[JamesNoBrakes]

Was loading up my relatively nice full-size rental car in the "choose any car in this area" spot at the rental lot on Friday when I had finished and then looked left and there was a newly-washed white Camaro just sitting there for the taking.

Since I have an SS 1LE on order (and it was just produced, yay!) I figured it must be a sign, so I loaded my bags in it and was off. I knew what to expect loading it. A "cheat" for the small trunk is to fold the rear seats down and load a full-size checked-baggage bag from that direction. Easier than trying to get it into the trunk. Fits longitudinally, which is the most constrained direction. It was easier to get in when I didn't have it all packed up, but I'm transporting 19x8.5 wheels inside of them and I didn't even try the truck once I had the wheels in. Otherwise, the backseat, as usual, is for cargo.

As far as the drivetrain, the engine is kind of rough at first compared to my BMW 2.0 turbo, noticeably. I'd say the DI in the BMW clanks a little more at first (until warmed), but the active noise cancellation may be handling that in the Camaro. Once driving, never noticed any roughness.

The biggest negatives are turbo lag and under-damped suspension IMO. At the pricepoint, these are probably somewhat expected, but to compete in today's hot-V/twin-scroll/full-torque at 1200rpm world, the engine really needs to get to full torque way before 3-4K. It goes pretty good when you get it up there, but as an auto, it's not going to be spinning anywhere near that range most of the time and you are going to have to change multiple gears to get there. It seems like the turbo is close to the exhaust manifold, but I'm not sure if it's a twin scroll or not. BMW uses a twin scroll close to the manifold and is able to get full torque around 1500 rpm, dynoing around 250-260awtq, so very close for peak and it's a heavier car. Having that torque from 1500rpm though is a lot more driveable and has much less "rubber band" effect. Some of the bmw/audi/mercedes get criticized for "turbo lag", but I think that's just due to people being in the wrong gear and throttle lag/programming, as there's really no excuse if it makes full torque at those low rpm numbers. Anyway, not "more torque", but the same torque way earlier would make the Camaro a lot funner to drive IMO. I only had the auto of course, so the "choose your gear" version might be a little less constrained, although again, I think having all the torque flat and avail from low RPM all the way through the range makes it feel a lot less "turbo" and just more "strong". I suppose though if that 295tq was available from 1500 on, it would make the V6 redundant for 98% of driving. If I had one and was going to mod it, I'd do whatever I can to get the torque earlier, not worrying about making more torque, especially not more above 3-4K.

The other negative was the suspension being harsh on some of the bumps, plenty of wheel travel, but not enough damping IMO. When I go over undulations and uneven pavement while driving aggressively, I like the car to be "sucked back" to the pavement and for the body not to continue bobbing a few times. In this, it wasn't bad, but the edge on some of the bumps was pretty harsh, seemingly a function of inexpensive dampers. Good properly tuned damping may seem somewhat harsh or stiff at low speed, but will get more comfortable and controlled as you go faster over terrain with minimal body movement. This was kind of sharp and abrupt at many speeds.

Apart from those two negatives, it was pretty nice. Chassis stiffness was apparent and very good, steering was good and direct, not too light. Brakes were good, probably decently speced for the weight and power. Chassis/suspension as far as handling was good. Obviously there is more body roll given the lower spec and not adding heavier anti-sways which would in turn require more damping and other reinforcements. I thought the turn-in and ability to change direction was nice, it didn't feel like a barge and provided great feedback. Mileage was great, getting an average of just over 34 from Dallas to San Antonio and back with a couple errands in SA. Interior is as you would expect at the pricepoint, lots of plastic, etc. The steering wheel is pretty good with a decent number of controls available, but doesn't make up for the interior. Expectations are sometimes way out of line with reviewers failing to notice how much plastic exists on the "higher end" cars as well. I like the seating position with the seat fully low, I think it's a great "aggressive" driving position, perfect for the car. Obviously the visibility sucks, but the one good thing is that it limits the amount of sun in the car, so you generally don't get "blasted" by the sun anywhere near as much as other cars. Adjusting mirrors helps, but still got to watch out for moving more than one lane at a time. Sound system is ok, would be significantly helped out by an I-drive type system so you don't have to touch the touch-screen.

All in all, it was a nice refreshing coupe. Felt a lot more secure and fun than the usual rental, I think addressing those two areas would significantly improve the live-ability with it as far as a car to drive every day, that and I'd never get an auto on a car like this. Only when the performance gets to a high enough level does it make more sense IME, but it did it's job and shifted just fine.

[TybeeSS]

Very good summary of the turbo configuration. I noticed these as well when getting one as a loaner while my 2SS was in the shop.
I truly appreciated how light and nimble the car felt when compared to my convertible but the turbo lag and power difference made me recognize that I made the right choice. The mag ride control makes a huge difference on some of the suspension items you mentioned and I missed that as well.
Overall its a great entry level car though if you want to get a Camaro at that price point.

[JT58]

Nice detailed write up. Wow the MPG you got is very impressive- 34 MPG average? I got the V6 A8 and hoped to get near 30 MPG average and I'm only getting 24- a little disappointing. And I drive with a very light foot. (My 2016 WRX nets me 32.5 same roads, driven the same as the RS). At least the RS takes 87 octane to make up some of the difference. Seems like the turbo 4 and V8 might be the better choice engines- especially if you want more power than the 4 and the V6 delivers the same fuel economy as the V8. I was so afraid to get the V8 since my 2011 SS would only get 18 at the very best.

[mrbug111]

I have almost 40K miles on my 2016 2.0t A8, and have averaged 32 mpg over the life of the car.

[Gunkk]

Originally Posted by mrbug111

I have almost 40K miles on my 2016 2.0t A8, and have averaged 32 mpg over the life of the car.

Wow.

[Cameron27]

.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Was loading up my relatively nice full-size rental car in the "choose any car in this area" spot at the rental lot on Friday when I had finished and then looked left and there was a newly-washed white Camaro just sitting there for the taking.

Since I have an SS 1LE on order (and it was just produced, yay!) I figured it must be a sign, so I loaded my bags in it and was off. I knew what to expect loading it. A "cheat" for the small trunk is to fold the rear seats down and load a full-size checked-baggage bag from that direction. Easier than trying to get it into the trunk. Fits longitudinally, which is the most constrained direction. It was easier to get in when I didn't have it all packed up, but I'm transporting 19x8.5 wheels inside of them and I didn't even try the truck once I had the wheels in. Otherwise, the backseat, as usual, is for cargo.

As far as the drivetrain, the engine is kind of rough at first compared to my BMW 2.0 turbo, noticeably. I'd say the DI in the BMW clanks a little more at first (until warmed), but the active noise cancellation may be handling that in the Camaro. Once driving, never noticed any roughness.

The biggest negatives are turbo lag and under-damped suspension IMO. At the pricepoint, these are probably somewhat expected, but to compete in today's hot-V/twin-scroll/full-torque at 1200rpm world, the engine really needs to get to full torque way before 3-4K. It goes pretty good when you get it up there, but as an auto, it's not going to be spinning anywhere near that range most of the time and you are going to have to change multiple gears to get there. It seems like the turbo is close to the exhaust manifold, but I'm not sure if it's a twin scroll or not. BMW uses a twin scroll close to the manifold and is able to get full torque around 1500 rpm, dynoing around 250-260awtq, so very close for peak and it's a heavier car. Having that torque from 1500rpm though is a lot more driveable and has much less "rubber band" effect. Some of the bmw/audi/mercedes get criticized for "turbo lag", but I think that's just due to people being in the wrong gear and throttle lag/programming, as there's really no excuse if it makes full torque at those low rpm numbers. Anyway, not "more torque", but the same torque way earlier would make the Camaro a lot funner to drive IMO. I only had the auto of course, so the "choose your gear" version might be a little less constrained, although again, I think having all the torque flat and avail from low RPM all the way through the range makes it feel a lot less "turbo" and just more "strong". I suppose though if that 295tq was available from 1500 on, it would make the V6 redundant for 98% of driving. If I had one and was going to mod it, I'd do whatever I can to get the torque earlier, not worrying about making more torque, especially not more above 3-4K.

The other negative was the suspension being harsh on some of the bumps, plenty of wheel travel, but not enough damping IMO. When I go over undulations and uneven pavement while driving aggressively, I like the car to be "sucked back" to the pavement and for the body not to continue bobbing a few times. In this, it wasn't bad, but the edge on some of the bumps was pretty harsh, seemingly a function of inexpensive dampers. Good properly tuned damping may seem somewhat harsh or stiff at low speed, but will get more comfortable and controlled as you go faster over terrain with minimal body movement. This was kind of sharp and abrupt at many speeds.

Apart from those two negatives, it was pretty nice. Chassis stiffness was apparent and very good, steering was good and direct, not too light. Brakes were good, probably decently speced for the weight and power. Chassis/suspension as far as handling was good. Obviously there is more body roll given the lower spec and not adding heavier anti-sways which would in turn require more damping and other reinforcements. I thought the turn-in and ability to change direction was nice, it didn't feel like a barge and provided great feedback. Mileage was great, getting an average of just over 34 from Dallas to San Antonio and back with a couple errands in SA. Interior is as you would expect at the pricepoint, lots of plastic, etc. The steering wheel is pretty good with a decent number of controls available, but doesn't make up for the interior. Expectations are sometimes way out of line with reviewers failing to notice how much plastic exists on the "higher end" cars as well. I like the seating position with the seat fully low, I think it's a great "aggressive" driving position, perfect for the car. Obviously the visibility sucks, but the one good thing is that it limits the amount of sun in the car, so you generally don't get "blasted" by the sun anywhere near as much as other cars. Adjusting mirrors helps, but still got to watch out for moving more than one lane at a time. Sound system is ok, would be significantly helped out by an I-drive type system so you don't have to touch the touch-screen.

All in all, it was a nice refreshing coupe. Felt a lot more secure and fun than the usual rental, I think addressing those two areas would significantly improve the live-ability with it as far as a car to drive every day, that and I'd never get an auto on a car like this. Only when the performance gets to a high enough level does it make more sense IME, but it did it's job and shifted just fine.

Cool review don't get me wrong and all but dude... it's an entry level car - why are we comparing it to a BMW?
If GM went all out in engineering with a $25,000 turbo car then it would cost practically as much as an SS.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Cool review don't get me wrong and all but dude... it's an entry level car - why are we comparing it to a BMW?
If GM went all out in engineering with a $25,000 turbo car then it would cost practically as much as an SS.

Well I didn't mean to compare it to a BMW, I rent a LOT of cars for work, so the ride comparison is also considering all of those too. The car is fun, toss-able, gives you some good communication at the limits. I also was bringing up what i thought were the two main issues that I encountered that if addressed, would make the car immensely more fun and driveable, without spending money for high end leather seats, lights in the door handles, automatic actuators for the trunk, swiveling LED lights, active cruise control, high end sound systems, and so on...There's a lot more reasons why a BMW costs what it does, but this isn't a BMW, it's a relatively fun driving car, a few fairly simple changes and it would be excellent.

[animefan0611]

Originally Posted by mrbug111

I have almost 40K miles on my 2016 2.0t A8, and have averaged 32 mpg over the life of the car.

That's awesome! My 2017 2.0T A8 has ~700 miles now and currently averaging at 29.7 mpg (70% hwy, 30% city).

[Evil-Bee-NH]

Turbo Lag? I think your experiencing the drive-by-wire system in a smaller engine more then the turbo lag.

[Rock-It Man]

Modern turbos give you more, not less, torque at low RPMs. I have a Trax with a tiny 1.3L turbo that, if you didn't know better, you would think is a diesel.

[redcoats1976]

drove the I-4 for a few days while my RS (6 cylinder) was in the shop for TPMS issues.it was plenty peppy but this dinosaur looks at the turbo and intercooler as extra crap to go wrong in a few years.didnt really dig the extra lines on the hood the 6th gen has but thats purely subjective on my part,so i picked a 2015 RS CPO car and got a nice car and saved a few bucks.but i do think visibilty is a bit better in the gen 6 cars,and the 6 cylinder in them is plenty fast.

[cjfeola]

Really nice write up, JamesNoBrakes. I've been DDing an i4 M6 'vert for 18 months, and I love it. With the M6 the car is bipolar in a very good way. Keep your shifts between 2k and 4k, and get 30+ mpg. Shift between 4k and the redline, and drive it like ya stole it, and have all that torque on tap all the time. W00T! Way more fun than the 328i I used to get as a loaner when I took my X5 into BMW for service. Ended up replacing the X5 with the Camaro. 18 months and 25k miles later and I couldn't be happier!

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by Rock-It Man

Modern turbos give you more, not less, torque at low RPMs. I have a Trax with a tiny 1.3L turbo that, if you didn't know better, you would think is a diesel.

If, IF they provide full torque from low RPM, like say 1200-1500, BMW, Audi and others have this nailed.

The 2.0 in the Camaro on the other hand does full torque at around 4000 if I recall? You can absolutely feel the torque and acceleration at that RPM.