CAMARO6 - View Single Post - Why would anyone want a 4 cylinder 2016 camaro

revychevy · 08-19-2013, 02:03 PM

Appearing as #35 on the 50 worst cars of ALL TIME!
the Camaro Iron Duke--

"There was a time when 90 horsepower was a lot, and that time was 1932. Fifty years later, it was bupkis, especially under the hood of Chevy's beloved Mustang-fighter, the Camaro. As the base engine for the redesigned 1982 Camaro (and Pontiac Firebird), the 2.5-liter, four-cylinder "Iron Duke" was the smallest, least powerful, most un-Camaro-like engine that could be and, like the California Corvette, it was connected to a low-tech three-speed slushbox. So equipped, the Iron Duke Camaro had 0-60 mph acceleration of around 20 seconds, which left Camaro owners to drum their fingers while school buses rocketed past in a blur of yellow."

08-19-2013, 02:03 PM	#771
revychevy Drives: 2010 2SS RS LS3 Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: St Louis mo. Posts: 270	Appearing as #35 on the 50 worst cars of ALL TIME! the Camaro Iron Duke-- "There was a time when 90 horsepower was a lot, and that time was 1932. Fifty years later, it was bupkis, especially under the hood of Chevy's beloved Mustang-fighter, the Camaro. As the base engine for the redesigned 1982 Camaro (and Pontiac Firebird), the 2.5-liter, four-cylinder "Iron Duke" was the smallest, least powerful, most un-Camaro-like engine that could be and, like the California Corvette, it was connected to a low-tech three-speed slushbox. So equipped, the Iron Duke Camaro had 0-60 mph acceleration of around 20 seconds, which left Camaro owners to drum their fingers while school buses rocketed past in a blur of yellow." __________________ 2SS RS bone stock for now...