This downsize and turbocharge trend is a marketing/EPA rating scam that is ultimately costing owners more money for less longevity, and really not saving anyone anything on fuel.
These turbo fours get impressive mileage ratings from the EPA (which I guess is all any of the manufactures care about anymore), but in the real world, provide very little benefit...and if you drive one hard and keep them spooled, they can become even thirstier than the NA V6 engines they replace, while needing 40 cent a gallon higher premium to boot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShnOmac
Times are changing and CAFE standards are only going to get tougher.
|
Times are not changing....it is more of a repeating loop. We are living the late 60s over again right now, with the 70s-esque era of 4-banger MPG trimmed "muscle" cars right in front of us. And nothing says muscle like that four-cylinder buzzzzz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham
IMVHO - if there's still the V8 option for those who want it (and there will be)...then there's really nothing to complain about. 
EDIT: I've said it for the better part of a year now - if you want to see how a xxxxxxxx - Camaro would perform...look no further than the Cadillac ATS. In this case, look at the 2.0T version that everyone's raving about, and that's in a sedan.  |
Question is, will the V8 be available on the SS, or become limited to the high price, low volume ZL1. And what about those who want a V6?
And lets compare the ATS vs. Camaro. The V6 Camaro has 50 more horsepower, and despite being over 300 pounds heavier and less aerodynamic, is about as efficient. 3.6>2.0T.