[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Actually you could get 4 grown adults in a Gen5 for a quick trip to dinner. I wouldn't try it for a long trip mind you, but I've had 4 full grown adults in a Gen5 many times.

And please don't try to suggest the visibility of an SUV is bad compared to a Gen5 or Gen6. It's simply not the case.

Yep I remember you mentioning it before but there are others who disagree. Either way, there is no easy ingress or egress. Course there really isn't in any 2 door with a backseat.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cars/...st-visibility/

Notice what isn't on the list for worst and there 2 SUVs on it. (3 if you count the Wrangler).

And more...
https://www.cars.com/articles/2014/0...ar-visibility/

Finally the Camaro makes a list, plus a SUV, the FJ Cruiser which is definitely terrible.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ibility.html/8

[DeliveryMan]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

That's kind of funny.. So, what did the review say overall? Positives? Any? Negatives?

I drove an ATS with the 2.0 and I thought that was pretty good..

I hear you Chef. I went and test drove an ATS coupe with the 2.0T and liked it.
Ppl need to get over their piston envy, some of these Turbo 4's are no joke.

The new Ford Focus RS hatch is around 350hp. I mean c'mon that is ferocious!

[ender2664]

Originally Posted by DeliveryMan

I hear you Chef. I went and test drove an ATS coupe with the 2.0T and liked it.
Ppl need to get over their piston envy, some of these Turbo 4's are no joke.

The new Ford Focus RS hatch is around 350hp. I mean c'mon that is ferocious!

Hp isn't always what people are looking for.
The turbo four could be faster than the lt1 and I'd still prefer the ss.

[DeliveryMan]

Originally Posted by ender2664

Hp isn't always what people are looking for.
The turbo four could be faster than the lt1 and I'd still prefer the ss.

Nothing wrong with that. But it's 2016 and a V6 and 4-cyl can hold their own.

[Whitespeed]

Originally Posted by Number 3

And please don't try to suggest the visibility of an SUV is bad compared to a Gen5 or Gen6. It's simply not the case.

I disagree with that. The Kia Sorrento SUV I had recently for a rental was a pain to see out the sides and back of with the factory tint, huge head rests for the rear passengers, and the B pillar right next to my head. Backing that thing up at night took a leap of faith, and the crappy little 4" display was useless since the camera was always dirty. And have you ever look out the back of a Jeep Wrangler? The spare tire and wiper motor block much of the rear view.

Nigel

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Whitespeed

I disagree with that. The Kia Sorrento SUV I had recently for a rental was a pain to see out the sides and back of with the factory tint, huge head rests for the rear passengers, and the B pillar right next to my head. Backing that thing up at night took a leap of faith, and the crappy little 4" display was useless since the camera was always dirty. And have you ever look out the back of a Jeep Wrangler? The spare tire and wiper motor block much of the rear view.

Nigel

Not saying there aren't bad vehicles for visibility. Mrs. Number 3's ATS is not great npby any means........but irs way better than a Camaro.

The low roof high belt isn't something you find on most SUVs. So I agree head rests and 3 rows of Sears can sure make rear visibility tough. It again not as bad as a Camaro with slammed roof, high belt and high belt with a spoiler to boot.

BTW my SS is really great for visibility, but the deck lid spoiler makes rear visibility a bit compromised.

[ParisTNDude]

I would truly have a blast in a 2.0 Turbo on a road course and an open track day meaning: run what ya brung. I wouldn't go without a set of SS wheels and tires at a minimum since the base tires are so crappy according to MT. But, the car will handle like a slot car with the right driver and tires. I'm sure it would embarrass some V8s and MT says it's a lot better than the Miata which has been the 4 cylinder road course poster child. That's just my opinion.

My wife's Malibu Premium with the 2.0 turbo, 275 horse engine is great fun to drive and very economical. That car pulls like an older V8.

I would want a 2.0 turbo as a second car to my 2SS

[JLSuperfly]

That was harsh.

[rorymick]

Excellent thread...

You'll see more and more discussion about FI small displacement engines in the coming years. There will always be a market for V8s but manufacturers are clearly putting a lot of R&D in better fuel economy.

I work with a bunch of truck driving macho Ironworkers. And ive had a 600+ HP 76mm Turbo'd 370 c.i LS truck. Cammed this cammed that. So Im sure I'll be catching a lot of flack from them. "How you gonna put a dead deer in the back of that thing?" - with my payment savings and fuel savings I can rent a truck for hunting season lol. "What are you gonna do in winter? Gotta have a truck for winter!" - I see a lot of bmws benz Porsche and every other car driving in the winter up here. No biggie...its just a base RS not a 100k BMW.

Ive got zero complaints with the fun factor of my 2.0T RS. It handles well on the square 245 20" setup. Those 20's will become my winter wheels shod with Nokians. And a square 275 setup on z28 rims will make this little gas miser even more enjoyable.

For a daily driver economical commuter car theres nothing sexier. The bose system and sunroof adds to it as well

And sadly a (very very base) and 90's like infotainment system without sunroof or decent stereo system WRX Sport cost a few bucks more and SERIOUSLY lacks the sex appeal of the Gen 6 base RS.

[FenwickHockey65]

Meh. I'd still pick up a 2.0T if I bought a 6th gen today. The mod potential is high.

[pdrumans]

For me, my first priority for my car is that it handles well and the Camaro fits the bill. I put maybe 4k miles a year on my car. For me the SS power would have been overkill because I would never really get a chance to use it, but I do like having power when I need it and the turbo has it. A few tenths of sec for 0 to 60 or quarter miles longer than the V6 is nothing to sneeze at, but I rarely get the chance to or will to ring out my car like that. I just worry about getting out of the way of heavy oncoming traffic and this car with the 2.0t is far from slow. I admit I did go back and forth a little on whether I wanted the v6 over the 2.0t but in the end I decided on the turbo as I liked it after driving it. I just came from a 2013 G37 coupe and I don't feel I cheated myself in anyway. This is actually my first Chevy in 30 years of owning cars and I'm very happy with the quality of their product.

[ThatRedFirebird]

I owned an ATS 2.0T. Great car, but I wanted something faster and the Camaro was nearly the same weight (my ATS was AWD Auto).

My Dad owns the car now and loves it. Funny that all the publications are so hard on the "base" engine when it's great in the Caddy. I still think I'd take the V6 if I didn't want to spring for the V8 though- it just sounds better in a raspy Porsche sort of way. And the DM Exhaust doesn't exist for the 2.0T :(

Also stupid is the mpg savings are moot since it takes premium and the V6 doesn't... you will rapidly spend more on gas considering how close the two values are for mpg.

[mrbug111]

I have been very happy with my 2.0T automatic. In addition to being faster than my last car (300C HEMI AWD), I'm getting 30 MPG (29.9 lifetime mpg since I bought in April). Plus, despite owning 2 Infiniti coupes, a 1990 300ZX, and a Miata, this is by far the best handling car I've had.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

That's going to be an expensive proposition..well into the $7,000+ range due to the changes to the V6 and complications of turbo piping...and you'd still likely be down on power compared to a turbo 4 with the same $7,000 budget.

Just curious, but how much (safe) power could one expect to make with that budget on the Camaro 2.0? Would it really push 450 - 500 HP?

450-ish (sometimes more sometimes less) crank HP was basically the minimum power to expect from any of the (few) turbo kits available for the 5th gen V6. I'm not saying a turbo 4 cylinder can't get there...of course they can, but we are talking a base kit for the V6. No drivetrain/engine beefing up required. I only remember one person blowing up his engine b/c of a crap tune.

Put forged rods and pistons in the V6 to make it safe for more boost(crank was factory forged), suddenly your into the 550 - 600 HP range. Hell, one member had this done, with a supplement fuel setup, a custom dual turbo kit, and was pushing 700 HP.

Forced induction kits are difficult to justify on the V6 when you can likely just get into an SS for the same or similar money, but it will be unique. Not sure about 6th gen yet, but on the 5th gen, any boosted V6 was pretty much faster than a stock SS as well.