60hp and most likely even has LRR tires on it as it is the fuel economy model. It seems like a 14.5 car. I know it makes more torque than the v6 but I can't see it running a 14.1-14.2 to the V6's 13.9-14.1.

 

Two reasons: first, the CTS and ATS already existed with the 2.0T and outgoing LFX V6 side by side, and the acceleration differences are minimal. Motor Trend even found the CTS with both engines to be right on top of each other. Second, the 2016 CTS 2.0T AWD 8-speed auto was already tested by Car & Driver, it ran a 5.8 sec 0-60 and a 14.5 1/4 mile while weighing a bit over 3900 lbs. Assuming logically the Camaro will be a few tenths faster than that (500 lbs advantage), the 2.0T and LGX V6 will be 3 tenths apart at best.

 

I still wish GM would use a smaller displacement V8 in the Camaro. The V6 model could have dropped altogether this generation with a 5.3 V8 that made 350 hp. It should have been relatively easy to make it hit MPG goals, and I can't imagine it being more expensive than the V6 they are putting in there. On top of that, it'd sound better, have better tunability, perform better, be more compact, and offer something the competition doesn't.

 

HAVE YOU BEEN READING MY DIARY!? I've been wishing and hoping for a Camaro 327 ever since rumors began swirling about the gen 6 Alpha Camaro over a year ago. It's the perfect blend of power for the street and livable fuel economy. The truck engine makes 355 hp/383 lb-ft, so a sporty intake manifold and free flowing exhaust would make around 380/380. Plus the heritage "327" marketing potential.

 

 

 

Alright, I can see that then. I gotcha I gotcha.

 

Heck I think GM could even put the 5.3 in the Camaro just as it is. Leave it at 355/383 and call it a day(ya know..to save those dollars). Just leaving more room or the aftermarket.

Edited October 19, 2015 by ccap41

[ccap41]

Funny story (but only in hindsight):

Back when I was gainfully employed at GM, they brought the Camaro Concept to Oshawa. We all gathered around and ooohed and aaahed, because, hey, it DID look awesome.

But it was also not too far removed from the bad days yet to come, and we all knew what the car REALLY was at that point: a morale-sustainer at best, a cruel reminder of past glories at worst.

Even when it became clear that the car was being built-at Oshawa no less!-the lead time was a source of joking even for us because once again, we all knew that GM was a mess behind the scenes, and the car was still a bit of a decoy.

I get the same vibe with the Shelby.

Ford now knows that the S550 platform is a knife in a gunfight. They've seen the numbers, they've read the reviews.

They know the Shelby's appeal will be largely on a subjective level, not an objective one. And the pricing will make it an uphill battle even then.

So... Butter up the journos. Bring out an original GT350. Stir up the nostalgia. And KEEP THE INSTRUMENTS AWAY.

It will have to deliver the goods eventually. But not, it appears, today.

Ahhh you're just tryin to stir up the pot.. Just put the cover on and let it be. It'll be a good product when the timer goes off. Just trust the timer.

[El Kabong]

It will not be a good product for the price. The initial numbers on the SS have already shown that. There is no pot-stirring here-just experience and numbers talking.

[ccap41]

It will not be a good product for the price. The initial numbers on the SS have already shown that. There is no pot-stirring here-just experience and numbers talking.

Jesus, man.

Badstang? Deaner?

[El Kabong]

38 grand gets you a Canaro that does 0-60 in 3.9 and the quarter-mile in 12.4.

50 grand gets you a Mustang that one strategically-placed VBox says will do 0-60 in a similar amount of time, and possibly get you 0.2 seconds and a couple of mph trap speed.

It's at least food for thought.

Badstang and Deaner? Last I looked, MT's mods and Christian Seabaugh himself were threatening them with bans.

I'm much better than that.

Edited October 19, 2015 by El Kabong

[Frisky Dingo]

 

 

Just understand the context of my disappointment with the V6.

 

Cadillac is using this engine as an upgrade to the 2.0T. GM spent a sh*t-ton of money developing this engine from scratch and it's basically a tenth faster than the outgoing LFX V6 and (presumably) 1-2 mpg more efficient. That's a problem. The 2.0T is still going to be right on its ass performance-wise, there needed to be a .5 second gap or more.

Why do you think the 2.0 will be right on its ass? It's off by 60hp and most likely even has LRR tires on it as it is the fuel economy model. It seems like a 14.5 car. I know it makes more torque than the v6 but I can't see it running a 14.1-14.2 to the V6's 13.9-14.1.

 

Two reasons: first, the CTS and ATS already existed with the 2.0T and outgoing LFX V6 side by side, and the acceleration differences are minimal. Motor Trend even found the CTS with both engines to be right on top of each other. Second, the 2016 CTS 2.0T AWD 8-speed auto was already tested by Car & Driver, it ran a 5.8 sec 0-60 and a 14.5 1/4 mile while weighing a bit over 3900 lbs. Assuming logically the Camaro will be a few tenths faster than that (500 lbs advantage), the 2.0T and LGX V6 will be 3 tenths apart at best.

 

I still wish GM would use a smaller displacement V8 in the Camaro. The V6 model could have dropped altogether this generation with a 5.3 V8 that made 350 hp. It should have been relatively easy to make it hit MPG goals, and I can't imagine it being more expensive than the V6 they are putting in there. On top of that, it'd sound better, have better tunability, perform better, be more compact, and offer something the competition doesn't.

 

HAVE YOU BEEN READING MY DIARY!? I've been wishing and hoping for a Camaro 327 ever since rumors began swirling about the gen 6 Alpha Camaro over a year ago. It's the perfect blend of power for the street and livable fuel economy. The truck engine makes 355 hp/383 lb-ft, so a sporty intake manifold and free flowing exhaust would make around 380/380. Plus the heritage "327" marketing potential.

 

 

I agree. I don't really care how they arrange the V6 and turbo-4 to make room for it, but it'd be an awesome alternative to the SS. These V8 Pony cars are just getting so expensive and capable, it's overkill and out of reach for a lot of people.

 

Seems like they could build a 5.3 version with slightly smaller brakes, less aggressive rolling stock, no MRC, and a few other tidbits, and have a car that's a good 3K cheaper. That allows the options of tuning the V6 model down a bit to stay in the low-300hp range. As for the turbo-4, just put it in a Code 130R already.

[ccap41]

38 grand gets you a Canaro that does 0-60 in 3.9 and the quarter-mile in 12.4.

50 grand gets you a Mustang that one strategically-placed VBox says will do 0-60 in a similar amount of time, and possibly get you 0.2 seconds and a couple of mph trap speed.

It's at least food for thought.

Badstang and Deaner? Last I looked, MT's mods and Christian Seabaugh himself were threatening them with bans.

I'm much better than that.

So what are your opinions on the Z/28 then? If your only measurement to say it isn't worth the money is two straight line acceleration tests then that is why I refered to you as those two ignorant/oblivious fanboys because you're sounding like one..  You know damn well that car is made for way more than 0-100mph runs, like the Z/28(which is why I brought it up). 

[El Kabong]

But it isn't the only thing I base it on. C/D also noted that the GT350s tires weren't track-ready gumballs like the Z/28. And let's not forget that whatever straight-line chops the Z/28 lacked, it did win Best Drivers Car, so it clearly had the intangibles locked up.

Sorry man. But Ford doesn't get that benefit of the doubt. I want results.

[ccap41]

lol of course it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from you! YOU'RE A GM FANBOY! lol  well the GT350 isn't the one with the Sport Cup 2's. The R is.

[El Kabong]

Yup.

...and they ain't strapped the timing gear to that one either.

Stop trying to pin the fanboi tag on me. Seriously. I ain't deaner or badtroll or wings. I just call it as I see it, and I've developed a pretty good rep for getting it right. 3,650 pounds, remember?

I'm as interested to see hard numbers as anyone. But a shaky track record in the past is not going to result in glass half-full expectations. For 63 grand, I want to see peeformance at least close to the Z/28. For 50 grand I want to see performance that will destroy the SS.

Edited October 19, 2015 by El Kabong

[cp-the-nerd]

My only criticism of the GT350 from initial impressions is that the starting price is a base Mustang GT Perf. Pkg with recaros and a Voodoo 5.2L swapped in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard Boss 302 was a much deeper package than that.

 

GM over delivered on the Camaro SS. I think a track battle between the SS and the standard GT350 will be closer than anyone expected.

[El Kabong]

Exactly.

Except maybe for me. False modesty aside, I had my suspicions quite some time ago.

Edited October 19, 2015 by El Kabong

[Cory Wolfe]

Pretty impressed with the numbers thus far. She's going to be a screamer.

 

Back to the 4-6-8 discussion, I personally have no problems with the 3.6's numbers. Sure, I'm curious as to where exactly the numbers will fall for the 2.0T in regards to its bigger sibling, but I think its a non-issue. Despite its placement as the entry-level engine, it's been noted that you'll be able to option similar levels of kit across the range. I think that is a far better approach than Ford trying to neuter the Mustang's V6 as the bargain bin rental special. Essentially, you can pick whatever you fancy without much of a penalty. I love turbo-charged 4-cylinders (I've had two now), but there is something about the linear power delivery and raspy sound of a well-engineered V6 that speaks to me. GM's HF V6, Ford's cyclone V6, Nissan's VQ V6, VW's various narrow-angle VR6s, etc. are all wonderful engines.

 

As everyone in the automotive world switches to and refines the formula for the turbo-charged 4-cylinders, they may surely match or exceed the performance, offer better gas mileage, and even come close to the level of refinement in a V6, but the biggest obstacle, at least to my ears, will be the lack an aurally pleasing soundtrack. GM's LTG 2.0T is probably one of the least-exciting sounding examples out there. You could argue that the applications it's been used in so far likely favor quiet operation above all-else. It remains to be seen how it's been tuned for this new Camaro until some video reviews are posted (and real-word experience can be had, as well). Ford's ecoboost 2.3L is another dull-sounding engine, so the bar hasn't been set exceptionally high. 

 

With that said, I'm eagerly anticipating seeing how the final piece of the powertrain puzzle fits. In the meantime, I'm going to youtube videos of R32s. 

[El Kabong]

I must be getting squirrelly as I get older, but I'm really interested to see what happens when some idiot tries to boost the 2.0 to 400hp or so.