[Sintmk]

To me, this is such an odd thread. A few highlights...

Not being a negative nancy, my advice just is gonna start off with a few points...

The entire question is entirely apples to oranges. A boxer motor is nothing like the other two, and one is 2.3L...and of the three, one is Symmetrical AWD.

leading to point #2, how is FWD inherently less than AWD, and how would either weigh against the RWD in standard driving scenarios. Unless you're a track rat, the differences shouldn't amount to a decision based on the platform. Per the reference to VIA, unless you're a hotshoe at VIA... eh? For me, the driver makes the car here. I might lean a little more on this point if we were talking Vette and above, but considering the comparisons, I don't think so..

And point 3, the GTI and the Focus ST/RS?? The GTI and the Focus ST are somewhat comparable, if we are only talking FWD, small displacement turbos. The Focus RS won't have a comparison upon release... maybe the Golf R, maybe, but even then the RS is a track monster. Probably when the Golf R400 debuts will there be something comparable.

And then my additional two cents, disregard the WRX altogether, it's not a bad car, just a little odd for me in this comparo. It sounds like you want to go American, which is great. New American cars have taken great strides. It also sounds like you're weighing a new RWD vehicle, also very cool, a personal preference for me. As far as chassis goes, I'm just gonna reference the previous hotshoe comment. A stock chassis' limits are your ceiling, unless you're a track rat you probably won't run into that ceiling. Which leads me to...

Buy whichever makes you smile the hardest. It's a big cost and is something you will have to live with. I know that anytime I buy a vehicle for utility, it's never the same feeling I get as when I buy a vehicle out of sheer appeal. I've had as much fun in a miata, as I have in a RX-7, as I have had in a Porsche. I honestly cannot wait to get back stateside and really enjoy the new Camaro, regardless of what model I get. For me, when I walk out of my front door, I want the vehicle that consistently drops my jaw aesthetically, and gets my heart pumping when I lean into her. Have fun with your purchase!

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 2000Firehawk

THIS...

Also, the low weight, under 3,350 lbs, is shocking..., my 2009 HHR SS, is also just under 3,350 lbs...
The HHR is based on the compact Cobalt, Delta chassis, & I'm amazed that the,
Gen6 team, got the Camaro down that low...

Whats that mean to you ?
Better everything, when the weight starts out that low...
State of the art handing, on a state of the art, Alpha chassis...

Have you seen this, sweet, Camaro 2.0T video?
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/09/...rifting-video/

A simple Ethanol E47 tune, with a set of slicks, gets you into the 12.9s, at the 1/4 mile too...
Then add the ZZP EFR 7163 turbo upgrade, which will put you into the 11s, & still remain 100% streetable,
& it will still weight less than 3,350 lbs...

Not to be a wet blanket, but the Cobalt and HHR were about 300 pounds or so heavier than their competition. Note the '16 Cruze will be losing a LOT of weight.

But don't be shocked. As I've pointed out the '16 Camaro is a smaller car. So getting the weight down is a nice achievement................but not spectacular. Now getting a car the size of the Gen 5 to weigh 3,400 pounds would have been a spectacular feat.

A 200 pound reduction on a 3800 pound car is only 5 percent. Yep a measly 5%. And I think the car is about 5% smaller. So I am very excited about the lighter car with an LT1 engine........................but it's a smaller car.

[2000Firehawk]

The Cobalts were lighter, at 2,800-3,000 lbs.
The HHR , [Cobalt station wagon], was heavier...

Hay, just thinking, is the 2016 Camaro 2.0T, the lightest Camaro ever, at 3,339 lbs ?

I remember someone weighing their 1967 327 Camaro, at around 3,400 lbs, which I
thought, was the lightest year.

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by 2000Firehawk

The Cobalts were lighter, at 2,800-3,000 lbs.
The HHR , [Cobalt station wagon], was heavier...

Hay, just thinking, is the 2016 Camaro 2.0T, the lightest Camaro ever, at 3,339 lbs ?

I remember someone weighing their 1967 327 Camaro, at around 3,400 lbs, which I
thought, was the lightest year.

I think there have been some cars under 3100#

[jp23rockstar]

I'm most likely buying the turbo 4, it's easier to mod than the v6 and I can't afford the v8. I'll be getting mine either in red or blue. No options at all, manual, plain Jane.