Quote:
Originally Posted by revychevy
Mid 70's and 80's Camaros (all American muscle at the time was fairly anemic due to the very same CAFE problems we are having now. And of course I know that those early slow catalytic converter having 145 HP sporting V8s don't compare to 4 bangers now.)
They also don't compare to DI V6s. I'm talking about now. No mid 70's engines compare to now, Priuses can beat some of them on a drag strip. It will be the same with us 50 years from now. I am not interested in or advocating comparing 4 bangers to engines almost 50 years ago, nor am I saying that only V8s are Camaros. It's just easier to discount me if you believe that.
I owned a V6 prior to the SS and I am comparing V6's to 4 bangers. Modern DI V6's tuned for performance.
What I said earlier is I think the Turbo 4 is NOT cheaper nor better mpg cost, and about the same power as a good NA DI V6.
So tell me about that, not the condescending part about whether I think a HiPo turbo 4 in a light weight modern car with modern rubber and suspension could outrun an old 80's Iroc Camaro.
As for what I believe is a grocery getter-- the I4 in the Impala and Malibu come to mind... Be careful what you wish for.
|
Sorry if you thought anything I posted was condescending. Just trying to continue what I thought was a good converstation.
A turbo 4 will get better FE. Not a huge amount better, but if you look at the ATS you'll see I think 28 mpg for the V6 and 30 mpg for the 2.0 T.
My only point in the discussion is everyone seems level set on today. We had pretty crappy "muscle" cars in the past. In the future our definition may change again. And in the further future, that "muscle" may not even be generated by petroleum.
Again, appologies if you think I was putting you down. Not my intent at all.