Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
Cadillac website - buid your own and compare, then click the Fuel Economy tab to compare any car. I compared RWD 2.5, 2.0T and 3.6
|
Gotta love inconsistencies.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3
You can't compare apples to oranges. The 2.0T is 50 hp short, and in a lighter version of the car. That's the reason for the difference more than anything. In addition, see more below...
EPA website lists ratings as
2.5 22/32
2.0T 21/31
3.6 19/28
Again, apples and oranges. EPA numbers are misleading and don't tell the whole story. As you mentioned, the heavier, larger Camaro with the same 3.6L gets a 30 rating. Clearly, the 3.6L ATS is not fuel economy oriented. However, the 2.0T ATS may well be. With similar orientations, my money says the ratings would be much closer, perhaps even identical between the engines, with the V6 producing 50 more hp.
And speaking of EPA numbers, there is a world of difference between EPA ratings and actual real world mileage. Downsized and turbocharged engines aren't actually delivering the fuel economy increases their EPA stickers are promising. Just ask any Ford owner with an EcoBoost, or a Cruze owner, or any of the others who actually keep track of their mileage.
If engineers were chasing actual fuel economy gains (not to mention cost effectiveness), and not just flawed EPA ratings, they would keep larger displacement N/A engines and design in cylinder deactivation rather than develop whole new downsized and turbocharged engines. Listen to GM's own engineers if you don't believe me. One of the reasons (among several) the C7 kept a large V8 instead of having a TTV6 was a V8 with AFM provided better fuel economy than a turbo V6.
|
I hear Cruze is doing well, it was the hyundai and kia that didn't deliver...
The paper-to-real world numbers isn't a related discussion, imo. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your using it as a premise for suggesting there's no increase in efficiency to be found in a 2.0L turbo. The biggest factor in converting EPA numbers to the real world is a person's right foot...
The entire ATS is tuned for excitement and performance. That four banger was engineered specifically for the car - and they're billing it's credentials as the "best", or "most fun" ATS of the bunch when equipped with a manual transmission (That could be another note...the V6 is only available with an auto if memory serves). So I'm not sure it's tuned for economy over performance...at worst - a balance.
I agree to disagree on the point of fuel economy...I believe real-world examples prove the T4 to be the more efficient option. Given that we believe the new Camaro will be riding on the Alpha platform like the ATS...I think we may as well go into a Caddy dealership and stare at the ATS as though it were a real, working crystal ball for Camaro's future...
But let me take this conversation in a new direction for a moment...Ford is said to be putting an Ecoboost 4-banger into the new Mustang. The Genesis coupe uses a turbo 4 as ITs base engine. The new subaru and scion twins use a 4 cylinder (albeit they're TINY little vehicles...)...I think it only makes sense to have Camaro enter than field with a superior engine (& car as a whole)...at worst it means they'll sell more! If they don't...that mere fact
could be exploited as a "weakness", or "GM's behind the times", etc....
If they build it...I believe it will sell in today's market. It's:
> Inexpensive (if trimmed as a base car)
> Fun (loads of torque)
> Efficient (31mpg + based on ATS numbers)
> and "it has a Turbo"!! (I am a little shocked at how much weight that little component carries with buyers..)
I believe the title of this thread reflects many enthusiasts inability to see past unadulterated performance (not a bad thing, just an observation)....instead of "why would anyone want it", I would ask: "
Why not build it"? After all - nobodies forcing us performance junkies to buy it.